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. 

More Darwin- Memes

I want to explore how social memes can impact our human practices.  Dom brought up an interesting though in class; could changing mortality rates of infants impact genetic patterns? If a country has a very high rate of infant mortality (or if we just reference history here- say 1800s or early 1900s) does a link exist between this fact and the amount of children produced?  In today's society many people choose one or two children because they are comfortable with the fact that their children will be healthy enough to live into adulthood.  This then, is a result of human practices changing in regards to medicinal advances, not necessarily genetic or evolutionary components.  What other memes could support this example?  Are there any other human practices that are influenced by changes or advances in modern society, that could be mistaken for adaptive genetic dispositions?  Do you think this is contradictory to the quote Pojman uses that "our behavior is biologically influenced- even determined. So ethical principles and moral theory are little more than rationalizations of genetic programming"?

Playing with words, Darwin

We talked in class the other day about memes the their origin in social constructs.  I found it particularly interesting that memes, while removed from primal biological sources, are a component created from our biologic tendencies.  We discussed language in particular.  The fact that we have a innate genetic disposition to create some form of communicative ability creates the origin of the meme of language.  (Language not being the meme, the particular language spoken is the meme- such as Spanish/French etc.). Dr. Johnson then raised a very interesting topic- what if two words that are different have the same meaning?  (such as world and peace).  I started to think how this would affect our inclinations towards understanding the words themselves and also the greater concepts.  I encountered a conundrum, however, when I went back to the organic structure of the word.  If we are taught "world" to mean the exact same things as "peace", there would be no differentiating or subliminal association between the words. The words would simply mean the same exact thing.  What we associated with "peace" would be the exact object we would associate with "world"- and no special descriptions would contribute. 

Response to Deven's Post- Existentialism

I am responding to Deven's post "Secular Rebuttal to Existentialism ". I will start by saying I enjoyed the concept you brought up, and find credence in the argument.  The case it supports provides a greater understanding of the views associated with existentialism; and works to provide an alternate perspective that I can embrace.  I wondered after reading your passage- Who deciphers the constitution of objective purpose? Wouldn't any qualifications or strengths of arguments be formulated from subjective views?  If "meaning" or "value" is ascribed to any totality of life, wouldn't they be formulations as the result of an overwhelming subjective consensus?  I often consider subjective and objective to be interrelated, a possible mistake on my part but I am convinced neither can exist without the other. 

Sartre's Rejection of the Unconscious- relating to dreams

Sartre is very committed to his concept of freedom void of any predisposition (determinism).  He even rejects the scientifically supported notion that dreams are controlled by our unconscious.  What would this mean then, that even while we rest our mind is wide awake and able to make decisions?  Do we never truly sleep?  I might be completely misunderstanding what the concept means, and if you know better what the reaches of Sartre's ideas are please offer your opinion.  To what did Sartre credit dreams? How did he feel it contributed to our personal essence? If we freely choose our dreams would that take a recognizable selection before we lay down to establish the course of the night's dreams?

Pojman's examples of our "absurd" life

As Pojman explained the components of existentialism, he offered a very good paragraph for discussion. He was adding to the example Camus cited in explaining our "absurd" life.  Camus compared the human existence to that of Sisyphus in Greek mythology; as "tedious, boring, meaningless, and full of never-ending toil."  Pojman offers his own example which he believed to be consistent with the ideology outlined by existentialism.  He believed that the lifestyle of a person who works a mundane job 5x a week exemplified the absurd life.  He called them "mindless" and condemned to perpetuate the cycle due to the "grim need to earn a livelihood".  I wondered, does this description only apply to those who are financially dependent on the absurd life? What if one is economically stable and chooses to operate in this fashion- strictly for structure in their daily practices?  Are the questions (or variables) of this scenario contradictory to the concise example Camus gave? Is the difference too distinct to say that Pojman's example contributes to a greater understanding of the absurd life?

Freud, Again.

I cannot help but ponder the notion that Freud had a personal sentiment that male superiority not only existed, but is the catalyst for all human nature.  I may be completely misdirected with my impression, however, I recognized the undeniable fact that Freud cites the creation of women and God after man.  His passage regarding womens' initial psyche centralized on "penis envy" and rejection of their personal genitalia/feminitiy was rather chauvinistic.  To make inferences of an entire gender, encompassing ALL women, that their innate desires are to be a man and when they are unable and accept this reality, spend their lives looking up to the image of man.  Was Freud simply attempting to explain the origins of the human race, that women were the "offspring" or deviation from the originator (man).  Or did he operate that men were superior and determined the majority of social and emotional interactions?  Did you not find this to be a component in his argument at all, am I over analyzing his content and making false evaluations?

