Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre says that we are all subjects, and that only a subject can identify another subject. At the same time, a subject can refuse to recognize another subject and see view them as strictly an object, a tool for their use. I have recently attempted to remove this failure to recognize people as subjects, and make every individual a subject from my perspective. It's unfortunate, but I realized that this is much easier said than done. It is very hard to recognize a person as a subject, when we see the benefit of them being strictly an object. If you make someone just an object, they are unable to effect our vulnerabilities. Subjectifying someone allows them to harm you because you recognize their autonomy and if they're autonomous, they have the ability to make you an object. I think of the example as a waiter. Many a time, when we are in restaurants, we look at our waiters as just an object that is suppose to provide us with the service of bringing and serving our food. When they do something wrong, like bring us the wrong drink or wrong entree, when they're just an object, its easy to correct the problem, you inform them they made a mistake and assume they will fix it. However, upon recognizing them as a subject, it makes me feel like I am inconveniencing them by making them correct such an insignificant mistake (in the grander scheme of life). There is very much a negative connotation of objectifying another human being, but some times I think it is essential in terms of services we pay for because it creates a barrier that can easily be taken away once myself and the individual are not put in a consumer/worker situation.

Descartes vs. Hume

In the comparison of Descartes vs. Hume, I believe that both, by only accepting one form of knowledge (For Descartes, pure reason) and (for Hume, personal experience) both fail to reach a balance, thus both are ignorant towards a certain type of knowledge. Both reason and personal experience are essential in order to possess knowledge. By failing to recognize one type or the other, they truly restrict their own intellect. I do, however, find Descartes use of doubt to be essential in developing knowledge. After watching House in class, I have continued to watch the series on my own time. His development of knowledge through doubt is incredible to watch (even if it's fictional) because it displays what we should all do in our daily lives. I, myself, have applied this form of finding knowledge in my own life and it has led me to discover things about myself I would have never found had I never taken this philosophy class.

Originally Posted January 23rd, 2011

Arguing

One of the subjects we discussed in class this week was the art of arguing. Without making a hasty generalization, it seems that some, if not most people, would agree that arguing seems to almost immediately have a negative connotation. This would make sense, seeing as an argument is the exchange of two conflicting ideas with each individual and their ideas are exchanged with the idea of both proving your point correct, and proving the opposition's point wrong. For myself, however, I have never seen arguing as a negative thing, as it resolves conflict, and allows one to express their individual view. In class, Dr. Layne and myself began exchanging ideas, or arguing, about the validity of nihilism. Although, I would not completely define my view on the world as nihilistic, my views do share certain commonalities with nihilist. By arguing with Dr. Layne, she was able to gain a better grasp on my view, and I was able to gain a better grasp on her. Although we argued, it seems that the result of our arguing was not only positive but enlightening for the both of us.

Originally Posted January 30th, 2011

Logic Fallacies

I thoroughly enjoyed going over logic fallacies. In my senior year of high school, I took a class for my International Baccalaureate program called Theory of Knowledge. During our first semester, we learned the exact same fallacies, and since then, they have been instilled in my memory. I think it's necessary that everyone keeps them in their memory. It allows the individual to keep a concise argument, whatever the occasion. It also allows to someone to criticize their oppositions argument, possibly proving a point that is either relevant, or possibly important. If an individual is in a serious argument determining their fate, and someone uses one of these fallacies, they could possibly reverse their fate in their favor. I definitely thinking know those fallacies is essential to anyone who wants to maintain a legitimate argument.

Karl Marx

At a certain point in my life, I used to very much identify with Marxism, and have even referred to myself as a Marxist. For much of my life, I grew up incredibly materialist, lavishing in our capitalistic culture. I eventually became sympathetic towards the plight of people who had less than I. I thought that Marxism, would create equality amongst men by stripping away the classist biases we possess as a capitalistic nation. As I've gotten younger, I realized that as nice as this sentiment seems, at this point in history, I just do not believe that we, as a people, are selfless enough to enact Marxism. I do not ever think we will be selfless enough. Not only is just about our own selfishness that makes Marxism implausible. I believe there are far too many people in this world to have a truly effective and efficient system of Marxism. It would be impossible to create an organized system in which all 9 billion people in the world are equal. We can look at the utopian societies that were created in the 18th and 17th century as examples of Marxism's implausibility. Even with small groups, things like romantic quarrels stood in the way of equality amongst all the people in society. This exemplifies my thought that people are too selfish for equality to exist amongst all people in society. It's unfortunate that this is the case but I believe it to be true.

Alice Walker

Being a half black male, primarily raised by his half black mother, I am incredibly sympathetic towards the plight of the black woman. I have been fortunate to have a successful black mother, removing me from many of the stereotypes that are accompanied with the situation but I have also been given a unique perspective. I most definitely believe that the plight of the feminist, is drastically different than that of the plight of the black feminist. White women are not oppressed by the black man, they are oppressed on the by the white man, and in many regards, have had the ability to establish some sort of equality amongst themselves and their male counterparts. Black women are also oppressed by white men as well. However, not only are they oppressed by white men, they are also oppressed by the black male. Now, I am fortunate enough to have had my father in my life for all of my childhood up until the time I graduated high school. But for many black women (and half black women for that matter) are oppressed by black men. My grandmother, my mother's mother, was abandoned by my mother's father upon discovery that she was pregnant. This was because she was a black woman and he was a white man. She was unable to overcome her devastation and died at 27, when my mother was just 7 years old. I think the black feminist has a much tougher struggle than the white feminist does. I believe many black women are incredibly courageous to continue to fight everyday, especially when they are put up against to much adversity.

Simone De Beauvoir

I must say that Simone de Beauvoir has completely changed my view towards feminism in its entirety. I suppose before this class I was completely ignorant to what feminism truly was/is. I have always had a problem with gender equality, mostly because of the societal constructs that exit in the United States. I always assumed that equality was unnecessay because the position women are in life, is seemingly easier in comparison to men. It's socially acceptable for a woman to be a housewife and never work a day in her life. For a man, this is not only social acceptable but nearly impossible depending on your family circumstances. I, however, have clearly been wrong. Women have been objectified since the beginning of society for men's use. They have not chosen their position but have had it chosen for them. Our lesson on de Beauvoir has changed my view towards feminism 180 degrees. I'm really proud of that.

Stages of Life

Originally posted: April 10th. So, my reply doesn't relate to the post above but it's my own comment about this current weeks lectures. I wanted to discuss Kiekegaard's Stages of Life's Way. I'm currently in a transition from going to the aesthetic way of living to an ethical way of living. I recognize the ethical but have unfortunately because of immaturity made decisions that have forced me to live an aesthetic lifestyle. I'm currently in on of the hardest battles I've ever encountered in my life. I know that once I am beyond this battle, that I will be in the ethical way of life and remain that way. I don't ever think I was ever manage to become a part of the religious life because I just don't think it is plausible or reasonable, an aspect I which to employ. I think in order to be successful, the ethical way is the best way in order for one to strive for and I am currently in the process in my own life of doing so.

