Response to Cronin's question

Q "When you can live forever, what do you live for?"

If I were to choose immortality, I would simply do it for all the experiences that I would not be able to have with the normal, human lifespan(which is much too short in my opinion). I would travel as much as possible, and study different subjects at a all different schools. I am interested in almost every possible major, and so wish that I could study all of them. I would, overtime, learn how to play all sorts different instruments and work on a variety of other artistic skills. I would meet generations of different people, and form memorable relationships with them. In a way, having immortality could be looked at as having many consecutive lives rather than one endless one. There are so many different cultures and lifestyles in the world that it would not be possible to experience them all in one human lifetime. I would have the opportunity to see the world change overtime, over a much larger span than I would otherwise. I would take more chances, not fearing death. Honestly, I don't think I choose immortality in reality, it would be much too sad to see all the people I meet grow old and die. I think it would be unsettling to see all the places I have lived change so much while I remain the same. Though it would be fantastic and wonderful to have an infinite number of experiences, it just seems unnatural. Maybe if I could just extend my life an extra couple hundred years or so...

Q:What do you think is the ideal lifespan? (Disregarding all the spacial problems that would arise from each human on earth living three or four times their expected lifespan... but maybe people would have fewer children if this were the case, and wait longer to have them...hmm this could be a huge benifit to society, we would have more experienced people having children, and possibly an overall more intelligent/ progressive race.. or maybe not. Soory for going off on another tangent, but you are welcome to comment on that thought if you so wish.)

Immortality

I had an interesting time this evening discussing the idea of immortality with a few of my fellow NHN classmates. Though the topic may be straying from what we have been talking about in class, but not necessarily from philosophy in general, it never fails to attract interest and attention. Since I assumed that we wouldn't have the opportunity to discuss this in class before the end of the semester, I thought the class blogs would be an appopriate place to bring it up, and asking people whether or not they would choose immortality over "normal" existence is always a great discussion starter. These are some of the points/questions that were brought up in our discussion this evening:
What does the term immortality mean to you? Does immortality suggest that we never die, or instead that we have the ability to live forever but are susceptible to death (ex- being murdered.) Does being immortal involve aging? If given the option of living an "immortal" lifestyle, would it be unique to you, or would others be able to join you?
For me, a major drawback would be outliving friends/family over and over again, and the possibility of missing out on any interesting afterlife that may exist.

Would you choose immortality?

Absurdity and Existentialism: yet another attempt to see the glass half-full

I think the absurdity of life (as described by the existentialists in our text) can be a positive thing if chooses to make it so. I don't necessarily agree that life is meaningless in the "not worth living" aspect, but I like the idea that there is no specific end point that we should all strive to reach. There are no expectations to be met. Life shouldn't be a competition over who makes the most money, who is the most famous, or who is the most skillful. In the end, our lives are all equal in value and we are all free to do what we like with what we have. It teaches us to enjoy the "stepping stones" and not concentrate so much on our destinations. The scenario described in the text, of the woman mindlessly wasting her time over a meaningless job, and sitting on a couch watching television with the remainder of her time, is indeed a depressing example of the absurdity of life. I don't think this example necessarily has to serve to describe everyone's "absurd" life, but instead is an incentive not to void your life of experiences. As far as we know, each of us is given one life to work with. Because our existence is the only thing we are certain of, it would be absurd to waste or destroy it. On page 194 of the text, it is explained that the religious philosopher Kierkegarrd believed that "alienating ourselves from what we inwardly sense is a hint of God's vioce." If we were to constantly follow our inward senses, we might very well find ourselves settling into uninteresting lives, that many before us have mindlessly experienced themselves. Challenging ourselves to try new things makes own individual existences unique and stimulating, and give us personal sense of value. The overall message, I think, of the absurdity of existentialism, is that no matter what we do with our lives, they will all eventually end, so we might as well enjoy what we have, take advantage of our opportunities, and not let ourselves be kept having these experiences in fear of leaving our "comfort zones." What gives life value and importance is up to the individual.What, in your opinion, is the most valuable aspect of life? What makes it worth living (keeping in mind the absurd existentialist perspective)?