Continuing Freud- More Personal/Biased/Judgemental Views of Mine

I had one more issue I wanted to evaluate in regard to Pansexuality: Are "sexual revolutions" just an acknowledgment of a person's innate design? How is a woman's psychology generated on the premise that sexuality determines her actions, and furthermore how much of her psychological stability is truly affected by restrictions to her sexual freedom from cultural influences?  I read in a sociology paper once that by biological design women are restricted in number of sexual partners due to the length of gestation and lactation; whereas men are naturally more able to procreate rather quickly.  The bonds females form with their offspring is deeper due to the length, requirements, and experiences of pregnancy and men, while the understand a responsibility to their offspring cannot identify to the same degree with their child.  I have heard men say "I want to spread my seed" "Have a lot of babies", etc.  Have you ever heard a woman say "I want to have as many children as I physically can with as many men as I can"? Certainly not.  Some people do ascribe to this lifestyle, but I am not sure it is a result of their conscious decision, maybe just a compromise in their morals or promiscuous lifestyle. (I apologize for being judgmental, I have a daughter and have a very strong relationship with her father that we both intend to continue throughout our lives; based on our mutual belief that a strong family structure is crucial to human development and well being) I cannot understand men or women who procreate with multiple people- their actions seems reckless without any consideration for the impact it will have on the lives they create. Another issue that could be analyzed is polygamy.  What are your feelings about the polygamist lifestyle in regards to physical, mental, and emotional stability of the parties involved? (including the man, the women, and the offspring).

Freud's Pansexuality

I am sure this concept outlined in Freud's theory of human nature has received an overwhelming amount of attention. (It was the first topic of class discussion today) I am referring to Pansexuality- the belief that everything in life is caused by our sexual instincts.  There is an undeniable presence in modern culture of sexual innuendos, images, and blatant depictions that cause a physical and mental arousal (arousal can be dually defined in this statement) that play on our overt and suppressed desires.  I have heard arguments that attempt to explain the cause of war; asserting and securing ones masculinity. Furthermore, guns stand as phallic symbols and when used in conjunction with the source of conflict (preserving masculinity and enacting dominance) serve as a visual representation of a man holding his penis.
What are the indications that relate to historical examples? There are cave drawings and Greek statues that blatantly refer to sexual matters.   Can we then say that the genesis of man is due to sexual contact and that we exist to perpetuate the cycle and that all other aspects of life are generated by our basic needs?

How does the concept of Pansexuality relate to those select few who have renounced sexual encounters all together- to focus on intellectual or relational strength as opposed to coital measures?

Response To Devin's Post "Fear of Marxism"

I am responding to Devin Philbrick's post "Fear of Marxism" where he examines the origins of cultural fear in Karl Marx's doctrines. I will only offer my short opinion; as I feel inferior in argument to you.  I am strictly offering my opinion based on my personal experience, and while I will apply the overall impression to the masses I do not defend my convictions to others.  When I was growing up "Marxism" was always used with a derogatory connotation.  As a child my assimilation into the ideas of Marxism only went as far as the historical relation to the Soviet Union.  As far as opposition to his distinct ideals; I would say it is naivety as a result of cultural fear imparted on us at a young age. (whether intentional or unintentional I am not apt to say).  It is always easier to accept a simple concept (such as Marxism = Soviet Union/Communism/Negativity) as opposed to truly exploring what  aspects of the concept lead the group to their practices (as no person or enterprise fully adheres to any set concept)

Another Class-Influenced Thought Experiment

My narrative on the next class discussion will incorporate a more social foundation, one constructed on experiencing Western customs and not necessarily grounded on historical or biblical accuracy.  We discussed consumerism and its role in inhibiting change over time.  This forced me to examine our cultural practices regarding certain holiday celebrations.  Regarding Christmas and Easter, both religiously based concepts, they have both transformed into an industry based on consumerism- separate (for the masses at least) from adherence to religious parameters.  The industry that Christmas has created will only expand or grow exponentially in our culture due to consumerism.  Consumerism has even pervaded the minute religious facets that still remain in these practices.  There are products produced with depictions of religious figures, which appeal to the few that respect the holidays origin- and compel them to purchase the item in a demonstration of their support.  A more obscure example is the production of Christmas flowers (poinsettias).  As with all other industry led production; the seasonal availability of certain items are regulated to maximize profit.  The flowers are mass produced during the corresponding occasion with the intent to generate excessive monetary return.  Easter is also commercially driven; I honestly cannot begin to cite all the examples of the perversion that Western society has imposed with commercialism and consumerism on all aspects of personal conviction or practice.  The statement is true- consumerism does inhibit change over time.  How are we to develop or transform our culture if we are constantly fed products that are marketed to appeal to us, and are determined by an industry not by individual preference.

Influenced by Class Discussion Relating to Marxism

Admittedly, I am unsure of the exact relation of this next concept to Marxism. We touched on the concept of using process to improve yourself (such as forcing yourself to smile), but where it falls in relation to category of this concept is unclear.  I do want to explore the power of self enterprise in changing ones current circumstance.  A few questions are raised when I consider the capabilities of such a practice; Is the impact of psychological betterment universal to all humans? What contributory factors impact the capacity for said betterment? (wealth, health, any variation regarding sex, ethnicity) Also where does modern medicine for depression or anxiety exist in this idea?  Furthermore- explore the basis and practice for the placebo effect. Is using psychology a personally motivated placebo? Is a placebo founded on being unaware of the lack of assistance? 
There does seem to be one instance in which the will to increase emotional or physical well being is successful.  Through the power of prayer many find that their demeanor is affected and they have an improved outlook.  Is this due to the "spiritual healers", God, pastors, preachers, televangelists? Or are we solely responsible for taking outside influences and internalizing them to our own betterment?

