Godot, forgot to post this:)

While watching Waiting for Godot I could not help but be intrigued at the mysteriousness. The contents of what the men considered a normal day was mind boggling. They rarely remembered what just happened or what they intended to do that day. The most disterbing partwas when the pompus slave owner barks at his servant and snaps the leash. Not only was it inhumain I couldnt honestly stand watching. To even consider the idea that this act was acceptable made me uneasy. I wondered though why this Godot character was so important and if all along Vladimir knew in the back of his mind that Godot wasn’t going to show. Godot could have just been hope for something new to happen in the two friends simple lives. Even though at the end when the messanger boy comes to tell them that Godot will not be coming once again Vladimir angered had to have known it was going to happen. If every day is the same then why would Godot finally come?

Color

For my friends 20th birthday she decided to get a new peircing. While waiting in the lobby for the man to finish preparing I noticed all the pictures of tattoos. It got me thinking: what is color and how does it relate to shade? Is color a different thing than shade? Or are they the same thing...is it still the same "color" even after you alter it? Is black to one person seen the same way from another perspective? Or do two people see something completely different and consider the different object black.

While we were waiting, there was a man in the front room getting a motorcycle tattoo. Since it was an all black motorcycle, the "color" black needed to be altered by different shades, that way someone could recognize it as a motorcycle. So is it still a black motorcycle even though you’re using different “shades” of black? What is black and when do you pass the fine line between black and grey? Would the tire of the motorcycle be part grey or just a lighter shade of black?

Summer dysfunctional lovin'.

When I was in high school, every summer I would work at a children's over-night camp. My boss, a total bitch, rarely hired women and when she did made it known they needed to prove themselves to her. She claimed they were too "emotional" and were not able to handle their job. Her children, two boys and a girl, were her favorite employees and could do no wrong. She claimed her daughter was the ideal worker and would even tell childhood stories to pass the time, assuming we cared. My favorite story, was when her little angel was playing with a doll and the two boys came up ripped the doll's head off. Then the little girl, around 7 at the time, became upset. She said "Mommy they hurt my doll" and all my boss said was, "big girls do not cry Amy, your brothers game is more fun, just play with them." So laughingly she talked about how they would all play catch with little Amy's doll head. Sick right? Not only does she wrongly assume only women are emotional, but she subjectives men so much she would rather Amy play Frisbee with her doll head than take her daughters opinion into consideration. Ironic thing is when her son and I broke up, he was the only one that cried...

4/6/2011

On Wednesday, April 6th, the main focus of class was John-Paul Sarte. He was a French Philosopher from the early 1900s who strongly believed that we, as humans, are all free and responsible for the decisions we make, Existentialism is Humanism. Man, or women, define themselves after their actions, “existence preceding essence.” He felt that philosophy is about a lived out experience and that for a person to act on, or use something, they are already aware of the outcome/its purpose. The duty of something is predetermined.

In Existialism there are to branches: Theist and Atheist. A theist man has a predetermined life and given tasks by God. An atheist has free will and decisions are up to them. The atheist makes their own choices and separates themselves from God so they can define themselves. For example there was a story told of a creator who made animals and gave them each a task. One of the creations was man, but he was task-less. When an outside inspector comes along he notices that the man had no task and instructed him to be destroy to his lack of identity. Without task, there is nothing to identify of the man. (somewhat to how people associate themselves with their jobs...) The creator then distributes hope to the man, which gives “self essence” as his task.

We also discussed bad faith and consciousness. With consciousness there is the idea of intentionality. There is always a subject geared towards an object. This object is impossible to be transcended human subjectivity and the individual chooses and makes themselves. When a person makes a name for themselves everyone around them does the same, but when making that choice humanity is chosen. It is predetermined that we, as humans, are all condemned to be free and freedom can only be understood once subjectivity is recognized. Freedom brings responsibility for decisions, therefore one cannot do what he or she pleases due to responsibility.

With Bad Faith, there is the idea that one can’t transcend their situations to realize what they are and what they are not. Meaning someone is living their life defines by their occupation. The waiter who is eager to serve and is extravagant in the ways he delivers food is essentially acting. This is because he is pretending to care he is still aware that he is more than a waiter. He makes a choice to define himself as more. To realize you have a problem is virtue.

Then we finished with the discussion of “Being.” The first is Being for itself, where the individual is completely free. The next is Being in itself, where all is determined and the final is Being with others, which is inter-subjectivity. In Being, your choice is freedom and in order to be a victim, your choice is becoming objectified. Facticity acknowledges “facts” and can be something more than an object, where transcendence are facts that don’t matter. Facticity is over Transcendence and they differ from mind over body.

ethical aesthetic or religiously in love?

In class, when talking about a girl and boy who could not be together, the question was asked what stage in life would the two lovers be in? The aesthetic would realize there are more fish in the sea, the ethical would love the other but accept the fact that the two could not be together and the religious would believe that with god all things are possible and they would be together. But what would happen if one was aesthetic and the other was religious? Would there be a point where the religious would give up or would the aesthetic realize the hurt their causing?

Kierkengard was Ethical.

