Is femininity at risk?

In class we discussed Simone Beauvoir and the question of whether femininity is at risk. Femininity is a natural characteristic of women. It differentiates us from men through our personality and emotions. The idea of femininity has changed overtime not to fit a women’s natural characteristics but to project characteristic of the historical image of the wife, mother, and housekeeper. Femininity has been manipulated to fit stereotype of the ideal women. Femininity is not at risk but the conservative idea of femininity is. The conservative takes the natural characteristics of femininity, nurturing, protective, kind, and has developed it to fit guidelines on how women are suppose to act, think, and dress. The stereotypes of femininity has oppressed women socially, creating a perception that a feminine women is not one who shares the same duties as men as “bread winners”, decision makers, and intellectuals. Stereotypes of women are widely seen in TV, movies, and images that flood are everyday life’s. These images depict the ideal women as wearing “feminine” clothing (dresses, skirts, heels), taking care of certain duties (cleaning, cooking, and parenting), and sometimes depicting the feminine women depending on men to make decisions that they can not comprehend (financial decisions, political decisions, and ideological decisions). I think of a heterosexual women who is opposite of what I believes society depicts, enjoying being single, career oriented, opinionated, financially independent, educated, politically aware and this is the fear of the conservative. But would these actions make this women unfeminine? I agree with Simone Beauvoir that if feminism is a natural characteristic it could not be lost. I do not by any means think that women should not wear dresses or clean their house if she please, but I am just trying to acknowledge that these actions do not make a women feminine. What makes them feminine is those characteristics that can not be lost. Historically we can see a change in how women dress. It is appropriate to wear jeans, which earlier in history would be thought as outrageous, so clothing can not determine if a women is feminine or not. I choose to wear dresses and heels, but although this may be the social idea of femininity, I believe that what makes me feminine is the characteristics that separate me from men (personality, emotion), not by what I wear or what my career is. I believe that the societies understanding of femininity is part of a bigger problem that compromises the acceptance that women are equal to men.

Hegels Political Obligations

This week I was reading a article about Hegel and his political theory. Although I disagreed with a lot of what Hegel wrote, it amazes me how he sounds like a philosopher that would be alive today. His writing has ideas that I would consider modern and possibly timeless. I found his ideas of duty appealing and find myself agreeing with him. He gives the example of political obligations, such as: military, taxes, and state laws. He connects the following of political obligations with the need to live a ethical life and the way we are brought up, which makes following obligations second nature. Hegel warns when we do not understand why we are complying with political obligations, then compliance is merely based on authority. This is a problem that you see all to often today, I even do this myself. For example, why do we follow speed limit laws? Is it because we understand that speed limit laws were put in place to keep the community safe or because a police officer may write us a ticket? If these laws were not enforced who would follow them? Hegel makes a great point in that if you understand the laws you are more likely to follow them without enforcement. I agree and disagree with this statement, I think if the law is being enforced you may be more likely to break it. And if the law was not being enforced but there was a common understanding and thought of responsibility of why it was important to follow the law, you may feel this strong sense of obligation to lead by example and follow the law. I would rather have speed limit laws than have none at all. And this makes me reflect on why I break speed limit laws if I agree they need to be in place. Because speed limit laws are being enforced, by breaking the law this does not mean that everyone will be allowed to break the law without a consequence. This consequence (a monetary fine) is enough for some drivers not to take the risk at all. By myself breaking the law this does not have the consequence of everyone being able to break the law. But if there was no enforcement of the laws, by myself breaking a speeding law what would stop others from doing the same? So if there was no enforcement I would have to follow the speed laws to make them relevant by example. I think that reason has been lost in the fast pace of life, excepting something because it is and not thinking about the reason behind why it is, has become very common.

Marx and Cuba

In Philosophy class on friday we started to discuss Marxism and communism in general. This week has really made me think about government systems. Marx ideas are extremely interesting and tempting, but flawed in that I don’t think he accounts for human’s ambitions and human’s craving for advancement personally and professionally. I traveled to Cuba last year and saw first hand a country with marxist ideas. My Political Thought teacher this week conveniently started teaching Karl’s Marx and asked a interesting question. Karl’s Marx believed that we need civil servants, people that actually want to do there job for the good, and not because of a money incentive. He posed the question, is it possible to have civil servants?

