WORN-THROUGH AND WELL-LOVED.

My favourite shoes: my TOMS.  They're shoes for a cause; shoes with a higher calling (possibly a strange and novel concept for those who are unfamiliar with TOMS).  When you buy a pair of TOMS, you are essentially buying shoes for two people - yourself, and a child in need who cannot afford or does not have access to shoes. 

I feel like if you are going to purchase items, you might as well do so consciously, deliberately, and with a definite purpose.  And I feel that TOMS goes above and beyond in this area.  Considering the clear purpose and consciousness of where and how their shoes (and other items) are produced, I've got to say, TOMS is (hands down) my all-time favourite brand.

I wear my TOMS everywhere, pretty much at all times, as you can probably tell from the images below.  Just as the title of this post says, although my TOMS may be worn-through, they have definitely been well-loved at the same time.  Seeing as my shoes are falling apart to the point that my toes are exposed, it very well may be time to purchase a new pair.  At least I can buy with confidence that my money is doing something good not only for me, but for someone else too, and that the products are made in a clean and safe environment that encourages and builds up its employees via fair working conditions and standards.

Needless to say...I love my TOMS!

REMINDS ME OF MY CHILDHOOD.

Suncatchers - I remember painting these little beauties when I was younger.  It's like stained-glass window...minus the glass and the window.  I remember thinking how magical it all seemed; I was painting my own rainbow that sunbeams could slip and slide down.  When my plastic work of art was done, my mom would hang it against the window.  I would waltch with wonder, my eyes gleaming as they intently fixated on the light filtering through the piece of plastic and giving it an etherial glow.  Yes, doing this activity with my sister and her friends takes me back to a time when every piece of painted plastic was a magical portal through which sunbeams danced and played.  Enjoy!

I LOVE WHEN MY SISTERS LET ME BRAID THEIR HAIR.

While I am SO HAPPY that my hair is gone (really, long hair becomes a drag after a while), the one thing I will miss is braiding.  I love the different patterns and varieties, the way they look, and the feeling of accomplishment I get when I master a new style.  My hair is chin-length now though, so...no more braids for me.  At least I have sisters with long hair.

FATHERS DAY (A TRIBUTE TO MY DADDY)

This is my daddy.  He has been here for pretty much everything.

He was there the day I was born.

He taught me how to ride a bike.

He was there every Christmas and every Birthday.

He helped me carve my pumpkins on Halloween when I was too little to do it myself.

He built Lego cities and constructed railroads with my sister and I when we were younger.

He was there in my middle school and high school years to help me with my math when I was struggling in that area.

He was there for vacations, road trips, dances, prom nights, and parties of every kind.

He was there every step of the way to help me fund raise for my ambassador trip to Europe.

He helped me with my college applications, my FAFSA, and anything else I needed to apply to college.

He was there with me when I received college rejection letters and acceptance letters.

He was there for awards nights and senior dinners.

He was there for my graduation.

And he will be there for many mile stones to come.

My dad and I are so much alike in personality.  Quiet, analytical, a little bit on the nerdy side...I look like my mom for sure, but I think and process like my dad.  Although sometimes he frustrates me - along with everyone else in my family; I'm certain I frustrate them too ;) - I feel like, because of our similarities in personality, he really understands me.  We watch "The Big Bang Theory" together.  Sometimes we talk about life, politics, the future, anything.  Sometimes we don't talk about anything; we just sit together in silence.  For some people that might be awkward and uncomfortable, but for us the silence is never awkward.  On the way to school in the morning we would listen to music on the radio; I'd gripe about how crappy the music selection is and he'd just chuckle to himself because he knows he agrees.

I don't know where I would be or who I would be without my daddy in my life.

Thanks for everything, dad.

I WANT...

To blog more frequently, and actually talk about what is going through my mind and what is happening in my life; no silliness, no "using my blog as a filing cabinet for old documents", just me being real and honest with myself,

To take pictures more often, and to upload those pictures, and possibly even to restart Project 365 (and actually follow through).

To exercise daily and to eat right, not because I want to look skinnier or achieve validation from some sort of magic number displayed on the scale, but because I want to feel good.  The Bible says that your body is your temple.  Even though I'm not a huge fan of the aforementioned at the moment, that nugget of cheesy wisdom is all too true.  Most (if not all) religions regard the body as the home for the soul; it is our job to nourish our bodies and in turn, nourish our souls (also cheesy; also true).  In this way, I almost feel like negative body images stem from a malnourished soul; the mistreatment of one's body results in the mistreatment of the soul, leading to states of depression and self-loathing...but I digress. The point is that if I treat my body like shit, I'm going to feel like shit.  This is the only body I have, and based on that virtue alone, I should take care of it.

To travel the world and experience new things; to live life as if it is a never-ending adventure.

To read poetry more often - The E. E. Cummings book of poetry that my best friend, Lauren, gave me is a brilliant place to start.  (I love E. E. Cummings, and I especially love Lauren).  :)

To meet new people and learn new things.

To live in a different country for a while; to see what it's like somewhere else; to see past the stereotypes and into the everyday life of a native; to step into someone else's shoes for a while, just for the experience - just to learn what life in other countries is really like.

MAY PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNAL

5/1/12

What accounts for the popularity in film and literature of people living in a post-apocalyptic world?  Discuss.

I think the reason why this is so popular is because it's something that everyone is afraid of; the unknown.  And because everyone can relate to this fear, it appeals to a vary wide audience, which is often the goals of authors and play writers who are attempting to make money.  I think there are two interesting factors at play here - fear of the unknown, and capitalizing off of people's fears. 

I think fear of what could happen in the future, and even more so not being able to know for sure what will happen and not being able to make plans or prepare are pretty much universal, no matter what city, country, or part of the world you are in.  Fear of the unknown accounts for why people go out of their way to save money and to store up food items (like in a pantry or in a refrigerator); they don't necessarily know when their next meal will be or what might be available at that time, so they get what they think they will need ahead of time.  Another example is the actions of coupon-ers, especially those who are "extreme" coupon-ers.  They go out of their way to buy more than they need at the time due to the fear that prices will rise or that they will not get as good of a deal in the future.  Those examples are definitely not post-apocalyptic at all, but they surely examples of how afraid people are of the future even without taking into account the end of the world.  And there really is no way to know for sure whether or not there is a god or a heaven or a hell; those are things that humanity hopes are true but can never be completely sure of, so even religious people can relate to the fear of the unknown.

