Last blog of the semester. It's been a great class, in my opinion. I think everyone at MCLA should take it and learn as much as they can from it. My favorite chapter was the one about existentialism. I think the greatest lesson taught was the one outside of the book: Do not let college be a means to an end.Take as much as you can from it and don't use it as a stepping stone just to get to three or four years from now.
What is your opinion on the class? Best lesson? Favorite chapters?
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
A comic for NHN...
Just a funny comic for all NHN bloggers.
(Even after the end of the year, they'll be watching over us. Don't worry!)
Credit goes to xkcd.com. Check it out sometime!
Immortality as a Curse
Austin asked why people view living forever as a curse rather than a blessing. Well, I believe they say this under the assumption that even though you live forever, your friends and family do not. You would watch everyone you have ever been close to die, yet you would live on. I think most people believe that there comes a time when you have fulfilled your life and that it is a good day to die. If you live forever, that time will never come. You would watch the world change and be constantly floating in change. And what do you live for when you live forever?
I think I will use that as my discussion question: When you can live forever, what do you live for?
I think I will use that as my discussion question: When you can live forever, what do you live for?
My faith.
This is a response to a simple, yet powerful, question posted by Karla. "How strong is your faith?" This can be answered first by describing what faith and spirituality is to me. I am an odd mix of all sorts of spiritual beliefs. Faith, to me, is trusting in these beliefs based on evidence that I can see, even if others cannot. I understand that what I see as evidence may be coincidence to some or mere foolishness to others, but it reinforces my beliefs nonetheless.
My faith has only grown stronger as I discover more and more practices of spirituality that go hand-in-hand with my own. I believe that there is some form of life after death, but that doesn't mean I am ready to face it. I admit I sometimes think, "What if I am wrong? What if I die and that is the end? What if I don't wake up in some other world and I really am nothing anymore?" This is when my faith comes in and comforts me, and I look at the world around me and see all sorts of spiritual things. I feel confident that this is not everything. We have much more to look forward to.
My faith is not as strong as it could be. It started as a lump of clay, to use a metaphor, and I have been shaping it over the years. It still has a bit more of forming to go before it is at its strongest, but I know it will get there in time. I cannot rush it.
Do you believe there is more to life than what we see?
My faith has only grown stronger as I discover more and more practices of spirituality that go hand-in-hand with my own. I believe that there is some form of life after death, but that doesn't mean I am ready to face it. I admit I sometimes think, "What if I am wrong? What if I die and that is the end? What if I don't wake up in some other world and I really am nothing anymore?" This is when my faith comes in and comforts me, and I look at the world around me and see all sorts of spiritual things. I feel confident that this is not everything. We have much more to look forward to.
My faith is not as strong as it could be. It started as a lump of clay, to use a metaphor, and I have been shaping it over the years. It still has a bit more of forming to go before it is at its strongest, but I know it will get there in time. I cannot rush it.
Do you believe there is more to life than what we see?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Like Father, Like Son
A couple of classes ago, we discussed parents, children, and careers. More often than not, children will end up following relatively the same career path as their parents. This probably started years and years ago, where if your parents were farmers (for example), you would inherit the farm and become a farmer.
Nowadays, even with all sorts of careers available, kids tend to follow the examples that their parents set. Even if they don't have exactly the same career, it is usually influenced by what their parents did.
My question is this: Let's say there's a kid who has a perfectly good relationship with both of his biological parents, but goes into a completely different career field than both of them. Who influenced this child? Was it nature or a nurture outside of his family?
Nowadays, even with all sorts of careers available, kids tend to follow the examples that their parents set. Even if they don't have exactly the same career, it is usually influenced by what their parents did.
