perpetual ponderings...

In response to Che;sea...

2009-12-04T11:09:00.000-08:00

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?

Blog 10: Rambling about human purpose...

2009-12-02T20:05:00.000-08:00

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?

In response to Kelsey...

2009-11-22T17:20:00.000-08:00

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?

Blog 9: Darwin

2009-11-16T13:20:00.000-08:00

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?

In response to Kelsey...

2009-11-12T12:54:00.000-08:00

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.

Blog 8: Sartre

2009-11-12T12:24:00.000-08:00

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?

In response to Hallie...

2009-11-05T20:10:00.000-08:00

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?

Blog 7: Marx

2009-11-05T19:42:00.000-08:00

Marx once wrote that "the real nature of man is the totality of social relations," and, for the most part, I agree with this. Regardless of passing idiosyncrasies, humans have inherent drive to be social creatures. Though we may have many tendencies, I think it is our sociality determines many of them. Our basic human needs, such as the need to feel loved, stem from our essentially social nature. That is to say, there are many things we do as humans, but a great number of these things are probably impelled by our initial social nature. If we didn't live in social societies, who is to say we would have any inclination to be selfish, or compassionate, or any other interpersonal state? I also agreed with Marx's notion that "what is true of people in one society or period may not be true in another place or time," (p172). I related this idea to the concept of social relativism, which explains that one must view other peoples of other cultures without imposing subjective criticism from the standpoint of ones own cultural beliefs. One must instead understand those peoples within the context of their respective culture. Certain characteristics that we have built for ourselves in American culture may not be equivalent to those of another culture.
Q: Marx believes that "the kind of life that is appropriate for us involves purposive productive activity," (p173). My question is, Do you do things that would not be defined as "purposive" or "productive"? How do you justify them?

In response to Mary...

2009-10-23T11:58:00.001-07:00

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

2009-10-23T11:31:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-10-19T19:14:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-10-18T12:24:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-17T11:59:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-10-07T13:45:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-05T13:24:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-10-01T16:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Blog 3: Aristotle

2009-09-30T13:05:00.000-07:00

As it turns out, the theory that i brought up in class today (that there are three main types of friendship) IS indeed Aristotle's. He explains that the three possible types of friendship are that of utility, that of pleasure, and that of the good. Friendship of utility occurs when each party stands to gain something from the other. Neither is truly a "friend" in modern terms because he sees the other as an object rather than a human being. The basis of this relationship is more bussiness oriented. When the motivation of self-gain dissolves, so does the "friendship." A friendship of pleasure, which is slightly more respectable/desirable in Aristotle's view, is one in which each party simply enjoys the company of the other. In this type of friendship, the people involved may enjoy a common hobby or activity. This may seem substantial, but such friendships will dissolve like those of utility when or if the commonality no longer exists. The final, most respectable, and most true form of friendship is that of the good. In a friendship of the good, the movtives are entirely pure, and, thus, the relationship has longevity. Each friend is true and honestly cares for the other person on a deeper level of character. Relating back to Skyla's question in class, I think that when Aristotle said that "friendship is only possible with a few people," he was referring to TRUE friendship, that is, friendship of the good.

Q: What do you think of Aristotle's theory of the three types of friendship? Do you think it's true? Can you identify yourself as having one or more of these friendships?

In response to Josh...

2009-09-22T18:03:00.000-07:00

In response to Joshua Nitti's question: "What does the world need for it to better itself a philosopher-king or a sage?"

I think that, though both individuals have their merits, the world would benefit more greatly from a sage. Confucius' sages just seem to be all around good people. They value trustworthiness, selflessness, and respect. After all, their one goal in life is to become completely benevolent toward their fellow human beings in order to attain ultimate social harmony. They live by the Golden Rule and are governed by sympathy and empathy rather than selfishness and apathy. If humans today were to endeavor to embody such creatures, I think many of the world's problems would either be mitigated or flat out eradicated. People murder because they lack benevolence; they cheat and lie and steal because they lack benevolence. If we were to adopt the Way of the Sages, we would undoubtedly become more peaceful, agreeable, and ethical people, thus correcting our flaws and bettering our society.
The one problem I see with relying on sages and the Decree of Heaven to better our world is that a sage is generally not a forceful being. That is to say, when slapped, I believe he would rather turn the other cheek than retaliate. I think our recalcitrant world requires more of a firm, authoratative grip to straighten its warped qualities.
Q.) If you were to choose to follow either path (that of the sage or that of the philosopher king), which would you choose? Why?

