Reverse stereotype

Today in the world it is impossible for a male to ever be accepted by someone who is not a male. What i mean is that no matter what a male says or does, someone will always say he means differently. In this case, a male can be for equality and equal treatment of women and yet he is still "just a man". Questions like, "You don't know how it is" come up in some arguments and it is FRUSTRATING. We can all agree that the treatment of women over the centuries has not been equal to the treatment of men. This is a fact. However, it is also accurate to say that the USA has made strides in the equal treatment of women. It is NO WHERE near complete, in the sense that both men and women are treated equally however.

It is a hasty generalization to classify all males as being, "macho" and "pigs" and what not. believe it or not these terms ARE STEREOTYPES as well. One cannot fight discrimination with more discrimination, it will not work and it complicates things further. Just because some men are "jerks" and discriminate women does NOT make every man that way.

We learned in this class earlier this semester how a fault in argument is the hasty generalization, and it is important to acknowledge this.

Also, men who think women are inferior are clearly delusion and confused. Both men and women should have equal rights and treatment, but both men and women are unique in their own ways. Biologically men and women are different (obviously) and they also differ psychologically and emotionally. These differences do not make one better over the other, but it is the combination and harmony of the two that make something amazing.

Spider Man (Power and responsibility)

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" this quote is from the Film version of Spider Man in 2002. Uncle Ben tells this to Peter Parker because of his new found abilities. Peter has amazing powers now but realizes that with these powers he can either be responsible, or be evil and use his powers to destroy. The idea of Power and responsibilty was brought up earlier this week and it immediately sparked this in my mind. I think it is a valid point with anyone who comes into power espically in today's society, whetehr you are president, CEO, club president, or principle, with power comes GREAT RESPONSIBILTY. Just because one has power does not mean it is free reign to do whatever one wants. It is the responsibility of the powerful to uphold a sense of ethics.

Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll

After hearing about Aesthetics it reminded me of the stereotypical college lifestyle. It is always about living in the immediate and the now. Both lifestyles tend to do this. College students (some) tend to live life like life won't be there tomorrow. Many students will do many things to satisfy their boredom (excessive drinking, sex, drugs and rock n' roll) The Aesthetics 1) no authentic self 2) life is a game/show/work of art/ a production 3) Avoid the either/or decision of life, of commitment. It is STRIKINGLY similar to college life. However, why is this stereotype so important? Because it causes many problems with many students. It is only doing these activities out of boredom (Kierkegaard)

Communism: A Love Story

Over the last several decades many nations have attempted to have a communist country, none of which have succeeded. On the contrary, those who have had communism as a political system have caused so much pain and hardship. North Korea, The People's Republic of China, Cuba, Vietnam, Former U.S.S.R. and Laos. These countries of course are not exactly what Marx intended, however these countries must be brought up because they have tried to use "ideals" of communism to control the masses. In China today many people are forced to work in only certain fields of work. For instance as much as you might want (the freedom) to work as a pastry chef, the government wants you to be a butcher. What many people do not realize in Cuba is how very difficult it was (or is) to leave the country. In a personal story, the father of a friend of mine was born and raised in Cuba. However he was tired of being oppressed by Castro's regime, you cannot just get on a plan to go move to a different country. He had to disguise himself in order to get on a boat to go to the U.S.A.

On a separate note, China over the last decade has slowly drifted away from a communistic economy and has slowly embraced a more capitalistic economy. Ever since then, the economy of China has gone up. The U.S.A. on the other hand, trying to become more socialistic has obviously gone down in the economy.

There is a BIG difference between communism and socialism CLEARLY. But these facts must not be ignored for the obvious reasons. One may not pay for school, health care, food, in a socialistic or communistic state, but what exactly do you get? The idea of BASIC healthcare comes into play. Well what is basic healthcare? Does it cover plastic surgeries, heart transplants, dialysis, flu, etc. What is BASIC food? You very well may only get a loaf of bread (former USSR) They promise food of course, but how much? what's the quality?

Of course Capitalism is not perfect, no political system has been in the existence of human kind. But would humans want to lead or be herded?