Response to Sarah Jones's Response

I am responding to Sarah Jones's post from last week's discussion regarding our consumption of non human animals.  She was responding to someone else's post- so virtually this is a response to a response of a response.   Sarah makes a valid point that may truly be in our human nature to be compelled to consume the meat of other species. Is that not how other species survive? Bears eat fish and lions eat antelope do they not? However, humans' inhumane manner of commercial slaughter and gross misuse of the species for our gluttonous sustenance is revolting.
   Both Sarah and I practice vegetarianism, so this enables us to see the debate from a different perspective. We are so assimilated culturally to consume meat- it is the focal point of numerous occasions (turkey at Thanksgiving, ham at Christmas, corned beef  St. Patricks Day etc.) I wonder if it is simply an expected social convention or a practice we are forced to endure. As with any personal decision there are social influences that work against our convictions.  Turn on the television and you will be inundated with images of hamburgers, steaks, seafood, chicken, and bacon.  We are continually stimulated to react with hunger and salivation from these images; all in a ploy to perpetuate a system of commercialism and the sale of livestock for financial gain.

State and society' s purpose in our lives.

I want to explore the state and society’s role in our lives, citing Hobbes and Rousseau for examples.  If we follow the optimistic view and resign that the government enacts what they feel is in the interest of the people, and the state exists as a “necessary evil” to determine what will be good for the masses (even if the people do not realize it themselves), does this take away or challenge the free will of the innately good?  If a doctrine is enforced that I do not agree with am I expected to sit idly by and allow it to exist? I understand that Rousseau recognized goodness can be corrupted by poor environmental factors, but would the initial opposition be the result of aggressive personality that my beliefs are above others?  If I am altruistic and believe that public assistance is beneficial to social stability, I do not see any negative result of people being financially supported by the government- does this not seem partially naïve? Wouldn’t it be “natural” for me to question the credence or validity of this lifestyle and the effect or contribution that it has on society as a whole? Furthermore, could I associate myself with abusers of a system generated to temporarily assist in times of need?  Am I in the wrong or are they? (Let me just mention that my opinions of the topic of welfare are neutral, I see the pros and cons. I know people who use it and people who abuse it. Nothing I say will ever change anything; so I might as well stay out of trouble by abstaining from offering my personal views on the issue)

Hobbes vs Rousseau

While Rousseau has important components to his argument, I find myself supporting Hobbes’s view of human nature.  I would truly like to believe that we are innately good and that nurturing and environmental factors determine our personalities; however I just cannot.  Was Hitler’s mother  anti-Semitic? (remove mother and insert ANY social influence; person, place, occurrences).  Was he exposed to any factors in his life that guided him in justifying murdering millions of innocent people for his personal beliefs? Did he read a manual that explained exterminating entire races and religions would be in the true interest of the people?  He certainly believed these things himself. If we discuss other brute or corrupt people such as Attila the Hun or Queen Elizabeth our case seems to be confined to particular people.  Now, take into consideration that all of the slaughter needed support.  Followers, sympathizers, executioners, etc. all possess the characteristic traits that Hobbes outlined. 

On an unrelated note, I came up with a couple questions regarding the two arguments.

 1. Is conservatism synonymous to determinism? In Hobbes’s argument he stated that free will does not exist- by elimination does this create an argument for the opposing side?

2.  If I am a supporter of Hobbes’s pessimistic view, is it possible for me to be optimistic about my personal suppression of my negative attributes?  Is this contradictory in fundamental nature, or is my use of the work “optimistic” signifying the varying capacity I recognize each human to possess?

For Lack of Inspiration- Continuing My Ideas

This post is usually reserved for commentary on another post; however I decided to forgo that template and write again about the current issue of non human animals and moral status.  As I was reading both articles I began to think about different cultures and their beliefs and treatments of non human animals. I relate these differences as they compare to the American cuisine we are familiar with:  in India the cow is sacred, in America cats and dogs are domestic animals, and in Europe horses and donkeys serve to feed- not entertain. Would it ever be possible to achieve a universal understanding that non human animals are not intended for human consumption? Or does this very idea contradict the chain established during primitive times that consuming the meat of an animal is necessary for survival and sustaining life?  Certainly in other species (non human animals) they eat other animals: Bears eat fish, lions eat antelope, frogs eat insects, etc.  Nutritionally speaking, what animal would provide the most benefit to a diet; and would this impact the acceptance of eating this animal, or are all accepted edible animals based in cultural beliefs and practices? (Could a person who eats Asian cuisine ever be convinced that cats are strictly for domestic purposes, due to their deeply rooted cultural customs).  I personally find consuming animal meat grotesque, and this may contribute to my sympathies towards non human animals and their rights. I have removed myself from mass cultural disillusions that as homo sapiens we require blood, flesh, and muscle from another living being to survive.  There is one issue I hope someone debates; Where do eggs fit into this debate?

