Q: Is it alright to celebrate the death of an enemy?
Griffin's question, I think, is a difficult one to answer. When the news broke of Osama Bin Laden's assassination at the hands of US Navy Seals, it was met in America with cheers and sighs of relief. For almost ten years, Americans lived in fear of Bin Laden and the Taliban. Now, his death has brought an end to an era which began with the horrible attacks that occurred on 9/11/01. I think it is only natural for Americans to want to celebrate this small victory over terrorism. However, the celebration should not overshadow the reality of America's situation; there are still US forces both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because Osama Bin Laden is dead, it does not mean that Al Queda and the Taliban are gone forever.
On a more general basis, the death of anyone, good or evil, should probably not be met with celebration. The loss of life, whether good or bad, needs to be first met with acceptance then with either relief or sadness. In terms of an enemy, the celebration of their death just brings more importance to their life. Giving too much attention to their passing ensures that their legacy will live on. I believe it is better to let the enemy pass in relative silence, in order for the rest of the world to move on without remaining in the past.
Q: Do you think there will be repercussions for Bin Laden's death?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Singing in the Rain
"Singing in the Rain" is a classic song from the musical Singing in the Rain. Performed by Gene Kelly, it is an iconic number used countless times over and over to express the simple joys in life. However, after watching A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick, this song has an entirely different connotation. In the movie, A Clockwork Orange,, the main character Alex sings this song while rapping a woman in front of her husband. The contrast between this cheerful song and this horrible act of violence not only makes this scene memorable but also changes the audience's perception of the song. I can no longer listen to "Singing in the Rain" without feeling slightly sick and disgusted.
This experience with the song parallels Alex's situation in the movie A Clockwork Orange where he learns to become nauseous at the sound of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. In therapy, Alex is forced to watch horrible scenes of violence all while listening to Beethoven. After his therapy, he becomes conditioned to associate Beethoven with violence, just as I associate "Singing in the Rain" with the rape scene in the movie.
Q: Have you ever had an experience like mine, where a song reminds you of something else?
This experience with the song parallels Alex's situation in the movie A Clockwork Orange where he learns to become nauseous at the sound of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. In therapy, Alex is forced to watch horrible scenes of violence all while listening to Beethoven. After his therapy, he becomes conditioned to associate Beethoven with violence, just as I associate "Singing in the Rain" with the rape scene in the movie.
Q: Have you ever had an experience like mine, where a song reminds you of something else?
A Clockwork Orange and Existentialism
Note: Read Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:Existentialism and A Clockwork Orange fror more information before reading this post.
For the first time, not so long ago, I read The Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. I had orginally entended to use it for my book review, but somehow I decided on Island by Aldous Huxley instead. Not wanting my effort to go to waste, although reading a novel such as A Clockwork Orange could never be constituted as a waste, I thought I would write about it on my blog. Then in class, Israel presented his book report on The Stranger, and all I could think about was existentialism and how it related to A Clockwork Orange.
A Clockwork Orange is based on existentialistic theory. The main character, Alex, commits crimes for no other reason then for the thrills. He is a lunatic who only enjoys life when he is destroying the lives of others. Unlike most psychopaths, Alex did not grow up in troubling circumstances nor did he have a lifechanging experience whcih made him become such a monster. Instead, the only reason for his cruelty comes from the rush of excitement he receives when he is hurting other human beings.
For Alex, nothing matters in life except his constant need to get a "fix" of violence. He has plenty of opportunities to change his way of thinking and reform his actions, but instead, at the end of the novel, he remains the same individual.
The question raised in the novel is whether society or Alex himself is to blame for his actions. Alex has pulled away from society and rejected its norms. Yet, society still tries to help Alex and turn him into a model citizen. As a consequence, however, society ends up making more monsters like Alex. In the end, society has to stop treating Alex and allow him to regress to his former self in order for the rest of society to remain sane.
Q: What is Anthony Burgess saying about societial reform in A Clockwork Orange?
For the first time, not so long ago, I read The Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. I had orginally entended to use it for my book review, but somehow I decided on Island by Aldous Huxley instead. Not wanting my effort to go to waste, although reading a novel such as A Clockwork Orange could never be constituted as a waste, I thought I would write about it on my blog. Then in class, Israel presented his book report on The Stranger, and all I could think about was existentialism and how it related to A Clockwork Orange.
A Clockwork Orange is based on existentialistic theory. The main character, Alex, commits crimes for no other reason then for the thrills. He is a lunatic who only enjoys life when he is destroying the lives of others. Unlike most psychopaths, Alex did not grow up in troubling circumstances nor did he have a lifechanging experience whcih made him become such a monster. Instead, the only reason for his cruelty comes from the rush of excitement he receives when he is hurting other human beings.
For Alex, nothing matters in life except his constant need to get a "fix" of violence. He has plenty of opportunities to change his way of thinking and reform his actions, but instead, at the end of the novel, he remains the same individual.
The question raised in the novel is whether society or Alex himself is to blame for his actions. Alex has pulled away from society and rejected its norms. Yet, society still tries to help Alex and turn him into a model citizen. As a consequence, however, society ends up making more monsters like Alex. In the end, society has to stop treating Alex and allow him to regress to his former self in order for the rest of society to remain sane.
Q: What is Anthony Burgess saying about societial reform in A Clockwork Orange?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Fantasia 1940: Night on Bald Mountain and Ave Maria
Fantasia 1940 is for me one of the greatest movies of all time. Below, I have uploaded my favorite part in the movie in which Modest Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain is played against Franz Schubert's Ave Maria. Visually and muscially, the entire piece is breathtaking.
Modernism and Picasso: A Look at Guernica
One of my favorite Picasso paintings is Guernica. This mural portrays the bombing of Guernica by German Italian warplanes on April 26, 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. Although the painting is very abstract, Guernica convincinly portrays the horrors of war. This painting is in the style of Cubism where people and things are painted in abstracted shapes such as circles, squares, and triangles. This adds to the ugliness and disarray of the mural, symbolically representing the chaos and turmoil of the war.
For more information about Guernica click here Guernica
For more information about Cubism click here cubism
Q: Who is your favorite artist? Do you have a favorite painting from them? Does the painting have any social or political implications?
In response to Julia's question
"Do you like modern art? If you do, what do you like about it?"-Julia Ashton
To be honest, I am not a big fan of modern or contemporary art. I have visited MassMOCA a few times now, and I always have a hard time getting into the exhibits. Some of the pieces can be cool, but most of the time, I end up becoming bored and confused after about 20 minutes. While this is only my opinion, I have a hard time calling something art that I use to make in kindergarten class. I understand modern and contemporary art is more intellectual and less emotional than other forms of art, so in that case to understand it, I would probably have to become fluent in the language of modern art. I guess my dislike of modern art stems from my lack of understanding.
Q: Are there any modern pieces of art that you think are more emotional than intellectual in nature?
To be honest, I am not a big fan of modern or contemporary art. I have visited MassMOCA a few times now, and I always have a hard time getting into the exhibits. Some of the pieces can be cool, but most of the time, I end up becoming bored and confused after about 20 minutes. While this is only my opinion, I have a hard time calling something art that I use to make in kindergarten class. I understand modern and contemporary art is more intellectual and less emotional than other forms of art, so in that case to understand it, I would probably have to become fluent in the language of modern art. I guess my dislike of modern art stems from my lack of understanding.
Q: Are there any modern pieces of art that you think are more emotional than intellectual in nature?
Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring
The well known experimental psychologist, Steven Pinker, has said that art "should conform to human nature and thus artists should simply give people what they want"(Sanderson 4). He also stated that modern art is "ugly, baffling, and insulting"(Pinker, 2002:416). It seems to me that not only does Pinker have a narrow view of human nature, he also has a narrow view on what constitutes true art.
To prove the inefficiency of Pinker's statement on modern art, one only needs to cite the example of Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring". Although this orchestral masterpiece is not an example of modern art, it was written around the year 1912, it was considered at its time to be much of what modern art is considered to be now by many critics. As some background information, before Stravinsky wrote "The Rite of Spring" he had found success with the piece "Firebird". This piece, then made into a ballet, had a "fanciful story and gorgeous music in the grand and familiar style of Tchaikovsky"(Gutmann 2001/2002). No one expected Stravinsky to create an orchestral piece that would cause so much commotion as "The Rite of Spring". This piece, as well as the accompanying ballet, told the story of pagans sacrificing a maiden to the gods to help bring about spring. When the ballet was introduced on May 29, 1913, the audience responded in an all out riot. They were shocked not only by the ballet but also by the foreign music they were hearing. Stravinsky pushed the boundaries of his audience and as a result, his audience revolted.
