Male/Female Differences

Professor Johnson brought up in class gender differences and how there was a study that showed teachers of younger grades are predominantly women and college professors are predominantly men. Why?

Like many equality feminists argue, "apart from the obvious physical differences, the human sexes are innately very much the same in mental endowment, so that any average differences in performance are due to the different sets of expectations, education, and social role that societies or cultures impose" (Stevenson 220).

We expect women to be caregivers. We expect men to rule politically and economically. It's part of our society, not part of our nature. For example, my second grade teacher, Mr. Frost, was really good at being sympathetic to our 8-year-old needs. Who said a man can't be just as good of a caregiver as a woman? The stereotypes we create aren't true, but they hold us back and make people unconsciously believe that men and women are innately mentally different.

Intelligence in Society

If we could prove that intelligence was in fact something that could be "learned", how might that change our society?

I believe that if we discovered intelligence could be obtained by anyone, we would begin tests to see how one could acquire it. Then, we would start implementing it. If we could make people more intelligent, then certainly we would want to act upon that. But then how would that affect us?

We would certainly be hungry for more. Once people started reaching the highest levels of intelligence, they would not be satisfied - they would want to further improve. How could we ever be satisfied? We might set ourselves up for failure in this sense because we'll never be able to be more intelligent than we can be even though this might not be enough for some.

Would our brains enlarge? Maybe we would see more natural evolution taking place. Maybe a bigger head would be more attractive. Maybe our bodies would enlarge along with our heads to keep balance.

Those who are less intelligent or maybe don't have money to learn intelligence would be discriminated and looked down upon - we would probably see a line form between the intelligent and the not-so-intelligent. It could even lead to another Civil War, who knows?

Lots of aspects could change if we discovered that intelligence is something you can learn.

Can we be Blamed for our Nature?

If a trait such as jealousy is passed on biologically, then can I be blamed for acting on my jealousy?

Maybe it's in my nature to be jealous, but is everything I do solely based off of my nature? No. There's been a long-lasting argument about nature vs. nurture, but really nature and nurture work together. Everything we do is explained by multiple things:

"1.) Natural selection operating on our ancestors over many thousands - indeed millions - of years to produce a variety of innate mental modules in the human species;
2.) The historical development of a variety of human economies and cultures over many centuries;
3.) The mixing of genes in sexual reproduction that gives every human being their own unique set of genes (except in the case of identical twins);
4.) The effects of the physical and social/cultural environment on bodily and mental development over the lifetime of each individual;
5.) The information processing involved in perception and speech recognition, the results of which ('beliefs') join with motivational factors ('desires') to be the immediate cause of particular actions" (Stevenson 232).

So can I be blamed for acting on my jealousy? Yes. Why? Because I have other traits (like kindness, respect, and sympathy) that work against it, I've been raised to be respectful to other people, society has taught me to look down upon jealousy, etc. Nature certainly doesn't dictate everything I do, and even if it did, other parts of my nature (mostly reason) would tell me to suppress my jealous tendencies.

Further Thought on Technology

So I've already concluded that advances on technology might decrease our breadth of knowledge in certain areas (while increasing our breadth of knowledge in other areas, which makes it a sort of give-and-take situation), but it in fact does not decrease our capacity for intelligence. However, it has been brought to my attention that advances in technology lead to an important outcome: more time.

Technology allows us to spend less time on simple tasks and give us more time to do other things. Wouldn't this be a good thing? Not necessarily. It all depends on how the time is being used.

Some people use this time to exercise, to learn, to educate, to travel, to be productive, but let's be honest: a lot of people use this time to sit on their butts and browse the internet or watch movies/television. Is this really a smart decision?

People do it because it's easy. Why do work when I could sit here and watch cartoons all day? So my next question is: Is laziness a part of human nature? Tell me what you think!

Are We Getting Dumber?

Will our intelligence decline as technology continues to advance?

This past week I remember someone saying that as technology advances we all get dumber and dumber. Okay... let me think...

Certainly we have become more dependent on technology as it has become more prominent. Younger generations can barely stay off their cellphones for a few minutes. I don't know what I would do without my laptop - I use it for a lot of different things, including staying in touch with friends, connecting with professors, writing papers (and blogs!), editing pictures, browsing the internet, testing music, checking my email, etc. But does our dependence relate in any way to our intelligence?

We often use incorrect spellings to shorten words when we text, and it completely deteriorates our sense of grammar. We also rely on spell check to fix our mistakes, so we don't really learn the correct way to write. Calculators do our math for us! Why waste my time reading when I could just look up the summary on Sparknotes? Yeah, we depend a lot of technology, and we end up paying for it in our breadth of knowledge. I'm not learning things I otherwise would learn without technology, but I am learning things that people without technology wouldn't be able to learn. It's a give and take situation.

Human Evolution

Brandon asked the question in his blog: "Are humans the end of natural evolution?"

My answer:

We're constantly evolving! Homo Sapiens have existed for a long time. From Neanderthals to Ancient Egypt to The Dark Ages to the Renaissance to The Industrial Revolution to the Space Race to now we've seen a lot of change. Who's to say we can't continue? Humans are constantly looking for ways to improve upon the way things are. Right now we're putting most of our energy into technology.

There are a lot of concerns when we think of the advancement of technology. The main concern is artificial intelligence. What happens when machines can think like humans? Maybe that's the advancement that will continue evolution, but it's hard to know.

Another possibility is combining technology with the human brain. M.T. Anderson suggests what might happen if we were wired to the internet, and his illustration is a scary one, where language, intelligence, emotion, human interaction, etc. all seem to go down the drain.

My question is: Will our intelligence decline as technology continues to advance? Are we unfit in the realm of evolution?

Tone of Voice

I was thinking about innate versus societal human traits, and I'm wondering how we acquire certain societal traits. The one thing that instantly came to mind was why our tone of voice changes when we talk to different people. In general, I have four main tones of voice that I use on a regular basis: 1) A relaxed voice when I'm around people I'm comfortable with, 2) A guarded voice when I'm around people I'm intimidated by or trying to impress, 3) An "in love" voice when I'm talking to my boyfriend, and 4) An annoyed, disinterested voice when I'm with people I don't care about or am irritated by. So how did I obtain these voices?

When I'm talking to people I'm trying to impress, my voice gets rather low and my throat dries up. Is this an instinct, or am I reacting because of societal pressures? I think it's a combination. Since I am nervous, due to societal pressure, I react in a nervous fashion, which is my natural instinct. Not everyone reacts the same way when faced with someone who intimidates them. Maybe someone else's voice would be high and squeaky when talking to someone they fear.