Even though he never considered himself ethical, he was in that stage of life. By not acting on his feelings of love and realizing he was not mature enough to have a relationship, he made an ethical decision. Even though it is claimed that choices are aesthetic he made a decision which lead him to despair. Despair is the "mark' of the shift into the ethical stage of life. He was in despair because he knew his lover would never again be his and was lost forever.

MIll, conditioned to party.

Thanks to Mill I wonder what exactly I want to spend my upcoming break doing. Don't get me wrong I love to go out and have a good time, but this spring break I do not know if getting too wasted to function and lost in South Texas is really that good of an idea. In all honesty a nice break home sound like more fun than not remembering my vacation. More than likely I'll get sick and blow my money, then come back very hungover and study for finals. Do I want to end up on a random island under too many influences? Or is that just an idea that I have been conditioned to think a typical college student should do for "Spring Break," and not to second guess myself I will "have the time of my life." I mean everyone in the past has, right?

Influence, do we have too much?

Why do we read text books? It is interesting to think of a text book as a valid opinion in certain subjects, considering that the book is in one authors opinion. Isn't that book then biased? Why are we reading and being examined on one persons perspective of a subject when we are supposed to be getting the unbiased truth? I guess, if this is true, all of the "facts" about anything we have ever learned are influenced from what ever source we are getting the facts from. If so is anything we have been told, technically the whole truth? Or is it just a version of the truth with a twist of numerous influences? And since that twisted truth has been passed down a tweaked from person to person how do we know what we are being taught in real its original content?

Accounting class, uncertainty.

I sit in this class learning about numbers and journals that are rarely used, but commonly understood, for what? While drifting off, a common action I take part in on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, I began thinking about numbers. How do we recognize that 1 has a value of 1 and 2 a value of 2? Pythagorean realized that the world is Mathematical, believed that everything could be determined with exact certainty. But how exactly can we obtain this certainty? Especially when in doing math someone can make a mistake and write a 2 instead of a 1. If the 2 was written with certainty, doesn't it defeat the purpose of having the Pythagorean observation of Mathematics? If 2 was in fact the wrong number, then how can we be certain it was right when we wrote it?

Powerless.

In the Stoic philosophy it was expressed that physics is studying nature in so far that we show what is in our power. In class the example was given that to an alien it would seem that we are a slave to the dog. We "the owner" feed it, pick up its poop and it leads "the owner" on a leash. By being a slave to the dog we aren't necessarily are in "power." For the Stoic study of physics to make sense it would need to be understood that we do not carry power in anything. We can manipulate things yes but not be in full control. For us to have an understanding of nature, we must realize then that we are not in control and that we are ignorant for thinking otherwise.

Philosophy: greatest pleasure.

According to the Ethics of the Garden, philosophy=peace of mind, which is the greatest good. How can philosophy be considered a peace of mind? If philosophy is continually questioning what is right and asking for an explanation when is one's mind at ease? With philosophy the mind is continually learning and discovering the answers to the questions brought fourth. If the mind is working and digging to find meanings how can it be at peace? I can understand the greatest good because with the questions being brought to attention and answered truth is discovered. What could be better or a "greater good" than truth?

Soul and Body...Body and Soul

If the spirit and the body are separate entities from each other why are we effected when we drink too much or use illegal influences? If our minds are effected with the things we put into our body, how can the soul be separate from the body? Unless our thoughts and what is going on in our minds have nothing to do with our soul, only our body, then what is the soul? Is the soul only our feelings? But if our feelings are experienced within our bodies those cant be connected to the soul either, are our personalities not part of the soul since the personality represents what we feel. Unless what we feel in our "gut" is what the soul is releasing as a signal to what we is right, where is the fine line between our body and our soul? What is a soul?

Sweet Child

"Without knowledge, then life is not worth knowing." Socrates may have been a very intelligent man, but I have to admit I disagree with his bold statement. What exactly is knowledge? And with that knowledge, when have you reached the point to where you have learned "enough?" When I was in High school I used to help out at a local soup kitchen for service hours. There, there was a homeless man that was a regular and always called me "sweet child" as he asked how my day was and for an extra roll. He had missing teeth and dirty clothes, but would still flash me the biggest smile. This man, as happy and humble as ever, is his life not worth living? Someone that has not been educated more than high school, if that much, can't even afford dinner, but despite his troubles he is still carrying himself with the dignity and confidence that most educated people lack. Is his life not worth living?

Parmenides: Fight Club

According to the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, thinking thoughts are real. If so wouldn't in the movie Fight Club the main character, Edward, not really be delusional? A movie where Edward, an insomniac, makes up the friend Tyler Durden in order to get him though his frustrations of not sleeping. Throughout this movie the two become very close, only to find out in the end that Tyler is never really there...or is he? If Edward was thinking of Tyler would not he be real? Since Tyler is a thought, he is created and therefore is real. Where is the boarder of real and not real when our soul, according to Plato and Socrates, is a separate entity from our body, therefore we cant see our soul; but it is real and there. Tyler, never seen by anyone other then Edward, must be real. Tyler is a thought but is still in existence since he was thought up or in other words "introduced" to Edward. Maybe Edward is not crazy of thinking that Tyler is real, Edward could just be considered privileged to have the opportunity to have met Tyler, and the only Being fortunate enough to see him.