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?