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.
No comments:
Post a Comment