To me, the most interesting aspect of this is the way capitalism is involved.  It is one thing to recognize a universal fear and to try to understand it, but I feel like it's another thing to take that fear and feed it for one's own capital gain.  To me, there's something about that that just seems kind of sick and wrong because no one is doing anything to try to understand their fears or face their fears but instead just doing more to elevate their fears.  Something seems psychologically wrong with that, to try to make a bad feeling or trait worse.

5/2/12

What is your reaction to "A Free Man's Worship"?  Discuss.

Even though what he was saying would be considered heretical in the religion that I was originally born into - Christianity - I feel like a lot of what he was saying made sense.  Perhaps that is because I no longer consider myself "Christian".  I really liked the anecdote that he used at the beginning of his discussion.  I thought it was an interesting perspective that I hadn't really heard before, or at least to that extent.  He makes it seem like there is a god, but that the true god is pitiless and unconcerned with human suffering; in fact, the purpose of human suffering is purely for his enjoyment.

I think the reason why this perspective is so interesting to me is because of my upbringing and the fact that I no longer relate to that up-bringing.  As a child, I was always taught that God is omnipotent, omniscient; all powerful - I guess he would have to be, in order to be the creator of the cosmos.  But what really "got my goat" - the thing that I could never personally reconcile between the ideal and the reality - was the fact that God was labeled as a sort of "loving father" who cares about his children - AKA, his creations.  Yet at the same time, there is so much strife and suffering and evil in the world; the world that God, supposedly a loving father, created.  Not that that's all there is, there's certainly compassion, love, and goodness in the world too; but if God is so loving and compassionate, why would he plague the world so?  If he is so powerful and so all-knowing and ever-present, why can't he fix the pain and suffering that exists?  And I'm not talking about suffering as in something trivial, I'm talking about suffering as in poverty, genocide, senseless and meaningless killing, senseless and meaning less rape, social injustices…all of these things are atrocities, yet they are all present in this world that a supposedly perfect, wonderful, and fatherly god has created. 

Russell states that there are two explanations for this (or at least, to me that seems like what he was saying. 

Explanation one - there is a god, but he is a god that does not care about the human existence.  He is a selfish god who wishes only to appease his own sense of boredom and his own desire to be worshiped.  He created humans because he knew that, in them, he could create beings that would worship him unceasingly despite the fact that he was their torturer.  The only reason why humans continue to love and worship such a god is because they have based who he is off of his power.  He is powerful; he created life.  Therefore, he must be a good god worthy of praise.  They god they worship is merely who they wish for the actual God to be.

Explanation two - there is no god.  Nature is the most powerful being; the creator.  All the evil in the world is simply the way the world is; the savagery, the disorganization…et cetera.  But this would mean that life has no meaning, which is even more terrifying than the idea of being slaves to the god who created you.  And because humans have realized the terrifying truth that their life means nothing but living, eating, reproducing, and dying, they have created a reason to live.  They gave their life meaning by creating this imaginary god that loves them enough to make them.  The only reason why God exists is because people have created him in order to sleep at night.  They needed something to falsely assure them that they mean something just so that life will go down a little easier.

At least when there is an evil, torturous god, we have something to live for.  When one comes to the realization that there is no god, there is no purpose, and there is no hope to live life "right".  There is nothing to life for but the monotonous cycle of repopulating the earth with more meaningless life.  Living is all there is and there's nothing to it.  And that realization, that you are there doing nothing - that you have no purpose but to strive to live and then die in the end - is the most terrifying because you know that you might as well not be alive at all.  And that is possibly the worst kind of suffering.

I just thought that the perspectives were interesting and refreshing; and possibly ideas that I might like to contemplate myself.

5/3/12

Do you predict that you will live most (or all of your adult life in AZ?  Discuss.

I should hope not, I hate it here.  I just don't feel at home, no matter what I do.  I feel like the fact that I live in a "red" state is part of the problem.  I feel like sometimes it's hard to make friends or to know how much about your self and your beliefs to disclose for fear of offending someone and subsequently damaging or losing a friendship because there is just no way to reconcile the believes between the two of you.  I feel like there's almost more of a pressure here to be a conservative, republican Christian who looks just so and acts just so.  It seems like when you live in this state, or at least when you live in the suburbs (I have no idea what it would be like to live in Phoenix or something like that), there's a certain kind of reputation to uphold; a certain kind of attitude, a certain kind of way of life.  And this reputation is not necessarily one that I care to uphold.  This attitude is one that I simply cannot bring myself to have; not as a mask of feelings I would wear just to fit in, and especially not as my own actual sentiments.  And I certainly don't want the conservative-republican-Christian-soccer mom-Suzie home maker-kind of life.   At all.  I want to travel, I want more life experiences, I want to pursue a job…I don't really want to be tied down.  I don't know that I'll ever want to be tied down.  I want to be able to pick up and move whenever I please.  And I don't see those desires as compatible at all with the way of life here.

I've lived here my entire life and I think it's safe to say that I am sick of it.  If I had to live in Gilbert/Mesa for four more years, I think I really would be sick of it.  In fact, that's the whole reason I avoided applying to ASU and U of A like the plague - because they are too much like Mesa/Gilbert.  I really wanted to go out of state, but it wasn't something that my family could afford at all, and I knew it would just be irresponsible to take out such large amounts in student loans just in my under graduate years, especially since I know for a fact that I want to go to grad school.  NAU is at least somewhat like going out of state because it's of the different climate, the different area, it's more liberal (I think)…when I'm up there visiting, I feel like I'm in Colorado or something.  So I feel like, for right now, that's the best that I can do.  At least this way I will be able to afford to travel abroad, so that's a definite plus.  I'm really, really hoping that I can save up enough money so that I can go out of state for my grad.  I feel like if I had to transfer to U of A or ASU for my degree (health sciences/medicine) that would be the death of me.

5/7/12

Even though it may involve being a total hypocrite, do adults have the responsibility to guide youth in the right direction (even though they did not follow the very advice that they are giving)?

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  It seems like this situation could play out a couple of different ways and have varying advantages and disadvantages.  On the one hand, kids might see the hypocritical aspect and ignore the advice of their parents.  They might think "well, how would they know what's best for me if they can't even take their own advice?"  But on the other hand, there's the aspect of first hand experience that can be factored in.  A used-to-be drug addict would probably know better than anyone how life threatening drugs can be, the terrible things that drugs can make you do, and just the pain and suffering that a drug addict inflicts on not only themselves but also on their loved ones.  Advice to not do drugs coming from an ex-drug addict would be more meaningful than coming from someone who's never even been around drugs a day in their life.  There's the understanding that parents have had more experiences and probably understand, better than the kids at least, the gravity of the situations.  Adults may look at their life and wish that they had done things differently when they were young because they know that the actions of the present have an outcome in the future.  They almost feel like its their job to help kids not end up like them because they know how it feels and they don't think anybody should have to feel that way.

