Response to Nicole's Question

Nicole asked the question, "If someone were to never change their life at all, would you think there was something wrong with them?"

I think this would depend on what way the person was/wasn't changing their life. If the person was just going through the same monotonous routine everyday then I think I would find them sad, but I wouldn't think something was wrong with them. A lot of people find a comfortable routine to follow and get lost in that routine, rarely straying from it. I can agree that it is nice to have routine and stability in life but even hermits like me enjoy some adventure once in a while. However, If the person never changed their life I would think that they weren't really going anywhere in life, not achieving much. There is a difference between being comfortable in a routine and just not trying to move forward in life. So, in this case I would think that the person would need to step it up and take charge of life.

My question.....if people never stray from the comfort of a routine will they move forward in life?

Roses?

Being a sort of gloomy day, I have been exploring the internet instead of venturing outside and, while doing this, I came across this quote from Dale Carnegie, an American writer/lecturer, "One of the most tragic things I know about human nature is that all of us tend to put off living. We are all dreaming of some magical rose garden over the horizon-instead of enjoying the roses blooming outside our windows today".

Now, I found this interesting and I am just wondering if anyone agrees and or disagrees with this statement? Are we really spending too much time imagining a world that we think is ideal and would want to live in or do we venture out into the real world? What about an in between?

Faith

Faith and God were the topic of Friday's class so my blog is centering on that. People hold faith in a numbedr of different religions, all of which state that they are the only true religion. How is it that people can put their faith into one religion when there are multiple religions in the world, with some similar and many vastly different from one another? In doing this many people are pitted against one another based off of their religious beliefs. This is not to say that everyone who has faith in religion dislikes or hates one another though, wars have been known to happen in the name of God.

This whole idea of faith and religion has brought me to wonder...what about people who do not believe everything of a religion, people who only choose to agree with parts of a religion? Do they have faith in that religion?

In Response to Austin's Question

Austin asked the question, "Some people see "living forever" as a curse rather than a gift, why do you think this is so?".

Living forever can be seen as a curse for the obvious reasons like, you would have to watch the people you love and care about die. Anyone you care about would eventually die and you would be left alone in the world. Yes, there would be more people to interact with but you would know that eventually they would die and you would be alone again. You could never fully be intimate or in a relationship with a person for these reasons, well, I guess you could but it would hurt too much knowing that you would have to see them die, as well as any other person you took up a relationship with. I am focusing on this aspect of living forever because it seems to be the most important part of it.

So, this leads my to my question...if you could live forever and a person you cared about could live forever with you, would you do it?

In Response to Bryan's Question

Bryan asked the question "Do you think the idea of believing in something greater should be separated from believing in God specifically, or are the same thing?".

I don't think that believing in something greater or believing in God should be seperate. I think that both kinds of believing help people, believing in God or some other higher power don't need to be seperate because, in my view, they both serve the same purpose for people. If God or that higher power gives a person what they need/helps them in life then I belive that it is not necessary to put them into different groups or categories.

Now, I don't think that believing in something greater and believing in God are the same thing. Not in the sense or what is being believed in, but I do believe they are the same in the purpose that they hold.

So, does anyone disagree?

Darwinism = War?

I have seen this topic mentioned before and I am a bit curious as to what others think about it. My question is, how have Darwin’s theories, or other theories created off of his, contributed to inhumane acts such as war?Now, I feel that it is not Darwin or his initial theories that have any real connection to inhumane acts like war but I feel that theories taken and spawned from Darwin's initial theories may have gone toward such acts of violence. The whole concept of survival of the fittest has been taken to such extremes along with natural selection, Hitler and the extermination of the Jews seems to be a good example among many others.

So, what do you guys think?

Response to Megan Cooney's Question

Megan posed the question, "What is it that changed the minds of people to become more accepting of atheism?"

I believe that people have become more accepting of atheism for some of the same reasons that they have become more accepting of other things like gay marriage, for example. Over time it seems that new things pop up in society that people develop issues with and eventually they overcome those issues or learn to deal with them. This is not saying that there aren't people who continue to have issues as many do, but I think that people eventually notice with most things that there are people that support whatever the "issue" is, in this case atheism, and they realize that people can have differences of opinions and beliefs.

So, as I was typing this my roommate read an article about the boy scouts written by a former boy scout. It mentioned that the boy scouts frown upon gay and atheist members and I was wondering if anyone had any knowledge of this or what they thought?

Plausible?

The past weeks discussion has been about existentialism and how and existentialist would run a liberal arts college like MCLA. Now, this has been discussed and ideas have been thrown around but, what about non liberal arts colleges? How might a college that wasn't a liberal arts college run if it were up to an existentialist? Would this even work or would the idea of trying to make something like this happen be completely ridiculous?