Maturity

Citing Harlan Miller's article once again, I found the paragraph regarding maturity particularly interesting.  The varying degrees of maturity are for the most part culturally, politically, and socially determined.  I think that we need to be personally aware of our capacities and developmental stability.  The government dictating that at 16 one is legally free to copulate and operate a motor vehicle is absurd.  Furthermore, the legal separation from ones parents at age 18 creates serious financial, emotional, and personal damage.  I will not evaluate the legal age at which one can purchase alcohol, as it is a moot argument founded primarily in fierce subjective opinion (none of which affects me).
  I will personally say that I did not experience a cataclysmic development until I was about 21 years old. I should have not been legally able to drive at 16, or at age 18 had financial responsibility impressed upon me.  Every situation varies; and I understand my opinions may face great opposition.  However, since my "coming of age"  in which my perspective was drastically altered (an event I was aware of but did not consciously incite) I experience, interpret, analyze, understand, and observe life and all aspects of every imaginable facet differently. 
I understand how different mental capacities are exceptions in these cases, and I respect them but this argument is for general concepts and the interrelation between politics and society- considering safety, emotional and physical stability, and financial outlook. 

Regarding Science and Subjective Impressions

Harlan Miller's article "Science, Ethics, and Moral Status"  touched on subjective impressions and their presence in philosophy and science.  Subjective impressions are the result of familial and cultural influences throughout our lives.  This "base", as I will term it, impacts and ultimately determines our decisions regarding research and various other pursuits (in science and other disciplines). For this blog I will focus exclusively in regards to scientific matters.  As a biology student, I am well aware that my interests and decisions formulate from personal beliefs and interests.  I am broadly categorizing this next question:  Do all scientists study what they feel needs to be explained?  Not only is it plausible, it seems universally true.  Amongst the scientific realms there are chemists, biologists, medical researchers, physicists, anatomists, environmentalists, etc.  As a physician the specialty one chooses is (or should be) based on academic strength, interest, and personal compatibility.  An environmental studies individual will pursue the branches of life that interest them- going further, can pursue protection and advancement in their field.  Do you find this is true, even in other aspects of study? Obviously in science pursuing specified research topics demonstrates subjective impressions' presence in our decisions; is it easily discerned in anthropology, technology, mathematics, philosophy, culinary, engineering, etc.?

Response to Siearra's Post "Patrio-Country?"

Siearra poses an interesting topic in her blog post "Patrio-country?".  She explores the definition of patriotism given extenuating circumstances of one individual identifying with a foreign nation more than their birth nation. If the individual relocated to their new desired country and formed affection towards that nation would they still be considered patriotic.  I found this very interesting, deconstructing the broader concepts and the intersection of personal instances that can cause debate.
I began to think:  What if their dedication and support to another country occurred when they were citizens of their birth nation? Would this still constitute patriotism towards Russia or would it be considered a betrayal against the United States?  What if a person was adopted and their affection for their birth nation was stronger than their adopted location? How would the premise adjust to this situation. 

Jensen's Argument about Patriotism

Jensen make extremely poignant and effective arguments in his article "Saying Goodbye to Patriotism".  I was struck a number of times within the first few pages with just how successful he is with correlating his ideas of patriotism being morally devoid and examples from history and present policies.  Jensen writes "I want to put forward the radical proposition that we should care what the facts are. We should start with the assumption that everything about the United States, like everything about any country, needs to be examined and assessed.  That is what it means to be a moral person".     Is this not the fundamental procedure to achieve critical thinking? By making this relation between assessment and examination with critical thinking and comparing the lack of both in regards to patriotism is enough to convince me (my opinion is easily persuaded, especially in this case where patriotism has never been a component in my personal life).
  Jensen further proposes that instead of the conventional method of patriotism in which one assumes their nation is above all others, that person should support their nation for their strengths (not in relation to other countries, just on the basis of how the particular concepts of their nation affect them) and admit their shortcomings.  By participating in this altered sense patriotism would not posses such a stigma of one nation superior from another due to personal opinion. Instead, it would be a recognition and appreciation of the strengths of a nation, while admitting there could be improvements. 
After reading Jensen's article and considering his examples of the shortcomings within America, would you ever consider moving to another country?  Once there would you consider being patriotic for your previously foreign, now domestic, land?

Exploring Extremes of Nationalism

While the concept of patriotism has interesting components, I find myself desiring to explore nationalism further.  Probably due to the intrigue created by chaos and disagreements that I often mind myself attracted to.  Anyhow, we talked in class today about nationalism being based on ideals in subculture in addition to countries.  What are the boundaries of nationalism and who determines them? When an nationalist organization is created, does the opinion of the "leader" determine the primary parameters of the specified group or do the majority opinion decide?  If a group is created in support of women's' rights, for example, is the enterprise exclusive to accepted members?  Would men be allowed if they supported the cause?  These questions falsify the stability of nationalistic ideals, in my opinion.  How can one respect or understand the basis for groups that are unregulated in selecting their aspects?  On a different note, how does this support for subcultures impact the totality of our universal culture? Is there a truly universal culture, or do we ascribe culture based on general assumptions about characteristics of the masses. If a person is not at all patriotic or nationalist do you consider them contributing members of their respective country or cause?