Now almost 100 years after the piece was originally written and performed, "The Rite of Spring" is considered one of the greatest modern pieces of all times. Walt Disney used the score in his masterpiece, Fantasia bringing "The Rite of Spring" to the masses. This goes to show that sometimes, the audience does not know what is best for art, and just because an audience does not react kindly to a piece of art, it does not mean that the art itself is "ugly, baffling, or insulting". Rather, maybe the audience is just not ready or enlightened enough to fully grasp the art.
Below are the pieces, "Firebird" and "The Rite of Spring". These clips were taken from Fantasia and Fantasia 2000. My suggestion is that instead of watching the clips, rather just listen to the music.This is so you can visualize the music for yourself rather than become a slave to Walt Disney's interpretations and miss Stravinsky's original intentions.
To prove the inefficiency of Pinker's statement on modern art, one only needs to cite the example of Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring". Although this orchestral masterpiece is not an example of modern art, it was written around the year 1912, it was considered at its time to be much of what modern art is considered to be now by many critics. As some background information, before Stravinsky wrote "The Rite of Spring" he had found success with the piece "Firebird". This piece, then made into a ballet, had a "fanciful story and gorgeous music in the grand and familiar style of Tchaikovsky"(Gutmann 2001/2002). No one expected Stravinsky to create an orchestral piece that would cause so much commotion as "The Rite of Spring". This piece, as well as the accompanying ballet, told the story of pagans sacrificing a maiden to the gods to help bring about spring. When the ballet was introduced on May 29, 1913, the audience responded in an all out riot. They were shocked not only by the ballet but also by the foreign music they were hearing. Stravinsky pushed the boundaries of his audience and as a result, his audience revolted.
Now almost 100 years after the piece was originally written and performed, "The Rite of Spring" is considered one of the greatest modern pieces of all times. Walt Disney used the score in his masterpiece, Fantasia bringing "The Rite of Spring" to the masses. This goes to show that sometimes, the audience does not know what is best for art, and just because an audience does not react kindly to a piece of art, it does not mean that the art itself is "ugly, baffling, or insulting". Rather, maybe the audience is just not ready or enlightened enough to fully grasp the art.
Below are the pieces, "Firebird" and "The Rite of Spring". These clips were taken from Fantasia and Fantasia 2000. My suggestion is that instead of watching the clips, rather just listen to the music.This is so you can visualize the music for yourself rather than become a slave to Walt Disney's interpretations and miss Stravinsky's original intentions.
Q: What other forms or pieces of art were originally rejected or criticized by the public but are now viewed as "classics"?
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Dude Looks Like a Lady Contest
I know this has nothing to do with torture but I think this is important nevertheless
Last night at Relay for Life, there was a Dude Looks Like a Lady contest where a male member of each relay team dressed up like a women and put on a fashion show to raise money for the cause. Although it was funny and the guys who dressed up looked hilarious, I was hit with the realization that I had never encountered a Girl Looks like a Man contest ever in my life. When men dress up like women, especially in situations where it is meant to be in good fun, such as the Hasty Pudding Theatricals at Harvard, no one seems to have a problem with it. When girls dress up like guys, even in theatrical events, there is a stigma placed on the girl. I do not want to sound like a feminist but for the longest time, women were condemned for wearing pants. My idol, Katherine Hepburn, was often criticized for dressing in stereotypical men's attire such as suits and blazers. Truth be told, it is a lot funnier when guys dress like girls then the other way around, so I figure that is why those kinds of contests are more popular. I never really thought of it before, and it only came to my attention last night, seeing as I had tons of time to be with my thoughts.
Q: Why do you think Girl Looks Like a Man contests have never materialized?
Last night at Relay for Life, there was a Dude Looks Like a Lady contest where a male member of each relay team dressed up like a women and put on a fashion show to raise money for the cause. Although it was funny and the guys who dressed up looked hilarious, I was hit with the realization that I had never encountered a Girl Looks like a Man contest ever in my life. When men dress up like women, especially in situations where it is meant to be in good fun, such as the Hasty Pudding Theatricals at Harvard, no one seems to have a problem with it. When girls dress up like guys, even in theatrical events, there is a stigma placed on the girl. I do not want to sound like a feminist but for the longest time, women were condemned for wearing pants. My idol, Katherine Hepburn, was often criticized for dressing in stereotypical men's attire such as suits and blazers. Truth be told, it is a lot funnier when guys dress like girls then the other way around, so I figure that is why those kinds of contests are more popular. I never really thought of it before, and it only came to my attention last night, seeing as I had tons of time to be with my thoughts.
Q: Why do you think Girl Looks Like a Man contests have never materialized?
How Relay for Life Had Me Thinking About Torture
From 6pm on April 29 to 8am on April 30, I participated in Bershire County All College Relay for Life. This event raised money for the American Cancer Society to help fight cancer. For roughly twelve hours, I and many others walked in circles around the quad while a DJ blasted music at earsplitting levels. Now in all fairness, I had a really great time. I walked with my friends and we played games and danced to music. The food was good and everyone was in good spirits. Yet, as I began to start what seemed as my five hundredth lap around the quad and my knees and hips began to give out, I started to think of how easily this event could be used as torture. Even though I was having an awesome time, the lack of sleep and the physical toll on my body was significant; to make things simple let me say I walked for 10 hours at a clip of 3 miles an hour. In all, I walked roughly 30 miles in a fourteen hour period. If I was a prisoner of war and I was made to walk all night around in a circle with strange music blasting from loudspeakers without anyone to talk to, I would definitely go crazy. The pain that I would be feeling physically combined with the mental state created by this environment would be unbearable.
Q: Have you ever been in a position where your body and mind was pushed to their limits?
Q: Have you ever been in a position where your body and mind was pushed to their limits?
In response to Jenny Beer's question
Q: Is talking about and/or seeing torture difficult for you? Is it too extreme like me or are you interested as well as disturbed?
The sad reality of American today is that torture has become a norm in our society. As a result, I have become somewhat immune to the entire topic of torture, especially today's form of it. Somehow it is a lot easier to discuss waterboarding then forms of medieval torture such as impalement and coffin torture (If anyone is interested in medieval torture here's a cool website that discusses the different types of torture devices used in the Middle Ages: Torture).
I can remember when I first saw the photos taken at Abu Ghraib. I felt a sense of disconnect between the images and what I should have been feeling. In my head, I knew what I was seeing was appalling and heinous but I felt absolutely nothing. On the other end, when I read 1984 and Winston was tortured in room 101, I had a hard time stomaching through the chapter. I guess that some of the reason I felt more for Winston was that I had formed a connection with him through reading the novel, and I instinctively wanted him to beat Big Brother. The victims of Abu Ghraib on the other hand were nameless faceless individuals. I had no emotional investment in them. Later on, when I watched a documentary of Abu Ghraib during my senior year in high school, I cried when I saw the same photos I had seen six years prior. This was because the documentary had given the nameless faceless individuals identities; the documentary portrayed them as human beings.
Q: Why do you think so many Americans still support the use of torture, especially after incidents such as Abu Ghraib have been made public?
The sad reality of American today is that torture has become a norm in our society. As a result, I have become somewhat immune to the entire topic of torture, especially today's form of it. Somehow it is a lot easier to discuss waterboarding then forms of medieval torture such as impalement and coffin torture (If anyone is interested in medieval torture here's a cool website that discusses the different types of torture devices used in the Middle Ages: Torture).
I can remember when I first saw the photos taken at Abu Ghraib. I felt a sense of disconnect between the images and what I should have been feeling. In my head, I knew what I was seeing was appalling and heinous but I felt absolutely nothing. On the other end, when I read 1984 and Winston was tortured in room 101, I had a hard time stomaching through the chapter. I guess that some of the reason I felt more for Winston was that I had formed a connection with him through reading the novel, and I instinctively wanted him to beat Big Brother. The victims of Abu Ghraib on the other hand were nameless faceless individuals. I had no emotional investment in them. Later on, when I watched a documentary of Abu Ghraib during my senior year in high school, I cried when I saw the same photos I had seen six years prior. This was because the documentary had given the nameless faceless individuals identities; the documentary portrayed them as human beings.
Q: Why do you think so many Americans still support the use of torture, especially after incidents such as Abu Ghraib have been made public?
Waterboarding
I was shifting through torture articles online when I came across a piece in Vanity Fair magazine called "Believe Me, It's Torture". The article recounted how one of the magazine's writers, Christopher Hitchens, subjected himself to waterboarding to experience firsthand what it would be like to undergo the process. At the time this piece was written in 2008 and essentially all throughout the Bush Administration, waterboarding was a highly debated subject. The main dispute over waterboarding was whether it was actually a form of torture. Waterboarding, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is a process in which an individual is strapped to a wood board with a towel across his mouth, which is continuously soaked with water so the individual feels as though he is slowly drowning. For most people, the description of waterboarding alone would convince them that it is a form of torture, but just to drive the point home, Hitchens agreeded to undergo waterboarding and have his experience recorded for the world to see.