-Chris Branchcomb

does god exist

I believe that he does. What questions my mind is how some religions don't believe that there is a God when i thought religion was first based off of the belief in a God. I am open to many religions even though i dont practice my own religion as often as i would like. How does is it that there are religions that dont believe in a God?

Karl Marx

Karl Marx was one of the most progressive writers of his era who produced some of the most controversial works written to this day. Marx posited many radical assertions as the fate of our capitalist society, and though history has contradicted many of his assertions his insight on capitalist exploration can still be applied to more contemporary relationships.

Flourishing = Death?

I don't see how Plato can say that his telos is happiness or human flourishing if he thinks happiness can only be attained when the soul separates from the body. Human flourishing is, in essence, living. One can not be fulfilling what it means to be humans if her mind and body are not one. This dualism within ourselves is what makes us who we are and once they are separated we can no longer be human and we cannot flourish.

Dominant Race/Gender

I believe black women have always been the subject of their lives. They are alongside their men providers for their families. Often times the black woman has been the leveled head in the household. Men have been known to be hot-headed at times and the black woman of the household has always been the one to know just what to say to keep her man monetarily providing as well as being a role n=model for his family.
In more recent times we see the black woman is the provider. If there is no father figure the black woman assumes the role of the father in order to provide for her children. The black woman has been the subject of her time only because she has stuck it out trying to be a care taker, advice giver as well as provider for her family.

I'm uncertain which position to take because I do not believe I can fully explain either. Socrates came up with the theory of recollection. People know only because they have been previously taught this information because the soul is immortal. if this is true then why must the soul, even though it is in a new body, re-learn the information it is said to have known? Does the information die within the mind/body of the person? and if so, then where did the theory of recollection come from?
I do not believe people come to this earth with amnesia. Whether the soul dies or not the minds are only formed through learned knowledge of that life time. Because if it were true that knowledge stays with the soul then how do we explain our children who are slow learners? Is it that for each time that particular soul entered into a body it knew nothing of what it is being taught this time around? This cannot be. At some point would not one conclude that at least one body the soul has entered has obtained knowledge the current body can use?

Experiences shape Knowledge

Hume declared all knowledge is gained via the things one experiences. I believe this can be helpful and hurtful at the same time. In each life there are different experiences. One's experiences can scar them for the rest of his/her life. However, this explains an ordeal of people. at the beginning of the semester we learned about Simple ignorance and it says these are the people that know themselves to be ignorant but do nothing about it. If knowledge is experience, and experience has taught you negativity about knowlegde, then should that person really be considered simply ignorant?
Experience forms all opinions of who a person turn out to be or is molded to be. Some of my very own experiences have left me confused and wary about doing many things. My knowledge may be incorrect, however, I believe i is only until one is versed better through new experiences can it help can outlooks if they are initially bad.

When I Grow Up..

While babysitting I hear many interesting comments from the children. I periodically ask the twin six year olds what they want to be when they grow up because I enjoy hearing the creative answers. Recently the girl answered I want to be a dance teacher like my mom. This showed me two things. First, she most likely does not realize that some people in our society would look down on this because the amount of money that she would most likely make. And Second, that enormous influence that adults have on their children and the importance in raising children with great morals and values.

The little boy refused to answer for awhile but finally answer that he just wants to be happy and help people. This was very inspiring to me. I hope that everyone focuses on what will make them truly happy and the importance of relationships and helping others. Their comments make me take a second look at my life and my future goals. Children are a great example of what our mindset should be. They often teach me not to fall into the social norms and to accept people for who they are.

God's Existence

God does exist. This is a belief that I have been brought up with all my life. He is the source of all Good. Aquinas was correct in saying God is the cause of existence. I am a firm believer that if we can conceive of something being greater than us then it has to be real. I believe there is no greater law for people to follow. HE is the very nature of all.
God is the reason for our existence. what can prove how we first evolved? Humans from dust alone is not conceivable. However, an all powerful being creating us is conceivable. We exist through God.
Belief in God is the source of all comfort. One can easily find this comfort when he/she is distressed or in need of someone to lift his/her burden. There is a song that says "the presence of the Lord is here, I can feel it in hte atmosphere." God's presence is always present. He is there in all situations. This is most apparent when the unthinkable happens and the impossible has come true. It is only God who makes these things happen in our lives.

Role in Society

Because the year is coming to an end and classes are being scheduled for next semester, I have been rethinking my major. As a visual arts major, one of the most common questions that I am asked is " What are you going to do with that?". I find it frustrating to keep defending my major. It has me questioning what my major should actually be and how I can best contribute to society. In America we are so consumed with money and material objects and I wonder if staying a visual arts major is right for me. At the beginning of the year I was embarrassed to tell anyone what my major was because I knew that there would immediately be assumptions, and some people would misunderstand. Some people look at having this major as being a "cop out" or being uneducated in anything else. This class has helped me accept the social norms and work to overcome them. I hope that I am successful, maybe not in terms of money and material objects, but because I am doing what I truly should be doing regardless of any factors that would normally inhibit artist.

Perceptions

We are just a bunch of perceptions that make up our identity. I believe this to be true. You are born with a mind that society helps you to mold so that you may form your own opinions. One's opinions are only perceptions of what they liked or disliked or what they thought things ought to be like.
I believe perceptions are what make people exactly who they are. Perceptions are neither a good thing nor a bad thing but they can take a turn for the worst. Perceptions come from the experiences one goes through daily. Therefore Perceptions are constantly changing as well as changing the person you are now.

Number

We watched an episode of House in class. Dr. House goes through these stages while he is in his coma from being shot by a husband of a dead patient. He goes through theories that many philosophers explain. Here is one:
Dr. House makes reference to another philosopher’s theory. He mentions to the wife that he is imagining, that she is not match for the husband (he believes is her husband). He explains to her the theory of numbers. Most people gravitate themselves toward a same number as themselves. Meaning your appearances rates your category. Pythagorean says all is number.Man can be understood in terms of numbers. House proved Pythagorean’s theory when the audience figured out whose wife the mystery lady was. In essence, as numbers, the two did match and have equal “rates”.
Often times in life this is how we view people. Just as Pythagoras declared all is number. We as humans scale one another and put each other on this made-up numbering system to rate one another's looks or appearance. We, as humans, let formulas define us whether we realize it or not. We measure ourselves and calculate our images just so we can eventually come up with a whole number that suits not only ourselve but society.

Meaning of life

I asked my dad what the meaning of life was today and he said,"Son that is a good question they have many meanings to life and some peoples are better than others". There are many meaning to life such as helping others,being important,seeking the good in life such as pleasure, and helping make the world in which we live be a better place. Then i thought about what makes humans so much better than a mosquito or a wasp. Yes, humans have the ability to express feeling and relate to one another but we destroy our own planet. We pollute the air we breath. We have wars that kill. Which makes me wonder if the human race is as smart as we think we are.