Coincidence, I think not. Or, so.

This post was not anticipated, a mere result of a coincidence I experienced today.  We discussed in class the specifics of nature and nurture with an example of how intellectual capacity is affected by nature and nurture.  If an intelligent person is born to average intelligence person, is it the result of nature or nurture that they embrace and succeed in their abilities? We also discussed if a person suffers an injury how would that correlate to this debate.  Today I found myself reading an issue of Popular Science magazine when I came upon the featured article titled "The Genius Within".  The article explored Savant Syndrome and cited three examples of average people who had suffered head injuries and acquired extraordinary talents they had previously no interest or skill in.  Where does this concept exist in the nature vs. nurture debate?  What would Pinker do with this example?

Continuing My Nature/Nurture Thoughts

Our opinion of nature vs. nurture depends on how we examine specific examples.  If we see only the practical applications we can formulate different theories than if we trace concepts to their origin.  Take, for example, Pinker's explanation of identical twins.  He states that different personality traits are determined by prenatal factors such as blood flow or toxicity.  This had validity in my personal opinions, however I want to cite an example to offer where an argument could be made.  Knowing that often times twins (identical in this case) are born with different weights which can impact their development and needs- does this make all nurturing instances moot?  If twin A is born 7lbs and twin B is born 5 lbs, is it safe to say there is an increased likelihood twin B will require more extensive nurturing and regardless of success with that nurturing problems will still exist due to natural origins? This is a very difficult debate to argue, as we have concrete evidence that natural instances determine characteristics unique to each individual but we also have become accustomed to being told that parenting and nurturing are very important in human development. While I don't like to classify myself exclusively ascribing to nature, nurture, or holistic interactionism- I will say that facets of each exist in science, culture, and family.

Specifying Concepts with Examples (Nature vs. Nurture)

I want to use this blog post as an opportunity to categorize what I consider to be nature or nurture.  Pinker, in his article, cites examples such as PKU (phenylketonuria, a genetic disorder in newborns) as the source for the nature vs. nurture debate.    I want to explore the social and biological constructs that might make a case for either concept. Would birth order impact either debate? Could you make a case based on comparing or contrasting personality attributes dependent on the order in which one was incorporated into a family structure? Knowing that a fertilized egg contains 46 chromosomes and each embryo differs from each other, are there any relationships biologically or familial that explain different personality traits? If a child is adopted how would the arguments change? What is your opinion about this topic?

General Reactions To Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Having no prior experience with any of the philosophical concepts provides me with an unbiased perspective on pivotal debates within the discipline.  I have recognized a pattern emerging regarding widely debated fundamental origins and human actions (and while I hate to establish structure to ideals within philosophy; a discipline that enables for multiple concept debates) there is an undeniable resounding theme to resolve or unresolve differing opinions.  A compromise of sorts, in which a middle ground that encompasses facets of each extreme concept exists to balance human nature and actions.  The nature vs. nurture debate held true to this format.  I found the primary acceptance for this debate is "a little of each" exists in forming human psychology and stability. The extreme nurture debate of every person being a blank slate is marginally rejected as problematic.  The accepted components of nurture give rise to the idea of holistic interactionism.  Basing human interactions with specified people, in specified geographical locations, and owing psychological capacity to environmental factors formulates the main components from this concept.  The nature debate cites genes (and I found they loosely defined genes in the article, leaving grey area so uneducated readers have the ability to construe their own false meanings) as the solitary deciding factor in all psychological matters.  Nurture's respect to parenting attributes is replaced by heredity and genetic transfer of predisposed characteristics.   I thoroughly enjoyed reading about this debate, and find myself with the majority: What determines an individual's personality traits is a balance of nature and nurture, care and heredity, love and genes,  symbiotic with each other. I want to end with a quote I found particularly powerful for the argument that there exists a balance of nature vs. nurture.

"Two recent studies have identified single genes that are respectively associated with violence and depression, but have also shown that their effects are manifested only with particular histories of stressful experience"

Response Dom Cooper/ Determinism and the Legal Process

I really enjoyed the question posed by Dom Cooper in his post "Determinism and the Legal Process". He posed a very intriguing set of circumstances to debate.  Personally, I don't think considering a (hypothetical) correlation between morality and determinism would necessitate change in the legal system; however I do believe the arguments used to reach convictions may be causeless .  If an attorney has a guilty client- considering a determinist moral construct- what argument could be made to combat a universal truth founded that each individual is determined to carry out certain actions? If a man kills another man, determinist morality dictates that his beliefs intended for this to occur.  He would be certifiably guilty due to the structure of determinism and the idea that variances from "free will" and choices do not exist.  His deterministic actions will resound for his entire life- he will never repent for the actions he was determined to commit. 
We would have a world of convicts and murderers incapable of inhibitions or moral input.  I then ponder if the legal system would alter our treatment of the guilty  (ex. would extermination be allowed)

