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?