In Cuba I stayed with a doctor who had chosen his career because he wanted to help his people and not because of the money. In Cuba doctors get paid the same amount of money as any other public worker would. Some jobs working for the government give you more than others, but not much. Their pay checks are just enough to pay rent and buy enough food to live. Some Cubans don’t go to college and get jobs as taxi drivers or bartenders because you can make more money than being a engineer or doctor and you need no education. He explained to me that this was becoming a big problem for their country, because there was a shortage of young Cubans wanting to take important cilvil service jobs. Marx creates a perfect environment for the creation of civil servants but his system will not satisfy the people forever. With the recent introduction of internet to Cuba the Cuban people are finally able to read about what life is like outside a communist state. Cuban students that we met traveling talked about wanting another revolution and wanting their country to become democratic. Will their words ever become actions I don’t know, but with the recent revolutions it does not seem to far fetched.

The O'Reilly Argument

I watched a SNL clip with Bill O’Reilly and thought it was a great depiction of his charter. The skit was Bill O’Reilly interviewing President Obama. The clip was obscured with O’Reilly interrupting and insulting President Obama after every question asked. I decided to watch the actual interview with President Obama and Bill O’Reilly and immediately thought of one of our philosophy classes were we talked about valid arguments. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HyXCHndmk) He questions Obama on redistributing wealth through out the USA. Bill O’Reilly opens the argument with a editorial piece from The Wall Street Journal that claims President Obama is a “determined man of the left” who gives tax breaks to the middle class. He then claims that the healthcare bill redistributes wealth. Obama replies by saying has not raised taxes once in the last two years, and in reply to healthcare gives example of why the bill was put in place and how it benefits Americans with healthcare and without. Bill O’Reilly replies with the argument that, “a lot of Americans feel hat you are a big government liberal who want to intrude on their personal freedom.” Hasty generalization Bill? Through the entire interview Bill O’Reilly does not give any facts or examples of his criticism, he gives only opinion and generalizations.

Class Notes 2/14/11

Today in class we discussed Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. Dr. Layne started off by asking the class what Carpe Diem was. Carpe Diem means to seize the day. A example given was Elliot in E.T. when he kisses the girl he likes. We then started discussing Hellenistic philosophy, which was after the deaths of Plato and Aristotle, from the 4th century BC to the 1st century BC. During this time period there were four dominate schools, Plato’s Academy, Aristotle’s Lyceum, Zeno Stoa, and Epicurus Garden. The two main philosophical movements that were going on at the time were Pyrrho’s Skepticism, and Diogenes Cynicism. Pyrrho’s Skepticism is the idea that the only thing that they knew is what they could not know. Diogenes Cynicism was a movement to criticize conventions; the thought that all conventions were irrational. They thought, that most people who think to be true and rational had become perverted by convention. A important part of being a cynic was to critique conventional norms. By getting back to nature we would be getting back to what was rational. Epicureanism were atomists, which was the idea that everything is atoms and void. They believed everything was a plurality. The Stoics thought everything was a unity or monism. This effects there theological world view; theology being “the end”. For Epicureanism there is no end and everything is subject to chance. It is a accident that the world is were it is and we see what we see. For the Stoics everything is rational, that something happens from the effect of something else changing or happening. There are rational reasons for everything.

We then went on to discuss the difference between their ethics. For Epicureanism all human beings are motivated by pleasure and for the Stoics it is adherence to the good or duty. Epicurus Garden was a retreat from civic life. The philosophy was for peace of mind, it is suppose relieve suffering of everyday life. Epicurus believed the greatest pain that we received was from mental disturbances caused by false beliefs. Examples are, the nature of things, god, the soul of destiny, and moral intent. Once we realize that the world is atoms and void it will release us from suffering. Once we realize that all humans are motivated by pleasure it should release your guilt. There are different kinds of pleasure for Epicurus, kinetic vs. static. Kinetic pleasure is the pleasure in process or movement, for example; eating. Static pleasure is the pleasure of fullness. Static is the highest pleasure, which is the absence of pain. Once you eliminate pain in your life you are experiencing pleasure. “Human beings are plagued by worries and pain produced by unsatisfied desire, thus we must discipline ourselves to know what one should be desired.” The three desires are, natural and necessary, natural but unnecessary, and unnatural and unnecessary. A example for a natural and necessary desire would be food, shelter, clothing. A example for natural but unnecessary, would be sex; because you do not need this for survival. And a example of unnatural and unnecessary, could be drugs, power, and luxury items. For Epicurus we are more concerned for hollow desires, meaning morning the past or hope for the future. If we are expecting to be happy in the future, or if we mourn about being happy in the past, you will always be looking towards the future, or back at the past; and when will you truly be happy? The future has nothing to do with us, we need to focus on what is going on right now. If you are going to think about the past or future, think only of the pleasure of the past but experience pleasure now. “The life of the foolish man is fearful and unpleasant; it is swept away into the future” Once you feel pleasure in the moment it is infinite, because there is no duration for pleasure, there is just right now. Epicurus demands that we see every moment as a gift, because how we came to be was by atoms creating the universe and pure chance. He also believes that there is no afterlife,and so once you realize that there is no life after death you will learn to cherish the moment.