Response to Bryan's Question

Bryan posed the question, "Do you think the fear of change exists, and is problematic in the lives of most humans?"

I do believe that the fear of change is persent in a great majoriy of people. We fear what we do not know or understand, now, that is not to say that all people fear the different or unkown. Some do embrace change more quickly than others but it seems that a great deal of people do have trouble getting over their fear of change.

These fears can cause rifts between people and their ways of thinking (think of gay allies versus gay opposers as one example). Fear of change can break apart groups of people, it can keep people from trying new and different things and isolate people from the world. Fear of change is a big issue that many people face so my question is.....would you view fear of change as an epidemic of sorts?

Reccuring Dreams

So, I have talked to many friends and family members and most of them have told me about a recurring dream or two. I myself have about three recurring dreams that I have experienced since childhood. These dreams, for me anyway, do not occur more than once a year if that, but they do still pop up. Could this be a kind of buried emotion surfacing every few years, as a sort of Freudian reminder that I/we have untended emotions?

Response to Megan Cooney's Question

Megan posed the question, " Why do you think we remember certain dreams, and not others? I for instance, have not remembered a dream for many years."

We know by now that a person can have multiple dreams throughout the period of one night, I believe psychology tells us that their are atleast six dream cycles a night for the average person (correct me if I am wrong). We never remember every dream that we have in that one night, so it makes sense that we do not remember dreams that span over years of our lives. I too have periods of time, months or even years, where I do not remember my dreams. Supposedly we dream most when in the REM cycle, perhaps not remembering your dreams has more to do with how soon after your last REM cycle you awake.

This may not answer Megan's question but it has helped me pose my own which I believe would be interesting to answer...Does the quality of our sleep, in your opinion, increase/decrease our ability to remember our dreams? How else would that affect our dreams?

In Response to Bryan's Question

Bryan asked, "Do you think that finding meaning in your dreams would make a significant improvement in your life?".

I feel that dreams hold importance some of the time. Some dreams are completely pointless while others hold significance. Finding meaning in ones dreams can help improve life but I don't believe that it would improve life beyond a minimal basis. Understanding our dreams can help us understand why we are stressed or a number of other situations but I don't believe that understanding dreams will cause an epiphany about anything that will have and end result of a completely different outlook on life.

Now, my arguement may be way too onesided so....anyone disagree?

Dreams

So, this weeks discussion of Freud had a decent mention of dreams. I'm going to metion a situation I experienced and then just ask for some feedback as this experience i had fits in nicely with the discussion of dreams.

Okay, when I was ten or so I went biking in New Hampshire and ended up having a bad accident that almost ended my life. I flew over the handlebars of the bike I was riding and slid a few feet on my head...not enjoyable. Now, the interesting thing is that the night before my accident I had a dream of this happening and, to make this even more interesting, I didn't fully remember the dream until after I had the accident. I have never really been able to understand how or why I didn't fully remember this dream until after I almost died so, my question is basic.

What do you guys think about this?

In Response to Megan Cooney's Question

Okay, the quesiton is, "We idolize actors and athletes, but we search so hard for a scandal to bring them down. By doing so, are we just trying to bring down the people we have idolized so high?"

Whether it be actors, athletes, or any wealthy and known person, we as humans tend to idolize people...put them on a pedestal. We have a habit of caring too greatly about the images and lives of famous people. We place them on their pedestal and, to touch on the end part of Megan's question, we appear to expect them to stay on that pedestal. If a celebrity does not act in a way that is expected of them, it can anger the general population, causing rumor and scandal.

So, we do attempt to "bring down" the people that we idolize when scandal and societal anger prevail. The anger and jealous desire for money and fame along with unexpected actions and thoughts form those celebrities that are idolized, is the driving force for the downward fall of some actors, athletes, etc.

Question...that jealous anger that we sometimes feel toward the wealthy is a vile thing. What does that example say about humans? Can/does jealousy control us?

In Response to Bryan's Question

Bryan posed the question, "Do you think that the Human sense of self causes problems within society?"

People do tend to regard their own needs and wants before those of others. I think that though we would like to believe that people have eachothers interests at heart, it is more likely that people have a greater sense of self than a sense of society. Society can band together as has been seen with relief efforts like the recent events for Haiti, but it seems to take a great disaster for people to put their own self and interests aside and help those in need.

This does cause problems within society as it takes something horrible happening to bring people together...otherwise saying that we wait for things to deteriorate and get worse before we fix them.

My question is...can a person who has their own sense of self and and their family in mind, resent others who may be more fortunate than them?

About that Communism...

