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?