There were two things that really struck me with this article. The first was that Hitchens exposed a little known fact that waterboarding was actually a training method used by Americans to train other Americans to resist enemy interrogation. The United States military came up with waterboarding as a simulated form of torture that terrorist might use on Americans. The irony of this whole situation is not lost on me. How could American interrogators waterboard suspected terrorists knowing firsthand what it was like to be in the terrorists' shoes? Obviously I am not a highly trained military official but I know if I underwent a horrendous ordeal such as waterboarding, I certainly would not want anyone to go through what I went through.
There were two things that really struck me with this article. The first was that Hitchens exposed a little known fact that waterboarding was actually a training method used by Americans to train other Americans to resist enemy interrogation. The United States military came up with waterboarding as a simulated form of torture that terrorist might use on Americans. The irony of this whole situation is not lost on me. How could American interrogators waterboard suspected terrorists knowing firsthand what it was like to be in the terrorists' shoes? Obviously I am not a highly trained military official but I know if I underwent a horrendous ordeal such as waterboarding, I certainly would not want anyone to go through what I went through.
The other point that stood out for me was when Hitchens briefly mentioned how waterboarding did not simulate a sense of being drowned but actually drowned the individual being waterboarded. Simulation and actuality are two completely different things. Going on a simulated amusement ride at a park, say a ride that simulates going into outer space, is not the same thing as actually going into outer space. There are a lot less risks in going on a simulated ride then in experiencing the process firsthand. Simulated rides or experiences can bring about sensations of undergoing a real life situation and thus produce similar reactions as if the situation were real, such as a person feeling afraid while watching a horror movie; however, the person in the theater watching the horror movie is in no real danger. If waterboarding goes beyond simulation, which in itself can cause severe physical and psychological problems and is morally objectible, then waterboarding needs to be eradicated.
Here is the video of Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded. Warning: This video contain some disturbing content. Here's also a link to the article: Waterboarding Article
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
In Response to Shannon
Growing up, my parents utilized two different types of parenting styles, authoritarian and authoritative. Their authoritarian style of parenting lasting from the time I could talk up until I entered middle school. As a young child, my life was laid out for me by my parents. I was told what to wear, who to be friends with, how to act, and what activities I was allowed to be involved in. There were many rules in my house that my brother and I had to follow. For instance, neither my brother nor I could play with friends after school. We both were made to go straight home and complete our homework. Then, if we had time, we were permitted to play in our backyard, as long as we had helped prepare for dinner. There were also rules about swearing and talking back to our parents; I can remember being grounded for entire summers because I had sworn in my parents' presence. For the longest time, I grew up in a very controlled, strict household.
As I grew older, my parents grew relaxed in their parenting style. It became less what they wanted for me and more what I wanted for myself. I could choose the activities I wanted to be involved with; for instance, I was able to give up Girl Scouts and start running track. My parents still had high expectations when it came to school and my grades. I continued to get grounded for bad marks (in my house anything lower than a B was horrible) and I still could not go out after school. However, I started to have more freedom in the way I dressed, and I was able to choose the friends I wanted to hang out with. This greater sense of freedom made me feel more in control, and I was less likely to act out.
Without a doubt, I would definitely be a different person if my parents had chosen to bring me up with a different parenting style. I think I would be more outgoing if my parents had been less authoritarian and more authoritative. As I am now, I am too shy and less assertive. I tend to accredit this to my lack of say in my house as a child. I also know my relationship with schools and my grades would not be the same growing up in a different household. Still to this day, I am always afraid to get back my grades because I am worried about how well I did and if my parents would approve. On the other hand, my parents did instill in me some valuable traits that I could not live without. My parents taught me to be well mannered and polite. They pushed me to go beyond my limits and be the best at whatever I did. Sometimes, they might have pushed me too far, but no parent is perfect.
Q: Do you agree with how you were raised? What parenting style do you think produes the best results?
As I grew older, my parents grew relaxed in their parenting style. It became less what they wanted for me and more what I wanted for myself. I could choose the activities I wanted to be involved with; for instance, I was able to give up Girl Scouts and start running track. My parents still had high expectations when it came to school and my grades. I continued to get grounded for bad marks (in my house anything lower than a B was horrible) and I still could not go out after school. However, I started to have more freedom in the way I dressed, and I was able to choose the friends I wanted to hang out with. This greater sense of freedom made me feel more in control, and I was less likely to act out.
Without a doubt, I would definitely be a different person if my parents had chosen to bring me up with a different parenting style. I think I would be more outgoing if my parents had been less authoritarian and more authoritative. As I am now, I am too shy and less assertive. I tend to accredit this to my lack of say in my house as a child. I also know my relationship with schools and my grades would not be the same growing up in a different household. Still to this day, I am always afraid to get back my grades because I am worried about how well I did and if my parents would approve. On the other hand, my parents did instill in me some valuable traits that I could not live without. My parents taught me to be well mannered and polite. They pushed me to go beyond my limits and be the best at whatever I did. Sometimes, they might have pushed me too far, but no parent is perfect.
Q: Do you agree with how you were raised? What parenting style do you think produes the best results?
Response to "Patriotic Millionaires"
First I have to say, I think it is really sad that in this day in age, US citizens have to petition the government in order for it to do its job. Citizens, in this case millionaires, should not have to tell the government that it needs to tax the rich in order to stabilize the economy. Furthermore, I find it disturbing that the millionaires are calling themselves patriots. Is it because they are offering to give up some of their income to taxes, which they should be doing in the first place? Or is it because they want to save the country which allows them to make so much money? The millionaires are not patriots. They have just as much stake in this country as the average citizen.
Q: How do you think Congress will act to these sorts of petitions?
Q: How do you think Congress will act to these sorts of petitions?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
In response to Julia's question "Do you find people more attractive because of their looks or their personalities upon first impression? Most people make an initial impression of someone based on their looks. Do you agree or disagree with this? Why are looks, and not other qualities such as intelligence and compassion, most highly valued in our society?"
Although it is sad to say, for first impressions, looks tend to be more important than personality. Society is obsessed with appearances. Case in point my favorite series"What Not to Wear". For those not familiar with the show, two style experts spend an entire week fixing a fashion train wreck. During almost every episode, the person who is having their wardrobe overhauled says something to the extent that appearances should not matter. The style experts quickly get the subject to realize that in order to play the part one must look the part. A lot of the people on the show are up and coming professionals, and their attire is preventing them from being taking seriously. They soon learn that although it might be superficial, appearances play an important part in society.
While looks are important, they can only take people so far. People also need vibrant personalities to take themselves to the next level. I know of people who on first impression were extremely attractive, but the more I got to know them and recognize their personalities, the less time I wanted to hang out with them. Beautiful people can turn ugly if their beauty is only skin deep.
Q: What is your opinion of plastic surgery? Is it a result of society's obsession with youth and beauty or is it more personal?
While looks are important, they can only take people so far. People also need vibrant personalities to take themselves to the next level. I know of people who on first impression were extremely attractive, but the more I got to know them and recognize their personalities, the less time I wanted to hang out with them. Beautiful people can turn ugly if their beauty is only skin deep.
Q: What is your opinion of plastic surgery? Is it a result of society's obsession with youth and beauty or is it more personal?
How the US Government and Big Corporations Go Hand in Hand
Recently, I was watching the Daily Show online and I came across this clip titled "I Give Up-Pay Anything". Underneath the video, there were tags that read GE, wealth, taxes so I thought that maybe it might have something to do with our conversation in class about CEO compensation and corporate greed. As I watched, I discovered that President Obama recently named General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt as the chair to The Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. This came after President Obama saying that the government needed to stop large corporations from receiving tax breaks and sending jobs overseas. The situation is ironic because GE made 14.2 billion dollars in worldwide profits last year while paying no corporate taxes. In fact,it actually made 3.2 billion dollars in government compensation. Large corporations are supposed to be taxed 35%, but statics have shown that 2/3 of the major businesses in the United States pay no corporate taxes. To add more insult to injury, in the past decade, GE has outsourced 1/5 of its jobs to other countries. From this example alone, it is no wonder why the government cannot balance the budget.
Here's the link to watch the video: http://www.thedailyshow.com/collection/380202/best-of-corporate-greed/379045
Q: Is the government just a puppet of large corporations?
Here's the link to watch the video: http://www.thedailyshow.com/collection/380202/best-of-corporate-greed/379045
Q: Is the government just a puppet of large corporations?
Saturday, April 9, 2011
In response to Jenny Beer's question, "From an adult standpoint, do you think that "Facebook is evil" or does it serve a beneficial purpose in society?
