Excuses for God

For many of the philosophers we've discussed, God intervenes.  Many philosophers seek to find the answers  to key questions concerning our human nature and also seek to find an answer to God's ways.  However, I do not think that I agree with this process.  To hold desperately to a religious ideology effects all logical reasoning of the nature of human nature.  Although these great thinkers may hold God dear to their  heart, How did they convince themselves that both could truly exist?

Response to Kennedy's "Darwin's Pessimism"

Although it is not entirely wrong to hypothesize that human's will some day run faster than technology, I believe that it may be a little too far fetch.  It is inevitable at this point for the human mind to find the answer to many puzzles of evolution.  However, to find the absolute answer of evolution may be too big and complicated of a question to even begin to seek an answer to.  We will continue to evolve and continue to grow stronger.  Darwin did predict that we will some day turn into a perfect creature.  However, perfect does not necessarily mean we have found the answer to evolution.  It may mean that we have worked out the problems in the system and therefore do not need anymore changes.

The Importance of Science

When considering the "nature of human nature," should science be an important factor?  Darwin takes evolution strongly into consideration when creating his theory of human nature.  The human body, is itself, an important factor and the human body is science.  I believe that under that simple connection, that science does deserve strong consideration in the evaluation of human nature.  Science explains how our brains work, how our hormones effect our actions, how our genes play a role in our life.  I believe religious theories of  human nature fail to take into consideration these crucial scientific factors and therefore are missing key points in their analyses 

Response to Pitroff's "Sartre's Rejection of the..."

I believe that Satre, in his interpretation of dreams, is still heading in the same direction as he is when stating that we are condemned to be free.  Satre believes that human beings are meant to seek their own essence. Considering that, I believe that Sate's interpretation of dreams would  make sense.  As our bodies rest, our minds continue to make sense of our lives or make sense of our essence.  Freud's interpretation of dreams would fit well with Satre's.  In terms of determinism, I believe that Satre's response would be that our lives were determined but the meaning of life is not, and it is our duty to find out the meaning.  Whether finding this meaning is while we're awake or while we're asleep.

To be rooted in experience

Although I may not agree with the Existentialist way of thinking, I can say I appreciate the way philosophers in this teaching are going towards the importance of experience.  An existentialist would say that in order to understand human freedom or the purpose of life, one must search for the meanings through life.  What one believes is important in life will be the meaning of  that person's life.  I believe there's something magical in that line of thinking.  If you believe life could and can be one way, you should chase after that.  However, this theory could also favor  those who find evil meanings to be their meanings of  life.

Response to "Rejecting Sex Drive" - Corbin Brassard

I believe that Corbin is right, sex drive is a powerful influence.  Maybe not as strong as Freud believes it to be, but it is a factor of why we do some actions.  Society does seem to put a negative connotation on this idea of sex in society.  However, it may be because of  the vulgar way it is presented everyday.  IF sex was presented as more of a natural thing, rather than a vulgar action, then I believe that society would switch the connotation to positive.

Nightmares, a glitch in the system

I agree with Freud's notion on dreams.  I agree that there are ways our minds work to protect us from sleep.  However, like glitches in a system, our minds aren't perfect.  We dream in odd ways to perplex our minds, as if we're distracting ourselves from the idea that is bothering us so that we aren't woken up and disturbed from our sleep.  Maybe, sometimes our minds work in the wrong direction and in the process of creating a dream that will not awake us, our minds accidentally create a something that does the opposite, a nightmare. It is not as if the process as stopped, but rather just went in the wrong direction.  

Any thoughts?

Response to "Another Class-Influenced Thought Experiment"

This post regards a really interesting way of viewing our conversation on the way consumerism and production run our society.  It is true, holidays have taken a turn  away from  their religious meanings and have become a huge part of our society in a consumerism way.  Certain products come out in massive amounts during certain holidays and then you rarely see them on the self until the holiday is back again.  I wonder how this effects the producers who make these products, do the candy corn makers or Santa hat companies only get one shot at making  the big bucks a year?

Religion as a hope mechanism

I've thought for a while about the notion of religion being a hope mechanism.  To me, it makes a lot of sense and can be proved well.  In this chapter, Marx also makes this case.  I believe Marx would say that humans create God, rather then God being the human's creator.  In class, we pondered the idea of religion being the soul of a soulless world.  Only for hope.  Although the ethics of these various religions may not be how the world truly is, they provide hope in times of need.  If religion can make some individuals feel better about the universe, I don't it's necessarily a bad thing.  However, I believe it should  be known that it's true purpose is to provide hope.