For the Hestoics present moment, it is not feeling pleasure, but it is attention to the present moment in accordance with nature. Everything is rational and your good is connected to nature. Everything depends on causes that are not up to us. We have luxury items, beauty, health, wealth, because of fait. We have no control over evils, (for example hurricanes) this is all fait. The only thing that could be good or bad is the moral intent. The only thing in your control is how you judge and act about certain situations. The study of nature can tell you what is in your power, we can not control events such as earthquakes or hurricanes. “Value judgements are the only thing that are good or bad, you can either accent or decent, this will is the only thing up to us all other thing are indifferent and are not up to us.” Hestoics believe that the past and future is indifferent, the only thing that is in are power is right now. Leave the past behind you, leave the future to fait, and live right now. The Epicureans enjoy the present moments like the gods vs. the stoics that will the present moment.

Socrates on Virtue

In class we discussed socrates view on virtue. The things that make up virtue are, courage, piety, justice, temperance, and friendship. Socrates thought that if you could not tell him what virtue was then you were not virtuous. If you could not tell him what friendship was you did not have friendship, or if you could not tell him what courage was you were not courageous. Many can’t describe what friendship is on the spot, I think this could also be a factor of never being asked to describe friendship. It is something that we are born with that does not need to be defined to understand it. Humans were not born to be alone, we are pack animals, it is in are DNA to have other humans around us, it is necessary for are survival. You learn quickly that if you do not act in appropriate ways people will not want to be around you, so you learn the basics of friendship. It is not something you can be told how to do like socrates suggests, it is something you learn as children and do not stop learning about. It starts by learning how to share, express your feelings, and learning to compromise. It is the same with love, if asked to describe it, you can get stuck on your own words, but the feeling is there. You are born with these characteristics, you do not need to be explained what they are, they come with age and experience.

Freedom or Security?

In my Political Thought class this week we were learning about Thomas Hobbes political philosophies. My professor threw out the question, if one had to choose between freedom or security what would they choose? Thomas Hobbes thought that one would choose security over freedom and most of the class agreed with this conclusion. But I had doubts on whether Americans would choose security over freedom. I agree that most people would say that they would choose security over freedom but as soon as security inconveniences them I think they would choose freedom. The Government has increased security trying to protect us against terrorist attacks, but when they use certain precautions such as increasing TSA security it becomes a concern about are freedom instead of security. There has been a lot of complaining about the new security precautions taking to much time and violating peoples rights. So what is it? Freedom or security? Do we come to the airport early and go through the TSA checkpoints willingly without complaining or do we choose convenience and freedom and risk another bomb being taken on a airplane in someones underwear?

Argument

Unfortunately it seems that college students including myself are lacking in the ability to hold a responsible valid argument. When I think of a argument, I think of a fiery conversation with aggressive tones of voice, it is hard to argue and keep a open mind and calm demeanor. I appreciated the idea of having a argument which you actually make points instead of just stating the opposite of what someone else is saying. I’m excited to shape my way of arguing and learn to keep a open mind and stay calm in stress filled situations.

Ignorance

In Philosophy class on monday we discussed ignorance. A lot of the time the word ignorance is used as a insult or way to degrade someone, part of this could be the word is misused or misunderstood. Ignorance means lack of knowledge, so why is ignorance a bad thing? You can’t possibly know everything! Ignorance can be exciting and give you passion to learn and explore the unknown. One of my favorite quotes is by Mark Twain, he wrote, “All you need is ignorance and confidence and success is sure.”