2/1/12
In light of reading Aristotle's Politics, do we still have forms of slavery in the U.S. today? Why or why not? Discuss.
Although the slave trade was abolished in 1808, in away, slavery has not been completely eradicated. The role of "housewife" could almost be seen as slavery. For a while now, it has been the societal norm that men go off to work and have lives outside the home while women stay at home and tend to the keeping of the house and the needs of the husband and the children. Essentially she has no time to do what she truly desires to do, and in that way because she has no freedom to pursue her own interests like her husband and children do, she is not free. The wife is expected to meet the needs of everyone in her family but herself. In the past, women were even considered second class citizens. Although women are considered citizens by the US and are given various rights such as the right to vote, they are not necessarily free. Women and men are born equal. They are intrinsically the same; the only striking difference between the two is anatomy. Men and women alike have desires. How is it, then, that women should be expected to forfeit their desires while men are allowed to pursue them? In this way, women, at this juncture, are still in bondage according to their gender. Even though at this point it is socially acceptable for women to be in the work place, it is not nearly as socially acceptable for men to stay at home and help with the care of the house and the children. House work is still considered an inferior sphere, and because of this it is fine for women to stay at home but not nearly as okay for men.
2/3/12
Consider what your favourite genre of art is (be the medium literature, film, music, or art). What is the nature of the pleasure you derive from it?
My favourite art form is music. My musical taste adjusts frequently to suit the events and circumstances of my life, and also my moods and feelings. But the genre that I will always love listening to is probably what most would consider classical music. I love the complexity that each piece is rife with. The way the sounds of each instrument are layered together reminds me, in a way, of the complexity of life and humanity. These notes, chords, and rhythms can be played in such a way that creates a disastrous cacophony; without order and structure, there is great discord and disagreement in the music. Yet, when all the instrumentalists are able to agree on what to play and when to play, they create beautiful harmonies and melodies, with each sound and each note complementing and enhancing the peace not just for the greater good of one player or the greater good of the orchestra, but also for the greater good of all those who choose to listen.
I love listening to classical music because of the depth and emotions that it has the potential to embody. In the hands of an amateur, a cello can sound screechy and scratchy as the student attempts to play. But when a more experienced cellist sits down to play is or her instrument, he/she causes the cello to release deep, warm, and mellow tones that go right to the pit of the listener's stomach and the depths of his/her heart. Such instruments as this, all very common in classical music, emanate feelings and emotions strong enough to move a person to smile or cry.
This form of music embodies the complexities in thoughts, feelings and emotions that surround and embody the human psyche, humanity, and the process of life in general.
2/6/12
What is the nature of the enjoyment that people derive from watching sports? Discuss.
I've heard it said that all animals kill, or at least, hurt other beings. Yet it seems that only the exceptionally intelligent ones kill for pleasure. Among these "intelligent organisms" that have been known to stalk prey for pure entertainment are dolphins, octopi, and humans. Octopi are actually very intelligent, with incredible problem solving skills - they have been masters of escaping captivation on many occasions. In some situations, octopi have been found strangling sharks for no apparent reason. Dolphins, highly relational and emotional animals, have been found killing porpoises for no true purpose and even playing with the carcasses afterwards. And then comes Homo sapiens. Humans, as we all know, are intelligent creatures known for their enlarged frontal lobes of the brain, which have to do with cognition, reasoning, emotions, et cetera. Humans are known not only for hunting other animals for fun, but also for harming each other for entertainment. In sports such as the gladiator games or even football, people compete against other people with violent displays of valor. People who cannot or do not participate in such games live vicariously through those who can and do. But what is the relationship between this increased intelligence and needless violence? This behavior could be an outlet for built-up emotions and stress that other animals of lesser intelligence do not experience - or at least, not to the same capacity. People look forward to going home at the end of the day and watching football, wrestling, boxing, and the like on TV. They watch as people face their opponents and confront their problems - just as the average human being wishes he/she could do in every day life.
2/7/12
Regarding things that are pleasant, is it better to give or receive? Discuss.