Defining Origins of Inborn Conservatism

I want to relate this post to the classroom discussion we had on Wednesday.  I want to examine the origins of our inborn conservatism on sensitive issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, womens' rights, etc.).  Is it due to an innate biological process of needing complete understanding and correlating evidence to validate the legitimacy of any idea? Or, considering that the constructs of "normal" are determined by society and cultural expectations, do we exclusively ascribe our conservatism on social pressures and accepted norms?  Is there a balance of these two in determining our natural selections?
When we are first born we begin as an intellectual blank slate (variances do occur in intellectual capacity and strength), however we can say undoubtedly that our familial or environmental influences contribute to our opinions concerning various topics.  "Inborn conservatism", to me, refers to individual natural born tendency to favor one argument, not accepting one universal truth. The "conservatism" we experience is a subjective scale  resulting from our personally accepted modes of technique.  Example: If I was born in the Southern states in 1760 I would have an inborn conservatism to support slavery, due to the components I rationalize from my biological opinion of race superiority and cultural influences.  Example 2: If I was from the 1980s during the AIDS scare, my natural opinion would be greatly swayed by the media and societal pressures.  Regardless of my acceptance of "free love", homosexual relations, or opinions that intravenous drug users partake in a dangerous occupation, my perspectives are impacted.  I was "born" to recognize individual freedoms and the right to carry out such liberties- but my notions are thus challenged by recent developments;   ultimately becoming altered.
In both of these instances, it equates a combination of natural desire for complete validation on any ideal (that varies from the opinion we have) in correlation with cultural influences determines our inborn conservatism.  Can we say then, that "inborn" only defines half the formula and forsakes the larger influence of social pressures?

Section Focused Analysis Regarding "Culture Wars" Reading

I chose to blog about the first section of the reading titled "Culture Wars" by Thomas W. Clark. The section is appropriately titled "Irreconcilable Differences" and explores the contrasting fundamental beliefs of naturalists and super naturalists.  The copious amounts of topics for me to write about forced me to chose the section that ignited a fervor in me.  I was initially intrigued with the notion that this dichotomy has existed since either the big bang or God created mankind. There will never be a resolution and as Thomas Clark explains, " Such coexistence wouldn’t be problematic were it not for the evangelical desire, so common to the human heart, to universalize one’s beliefs, what we might call the totalitarian temptation.  We are not content to have our certainties – others must share them as well, since a plurality of worldviews raises doubts about our truth."  This is the common sentiment I have seen reflected by all religious people I have encountered.  This argument is not intended to question the validity of religion or cast judgment against those who adhere to its doctrines; I am simply relating my personal experiences to the observations outlined in the first paragraphs of Clark's essay.  Embracing a natural source for all living and non living objects encompasses the innate knowledge that we originated from and are composed of matter.  A person who seeks answers in faith yearns for an emotional, social, or intellectual connection in their lives.     I truly hope this post does not offend any religious followers- I am offering my opinions related to the text we read. 

 

Response Dom Cooper/My thoughts on moral thoughts

Response to Dom Cooper's post "Moral Versus Intellectual Virtue"
My initial intention was to agree with your thoughts, not providing much personal opinion.  The following passage from your post, however,  compelled me to explore further:  "Morality would not exist without action...morality is the endeavor of looking at whether our actions were right or wrong."
I became immediately intrigued with the issue of the connection between "moral" and "virtuous" actions and moral thoughts.  How do they relate to one another? Are they separate entities or  does it rely on a universally understood notion that all actions require either conscious or subconscious thought? Can a clear distinction be made that separates these two processes, or are they innately interconnected.  I would love to believe that by examining my actions I could establish a virtuous pattern of morality- however not every action we partake in exhibits reason and good. Imagine the life and purpose of a monk (please excuse my stereotypical reference, I am attempting to create a particular visual that is common to our limited cultural understanding and by utilizing a <possibly> false stereotype the desired image is conjured)- my actions of selfless commitment requires repetitious action and often conscious thought is intentionally forsaken.  Who would evaluate my actions were moral? Would Aristotle believe by containing oneself to their beliefs and not imposing on others that their actions embody morality? My elaboration may have digressed from your original post, I tend to do that. 

Elaborating on Prior Arguments

We have been extensively discussing in class about the concepts of compatibility and incompatibility in reference to the theories of determinism and free will.  The debate has remained a constant tug of war between differing viewpoints; each side citing hypothetical and actual experiences, concepts of humanity and the natural world, and the totality of human purpose and presence.  Does this debate impact the importance of individuals? Can we judge a person due to their opinion on this particular subject? If we are judging must we be for the opposing side?
Quite obviously there will be no definitive answer in the debate of determinism and free will- as each person formulates their opinion and acts accordingly. Is this our free will to choose or is it determined that we will decide one way?
 If I was a determinist I would make decisions believing that there was no alternate options- I was destined to choose accordingly and therefore all my questions and answers are justified.  If I believed in free will I would remove myself from conventional decisions and act (almost completely) on impulse. Therefore, I would be solely responsible for all my choices and actions- a responsibility that most avoid confronting.   I remain unbiased in this debate- tending to not accept either theory in absolute distinction- I am simply "determined" to be "free" in my decisions. 