Fallacy #2

Hasty Generalizations are what I believe keep racism alive. All racism is is a general view of an entire race based on maybe one shameful experience with one person of that race. It is not knowledge of the entire community. I don't believe one can make a comment and it generally concern the entire community. I may be wrong but there is no way (in my opinion) one man can be the "model" of what a race represents.

When one argues based on a hasty generalization, his/her argument is invalid. I question if this knowledge is readily available and it taught in colleges and all important figures are supposed to be taught philosophy, then why do we still today have hatred in the world. Is it not the job of the educated to teach the uneducated what is correct? Hatred comes from the immediate dislike of someone based on factors unknown. Since this is common knowledge (or it should be), then why in the media do we still register every known crime with a specific race? When in court why are many not given their due justice? It is because we have not conquered how to properly argue our opinions.

waiting for Godot

Some may say the movie was boring, but i found it interesting. I found it wasn't boring because the whole movie i was thinking about all kinds of different things. At one point in the play i thought they were in purgatory and they were waiting for Godot to come to see if they were going to go to heaven or hell. This movie was whatever you make it out to be because it really didn't have a story line and was about nothing.

Simple Ignorance and happiness

One of the first things we learned were the forms of ignorance. The one that struck me the most was the one about Simple ignorance. It is recognizing your ignorance and doing nothing about it. The definition screams someone with a lazy mentality. I believe philosophy calls for one to be concerned with everything and letting one thing slide away without you grasping knowledge about it is sheer laziness. In today's world, I'm not sure if i was enlightened enough to still learn everything i no nothing about. It is partly because of laziness, but it is partly because I'm uncertain there is truly a way to have both a life and verse yourself on everything you do not know. in order to know one must take time to research and research about such things. Only reading one "thing" about the subject does not make you knowledgeable but it somewhat informs you a little more than you may have been informed before. To devote one's time and efforts to all the things he/she does not will consume the little life he/she has. Is it fair to consume oneself with only knowledge and have no other substances to their life?

Virtuous Knowledge says you do not know but you are on a continuous quest for that knowledge. Does what life offers today call for the time to only be knowledgeable or does it call for other aspects of life to keep one moving? And can't one be happy with gradually learning information instead of being on a constant quest for total knowledge.

I believe life is Progressive Ignorance. As your world continues you are versed on things of concern to what your life pertains to. being knowledgeable on everything takes away from the other aspects of the world one is here to learn about and absorb.

the stages of lifes way

The Stages of lifes way

Their are three forms of life in which are aesthetic,ethical,and religious. moving from each requires a movemnt of will. Humans can not explain such leaps nor support the moves from each. It is difficult to be religious in a difficlut time when your innocent but everyone thinks your guilty. I had a family member who went to jail and was religious but his life didnt revolve around God. After he completed his sentence he came back a changed man and everything he said was revolved around God. This showed that when everyone in society frowns upon you how easy it is to be very religious in order to win approval of the community.

K Kierkagaard Simple

In our day to day occurrences we have to make simple choices each day. We can make good choices or bad choices. Either we can choose between good or evil. When someone is going through a rough time it can be easy for someone to choose to forget about being religious,because they have much hope. When someone is on cloud 9 they feel blessed and it is easier for them to be religious since everything is going smooth.Kierkegaard stated,"If having a lack of identity is good its going to contradict itself in the end". What i thought when i heard this was although you may make a wrong choice that handles your problem now it may not be the best choice for later

class secretary

class secretary humans as producers

Humans’ beings master nature to meet needs, primarily material. Human beings are producers and everything we are involved in we do to better ourselves. We satisfy needs by approaching nature and producing commodities to be consumed. Everything we do is resolved around a need/a want. “Men must be in a position to live in order to be able to make history”. At the end of the day everyone wants to make history in some way shape or form. People feel a need to important and they will go up and beyond to do so.

Human beings compete against each other in order to make their place in life and hard work is the determining factor. “A commodity is an object outside of us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference”. Human work first for the basic needs such as shelter and food. Then Second materialistic things such as nice cars, jewelry, and clothes.

Human relationships can either be productive or alienated. In order to make the most out of life and meet the common needs having good relationships with people is

important. When people get along and like each other things get done a lot easier and a lot faster.Differences between socialism and capitalism: Socialism takes care of some everyday worries such as going to doctor which may be nice. In Capitalism human beings have to work for certain things and i like that because it makes me feel I have a responsibility and I don’t want everything dumped on my plate and given to me. I want to work hard for everything I have and have it because I earned it.

we can understand but not relate

We learned phenomena is based upon experience. Which means we learn through experience and we can understand because we have experienced it. I do believe people can understand phenomena that are experienced by people but cannot relate. I find that we can understand what experience the person is going through but we cant relate simple cause we havent been through the same thing they have.

Human Beings

In Class we talked about human being differ from our direct experience. Their was an example that someone who see's sounds as colors. This sounds hard to believe but i have seen a documentary on a blind kid who could see without eyes by clicking. He can see empty places and walk threw gaps of space but this is entirely self taught. This is rare but he made up in his mind that he wanted to live life to the full so their was nothing his friends cant do that he does such as playing video games and basketball. This guys Eye Doctor was very impressed by him and he was feautured in peoples magazine and on TV shows.

Language Creates Thought

I heard about a study on NPR about language development in babies. The researchers looked into this to see just how much our minds are affected by language. The study showed signs that thought may develop after or, because of language. While I am unable to convey his persuasiveness here, the interviewed researcher was very convincing. This made me start wondering about the nature of human thought. What if human thought is caused, not by our brain, but by our language. Is sentience only possible because of speech? What if concepts like justice and courage only exist because we have names for them and the ability to talk about them? If abstract thought grows from language would a person be sentient if they were never taught language? Is human language the source of human intelligence? If abstract concepts are dependent upon language, is it possible to say that independent thought truly exists?

Satre - Object and/or Subject

Dr. Layne has taught us that sex is a great example of going back and forth between subject and object but never both. That at any given point of intercourse you are either the subject (the doer) or the object (the one being done).

I agree that most of the time we, couples, are teeter tottering between being the object and the subject. I disagree that you can not be both. I have been married for almost 15 years now and with going into to pornographic detail have been both the object and the subject simultaneously.

When you give everything you have of yourself to your self and to your partner there is an amazing sense of freedom, comfort, safety, love, passion, animalistic urges, fear, craziness, euphoria and love that I feel only comes after both parties agree to be free. Free to share anything and everything with each other. Being vulnerable enough to make mistakes, learn from them and be a better lover afterwards.

I have been both Subject and Object............have you?

Marx - Existence

Marx - “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

I wish I could disagree with Marx’s quote stated above. Unfortunately it is true. What do for a living (our jobs/careers) “makes” us who we are or who we are thought to be. What type of car we drive, how big our house is, where our kids go to school all affect peoples perceptions of us.

Why is it not that what we think and know we should be doing be more important then what material object we possess. I think we can all agree that we take no physical possessions with us when we pass away. With that in mind why then are those material belongings so important? Why do we “keep up with the Jones’?” I am in my mid 30’s now and have come to realize that the only “thing” that matters really, is spending time with my family and showing them how much I love them.