What many people say about communism is how it is perfect. On paper, Communism sounds very appealing, but as we all know from other countries it leads to exploitation of the proletariat, starvation of many (China, USSR), and lose of any personal freedoms.

A book that really struct the nerve with me was Anthem by Ayn Rand

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/anthem/index.html

Anarchy!!!! NOT

WARNING:

LANGUAGE

Whitest Kids U'Know (WKUK)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Aqfp5iMnw

In this episode of WKUK, they exemplify something that i thought of in class. Many people in the world have never experienced freedom and would die for the thought of freedom. However in the USA many people complain about the over use of freedom or the lack of freedom. What people need to realize is how FORTUNATE we are. In this country people can say how they feel about the government and the only concern they have for speaking out is the number of youtube hits they get or if what they are saying is offensive (sexist, racists, etc)

In many other countries, if someone spoke against their country (specifically government) (North Korea, The People's Republic of China, Somalia, etc) they will most likely "disappear" and go to "trial".

Another thing that I thought of in class is how people nowadays do not understand Anarchy.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/18560/149409.aspx

---Girl wants to start an Anarchy Club, (which requires coordination and cooperation, maybe even a LEADER)

In the Republic (book II) the idea of a simple city was constructed, but as we all know Cities are not as simple as they seem. Humanity as a species is a social group just like many other animals (wolves, lions, fish etc.) Humans live happier lives when banned together. Civilization will never cease as long as there are humans to be in them.

Anthropomorphic God and Nature

In the last class we discussed how Hume gave "Nature" a voice, and an anthropomorphic view. It was said that this action was done to emphasize and to capture readers and possibly for readers to understand it better.

Is it not the same about God? Throughout elementary school I grew up thinking about God being this old man "in sandals" . Maybe this was so a child around the ages of 5-12 could better understand. In fact in many psychology studies, children at the age are not capable of thinking completely abstractly. In this sense, this "concrete"(Piaget) anthropomorphic image is given to God for these young children to understand. It is biologically not possible for someone of such a young age to think abstractly. It does not deal with just God, but also the universe.

Is labeling God as this "old man" similar to what Hume does with Nature? They both are trying to reach the reader but why would this be any different? (because it has to deal with God or any higher power and you can never equate the two.... why??)

Don't think FEEL

"Don't think. FEEL. It's like a finger pointing at the moon.
Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!" Bruce Lee [Enter the Dragon 1973]

This movie quote was the FIRST thing that came into my mind during last week in class.

This quote made me think about how so many people today over think EVERYTHING. I myself tend to over think every single thing. What we [human kind] must realize, is that there is a difference between OVER THINKING and THINKING OVER everything. Humans tend to over think things, when we should be thinking over things. Bruce Lee's quote is so SIMPLE, yet so profound. Don't think about where it is, or how it is, for you will " miss all of the heavenly glory". It is so simple.

Everyday people are over thinking life, when we should be enjoying it (life). People are so caught up in troubles about religion and politics; but while we are all bickering, we are missing on the "heavenly glory" that is the world, galaxies, the universe.

We need to think over life, not over think it.

If we constantly over analyze things we will never go any where in life. If we simply think over life we will not miss it, life is beautiful and it is worth admiring for the sheer beauty.

Experience Matters

Last class the question was asked to a few students, "Do you believe in God and why?"

Probably more than half the class if not all the class would not be able to give a "good enough" answer for someone who does not believe in God. Just because some people fail to answer the question or the answer is not what one would like doesn't mean that there is not God.

If someone asked a college student, "What is magnetism or what is gravity?" a person would be able to say, "Yes i know what those things are" Would they be able to give a good enough explanation of how those things actually worked? A student might answer, "Well gravity is like when you drop a pencil and it falls down, its when huge masses attract other masses."

Well, ok... How does that work?

A student MIGHT not be able to answer that question.

Furthermore, most, if not all, students have never done extensive research on such topics as: relativity, physics, and the like. Is it fair to say that these students rely on "FAITH" of the people who actually did the research? Is it fair to say that these students are familiar with these things because it occurs in everyday life? Many people do have access to small refrigerator magnets, but does that mean that know exactly how it works?