Marx's beliefs on the eventual development of the communist state are, to a degree, basic but are they really valid and/or realistic given our history on this earth? The poor get sick of the rich holding power, they overthrow them, then the poor run the show and everyone is happy. Would this really work? Wouldn't there be someone in that group of previously poor people that would want all the power to themselves? Isn't this how most governments were founded? the underdogs take over and create rules and laws and then...they become the powerful and the whole cylce starts over. It appears that the perpetuation of this situation is inevitable and that Marx's idea is more wishful thinking than anyting else.

So, considering the past history of the entire existence of human beings, aren't we just going in a giant circle?

In Response to Megan Cooney's Question

Megan posed the question, "Why, do you think, parents will sometimes go to the extremes of either overprotecting their child and giving into every demand of their child?"

From perceiving different families as well as my own, I have seen that parents under discipline and over discipline their children for a multitude of reasons. When I was younger I was somewhat of a spoiled child though I never expected or asked for much. I believe that it was becuase of this that my parents saw fit to spoil me a bit. However, I know that this is not the same for all people. I have heard of some parents spoiling their children because they, as children, were never given much or were over disciplined. There are also those who were raised in a strict home and therefore pass that strictness on to their own children. I think there is a range in the spectrum of why parents vary in the extremes of the discipline of their children but I do believe that how parents protect/spoil/control their children is a direct result of how they themselves were raised.

So, my question is...If a person is spoiled throughout their childhood does that mean that they are going to act spoiled in adulthood? What of the other extreme?

In Response to Nicole's Question

On her blog, Nicole posed the question, "Can someone believe they are unhappy when really they are?" after discussing the idea of false happiness.

I believe that this is one of those "you don't realize what you have until you've lost it" situations. People can go on thinking that they aren't happy and fulfilled until they experience a loss of some kind and figure out that they miss what they lost and did not realize that they enjoyed what they did have until it was taken from them. Do I believe that people can believe that they are unhappy when, in reality, they really are? No. I believe that people hold the means to make their happiness and that it takes those means being lost to realize what happiness the person could have had. To me, it is like what was said in class, you must make your own happiness.

So my question...since outside/external things (machines, games, books, etc.) can cause fake happiness among people through their influence then, can children/infants be the ones that are truly happy as they are not fully affected by external things?

Depression

In class the idea of the happiness machine and false happiness was discussed. There was mention that if somene seeks happiness from a machine or a game system or even books then they are not actually gaining true happiness as they are instilling their feelings on a false world. It was then said that the only way to truly be happy is to find happiness in oneself.

So, what I am wondering about is how that works for people with clinical depression. Not depression because their dog just died but a continuous depression that comes and goes. Would someone who takes medication for their clinical depression be experiencing false happiness? If they can not make themselves happy then does someone with that kind of depression ever experience true happiness?

I know what I believe so, what do you believe?

In Response to Jenna's Question

"Living in a fast paced society denies us the time we need to take a step back and discover who we are. Do you think that the people who struggle to keep up are the ones who have the time to get to know themselves better?"

It is true that life is fast paced and most of the time people get caught up in what they are doing and forget to relax and relfect upon themselves every once in a while. I believe that people tend to be fast paced and rushing to do things to attain something in life, it's about the reward at the end of the work. I don't think that people do get to know themselves as often as they should but I am not sure that those who struggle to keep up are the ones who do know themselves more. I think that during the rush of societal life people find/know themselves through their struggle to succeed and get by.

So, do you think that it is possible for a person to go about their life and never really know themselves fully?

Reason versus Emotion

There was a great deal of discussion about Plato's thoughts on reason and emotion in class the other day. It was mentioned that reason should be the forefront of how people deal with situations and that emotion should be avoided as best as possible. I'm not sure that I agree with this as emotion is a part of who we are as people and though it does affect our decisions, sometimes in negative ways, it can also be a positive influence on our decisions. For instance, emotion mixed with politics does not tend to create a good outcome, people end up electing/voting for people for the wrong reasons and so on. But, emotion can be a good influence on decisions and situations involving those we care about.

My question is...using reason over emotion is exactly what doctors do when they are "objective". So, what happens when a doctor uses their emotions rather than reason and end up saving a life? Does this mean that there can be an equal balance of emotion and reason?

A Decent In-between?

The difference in the thoughts of the Sophists and Socrates was discussed in the past week. It was thought that the Sophists were extremely cynical or skeptic regarding reality. It was also brought up that some of Socrates ideals regarding truth and knowledge were naive. Thinking in terms of a line graph, Sophists on one end and Socrates on the other, where is a good place to fall on that line? I know this was already discussed in class but there didn't seem to be a happy medium between the two sides.

So that is my question, do you think there is an in-between?