I agree with Marx but I try to live like my consciousness is determining my existence.

What are your thoughts?

Kierkegaard - What stage of life are you in? Aesthetic, Ethical or Religion?

I hoped, after learning the three stages life we live in base on Kierkegaard’s philosophy, that I would be one of the few living in the ethical realm. Unfortunately I am not. I do think life is a game sometimes. I am focused on life’s pleasures, food, material items, love, etc. I have not found out who or what my authentic self is. I am often bored with life’s flow. I feel a great amount of despair being my own individual. I am a slave in my own body.

What stage are you living in?

How honest are being with your self.

Descartes.........The mind is not just a Thinking Thing

Descartes objected against the fact that the mind was not just a thinking thing. Well, I agree and disagree. Our brains purpose is to think, contemplate, rationalize, make decisions. To think is just that we are processing information from all of our senses and bam, there is our thought(s).

On the other hand what about our 6th sense? What about the fact that we are not just simple mortals, human beings, animals? What about the unexplainable things that occur in our lives? Haven’t you ever picked up the phone to call someone and they called you first and they are already on the line one you answered it? Have you ever had that feeling of something outside of me is happening, greater then me, bigger then me, something unexplainable?

Do you think the mind is or is not just a thinking thing?

Hume - No innate knowledge?

David Hume thought that there was no innate knowledge. He thought that all knowledge was gained via experience. I agree that a very high percentage of our knowledge is gained via experience but definitely not all of our knowledge.

Why you ask? Well simply because I know without a shadow of a doubt that everything we “know” does not just come from what we experience after birth. Here are only a few examples/proof that their is innate knowledge after all. First His Holiness The Dalai Lama is the 14th Dalai Lama and each is viewed as reincarnations of past buddhist ancestors.

Savants are also a great example of their are things we are simply born with both knowledge and ability. Kim Peek, the real Rain Man was the person that the character Dustin Hoffman played was based off of. Mr. Peek is severely disabled, can’t walk, and can’t even button his own shirt. But, what he can do is amazing. He has read over 12,000 books and remembers everything about them. He remembers everything about music after only hearing it once. He reads two pages of a book at one time. His left eye reads the left page and his right eye reads the right page. How else could this be possible if he was not born with the ability?

Leslie Lemke, a severely disabled young man who at birth lost his eyes in order to safe his life was adopted by the Lemke family, had amazing gifts. He could not talk, walk, dress himself, etc. But, at the age of 16 he woke his parents up playing the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 1 flawlessly, after only hearing it once earlier that day on the television.

By the examples above I hope you can see that we, I hope all of us, have innate knowledge that we are born with.

Please check out the following website for great videos and more detailed examples of savants: http://www.neatorama.com/2008/09/05/10-most-fascinating-savants-in-the-world/

Ignorance iS........Bliss?

A few weeks ago we were discussing Plato and Socrates and this quote has stuck with me ever since.

“You yourselves, surely, know that wrong action done without knowledge is done because of ignorance.” PLATO, Protagoras, 357d.

My wrong action most recently is assumption of knowledge. See, my wife is a high school band director and works well over 40 hours a week, some late nights and often on the weekend there is something she must attend to. Being married for over 13 years I have loved her will all I have. My heart, my soul, my pain, my wishes, me as I am figuring me out.

I assumed I knew why she shouldn’t be spending all those extra hours at school and could somehow find a better balance with her work and family obligations. I assumed I knew what it was like to take over a band program after turmoil and unrest. I assumed I knew what decisions she should be making for her which might better serve my wants and guess what, I was wrong.

I do not know what is better for anyone as I do not yet still know what is truly the best for me because it is ever changing. A fine balance between figuring oneself out, finding out what works and what doesn’t work. Please do not assume knowledge as I have. I think Descartes would agree by this point that challenging everything, all senses and truths would be a wise decision.

What do you think?

Aristotle: Happy

Aristotle believed that The Golden Mean, temperance, was the balance between too much and too little, i.e. courage, too much courage would make a man reckless and too little courage would make a man a coward. I do not see how then if our end goal for all of our choices, our choices in life, are to be happy how his thinks also there could be a temperance in everything else. Why would it not be that if we were happy all the time would that not be the extreme, the too much, thus not balancing, and having temperance with happiness as well? Would we not become unhappy by being happy all the time? Isn't being unhappy part of knowing what being happy is and then balancing it out?

Feminist? - Reposted

Nellie McKay “Feminists don’t have a sense of humor”

I found this video amazing in several different ways. Musically she is playing a stringed instrument and singing at the same time while looking into the audience and interacting with them. As a French Horn player I know the difficulty of performing on stage but not on this level.

Irony is defined as, the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony. I am in awe of McKay’s ability to perform, rap, sing, “argue”, share her feeling and thoughts about such sensitive things; such as, politics, abortion, sexual issues, men vs. women, etc.

I found Ms. McKay an extremely versatile performer and greatly appreciated Dr. Layne sharing this video. Thank you.

Here are a few more links I found interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJZY-Czcp2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIbpxHBmvYY&feature=related

http://www.nelliemckay.com

Philosophy Really.......Reposted

When discussing the definition vs. examining definition of Philosophy, my brain started spinning. What is life all about? Why do we think and not think about things? Why are some things/people more important than others? Why do we need such precise answers in life, i.e. scientific exacts, mathematical precision, etc.?

Long story short, I am greatly appreciating that something as simple as a required Introduction to Philosophy class can help wake me up, stir the gumbo!

I know life is very short. My older brother was killed in a car accident and that devastated me. The reason I am sharing this to everyone is I am challenging everyone to question, seriously, what they are thinking about. What drives them to make the choices they make?

To me, we are what we think we are!

His/Her or Her/His?

Since the school year is winding down I, like all other students, have to write a couple of papers. Each time I face the same challenge when referring to individuals. Do I say their, his/her, or her/his? Or do I avoid the issue and try to reword my sentence. As absurd as it is, there has been plenty of times where I have found it easier to reword my sentence than to conquer the issue and write it as I planned.

It reminds me of when I was learning my body parts when I was younger. My mom would refuse for my to have nicknames for any part of my body. Although I was made sure to know that they were considered private parts, I was taught that girls have vaginas and breasts while boys have penises. My mom explains today that she believes giving these "private parts" nicknames only gives them more power. A penis is a part of your body just like an elbow is. Although we laugh about it today, I can appreciate what my mom was trying to teach my siblings and me.

I feel the same way about the issue of choosing which way to write "his/her". I think that there is entirely too much conversation about the grammatical way of writing it. I am actually a tad upset that I am contributing to the commotion by blogging about it. I understand the argument that "his" should not be first all of the time because, well why should it? And I understand that in a very literal way it is still putting men before women. But if we make so much fuss over the issue than we are just showing that there is power behind "his" being first ( just like my childhood lesson). It shouldn't matter. If women are constantly trying to become equal with men than we should not be affected that "his" is first instead of "her". If equality means that neither has more weight or pull than the fact that people are so upset when "his" is placed first does not make entire sense. It would be the same issue if "her" was always placed first.

