4/30/12

With Darwin's idea of natural selection it is said that anyone that has a defect of any kind (mental or physical) would die because of the environment and that is natural selection at it's finest. In other words nature would weed them out, for example blind people would get hit by cars and handicap people wouldn't be able to get out of their houses and therefor they would die because they are not fit enough to live. They are only alive because of the people that are fit enough to take care of them and feel guilty enough to help them. In his theory he thinks that by us helping those that are not fit to live on their own that we are messing with the natural selection process and that is wrong. But there is a hiccup in this theory; no human can live on their own, we need help from one another to survive no matter how fit we are. Without someone taking care of us when we were born we would die within a couple hours. We're not like crocodiles who as soon as they are born they run from the nest because their mother sees them as a source of food. I would say that we're pretty luck in the sense that our mothers don't want to eat us as soon as we're born.  

4/26/12

Competition of resources causes us to battle for them, and by this nature selects who's the most fit. But by fitness I'm not talking about who is the strongest, ants can lift 100x's their weight, no human can do that but yet we can crush an ant and think nothing of it. There is also the example of dinosaurs who were one of the strongest and biggest animals on Earth. It is proven by their extinction that they weren't fit for their environment so they were killed off. Also fitness isn't shared genetically, just because your parents were smart doesn't mean that you are going to be just as smart. This is where Nature vs. Nurture comes in. Your parents might play the guitar, that doesn't mean automatically that you are going to love guitar, but because you have been around the guitar all your life you might pick up an intrest from your surroundings.  

4/25/12

Everyone has heard of survival of the fittest, at least anyone that has taken a biology class. It is the process of selecting an animal to survive based on who's most "fit". But philosophers argue what it means to be the most fit, does it mean that you are the most physically fit, or the smartest, or the animal that just has the best luck? Some would argue that it depends on the situation. We talked about in class how a snake would be able to crawl through a small hole to survive, yet even though we are smarter as humans and kill snakes all the time in that example the snake would be more fit. But if it came to be able to create a way to feed yourself for live and make the tools to make that skill easier humans would triumph any animal. I feel that we are all fit in different ways but it's just the environment that you are in and what danger you need to survive that makes all the difference. We might be one of the smartest animals on earth, but we defiantly aren't the most capable animals to survive.   

4/24/12

Something that really blew my mind was finding out that when George Bush was running for President the way that people morally chose between who they would vote for was thinking who they would more likely have a beer with. How can we as Americans think that is a rational way of thinking that is the way that we should make a decision as to who should run our country? As I said in my last post, we are responsible for the choices that we make, so how can we be so mad at George Bush when we are the ones that put him in office in the first place. I agree that he needs to take responsibility for the choices that he made to but I feel that it is a two way street. I also said in my last post that people having different morals make it hard to judge what is right and wrong, but there is also something known as common sense and I feel that should be considered something that we could judge if someone has it or not.

4/23/12

When talking about conforming, there are many different aspects to acting independently from everyone else. There is a difference between wanting to do something that everyone else is doing and mindlessly make a decision because of what everyone else is doing. For example stay at home mothers were often ridiculed by feminist for not wanting to be independent, but this isn't right because if you truly want to stay home with the kids there is nothing wrong with that, but if you are staying home because that is what you have been taught to think then are you not being radically free. Law sometimes make the decisions for us, not because of if they are right or wrong but because we don't want to go to jail. We are responsible for the decisions we make, but to judge someone based on their morals is impossible. No one can tell you that your morals are wrong if they are what you believe.  

4/20/12

How can we classify our nature? Marx would say human nature is classified as how we meet our basic needs. But what about biological nature? An example would be alcoholism, there is a level of choice that we have and we don't have. It is your choice to drink in the first place, but there is a line where it is no longer your choice, is that classified then as your human nature. We change based on the things that we need and how we meet those needs. Some of those things are a biological given, like taking care of your children. As a parent you change to provide and do whatever it takes for your children and that is just in your nature, we want to do what's best for our kids. I feel that there are some aspects of our nature that we can chose but then there are choices that we make that can change our nature into habits that we can not control and because of those choices we change our nature completely.

4/19/12

In our reading we are suppose to be answering the question what is means for us as humans to be "radically free". In Platos beliefs we are rational creatures that submit into our emotional feelings and when we do that we are acting more like animals. But the difference between us as conscious beings and objects is that we have intentions within our actions, objects don't. We are aware that there are things other than ourselves in the world, but most adolescences don't see it that way. When we are  younger we tend to have an egocentric predicament, meaning that we think that we are the center of the universe and that we are not intertwined in the world. When we get older we learn that we are embedded into the world and that we are very dependent on our surroundings. To be a conscious being you need to have the realization that there are things outside yourself that you didn't create. 

4/18/12

One of the biggest concepts that I got out of the reading about Sartre is the distinction between consciousness or "human reality" and the inanimate, non conscious reality. What he is distinguishing are not two substances but two modes of being. He is talking about the differences between the way the conscious being exists and the way that inanimate things exist. Sartre also distinguishes between reflective and prereflective consciousness. For example when you are counting something, you are conscious that you are counting them, but you are not reflectively conscious that you are counting them until someone asks you what you are doing. He is going into the concept that we do things without consciously thinking about them and we only come to the realization that we are doing something when it is pointed out to us by an outside realization.