In Response to Megan Cronin's Question

Megan poses the question: "If one of our senses stopped working, how would the others be affected?"

We know that when a person goes blind or is born blind that there sense of hearing can be hightened. When a sense is weakened or depleted for one reason or another the other senses seem to pick up the slack. In the case of scents, I feel that it would be different. The smells of foods for example, have an impact on how something tastes to us. So, say that you lost your sense of smell, instead of your sense of taste increasing wouldn't it become more stunted? All of our senses depend on one another in some way and, depending on which sense is defective, the other senses may be boosted or weakened.

So my question...which senses do you believe it would be the hardest to live without?

The Human Conscience

Kind of going along with parts of class discussions and other blogs I've seen I've been wondering about the human conscience. One question that could be posed is "do we all have consciences?" there are those who do not due to mental disorders, not knowing right from wrong but if the majority do have a conscience then...where do we get them from? Do we develop them from how we are raised and our surrounding influences (parents, educators, religion)? Or do we start out with the basics for a conscience and it is then formed from our worldy experiences?

My question, in short, is...do we greatly rely on our conscience and, if we did not have them then would that make us evil?

In Response to Megan Cronin's Question

Megan asked the question, "If there was no reward (ex. Heaven) for doing good, would we do wrong more often?"

My blatant response to this would be, do we see all the atheists and agnostics committing acts of crime? As a first response to seeing Megan's question it is basic and doesn't cover all other areas of religion but as an example, we do not generally see atheists committing more criminal acts because of their lack of a belief in Heaven. And there are those who may believe in Heaven who are sitting in jail cells at the moment.

It all seems to come down to the question of, "will we get in trouble?" Forgetting the reward of Heaven, if we go with the fear of not getting into Heaven then it makes perfect sense that, relinquishing that fear and saying there is no Heaven, people could develop a sense of wrongdoing. However, I personally believe that it has to come down to a persons conscience. A persons conscience may be rooted to their religious beliefs, their upbringing, or maybe even their genetic disposition (oh human nature). So, would we do wrong more often if we knew there were no Heaven? I think it trully depends on each individual and their own conscience.

So my question, kind of going along with Megan's, is...is it merely the fear of not getting into Heaven that keeps most people "in line"?

Nature Versus Nurture

During Friday's class the long standing debate of nature versus nurture was brought up. It is obvious that peoples opinions differ on the subject and sides are taken but the subject led me to question which category homosexuality falls under. Does someone become gay because of predetermined circumstances that take place during conception and through birth? Or, can someone become gay under outside influences? Also, if it is predetermined before birth, then how is it actually determined? I know what I believe and I am sure that this is a touchy subject for some but it is a valid question.

So, is it nature or nurture?

In Response to Bryan's Question "What is Evil?"

I found this particular blog to be intriguing. You mention that there does not seem to be a universal standard for good and evil and that whether there is good or evil appears to be up to the individual. You mention the idea that "if God gave every human a universal idea of what is evil, he would be taking away human’s free will". I think that with the idea of good and evil and free will, it is really down to the particular person. You can't inherently see good or evil, though some would argue that, nor can you necessarily see free will as a tangible item. We see acts that we presume are good, evil or free will but like religion and the belief in a God, it varies from person to person. So as simplistic as my answer may seem, I believe that evil varies for each individual and well, if that isn't a decent answer then I presume that this is one of those questions that even the most seasoned of philosophers shrugs their shoulders at.

Question - To sort of follow along with free will and evil, if we can not measure evil on a universal scale then how does punishment come into play? How can we measure punishment if we can't measure evil?

This isn't really connected to this weeks class discussions but I have been thinking about human nature and its connection to psychology. Human nature, by definition, is the disposition and traits of humans. I found it interesting that in this class as well as my psych class we will attempt to understand the nature of human nature. What interests me is the ways in which the subject of human nature can be thought about, the philosophers approach versus the psychologists. Since psychology for the most part came from ideas and thoughts from past philosophers it is curious as to which group is more qualified to "figure out" the nature of human nature.

So I guess the question is...who is more qualified to figure out the nature of human nature? The psychologists or the philosophers? More so, are the two groups so closely linked that it would matter?

In Response to Misty's Question

I believe that the world wouldn't be any better if everybody told the truth one hundred percent of the time. Though it would be ideal, the perfect world where nobody ever lies, it is unlikely. Similar to what was discussed in class, I believe that absolute truth would be a double-edged sword. On the one side it would eliminate the distrust that comes with lying but it would also lead to harsh opinions about people and respective things. The only plausible way I could see absolute truth work would be if every person in the world was politically correct, and we all know that will never happen.

So, a question...is it possible that lying from time to time can be good for people and their relationships?