So I can conclude that we form these voices from the way certain people and situations make us feel. In society, a professor is seen as a person who should be respected by his students, and therefore when talking to a professor, I feel the pressure to impress him, which makes me nervous and inevitably brings my voice into a lower register and dries out my throat. However, since I feel so emotionally close to my boyfriend, I sometimes talk to him in a sweeter voice because I see him as someone I can trust (which is a societal norm), and it makes my voice soften.

What does it mean to be fit?

Stevenson and Haberman say that "the basic point of Darwinian theory is that the biologically fittest individuals are those that survive longest and leave the most progeny" (207). So if you live a long life and you have lots of children, you are more fit than someone who dies early and doesn't have any children. When I say it that way, it makes me wonder if this is really what it means to be fit.

Let's take for example someone who dies in a terrible accident that wasn't their fault. They're driving at the speed limit, on their way to visit their grandmother, and a drunk driver crashes into them from the opposite direction at 60 mph. Was that person not physically fit? Maybe they were really sexually attractive and had the promise of reproducing many children. Just because they died in a freak accident shouldn't mean they weren't physically fit. Maybe Stevenson and Haberman just forgot to include this.

So now that we can rule out accidents as a determination of what makes someone fit (there's always an exception to the rule after all), what else might define someone as "fit" in the modern day? We're no longer animals, so we aren't simply concerned with reproduction and survival anymore. We also think about morals, personality, religion, intelligence, etc. when we're considering who we want to mate with. Different people are looking for different qualities. I might want to mate with someone who has a good sense of humor while someone else might be looking for someone who is rich and famous.

I don't think there is a good definition for "fit" anymore. We are too complicated to be able to define any characteristics that every person wants when considering a mate. Our level of fitness is completely dependent on each individual. One person might see me as perfectly fit while another might see me as completely unfit. Our subjectivity negates the possibility for one universal definition of "fit".

Why are we Condemned to Freedom?

Sartre says that we are condemned to freedom.

He gives freedom a very negative connotation. Having the ability to choose is a lot of pressure, which he seems to think is a bad thing. You are held responsible for every choice you make. However, if you make good choices, then that is a good thing. And if you learn from the bad choices you make, then you can make even better choices in the future.

This makes me think of my earlier idea that life is about learning. Having this radical freedom gives us the opportunity to learn from the mistakes we make. Without freedom, we wouldn't have the ability to choose what we do or don't do and there would be no control over what we learn. It's wonderful that we have the ability to choose because I find that I learn best through experience. If I mistakenly press the mute button instead of the power button, and realize that it wasn't the power button, then from that point on, I will remember which button is the power button and which is the mute button.

Sartre obviously didn't share my way of thinking at the time he said this because if freedom is such a bad thing, then he doesn't really think of learning as all that important.

No Right/Wrong Answers for Morality?

Sartre said at one point that there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to morality.

I don't even understand what this could mean. How can there be no right or wrong? How can killing an innocent person be morally equal to baking cookies for a sick friend? Is it all based on point of view?

For me, morality is a social concept. We have created a general idea of what is right and what is wrong. Is this really how it should be? Who knows? We just know that some things that people do seem negative while other things seem more positive. We have defined what those things are and we make laws accordingly. Taking it upon yourself to hurt an innocent person, whether it be by taking his wife, stealing his money, drugging him, etc. is wrong. I believe all violence is wrong, including verbal violence, and it should be entirely outlawed (and hopefully that will happen one day).

As for Sartre, I disagree that there are no right or wrong answers for morality - if someone thinks that shooting a person is okay, they are still wrong for doing it.

Sartre's Freedom

The early Sartre claimed that you're ultimately responsible for everything you do. Part of me wants to agree with him and part of me doesn't. Here's why.

An example against this point brought up during class was poverty. How can one choose to be poor? Well, my question is how can one become wealthy? You get an education, you apply for jobs, you rise up the occupational ladder. You can't pay for an education? You work whatever job you can get until you have enough money for an education. You can choose to make the best of the situation and work your way out of it.

However, you can't choose whether or not you are born into a life of poverty. At such a young age, you can't really choose to get out of poverty. This certainly proves that there were some missing ends to Sartre's claim.

He did change his theory as he got older, and I completely agree that freedom is confined by "'facticity,' the facts about oneself and one's situation that constrain the ways in which one can express one's freedom" (Stevenson 195), such as socioeconomic factors and our innate needs.

What is Freedom?

The question of what freedom really is was brought up in class recently. Is freedom the capability to do anything, or does it have more boundaries than we might think at first?

We can't be free to do anything we want because then I would be able to fly and the world would be in chaos. I mean, it would be awesome to fly, but that's not what freedom is. We're only capable of doing so much.

I think freedom is restricted (ironically) to our capabilities. I can do what I can do, but not beyond that. If I want to swim, then I can find a body of water and I can swim in it. If I want to wear a dress, I can find a dress and put it on. I have the freedom to do what I want within the boundaries of what I can do.

Freedom is good to a certain extent, but when people are doing whatever they want to do, that means there is no structure or authority that is keeping things in order. I think what we really need is controlled freedom - the ability to do what we want that is within moral reason. We are reasonable creatures, we should be able to identify between right and wrong, so we should stick to making the right choices and then we can stay in control. Freedom can be dangerous if misused, so staying within the boundaries of morality is very important.

Family

Marx has some really good ideas, but it was brought up during class that he wanted children to be raised not by their families but by people who are trained to raise children. The thought of it is actually kind of frightening, even though in some aspects it makes sense. If children are reared by professionals, then we can be confident that they will be well-disciplined and well-behaved, but imagine the pain involved in taking a child away from its mother.

Family is such an important aspect of society and Marx’s idea would completely destroy it. Individuality would be at a much greater risk as well because the children are all raised by the same people. With different parents, children learn different things in different ways, which creates different world views and opinions that vary from each child to the next. I think it’s very important to maintain the family unit, but in order to secure discipline and behavior, maybe future parents should be required to take classes in child-raising.

Communism = Bad???

Throughout my pre-college years, we never really learned about communism, and what we did learn was negative. It doesn’t make sense why teachers want to convey negativity when thinking of communism. It’s been engrained within me to think negatively when I even hear the word. What’s so bad about communism that teachers don’t even want us to know about it? Why does everyone pretend that Marx had such terrible ideas?

I think it’s because it has been attempted by other countries who failed at really fulfilling Marx’s intentions. He said it would eventually stem from capitalism, so that might be an indicator of why other countries didn’t do so well (among other reasons of course). But because China and Russia didn’t do it right, we see communism as such a bad thing when it really isn’t. Schools need to really teach students what the core values of communism are, because they really aren’t as bad as China and Russia (etc) make them seem.

How Might Economy Affect Society?

