Chelsea asked, "Do you believe people should refrain from doing things that are considered "unnatural" by others, either to protect themselves from persecution or protect others from feeling uncomfortable?"
Absolutely not. As long as what they're doing does no harm to anyone else, I don't see any reason why it shouldnt be done. I think that to want to do something or be something, yet to stifle it, would be an instance of bad faith. You're not doing what you want to do, but rather doing something you feel you "have" to do because of societal pressures. I think that it would be somewhat cowardly to refrain from one's own desires just to avoid persecution (avoiding prosecution might be a different story). Doing things that are seen as "unnatural" or "weird" is what keeps individuality alive. If everyone were to shy away from the "unnatural" things they do, life would be boring and homogenous. If you want to be a nudist, then be a nudist. If you want to tattoo your face, then tattoo it. If you want to wear a pink tail to school every day, then wear it.
It doesnt matter if your actions make someone else uncomfortable. If your actions arent hurting annyone, then people need to mind their own bussiness and realize that every human being has the right and freedom to do, say, and be whatever he/she wants.
Q.) How are societal norms created? Why do masses of people flock to trendy, popular things? Is it because they are refraining from the things people label as "unnatural" or weird or different?
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Blog 10: Rambling about human purpose...
In class on Monday, we got on the topic of human purpose... or something along those lines...
Anyways, it got me thinking. Why do people even need to have a "purpose"? When you think about it, it's pretty narcissistic of us to think that nothing else on this earth has a purpose, but WE do because we're human. I think the only reason we think we "need" a purpose is because we have a higher consciousness and cant stand the thought of nothingness. We question our existence because we are infinitely conscious of it, and feel the need to satisfy our questions by giving ourselves the happy little notion that we're here for a reason and things aren't just random. Furthermore, I don't think one can simultaneously believe in human purpose and be atheist. If you believe that humans all have a purpose in life, then you must have an answer for who assigns such purpose and why. If human beings are nothing more than chemicals and cells and matter, then how can that have a purpose? In the scale of geologic time, human existence is literally miniscule. My geology textbook put the time scale into perspective by explaining that, if the entire existence of earth were a football field, human life would be equivalent to the very last blade of grass in the end zone. If we are so insignificant in the larger scale of things, then why do we think we're so important? I say narcissism and higher consciousness.
Q: Its difficult sometimes for me to truly grasp the infinitude of time and space. When thinking about space, I always raise the question, "well, whats beyond that?" My question for you is, How do you deal with or comprehend the infinitude of both time and space? Do you ever think about it?
Anyways, it got me thinking. Why do people even need to have a "purpose"? When you think about it, it's pretty narcissistic of us to think that nothing else on this earth has a purpose, but WE do because we're human. I think the only reason we think we "need" a purpose is because we have a higher consciousness and cant stand the thought of nothingness. We question our existence because we are infinitely conscious of it, and feel the need to satisfy our questions by giving ourselves the happy little notion that we're here for a reason and things aren't just random. Furthermore, I don't think one can simultaneously believe in human purpose and be atheist. If you believe that humans all have a purpose in life, then you must have an answer for who assigns such purpose and why. If human beings are nothing more than chemicals and cells and matter, then how can that have a purpose? In the scale of geologic time, human existence is literally miniscule. My geology textbook put the time scale into perspective by explaining that, if the entire existence of earth were a football field, human life would be equivalent to the very last blade of grass in the end zone. If we are so insignificant in the larger scale of things, then why do we think we're so important? I say narcissism and higher consciousness.
Q: Its difficult sometimes for me to truly grasp the infinitude of time and space. When thinking about space, I always raise the question, "well, whats beyond that?" My question for you is, How do you deal with or comprehend the infinitude of both time and space? Do you ever think about it?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
In response to Kelsey...
Kelsey asked: How big of a role do you think nature and nurture play in personality? How about sexuality?
I've always thought that nurture overpowers nature, especially in terms of personality. I believe that one's personality, or the way in which one acts and thinks, is determined by the events in one's life and the way in which one reacts to said events. (This, of course, must take into consideration people with mental disorders, because they are genetically predetermined to have certain traits or thoughts.) If a baby were kept in isolation from birth, it would most surely not have a pre-existent personality. It would be irrecognizably human, even. Similarly, I believe that a child who grows up in a certain culture or environment would be inevitably shaped by said culture. Granted, there are bad people in good situations and good people in bad situations. I think this is where nature comes in. Your reactions and emotions are generally involuntary. So I think there must be some sort of synthesis between nature and nurture in order to foster a human's personality.