So if you ask someone who has studied the topic (Theology, Biology, Philosophy) of course they will be able to give you an answer to your liking. Just because you ask a student (who most likely has not spent 5 years intensely studying the above topics) about God and they fail to answer the question does NOT mean God does not exist.

For someone to come to a conclusion that God does not exist based on a students "ignorance" of the subject does not make it false. It is like asking a 1st grader what division is, they may know very little about it, but just because they can not give you an answer doesn't make "division" false.

Feb 11th class synopsis

In the last class, on Friday, we spoke of virtuous actions. They are two types of virtuous actions: those that are naturally virtuous and those that are truly virtuous. The naturally virtuous actions contain the right reason and desire but the action is not rationally chosen. In the natural virtue, one’s habit determines the outcome, not one’s rational thinking. It only appears to be truly virtuous, but it actuality it is not. The Truly virtuous person does so in combination of desire and reason while at the right time, in the right way, with the right feeling, and for the right ends. Another in our class discussion was that virtuosity may change over time, i.e., at the time, Martin Luther King Junior was not seen universally as being a truly virtuous man, but in today’s society he is seen as a paradigm of virtuosity. Another important topic that was in our class is that of the “mean”, in other words what is the middle ground. For example, a person may be very belligerent, he could be a pacifist, or he could be someone who is in the middle. The mean is a property that is looked highly upon. Aristotle said that “External goods” are a necessity to be completely virtuous. For example, a person with one leg can never be completely virtuous but only a little virtuous. The two virtues of courage and temperance were also discussed in the class as a way of exemplifying virtuous acts. For instance, if a soldier feels fear but runs into battle for the good of his country, the soldier knows that it is the right thing to do, at the right time, and for the right end then the soldier is truly courageous. Temperance was also discussed and the two main examples were food and sex. Both hunger and sex are apart of the human appetite but may also be virtuous if they are in congruency with the rational part of the soul. The example given in class dealt with a woman who has sex all the time, but not for pleasure, and who sees it as a way to help other people. Is that truly virtuous of a promiscuous woman? Finally we discussed the proper use of leisure time and what is or is not appropriate.

"Idea's are bullet proof"

After today's class I thought of the movie "V for Vendetta". Near the end of the movie, the character "V" says a line that amazed me when i saw it in theaters and to this day.

http://vimeo.com/3528643

He says, Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof"

What "V" says is so profound. Mankind is mortal, but an idea is immortal. A person will die, but the idea that he possessed will live on. In some sense, ideas are more real than we are. Of course these ideas would not be here if it wasn't for mankind, but could it also be said that mankind produced something "bullet proof" or immortal. Generations have passed by since the ancient Greeks have philosophized, they have all passed on but their ideas and words still astound us to this day and will for as long as mankind is on this planet.

I bring this up as "food for thought"; but it makes a person wonder, the significance of ideas and words, and the immense power that the have, even more powerful than man itself.

Defining words

In the last class we discussed how if a person does not know the definition of something then you can never fulfill that said thing (e.i., If someone does not know the definition of good then he can never do good.) I would like to make a point saying that the defintion of good is

–adjective

1.

morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.

2.

satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher;good health.

3.

of high quality; excellent.

4.

right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. Hiscredentials are good.

5.

well-behaved: a good child."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good

I know the definition of good, so there for I will always do good, according to Socrates and last class.

Furthermore, what if i did not know the definition of "brother" could I ever be a brother? Well clearly i am a brother because I have two male siblings, the point is when does this "way of thinking" become extreme. Just because I do not know the "correct" definition of a word (emphasis on "the"" does that make me incapable of fulfilling that word (good, bad, smart, tall, etc.)

Socrates and his thoughts on definitions is ridiculous. If you asked a person who could not understand any language what is a human and they couldn't tell you, does that make them not a human?

Where is the line drawn.