I don’t know how economy in general might affect society, but I can hypothesize as to how our capitalistic economy in America might affect Americans. Capitalism gives businesses a lot of freedoms. Facebook for one stores all of our information that we post and sells it to other businesses so that they can use it to advertise to us. Companies look at what’s really popular right now and uses it to appeal to potential customers. For example, the marketing director for The Voice knows that the Superbowl is one of the biggest events of the year and gets countless viewers, so they made sure to advertise throughout the entire event in order to spread the word that it was premiering the same night.

So what we end up getting access to is what businesses want us to see, or what they think we want to see. This can affect our behavior because especially at a young age you can be easily influenced by the media. If Lady Gaga is really popular during your childhood, you might be inclined to act like Lady Gaga. In the same spirit, if Gandhi is really popular during your childhood, you might be inclined to act like Gandhi. It’s very easy to be swayed by the economy, which is another reason why it may be beneficial to switch to communism.

Could We Benefit from Communism?

Understanding that communism is regime in which people can focus their jobs around what suits them so as to preserve a sense of individuality that we care so much about, certainly communism could benefit us. We would all be treated as equals, which is so important because we stray far away from that in our capitalist society. My career as a musician would be just as important as someone else’s career as an engineer. We would all get an education and have shorter work hours because everyone would be working an equal amount.

Imagine the kind of team spirit this could stir up. If we’re all working together to decrease hours, we would feel more like a group of people working for each other rather than individuals working for ourselves. If it was executed correctly, I could see communism as being very beneficial for our society. It wouldn’t take away our individuality, as is what is commonly thought when facing communism, but in fact it would preserve our ability to do what we want as well as giving us a better opportunity to do it. Nobody would be jobless and everybody would be working the same amount – it sounds good to me.

A Troubling Sermon

I went to church this morning (to ring handbells, it was a lot of fun) and what the pastor said during the sermon really bothered me, as it had much to do with instilling faith within the congregation. To me, it is proof that Christians tend not to understand that it is not their responsibility to "spread the good news" to others.

He was talking about how even though we didn't see Jesus come back to life that we should have faith that he did. But why? Why is it so important that we believe he rose from the dead? So that we have proof that there is an afterlife? And why is must we know that there is an afterlife? For our own selfish need for comfort? It's silly. I wish I could have asked him during his sermon why we should have faith in the resurrection.

I imagine he would've responded with something about having faith in God. By having faith in the resurrection, you show your faith in God. But in my opinion, we have probably misinterpreted what God wants. I don't think he wants us to worry about death, I think he wants us to focus on life. We don't have to have faith to learn.

What is God trying to teach us?

I don't think the Christian God is trying to teach one specific thing. Learning how to be faithful is what some people choose to learn, but I think he wants us to learn any lesson we can.

We've been learning ever since we've been able to - even while inside the womb. As an infant, we learn a huge amount in a short period of time. Then we grow up and start learning more intellectual lessons in many different areas. We take classes in math, science, history, language, and the arts to expand our knowledge. We get jobs and learn about spending, paying bills, and buying insurance. We raise families and learn how to rear our own children. Life is just a cycle of learning, we never stop gaining information. So shouldn't that have something to do with why we're here?

I can only imagine that if there is a God, he would have a reason for giving us the capacity to learn.

Why/how does religion get so out of hand?

Many religions, especially Christianity, promote loving thy neighbor and they have the best intentions, but they tend to get out of hand when people lose sight of those intentions.

Religion becomes a war when it involves itself with society or the government. If religion isn't personal, then it quickly turns into something dangerous. People impose their beliefs on others and learn to hate those who don't believe the same; things like marriage and abortion became major political issues; powerful religious figures fight over holy territory.

It all gets out of hand when religion is no longer personal. Everyone should be able to believe in whatever they want and not be judged for it. It's important not to impose one's own religion onto others because then it is no longer personal.

The Good Samaritan

I said in my answer to this weeks question that "Ten Theories of Human Nature mainly focuses on the concept of faith, saying that “Jesus famously summed up the Old Testament law in to injuctions: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all you strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself’” (Stevenson 122). To me, this isn’t what The Bible is about". I want to delve further into what I mean.

I believe that the Christian religion that I grew up with is about learning. The Bible is a tool we use to help us learn, but it is simply an interpretation of God's will and I believe it is a misinterpretation. Most Christians believe that God created us to serve him, as though he is selfish and needs us to make him feel better about himself (a very humanistic quality). But The Bible contains many stories that teach us important lessons, such as the story about the good samaritan which teaches us to help those in need, and it seems that these stories are often forgotten in religious discussion.

Even if our purpose isn't to learn, what is there to lose? We learn new things every day, so why not learn to take the good lessons proposed by The Bible and put them to use?

Patriotism and the Media

What does the media have to do with patriotism?

The American flag, July 4th, Thanksgiving - propaganda. The media has decided to shove patriotism in our faces, and we like it. We hang the American flag outside our house to show our support, we wear red, white, and blue and watch fireworks on July 4th to show our pride. We give the media reason to make a huge deal out of American holidays.

On Thanksgiving we all buy turkeys and kids in school make pilgrim hats because we find a sense of comfort and pride in it. But what are we celebrating? We stole from harmless Indians and forced them to leave their homeland. We have so much pride in our ability to use violence to overcome obstacles when we could have made much better choices.

The 4th of July is the celebration of another victory by violence. We wear the colors of the flag and march in parades because we killed enough people to get the English off our backs.

The media uses these holidays that we've created for ourselves to pump us up even more with the sense of patriotism that makes us feel so supportive. It doesn't sound so good when you really think about it.

Not Patriotic

I agree with Robert Jensen.

I am not patriotic either.

To be patriotic would be to say that I'm not interested in world peace. I would be saying that America is the best country, and therefore every other country is beneath us. I think we should be moving towards making every country feel equal so as to show that we are all working together. We need to work together in order to obtain peace.

That is not to say that I don't care about America as much. I grew up in America, I've learned what it is to be American, and so I have a deep connection to America. I might have a greater love for America because I feel comfortable here, but I still care about the achievement of world peace over my love for my home.

Sports

Patriotism to me is rooting for a sports team. For America right now, Obama is the coach and American troops are the players. Americans want our sports team to beat all of the other sports teams so we can call ourselves the "best".

Will said in class that this can be okay to a certain extent, but when lives are at stake, it's not okay. I agree. We should be able to partake in friendly competition with other countries without any kind of violence. For example, we compete over our economies, but all we want is to make it to first place. If we don't get first place, we don't have to fight about it, we just have to try harder. We need to stop treating our soldiers as our sports team because it does more harm than it can do good.