When you ask a person questions of a similar nature, they usually always say that they prefer giving nice gifts than receiving nice gifts. Usually they would explain their rationale by saying that they "feel good" when they see how happy it makes the other person. But is this feeling genuine? Do people give to make others feel good or to make themselves feel good? It almost seems like people who go out of their way to achieve this "feeling" that they get when they see others happy is more an act of one trying to appease his or her own desires to build up self confidence and self worth. People feel like they are suddenly better people when they do nice things for others, but this may not always be the case. Giving for the sake of the betterment of others is one thing, but giving to gratify yourself and build up your own self esteem is another.
Also, such explanations for why people like to give as "it makes me feel good to see how happy the other person is" could very well be false. No one wants to seem like a selfish jerk, so of course everyone who wants to appear to be a decent human being would say that it is better to give than to receive. This is also a form of self gratification because the person who offers this answer will always look like a good person and maintain a good reputation.
2/9/12
Does human behavior (not intelligence - behavior) indicate that we are more like animals or an all together separate creature? Discuss.
In many ways, humans still are very much like animals in their behavior, but they are also very different. Humans are born with instincts just as animals are; for example, when a baby is hungry, it cries for food. If the baby does not cry, it cannot receive proper sustenance and nourishment. Humans have instincts to reproduce, just as animals do, but because of the cognitive nature of human beings, we often attach emotions and meanings to the need to reproduce. While animals seem to be able to reproduce indiscriminately, the intelligent and comprehensive nature of humans have led men and women to attach feeling to this act - often, we consider it acceptable for people to only have one significant other, and often the result of a man or a woman having multiple significant others results in heartbreak and bad feelings. Interestingly enough, this sort of thing is very natural in the animal world.
Yet, these thoughts and feelings are only a result of man's intelligent nature; humans, like other animals, need to survive and reproduce. Those are the two main goals in life, no matter what Phylum, Kingdom, or Class an organism hails from. Humans exhibit an instinctual need to thrive in the world, just as other organisms do. The only difference is the emotional hang-ups and attachments they add as a result of their cognitive nature.
2/10/12
What are the qualities of a leader and do you have them? Discuss.
Some people might see a true leader as someone who is outspoken; someone who always has an answer to every question and who has the "charisma" or the "will power" to push their own agenda into effect. I disagree.
A leader maybe someone who takes charge, who defends a principle behind which he or she stands, or someone who is not afraid to put themselves out there, to put their own reputations and lives on the line for the greater good of the community, and even humanity. This may seem a bit idealistic, but we have seen such great qualities as these in many people who would be considered great leaders, even if they lead in a less conspicuous way. I believe that mother Teresa was possibly one of the world's most powerful leaders. She lead not with the attitude that her stance was ultimately the "right one", not with the purpose of recognition or fame, but with humility and kindness in her heart. Her goal was not to be a leader, and yet that was what she became for many.
I think that is a true leader - one who steps up in a time of need when they see that no one else intends to. True leaders attempt to act selflessly, understanding that not just one person or a few people, but that many people are being affected. People such as Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., et cetera are true leaders. Their purpose is to take care of the people of the world, not to lord power over them. People follow the paths of these individuals because they respect them. These individuals have earned said respect for their honorable notions, their selflessness, and their humility as human beings. Human beings with such qualities are almost revered. Leaders with such qualities are seem to be more and more rare to come by in recent times; it almost appears that some leaders are only in it for the power and the glory.
I don't know for sure whether or not I have these specific qualities. I hope I do because what I'm planning to do with my life seems to kind of fall into line with the principles of Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. I've been thinking a lot about being a doctor, possibly participating in the Peace Corps, and maybe (hopefully) becoming involved with the Doctors without Boarders program. At this point, it is probably kind of hard to tell whether or not I have these characteristics, especially to the extent that those individuals expressed them. Hopefully throughout my life, if I do have those characteristics, they grow and develop, helping me to become the leader in my field that I aspire to be. If I were to become a leader at some point in my life, I would want to be the kind that leads quietly and humbly; standing by my principles and exercising my powers and skills for the greater good of humanity.