As for sexuality, I will consciously contradict what I just said about nurturing personality because I believe that sexuality is something intrinsic in each human. I don't think you can "raise" your child to be gay, and I don't think you can raise a child to be straight. There are plenty of same sex couples with children who are not gay, and heterosexual couples whose children are gay. Sexuality and attraction are such basic, primal instincts. You can't "learn" how to be attracted to a certain sex. People like who they want to like because something in their heart (or genetalia) tells them so, not because society does.
Q: Do you think the concept of eugenics is in any way justifiable? Does it relate to they ways in which modern science is attempting to choose a baby's gender, eye color, or other physical traits?
I've always thought that nurture overpowers nature, especially in terms of personality. I believe that one's personality, or the way in which one acts and thinks, is determined by the events in one's life and the way in which one reacts to said events. (This, of course, must take into consideration people with mental disorders, because they are genetically predetermined to have certain traits or thoughts.) If a baby were kept in isolation from birth, it would most surely not have a pre-existent personality. It would be irrecognizably human, even. Similarly, I believe that a child who grows up in a certain culture or environment would be inevitably shaped by said culture. Granted, there are bad people in good situations and good people in bad situations. I think this is where nature comes in. Your reactions and emotions are generally involuntary. So I think there must be some sort of synthesis between nature and nurture in order to foster a human's personality.
As for sexuality, I will consciously contradict what I just said about nurturing personality because I believe that sexuality is something intrinsic in each human. I don't think you can "raise" your child to be gay, and I don't think you can raise a child to be straight. There are plenty of same sex couples with children who are not gay, and heterosexual couples whose children are gay. Sexuality and attraction are such basic, primal instincts. You can't "learn" how to be attracted to a certain sex. People like who they want to like because something in their heart (or genetalia) tells them so, not because society does.
Q: Do you think the concept of eugenics is in any way justifiable? Does it relate to they ways in which modern science is attempting to choose a baby's gender, eye color, or other physical traits?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Blog 9: Darwin
We talked in class today about the concept of naturalistic fallacy. As I thought about it, I realized that I just recently experienced (rather indirectly) an instance not only of naturalistic fallacy, but also of the "is-ought problem." It began with a conversation between a friend of mine and his Grandfather. They were discussing two opposing stances on homosexuality, and the Grandfather, a strict Catholic, deemed homosexuality a sin because it is "unnatural" and in some way intrinsically wrong. He claimed that homosexuality is unnatural because man and woman were obviously designed to be together. I see this as a naturalistic fallacy because being gay can and does happen, thus disproving its supposed "unnaturalness." As we discussed in a previous class, if humans do and can do something, then it is natural. It is only unnatural if it cannot or is not performed by humans. Within this same conversation, i recognized the "is-ought problem." It is a fact that man and woman each have a reproductive system that requires the other to carry out its intended purpose. However, one cannot assume from this "is" statement that one ought to be heterosexual. The compatibility of male and female genetalia reveals no intrinsic goodness or badness about any sexual orientation.
Q: How do you feel about homosexuality and how do you defend your stance when questioned?
Q: How do you feel about homosexuality and how do you defend your stance when questioned?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
In response to Kelsey...
Kelsey asks, "Do you agree or disagree with Sartre's idea that any relationship between two people is a fight over freedoms?"
While reading the chapter, I actually made a mark in my text about how adamantly I disagreed with this statement: "... genuine respect for the freedom of other people, in friendship or in erotic love, is an impossible ideal." It immediately leads me to ask, is a "genuine respect for the freedom of other people" not the very basis of a friendship or an erotic relationship? If a relationship of any sort does not include "genuine respect," then it is not truly a "friendship" at all. In my experiences in both friendship and romantic relationships, I've found that conflicts do arise. However, I believe that the ways in which we respond to such conflicts are what truly define the relationship. This is where "genuine [and mutual] respect" comes into play, and where compromise is introduced. If it were our only objective to "attempt to deny or to possess the freedom of the other," (p192) as Sartre explains it to be, no relationships would ever work. Both parties are entitled to excersize their respective freedom, and each party should respect the freedom of the other. If person A wants to go to location X without person B, then person B must respect A's freedom to do so. If person B chooses to break up with person A, then A must accept the free actions of B. If both persons desire the relationship to work, they must seek compromise in the face of conflict.
Q: On page 192, Sartre believes that "the 'look' of another person can have a special power over us," and cause us to feel emotions such as shame or pride. Does this not contradict his belief that we are completely responsible for our emotions? That we feel a certain way because we choose to feel that way? Address this problem.