Obviously it's unlikely for America to bring every last troop home anytime soon, but it's something that needs to happen in order to begin to move towards world peace.

In Response to Avery's Comment on "Dreams and Determinism"

I couldn't agree with you more - there's no possible way our brains could hold that much knowledge. It's just interesting to think that maybe we have the knowledge of what happens specifically in regard to ourselves. So I have no idea what you are going to do when you wake up thirty days from now, but somewhere in my unconscious I might have the knowledge of what I'm going to do when I wake up thirty days from now. So basically our unconscious might have the information pertaining to our own actions - what we personally see, do, smell, hear, say, etc. - but nothing more. After saying that, though, a lot of what we do is affected by outside forces, so maybe what I'm saying is impossible. I don't know, but isn't that the beauty of it? :)

But in response to your last point, I also agree that we absolutely should not base our future activities off what we witness in dreams because it's not like we're always accessing the knowledge of the future in our dreams - it might only be rare occasions that we get that information. We aren't able to differentiate a dream from a premonition, so until we can (who knows?) we should stay away from thinking of our dreams as premonitions.

I still think dreams access our unconscious...

While I agree with Hobson's position on dream theory, there is a part of his argument that remains weak. He brushes off the possibility that dreams are instigated by infantile wishes by saying that "we can never know that" (The Philosopher's Zone).

I don't know whether or not I agree with his claim that "the idea that the unconscious is mainly repressed is wrong" (The Philosopher's Zone) simply because I have dreams that seem to come from a part of my mind that I'm not aware of - my unconscious. I'm not ready to completely dismiss the possibility that dreams access our unconscious even though "most of our unconscious is cognitive" (The Philosopher's Zone).

While I want to agree with Freud's idea that dreams tap into our unconscious, I still believe that Hobson is correct to state that dreaming is "caused by brain activation and sleep," and when you dream, you experience "sensor motor hallucinosis," the randomness of dreams comes from "chaotic activation from the brain stem," and forgetting dreams comes from amnesia that is "related to the loss of nonadrenergic and serotonergic and histaminergic modulation of the fore-brain"(The Philosopher's Zone).

I think there's room to combine the theories and say that the way we dream has very much to do with how our brains work scientifically, but the content of our dreams might be the brain's accessing of unconscious information.

Hobson and Soames

Hobson and Soames both have very good points in the dream debate. Hobson takes a more scientific approach, putting forth the "activation synthesis hypotheses... [which suggests] that dreaming [is] caused by brain activation and sleep" (The Philosopher's Zone), while Soames sticks with Freud's theory that "wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes... [which need] to be disguised and censored" (The Philosopher's Zone).

Hobson's activation synthesis hypothesis is more clear and scientific, which appeals to me because of the factual evidence, such as "at its lowest point of deactivation in non-REM sleep, the brain is still 80% active" and that "the amnesia [after dreaming] is related to the loss of noradrenergic and serotonergic and histaminergic modulation of the fore-brain" (The Philosopher's Zone). The difference between Hobson's theory and Soames' theory is similar to the difference between naturalism and supernaturalism. One is based off of facts and the other is based off of faith.

Soames does have a point in that "making use of the Freudian dream theory, is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed" because it is unfair to abandon a theory that hasn't been proved incorrect. By saying this, I mean that we shouldn't scrap it because we have more factual evidence elsewhere because we might find some sort of evidence proving a part of Freud's theory someday.

Dreams and Determinism

I had a dream a long time ago that I was in a classroom with long tables arranged into two long rows facing each other, and I was sitting next to a girl who was looking at a page in a magazine mainly covered in text, but a box in the middle of the page had a picture of little birds flying around. It lasted what felt like only a moment, but it was distinct.

This Thursday, my creative writing class switched classrooms from one in Murdock to one in Bowman. The tables were long, and we arranged them into two long rows. I hadn't realized at this point that it was familiar, because it was such a long time ago that I had the dream. But near the end of class, the girl next to me was reading through a story in her NewYorker magazine, and as she flipped the page, I saw the birds flying in the box in the middle of the page. Suddenly the dream came rushing back to me, and it felt like I had seen the future - which is really weird.

But it got me thinking about determinism again. If Freud is right and dreams do access our unconscious, maybe those rare dreams we have in which we feel like we've predicted the future are in fact a part of our unconscious that is telling us that it already knows everything that is going to happen. Maybe it's proof that everything is already determined. It certainly isn't good proof, but it is something to think about.

Is Philosophy a Science?

I don't know, but let me muse...

The term science derived from the Latin word "scientia," meaning "knowledge". Putting two and two together, we can say that science is a system in which we gain knowledge by observing the world around us and making possible explanations or predictions about what we see.

Philosophy is more basically a study of the nature of things. The term philosophy derived from the Greek word "philosophia," meaning "love of wisdom". In my mind, philosophy is the observation of the world around us and the formation of explanations pertaining to what we see.

To me, philosophy and science seem to be very similar.

It's often claimed that philosophy isn't observational, but I wonder how a philosopher can explain the nature of things without having observed the nature of things? Philosophy might not be as systematic as science, but I still stand by my claim that philosophy is observation-based, and therefore counts as a science.

Questioning Vegetarianism

Let’s say hypothetically that the U.S. decides to go completely vegetarian, meaning animal torture and consumption are both illegal. Since there is no longer a demand for meat, there will be a huge occupational shift from the meat industry to the organic food industry. Jobs will be lost and businesses will close, but the weight will transfer to other businesses that will expand and create new jobs.

The job industry will be able to heal, but what will happen to all of the animals that are no longer being killed for food? There will be more animals than we can handle. They cost a lot of money to own and raise, so people will no longer be able to own them if they provide no income.

Ranch animals, then, are left uncared for, which they aren’t prepared to do. It might even cause them to suffer and even starve to death. Wouldn’t this be exactly what vegetarians don’t want for animals? So then vegetarianism becomes a moot point.

What needs to happen, in my opinion, is for animal torture to completely end and for the death of animals to be as swift and painless for them as possible. This could be a compromise for vegetarians and meat eaters because animals are treated respectfully while we still get to eat meat.

Women's Dress

Women do need to use their brains and skills to impress men, but that doesn’t mean they should be restricted to wearing high collar shirts and long pants. Women need confidence, and looking pretty helps boost their confidence. I know that if I feel I don’t look good on a certain day, my confidence levels are really low.

Women should be allowed to wear pretty dresses and heels because they feel pretty in them. It shouldn’t be to show off their body to men, but to feel good about themselves. There is obviously a line between pretty and revealing, but if women don’t cross that line, they can be pretty and be respected by men at the same time.