On the whole, I hate Facebook and I think it is evil. That being said, I have a Facebook and I check it multiple times a day. I try to tell myself the only reason I have it is to keep in touch with people and stay in the "loop", but really it is a tool which I use to value myself against others. Everytime I post a status, I try to think of how many responses I'll get. My self esteem is tied directly to people's responses or lack of responses. I get a knot in my stomach, anticipating if and when one of my "friends" will comment. Facebook is destroying my sense of self, but I cannot seem to live without it. I crave it, and I have a hard time refraining from it. I feel like I will miss something important without it.
Q: Why has Facebook become so important in today's society?
Q: Why has Facebook become so important in today's society?
Response to Julia Ashton's question "Have you ever been labeled? Did you agree with this label, or did you rebel against it?"
All through high school, I was labeled the "shy, smart" kid. I deserved this label in many respects and learned to embraced it because it essentially described who I was at that time. On the day to day, I was the girl who didn't really talk unless I was answering a question, and I was always on the high honor roll. Normally, people rarely talked to me unless to ask me questions about homework or class, which I most likely had the answers to. I was that "shy, smart" girl people labeled me as.
Now that I am out of high school, I am trying to shed that label. I find it less appealing to be what people expect of me. It is more exciting, in my opinion, to keep one's mind open, instead of placing everyone in a neat orderly box.
Q: Are there less labels in college?
Now that I am out of high school, I am trying to shed that label. I find it less appealing to be what people expect of me. It is more exciting, in my opinion, to keep one's mind open, instead of placing everyone in a neat orderly box.
Q: Are there less labels in college?
Why Public Schools Should Not Be Privatized
After listening to Joseph Stiglitz's interview with Democracy Now, I was surprised, but rather sadden, to hear that one of the results of the top 1% receiving more and more of the US's wealth was the elimination of public schools and the increase of private education. With the economy still trying to recover from the financial crisis, less federal money is being pumped into the public education system. Public schools are constantly taking disastrous hits to their already insignificant budgets. With less resources, the public schools cannot compete with their private counterparts, and as a result, more parents are opting to send their children to private schools. There are many problems with this recent turn to privatizing public schools, which are laid out in the article "Confronting the Challenge of Privatization in Public Education" written by Dr. Pedro Noguera of the University of California, Berkley. Using California schools as his basis, he explains why privatizing public schools in the US would lead to the country in the wrong direction.
Dr. Noguera argues that despite the weaknesses of the public schools, they still are the best and often only sources of mobility to working class people and the poor. Unlike private schools which can deny students access, public schools allow the underprivileged a change to have a level playing field with other students. Allowing public schools to be privatized would mean an increased amount of segregation across the country in the educational system. In a way, private schools result in less equality.
Another problem Dr. Noguera has with this new trend is that private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools. Public schools have certain criteria they have to adhere to, provided by them by the government. All public schools must follow these guidelines; however, private schools can make their own curriculum. In many cases, the private school curriculum's are religious based or the school year is lessened or lengthened. This puts all the students across the country at different levels of education, beyond what naturally occurs.
Beyond what Dr. Noguera lists as his reasons for not privatizing public education, I personally believe public schools should not be privatized simply on the grounds that the United States was the first industrialized nation to establish public schools, and in doing so, it allowed this country to become what it is today. Privatizing public schools would limit opportunities only to a select group of people, which goes against the principles this country was founded on. Public schools are, as Dr. Noguera says "an important natural resource". It is my opinion that the country should not get rid of them but rather reform them.
Q: As an MCLA student, what have you noticed are some disadvantages and advantages to attending a state college?
Dr. Noguera's article: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/pnpriv1.html
Dr. Noguera argues that despite the weaknesses of the public schools, they still are the best and often only sources of mobility to working class people and the poor. Unlike private schools which can deny students access, public schools allow the underprivileged a change to have a level playing field with other students. Allowing public schools to be privatized would mean an increased amount of segregation across the country in the educational system. In a way, private schools result in less equality.
Another problem Dr. Noguera has with this new trend is that private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools. Public schools have certain criteria they have to adhere to, provided by them by the government. All public schools must follow these guidelines; however, private schools can make their own curriculum. In many cases, the private school curriculum's are religious based or the school year is lessened or lengthened. This puts all the students across the country at different levels of education, beyond what naturally occurs.
Beyond what Dr. Noguera lists as his reasons for not privatizing public education, I personally believe public schools should not be privatized simply on the grounds that the United States was the first industrialized nation to establish public schools, and in doing so, it allowed this country to become what it is today. Privatizing public schools would limit opportunities only to a select group of people, which goes against the principles this country was founded on. Public schools are, as Dr. Noguera says "an important natural resource". It is my opinion that the country should not get rid of them but rather reform them.
Q: As an MCLA student, what have you noticed are some disadvantages and advantages to attending a state college?
Dr. Noguera's article: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/pnpriv1.html
Saturday, April 2, 2011
In response to Julia Ashton's question "Why is it today that there are so many less people who are willing to physically fight for America than in the past?"
I think people are less willing to fight for America nowadays then in the past has to do with a couple of factors. First, media has drastically changed the way we view the world. Back during the Revolutionary War and even up to WWII, public opposition of war was swept under the rug. There were no 24 hour news shows uncovering facts about the presidential administration. Citizens were more likely to trust in their leaders because they had less ways of proving otherwise. Now with the Internet, sites like Wiki leaks can expose military and government cover-ups with just the click of a mouse. It is harder now for the government to fool American citizens into believing what they want them to believe.
Also during older wars, Americans had more to fight for. While modern-day America often wages war over oil and ideals, during the Revolutionary War, soldiers were actually fighting for their country. If common people refuse to take up arms, there would be no United States of America. There was more on the lines for the early Americans then todays's citizens. The same goes with American soldiers fighting in WWII. Those who enlisted saw the attack on Pearl Harbor as the Japanese way of trying to destroy the US. WWII was actually legit, as opposed to recent wars like Vietnam and the Iraq War.
Q: Have colleges changed the way the younger generations view war?
Also during older wars, Americans had more to fight for. While modern-day America often wages war over oil and ideals, during the Revolutionary War, soldiers were actually fighting for their country. If common people refuse to take up arms, there would be no United States of America. There was more on the lines for the early Americans then todays's citizens. The same goes with American soldiers fighting in WWII. Those who enlisted saw the attack on Pearl Harbor as the Japanese way of trying to destroy the US. WWII was actually legit, as opposed to recent wars like Vietnam and the Iraq War.
Q: Have colleges changed the way the younger generations view war?
Support the Troops
Up until fairly recently, about 2 years ago, I never really gave much thought to the phrase "Support the Troops". However, now that my brother is in the US Army and has already been deployed to Afghanistan ans is waiting to go to Libya, that phrase has a lot more meaning. It is has, in many respects, become a way of life for me and my family. Both of my parents have bumper stickers on their cars with the slogan and both proudly tell everyone they meet that their son is in the Army ; on our door, we have a yellow ribbon symbolizing family in the armed forces (I also have multiple cousins who are currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan). My family has essentially transformed into a military family. While different members of the family have different opinions over the legitimacy of the war itself, everyone is behind the military. In some ways, I would see it as wrong to be otherwise. I personally believe that making the ultimate sacrifice for one's country is the most heroic and patriotic thing one can do. As a soldier, my brother is more patriotic, in my opinion, than myself and most people I know. He is what I strive to be. Although the reasons for being over in the Middle East are ungrounded, they have no barring on how I view the soldiers who are fighting for their country. These individuals are to be admired, as long as they are living up to certain morals instilled in them by the military.
I am obviously writing this in response to the class discussion about patriotism. I agree that those who disagree with the war and who speak out against it are also patriots. I also agree that those who ardantly support the war without adequate reason for doing so are not true patriots. But ultimately, I think that those risks their lives on a daily basis to serve their country, whether it be soldiers, firemen, policemen or often demonstrators advocating unpopular stances on social issues, are the most patriotic.
Q: How do you feel about the draft?
I am obviously writing this in response to the class discussion about patriotism. I agree that those who disagree with the war and who speak out against it are also patriots. I also agree that those who ardantly support the war without adequate reason for doing so are not true patriots. But ultimately, I think that those risks their lives on a daily basis to serve their country, whether it be soldiers, firemen, policemen or often demonstrators advocating unpopular stances on social issues, are the most patriotic.
Q: How do you feel about the draft?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
In response to Jenny Beers' question, " Have you, or someone you know gone through an experience that has changed their religious views? This can be that they found religion or strayed away from it. Why do you think they decided to that?"