4/17/12

This week in the book we are talking about Sartre and his central assertion being human freedom. Sartre didn't believe in God and claimed that we all fundamentally desire to be God in the sense that we want to "be our own foundation". By wanting this he is stating that we would all like to be perfectly complete and self-justifying. He also talks about an negative way that we all tend to think of, we recognize want is not the case. We can conceive something otherwise than it is, and it will be otherwise. He also brings up the thinking that emotions are outside the control of will, but Sartre that you are sad only because you make yourself sad. He claims that emotions are not just moods that "come over us". For example anger with someone involves belief that someone has done something wrong, but if you don't think that action is wrong anymore, you are no longer angry.

4/12/12

When in school, we change classes because we hear a bell. And then when we get to that class we sit in rows, usually in order of our last names. Even in college when we don't need to sit in the same seat every day we do because that is what we have be conditioned to do. This is very much like an assembly line, workers are grouped together on a line to make a product and have no control over the workplace. Bosses hate labor units because we are so expensive. Think about it, the people that work on the assembly lines for Apple making iPads don't get an iPad at the end of the day. Most of the time we don't get to reap the benefits of what we make or in better words what we labor on. That is a form of alienation. We are being alienated from the process and the product. We exploit resources and by doing that we are alienating ourselves from nature and by not caring about what we do the the planet or the other animals on it.

4/11/12

What do we consider property? Is it land, or maybe a car, or even your children? When we first discovered America, we claimed this land as our property because we were here first. By claiming ownership, you are claiming something is yours, usually by the labor that you put in to get it. That's why when your mother or father says "that's my child" technically they have every right to say that because they put in the work to make you, cloth you, and put a roof over your head. Money is a main exchange of ownership, you work for the money and for the exchange of that hard work you can get something of equal value, seams fair right? You labored for the money, making it yours, now if you see something you want then you can exchange that hard work for anything you want that is to equal value. We used work to survive, but now we work to get nice things and to keep up with always changing trends.

4/10/12

In class we talk a lot about what's wrong with America, but a lot of what I am realizing is the truth. A point that was brought up was that America is falling apart at home but yet are acting like the police of the world. It has gotten to the point that we just want our troops home, but the damage it has done at home has left millions without jobs and many of our luxuries that we had, especially in the education system, are being cut for money. Times like these have given our social relations really important. Many are realizing that we need others to help support us in these hard times. We need others to survive, not only for resources but in the social aspect. We are laboring animals, but not only physically but mentally. We are the only animals on Earth that labor mentally, which is feel is a blessing and a curse because we are the ones that have the knowledge to know when we mess up and then have to live with it.  

4/9/12

In class we talked about how we fight these wars with all of these different countries but yet what do we really know about them? For example we were talking about how Russia had to learn English as one of their languages and when tested that they could names some of our famous mountain tops and a few states. I know if someone came up to me and asked me questions about Russia I wouldn't know a thing, at most I would be able to find it on a map. I was told yesterday that 50% of Americans couldn't find America on a map, how sad is that?! I feel that America's motto isn't "know thy enemy", but "know that your enemy is there and then make sure that you have bigger guns then them." Most countries think that we as Americans have the best of everything, and that is somewhat true but mostly because we want the best of everything no matter the cost. There is a universal appeal of shiny things, which causes an universal source of envy.

4/5/12

I don't know if I believe in God, not to be disrespectful of anyone that does but sometimes it's hard for me personally to think that there is something that is greater than me that allows awful things to happen in the world to good people. I know that if I was a God I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to the things I created. I understand the argument that I am not a God and that I am by no means all knowing and that God works in mysterious ways with a plan in mind. But every night on the news there are more and more stories about people dieing and suffering. I know that the human race does it to ourselves but what can a God do to change how we are? Why not fix us and save the planet and save ourselves? I know that no one learns without mistakes but how many mistakes can we make until we come to the conclusion that we are just dangerous creatures by nature that will never be satisfied until we have it all?

4/4/12

I never really thought about it, but why would God want to kill us if he loves us? Are we really that much of a mistake that he thought that we needed to be wiped out because we will cause to much damage to his "perfect" world? We worship him, but for what reason? I know that he made us and that we should be forever thankful but what does he get out of us praising him all the time? Is it an ego boast or is it something that makes him stronger? How could he be thinking of us when he at one time wanted to kill us? And what about those who don't believe in him? Why are they here if they don't give anything back? I know there is the threat that if we don't praise Him than we are going to hell when we die, but we really don't know if that is true because the only people that know are dead. I want to go to heaven and live happily ever after but I understand why there are doubts what we are really worshiping for.

4/3/12

I wonder what type of being is a God. What goes God come from if he created all? Is he something that we can not fathom because he is so much "more" than we are. I mean after all in the Bible it's states that he made us so did he make us just out of reach of the answer of what he really is? In the Bible it explains how God is everywhere but not everything. For example God isn't the desk that you sit at but he is in the room watching you. For me personally that kinda freaks me out, the idea that something that created me and can end the world is watching me all the time to make sure that I don't mess up! But then comes into play the idea that people changed the story of God to create a code of ethics because it is taught in church to NEVER question the word of God. Followers do as their told because when they start to questioning if God exists then you lose the security that comes with believing that there is something bigger than you and me.

4/2/12

In Christianity there is the belief that there is only one all knowing, all powerful God. This God is also ominy present, meaning that he is everywhere. In the Christian belief, this God made everything by saying that things should be created. This is obviously much different than the way we as humans make things. It is also believed that this God has conceptions of things before they come into existence and gives them names then they do come into existence. In the bible, it is taught that God made the world all good, us included and things started to go downhill when Eve gave Adam the apple in the garden of Eden. The reason that there is evil in the world is not because God created it, but because we are creatures capable of sin. Also God does not have physical features, but in the Bible it is told as if God has a human body to be seen and looks like a European man. We as humans changed the story so that God could look more human like us, even though that doesn't make any sense.