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.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Monday, March 26, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, March 2, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)