For me, I never had one experience that changed my religious views but rather a string of events that brought me to a conclusion about my beliefs. As a child, my mother brought me up Protestant. From the age of 2 to 15, I went to church every Sunday, participated in Sunday school, and became indoctrinated into the church. However, by the time I reached high school, I no longer believed in God. For the 13 years I attended Church, I never felt close to God. I was never convinced by the pastor's sermons, the Sunday school teachers' lessons, or even the passages from the Bible. In many ways, I felt isolated from the other church members. I remember thinking to myself that I could possibly be an atheist. Everything I learned in science, history, and even English classes pointed me in that direction. I guess in many respects, I was never a true Christian to begin with. Yet, I do think that if events in my life had gone differently, I may still be a member of the Protestant church.
Q: Why are the number of atheists on the rise. What does this say about the state of the world?
Q: Why are the number of atheists on the rise. What does this say about the state of the world?
A Response to Rev. Jonathon Weyer's article "A Christian Stands Alone at the Creation Museum"
At the ending of reading Rev. Jonathon Weyer's article, I was a little disappointment over how the Rev. summed up his experience at the Creation Museum. In the beginning, I was surprised and actually glad when the Rev. dismissed the museum and spoke of how as a Christian who believed in evolution, he was stuck by how much of the museum was built to attack the faithful who also had scientific leanings, not atheists. This perfectly illustrated the discussion we had on class Friday, when it was illustrated how some theists and atheists are "closed minded". This Rev., although a Christian, realized that this museum was not even scientific, and he also realized that the museum was only for very conservative Christians, not all Christians. In a way, it is funny to see the divided even in Christianity. The idea that atheists cannot even agree with one another lends not a lot of hope to the atheist v. theist debate.
What mad me upset about the end of the article was how the Rev, prayed to God after he realized he was acting to pompous towards both Christians and atheists. He writes, "My issue had become that my pride had taken over against both Christians and atheists. I had become perfectly treacherous to two groups of people and had grown to love the feeling. This had been the real part of my reluctance to attend the Creation Museum. I had been afraid that I would have to pick a side and lose my superior status". Now I do not mind that he recognized his shortcomings. I just was taken back when he said he was looking down at other atheists. By this part, the Rev. had changed from an open-minded theist back to just a theist. I think he was right in the beginning to shoot down the museum. I also think he should not have to forgive himself for believing in what he believes. If being "open-minded" makes him a bad Christian, it is better then being strictly Christian.
Q: Should creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools?
Here's the ariticle if anyone needs to reference it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jonathan-weyer/alone-at-the-creation-mus_b_840540.html
What mad me upset about the end of the article was how the Rev, prayed to God after he realized he was acting to pompous towards both Christians and atheists. He writes, "My issue had become that my pride had taken over against both Christians and atheists. I had become perfectly treacherous to two groups of people and had grown to love the feeling. This had been the real part of my reluctance to attend the Creation Museum. I had been afraid that I would have to pick a side and lose my superior status". Now I do not mind that he recognized his shortcomings. I just was taken back when he said he was looking down at other atheists. By this part, the Rev. had changed from an open-minded theist back to just a theist. I think he was right in the beginning to shoot down the museum. I also think he should not have to forgive himself for believing in what he believes. If being "open-minded" makes him a bad Christian, it is better then being strictly Christian.
Q: Should creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools?
Here's the ariticle if anyone needs to reference it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jonathan-weyer/alone-at-the-creation-mus_b_840540.html
Monday, March 14, 2011
In response to Jenny's question: Are there certain pieces of music that can make you happier?
To answer this question simply, yes there are pieces of music that can make you happier. As for me, some songs that always put me in a good mood are "Here Comes the Sun" by the Beatles, "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey and "Always Be My Baby" by Mariah Carey. I guess it would depend on the individual as to what songs make them happy. Sometimes the songs that make you the happiest are connected with pleasant memories that are triggered every time you hear the song. Other times, the song itself is just extremely upbeat and fun to sing along to. I find that most Disney songs are like that. From my experience, most people appear happier after hearing a Disney song, especially if its a classic or its really well known. Its sort of hard to be in a bad mood after listening to "A Spoonful of Sugar" or "Be Our Guest" (excluding those times which I like to call "Its A Small World" incident when one is forced to listen to the same song over and over again against their will, often during long car rides with children under the age of 5). Songs like these are especially created to make the listener smile. So, while there are a lot of songs that are sad in nature, there are also ones that are seemingly happy.
Q: What is it about Disney songs that makes them timeless and enduring, especially in a culture where everybody is searching for the next best thing? Why do Disney songs stand the test of time?
Q: What is it about Disney songs that makes them timeless and enduring, especially in a culture where everybody is searching for the next best thing? Why do Disney songs stand the test of time?
Natural Disaster in Japan
After discussing altruism in class along with the controversial topic of charity, I found it ironic, as well as heartbreaking, that on Friday Japan experienced a horrific natural disaster. The irony in this incident is that almost immediately I saw relief efforts asking citizens to donate money to help the people of Japan. Now, I am not a cold hearted individual, and I know Japan is in dire straits; the images that have been shown on the news far exceeded those of Hurricane Katrina. Yet somehow I remain weary of handing over my money to people supposedly helping out the people of Japan. The discussion in class about charity fraud made me hyper aware of the simplicity of cheating others out of their money by posing as a charity. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, reports of charity abuse started to circulate, especially connected with the big name events held to raise money for relief. Apparently, the majority of the funds never actually reached those who were in need. That's why I am so hesitant to give my money over to some random source. I would rather take action and actually try to personally help the people, which poses a major problem in the case of the Japan disaster because I cannot go to Japan and help. So the question is:
Is it better to give money to a charity that could potentially be fraudulent or do nothing at all?
Is it better to give money to a charity that could potentially be fraudulent or do nothing at all?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
In response to Katie's question, "How has art affected you?"
Art is such an instrumental part of my life. On a daily basis, my emotions and state of mind are impacted by different forms of art, especially music. For me, music is the most influential art form in the world.
There are certain songs that I listen to that instantly make me feel a certain way. For instance, every time I listen to Canon in D Major by Pachabel or Hallelujah by Jeff Buckley I instantly start crying. The way the song is sung, in the case of Hallelujah, or how the music conveys an emotion, like with Canon, invokes a certain feeling within the listener that is overwhelmingly powerful and pure.
Music can also solidify memories and take one back to a certain place and time. When I was little, every Sunday morning, I would wake up to the smell of blueberry pancakes cooking in the kitchen and the voice of James Taylor playing on the record machine (yes as I child my parents had a record player). Still to this day, whenever I hear James Taylor, which happens to be a lot now that I live in the Bershires, I can instantly smell blueberry pancakes, and I get this feeling of nostalgia.
However, the greatest thing about music, in my opinion, is it can bring people together. Often, it becomes the voice of a generation. Songs like Imagine or Respect transcend time, and thus come to stand for so much more than just songs. They are calls for peace, for love, for action, for understanding and in some cases for help and compassion. In many respects, they come to take on a life of their own, because their message is immortal.
Q: Why does music generate or invoke certain emotions in the listener?
There are certain songs that I listen to that instantly make me feel a certain way. For instance, every time I listen to Canon in D Major by Pachabel or Hallelujah by Jeff Buckley I instantly start crying. The way the song is sung, in the case of Hallelujah, or how the music conveys an emotion, like with Canon, invokes a certain feeling within the listener that is overwhelmingly powerful and pure.
Music can also solidify memories and take one back to a certain place and time. When I was little, every Sunday morning, I would wake up to the smell of blueberry pancakes cooking in the kitchen and the voice of James Taylor playing on the record machine (yes as I child my parents had a record player). Still to this day, whenever I hear James Taylor, which happens to be a lot now that I live in the Bershires, I can instantly smell blueberry pancakes, and I get this feeling of nostalgia.
However, the greatest thing about music, in my opinion, is it can bring people together. Often, it becomes the voice of a generation. Songs like Imagine or Respect transcend time, and thus come to stand for so much more than just songs. They are calls for peace, for love, for action, for understanding and in some cases for help and compassion. In many respects, they come to take on a life of their own, because their message is immortal.
Q: Why does music generate or invoke certain emotions in the listener?
In response to Julia Ashton's question, "Do you believe everyone has a "soulmate"?"...
From what I have seen of love and from what I know to be true of love, I have a hard time believing in the idea of "soulmates". For me, the idea of soulmates invokes this fantastical notiom of love only found in romance novels and movie, and believe it or not, real life is rarely reflected in these sorts of media. This may be the reason why people, mostly women, love these kinds of romatic tales. They portray this alternate reality where everyone has a soulmate and love is eternal.
So as mentioned above, the idea of soulmates, in my opinion, is ludicrious. That does not mean however that I do not believe in love or the concept of strong lasting relationships. I just do not think that two people can be destined for one another. Two people can certainly be compatable and live their lives together, but that is not to say that there could be other people who could do the same. I believe with enough time and compassion, any two people can grow to love one another; love is not fated.