Ramble on by Socrates

After reading the piece of the Phaedo I came to the conclusion that Socrates loves to talk about anything and everything. I thought about how philosophical thought really came into play during the Hellenistic era because they had "spare" time on their hands to think about abstract things. People in other civilizations mostly did not think about "petty' things such as "Am i water, air, number..." But they thought of more important things such as, "Where can i find my next meal, how should i take care of my family, What do I need to survive". People who think about philosophy usually are in a comfortable state of being meaning: They have food and water, they have a roof over their head, they went to schooling (college). Philosophy is a school of thought for people who have the spare time. If there was an apocalypse tomorrow and there were five people alive, they would not think things like, "What is logic? What is this or that?" They would want to survive and rebuild. Philosophy is for someone who has their necessities met (usually). Philosophical thought came into being because of the Greek civilization, where people could stand out on the street and ponder life's questions of the cosmos. However, in a place of survival, philosophical thought would be very scarce if not absent all together. In the Phaedo Socrates is saying these long paragraphs, and the rebuttal is, "Yes, certainly" (page 54 three lines under 81) or "Very likely" (Page 55) or "Yes I think so" (Page 52) .

Are they merely just agreeing with him to agree? Is Socrates that random guy on the corner speaking about random things. Or was he a guy who had enough (extra) time to speak of these abstract ideas. When push comes to shove, and you are trying to survive, the last thing on your mind is to ponder the cosmos, or what is the number 156 or "Am I real", one should be thinking of how to survive and to prosper, but once things have settled down hten you have the time to think of philosophy.

Who is right and who is to say who is right: Week 2

Over the past several months the arguments and debates arise at school and in politics. One side says, "We are right, and whatever you say is completely wrong", another side says, "That group is ignorant and you can't believe anything they say." Who is right? Who has the final say so? These questions hardly ever come up in an actual debate. For example, some people argue whether global warming is truly the potential tragedy it is said to be on the news. One side says that it is because of the green house gases (carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane,sulfur hexafluoride, etc) in the earth's atmosphere that the Earth is getting warmer each year. So if one year it is hotter than normal it is considered global warming, so you would think that if it was cooler one year it would not be global warming? On the contrary, if it gets colder it is global warming or now referred to as "Climate Change." The defense of this instance is because of the melting of the polar ice caps, more cooler fresh water melts into the ocean causing the winds to pick up cool air instead of warm air. The other side of the argument is that over 10,000 years ago the polar ice caps were in the Great plains area but then "naturally" melted back, without automobile and power plants dumping carbon dioxide into the air. So which side is right? Both sides of the argument have a lot of data supporting their side, and their data is drawn up from respectable scientists. But each side says the other one is "lying" and that you should believe in our side instead.

I bring this up because arguments like these take place everyday. This causes "mud-slinging" at the opponent which can be detrimental to both sides. Who is to say that one side is more correct than the other? Who has the final say so in making something true? When we look into the past they were many ideas and FACTS that are now disproven, for example, the earth is round, and the sun revolves around the earth. Back in these times if you disagreed your social and political career would be gone and in some cases some people who killed for not believing in what the majority says.

As the years go by, new information about our planet and the universe help us understand more and more. Just because a majority of people think something is right, doesn't make it right, for example over 350 years ago, the majority of people thought slavery was fine, and many people owned slaves, but that definitely does not make it right.

In the end, who decides whether something is true or not, should it be up to a single person? the majority? or is it up to no one to make such a decision?

Mind and Body in relation to philosophy; Week 1

In one of my other classes we learned about something called the "Cartesian Problem", how someone can link the mind to the body or "non matter" to matter. Immanuel Kant (idealists) believed that there is only a mind and that there is no matter and David Hume and the materialist believe in only matter and not the mind. How can someone link something that is an idea (no matter) with something concrete like the human body (matter)? I find it interesting that this comes up and how someone could attempt to answer this question. Both Immanuel Kant and David Hume are well educated but have the opposite idea on how to connect the mind to the body. Or perhaps it is not meant to be connected? Is it also a fair argument to make the same connection with the "soul" to the body?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_(metaphysics)

During this "enlightenment" time period, many people were trying to answer questions to the mysteries of the world that were left unanswered by religion. Why are we here? Who am I? Why do bad things happen to good people?

I thought the connections of the mind and body were very interesting especially with the similarities to the body and soul.