Blog 2: Plato

2009-09-21T15:59:00.000-07:00

One facet of Plato's teachings with which I strongly disagree is his proposal to "exclude poets and other artists from his ideal society, on the grounds that they appeal to the lower, non-rational parts of our nature" (p.87). One could argue that art impels individual, creative thought, and that individual thought may lead to dissent. However, one could equally as strongly argue that art and creative expression are vital in the process of psychological development. It allows people to think and imagine, and to process the world around them. Art of all forms has consistently been a ubiquitous element throughout every culture in existence. Visual, musical, and literary art are a means of communicating the feelings of the soul, and for some people, art may be their only means of communication. To eliminate this creativity would stifle multitudes of people and destroy so much potential beauty. Sticking a cork in an individual’s fountain of creativity would become incredibly detrimental to that individual’s creative/psychological development. Then again, the text directly states that Plato didn't really give a damn about the individual, so much as he did about the greater society as a whole.

Q: My question only indirectly relates to Plato, but it is a genuine question I have... Humans are naturally sexual beings, so why is our natural "sexual desire" so often shunned and seen as a reprehensible action? Is this disapproval restricted to promiscuity or does it encompass all sexual desire?

In response to Nicole...

2009-09-20T21:04:00.000-07:00

In response to Nicole Braden's question: "If the point of one persons life is their calling, then what does the rest of humanity live for, when they have no such vocation?"
The question you posed is something that I've often thought of before. My boyfriend is a musician, and I sometimes like to think of myself as an artist. We've often talked about our personal obligations to pursue our passions/talents. I think that for everyone who doesn’t yet have a "calling" or "vocation" as you put it, they should take it upon themselves to find one, to find something that calls them. They should expose themselves to a myriad of activities or experiences in hopes of finding something that seems worthwhile to them. That said, I think this whole process relies entirely upon that individual's desire to find a "vocation." If he is comfortable simply sitting in front of a TV, "letting it think for him," well, then I frankly don't know what he lives for besides the aversion to or fear of death. I suppose he lives for numerous small joys rather than one great passion. Perhaps he lives for the changing of the seasons, or hot showers, or whatever it may be that brings him joy. I’ve always kind of thought that life and existence are incredibly random, and we should just try to enjoy it for the short time we’re here.

Q.) What do you believe is your calling or vocation?

Blog 1: Confucius

2009-09-16T13:29:00.000-07:00

One aspect of Confucianism that we didn't mention in class is the importance of family values. I think the importance of a solid upbringing is something we can all argree upon regardless of our personal views on Confucianism itself. Page 17 of the text describes that the way in which one acts toward "people outside one's family should be an extension of the love one feels for members of one's own family." By fostering this brotherly love within a family and allowing it to spill into society, we are working towards achieving the keystone of Confucianism and the Decree of Heaven which is, of course, benevolence. Every human's first classroom is his own household, and every teacher his father/mother. Thus, the cultivation of the self begins within the home. According to Confucius, it is the father's (or in a more modern, less sexist world, the mother's as well) duty to instill a strong moral backbone into his children. He is the central focus of his childrens' education and self-betterment. This theory of patriarchal leadership also spills over into the political world. Confucius maintains that, like the father of a family, "the emperor of the state must rule by moral example" (p.17). I, like Confucius, believe that this ideology may lead us closer to "moral perfection" (p.15) and social harmony.

Q: In our modern day world, do you think it is possible for a true sage, as defined by the teachings of Confucius, to exist?