Q: Is is possible to love someone but to not be in love with them?
So as mentioned above, the idea of soulmates, in my opinion, is ludicrious. That does not mean however that I do not believe in love or the concept of strong lasting relationships. I just do not think that two people can be destined for one another. Two people can certainly be compatable and live their lives together, but that is not to say that there could be other people who could do the same. I believe with enough time and compassion, any two people can grow to love one another; love is not fated.
Q: Is is possible to love someone but to not be in love with them?
Sam Harris and "The Science of Good and Evil"
Written in October 2010, Sam Harris's essay, "The Science of Good and Evil" tries to reconcile the notion that science cannot be used to prove morals. As a renown athesist, Harris believes that science, not religion, has in it the ability to empirically prove the "good" or "evil" of certain actions. He writes that,
Q: Do you think moral questions can be answered through science?
Here's a link to Harris' article, in case anyone wants to read it: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-science-of-good-and-evil/
Scientists generally believe that answers to questions of human value will fall perpetually beyond our reach—not because human subjectivity is too difficult to study, or the brain too complex, but because there is no intellectual justification for speaking about right and wrong, or good and evil, in universal terms. (Harris)Harris, in order to counter this belief, brigns together the concepts of morality and well-being. He says that morality is just another way to say well-being. For instance, if an action increases the well-being of a large group of people, that action must be morally good and vice-versa. he then goes to add that each moral question may have a variety of answers, some more or less equivalent. In this way, Harris is not saying that science will find the one true answer of morality but more that science can be used to find answers to moral questions.
Q: Do you think moral questions can be answered through science?
Here's a link to Harris' article, in case anyone wants to read it: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-science-of-good-and-evil/
Saturday, February 26, 2011
What We Don't Know, Scares Us
This is in response to Mariah Key's question, "Why do you think that people are uncomfortable with differences around them?".
So to answer Mariah's question, I think it would be right to say that in general, most people are uncomfortable with the unknown. Often times, prejudice stems from lack of knowledge or ignorance. Humans have a hard time stepping outside of their comfort shell and exploring the unknown. They don't want to get to know other people who don't share similar traits with them, because this would entail putting their own sense of security on the line to make another feel comfortable. Human beings have a need to feel included and accepted, but they are less willing to help others feel the same if they sense any sort of risk in doing so. As selfish creatures, people tend to watch out for their own self interest. That's why differences pose such a major problem.
Q: Do you think it would ever be possible to eliminate prejudice?
So to answer Mariah's question, I think it would be right to say that in general, most people are uncomfortable with the unknown. Often times, prejudice stems from lack of knowledge or ignorance. Humans have a hard time stepping outside of their comfort shell and exploring the unknown. They don't want to get to know other people who don't share similar traits with them, because this would entail putting their own sense of security on the line to make another feel comfortable. Human beings have a need to feel included and accepted, but they are less willing to help others feel the same if they sense any sort of risk in doing so. As selfish creatures, people tend to watch out for their own self interest. That's why differences pose such a major problem.
Q: Do you think it would ever be possible to eliminate prejudice?
Why Ronit Herzfeld Gets Free Will Wrong
Ronit Herzfeld, a psychotherapist and writer for the Huffington Post, recently wrote an article on free will entitled, "Do You Think You Have Free Will". In it, she explains how free will can be achieved through the consciousness of one's actions; instead of only reacting, one must think about his or her actions before responding in an appropriate manner. Like a twelve step program, Herzfeld lays out all the necessary steps needed to obtain free will. The problem is, she does not know quite what she is talking about.
With all her talk of free will, Ronit Herzfeld seems to know little about the subject. She consciously pushes aside the free will v. determinism debate and creates her own understanding of free will. She writes,
Q: Why are so many misconceptions about philosophy ingrained in pop culture?
With all her talk of free will, Ronit Herzfeld seems to know little about the subject. She consciously pushes aside the free will v. determinism debate and creates her own understanding of free will. She writes,
"Unlike most philosophers and theologians, the question for me cannot be reduced to the duality of "yes, we can choose freely," or "no, everything is predetermined." As a psychotherapist, I have discovered that it's a matter of degrees. Your capacity for free will depends on how aware you are at any given moment"[1]With this statement, Herzeld completley puts revels her lack of knowledge in the subject of free will. The free will v. determinism debate does not just boil down to "yes, we can choose freely," or "no, everything is predetermined". First off, this debate has many sides, including both compatibilists and incompatibilists. Secondly, predeterminism and determinism are two separate theories. And thirdly, just because it would be easier to make free will "a matter of degrees" does not mean that it is. Herfeld is confusing free will with conscious decision making. To have free will, one would have to make decisions outside of influences from nature and past experiences. The way Herzfeld writes this article, it seems as though she is advocating determinism more rather than free will. Because she does not know or confuses the topic, Ronit Herzfeld is spreading a popular, but incorrect, notion of free will.
Q: Why are so many misconceptions about philosophy ingrained in pop culture?
[1] Herzfeld, Ronit. "Do You Think You Have Free Will?" The Huffington Post. 24 Feb. 2011. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronit-herzfeld/free-will_b_826069.html>.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
What is Beauty?
This post is in reponse to Katie's question, "What do you think is beauty and do you find yourself to be a beautiful person?"
There is an old adage that says "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". I do not know if I actually believe in this saying. I think society has a set model of what beauty is. Beauty manifests itself in ascetically pleasing individuals. Beauty can also mean having a kind and warm demeanor and a solid sense of self. I believe that beauty is more about how a person acts towards others and themselves rather than physical appearances, but I am not naive enough to think that appearances are not important.
I have a hard time judging whether I think I am beautiful or not. I tend to think that only others can say whether someone else is beautiful. There are times when I really feel good about myself, and sometimes I have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror. I guess that at this point in my life, I have not figured out who I am yet, so I really cannot say I am a beautiful person because I am unsure of myself.
Q: Why do you believe the many artists (singers, dancers, actors/actresses are also considered beautiful?
There is an old adage that says "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". I do not know if I actually believe in this saying. I think society has a set model of what beauty is. Beauty manifests itself in ascetically pleasing individuals. Beauty can also mean having a kind and warm demeanor and a solid sense of self. I believe that beauty is more about how a person acts towards others and themselves rather than physical appearances, but I am not naive enough to think that appearances are not important.
I have a hard time judging whether I think I am beautiful or not. I tend to think that only others can say whether someone else is beautiful. There are times when I really feel good about myself, and sometimes I have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror. I guess that at this point in my life, I have not figured out who I am yet, so I really cannot say I am a beautiful person because I am unsure of myself.
Q: Why do you believe the many artists (singers, dancers, actors/actresses are also considered beautiful?
The Human Concept of Wealth
In his blog, Griffin posted the question, "What other human concepts are there that we use to define ourselves and the world?'. His post was a response to Jenny Beers question about the concept of marriage and why or if humans choose to be alone.
To answer Griffin's question, other human concept that we use to define ourselves and the world are wealth, status, and birth. Wealth is the common denominator used all around the world to create social hierarchies Especially in capitalist countries, the more wealth one has the more power they amass. The most wealthy individuals have the greatest amount of resources and influence to change the world. All one has to do is look at Oprah or Bill Gates to see how much power wealth entails.
Status, which often goes along with wealth, is another human concept that humans use to define each other. Social status in many countries defines one's place in society. Although it is often possible for one to move up and down the social ladder, one's social status can have a large impact on his or her life. Social status creates opportunities for those ranked near the top, while destroying it for those ranked near the bottom.
Birth, in connection to wealth and social status, plays a major role in how humans view one another. In older societies especially in Europe, birth decided everything. Now in modern times, birth counts for less, but those born into richer families often receive more and often better opportunities then those born to parents of middle or lower class origins.
Q: Why do you believe that the people of poorer countries are often happier then their counterparts in wealthier societies?
To answer Griffin's question, other human concept that we use to define ourselves and the world are wealth, status, and birth. Wealth is the common denominator used all around the world to create social hierarchies Especially in capitalist countries, the more wealth one has the more power they amass. The most wealthy individuals have the greatest amount of resources and influence to change the world. All one has to do is look at Oprah or Bill Gates to see how much power wealth entails.
Status, which often goes along with wealth, is another human concept that humans use to define each other. Social status in many countries defines one's place in society. Although it is often possible for one to move up and down the social ladder, one's social status can have a large impact on his or her life. Social status creates opportunities for those ranked near the top, while destroying it for those ranked near the bottom.
Birth, in connection to wealth and social status, plays a major role in how humans view one another. In older societies especially in Europe, birth decided everything. Now in modern times, birth counts for less, but those born into richer families often receive more and often better opportunities then those born to parents of middle or lower class origins.
Q: Why do you believe that the people of poorer countries are often happier then their counterparts in wealthier societies?