There shouldn’t be restrictions to the way women dress. We shouldn’t have to feel like we have to be completely covered up in order to impress a man. And to really impress them, we have to have confidence, which includes our desire to look pretty.

What Can Women Do?

Women don’t have to fall into the stereotype of being one with nature. Men admire women who aren’t afraid to stuff their face with a big, juicy burger. What other things can women do to prove that they can be just as “virtuous” as men?

Men admire intelligence and strength (among many other things). There are so many ways women can impress a man other than by looking pretty and cooking a meal for them.

Sometimes women are stereotyped as unintelligent and only useful for household chores and rearing children. But a woman can focus on her studies and stay informed with politics/world events so that when questioned, she knows all of the answers. Men will be impressed if a woman knows her facts.

Women can also be perceived as fragile and weak because we’re emotional and nonathletic. However, being self-sufficient and capable of standing up for herself will prove a woman’s strength. If a woman can show her independence and determination, men will be impressed.

Wearing skimpy clothing and make-up will not help men to respect a woman. In fact, it causes them to have less respect, making it harder for a woman to impress them.

It's Not All Men's Fault

If women are so against male dominance, then why do they partake in degrading activities such as pornography and pageantry?

Women face the challenge of being noticed by men. We want to feel important, and some women choose to get attention in a way that only women can. Men respond to the revealing of flesh, and when they can’t keep their eyes off of a woman, the woman then feels powerful. It’s this sense of power that women crave, which some achieve through a way that ends up ultimately taking all of their power away from them.

As for pageantry, women get to compete outside of the male world. They get to do what they like to do (look pretty) while fighting for the number one place. It could be considered a feminist activity, but at the same time it’s a major reason for why men don’t respect women. By participating in pageantry, we’re showing that we’re obsessed with beauty rather than intelligence, which is what men really care about.

I think I had french toast for breakfast and it seemed to taste good

If my mind is tricking me into believing things that aren't real, it could be that I have no free will.

I believe that I made the choice to have french toast for breakfast this morning, but if that french toast wasn't even real and it was all a product of my mind's tricks, then I didn't even eat french toast. If I didn't eat french toast, then my choice to eat french toast is void. I couldn't have made a choice if it was already decided for me that I wasn't going to eat anything.

So maybe if my thoughts are all that is real, then my life is ruled by determinism.

But if my subconscious, or the part of my mind that is tricking me, counts are part of me, then it's possible that I do have free will. Since my mind is tricking me and making all of the decisions for me, it has free will. My mind is a part of me, so therefore I have free will.

Mind Tricks

I want to ponder further on Renee Descartes' idea that I can only know that I am because I think.

I perceive that I am typing this blog post with my fingers and I'm reading what I'm typing with my eyes, but I cannot know for sure that all of this is really happening. It could all be a result of my mind, or my unconscious, playing tricks on me - making me believe that I have a body, a language, and the ability to do things.

My mind might have created this entire scenario - a huge puzzle that is unreal, but appears to be real to me. The people I encounter and the tasks I face could all be products of my imagination. My mind could be tricking my senses into believing that I am touching, smelling, hearing, seeing, and tasting things that aren't real.

It's such a complicated puzzle that it seems unlikely that my mind has made all of it up, but it could most certainly be true. I just have to have faith that it isn't.

Combining Naturalism and Supernaturalism

Can’t naturalism and supernaturalism be combined? Maybe if the two views were united, it would be easier to have a publically neutral society.

We always talk about the extremes of naturalism and supernaturalism. It seems as though people think two philosophies can never be combined. But both naturalism and supernaturalism are based on faith. The faith just derives from different sources. Naturalists have to trust in the scientific method and supernaturalists have to trust in God. The question is why can't we trust in both?

At the core of everything, we all have to trust that the universe exists. As Renee Descartes might say, we cannot be sure of anything other than the fact that "I think, therefore I am". Maybe we could find it in ourselves to perhaps agree that God and the scientific method could coexist. If these concepts could coexist, then maybe it would be easier for people to understand views that might differ from their own.

Public Neutrality

What ways might the government be able to improve public neutrality?

Educating children at an early age to express their beliefs peacefully and to accept beliefs that may be different from their own would certainly improve how we debate controversial topics. But trusting the educational system to do all of the work is ridiculous. Parents would have to do their part in raising their children to be open to new possibilities. Is this realistic? Of course not. There are lots of parents who want their children to believe in what they believe in and that's that.

Maybe the government could pass a law that bans the rejection of ideas without reason. Then people would be forced to think about their decisions. But how can you punish someone who believes in God and only God for no other reason but that they have a feeling? This law certainly wouldn't work because people have the right to believe in whatever they want.

So I think it's safe to say that public neutrality is unlikely for our capitalistic society.

The Bible and Jesus

Since we were talking about God in class, I wanted to put my opinion out there first and then see if it changes after talking about it.

With the understanding that God is an all-good, omniscient being that created the universe, The Bible is a misrepresentation of "Him". My most reliable piece of evidence is the story of Noah's Ark, when God decides that he's going to kill everyone because they aren't behaving how he wants them to. First of all, this is not an act of good - God isn't being good by killing everyone. Second of all, if he created the world, then why would he create human beings that he ultimately wanted to kill? He had to have known, since he's omniscient, that they would've turned out that way.

So now that I've proved that the content of The Bible is questionable, I want to talk about Jesus. There isn't much proof that Jesus was the son of God other than from The Bible and other religious texts. Why would so many people get together to write this text about God and Jesus and all of the events that pertain to them? I think Jesus was a real person that actually walked this earth, but I don't think he was divine. Jesus was ahead of his time; he knew how to make people listen to whatever he said. He was enough of a leader to start a huge following filled with people that truly worshiped everything that came out of his mouth. It could have been a lot of people all working on this big scheme together, or it could have been solely him. It's hard to know, but that's what I think to be true.

Aristotle's Thoughts?

What might Aristotle think about this?

I don't know if Aristotle ever wrote about the question of determinism/free will, but I think he would agree with me. Maybe there's bias? I'm not sure.

But he obviously assumes that we have the ability to choose because he suggests that we should devote our lives to intellectual inquiry. To him (and to me), intellectual reflection is the “‘highest’ element within human nature” (Haberman 104). In order to take his advice, we would have to use free will, right? At least, there's the illusion that we are using free will to choose the path of intellectual inquiry.

In order to improve upon ourselves, there has to be a shift in how we think, right? So everything that defines who we are has to change in some way, and maybe that change is free will.

But I like pretending that I have free will because it gives me motivation to succeed.

Why Should I Care? Here's Why.

Why should I care?

I've made it clear that I don't like arguing whether everything is determined or if we have free will, but there has to have been a reason for looking into this if Professor Johnson decided to share this information with us. I want to look further into his reasoning and maybe find peace with the topic.