Or maybe I am misinterpreting my mother's lesson? Maybe the fact that "his" is first IS giving power to the man behind the word. Maybe we should find a neutral word. But to me that would completely erase all identity. It would erase the essence of men and women.

I know that this is a very small problem in the bigger picture , but I think it tells a lot. It shows that we have a long way to go before men and women are considered equal. It shows that there is a great amount of progress that needs to be made before his or her, she and him, manhood and womanhood, do not have power behind their placement in a sentence. I am happy the fact that these questions are being proposed and addressed and that even these small issues are not being tip-toed around anymore. But, where should we draw the line between acknowledging women's equality and completely bashing men and their history? I am not sure the solution to this problem or if by not changing it I am just surrendering to the problem and avoiding it, but it is something to consider.

Two Types of Arguing

We went over the nineteen common logical fallacies of philosophical arguments in class. Some of them pointed out mistakes in arguments when people generalize, threaten, ask for sympathy or just ignorance. This got me thinking that most arguments I've ever been in or won have involved one of these. Most of my arguments involve emotion. I feel like when an argument involves emotion it involved a little piece of each person involved. Meaning their opinions and their issues, meaning the argument pretty much isn't logical and cannot be taken seriously. Which made me think is there two types of arguing? Arguing that can help improve a person's outlook on life and personality through seeing things purely the way another sees things. Then the other form: arguing just to prove a point. Arguing with only logic and third person perspectives that help a larger number of people. I think both types of arguing help our society in large and small ways.

Truth

In class we discussed Kierkegaard's idea that everyone can only be sure of one thing, that they know nothing. Which brings up his next point that truth is unique. That truth is different for everyone. That everyone has their own idea of what is true and their truth helps form their identity. This relates to the idea that people only know that they know nothing because if no knows anything for sure and everything can be doubted then there is no truth. Truth is someone's own interpretation. This kind of scared me. Is there really no universal truth? Doesn't this idea mean that everyone can go around doing what they want because they think it is true. That any person can win any argument because what they think is true and nothing else can change their mind. This makes me think that everyone therefore is just ignorant in Kierkegaard's theory is true. But is it true? Or is it just something else that should not be taken seriously because it is only his truth, and no one else.

Identity

In class we have discussed Nietzsche and his idea that every culture should have it's own identity to survive. How we can look at and study other cultures but that doesn't mean we should lose site of our own cultural identity or traditions. Also that a country's identity must be formed naturally and over time. A country that tries to gain an identity by war or fighting will never survive. This got me thinking about America's identity and how we are perceived to other countries across the world. I don't think we are very loved right now because of the war we are in right now with Afghanistan. This got me thinking that Nietzsche is completely right. Not that we are trying to gain identity through this war but we do lose a little bit of our identity by engaging in war. By engaging in war most people were very upset and lost faith in America. This proves his point perfectly that war just separates a culture. It separates us because by losing faith in our own country we start to doubt what our identity really is. With all this doubt our country's identity will start to falter. Which shows that if everyone as a group has faith in our country and our identity then only good can come from it.

In Your Mind

I'm a big fan of the band Built to Spill. One of my favorite songs is called "In Your Mind." The chorus of the song goes, "And no one can tell me to listen, and no one can tell me what's right, cause nobody has my permission, and no one can see in your mind." These lyrics really resonate with me because I find so much truth in them. How can I say what's right for someone else? I don't know their emotions, their thought processes, their perception of things and people. My view of the world could be totally different from another's, but this doesn't mean that one of us is wrong and the other is right; it simply means that they're different. This is why I get so angry when I encounter intolerance. For example, I clearly remember coming home on the evening that votes were casted for same-sex marriage. My parents had another couple (who happen to be extremely conservative) whom they're friends with over for dinner. When the subject of homosexual marriage came up, Mr. Brock, one of my parents' friends, proudly proclaimed, "We voted against the fags." Now, I'm not homosexual, but my cousin is, and I have many gay friends. Thus, I was rather offended. Why should he have even been able to vote on the issue? He's not gay; same-sex marriage has no effect on him, so why does he get to make such an important decision in other people's lives? Why does he get to define what valid love is? Or what marriage should be? He's totally homophobic, and therefore could not possibly understand a homosexual relationship. It's a shame how we let our prejudices get in the way of letting other people live their lives to the fullest. Every time I catch myself making a judgement, I always think about that Built to Spilt song. It's not my place to tell someone else what is right, and I will never let anyone make that decision for me.

Original Identity

In class we discussed Simone De Beauvoir and referenced the show Sex and the City. I LOVE Sex and the City. I use to always view it as an empowering feminist show. Carry has all her friends, they all have jobs, they all can afford fancy clothes, shoes all from their own income. For once a show with no BS and actually makes women look awesome and independent. But Dr. Layne completely put it into perspective for me. They weren't independent at all. If anything it could be called a high class dating show, the whole premises of the show is about them finding a man. And basically showing a women audience the type of woman personas they can take on to attract a certain type of man. Which is my next point; can women really be their own person? Can women have their own identity? Because women can only be the opposite of man or just fit a feministic ideal men have setup for them whats a woman to do? This is exactly Beauvoir's idea to save women, that for them to have an identity they have to become original and unique with their identity. I found this puzzling but at the same time exciting to see what identity I will form in my future now that I have become aware of the faults in becoming the "ideal woman".

Fear Behind Religion?

I feel as though college is much better for me than high school was. I've always been an outside-the-box kind of thinker, and I feel like Loyola has helped expand my mind, while the Catholic high school I attended tried to shove all of us into the conservative, religious mold they had created. I never really understood why there's such reluctance to doubt and question; some of my teachers even told us that doubting is a sin. This didn't sit right with me because humans are naturally curious. Why can we test the limits of math and science, but religion is untouchable? The more I thought about it, the more I came to suspect that this refusal is based on fear. Religion gives people something to hold on to; it can give people meaning in their lives. The thought that there may be nothing "out there" and that we're just a small speck in the universe can definitely be unsettling. It can turn people's worlds upside down because they have put so much faith and have structured so much of their lives and identities around the concept that God exists. People don't even want to explore the grounds for their own beliefs. I've come across so many people who don't even know why they follow the religion they follow; they were simply raised that way and aren't willing to try and break away from the path that's been set out for them. I don't mean to sound arrogant or self-righteous, but I almost feel bad for these people. Our world can be so much more than the one society tries to shove down our throats. I would hate to live in the reality completely constructed by religion because in a sense, it strips away our imagination and ability to explore.