Jump on the bandwagon

It's interesting to think about how all of us are freeloaders, even when we don't necessarily mean to be.  Someone offers to do the paper for the group project, the whole group agrees, and then every benefits from one person's A work.  Someone offers to pay for your coffee from behind you in line, you get a free coffee.  We have to understand even simple things can make us "freeloaders."  That raises the question, for me, of if being a freeloader is ranged from bad to good.  Sometimes we're offered a favor and benefit from someone else's efforts.  Sometimes we are simply taking another person's hard work or money for granted and feeling no remorse about our doing.  I think that this term can range, we can be a bad freeloaders or good, but we can never cease being these creatures.

What can change the culture?

Although we can talk about how it should be morally unacceptable to cause a nonhuman pain for our own benefit, for most of us, it won't change our meat eating habits.  It's a large part of our culture to consume meat and it's become a large part of our everyday lives. What could put us in the right direction of breaking  this habit? When pondering on the question, I believe it would be beneficial for citizens to be aware of the real facts.  If what happened in slaughterhouses or how these animals are fed and kept were shown to everyone all the time, the culture would change.  If information concerning nonhuman consumption was very accessible and was encouraged to be acknowledged, we wouldn't have an ignorant culture and the moral status of these nonhumans would be stronger.

Response to "Is it Possible for Nonhuman Animals to Evolve into More Human Like Creatures?"

I believe that the direction this post is heading is correct, humans give more moral status to other humans because we can relate more to each other rather then to nonhumans.  The question of whether or not we would give nonhumans more moral status if they used the same communication/language as us, is interesting.  I believe the question is correct, also.  If we could communicate with nonhumans we would become more attached and feel more of a connection with these animals.  Therefore, we would  give a higher moral status to these nonhumans.

Patrio-country?

Through the guidelines of patriotism, would an individual’s patriotism have to be anchored in the country the individual was born in?
 
Through our discussions this week we’ve made an attempt to define the idea of patriotism.  Like most things, patriotism can be extreme or mild. Some believe that patriotism means to be a total supporter of your country whether it is right or wrong, "my country is the best!"  Others believe that it is important to support your country and believe it is a good place but that it is also important to point out the wrong and do something to change it.  Regardless of what side of the spectrum you're on, is it crucial to dedicate yourself to the country you are born in or can you have patriotism toward a country you were not born in?  

After pondering for a bit, I don't really see a reason why an individual wouldn't be able to be patriotic towards a country they were not born in.  Say someone was born in the United States and decided one day to travel.  This person travels to Russia and absolutely falls in love with the culture and the way the government functions.  This person gets up and moves the Russia.  Now that this person lives in Russia, they are completely involved with country.  This person would agree if asked if they were patriotic towards Russia, and I would agree that they were and that the definition of patriotism fit with them well. 

Response to Kennedy's "Nature vs. Nurture"

I agree with the notion of continuing research on the Nature vs. Nurture debate.  It would be very beneficial to know more of the facts to ensure that we can focus on more on either the development of the child or the way the child is raised.  However, in the mean time, I believe it is very crucial to focus on both the development, keeping the mother in good health during pregnancy, and the raising on the child, helping the child understand and learn.  Until we are aware of which, nature or nurture, is the actual winner of defining an individual we should treat both equally as in important. 

Statistics can't help

As we've been discussing nature vs. nurture in class and whether statistics are reasonable evidence for either side.  The nature side of the debate has more of a advantage because their argument is behind science.  With science, statistics dealing with matters such as brain structure, are more reliable.  However, on the nurture side, statistics aren't as reliable.  How can we actually 100% determine if a parent's guidance effects our development? How can we distinguish between environmental causes and parental?

Response to Corbin's "Viscious Circle"

It really is hard to see this cycle of your right, I'm right, ending anytime soon.  The entire battle of each side, the naturalist side and the supernaturalist side, is very strong and many people support each explanation.  The results of this argument are big disagreements that are frustrating for both sides and inconvenient.  For example, politics are effected every day by this disagreement.  How we as a country run our government is determined by the people.  However, it gets very difficult to leave our government in the hands of people who disagree on important topics.  Final agreements wont be made anytime soon but more compromise is in order. 

Can we seek compromise through language?

Compromise is one of the hardest things this world will come across, especially in regards to the Nature of Human Nature.  However, when we are faced with conflict in important institutions, such as the government, society must make some sort of compromise.  Can language be the answer for some disputes?

In class, we came across the idea of thinking of the universe equal to the way some religions think of "God" or "Self."  Some religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, believe that the "universe" is, essentially, "God" and that everything works not because God rules but because all of the laws of physics are God.  With naturalists, the universe controls all, the laws of physics, logic, reason.  However, scientists have limited knowledge of the universe, just like religious individuals have about their "God." I believe in order to take a step in the direction of "pragmatic empiricism," society must take these types of connections into consideration and try to reach a compromise when both parties could have the same main idea but have different branches off of the idea. 

