Response to Aly's post "Conception"

Your post about the conception of our universe reminded me of the statement "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" How much of our lives can we credit with psychological invent? Certainly mentally impaired individuals have a different reality they experience on a daily basis.  Furthermore, people under the influence of narcotics or hallucinogens vehemently insist their experiences are reality.  Who is to say what is true then.  This also reminds me of the constant conundrum I consider in regards to recognition of colors.  While we can say the ink is black, we can never know if we all have the same color in mind or to the same shade or degree. 

 I also agree that it is absolutely frightening to think that all we experience or interact with are formations made by our mind.  Are our experiences half reality half constructs?  One thing is for certain, we will never definitively know.  If you ever lie (don't recommend it) and perpetuate the lie so its validity becomes skewed to you, have you voluntarily contributed to this fallacy? 

Suppressed Potential as a Result of SOcial Circumstances

We also discussed yesterday the correlation between infantile tendencies and the structure of people's everyday lives.  Are our "infantile tendencies" to question our purpose and functions of the world suppressed in adulthood by social circumstances?  If a person's potential is stifled by the consumer culture we are bound to live by, what is the outlook for future generations?  I personally know a woman who I would classify a victim in this situation.  She is a "happy menial worker" stuck in the confines of economic and social constraints, in which she gauges happiness relative to the system of our perverted culture.  Her and her husband each work a minimum of 40 hours a week and they make decent wages.  They also have a young child.  She is happy in every respect, given she is able to purchase goods and services to satisfy her and her family's needs.  She has very rarely expressed any true interest in advancing; citing she can live a good life with her current situation.  Is she a pawn in the cyclical wheel of a consumer oriented working dependent society? 

Would a person who desires betterment or personal expansion, but is hindered by the very forces they attempt to overcome (finances, societal pressures, etc.) be classified by this?  What if they said "I am not happy"- are they void of this concept no longer naïve to the constraints but lacking the ability to apply themselves appropriately?

Pursuit of Knowledge vs. Project Achievers

I will begin the last week of blogging addressing a couple abstract concepts that we discussed in class.  Being the first post of the week I will begin with my shortest and weakest.  We discussed in class last week and this week about educational perceptions and the individual's intentions regarding academics.  We touched lightly on the subject again on Monday, although the constructs were variant.   Dr. Johnson asked; Are we as people on a lifelong journey in pursuit of knowledge, or are we all project achievers (he noted that knowledge can be a project). Obviously I began pondering this notion.  To which category should we classify ourselves? Would it vary on an individual basis, or is the very question an attempt to explain humanity as an entirety?  Furthermore, is the categorization that a person dedicates their life in pursuit of knowledge a highly specialized description that pertains to exclusive groups or individuals? (given that "project achievers" can assume knowledge as their project).  Who would be considered resolute to obtain knowledge; Albert Einstein, various philosophers, Monks? What groups or organizations do you know exist for the sole purpose of enhancing knowledge?

A Response to A Conglomoration of Posts and General Concepts

After reading around some of the various posts from last week and this week, I wanted to just offer some thoughts I was having about a topic that is frequently discussed.  The tendency for philosophers to insert a "God" to fill gaps in arguments occurs quite often.  I wonder just how many philosophers insert a deity into their theories?  How does this affect the credence of the arguments, when from the perspective of an atheist or of another religious denomination? The theory of human nature I find most valid is Darwin's, due to foundations in science and fact.  I will (subconsciously) dismiss a theory because God is given credit. How can a theory be adhered to if components of the theory attribute great explanations to an idea that cannot be proven? For example, maybe a poor one, but if I was eating a salad and enjoying all the delicious components, really understanding why it was so appealing to me and then I notice throughout the salad little vile squiggly worms.  The addition of the off-putting ingredient would cause me to reject the salad as a whole entity.  I may still have sentiment for the lettuce and vegetables but my sentiment for eating the contents of the bowl are now gone.  This is the way I feel about theories that incorporate religious figures.  Like a delicious salad, appetizing and appealing until you notice the worms. 

Discussion-based Topic

Professor Johnson was discussing on Wednesday that systemic obstacles exist in how we think of education.  The common mistake (for lack of a better word) made by students is the goal to achieve success based on numerical grading as opposed to actual educational and intellectual gain. 

I inquire, how distracting is the narrow objective of obtaining scrupulous grades?  Does it completely hinder acquisition of true knowledge and obliterate critical thought?  Is life so consumed with the occupation that its creates a further barrier from not only academic alternatives but pervades to all facets of ones actions?   Myself, I strive for nothing less than academic excellence, however I do recognize I am making negative concessions in regards to the totality of educational possibilities.  How would you characterize yourself?

Kant's World

We discussed on Monday some of the views of Kant.  One of particular interest was his belief that the world has no character until we, as sentient beings, give it one.  I certainly can understand the origins of this statement; if I deduce all components of our lives (material, natural, geographical, etc.) I clearly understand that the very core structure of life is composed of many facets constructed by various organisms.  When standing alone in the wilderness we feel the wind, hear the wildlife, and smell nature.  These are perceived as evidence that the world is defined BEFORE us, however the inverse is true.  As humans we impose ourselves on the world; we organize the chain of cause in all realms of life.  Because my act of standing and observing and perceiving defines the natural world, I am, in essence, creating a subjective world that is dictated by my thoughts and actions.  Do you think this is a fair example, or am I completely mislead?

Response to Siearra's Post

I want to write this post to wholeheartedly agree with Siearra's post "The Importance of Science".  She discusses how she agrees with Darwin's perspective because he recognized that as humans all our actions are determined by scientific origins.  Thus, our "human nature" is then a perpetual cycle or continuation of the biologic constructs. Religious sanctions that attempt to explain our origins or actions absolutely cannot compete with scientific fact.  There exist so many religious disciplines, all with their own interpretations of life and death.  To ascribe to one makes a distinction and disregards other opinions, whereas in science the facts presented can be tested and proven or disproved.   While Siearra states that religious explanations of human nature "fail to take into consideration these crucial scientific factors and therefore are missing key points in their analyses", I believe that not only do they fail to do take into consideration the scientific points, they omit them intentionally.  Science would disprove every religious doctrine, so therefore they disregard them to "save face" and not be confronted by contrasting ideals.  I further believe that their "analysis" of human nature is nothing more than a formulated set of rules used to persuade and control masses of people, and does NOT work to explain or better interpret the universe.