Aristotle's Take on Friendship

I recently read Aristotle's theory on friendship from his work Nicomachean Ethics. He says that the best form of friendship is a friendship based on what is good, in which friends enjoy each other's virtue. This friendship will endure because the only motive for it is the care that each friend feels for one another. He also states that this form of friendship is rare because good people are hard to come by, and friendship based on the good is outnumbered by friendships of pleasure and friendships of utility. I could not help but agree with Aristotle because the friendships I share with my friends have always seemed so different from other groups of friends. We genuinely love and care about each other, and we fully accept each other. I attended an all girl's high school, and I was never able to understand how girls could bounce from friend to friend. I almost feel as if people don't understand the true meaning of friendship. Without my friends, I would go crazy. I confide in them, and they confide in me. Our group has no cattiness; we don't secretly hate each other as many friends do, and we're completely real with one another. I think this is the reason why I don't make strong friendships very easily. I've always prided myself on my judge of character; and when I come across a genuine person, they stand out to me almost immediately. The only problem is that, in my opinion, genuine people are tough to come by. I guess that's why I only have four people whom I consider my best friends.

Changed view of Sex and the City

Virginia Woolfe says that in order for a woman to be a successful writer, she needs a little bit of money and a room of her own. Little did she know that now that most women have these two things, most women are not writing breakthrough novels. Take the main character of the hit TV show Sex and the City for example. Carrie Bradshaw is a middle class New Yorker who eventually moves in with her boyfriend but keeps her old apartment for when she wants to be alone and has enough money to buy $600 shoes. According to Woolfe’s theory, Bradshaw is set up to be the world’s greatest writer and write life changing books about women. But what does Bradshaw write about? Sex, men, and relationships.
I was one of those girls who watched the show and though, “Yeah! A show about four powerful and independent women!” However, learning about feminist philosophy has made me realize how degrading it is. The whole show revolves around men and how dependent these “independent” women are on them.

The Cosmology of Authority

As our group identified different fallacies in philosophy on Wednesday, my thought ventured. It was in the same neighborhood, just not the exact address as any of the fallacies on the study guide. Rather, I began to think about the fallacy of authority and how much we rely on it. Think about how often we take someone's word on it just because they look like they know it. Or even if the person is "qualified," aren't we committing the fallacy an initial time with the qualifiers? That is, deeming the works and materials that give a person authority must have their own authority. How do we know that these people can provide knowledgeable insight on a topic?

I am the champion of this fallacy. I commit it all the time. Hell, it drives my outlook on life. "Oh, science has proven evolution and explains many of the miracles of life? The scientists said that? Good enough for me." When people ask why I am atheist, especially when they seem to be looking for a spiteful reason to hate God, I will flatly reply, "Science." I trust the scientists' word on things, when I really shouldn't. I have this egotistical worldview that we cannot really innovate any more and that the world won't be carved up into pieces by destructive powers as it was in the past. It's a very rational and intelligent view with about zero support by world history. However, the scientists could be proven wrong in many aspects in just one lifetime. Yet I still take their word with foolish trust.

How can we ever really know what we are learning? Who can we trust with the authority of knowledge? Why couldn't we leave this fallacy of the list so I would never know about it?!

Existentialism and Art

Recently in my art history class we discussed the topic of existentialism. I love whenever my classes simultaneously teach me about the same topic because it offers a completely different perspective on the issues that I may have never considered. We discussed existentialism in regards to the surrealist painter and sculptor Giacometti. I am an art major so I was very interested in learning about what inspired different artist. Alberto Giacometti is know in the art world for being associated with existentialism. Giacometti became friends with Jean- Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvior around the 40's and later came to know Samuel Beckett. Jean- Paul had the biggest influence on Giacometti and his work. Many of Giacometti's sculptures have an interesting texture and a very narrow body and face. This directly associates with Sartre's idea of people choosing to be fully present in time or just going through the motions. Giacometti's sculptures depict someone who is not fully aware and involved in their life. Often viewers feel discomfort when viewing his sculptures and are described as haunting.

This was one of the first times in history that artists, philosophers, and writers were so intertwined that it is unsure of who is influencing who. Many people believe that Giacometti was influenced by Sartre. Some suggest that Sartre used Giacometti to further push the ideas of existentialism by manipulation his figures to have a different meaning than Giacometti actually intended and using Giacometti as a mediator to people interested in art. But than again some people believe that most of Sartre's ideas were actually Simone de Beauvoir's. Maybe Simone de Beauvior was a master at manipulation and planned to have her ideas be known anyway possible. Or perhaps Sartre and Giacometti were simply friends because they had the same views on the meaning of life. I will never know the answer to these questions, but I have learned the power of art and the value in incorporating all aspects of myself into my artwork.

The two pictures are of Giacometti's sketches and of his more famous sculptures.

Memory and Death

I recently got told the theory that the more a person remembers something the less likely that memory is accurate; each time a person remembers a moment the accuracy decreases. I think of this in occasions of death and how often I try to remember those people who have passed away. Am I doing them in justice by thinking about them? Warping, in my mind, the memories and the person they were? Of course I never think ill of these people who I loved and the memories I conjure up are never the bad ones-- so is this really that bad? Maybe this is the afterlife. Maybe people who have died continue living in the memories we choose for them, we change for them, we exaggerate and make happy for them?

Would you really like to be remembered for exactly the person you are, in which people would have to never remember you in order to preserve that accuracy? Or do you hope in your death that the bad will be overlooked and eventually forgotten forever? Either way, at least parts of yourself will be completely forgotten without you continually validated them.

Remember less, so you can remember me best.

The Drive for Existence

My best friend Kayce's birthday was yesterday, the 28th. I have no classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Thus, I left Loyola on Wednesday for Baton Rouge to be with her at midnight. After eating some exquisite chicken at P.F. Chang's, we went to our friends' apartment to really "celebrate." This apartment is a mecca for imbibing, and Wednesday night was no different. We all had a great time, and eventually everybody returned home, including Kayce (not driving, praise Adonis).

At the end of the night I remained awake with two friends, Nick and Zach. Previously Nick had told us of a horror movie called the "Poughkeepsie Tapes." It is a horror film presented in the form of documentary, under the premise that the film is a true story with real video. The "real video" part is the interesting aspect: The plot says that after many murders and disappearances in an upstate NY/Pennsylvania area, the cops had no leads. Eventually they were led to an abandoned home, which happened to have ten bodies buried in the backyard. What's more, there are over 800 tapes in the house, in which the killer tapes all of his actions, from stalking his targets to abducting them to killing them and disposing of the bodies. This low-grade "real" film material is interspersed with interviews and sessions with the FBI and forensics departments.

Impressive acting makes the idea of serial killing and torture much more personal. There are only two murder scenes in the movie, but it is still a genuinely haunting film. Far more harrowing were the scenes involving poor Cheryl Dempsey, the girl abducted by the killer. He never killed her, but rather imprisoned her for eight years, brutally torturing and psychologically re-circuiting her. One cannot help but feel horrible as he or she watches this girl go from the screaming, terrified captive Cheryl to the timid, submissive and mentally obliterated servant named "Slave." When the cops raid the abandoned house they find Cheryl with her eerie porcelain mask on, lying in a wooden coffin in the living room, still alive. The officers brought Cheryl to the hospital to recover from her torture and eventually be returned to her mother. Her mother received Slave, though. Cheryl continued to proclaim her love for her master, who she said would come back for her. Shortly after an interview with the documentary, which only resulted in her constantly answering with "What do you want me to say?", she took her own life.

