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.