"The unexamined life is not worth living" is a quote that has been emphasized in this class. Not to say that the professor is shoving this down our throats and telling us to agree with the quote, but he has brought it into the conversation several times. It's a valid statement because it's important to know what you believe in and why you believe in it.

"It's important to know what you believe in and why you believe in it." Here we have it - the reason why I should care. I believe in acknowledging free will and determinism as possibilities, but not worrying about which one is fact. This is because either way, it shouldn't effect how my life is lived. It's important for me to know this - maybe I wasn't as aware of it before this week, and this discussion gave me the opportunity to discover this piece of information that was hiding in my mind.

Thank you, Professor!

IT DOESN'T MATTER

I'm so frustrated with this week's topic because it honestly doesn't matter.

I get that we should know what determinism and free will are because it is important to be knowledgeable. I don't mind learning about this topic, that's not my point, but I do mind questioning what the answer is (free will or determinism) because it doesn't matter!

First of all, it's impossible to know the truth!

Second, if we did know the truth, it doesn't change what we already perceive. We're thinking, living beings. We have the power to produce thoughts. We believe we are making our own choices, and that's what makes the world work.

If it DID change how we perceive ourselves, we would all be doomed because we would give up! Okay, so everything we think, do, say, feel is already determined, so why should we bother trying? Everyone might end up partaking in a mass suicide! Nobody wants that to happen, am I right? (well, maybe a select few, but there are always exceptions)

So why are we contemplating this if there's no point? This is why I'm frustrated.

6.8 Billion People

I just asked whether or not Houchin is focusing too much on the self and here are my thoughts:

If it is true that only I exist, than of course I should be focusing on myself because there's nothing else to focus on.

However, the universe is perceived to be infinite and if it really is infinite, then we are all meaningless and there is no point on focusing on the self.

Disclaimer: I don't live by what I just said because I would probably not be living.

What I perceive to be true is that there are 6.8 billion people all living on the same planet who all have developed minds that should be used to their full potential. Seeing the world as this, I believe self-interest is very important because it invokes passion that can help us achieve great things.

Self-Interest and Descartes

Houchin talks about the importance of self-improvement in his essay about altruism. He agrees with Aristotle that "the good person must be a self-lover," and that to be wholeheartedly altruistic, one must be self-interested.

The amount of focus Houchin places on the self reminds me of Descartes' theory "I think, therefore I am" in the sense that one only knows that he is existent. If I am all that I know to exist, then shouldn't I be mainly interested in my self? Of course, it would be useless to stay stagnant and it would be negative to become morally unjust, so in order to be good, one must focus on improving himself.

This way, Houchin makes sense because I can only change myself and nobody else, so I should work on improving myself to be good, or virtuous.

The question is whether or not this is too extreme - is Houchin focusing too much on the self?

Heroes for a Different Reason

Do all heroes act in the interest of other people?

We defined heroism in class as doing an altruistic act at a more elevated or dramatic price than the altruist. Doing something altruistic entails doing something for the purpose of helping people rather than helping oneself.

So what about the heroes that are searching for honor? We consider them to be heroes, but they don't seem to really care about the people they help as much as they care about whether or not their legend will live on. This might not be as common in the present, but it certainly was common in Medieval England, Ancient Greece, Rome, and countries of the like.

Maybe they're worried about honor, or maybe they're worried about duty. Some people do things strictly out of duty to a person or idea that means a lot to them. In "The Pirates of Penzance," Frederic feels a sense of duty to the pirates and thus helps them until his term of duty is fulfilled. If somebody performs an altruistic act out of duty and ends up saving someone's life because of it, they are not acting in the interest of the person's life that they saved, but rather the interest of doing their duty.

A man who dies from pushing a child from in front of an oncoming train is considered a hero, but what was his stimulus for doing that heroic act? Maybe somebody ordered him to do it, or maybe he wanted to be remembered as a hero. It is not certain whether or not he did it in the interest of the child he saved.

Altruism at a Cost?

Must you always be risking something in order to be doing something altruistic? Or in other words, must an act be at a cost to you for it to be altruistic?

Let's say I'm locked out of my house and I have to wait a few hours for my parents to return and let me back inside. At the current moment, I have nothing to do. Then, I witness a small car accident and I choose to help the people in the car accident by keeping the kids preoccupied while the adults figure everything out.

I had nothing to do previously, so I'm not losing anything by helping out.

Another example would be doing something considerably negative, such as watching a pointless television show or procrastinating, when a chance to partake in an altruistic act arises. In this sense, I would actually be gaining the ability to do something worth-while.

So my current response is that altruism cannot be defined as a charitable act at the cost to the altruist.

It's All So Confusing

Aristotle asks "whether there is one end or aim that we seek, for its own sake, in all our actions and projects. He says that we can all agree that there is such an end, and that we call it 'happiness,' but we may disagree about what happiness actually is" (Haberman 98).

Aristotle and Plato (and philosophers of the like) seem to believe that there is an ultimate truth - the real answer to the universe and everything is contains. But what if there isn't one simple answer for everyone - what if the answer is that there are millions of different answers that are derived in millions (even billions!) of different people?

It's possible that the truth lies within every single being, and no two truths are the same. This has to do with why there is no consensus as to what the definition of happiness is. Everyone's purpose is different because people interpret their lives to have different meanings. One person could believe that there purpose is to be sacrificed to the gods for the betterment of their society and another person could believe that their purpose is to be born, to suffer, and to die. Nobody can be proved wrong because there is no proof as to what our purpose is.

But as I think further on it, the fact that the truth lies within us could be considered the one true explanation for the universe, which detracts from my point. However, it helps to think of different possible truths in order to maybe decide which truth to believe in.

What's the Purpose of Trash?

Aristotle claims that there are “four questions we can ask about anything” (92), but is there always a final purpose for something? What about when something’s purpose has been fulfilled and it’s still there, such as trash? What’s the purpose of trash?

If everything has a cause then doesn't everything have to be part of a gigantic cycle?

Trash is part of a big cycle. Things that once had a purpose are broken down and laid out in a landfill where they slowly decompose into their natural elements. It takes a long time, but then they eventually become useful materials that can be reused on the earth. Therefore the purpose of trash is to decompose and restart the cycle.

This makes me wonder if the universe is part of an even larger cycle. This theory was seen in "2001: A Space Odyssey" where the universe reaches a certain point and then restarts at the beginning again. This way, there is no unexplainable Big Bang or Unmovable Mover, but everything is infinitely moving through one gigantic cycle. It's a possibility! There's no way of knowing the truth, but certainly different theories can be considered.