5/8/12

Can we reconcile our own selfish desires with the pursuit of virtue?  If so, how?  If not, why?  Discuss.

I truly believe that it is all about the intent behind one’s actions.  I think that to call someone like mother Theresa “selfish” because she somehow received recognition or a “good feeling” from sacrificing her whole life for the sake of others is complete and utter foolishness.  The reason I think this is because, for one thing, her intentions in helping people were not to receive fame or to get anything out of it.  Her goal was to help others, and anything else that came of her actions (like the aforementioned world recognition or a feeling of accomplishment) are by-products.  Just because she received any sort of fame for her selflessness does not necessarily mean she is selfish.  I really think selfishness requires and inherent and obvious want.  If your goal is anything other than sacrifice purely for the sake of sacrifice, then your heart is selfish.  Taylor used the example of those who went on her trip and claimed to get more out of it than the people they helped (and saying this in a sort of bragging way) and of those who maybe did get something out of it but felt guilty.  In a way, to me that guilt is in and of itself a sense of selflessness because Taylor saw that she received something from her trip even when she knew that she didn’t deserve to get anything out of it.  She could just gloat like the others and just enjoy the fact that she “learned something” or “got something out of” the trip, but instead she is denying herself that pleasure of thinking that she somehow has become a better person.  Even though she did get something, she refuses to enjoy it and that, to me, is pure self-denial.  I feel like, in a way, that sort of asceticism is the most difficult because humans as animals are biologically programmed to strive for pleasure and the fact that Taylor, or mother Theresa, wouldn’t allow themselves even that tiny of a joy or a self-victory really says something about the fact that virtue really can separate itself from selfishness given the right mindset and the right heart.

5/16/12

What is your philosophy?  Discuss.

My philosophy is still in the process.  I don’t know that I can really say exactly what my philosophy is.  My philosophy (whatever it may be) is in a process of constant evolution.  Everything that I learn from life (not just philosophy class, but also events and experiences) changes and shapes the way I think and the way I view the world, even if it’s by the tiniest fraction.

The particular schools of thought that I made the biggest connection with this year were Romanticism, Transcendentalism, and Existentialism.  I love nature.  When I’m out on the beach or up in the mountains or even going on a walk outside, I feel most connected with the world around me, and even myself.  I feel like this partly because of the biological aspect of life; according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, all organisms (including microscopic organisms, plants, animals, et cetera) are all connected by one common ancestor.  We all are related and connected; we all have something in common.  We literally are connected.  And I think that’s why I feel most comfortable and most alive (in a sense) in this environment; this is the way life was supposed to be.  This is where I came from, whether by the hand of a god or by some other force.

I like some of the ideas from Transcendentalism.  I like the idea of an idea or a power of some sort (not necessarily god, but a higher power) transcending everything – time, nature, matter…what have you.  At this point in my life, I’m not entirely convinced that there really is a god, but I do think there is something bigger than me, bigger than nature, at work in the universe that connects us all.  Maybe it’s just the idea that we are all connected and that everything comes from something else.  Maybe there really is a god that created each individual being – or maybe God did not really individually create each individual being, but simply set the process of evolution in motion.  Maybe the power – vibrations, energy, whatever – is just life and the vastness of the universe itself…regardless.  I believe there is SOMETHING bigger than what I see in front of me, and I don’t believe that I could be here on earth, or that any other organism could possibly exist without this power/energy/whatever it is.

I really like the existentialist idea that existence precedes essence.  Everyone in life is searching for meaning.  Some find it though living for their families, living for themselves, or living for a Higher Being.  Some are unable to find their meaning and lose all hope in existence completely.  I believe that both of these paths are shallow; they seem like the easy way out to me.  On the one hand, you are handed your meaning on a plate and spoon-fed your beliefs.  On the other, you don’t even bother to find something that makes life worth living.  These people are just shells of a human beings; bodies wandering through life, merely surviving until they die.  I personally, have experienced both ways of thinking in my life (as short as it has been so far).  I was brought up in a devout Christian home and thus adopted the typical protestant/evangelical mindset early on in life.  As I experienced more of the world, I developed my own doubts and became disenchanted – my personal belief is that for some, this type of “child-like” faith works; for others, faith looks a little murkier.  After a while, I decided that I didn’t want to believe in anything anymore.  During this time I kind of went through a “there is nothing and nothing to live for phase”.  I didn’t really believe in god anymore and in a way I sort of went through a culture shock because I went from the idea that everyone has a “God-given purpose” to there is no god and there is no purpose; we’re all just animals and our only purpose is to die.  But after reading some of Sartre’s work, I’m realizing that maybe there is a happy medium.  Maybe there is a state where there is something bigger (like I said before, not necessarily a god, but maybe just the fact that anything is alive; the fact that we live in a vast and ever expanding universe; the fact that there is love and there is joy, even if they are man-made emotions).  And maybe this something bigger inspires us to search for, discover, or create our own meaning of life (but this “higher power” does not simply give us our meaning).  For me, I think my meaning in life is love and to share love.  I know individuals like Adam and maybe some others have decided that their purpose in life is to live for themselves and to make themselves happy at all costs.  I personally disagree, but I am not completely at odds with this mode of thinking.  I definitely think that a big part of my future life will be donating my time, my life to helping and serving others, and to me I don’t think that’s weak or “taking the easy way out” at all.  In fact, I think that’s the most brave and gutsy thing a person can do, because it’s easy to deal with your own happiness and your own pain and your own problems.  But bringing other people’s problems into the mix is a different story.  I personally think that living only for yourself is just a waste of time and human resources.  But then again, I am biased.  At the same time, I do think it is important to also take care of yourself.

APRIL PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNALS

4/2/12

What is an experience that you could partake in that is out of your "comfort zone" that would nonetheless be valuable?  Discuss.

In both 6th and 7th grade, I went on a mission trip over spring break with the church that I was attending at the time.  Both experiences, I would say, fit the criteria of being out of one's "comfort zone", but the second trip was significantly more difficult.