This Cheryl/Slave plot point is the creepiest part of the film, and the focus of this post. In this abduction and torture, the "Water Street Butcher" created existence. He took Cheryl's existence and destroyed it, replacing it with a being he wanted and specifically crafted. As the idea that he was her "master" implied, the guy likes power. With this in mind it is worth noting that he aimed to be a god, creating new life. This torture was his means of not only taking away life, but making it. He did not procreate, but tortured. New existence sprung not from new cells but from new mentality. When I begun this post I was going to write on Cheryl's fight to be something. I was going to say that Cheryl was so desperate to not be murdered and become nonexistent that she assumed the person that she could be. She took it and nurtured it, becoming Slave because she was being. Now that I consider it, however, I realize that the killer would never kill her. He would keep torturing her until she complied and until she knew nothing else except love for her master. Cheryl was going to get the brunt of vile sadism until she became what she had to be.

Though that point on Cheryl falls through, I still like to propose a thesis that we all seek to exist. We all want to be something. We will do whatever is necessary to be what we want to be, but in many circumstances people will settle with being something else, so long as they are in fact being.

I advise against watching this movie. It freaked me the hell out. I have been checking closets and making sure all doors are locked in my house every night. But I'm also a huge gash. The film is not on DVD/Netflix, but the entire thing is uploaded on Youtube. I tell you this so you can make the choice to watch it. Once again, I advise that you can and should go through life without watching it.

Feminism Subcategories?

The idea that all women are not included in the same feminism category still seems to bother me. I think that even though black women have different set backs to overcome than white women, both are still female. In a lot of ways black women are stronger and have many valuable traits to offer to the feminism movement that white women would not understand. They need to be included in the same category to teach white women. Black women have to overcome the issue of all racial prejudices before equality between women and men can be reached, however, this means that everyone needs to overcome these issues. This is not a valid reason to separate the two categories for me.

It if anything adds to the struggle which we are facing. Although we should acknowledge the fact that the history of women's lives are different, we should also acknowledge the fact that women as a whole struggle with their role in society. Double standards regarding men and women affect everyone. It is just one aspect to an identity. If women start separating themselves into different categories than their will be tons of subcategories upon subcategories. I don't necessarily have a problem that their would be subcategories but if this is so, than white women should also have a subcategory apart from feminism, because white women also struggle with different issues than black women. It could be argued that white women struggle with the pressure that society sets on solely white women. When we were told in class to think of a perfectly feminine women all of us thought of a white women. This shows that not only are many associations with beauty and white women skewed, but also that for a longer period of time a specific type of idealism and constraint has been put on white women.

Being raised in the south alone has set me apart from other white women. Overall women in the south have been taught to cater to men's every need. Still today in my household after a large family meal or a holiday the women, without question, take the plates from in front of the men, and go to the kitchen to clean. This is after of course they have prepared the meal and all accommodations for that day. Women in the south also have to overcome the assumptions that every young teenage girl is going to become pregnant and have babies and not be able to provide for herself. So does this mean that women in the south should have a cajun women's movement? Each group of people coming from different locations and backgrounds offer their own insight to what womanhood and the female form is actually about and how to overcome the separation between men and women. As long as all of these different groups of women would unite under one category of feminism, or any other title, than I think I could fully support it.

St. Ignatius of Loyola and Kierkeegard

Yesterday in History class the professor was giving us a lecture on St. Ignatius of Loyola and his later achievements. What seemed pretty interesting to me is that St. Ignatius lived a pretty vain life up until he was around 25 years old. He very clearly lived in the aesthetic stage of life, as defined by Kierkeegard. He liked women, he worried and was proud about his looks, and behaved aggressively from time to time. It wasn't until he became pretty injured during a war battle, that his conversion into spirituality started to take place. After being in bed for several weeks, spent only in reading books regarding Christ and the lives of saints, he decided to change his current way of life. He then traveled to Spain, however, it's important to note that up until this point he still didn't have religious understanding or appropiate devotion. While he was staying in a cave, he experienced a vision that changed his life, and after which he seemed a very different man. Kierkeegard would say that he had advanced to the religious stage. He had taken then a leap of faith, trusting inconditionally in God and, after that, dedicating his whole life to His cause.

Truman's passage from slave to master morality

I believe the "Truman Show" reflects perfectly Nietzsche's philosophical notions. First, Truman has lived for the most part of his life under slave morality. He does what is expected of him, he goes by every day following an ever-present routine. He lives his life disdainfully, and although he would want it to get better, it takes him many years to actually muster the will and curiosity necessary to attain his goal. He develops a Will to Power, which then naturally becomes Will to Truth as he finds himself more and more suspicious of the possibilities that may be available for him and of the reality of this place in which he has been living. He later fights his way to the truth, and desperately develops a desire to escape this "fake" world. Possibly the most relevant scene is when he escapes at night and takes a boat into the "sea". The creator of this whole place doesn't want to let him go though, and so, he unleashes a big storm on Truman. At this moment, on top of the boat, Truman has never seemed more alive. He is yelling at the storm. Shouting in defiance and asking for more, he is finally beginning to say yes to life. He takes everything in stride and in the end when confronted with the decision of either staying and living in a world created only for him, or going outside to the real world and saying yes! to life, he decides upon the latter with great enthusiasm (as any true Apollonian would) and finally flees.

V for Vendetta and Socrates

When thinking about the concept of justice, I can't help but think about the book/movie "V for Vendetta". In this movie, the society in which the story develops has been transformed into a totalitarian state. Individuality and freedom are suppressed and rigorously controlled by the government, which assures safety when in reality it's exerting complete control over the population. "V" is the main character of the movie: a man seeking justice in a place where everyone seems to have forgotten what justice means. He is determined to perform and act able to free the people and to remind them about their own individuality and integrity.

Though his methods are not that moderate and are maybe a bit dramatic- he intends to destroy the parliament building using explosives and loud music while saying "It is to Madame Justice that I dedicate this concerto"- he considers this act as ideal in achieving his goal: to gain the people's attention and to give them hope. Something to note about V's character is that he takes everything with good disposition and humor. He has made the best from what has happened to him, and although he intends to seek revenge, he is doing it for the horrendous injustice of what was done to him and to other hundreds of people. I believe he acts in a virtuous manner throughout the movie. His objectives are well motivated and he acts with courage and great sense of piety.

There's a scene in this movie which impacted me heavily the first time I saw it. In which V sheds Evey's (the female main character) insecurities away, and after which she finally becomes a just and virtuous person. After this scene, it's clearly noticeable how Evey has gone from being scared and unhappy all the time, to being confident, more independent and happy. Also, in the end he gets to destroy the building and to give the sense of justice and hope back to the population. Thus, just as Socrates would say, once they regained their sense of justice, they were much happier than any unjust character in the movie.