The Flaw with "The Flaw of Fatalism"
In one of the sections on Naturalism.org called Three Strikes Against Fatalism there is an article called "The Flaw of Fatalism". In this article the author, Thomas W. Clark, argues that fatalism is flawed because one's desires and rationality influence one's actions, contrary to fatalistic thinking. Clark writes,
In Clarks' article, he tries to say that people's thoughts and desires have a major influence on their actions. While this is true, it is also true that their actions cannot be changed by thought and desires if one believes in determinism. And as one's thoughts and desires have already been determined, the circumstances of the world would have to be completely different is one's thougths and desires would have an influence on actions.
Although I can see many problems with fatalism, I find it hard to follow Clarks' logic in expelling it. So for my question I ask "Is fatalism the opposite of free will and/or determinism?
"But desire and rationality – unlike the independent, freely willing agent – are not powerless, far from it. By being embedded in the causal matrix they inevitably have their effects, and a strong, skillfully pursued desire can have far-reaching effects indeed". [1]This quote, along with the rest of the article, reminded me of Wednesday's discussion and how the class tried to reconcile free will and determinsim. At one point in the class, a student asked why cannot free will and determinsim be integrated on the idea that although actions are influenced by prior events, people think about their actions, and thus their thoughts and desires guide them in making decisions? The response was that humans' biology were determined at birth, thus all there thoughts and actions being a byproduct of the brain, were also determined at brith. That is why desires and thoughts are not agents of free will.
In Clarks' article, he tries to say that people's thoughts and desires have a major influence on their actions. While this is true, it is also true that their actions cannot be changed by thought and desires if one believes in determinism. And as one's thoughts and desires have already been determined, the circumstances of the world would have to be completely different is one's thougths and desires would have an influence on actions.
Although I can see many problems with fatalism, I find it hard to follow Clarks' logic in expelling it. So for my question I ask "Is fatalism the opposite of free will and/or determinism?
Clark, Thomas W. "Free Will: Three Strikes Against Fatalism." Naturalism_Org. Center for Naturalism, 98. Web. 19 Feb. 2011. <http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Murder is Wrong No Matter the Circumstances
Lauren asked an interesting question over whether it would still be bad to kill people if it meant preventing potential murders of innocent people in the future. As aways, I have to respond that no matter the circumstances, murder is morally wrong. No one has the right to play "God". Humans being equal on this ground cannot decide the fate of others. While it is true that in some situations, the killing of another can be justified, but the morally of the act does not alter.
Q: If someone kills another in self defense, should they still receive punishment for their actions?
Q: If someone kills another in self defense, should they still receive punishment for their actions?
Are Meat Eaters Cannibals?
In response to Shannon's question, I believe that while her theory about humans being cannibals by eating animal flesh is interesting and thought provoking, it is not entirely true. Humans, unless they eat other humans, are not cannibals; they are omnivores. If the classification for being a cannibal was that the individual or thing had only to eat meat, many animals like lions and dogs would also be considered cannibals.
The cannibal theory, while debatablee does hint on a major philosophical issue about human consumption of animal flesh. Although humans have the capacity to eat meat, the morality behind it is still up for debate. By comparing meat eaters to cannibals, Shannon invokes the monstrous nature of consuming animal flesh. Normally, whenever I think about cannibalism, I naturally think of Hannibal in the Silence of the Lambs. Maybe cannibalism can take on a different form? I still, however, think eating meat is not cannibalism.
Q: If consuming animal flesh is morally wrong, is it also wrong to consume animal byproducts such as milk?
The cannibal theory, while debatablee does hint on a major philosophical issue about human consumption of animal flesh. Although humans have the capacity to eat meat, the morality behind it is still up for debate. By comparing meat eaters to cannibals, Shannon invokes the monstrous nature of consuming animal flesh. Normally, whenever I think about cannibalism, I naturally think of Hannibal in the Silence of the Lambs. Maybe cannibalism can take on a different form? I still, however, think eating meat is not cannibalism.
Q: If consuming animal flesh is morally wrong, is it also wrong to consume animal byproducts such as milk?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
To Trust or Not to To Trust
Griffen asked to question whether it is better to be too trusting or not trusting enough. The answer to that question is neither. Too much trust in others puts an individual at the mercy of other people. This leaves the individual extremely vulnerable and leads to self-doubt. Individuals in this situation often feel betrayed and hurt when their trust is broken. Too little trust is a whole other issue. Without trust, individuals are constantly suspicious of others, and they withdraw from the rest of the world. They are often victims of betrayal. They tend to adapt the whole "the only person I can trust is myself" attitude and turn bitter as a result. The best way to avoid both extremes is to establish a balance between the two. Creating emotional boundaries between oneself and others allows for a substantial amount of trust to be formed without sacrificing a sense of self. Being sure of oneself is the best way to prevent someone from going to either trust extreme.
My Strange Reaction to "Earthlings: A Documentary"
So yesterday I decided, on a whim, to watched the documentary "Earthlings". Having been posted on Professor Johnson's blog since Thursday, the link to the documentary had the description "Powerful and disturbing (warning: graphic images of animal abuse)". I knew going in what the documentary was all about. I had already read both The Food Revloution by John Robbins and Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and watched PETA promotional videos on the fur and medical industries' abuse of animals. Yet somehow, I still managed to eat meat on a daily basis. Maybe I was immune to this kind of thing. All throughout my life, I was never really effected by disturbing images or accounts of brutality. I was one of the few kids in high school who could watch footage of the Holocaust without closing my eyes. For me, the most disturbing material was like watching a train wreck; again and again I would never looked away even though I was horrified by what I was seeing. Then, after reading or watching the accounts of brutality and abuse, I would always be fired up, wanting to bring justice to the victims and punish the offenders. Yet, after a couple of hours, I would forget about the whole thing. As sad as it was, I was always true.
The same thing occurred after watching the Earthlings" documentary. Throughout the program, I was aghast at the treatment of animals by humans. I would often turn my head away in shame and disgust; I did not want to be associated with my own species. For me, the most powerful and frightful images were of the dog being thrown into the garbage truck to be crushed to death and the killing of the cow in the supposed kosher factory. I was so sick to my stomach after about ten minutes of the film, but I forced myself to watch the whole thing. Upon finishing the documentary, I swore that I would never eat meat again or wear animal products. I went to dinner and ate a salad, while silently criticizing everyone around me eating meat.
Unfortunately, my animal rights crusade lasted less than twenty four hours. After rugby practice this afternoon, I went to dinner with my team and ordered a turkey sandwich. I had forgotten all about my pledge to stop eating meat. I know that I am a hypocrite, but eating the sandwich did not disturb me as much as I thought it would. Like many other times in my life, I had suppressed all of those horrible images I had seen not even a day before.
Upon reflection, I started to think about my actions and wondered if Nazis in Germany during WWII had the same reaction to the Holocaust that I did to the "Earthlings" documentary. Just like myself, they continuously participated in atrocities without expressing guilt or shame. Q: I began to wonder if it was part of human nature to detach oneself from situations in which humans commit inhumane crimes against each other and non humans?
The same thing occurred after watching the Earthlings" documentary. Throughout the program, I was aghast at the treatment of animals by humans. I would often turn my head away in shame and disgust; I did not want to be associated with my own species. For me, the most powerful and frightful images were of the dog being thrown into the garbage truck to be crushed to death and the killing of the cow in the supposed kosher factory. I was so sick to my stomach after about ten minutes of the film, but I forced myself to watch the whole thing. Upon finishing the documentary, I swore that I would never eat meat again or wear animal products. I went to dinner and ate a salad, while silently criticizing everyone around me eating meat.
Unfortunately, my animal rights crusade lasted less than twenty four hours. After rugby practice this afternoon, I went to dinner with my team and ordered a turkey sandwich. I had forgotten all about my pledge to stop eating meat. I know that I am a hypocrite, but eating the sandwich did not disturb me as much as I thought it would. Like many other times in my life, I had suppressed all of those horrible images I had seen not even a day before.
Upon reflection, I started to think about my actions and wondered if Nazis in Germany during WWII had the same reaction to the Holocaust that I did to the "Earthlings" documentary. Just like myself, they continuously participated in atrocities without expressing guilt or shame. Q: I began to wonder if it was part of human nature to detach oneself from situations in which humans commit inhumane crimes against each other and non humans?
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Killing for the Good
"What is your view on people killing to rid the world of evil so good can prosper?"- Mariah Key
In response to Mariah Key's question, I would have to say that it is wrong to kill, no matter the circumstances. Murder is morally wrong; no one has the right to take another's life. Gandhi famously said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Just because someone commits an evil act, it does not make it okay to retaliate. By ridding the world of evil through evil means such as murder, evil grows stronger. Although the evil individual might be destroyed, the evil is only transferred from the victim to the murderer because the murderer has now committed a sin. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; killing to rid the world of evil so good can prosper is still morally wrong and is not reasonable enough justification to condone the act of murder.