The first time, the group actually stayed in Texas on the boarder of Mexico and we would just cross the boarder everyday to go do our mission work.  The second time, we were actually inside the boarder and would stay there over night as well.  Interestingly enough, the facility that we stayed at in the states was a bit nicer; more comfortable, I guess you would say.  The dormitories, the bathrooms/showers, and the dining hall were all conveniently located in one building.  The facility in Matamoros, Mexico was less comfortable, as the dormitories, bathrooms/showers, and dining hall were separate buildings.  For some reason, this allowed for a lot more insects to come in, which I personally had an issue with because I did not want bug in my sleeping bag. 

I'm using this example because this was a situation where I was definitely out of my comfort zone, especially considering the cleanliness (or lack there of) of the living facilities of the mission.  But despite the unpleasantness that this provided for me, I still had an amazing experience because I was helping others and learning about the lives of others and being shown that not everyone lives in a bug-free, clean environment with all sorts of luxuries (like coffee, tea, more than the bare minimum amount of clothing) with in their reach.

4/3/12

What is the ideal environment and/or activity for pondering the problems of philosophy?  Why?  Discuss.

My ideal setting for pondering topics of a philosophical nature would probably be outdoors, far away from the city or the suburbs, in an area that has been largely untouched by human hands.

When I say this, the first two images that pop into my head are of the beach (or more specifically the ocean) and the forest (or the mountains).  And my ideal activity would probably be walking, hiking, meandering, ambling, ect…whatever word the mind can generate to describe motions/activities akin to walking.

The reason why I would choose nature over say a coffee shop, or a library, or even my own room, is just due to the general atmosphere.  For me, I feel such strong emotions in nature that I could never feel in the city or in the suburbs, feelings that cause me to ponder my existence, the possibility of a creator, the meaning of life, life's problems, et cetera.  And I think the reason why I feel thusly compelled is simply due to the inner connection I feel when I am in an outdoors setting.  When I look at the ocean or the mountains, I feel small in the most wonderful way.  I realize how complex all of life is, and I realize that my life is an infinitesimally small part of life as a whole compared to all of what it was, everything that it is today, and everything that it will be in the future.  I feel more connected to myself there, and I think part of it is the insignificance that I feel, but also the realization that I am not separate from nature, but a part of nature.  According to evolutionary theory, all organisms descended from a common ancestor, which technically would mean that everything - animals, plants, micro organisms, even nonliving things - is connected.  I think that this connection is what I feel when I am immersed in nature.  I realize that there is something bigger than my self - whether it's god, a higher power of some sort, the ever expanding universe, et cetera - and I feel connected to whatever that thing is.  These feelings of awe that I feel inspire me to feel in awe of my own being and in awe of life in general.

4/10/12

In light of yesterday's "so called" senior skip day, how important will time off/vacation/free time be to you as you go forward in life?  Discuss.

As an introvert, I am a person who very much values any time that I have to myself.  Some people may feel that they have to be surrounded by others in order to have meaning in their lives or to not feel lonely all the time, but there are lots of times when I honestly prefer to be by myself.  I realize that, as the future progresses and I go to college, get a job, et cetera, I will find myself with significantly less time alone than I have now.  I know that "free time" doesn't necessarily have to be in solitude in order to count as a "vacation" or "time off".  Some people might even make arrangements to constantly have some sort of activity to do or people to see during their vacation.  But for me, I find the times when I can be alone the most valuable because it is often hard to get away from people.  Sometimes when I go on vacation with my family or with friends, I find that when I come back I need a vacation from my vacation.  Being constantly surrounded by people can often be overwhelming and uncomfortable for me, so I personally usually need a place to go where I can just be alone.  In college, it will probably be a lot harder to find places to be alone, especially considering the fact that in my freshman year I will have to be a part of the dorm life.  I imagine that it would be hard to get personal time during college because there are always people everywhere, and even in my room I would never really alone because I would have a room mate.  And even when I get a job, or especially when I have a family, it's going to be increasingly harder to get that alone time that I need to not be so stressed that I can't even function.  At the same time though, I understand that I can't just have free time all the time; there has to be a balance between work and alone time/free time.  So I feel like I would find free time really important, but not so important that it interferes with my potential education, job, family, et cetera.  I would like to be able to have an hour or so in the morning or at night to myself; that would be ideal.  Just to have that little bit of time to myself to rejuvenate would be fine; that would help me to be less stressed and less overwhelmed when I would have to wake up in the morning and go back to the daily grind.

4/11/12

Can the two opposing view points on the issue of abortion ever be reconciled?  Discuss.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this topic.  It's one thing to talk about reconciling religion with science, but this is a completely different situation all together.  This is an issue where it stops being just an opinion or a belief and starts to dabble with the meaning and the value of life.  Some people are strongly opposed to abortion, saying that it is murder regardless of the fetus's stage of development, and some are strongly for, arguing for the woman's rights to make her own decisions about her body and her life.  Undoubtedly, this would be a life changing experience for the mother too, probably one with severe repercussions, especially considering any possible guilt that she might experience.  My personal opinions in regards to this topic are really quite murky.  I feel like in some situations there are alternatives to abortion (for example, if the mother is unable to support the child but still wants it to have a normal, happy life, the baby can be adopted).  I feel like there are also some situations where abortion is the only option (for example, there are some situations in which if the baby is born both the mother and the baby will die but if the baby is aborted the mother can be saved; both are unpleasant but the best alternative is to save the mothers life instead of letting both die).  I know I personally would never ever get an abortion if I got pregnant and didn't want the baby or was fiscally unable to support the baby.  But there are definitely situations when an abortion is the best alternative, as sad as that may sound.  Vivienne used the example of Tay Sach's disease; a baby born with tay sach's would have a life filled with excruciating pain and would have a very, very early death; in fact, few ever make it past their 5th birthdays.  I feel like that is something that no child should be forced to live with.  But I also feel like getting an abortion because you were too stupid or to drunk to use measures of birth control is completely unacceptable.  No baby should have to pay with their life for their mother or father's stupid mistakes.  So this is definitely an issue that I have some really mixed feelings about.

4/12/12

What is the single biggest problem in education in the U.S. today?  Discuss.