Theories of attraction continued

I few years ago on the discovery or history channel, I watched a very interesting program on "the psychology of attraction." One section of this program discussed how individuals in relationships frequently look similar to their significant other, and how studies have shown that we tend to be attracted to people who look similar to ourselves. While thinking about the Odeipus complex and our tendencies to be drawn towards people like our parents that I wrote in my last blog, I was thinking about how it could be related to this theory of attraction, and came to a similar conclusion. We may be drawn to people who look similar to us, simply because thats what we are accustomed to seeing, that is what we are comfortable with, like we are drawn to careers that our parents/siblings follow. I think that this theory of attraction ould also be extended to hobbies, clothing styles, and personal beliefs, which is how we forms relationships, not exclusively romantic ones, with people similar to us.

Also as we discussed in class, I don't necessarily think this always must be the case. Just like we should experience a variety of subjects before choosing the same career paths as our parents, we should befriend a variety of people, and have a variety of experiences, outside of what we are accustomed to, so we can decide personally what is best for us, rather than simply what we are farmiliar with. In doing this, we give ourselves the opportunity to create our own, unique paths.

How important is it that we maintain or break apart (depending on what your views are) our comfort zones?

Response to Megan's Post

Q: "Do you agree with my former high school teacher? That we subconsciously look for traits of our parents in our future spouses, or possible spouses? Basically the person you are dating at the time..."

I could understand how this would be the case for many. This scenario reminds me of the conversation we had in class this past Friday on how we subconsciously tend to follow similar careers/religious paths to those of our parents/ older siblings. Growing up, when we think of going to college of finding a job, we automatically think of what those closest to us have done, simply because thats what we have been exposed to the most. It would make sense that we would be drawn to individuals who have similar characteristics as our parents when looking for a spouse, because our parents are typically who we think of when we think of nuturing/raising a child. Also, our parents are theoretically people who have cared deeply for us, and are people that we feel very comfortable around. Who wouldn't what these qualities in a future spouse?

Might this work in the reverse fashion for parents/siblings we don't get along with?

"Designer Babies"

This post may be a little off-topic as far as Freud and dream-analysis goes, but I thought the discussion could be applicable to the course as a whole. So, here it is.

A couple years ago I wrote a paper on the topic of "designer babies," and the potential option for parents to choose their children's genetic traits at fertility clinics. Apparently with the biotechnology we have now, we can already choose the gender of children, and avoid traits for a small handful of serious genetic diseases. These advances in science technology are making many people start to wonder how far science can take us in the process gene selection of our offspring. Some ponder over a time when we will be able to genetically alter things like body-type, or IQ. I think debating over the ethics of this possibility can potentially be very interesting, even if these advances may still be far out of our reach. What parents wouldn't want the absolute best for their child, if it were in reach? Would this upset balances in nature? What are some other concerns?

Here is a link to one article on the topic:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
There are many of these to be found on the web.

Freud and Pansexuality

Though Freud's claims on sexuality being our only drive for existence and our actions are somewhat startling, I think he was onto something. During his lifetime, the idea of evolution and species progression were not as popular, because not as much was known about them. As much as the media glamorizes and alters the original conceptions of sex, its primary, and most straightforward, purpose is to serve as a means to reproduce, and pass on genes from one generation to the next. It would make sense from a biological perspective that sex is a strong motivation and a large part of our subconscious mind. Our culture doesn't even remotely try to disguise the human desire for sex, as we often see it in magazines, on television, in movies, in music etc. So, even though Freud's seem very "out there," I belief there is some scientific bases to his ideas, or at least some of them. Though every dream we have may not be related to sexual desires, sexuality is undeniably a significant part of the human experience for many.

What do you think of Freud's views on pansexuality?

Response to Karla's Post

Q: "Would you prefer a night without dreams, or with dreams? Why?"

Personally, I prefer nights with dreams. Like many, while dreaming I mistake the contents of my dream for reality, and do not realize what is "real" unil waking. I think it is fascinating that in our dreams we have the sensation of experinecing a different sort of reality, that can often be realted to our conscious reality. We are often able to percieve, observe, and interact with what we see in our dreams despite our being still and asleep in our beds. I, like many, believe that life is much too short, and that it is sad that a large portion of our existance must be spent unconscious (although the sensation of rest can be very gratifying.) For me, dreams allow me to continue having thought-provoking and emotional experiences despite my unconsciousness. I do not think it is always necessary to find meaning in them, but rather that they are interesting to reflect on, and be part of.

If you could control all of the events/surroundings in your dreams, would you? Would this make dreams any less interesting? How might dreams we have when we are asleep be compared to daydreams?