It's About Time

I decided to blog about a particularly interesting topic we had in class discussion today. The issue of time intrigued me- how is it defined, what determines the expansions and limitations, is there a truly universal time register that all humans adhere to or have we become so accustomed and reliant on time to structure our thoughts/actions/and moods that without it our personal direction would be destroyed? 
I began to think about the origins of time.  The natural occurrences that happen after a certain allotted time (sun up, midday sun, sun setting, nightfall) undoubtedly formulated the concepts of time we now have. Would it be a better gauge of life if we forgo the conventional system of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years etc. and focused "time" on the changes of all aspects of the world.  This is to say that what defines time would not be a numerical system but an individual perception of the physical and intellectual evolution of living beings and the natural and manual developments of objects.  Would this system crumble due to differing abilities of people (considering lack of senses i.e. blindness)- most likely.  Therefor the past would be recollected as personal memories removed from rigorous dates and focuses on the capacity for each individual to recognize their chronology.   Justifiably, it would never work; just an interesting concept I mulled over. 

Response to Siearra/Is Priori Knowledge Important

The post by Siearra titled "Is Priori Knowledge Important" posed a few topics for me to discuss.  She brought up the issue of right and wrong of good knowledge and not good.  She asks, "How, as human beings, are we supposed to know what knowledge we come across is good or not?" It is interesting to consider the subjective input each individual has, and how will that impact the classifications of good/evil.  Plato had an objective view that all humans posses one inherent opinion of good knowledge and would therefor recognize it immediately.  
Siearra's grand question of what is the difference between right and wrong can be answered simply according to Plato; with an objective base each person will do what society deems acceptable and "right" taking into account the ways their actions contribute to society and the attainment of reason. There is no room of subjective classifications or moral confusion.

Chance/Morals/Aristotle

Today in class we examined the notion of moral luck. The basic premise explains that all our circumstances are due to chance.  We cannot owe our situations to higher powers, self will, or determination.  The cycle begins when we are born- the parents we have and their particular beliefs and experiences directly affects our personality.  Due to complete chance each individual has a probability equally weighted.  This continues throughout our lives in which we become victors or victims to our circumstances.  If this belief is true, the basis that eternal realms exist to guide our bodies to the Good is invalid. Aristotle recognized that moderate wealth, good social standing, personal upkeep, and cultural awareness are directly linked to attaining reason and discovering the good.  If chance dictated all facets of our lives, would it be possible for any person to progress towards intellect, reason, moral actions, and the ultimate good? Personally I find moral luck would be a hindrance to self improvement based on these questions.  I know Aristotle did not specifically deconstruct moral luck and correlate it into his theory of human nature- I was toying with a concept we examined and attempted to integrate it into his theories. 

Aristotle's Tottles

I fabricated the word "tottles" ..it had a novelty ring to it and added an attracting title.  This post will address some of Aristotle's primary theories in conjunction to classroom discussions.  We spoke today about the interconnection of pleasure and happiness and the notion that there are higher and lower pleasures that Aristotle did not necessarily outline, but can be formulated from application of his theories in the real world.  Is it through our natural and good intuition to experience higher pleasures as opposed to lower order pleasures?  Do the higher and lower levels correspond to the flesh or to the mind or both?  After recognizing our experiences with the short term high level pleasures is it possible to falter and crave short term low level pleasures? Does this cause detriment to our overall character?

In a separate discussion Aristotle's belief of "natural slaves" was deconstructed.  A few questions came to mind: did Aristotle's classification of those who were slaves correspond strictly to a man's lack of natural abilities or a cultural/personal perceived notion of insignificance (relating to age, race, gender, social status, etc).  The slaves experienced a happy state of affairs when their superior rational owners used reason and good to conduct their authority.  How can this be considered valid in any facet? Is this not a paradox in which the victim owes the victimizer?  The oppressive set of circumstances of one committed to serve another (sometimes unjustly) serves no function relating to respect and honor of those asserting their power.  Human nature should be universal, not defined by higher social order, race, gender, or subjective views. 

Response/Corbin Brassard

I will be responding to Corbin Brassard's post titled "Another Interpretation for Plato's Metaphysics".
I too agree that Plato may have formulated his Theory of Forms from a genuine quest to understand the knowledge of objects/ideas/etc that transcends ages using a valid system that could be easily understood.  He falters, however, by removing the aspect of human understanding that is associated with recognition and recall.  Corbin states " its our ability to comprehend the function of the materials that makes it a chair. " Comprehending function is pivotal in giving credit to presence and purpose of any object or thing.  There are copious amounts of undiscovered inanimate and living matter that seem to contradict Plato's theory of forms.  We will undoubtedly categorize these presently unknown things upon discovery by classification of function and purpose. 