I feel like THE biggest problem with American education is the low standards.  I feel like American students are capable of so much more, but no body pushes them to try hard or to do the best that they can.  Sure, there are some that are willing to go above and beyond, put many will fall for complacency with simply meeting the goal, even if they know they can do better.  I think it was Michael Jordan that said "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take"; I completely agree with this.  I feel like in the US, we are training our children to avoid taking risks; to aim low instead of trying hard.  Kids will rise to the occasion and succeed if that is the expectation.  If kids are expected to fail or to not do as well, that is what will happen.  Lots of people are really lazy and will only do what is expected or what is necessary.  I know that American students are capable of so much more, but for whatever reason, many are expected to fail so the bar is purposefully set low to "help" these kids out.  If anything, this mentality is even more damaging to these kids who are supposedly incapable of achievement because they see that people expect so little of them and then they get it in their heads that they can never amount to much more than flipping burgers and doing drugs.  If kids know that the bar is set high but that everyone is there for them and encouraging them to try, it is likely that the kids will work hard and make an effort to succeed in what they do.  Poor standards only ever produce poor results, and I think that is the problem with education today.

4/16/12

If it were possible to allow all of humanity to life in eternal bliss and happiness at the expense of one baby being tortured for eternity, would this be justified?  Discuss.

I feel like there is something really ethically wrong with this.  I think it has to do with the fact that one person is suffering for eternity versus everyone suffering for a day, a month, a year, their entire life…et cetera.  It does sound terrible for a multitude of people to suffer for their entire lives, but even that amount of time is shorter than eternity.  And it seems to me that, as paradoxical as it may seem, happiness and suffering go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other.  If you do not have suffering in your life, you can never appreciate, or even truly understand happiness, and vice versa.  The "many" will never be truly happy until they know suffering, and the "one" will never truly suffer until he/she understands happiness.

I feel like everyone should have an equal shot at the pursuit happiness.  The fact that everyone in the world suffers to some extent at some point in their life, while at the same time still has the same opportunity or option to try to strive for happiness suggests equity and balance to me, whereas the other situation seems to be very unbalanced.  Many philosophers thought that striving for balance in ones life was the key to happiness, or at least the key to a good, wholesome life.  I think that the stoics are among some of these, and I think Plato might have been one of those philosophers as well.  In fact, I believe it was he who came up with the idea of the "golden mean" - the idea of balance.  Balance is what keeps the Earth alive.  Just a little too close or too far from the sun, and the Earth could be in fatal peril. 

4/17/12

Since the days of Athenian democracy, there has been a debate about who should be able to vote (ranging from education, land holders, gender, age, color, and even those with ID today).  Who should be able to vote?  Discuss.

I think that all citizens should be able to vote, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, creed, et cetera.  If a human being is living within the boarders of a state, country, ect, he/she should be able to vote in that state, country, ect because the laws that go into effect will have an affect on everyone, not just certain people or groups of people. 

People who do not live within the boarders of a state/country/ect have absolutely no business voting on behalf of that country.  The laws will not affect them, therefore the outcome of the election is hardly any of their concern.

A couple of problems that come up are age and immigration. 

I think that the voting age should be kept the way it is - only legal adults can vote.  Children will not have as much experience with the law as an adult would, even an adult who is only 18.  It is unlikely that children would understand the government, the laws, and more importantly the underlying reasons for said laws and government; it is unlikely that children will have as firm of a grasp on the issues of today and the reason why said issues are controversial.

I personally believe that immigration should not be an issue, especially immigration.  Like I said, only citizens should be allowed to vote in America, but I also think that the process by which people become American citizens is extensive and parts of it are unnecessary.  In away, I feel that the citizenship process is unfair and requires too much.  In government at the beginning of the year our class took a test that people applying for citizenship would have to take.  The really interesting thing is that hardly any of us were able to answer some of the questions right or even answer some of the questions at all, and we were all born American citizens.  I feel like there's a disconnect there between what is expected of natural born citizens and what is expected of immigrants, and to me it seems unfair.

4/19/2012

Fools, who know nothing about philosophy, think that "what doesn't kill me, makes me stronger" is a song by Kelly Clarkson.  However, the wise know that it is Friedrich Nietzsche.  Is this statement valid of not?  Discuss.

I'm not really sure what to think about this statement.  I think it might depend on the situation/circumstances.  I suppose it could be true.  If you have come out of a difficult situation relatively intact, be it emotionally or physically or what have you, you are likely to gain experience from that situation and will probably be able to understand how to avoid it in the future, or if it's unavoidable, to at least figure out a way to deal with it.  For example, drug addicts and alcoholics are some times seen in this light because they have been able to come out of a bad situation, clean up, and get on the road to getting their lives back together.  They've probably "learned from their mistakes"; they've learned about themselves, and possibly how to deal with the issue in the future because they have that much more knowledge. 

On the other hand, other people have personalities that are not as strong as that of others to begin with.  All though an experience might not kill them, it might not necessarily make them stronger either.  Some people can come out of a difficult situation but not be able to get the closure they need or might not be able to put the situation in perspective; they're almost permanently slaves to their experiences.

4/24/12

"Against boredom even gods struggle in vain." - Friedrich Nietzsche in Der Antichrist (1888)  Discuss

I completely disagree.  There is always something that needs work; always something in the world that needs fixing; always someone who needs help.  There are so many issues in the world that people just ignore that it is impossible for people to be bored.  If you are truly looking for something to do, you will always find it.  What I mean by this is that there is so much poverty, so much political unrest; there are so many complex world issues that need attention and that people need to pay attention to that often just get pushed to the wayside by those who are consumer driven.  I think the real problem is that people are just lazy or they don't care about other people's problems.  If people would just look around them and really open their eyes and their hearts to all the pain and suffering there is in the world, they would really see that there is always something to be done.  As citizens of the world, it is our job to band together as a community to work together in solving the worlds problems.  As far as I'm concerned, the world's problems are infinite; there will always be issues.  This may be discouraging to some.  Many people may say that the world can never ever be perfect, but to me that seems like a stupid reason to avoid trying to improve it at all.  Those who complain of being bored, especially American consumers, have no right to ignore avoid the world's problems.  Boredom cannot possibly exist in the state that the world is in.

4/26/12

The concept of "moral hazard" states that one should be suspicious/careful of helping someone (or something) out in a time of need because they may come to count on it over and over in the future after the initial support.  Is this valid or not?  Discuss.

I'm not sure.  Obviously, you should want people to be able to be independent and to be able to help themselves, and to not have to rely on other people to do things for them, but on the other hand I don't think it's right to ignore and apparent need either.  I think there's kind of a way to reconcile both though.