2/13/12
What is the nature or humans choosing (not accidents) to have children? Discuss.
Some might describe the human desire to reproduce as instinctual - it's basic evolutionary principle, all animals have the drive to produce viable and fertile offspring so that their species may continue to strive and survive. While this is probably true with Homo sapiens, there's another element that is different from this common drive to survive. Humans are separated into the species Homo sapiens based on their evolved cognitive abilities. They have the same instincts as other animals do - to eat, to sleep, to become the "alpha male" (or female) - to survive. Yet, the cognitive and reasoning abilities of humans have lead them to attach ideas, opinions, and emotions to these common instincts.
This attachment changes the situation from simply populating the earth to an emotional decision that often requires such abstract concepts as trust and love. Of course, motherly and fatherly instincts play a role in choosing to bear and raise children, but for humans it seems to have a different meaning than it does for most species. While animals may form bonds with their children for a short time after giving birth to their offspring, this bond does not seem to last for a very long time. Whereas with humans, whether you like it or not, you have a bond with your family intrinsically created at birth. Your family is always there, even when they are not physically there. You have a bond with them from the day you are born until the day you (or they) die. This is not so with animals - animals are with their parents for a short time, and after that time, they are on their own to sew their own seeds.
In a way, it simply is what it is. People are animals, there is no way to deny it. We have the same basic needs as animals, we just attach emotional meaning to everything due to our more developed emotional capacities and our need to add reason and meaning to life. This almost leads into the argument of whether or not life has meaning. I personally go back and forth between whether or not life has meaning, sometimes looking at it in terms of science and sometimes in terms of faith. But I digress. Humans attach emotions to basic animal instincts - this is neither inherently good, nor is it inherently bad. It simply is what it is.
2/14/12
Especially after reading Augustine, what is the basis for determining what is evil in the world? Discuss
I don't really know how to answer this question - it's a multifaceted idea that can be taken in many directions. I feel like evil can be defined as the absence of good. It's kind of a strange concept, this question. I feel like in order to answer it, we need to first answer the question of whether or not humans or innately good, innately bad, or possibly neither.
Some people may believe that humans are born pure, with a good and Godly nature and are then corrupted by the evils in life. But if this is so, then where do said evils come from? Wouldn't it follow that if all human beings are born without evil, then there would be no evil in the world to corrupt? Something cannot be created from nothing.
There are also those who believe that humans are innately evil. Some branches of Christianity would fall into this line of thought - Jonathan Edwards and his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" comes to mind. Yet, we encounter a similar problem here - if all people are born bad, then how is it that there are good people like mother Teresa and Gandhi in the world? If all you've ever known from the day you were born is evil and sin, how could you possibly come to be a good person?
The same reasoning may be applied to people being born neither good nor evil - just a clean slate. In this situation, there is neither good nor evil, so how is it that there are examples of both good and bad in the world?
Maybe it's that there is an ample amount of good and evil in everyone. Maybe all people aren't innately good nor are all people innately evil - maybe there's a mixture of people who are innately good and people who are innately evil, leading to the mixture of good and evil that we see in the world today.
And maybe it's that there is really no evil. Maybe evil is a creation of society. I recall from Grapes of Wrath that the old preacher Jode comes across has a mentality to this effect. I believe he professed something along the lines of he didn't believe in evil or good actions anymore. He used to think that way when he was younger and still preaching, but that later in his life as he experienced more he abandoned that way of thinking. Instead, he believes that all actions are neutral - there are no good people or bad people; good actions or bad actions. There are just people and the things they do.
I'm particularly interested in this idea because it's one that's fairly new to me. All my life I've been told, since I was a child in Sunday school, about good and evil; God and sin; heaven and hell. I like this sort of non-dualistic thinking because it avoids the logical fallacy of false dilemma. But I digress. I feel like there are too many possibilities for this question to be answered definitively. I think I'd rather be non-dualistically wishy-washy and open to multiple ideas about good and evil than dualistic, dogmatic, and close minded about the issue. I feel like there's a lot more to be learned and discussed in the grey areas of this issue. So in this way, I guess I am saying (for the time being) that good and evil are just concepts created by society.