Flexing my Innate Ideas

This argument focuses on Plato's theory of Innate Ideas.  When a human body harbors an eternal mind and soul, experiences must be removed from emotion and the quest for Reason is the ultimate purpose of this embodiment.  Through this separation and removal we are able to recollect the prior knowledge our soul obtained throughout its everlasting journey.  The basis for any individual's "innate ideas" are determined by an undefinable realm where the Good and the Reason are paramount. This is to say then, that our (I will call them pure) ideas of life/purpose/humanity/experience/ and the state of our natural being continually emerge, consistent with the transcendence we experienced in a previous time.  How does this theory relate to the broader concepts we are familiar with in our material world? With  varying opinions of what is acceptable correlating with our moral standpoints, relationships, and personal justices how can is be concretely argued that we are all of the same Form? Isn't the very essence of humanity and natural will to express individual perspectives we contrive from being emotionally and intellectually aware?

World of Forms Vs. Material World

This entry specifically addresses some of the concepts Plato expresses.  Plato outlines that every object, being, creation, etc. are due to Forms- unchanging and everlasting properties.  He further states that this world of forms is more robust and meaningful that the material world we associate with.  This argument brings a set of conundrums to mind.  The basis that Plato maintains is that knowledge is just recollecting the prior knowledge and acknowledging the forms present eternally.  This is a cyclical theory that I feel crumbles upon itself.  If our knowledge is due to things we have always known and just failed to recognize, then what is the purpose of our material lives and how does the acknowledgment of the forms benefit individuals as well as the totality of beings? It seems slightly contradictory to me to base the importance of human experience on the notion that what impact we have is determined by what impact was made before us.  We are not, then, the masters of our own universe and our decisions are subconsciously formulated to repeat the cycle outline above.  I will next explore Plato's appreciation that perfection exists outside the material world.  As we discussed in class there is an infinite existence of perfection- such as a circle.  This realm is only present outside of the material world where perfection is capable.  What, then, is the relevance of knowing that perfection exists but we cannot experience it in this material world?  I feel it creates a problem in which we constantly assess our souls and their credentials compared to the infinite perfection that is unattainable.  Again, what benefit does this have to us in this life?

  If I falter in my analysis/review/argument of his ideals please feel free to challenge what I have said.  After all, enlightenment would just be the result of discovering what I already know. 

Cohesive Ideals

This post is in reply/response/reflection of the post titled "An Objective Basis for Secular Morality" by Deven Philbrick.  His argument attracted my interest immediately after reading the title.  While my personal input and analysis (analysis may be too strong a word, I am simply crediting your work and replying appropriately) may falter in comparison to your literary strength. 

Beginning with a quote from the text I found particular interest in: "However, most Christians in my experience seem to sift through the Christian Bible and pick out only what they view as moral"
 This statement is profoundly credible. This method is utilized by any individual or group attempting to solidify the relevancy of their beliefs.  In all facets of humanity there are immoral and moral aspects and the Bible being a transcription of events, that may or may not have occurred, embodies this contrast.  Pointing this particle out forces an examination of the methodology used by any enterprise we have encountered that has attempted persuasion.  Furthermore, the credibility of any religious, scholar, or general argument  is challenged.  Is it appropriate to credit merit to their ideals then when the alternate aspects (either immoral or moral) are not accounted for? 
I may return to elaborate further.

Conjured Questions Inspired by Socrates

After concluding the reading assignment, Chapter 2 of Who Are We?  some more questions formulated.  I recognized that the questions I was interested in resolving transitioned from broad generalizations of the concepts of philosophy to specified interest in the important philosophers.  Reading of Socrates conjured up answers to some of my previous ponderings, but also created a multitude of further questions.  In his time, 5th century B.C.E., Socrates was cavalier in formulating his own truths and exhibiting them to the masses.  Ancient Greece had a rigid society and social structure, and I wonder how human nature (disregard for a moment the belief that human nature transcends ages or time periods ) received his revolutionary ideals.  How did his beliefs correlate to the importance placed on religion? Or, how important was religion in those ancient times? His social demonstrations tested the knowledge of craftsmen and proved their façade.   I cannot truly fathom the implications of his actions, as times have evolved to allow more personal freedom and individual rights.  Was it unheard of for such brazen acts at this time- knowing that persecution and damnation by society would result?  Were Socrates's actions the catalyst for the perpetuation of his beliefs- that have endured thousands of years.  Did he earn respects AFTER his death ( taking into account the reading of the story of his trial and sentencing, and subsequent end at the hands of the law)  These questions insight a yearning to understand all the parameters of the ancient times and to better infer the importance of the lifetime of Socrates.

Initial Reflections

This post will shamelessly replicate the cliché format I am familiar with present in philosophy- asking questions.
Is there a concrete classification of philosophy? (Classification referring to the following questions, different than a definition). What are the uses and implications of philosophy in our personal and social lives? Does the relevancy exist only on specific occasions or on a daily basis? Can anyone weigh the importance culturally, socially, intellectually? Does it rely on an importance that differs with varying perceptions? Can it be classified as subjective- impossible to understand unless one "experiences" the truth of claims made?
Validity must be considered as the philosophical questions and evaluations have existed for centuries. Personally a complete understanding has not presented itself to me. I have more examining to do of the specific concepts of philosophy and how they incorporate into the aspects of my life. I do, however, anticipate my overall scope to be transformed, my knowledge enhanced, and there to be an acquired respect and appreciation of great philosophers.