Disclaimer: "2001: A Space Odyssey" neglected time before and after man in the cyclical theory (they begin with cavemen and end with man creating a computer that can think for itself), which I disagree with because of evolution - man was not one of the first living creatures on the earth. However, it's impossible to know how far the cycle extends. Also, this all supposes that the creator of the story was actually trying to suggest a cyclical theory, however the theme is up for individual interpretation and this is how I have interpreted it.

Three Conceptions of Fulfilled Life

Does one have to be devoted to just pleasure, honor, or intellectual inquiry? Can’t one be devoted to all three equally?

Aristotle does claim that there are "three conceptions of fulfilled life...(lives devoted to pleasure, to political success and honor, or to intellectual inquiry and reflection)" (Haberman 103). He also ranks each conception, saying that the hedonistic life is worst and the life devoted to intellectual thought is best.

What Aristotle never says is that a person can only follow one path. He says that a purely hedonistic lifestyle is not ideal, but he does not mean that a life which might include seeking pleasure is not ideal. He knows that people cannot be completely devoted to just one of the three concepts because we are social beings that are dependent on one another. He has written two books about friendship because he's aware that we need friends in order to find happiness.

Whether or not one can be devoted to all three concepts equally is most likely is a different question. It probably can be done, but it also probably takes a lot of practice. Balance has never been easy to obtain.

Why Didn't We Do Anything?

A friend of mine from high school just recently passed away, and at first I was really shocked. But now I feel guilty.

We all knew that he was sick and he was fighting so hard to get better. He even went back to India (his home) near the end of the school year to get treatment. In the hallways as he passed by and said "Hi, Katie!" I could see the weariness in his eyes. He was a warrior, and he was trying to hide his pain. I can't help but think that I failed him. I should have done something to help him. I could have formed a charity to raise money for his cause, and I could have raised awareness in my town - if not other places, too. I know a doctor that would have tried his best to help him - I just don't think he knew about it.

But he was such an amazing person. He knew how to make people laugh. He was friendly to everyone, no matter who they were or what they looked like. And he was so smart. Why didn't I help him? Why didn't I do anything? Why didn't anyone do anything? Someone so amazing as he was shouldn't have to go. He should have lived forever.

I want to learn from this. I want to help people like my friend when they're in need. I don't want to stand by and let things like this happen anymore.

Pressure

We focus so much on the pressure that young people feel due to the gorgeous, skinny models on all of the magazines and the strong men in all of the movies; but we're forgetting about the different pressures that influence people all of the time. They're not as obvious, so people don't tend to think about them.

Right now I'm taking a fiction writing class, and we're reading a book by John Gardner called The Art of Fiction. He talks about how you have to be dedicated to the point where you'll choose writing over friends or simple pleasures in order to be a good writer. That's a lot of pressure! What if you're an extrovert and being social is necessary for you to keep balance in your life? It makes it really difficult and stressful because you know you want to be a writer, but you might not live up to John Gardner's expectations or the expectations of other writers.

To link it back to Plato, in his aristocracy, there would be a lot of pressure for youths to do well in school if they wanted to be more than a worker or a law enforcer. They have to be what the philosophers consider "smart enough" to gain passage into a system of higher education in which they can climb the ladder to become a leader. Imagine the kind of stress that would invoke!

There's a lot of pressure in our world coming from so many sources that it's no wonder that people have such high stress levels!

A World Without Music...?

If Plato had been able to implement his form of aristocracy, what would have happened to art and culture?

Plato doesn't have a place in his aristocracy for artists and musicians. Either you're a leader, an enforcer, or a worker (or a woman). People live and breathe off of music and art, and for Plato to even consider a world without it is crazy!

What Plato didn't know is that listening to certain music while studying can help memorization. Reading music can stimulate the brain in ways many, many other activities cannot. Music can also help reduce stress, or add balance to the life of a hard worker.

What would've happened without music? People would have less opportunities to release their stress, which would be really frustrating. Maybe rebellious clubs would've formed that people would sneak off to in order to take a load off. But this would've caused a lot of conflict between government and society, which could have lead to a multitude of bad occurrences.

Maybe Plato would've revised his aristocracy had he known the importance of music and the arts in human society.

The Effect of Women

Both Plato and Confucius disregard women in their philosophical views. If they had ever been exposed to educated women and heard their views, how might that have affected their ways of thinking?

Plato might have realized that women should be educated along with men; being given the exact same chances to become philosophers if they were capable enough to do so. He also might have been open to insight from women about things that men don't tend to think about on their own, such as human emotion. For example, Plato wants his philosopher kings to be without families, which could potentially take a huge emotional toll on someone. A woman might have been able to open Plato's mind to the idea that even the most knowledgeable men need to have meaningful relationships in order to be happy.

Confucius might not have been as affected because his philosophy is based on practicing benevolence, which doesn't involve the intelligence that Plato considers highly important. Confucius may have included women when talking about his ways of thinking, but his life views probably wouldn't have changed nearly as much as Plato's.

Response

I recently got two responses to my post entitled "Broke", and I want to share both their feedback and my new thoughts on the subject.

The first response talked about intrinsic motivation and how it can create a better environment if people are doing things because they want to do them. The second response reminded me that if people are being benevolent, then they should be willing to either repay you for your service or help you if you have insufficient funds. It also brought up that my quote "without competition there is no motivation" in the context of money is incorrect.

I agree with both of them (to an extent). I was being narrow-minded in my original post, completely forgetting about intrinsic motivation. It's true that people should be motivated to do things because they want to do things, which makes a happier existence for everyone. In this way, we could greatly benefit from the practice of benevolence. I also accidentally assumed in "Broke" that nobody else would be willing to repay you for your service or lend you money, but if everyone is practicing benevolence, than this should be custom for everyone.

But I still stand by the fact that competition does motivate people to succeed. I think what makes being recognized (whether by a teacher, a college, a state, a country, or the entire world) so satisfying is that one had to achieve lengths greater than everyone else involved to be successful. For example, if you were auditioning for a role in the play, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting to get the role if nobody else had tried out for it. Also, if nobody else had tried out, there would be no reason to impress the casting director because you know you're going to get the part anyways. I believe we thrive off of competition because it makes us want to be better and do better, which inevitably makes us grow.

Broke

As has been repeated many times, Confucius wants people to perfect benevolence, meaning to be benevolent for benevolence's sake. Imagine a world in which everyone was open to giving with no interest in receiving anything back.

As a musician, I know that if I were to sing without expecting payment, I would be broke my entire life. There would be no fame in the entertainment industry, therefore killing culture and destroying any passion to perform.

If I were a teacher, I wouldn't apply for a job because that would mean I want to teach for money. I would teach anyone for free and I would be broke my entire life.