While reading the chapter, I actually made a mark in my text about how adamantly I disagreed with this statement: "... genuine respect for the freedom of other people, in friendship or in erotic love, is an impossible ideal." It immediately leads me to ask, is a "genuine respect for the freedom of other people" not the very basis of a friendship or an erotic relationship? If a relationship of any sort does not include "genuine respect," then it is not truly a "friendship" at all. In my experiences in both friendship and romantic relationships, I've found that conflicts do arise. However, I believe that the ways in which we respond to such conflicts are what truly define the relationship. This is where "genuine [and mutual] respect" comes into play, and where compromise is introduced. If it were our only objective to "attempt to deny or to possess the freedom of the other," (p192) as Sartre explains it to be, no relationships would ever work. Both parties are entitled to excersize their respective freedom, and each party should respect the freedom of the other. If person A wants to go to location X without person B, then person B must respect A's freedom to do so. If person B chooses to break up with person A, then A must accept the free actions of B. If both persons desire the relationship to work, they must seek compromise in the face of conflict.
Q: On page 192, Sartre believes that "the 'look' of another person can have a special power over us," and cause us to feel emotions such as shame or pride. Does this not contradict his belief that we are completely responsible for our emotions? That we feel a certain way because we choose to feel that way? Address this problem.
Blog 8: Sartre
In class, we discussed Sartre's idea of what is the most important form of freedom, which is our freedom to choose who we become. I agree wholeheartedly with this notion because, if we aren't ultimately free to do and think and say and be who we want to be, then what good is any other freedom? And could it even still be considered free? I think not. If we are to constantly be acting in bad faith, then every other decison or choice we make from that point on will be tainted by our inauthentic actions. Freedom of self-choice is the only way to become free from the confines of inauthentic activity, which i believe does nothing but deteriorate and eventually completely lose the self. In class sometime last week, I remember someone (possibly Mary?) asking something along the lines of this; if we must suffer the consequences of our free actions, are we really free? In response to this, I'd say yes, we are. To "suffer the consequences" of something is really just to be responsible for one's own actions. If we make a decision, knowing the consequences for said decision, then we have essentially chosen that consequence. I think that it is impossible to make a decision (or at least an important one) without any outside influence. So even if the consequences affect the process of decision, making the actual decision itself is still a free and authentic choice. And I believe that people should have the courage to accept and "own up to" their own convictions.
Q: Do you think there is ever a time or place where acting in bad faith is acceptable? When/where? And why?
Q: Do you think there is ever a time or place where acting in bad faith is acceptable? When/where? And why?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
In response to Hallie...
In response to Hallie's question, "Do you think there will ever be a time when labels will no longer matter?"
Frankly, no, I don't think its possible for labels not to matter. The way in which we form judgements, or "label" people, simply proves the power of words due to the meanings (and connotations) we attach to them. Though these connotations may vary from person to person, the intrinsic presence of a meaning remains. For example, one person may see the label "socialist" and throw up red flags warning against insanity, whereas another may calmly recall with reverence Marx's theories. Despite the difference of meaning, both hypothetical people described used their prior knowledge and personal opinions to make a value judgement. We as humans can't help but impose our opinions (wether conscious or subconscious) upon all we encounter. Our opinions and previous knowledge (or lack thereof) of the label in question both play integral parts in the "judgement" process. I think that the only way labels could no longer matter would be to strip all labels of both their literal and their social meanings, which would be entirely impossible. As long as words retain meaning and connotation, and humans continue communicating, labels will exist and continue to matter.
Q: If an individual has a fleeting racist, sexist, or other essentially discriminatory or immoral thought, but immediately discards it, does it make the thought O.K.? Or is the individual still to be held responsible for the thought?
Frankly, no, I don't think its possible for labels not to matter. The way in which we form judgements, or "label" people, simply proves the power of words due to the meanings (and connotations) we attach to them. Though these connotations may vary from person to person, the intrinsic presence of a meaning remains. For example, one person may see the label "socialist" and throw up red flags warning against insanity, whereas another may calmly recall with reverence Marx's theories. Despite the difference of meaning, both hypothetical people described used their prior knowledge and personal opinions to make a value judgement. We as humans can't help but impose our opinions (wether conscious or subconscious) upon all we encounter. Our opinions and previous knowledge (or lack thereof) of the label in question both play integral parts in the "judgement" process. I think that the only way labels could no longer matter would be to strip all labels of both their literal and their social meanings, which would be entirely impossible. As long as words retain meaning and connotation, and humans continue communicating, labels will exist and continue to matter.
Q: If an individual has a fleeting racist, sexist, or other essentially discriminatory or immoral thought, but immediately discards it, does it make the thought O.K.? Or is the individual still to be held responsible for the thought?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