Response to Jenna's "Butterfly Effect"

I believe that Jenna proposed an interesting concept, the Butterfly Effect, to use alongside free will and determinism.  However, I believe the entire concept of the Butterfly Effect can only work in a world of free will and determinism.  If we were to believe that free will is true, then, in coexistence with the Butterfly Effect, everything that we CHOOSE to do will have an effect on the determined future of what WILL happen.  The entire idea of having a world of free will and determinism is fascinating but always leads to a dead end, in my opinion. 

"Everything happens for a reason"

When thinking of the concept of determinism my mind came across the clique "Everything happens for a reason." Thinking of this quote made me question the meaning behind cliques like this one. People often use "everything happens for a reason" as a playful saying. However, from a determinist perspective, it makes a lot of sense. We are destined to do things and things are destined to happened to us because they are predetermined. Do other cliques have a logical background to them?

"Pleasure Scale" Response

I completely agree with Jenna's response to the range of pleasure, it ranges from person to person.  Human beings may all strive towards similar things, pleasure, happiness, a 'good' life.  However, the specifics of what pleasures, what makes up happiness, what makes someone feel as if they have had a good life, are all different.  I believe everyone's mind is made up differently and what you love or what you have determined is human nature will lead to that individuals happiness and a full 'good' life. 

Emotion as a Telo

As I was reading this week's chapter, I came across a hypothetical question about Aristotle's view on a human being's telo: If according to Aristotle our sole purpose as human beings were to reason, would an individual not be reaching their full potential of happiness if they lived a life of emotion? Even if that was their 'telo?'

If one were to lead a life solely based on their emotions, based on love, sadness, excitement, would they be living the right way, according to Aristotle? My attempt to answer this would center around another question, Would a person who believes that emotion is a tool for reason actually be living a knowledgeable and good life?  These type of questions are hard to answer. Yes, how to reason is up to the individual or no there is only one way to reason?

Is Priori Knowledge Important?

One of the basis of Plato's arguments is that all human beings posses the prior knowledge, the "good" knowledge.  However, as humans we must recall that knowledge as we move on through life.  My discrepancy with this theory is what determines if we have actually recalled or found that "good" knowledge.  How, as human beings, are we supposed to know what knowledge we come across is good or not?

I suppose my point touches on the grand question, what is the difference between right and wrong.  However, I believe Plato's theory proposes too broad of an answer. 

Response to "Another interpretation for Plato's Metaphysics" - Corbin Brassard

"Plato believed that a world of forms existed and that the reason people can see two different, unique objects both as chairs is because they are both attempts to replicate the form of chair. I think it is because humans have the ability to reason and look at the shape of the objects and see that they are most likely to function as chairs... and that its our ability to comprehend the function of the materials that makes it a chair."

The above quote is what struck me most about Brassard's post.  I am in total agreement that Plato did not "capture the full truth" when speaking of his Theory of Forms.  Without humans to determine what a chair is, would there be a chair? If a human did not think of the word 'chair' would there be a chair? Yes, there would be a chair but it would be a completely different concept.  The entire idea of the Theory of Forms makes sense, but like Brassard said, it is incomplete.

Response to Amory's "Who are We? Chapter 2"

I believe that Amory's last sentence is what Socrates believed, "I think he knew that he would always be ignorant of some things, and that the only evil was to accept ignorance and to stop seeking the truth."

All human beings are not capable of being perfect.  I believe that's something someone as wise as Socrates would be aware of, even of himself.  According to Socrates' beliefs, 'evil is ignorance.'  Although, we all may be ignorant to somethings, a wise smart person should be able to accept when they are wrong and continue on to seek the truth.  I agree with this way of thinking. Somethings are inevitable, like ignorance, however if one is always making the effort to do good or fix mistakes, I believe that is balance.   

Socrates and Sarcasm

Post #1

What was the purpose of Socrates' proposal to the jury for his penalty in the 399 B.C.E. trail?

"And so the prosecution proposes death as the penalty.  And what shall I propose on my part... Clearly that which is my due.  And what is my due? I who neglected my own affairs in order to persuade every man among you that he must seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests.  What should be done to such a one? Surely some good thing... a reward which he deserves far more than the citizen who won the prize at Olympia in the horse or chariot race."

Socrates proposes that he should be showered with all of the benefits that one who has "won the prize at Olympia" would be gifted.  This is an obvious sarcastic gesture and one that I believe was necessary.  The courts accused Socrates of being the source of his students bad behavior.  Instead of fleeing to Athens, Socrates faced the courts.  Socrates claimed that he was being brought to trial for "trying to persuade his fellow citizens to place the care of their souls before the care of their fortunes."  Eventually, Socrates' answer led him to his death.  I believe Socrates' reaction to the courts was right, that Socrates' deserved the nothing but gifts for spreading his wisdom.  The proposal was bold and did not end in Socrates' favor, but did raise a point. Should one be punished for spreading his/her beliefs? In my opinion, No.