If I were an athlete, I wouldn't ask to be paid, and I would be broke my entire life.

The common thread: being broke.

Benevolence is a good idea to live by, but without competition there is no motivation and no profit. Our world would crumble.

What is the Universe?

Haberman and Stevenson’s diction is misleading. In saying that “morality is part of the very fabric of the universe”, what do they mean by the word “universe”?

The universe could simply be the earth, the planets, the moon, the sun, and the stars. Since the idea that planets rotate around the sun wasn't discovered until the 1600's and Confucianism began around 500 BC, it can be assumed that Confucius never thought that morality had anything to do with the course of the universe.

The term could also be very broad, including everything in existence. However, Confucianism has a foundation in the teaching and perfecting of human kind, which is a very humanistic trait. The main parts of Confucianism are the individual's perfection of benevolence and the Decree of Heaven. It seems that Confucius only really cares about human existence and the higher power of Heaven, which is most likely the definition of the universe that Haberman and Stevenson mean in their quote.

The physical universe and everything in existence aren't significant in Confucianism, but humans and the Decree of Heaven are what create Confucius' so-called "universe".

Confucianism Conformism?

Confucius wants everyone to practice benevolence, but is submitting to Confucius’ idea of benevolence blindly conforming to an ideal that might or might not bring you to peace with the Decree of Heaven?

What reason would a person have to give their life to perfecting benevolence if there is no end goal involved? The end goal for people who believe in Confucianism is Heaven. By practicing altruism, one will live a happy life and be at peace with the Decree of Heaven.

The problem is that there is no proof that being good will send you to Heaven after you die. Confucius gives no reason to trust him and his idea of the Decree of Heaven. Following Confucius with so little proof and knowledge is similar to following a bee to the hive. The bee is leading you to honey, but you are unsure if you're going to get honey or a face full of bee stings. Christianity has the Bible as proof, Judaism has the Torah, and Hinduism has the Upanishads (and others) - what does Confucius have other than a book of his own quotes? While Confucius' ideas mean well, he has no justification, and therefore following him is blindly conforming to the philosophy of a man that doesn't know what he's talking about.

Gravity

Apparently the theory that there is a force, called gravity, inside of everything that consists of matter which pulls other objects of matter towards it is not certain enough for scientists. I understand that every theory is up for questioning, but gravity is in the same realm as any other force. As I pick up my backpack, I am exerting an unseen force on the backpack. For scientists to complain about the fact that gravity is an unseen force, therefore unreliable, and not mention other forces is ridiculous. Gravity is the most obvious force there is - there is no mistaking it. We wouldn't be alive if there wasn't gravity.

The problem that scientists encounter is that gravity is acting on objects in a vacuum. I don't understand why the fact that it's in a vacuum matters. The moon and the earth are still objects of matter, and therefore they will be attracted towards each other. There is no other possible explanation for planets orbiting around the sun. It makes perfect sense, so I don't understand why scientists have to come up with another complicated and nonsensical explanation for it.

Just a Thought

We spend so much time trying to figure ourselves out. Why do we act in certain ways? Why do we do the things we do?

But why don't we know? I am who I am, so shouldn't I know what that is? Why can't I decipher my own thoughts and actions? Why can't my brain access the information that I need to understand who I am?

I don't get it.

Idealism

How does Renee Descartes' theory "I think, therefore I am" relate to idealism? I thought idealism was about ideals, and the difference between an idealist and a realist was that the first believes in an ideal life while the latter believes that there isn't more than what is already there, what is real. I figured it was the difference between optimism and pessimism.

Idealism is not about ideals, it is about ideas, or thinking. It's a skeptical philosophy that denies the existence of anything but our own thoughts. This is exactly what Renee Descartes' theory is about. But I wonder why the term for this philosophy is "idealism" when it is not an ideal way of thinking.

Realism is not a pessimistic philosophy, but rather a more optimistic view on life. It promotes that we do know there is a world outside our thoughts, that reality exists. Realism is a title that makes more sense, due to the idea that it advocates reality. However, it can still be confused with the term "realistic", which refers to practicality and has a negative connotation.

What Struck Me About the Philosophy Toolkit

Under the General Philosophical Terms section in the toolkit, atheism and theism are defined as "(mostly) metaphysical claims, the one denying and the other affirming the existence of God" and agnosticism is defined as "the (mostly) epistemological claim that the question is undecidable on the basis of present evidence".

At first I was wondering why religious terms would be categorized as metaphysical claims because metaphysics is "the study of what there is and how it works", which seems more logical and scientific. I didn't think that theology was a part of metaphysics. However, I came to realize that religion is one of the many ways people rationalize how the world works. Other people think that divinity is not involved with workings of the world. Maybe we're all on a path to Nirvana and in order to get there we have to have good karma. There are many possible theological explanations for the world, so atheism and theism are most certainly metaphysical claims.

I had the opposite issue with agnosticism and epistemology. Epistemology is "the study of the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge or understanding", intimating a more emotional way of thinking. Since agnosticism has a lot to do with evidence, or the lack thereof, I figured it was more logical, like metaphysics. But the lack of evidence is actually where emotion starts to take action because agnosticism is a skeptical way of thinking. Since nothing is certain, we have to trust our own beliefs. Epistemology deals with the possibility that we lack any true knowledge, making agnosticism an important aspect of epistemology.

Who Am I?

Hello!

I am Katie Emerson, a freshman at MCLA, studying fine and performing arts (with a concentration in music), but interested in much more. I'm from the happy town of Holliston, MA, where I achieved many of my musical goals and made all of my closest friends. Lately I've been doing a lot of graphic design, including the design of business cards, posters, and websites (like this blog!), and I'm finding it to be a major passion of mine. It seems to bring together a lot of my talents, including my knack for math! I certainly hope to continue graphic design in the future.

As for hobbies, I greatly enjoy bike-riding, photography, and creative writing. Bands that I like include The Killers, Mumford and Sons, Pink Floyd, Muse, and The Civil Wars. Robin Hood is a passion of mine. Edgar Allan Poe, Roald Dahl, S.E. Hinton, and William Shakespeare are some of my favorite authors. I highly recommend reading "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller and "Behind the Scenes at the Museum" by Kate Atkinson because the content is intelligent, witty, and intense.

I like making goals for myself, so I'll mention a few in this post. First and foremost, I want to be happy. All of my other goals help compose my personal definition of happiness. My goal for this class is to learn as much as I possibly can, not just from the professor and the text, but from the students because they have different perspectives than I do. Another goal I have is to learn how to ice skate because it seems to be a lot of fun. After all, having fun is certainly a key to being happy!

~Katie