In response to Mary...

In response to Mary's question: If we strive so much to be virtuous and good etc., and these are notorious subjects of ambiguity, are they something that is unknowable? Or are they just something that we dont know yet?
I think that determining an ultimately "good" lifestyle falls under the unknowable category because I believe that goodness is completely subjective. What one person may have no qualms about doing or thinking, another might find completely inappropriate. I believe that the human consciousness created the concept of good and evil in the first place, and therefore arbitrarily chooses what is "good" and what is "evil" according to the beliefs we as a society have created. One might bring up an argument that our consciences tell us what is good or evil or virtuous or not. However, I believe that the human conscience does not exist in and of itself, but is rather constructed over time through the beliefs of a society as a whole and the private thoughts of the individual. We cannot know the intrinsic goodness or evilness of an action; we may only know what society deems "good" or "evil."
Now, I dont mean to sound like some depraved degenerate, because I do believe in our accepted standards of what is right and wrong, what is good or evil. I only mean to argue that, though these beliefs make sense to us and follow the general rules of justice and fairness, it does not mean that they are in some way intrinsically good unto themselves.
Q: How do you personally decide what is good or evil, right or wrong?

Blog 6: Kant

In class, someone brought up Kant's belief that humans cannot attain "perfection." This stands in contrast to many other beliefs (including some we've read about in class) whose doctrines insist that perfection must be every human's ultimate goal in life. However, I don't think humans should be able to attain perfection because I think that would negate our essential humanness. We would no longer be human, but rather some higher sort of existence such as a sage or a deity or what have you. We would cease to be "mixed creatures, mid-way between animals and angels" (155), and convert completely to the "angel" side. If stripped of our human nature, such as our selfishness, competetiveness, inner turmoil between right and wrong, and a propensity toward doing things we know we shouldn't do, what human qualities would be left within us? What would keep the line between human and devine being? Breathing? When people make mistakes or bad choices, they often exclaim that they cannot be held completely accountable for their missteps because they're "only human." This small and seemingly insignificant phrase in itself reveals the true imperfection of human nature.

Q: Do you think you've found a stable balance "between living for the moment and planning for the future" (155)? Why or why not? If so, how?

free thought...

This post is neither a text-based nor a response post, but rather a post in regard to a thought I had in class. The topic of death somehow came up, and it was said that people generally fear death. Though this may be true for some, I thought about it, and I don't think its true for me. I, like everyone else, have a hard time coping with the deaths of others, but not so much with myself. I don't fear death because I know its unavoidably inevitable; I am GOING to die at some point. I have my own musings about what may or may not lie beyond death, but I am in no way certain. And I'm ok with that. If there is reincarnation, a heaven, a hell, or any sort of life after death, thats great. If not, if there truly is nothing but finality and nothingness, then I'll be dead and wont be able to feel sad or upset or, well, anything about it. I'm absolutely not saying I welcome death, but I'll be at peace when it arrives. The only things I dread about death are 1.) not being able to do everything I wanted to accomplish in life, and 2.) the effect it will have on my family, friends, and others. I'll have passed on to reincarnation, heaven, hell, or nothingness, and they will be left greiving on Earth. Which brings me to my closing question...

Q: Do you think funerals are more for the dead or for the living? Why?

In response to Devan...

In response to Devan's question... "Do you believe a scientific method to determine whether or not the human body contains a soul could ever be created/invented? Why or why not?"
I dont think there could ever exist a scientific way of proving the existence of a soul because I don't see the soul as following scientific principles. I see the soul as more of an incorporeal belief, an ethereal concept, than a physical, provable substance (see my last post). I think such an endeavor would be similar to trying to prove the existence of God, whatever form he/she/it/they make take. We all have our own conceptions of who or what God is or is not, and most of those beliefs do not even give him/her/it/them a physical, biological presence in the first place. With our current scientific ability, we can not prove or disprove the existence of a God in the same way that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a soul.
I believe that the only possible way to answer the question of a soul lies in one's own religious or personal beliefs rather than science. If you believe in a soul, then it exists to you. If you believe that the soul does not exist, then it does not exist to you, in your own reality.
Q: How do you, personally, define the soul?