There's a saying that goes "give a man fish and he will eat for a day but teach a man to fish and he will have food for a life time".  I feel like the solution to the problem lies within this idea.  If all you ever do is give a person exactly what they need, of course all they're going to do is come back for more because they don't have the means to get it for themselves.  People might know what they want, but they don't always know what to do in order to get that thing.  You can help a person out and still avoid this

"moral hazard" by providing ways for them to find what they need, versus just giving it to them.  And to me, that is even more  of a good thing to do because it shows that you care about what happens to a person in the long run instead of just giving them what they ask for so they will leave you alone for the time being.

MARCH PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNALS

3/1/12

Is killing ever justified?  If so, when and why?  If not, why?  Discuss. 

I feel like in some senses it is justified to kill, but in others not.

Killing in self-defense or the defense of others is completely justifiable.  Killing animals is sometimes justifiable, depending on the situation.  Killing in the sense of war is sometimes justifiable.

If a person is about to take your life, it is your duty to protect your life.  If you see someone attempting to forcefully take an innocent person's life, then (like wise with the previous situation) not only would it be justifiable for you to kill in that situation, but it is your duty to attempt to save the innocent person.

There are some wars that are justifiable in certain respects.  I think we all pretty much agree that Hitler was a "bad guy" who had gained far more power than he ought to, and needed to be removed, even if that involved his death at the hands of others.  (His acts of genocide, of course, can never be justified.)  But I feel that some wars, such as many of the American wars in the Middle East.  (Actually, it is my personal opinion that George W. Bush used the concept of "weapons of mass destruction" as a scare tactic in order to engender enough fear and hatred towards the middle east.  This way, Americans would personalize the war; the war that was essentially W's personal vendetta to avenge his father's failed mission.  But I digress.)  Such wars as these, in my eyes, are not justifiable.  I feel a little iffy as to the war on Communism - sure, Americans have the right to protect their democracy and freedom if they feel it is being challenged or threatened in any way.  But on the flip side of the coin, Americans today are attempting to spread their Democracy to other countries, just as the Communist regimes did with their form of government.  So, I suppose aspects of it were justified - the defense of freedom as a human right is always justified.  I feel that hypocrisy is not though.

The general trend in my line of thinking (usually) is that unnecessary killings - violence for the sake of violence; needless death for the sake of entertainment, money, power, and whatever else - is never reconcilable.  And part of the reason why I think that I feel this way is (and I know I reference this a lot) my biological make up as a human being.  Survival is the most basic instinct that is engrained into every species, from the most complex being to the most simple single-celled organism.  Everything we do is centered around one theme, and that is living.  In some circumstances, that involves the death of another (e.g. gaining nutrients - some animals have to kill and eat other animals in order to get what they need to survive).  So in this way, it think it makes sense that I would view unnecessary death as unethical and unjustifiable.  The vast majority of animals kills (typically) on two specific occasions: 1) for sustenance and 2) for defense (this can be self defense or the defense of others such as offspring or even members of a clan/pack/et cetera).  Due to the fact that the idea of survival is so rudimentary, yet so essential as to be the basis of animal instinct, it seems that the ability to survive and even thrive should be almost sacred to animals in a sense.  Less intelligent species may feel this sort of power/reverence in a very basic and unsophisticated sense, while more complex and more intelligent beings may feel it in a more sophisticated sense - possibly even elevating this basic instinct to live to the point of designing laws, covenants, social contracts, forming familial bonds and friendships, forming truces with enemies, designing intricate constitutions and declarations of human rights, et cetera.  There are few instances in nature in which unnecessary violence/killing is exhibited, leading me to believe that, do to our basic instincts of survival, this idea is (for the most part) considered unnatural (possibly even perverse); maybe this is the common ancestor of the Social Contract.

3/2/12

Does the soul exist?  Discuss.

I think that the soul exists.  There is a definite difference between when a person is alive and when a person is dead.  You can even make a distinction between when a person is sleeping and when a person is dead.  It's almost as if the soul emanates an aura of sorts.  There have been incidents where you can distinctly tell when a person's soul leaves their body.  A patient in the hospital could be asleep or in a coma but the moment that their heart stops beating or they stop breathing, there is almost a visible difference.  You know that person is no longer just sleeping or in a comatose state; something has left; something is gone.  There must be a reason why we can know that a person is dead and when a person is sleeping.  The two states are very, very similar in appearance, so what could possibly differentiate between them?  We know that the heart, lungs, brain, et cetera stop working after a person begins dying; their organs simply begin to shut off.  But how can this effect our knowing whether a person is this "with us" (alive) or "gone" (dead)?   Like I said before - there is no difference in appearance between  death and sleeping - they look exactly the same.  It seems to me that the only difference between living and nonliving is the soul - life and physical aspects of life are simply attached to the soul.

I disagree with Adam's point of view completely.  Animals most definitely have souls.  Adam claims that humans are the only beings in possession of a soul because 1) they have personalities.  His second point was an example he used of his dog loving his(Adam's) mother being but willing to leave her side whenever anyone else has food defining this as an instinct, and thus claiming that 2) because animals act based on instinct, they do not have souls. His third point is that 3) because humans are able to  distinguish between right and wrong, ect, they have souls based on that virtue alone.

To these points I say

1.       Animals as well as humans have personalities.  They may not be as well defined, but they are definitely present.  For example, dogs may vary in disposition.  One of my dogs is more mean, the other is more playful and friendly.  This is so with other dogs; they have intrinsic personal characteristics that separate them from each other and even other animals.  According to Adam Petrillo's definition of a soul (as having a personality), animals too have souls based on this virtue.

2.       To address Adam's example with his dog, I say that people also have the same instincts.  People have their families and close knit circles of friends, but as soon as you pull out a snack that looks particularly yummy (for example, a Reeses  peanut butter cup), everyone suddenly becomes your best friend, even if they don't know you that well.  This goes back to biology and the way the brain works.  There are chemicals in the brain that stimulate the reward pathway in the brain that are released and trigger a certain result (a reward - a good feeling).  This reaction is triggered whenever organisms do something that benefits them and aids in their survival - eating, drinking, mating, ect.  Animals as well as people have these basic instincts.  Therefore, the fact that animals have instincts (just as humans do) does not govern whether or not they have a soul.