Q: Do you believe that it is within human rights to sentence criminals to the death penalty?
In response to Mariah Key's question, I would have to say that it is wrong to kill, no matter the circumstances. Murder is morally wrong; no one has the right to take another's life. Gandhi famously said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Just because someone commits an evil act, it does not make it okay to retaliate. By ridding the world of evil through evil means such as murder, evil grows stronger. Although the evil individual might be destroyed, the evil is only transferred from the victim to the murderer because the murderer has now committed a sin. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; killing to rid the world of evil so good can prosper is still morally wrong and is not reasonable enough justification to condone the act of murder.
Q: Do you believe that it is within human rights to sentence criminals to the death penalty?
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Trustworthy People
Katie Russell posted an interesting question on her blog asking whether there could be such a thing as a trustworthy individual. In her post, she alluded to the belief that no one is trustworthy and the only person you can trust in is yourself. While it is true that there are those who are not worthy of anyone's trust, I happen to believe that trustworthy people do exist. For instance everyday, millions of children trust in their parents to keep them safe and have their basic needs met. If every parent was untrustworthy, all the children would be on their own taking care of themselves, which is not the case. Obviously, there are certain people who are not trustworthy at all and take advance of others for their own personal gains. Yet if everyone was only looking out for themselves, this world would not exist.
There is saying that goes "Trust is hard to gain but easily lost". For many, it only takes one small instance to completely lose trust in another. Sometimes however, the breaking of the trust bond is necessary to eventually strengthen the relationship. The most well known example of this is when an individual gets help for someone who is thinking about committing suicide, even though that someone asks the individualal not to tell anyone. Even though the individual broke a certain someone's trust, in the long run it will actually increase the individual's trustworthiness because the individual had the certain someone's best interest in mind.
Q: Are love and trust one in the same?
There is saying that goes "Trust is hard to gain but easily lost". For many, it only takes one small instance to completely lose trust in another. Sometimes however, the breaking of the trust bond is necessary to eventually strengthen the relationship. The most well known example of this is when an individual gets help for someone who is thinking about committing suicide, even though that someone asks the individualal not to tell anyone. Even though the individual broke a certain someone's trust, in the long run it will actually increase the individual's trustworthiness because the individual had the certain someone's best interest in mind.
Q: Are love and trust one in the same?
Harm v. Suffering
All living things have the ability to be harmed. From weeds and ticks to monkeys and humans, all living organisms can be harmed by others. For example, every time a woodpecker pecks a tree it ends up destroying a part of the tree. When a human kills an animal for food the human is causing the animal harm. The main difference between these two examples is that the woodpecker can only harm the tree. The human, by killing the animal, causes the animal both harm and suffering. All animals have the ability to suffer because they all have the capacity to feel pain. Plants, unlike animals, cannot. This is why it is easier for humans to justify the killing plants over the killing of animals. The plants might be harmed when they are killed for human purposes, but when the plants are killed, they feel no pain. No matter how quickly or humanly a human kills an animal however, the animal still feels pain upon death. The ability for animals to suffer raises the moral status of animals over other living things.
While all animals can be harm and experience suffering, not all animals suffer the same. When comparing a mosquito to another animal such as the dog, the dog is given a higher moral status because it has more ways it can suffer. A dog can be put through endless amounts of cruelty lasting years; a mosquito has the life expectancy of one day. Even if a mosquito is subjected to pain, its short life span prevents it from experiencing the kind of suffering capable of dogs and other more complex animals.
Q: In some respect, do certain plants have a higher moral status over specific animals?
While all animals can be harm and experience suffering, not all animals suffer the same. When comparing a mosquito to another animal such as the dog, the dog is given a higher moral status because it has more ways it can suffer. A dog can be put through endless amounts of cruelty lasting years; a mosquito has the life expectancy of one day. Even if a mosquito is subjected to pain, its short life span prevents it from experiencing the kind of suffering capable of dogs and other more complex animals.
Q: In some respect, do certain plants have a higher moral status over specific animals?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Is it Beneficial to Anaylze One's Happiness?
Human beings like to analyze things; one might even say it is part of human nature. However, at what point does analysis result in negative consequences? In the case of happiness, analysis starts to become a problem when it starts to prevent happiness. Over analyzing happiness can result in frustration and misery, because happiness is conditional and subjective. What makes one person happy differs from individual to individual. Also, what makes one happy at the time might not make one happy later on. For instance, if someone is happy one day in English class, it does not mean that he will necessarily be happy in English class tomorrow. Unfortunately, there is no set equation for happiness.
Another problem with analyzing happiness is that the focus is on the past. Instead of living in the moment, all one's attention is honed in on happiness achieved prior to the moment. When this occurs, one often idealizes and fantasizes the prior memories of happiness, making the memories better than what they truly are. If an individual tries to recreate these memories, disappointment ensues because reality cannot live up to the fantasy created in one's own head.
Some say a better alternative to analyzing happiness is to look into the causes of unhappiness. This way, one can locate the sources of unhappiness and remove them. The only problem with this is that many individuals latch onto the unhappy memories and cannot stop themselves from spiraling into a depression. Instead of identifying the sources of unhappiness and trying to change them, they instead focus just on their unhappiness. Initiating change is the key factor in balancing the want for happiness and actually achieving happiness. Obviously, change happens overtime so problems arise when one's actions do not seem to be producing positive results fast enough. So the question comes down to is there a way to analyze one's happiness while remaining happy in the moment?
Another problem with analyzing happiness is that the focus is on the past. Instead of living in the moment, all one's attention is honed in on happiness achieved prior to the moment. When this occurs, one often idealizes and fantasizes the prior memories of happiness, making the memories better than what they truly are. If an individual tries to recreate these memories, disappointment ensues because reality cannot live up to the fantasy created in one's own head.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Can A Philosophical Question Ever Be Answered?
This is in response to Jenny Beers question, "What is one philosophical question that you think can be answered and what is one that can never be?"
The philosophical question that I believe will one day be answered is "What is good and what is evil?". In my opinion, no one is innately good or evil. Good and evil arise with intentions. If someone intentionally commits an action that is positive in manner, then the person is said to have done a good dead. Yet, if someone intentionally acts maliciously, that person is said to have an evil disposition. Good and evil, just as right and wrong, are often matters of opinion. Someone can have evil thoughts and commit evil actions, but the person himself is neither good nor evil. Good and evil do not exist naturally; they are the creation of the human mind.
The philosophical question that I believe will never be answered is whether there is a God. It is impossible to prove rationally something that is contingent on faith. The supernatural, such as God and the Devil, does not exist in the natural world. One cannot scientifically prove that there is a God because there is not a method of how to go about proving God's existence. The concept of God is so much greater than anything human beings can conceptualize. It would take something beyond the powers of the human mind to validate the existence of a higher power.
The philosophical question that I believe will one day be answered is "What is good and what is evil?". In my opinion, no one is innately good or evil. Good and evil arise with intentions. If someone intentionally commits an action that is positive in manner, then the person is said to have done a good dead. Yet, if someone intentionally acts maliciously, that person is said to have an evil disposition. Good and evil, just as right and wrong, are often matters of opinion. Someone can have evil thoughts and commit evil actions, but the person himself is neither good nor evil. Good and evil do not exist naturally; they are the creation of the human mind.
The philosophical question that I believe will never be answered is whether there is a God. It is impossible to prove rationally something that is contingent on faith. The supernatural, such as God and the Devil, does not exist in the natural world. One cannot scientifically prove that there is a God because there is not a method of how to go about proving God's existence. The concept of God is so much greater than anything human beings can conceptualize. It would take something beyond the powers of the human mind to validate the existence of a higher power.
The Importance of Truth in Regard to Opinions
Many people would argue that there are no right or wrong opinions. Yet, many would also say that they crave validation for their opinions; they want their opinions to be proven true. Right and wrong, in this case, remain separate from the truth. In society, instances occur all the time where truth is either validated or dismissed by people's opinions. An example of this is when a person goes to trial for murder. There can be substantial evidence to prove the defendant guilty of the crime and still the defendant can be found not guilty based on the opinions of the jurors. The truth, in this instance, is not as important as what the jurors believe to be true. Truth and opinion are often in conflict over the existence of a higher power. Since the dawn of religion, people have tried to prove, scientifically, the existence of a supernatural being. While the existence of a higher power has yet to be proven true or falsified, people's belief in their opinions drives the debate. However, if for instance, it is proven that their is no higher power, would it even matter to the people of faith? Is their ever an instance where faith transcends truth? In human society, is the truth within oneself more important than the actual truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)