Blog 5: Historical Interlude

I found Hobbes' theory of the human soul (or lack thereof) particularly unbelievable. As a strong proponent to anti-dualism he believed that human beings are composed of the same kind of matter as everything else, as wooden tables and shoes and blankets. He argues that we are somewhat mechanical beings running simply on brain function and that life is nothing more than a motion of the limbs. I don't necessarily believe in a "God," and certainly not a specified one, but I definitely believe in having a soul. I don't know alot about science or biology, but I'm not willing to just let some scientist tell me that my love, my fear, my sadness, or my compassion is nothing more than an electric spark in my brain. I've experienced love and human connection in its deepest sense, and I truly believe that you cant just brush that off as a byproduct of "motion within the bodily organs" (138). I believe in a spiritual realm, not like ghosts and spooky Halloween stories, but like a continuous flow of spiritual life within nature that extends through all living things. And I think the human soul lives within that realm. It has the power to connect with other souls and to feel emotion. It has needs and desires and feelings. And I simply dont think science can fulfill that kind of answer to our questions as consciously thinking and feeling beings.

Q: Is is possible to find an ultimate truth about the existence or lack of a soul? More importantly, what's your personal view on dualism?

In response to Skyla...

Skyla asks, "What constitutes as your religion and what beliefs do you have that are unique to other religions of the world?"

From preschool up through 6th grade, I attended a Catholic elementary school. I remember consciously trying to believe in God and Jesus, praying the rosary trying to understand Christianity and have faith in it... to no avail. My attempts were completely futile, and I promptly relinquished the title of "Christian." Since then, I've bounced between atheism and agnosticism, educating myself in bits and pieces of the ways of other religions along the way. I suppose I've retained some of the teachings from the Bible (such as the Golden Rule), but I've definitely strayed from the concept of standardized religion. I have to agree with Skyla that a "non-religion" seems to be ideal. I instead try to live my life under the principles of kindness, acceptance, respect (for myself and for others), and doing what I think is right or ethical. I think thats really what matters anyway; people should concern themselves with the philosophies of their so-called "religions" rather than the label or the stories. I obviously have some Catholic influences, but I'm also intrigued by the natural spirituality of Native Americans, the concepts of Buddhism, and many of the teachings of philosophers we've studied in class. Furthermore, I can't help but include my modern twist from a contemporary standpoint. The more I learn, the more influences I incorporate into my lifestyle of a religion. I guess I'd say my 'religion' is still evolving, and may never cease in its progress.

Q: Why do many people just accept the religion they were taught as a child?

Blog 4: The Bible

Haberman's chapter on the Bible gave me a new perspective on God, not in the sense that I'm now a believer, but a new perspective on what God could truly be. In class, we touched on the topic of taking the Bible literally or metaphorically. On pages 112-113, Haberman raises the same type of qualm in regard to interpreting God. He asks where we should "draw the line between symbolic or metaphorical talk of God and realistic, literal talk of Him" (112). He describes that God is neither a material body nor a mere abstraction. His ideas and musings lead me to think that God could be in himslef somewhat of a spiritual realm. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, almost like the soul or spirit of the earth and everything on it. He belongs to no one, and to everyone, and he is capable of intentions, actions, and feelings. Interpreting "God" as a presence rather than a being seems much more digestable to me. Trying to envision one being who created all we know on this earth and beyond just seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Q.) How do you think God should be viewed? Should there even be one universal interpretation?

In response to Lisa...

In response to Lisa Diamond's question, "Do you think friendships are necessary in order to survive? Why or why not?"

The answer to this question depends on your definition of "survive." Can humans survive in the biological sense of being able to physically subsist? To continue to eat, and breathe, and continue brain function? Yes. No one has ever died from not having friends (although, one could argue that lonliness could contribute to or exacerbate thoughts of suicide). However, merely surviving is very different from flourishing as a fully funcioning and mentally/emotionally capable human.

If you were to define "survive" as needing such essential relationships in order to live a healthy, fulfilled life, then yes, I believe friendship is necessary. Human beings are naturally social creatures. I relate this to Aristotle's belief that "human nature reaches its full development only when we live as members of an organized society" (96). Humans desire contact and connection with other human beings. Every human craves love and the feeling of being wanted, needed, and understood by others, and having friends satisfies these needs. Humans would be hollow and conventionally disfunctional without some form of friend or companionship, whether it be within one's family or with anyone else.