3.       To address Adam's third point, I would like to reference biology again.  I believe that humans are the way that they are due to evolutionary changes.  I know that Adam feels similarly.  In evolution, a certain characteristic does not just "show up" in an animal's genome; it manifests after eons of minute changes with in a specie's DNA.  Animals have common ancestors based on characteristics that they have with other species.  I would like to know at what point this personality or soul evolved, how it evolved.  This "soul" had to come from somewhere; there most be evidences of souls in other animals, even if that soul is more rudimentary.  I am stating that animals do indeed have souls because Homo sapiens has a soul, and according to evolution, this characteristic had to evolve from some sort of more simplified template-characteristic.

3/5/12

In 2012 is it possible to totally withdraw from society (e.i. be a hermit)?  Discuss.

I think in some ways it is but in others it's not.  It's going to be different from person to person depending on their personalities, they way they were brought up, and even their culture. 

Some people may be more introverted and more independent, like me, and might find it easier to withdraw than people with more extroverted and co-dependent personalities.  Introverts are already more withdrawn in a sense, so it probably wouldn't be as hard for them to withdraw even further.  Typically, introverts are more reserved with their feelings and more choosy about how they spend their time and with whom.  Extroverts and those that are co-dependents would probably find themselves needing the company and affirmation of others and might, after a short time in solitude, find themselves craving that attention and maybe even going a little crazy from the depravation  of a social life.

It might be different depending on the way one is brought up and culture.  In certain cultures, independence and self-reliance is a huge deal and not only do they encourage it, but they also teach it, both with in the boundaries of home and school.  Some religions espouse the idea of withdrawal from society - monks (catholic, Buddhist, ect) and nuns leave a life of societal norms for one of constant depravation in the form of conventional niceties like the way they dress, the things they eat, when they eat, where and when they spend their time, and especially celibacy.  For nuns, this with drawl from society seems to be more of a withdrawal from the ways of the world and the society's way of living; for monks, it seems to merge more closely with hermitage.

So, in this way, withdrawal from society is entirely possible for some people given their strengths and will power; some just choose not to because they fear there is too much to lose in giving up their material wealth in exchange for deeper meaning.  It is much harder to strive for the life of the hermit than to go with the flow of society's standards of living.  Society has made life so easy for humans in relatively recent years.  Various technological advances have made it easier to connect and interact with people, especially those in far away places.  Some people may have the ability to be a hermit based on their personality, their personal standards, their culture, et cetera, but choose not to for whatever reason, be it that they find their comfortable lives hard to leave because they are lazy or because they are afraid of failure.

3/6/12

Regarding the future, what gives you the greatest anxiety and what gives you the greatest comfort?  Discuss.

There are so, so many things about the future that I find terrifying, but I feel that all of them can be categorized as fear of the unknown.  This almost seems to be an innate fear that man possesses, for at some point in their lives, everyone is afraid of something; and it does not follow that a person would be afraid of that which they understand.  For me, this is the reason why the future gives me anxiety, because I have no idea what lies ahead and likewise no idea how to prepare myself for whatever my be in my future.  One personal yet somewhat superficial example is my current feelings in regards to college acceptance.  It is about that time of year when acceptance (or rejection) letters should be arriving in my mailbox.  According to the majority of the college websites, letters are to be mailed out by April 1st at the latest.  Now April 1st isn't even very far a way; in fact, April 1st is less than a month away.  Yet these 20 something days that I need to wait feel like an eternity to me because I have no idea what to expect.  If I didn’t have to wait so anxiously; If I knew by which colleges I would get rejected, by which I would be accepted, and from which I would receive scholarships, I would be able to be more prepared emotionally, mentally, ect.  Thus by knowing what would happen and being able to prepare myself I wouldn't want to worry so much.

Yet in the same breath, the unknown can also be comforting.  To a person who is born into a caste system, their future is set; they know what lies a head of them and, depending on where you are, this could be good or bad.  But how horrible would it be to know what is going to happen to you (or at least have a very good idea of what is going to happen to you) for the rest of your life.  So I guess in that way the unknown is also very comforting because although you don't know what's coming and can't always prepare yourself as well as you might like, there's always the hope that things will change and that you won't be stuck where  you are.  The future, although unknown to people, has the potential to bring hope for a "better tomorrow" and motivation to "try again", to "keep moving" and to keep changing and improving.

3/20/12

Can money buy happiness?  Discuss.

I suppose it depends on how one defines happiness, and possibly even how happiness is differentiated from other words that are rather similar - for example, joy.

I personally would define happiness as good feelings experienced based on whatever is happening in a given situation.  A person's happiness depends on whatever is happening at that specific moment in time. 

I would describe joy as an over all good feeling; it does not necessarily need to have anything to do with what is happening at that moment.

I reference yoga philosophy a lot, and I feel that it is very applicable here as well.  To me it seems that joy comes from a sense of inner peace and acceptance.  The current circumstances (or current happenings) may not be what you anticipated for them to be, but by accepting the situation and just letting it be what it is, one can experience a form of joy despite the unpleasantness that a situation may present.

Coming back to the original question, if happiness is defined as a feeling of joy that is based upon a certain situation, then yes, money can buy happiness.  At that specific moment in time, because you bought something you really wanted - or essentially got something you wanted; received some sort of gratitude from getting your way - you experience a good feeling at that specific point in time.  Money has bought your happiness.  But money cannot buy your internal peace, and therefore cannot buy you joy - a very different feeling from happiness.

3/22/12

Can the problems of economic activities and environmental protection ever by reconciled?  Discuss.

No, they can never be reconciled.  Economic theory revolves around individual self interest, while environmental preservation generally has to do with a degree of self-sacrifice.  For example, the heated debate of whether or not our country should consider off shore drilling was affected by the fairly recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  This is a classic example of economy versus environment.  In order to obtain oil to be used as fuel for motor vehicles, homes, ect, the environment is harmed by chemicals in the fossil fuels.  In this way, environmental harm is inescapable.  In Silent Spring, the chemical DDT and it's harmful (and even deadly) effects on the environment and all its inhabitants are brought to light in order to show that our commercial efforts in creating "better" cleaning products (an economic endeavor that attempts to get households to spend more on the latest in "cleaning technology") does not mix well with environmental factors.

One could argue that newer forms of energy are currently underway (electric cars for example) that supposedly are better for the environment.  But electric cars aren't exactly environmentally friendly if you have to charge an electric car by plugging it in to your house (which uses fossil fuels) to charge it, you're still using fossil fuels, and essentially no change to the environment has been made.  So even this attempt to reconcile our capitalist economy with "saving" the environment falls short.

3/23/12

While most of the world's religions offer some notion of eternal life, is the idea of living/existing forever at all frightening?