2/23/2012
On Death. Discuss.
It almost seems as if humans have an infatuation with death despite their fears. The speaker brought up books of the dead and rituals. I really like what he said about Philosophy - to philosophize is to learn how to die and to learn how to die is to free ones self from slavery. Freedom means accepting the constraints of one's reality. If I recall correctly, the Stoics saw life as a giant feast - one must live life to the fullest. Yet, they also saw death as a way to say thank you to life. This is a particularly interesting concept to me, and a concept that I personally really like - I find it very profound. I feel like this way of thinking goes hand in hand with what this guy is saying. People treat death as if it's something to be avoided. Of course fear of death is natural - humans will always fear the unknown; it's part of reality. But as fear of the unknown is reality, the unknown and death itself are also realities.
Going back to what he said that linked death and one's freedom. This almost seems like a paradox - how can acceptance of death free a human soul? But in the same breath, it makes sense. By running from an inevitable fate, by attempting to avoid that which is literally unavoidable, you make yourself more afraid than is necessary. When you don't accept that death is real and that death happens to everyone, you make yourself a slave to the avoidance of death.
Even in the process of avoiding death, one is still dying. From the day we are born, everyone in the world is dying. From the moment life is created in the womb, life is also dwindling - death accompanies time.
To be aware of death is neither to be with or without fear - to be aware of death is to acknowledge that death is reality - it will happen to everyone. Although fear is inevitable, avoidance is not. The only way to acknowledge death is not to dwell on death itself, but to live life to the fullest - to examine one's life, to enjoy and be thankful for every additional day of life granted. As the Stoics said - death is a way to say thank you to life. Living everyday like it's your last - in other words, not avoiding death by pretending that you are immortal, or assuming that you have more time than you are granted - that is how you say thank you to life. That, to me is how you live the examined life - living consciously versus frivolously, considering life yet always remembering that life is not eternal.
2/24/12
Reality, what is real, how we know it's real. Discuss.
What is reality in itself really like? This question that was posed to me is interesting. The man in the video brought up all of the processes that we use to measure our reality, like mathematics, physics, chemistry, and then begins to point out some of the ways in which those measurements are limiting. Can we ever really and truly know what a thing is or what it is like? Can we ever truly know ourselves? It seems like all we can ever really know about the world and about ourselves are the few characteristics that we have been able to discover.
I feel that we never can truly know the nature of ourselves or the rest of the world because everything and everyone is constantly experiencing change. Theorems change, new theorems are added (mathematically, scientifically, what have you). People and animals constantly change. You are not the same person going to bed at night as you were waking up in the morning. Even in such a short time span as 24 hours, events and experiences and even changes in the body which happen throughout the day change a person, even if it is just the tiniest bit. So if this constant change is occurring and will occur continuously, how is it that we think we can truly know ourselves, others, and our world? It takes time to learn new things, and even to realize that a change has occurred. If all this additional information and change is happening to people and the world, a person can continually attempt to learn about the true nature of people and the world, but you can never truly know everything.
Another interesting concept he brought up was whether or not our experiences - what we see, hear, feel, ect - are real. One thing this made me think of was dreams. Some dreams can seem so real, down to the people who are in the dream and their characterizations, the sights, the sounds, and so on. Is it possible that all of this that we see everyday is just an incredibly vivid dream? This thought brings two movies to mind - the Matrix and Inception. And I feel like they both can be considered the two extremes - waking up from a dream (which is considered "reality") and burrowing further and further into a dream that you can't even distinguish between what is real and what is dream. Some times I wonder if the matrix idea is real, if all of this is just a pointless dream. Some times events and experiences don't feel real in my life - it almost seems like I'm just alone in a movie theater somewhere, watching a film of my life just playing out on the screen. It's almost like having an outer body experience. Sometimes this disconnect between reality (or what I perceive to be reality) leads me to ponder whether or not what I'm experiencing is real. But most days I avoid the thoughts, mindlessly moving through the day and hoping that there's more to life than just sleeping and dreaming in a little cocoon, just like in the Matrix.