Nietzschem

Last semester I read several various philosophical texts for my English class, one of which was Nietzsche's "Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense." In this text, Nietzsche explores the possibility that one person's perception of the world could be totally different from another's. For example, one person may see blue as red, green as purple, and so on; however, we would never be able to detect these perceptual variations because words, such as names of colors, are simply metaphors for our perception of things and concepts, and we cannot see through other's eyes. I have always wondered about this, even when I was a child. I've always wondered about the possibility that the reality I'm experiencing could be vastly different from anyone else's reality. Pondering this also guided my thoughts to how everything is controlled by language; for example, we all know what a dog is, but this is only because we have accepted the connection made between the word "dog" and the actual physical animal. The word that identifies the thing, whatever it may be, is not part of the thing's essence because, if this were true, Nietzsche says there would not be so many different languages. As I previously stated, according to Nietzsche, language is ultimately nothing more than metaphors for things and concepts. This theory really got me to look at things with a new perspective. That's what I enjoy about philosophy, it makes you see the world differently; and in my opinion, that can be very humbling.

Water for Elephants

I was watching the movie Water for Elephants and thought of Kierkegaard. The main character Jacob works as a veterinarian for a traveling circus and finds himself in for a great adventure. I also read this book which gave me more insight to his character. Jacob reminds me of a religious man because he does what is best for the animals not matter the consequences. He does what's best for them because that's what he feels is right. One of the main horses in the show had an issue with it's leg and would not be able to recover. The ringleader ordered that the horse remain alive and performing in the show otherwise Jacob would be redlighted. (Redlighted meaning thrown off the train while it was moving.) Jacob chose to put down the horse anyway, even if it meant he would be killed. It's something Jacob felt was right. Through out the entire movie, Jacob stands by his love for the animals and it is very impressive.

Kant's deontological position

Kant identifies good will, or goodness for itself, as the defining factor of what is good. The importance doesn´t rely on the consequence your act of goodness will generate, but on your good motivations. Furthermore, the most important motivation would be that of duty. I don't really agree with this specific notion of the motive of duty, because then things as lying to a friend or family member in order to protect them, which would be done out of sentimental concern, would be completely wrong in Kant's stance because it's not expressing a good will. It seems to me as if he's seeing the concept of "good will" in absolute terms. There don't seem to exist any shades of grey between the white (duty motives) and black areas (other motives).

Feminism

I was reflecting on our class about Simone de Beauvior. I was thinking about how women can even the playing field...if a woman is trying to be less "feminine" isn't she just trying to be more like a man? And if she embraces the "feminine" then she is just accepting what man has classified her to be. It almost seems hopeless, like there is no way to break the mold. I started to notice these things in my everyday life. Sometimes I play basketball in the gym with some boys from my work. I noticed that whenever they boys make a three pointer it's a high five and then the game continues. Well I happen to have a pretty good shot, so when I made a three pointer, all the boys stopped in awe. "Wow a girl made a three pointer! She is amazing." I felt like they thought my shot was so amazing purely because I was a woman. It made me angry...I don't want special treatment. I don't want my standards to be dumbed down, and when I actually meet men's standards it's considered a feat. Hopefully one day women can reinvent what being feminine really is.

Do laws bind us or instead release us from freedom?

Jean Paul Sartre believed that we all are condemned to be free. We are born into this world without any kind of essence, just our mere existence, and as we grow up and discover our identity, we are given more and more responsibilities and decisions to make. I think what he meant by "condemning" us to be free is that this freedom is inevitable. We don´t ask for it but it is presented in front of us anyways. Furthermore, we can't transfer it to someone el se. We are thrown alone into a world where our decisions direct the path our lives take, and this pressure can make us feel anguish and "condemned".

Sartre often made reference to Ivan Karamazov, a famous character in one of Dostoevsky books by saying that "if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitteed". However, it this is true why then do such things as a moral code and a wide variety of laws exist? I think maybe the answer lies on some need to have certain things written in ston, which may make the process of freedom and decision-making more bearable since it doesn't depend on us completely for certain things. Maybe people hold on to these moral codes and laws in order to justify themselves in front of them or condemn themselves when they don't follow them. These laws then, may be used to legitimize certain conducts, or in other words, as "excuses" and escape ways from "complete freedom".

Simone de Beauvoir: An Inspiration

Though both of my parents are decently progressive in their political and social perspectives, there will always be a part of them that maintains a very traditional approach to some of these topics. All four of my grandparents were born and raised in Greece and did not move to the US until the 50's and 60's. All of them not only try to preserve their traditional identities, but are also extremely proud and almost flaunt their religious, political, and social views. One of their most conservative views is the role of women within society and especially in a household.

Growing up, I was constantly told how I should act as a "proper" girl by my grandparents, and occasionally reprimanded for the same reasons by my parents. Though my mother grew up in the 60's and always talks about the Women's Rights Movement and what a great time period it was, she still slips sometimes and contradicts her support of women normally by purposefully exhibiting what she believes should be the role of a women. I've never felt extremely pressured to act a certain way just because it was what my family believed, but I'll always feel a small sense of obligation to live up to SOME of the expectations they have - although that's really only when I'm around them.

It's easier for someone like me in this time period, after women have come so far in the past 60-70 years, to not feel obligated to play into a specific gender role. That is why women like Simone de Beauvoir are really inspiring. The only people I really have to argue against are my foreign grandparents who might as well have been born in the 1800's. She had the ability to fight for women, the stereotypes of human sexuality, and gender roles before any large movement was started to back her up.

Living Among Robots

Have you ever questioned the true existence of others surrounding you?
When I was a little kid, I would sometimes think about the possibility of me being the only “real” person, living among “fake”, or maybe imagined, individuals, who didn’t really have a mind at all. Growing up, I’ve heard many others stating similar beliefs with maybe slight variances. I don’t really believe in that anymore, however, I remembered all of this when reading Descartes Meditations, specifically his idea that I need to systematically doubt my senses, which are actually deceiving me, and that the only thing in which I can trust is about the fact that I am a thinking being. However, what about the others? What about the people who sit next to me in class, or my family, my friends? Are they real?

I think therefore I am. However, I can’t be certain other people have a genuine mind. Think about this, let’s have the example of me sitting next to a friend who just broke up with her boyfriend. She’s crying right now, therefore I believe she’s sad, probably because she misses him, probably because she cares about him, or some other similar reason. However, all I can perceive of her is the way her body is behaving in order to interpret her mind. I’m believing in my senses which tell me that if your eyes well up and you begin to cry it must be because you’re thinking about something sad. But, as Descartes would tell me, it’s impossible to know if she’s thinking at all based on my senses. Furthermore, he would add, there exists a dualism, a mind and body problem, separating them in two completely different entities. If this is the case, then it would be wrong to base my knowledge in her body behavior, which is not connected to the mind.

I don’t believe in dualism. Being a psychology major makes it really hard for me to believe that mind and body are completely separate. However, if dualism was possible, or even true, then there would really be nothing to assure a person he/she is not living among robots.