For me, it's just a crazy concept to imagine the possibility of forever, it's just strange to think about because of the way things are in this world.

From the time we're born to the time we die, we are constantly on a schedule.  A fetus goes through a nine month development period that begins at fertilization and ends with the exiting of the fully grown baby from the uterus.  We wake up when the sun rises or is already in the sky; we go to sleep when the sun goes down or it's already dark outside.  Plants and animals alike experienced an introduction into the world and will eventually be given an escape route.  Needless to say, the concept of finite time is engrained in us constantly, from the day we're born to the day we die.

As creatures of habit, humans take comfort in the idea of the familiar - an trusted friend, a family member, a dear possession…a repetitive schedule of set times and places.  Humans typically like to be prepared - they like to know what's going on, and that may possibly be an evolutionary defense  mechanism - the more aware you are of what's going on around you, the more able you are to protect yourself.

Because of this intrinsic nature to gravitate more towards the familiar, anything unknown is scary because it could potentially be bad.  The future is (generally) unknown, and so the idea of living forever could definitely be very scary.

3/26/12

What is your greatest fear and greatest hope regarding the future of technology.  Discuss.

I feel like some forms of technical advancements are necessary, and many of them have been helpful to society, such as advancements in transportation, medicine, et cetera.  Clearly, there's always room for improvement in these fields, so I guess my greatest hope for the future of technology is making the technology that we already have more efficient.  By this, I mostly mean more compatible with the environment, yet still able to function efficiently.  At this point, we have all sorts of technology for entertainment, for  medicine, for transportation, for security, but not all of it is "environment friendly".  Currently, I see no reason to create new technology (with the exception of in the medical field, we could always use new, more efficient technology in the medical field).  The technology that we already have is perfectly suited for it's function: making life more convenient.  We don't really need more convenience in our lives; there comes a point when convenience just becomes laziness.  Another hope is that this technological wealth could be more equally distributed among citizens.  The problem with technology is that its distribution is typically regulated by income - technology tends to be pretty pricy, and those of the lower income brackets tend to have to give up such life-enhancing products due to lack of extra spending money.

My greatest fear is that we as a society will become more reliant on technology that we already are.  In some cases, technology has become more of a crutch, no matter how helpful and expedient it is.  A perfect example, I think, is the computer, and - most significantly - the internet.  Search engines such as google make a wealth of information available to just about anyone with just a few key strokes and the click of a button.  Students today, though, have a lot of trouble looking for information in books.  Students often groan when they see that, for their research project, only 3 out of 10 sources that they have to have for their necessary citations can be from online sources.  The reason why students would have this reaction is not necessarily because they hate print media altogether (many adolescents love books, actually) but because they have never actually had to search for information in print sources - it's something entirely new to them.  Therefore, they're stepping into unfamiliar territory.  This is only one example of how society's reliance on technology has become more of a crutch in recent years.  Seeing this reliance, my fear is that one day people will be unable to think for themselves.  Not because they would be unintelligent all together, but because they would be too lazy.  They would want life to be so easy to the point where they're not even thinking independently or making their own choices any more; they're being spoon-fed facts, ideas, and opinions; they'd be told what to think.  And this terrifies me because it makes me think of what kind of horrible things could happen if the wrong person came into power.  Hitler won over the hearts of millions with his charisma and flawless orations; the people of Germany were so desperate for freedom from the extreme economic depression in their country that they were willing to believe anything he told them.  He was going to bring back the old Germany; he was going to make Germany powerful again.  And yet, he destroyed the lives of millions of others.  I can only imagine what a man (or woman) of similar merit and sentiment could accomplish.  Brainwashing an uninformed society would be easy; this political leader would only have to sound like they had all the answers.

3/27/12

While considered appropriate (and even humane) with animals, is euthanasia morally justified with humans?  Discuss.

I think euthanasia is justified in humans, but only to the extent that the person receiving euthanasia treatment requests it.  If a person does not want to die, that person shouldn't have to.  We consider life to be one of the most fundamental human rights.  But to me, it seems that death is a part of life, no matter how paradoxical that may seem.  For that reason, I believe that we also have the right to death if we choose it.  A person who wants to die - especially someone who experiences chronic, agonizing pain, be it physical or emotional - has the right to die.  In fact, I would go as far to say that it is unethical to deny a person in extreme pain this right to death if they so request it.  Many would say that it is unethical to inflict unnecessary pain.  In denying a person the right to euthanasia, unnecessary pain is being inflicted based on the fact that an individual is forced to live in a condition of chronic suffering until God (or the fates, or the universe, or whatever higher power -if there is one) decides to ease their pain.

3/28/12

What are the prospects for there being other intelligent life in the universe?  Discuss.

I personally think that the possibility that there is intelligent life else where in the universe is very likely.  In fact, I would go even further to venture that it is foolish to believe that humans are the only intelligent life forms in an extremely vast and ever-expanding universe.

Scientists are already starting to test whether or not humans are the only intelligent life on earth itself.  Although the results are not complete, they do suggest that other species have the potential to be just as intelligent, if not more intelligent.  Tests on animals such as octopi, dolphins, and whales have indicated that those aforementioned animals possess intelligence of some form or another.  (For example, as I have mentioned before, octopi have proven themselves to be excellent problem solvers and have found ways to escape captivity on many occasions).  And when brain size is considered, it maybe possible that other species here on earth possess some form of intelligence as well.  Humans consider themselves to be the most intelligent.  Dogs are considered to be less intelligent than humans.  The brains of dogs are smaller than humans.  So on with mice and other rodents; dogs are more intelligent than mice, and the brains of dogs are significantly larger than mice.  And so on with insects, and even microbes, and single celled organism.  The trend is that as the brain gets smaller and smaller, the animal exhibits less and less capacity for intelligence.  Considering how much larger a dolphin's brain is compared to that of a human, or a whale's brain, or even an elephant's brain, and considering the trend of brain size compared to capacity of intelligence, I feel that it is entirely possible that there is more intelligent life here, on our home planet.

So considering all of these examples of potential intelligence here that most humans do not even consider, there absolutely is a strong chance that there are other life forms in the far corners of universe, especially intelligent life.  The universe is huge, the other planets and stars have had just as much time to form and grow as ours.  Just taking into consideration the vastness of the universe, and the fact that the universe is still expanding today, I think it's foolish and even pompous to think that humans possess the only intelligent life, and even to think that intelligent life can only be found on earth, even if other species are included in the equation.