My question is this: Let's say there's a kid who has a perfectly good relationship with both of his biological parents, but goes into a completely different career field than both of them. Who influenced this child? Was it nature or a nurture outside of his family?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The New MCLA
My layout for an existentialist MCLA would be as follows:
No majors are to be declared until a student has received two years of education. The first year, the students take a variety of classes and seminars that cover many of the school’s offerings. The next year, the students choose one or two subjects from the previous year they liked most, continue to study those, and take even more of a variety of courses. This goes on for one semester. The next semester, if the student wants to change the class they like from one from the previous year to one they studied first semester, they can. They will still take the last few variety courses and then declare a major based on what studies of the past two years they liked most.
Junior year would be focused on what the student likes the most. The student would take advanced level classes in these subjects, along with a philosophy class and a class that is very different from the students major. For example, as a writing major, I would take some 200 and 300 level writing courses, a philosophy course, and another course in something like physics or chemistry. It will strengthen the students’ weaknesses and broaden their mind.
Senior year, the student would be the year of freedom for the students. They would get to utilize all they have learned in the subject they chose as their major and do things like write a thesis paper or carry out an independent study. They could do whatever they like, as long as it reflects on what they have learned for the past three years of their lives.
What do you think about this?
No majors are to be declared until a student has received two years of education. The first year, the students take a variety of classes and seminars that cover many of the school’s offerings. The next year, the students choose one or two subjects from the previous year they liked most, continue to study those, and take even more of a variety of courses. This goes on for one semester. The next semester, if the student wants to change the class they like from one from the previous year to one they studied first semester, they can. They will still take the last few variety courses and then declare a major based on what studies of the past two years they liked most.
Junior year would be focused on what the student likes the most. The student would take advanced level classes in these subjects, along with a philosophy class and a class that is very different from the students major. For example, as a writing major, I would take some 200 and 300 level writing courses, a philosophy course, and another course in something like physics or chemistry. It will strengthen the students’ weaknesses and broaden their mind.
Senior year, the student would be the year of freedom for the students. They would get to utilize all they have learned in the subject they chose as their major and do things like write a thesis paper or carry out an independent study. They could do whatever they like, as long as it reflects on what they have learned for the past three years of their lives.
What do you think about this?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Repsonse to Yvonne
So, this blog discusses family. When looking for potential partners, do we look for traits that our parents have? And how does this apply to people who grow up with one parent?
First of all, I think it would depend on how you were raised. If you grow up with abusive parents or hate your parents, I think even subconsciously you would be turned against anyone who is like them. However, if you like your parents and relatively get along with them, then you know that you are comfortable around those kinds of people and might manage to find yourself dating someone like your parents. I don't think it is always the case, however. If we like how we were raised, we may find flaws in it and try to turn away from people like our parents, even if we appreciate them.
If you grow up with one parent, then all of this applies to the one parent that you grew up with.
How would this concept affect children who have been moved to and from multiple foster homes?
First of all, I think it would depend on how you were raised. If you grow up with abusive parents or hate your parents, I think even subconsciously you would be turned against anyone who is like them. However, if you like your parents and relatively get along with them, then you know that you are comfortable around those kinds of people and might manage to find yourself dating someone like your parents. I don't think it is always the case, however. If we like how we were raised, we may find flaws in it and try to turn away from people like our parents, even if we appreciate them.
If you grow up with one parent, then all of this applies to the one parent that you grew up with.
How would this concept affect children who have been moved to and from multiple foster homes?
Response to Alex
Just thinking about the Superego and animals. In class, we determined that some animals have a quasi-Superego. One of the examples of this that I thought of was my friend's cat. When his owner is out of the house, even if there are other humans present to give him treats, he will pace around the house meowing, looking into his owners room and sniffing around her bed, trying desperately to find her. Now, if the cat only had an ego and an id, he wouldn't have a reason to look for his owner. He has the needs of the id covered (with shelter and food) and the feelings of the ego keeping the id in check (getting toys for behaving). So why would the cat feel loneliness when the owner leaves?
Another example of the quasi-Superego in animals would be horses. I heard a story of something that happened at a barn I used to help out at (though I was not there when the incident occurred). A girl was riding around on her horse, a very well behaved creature that she had owned for a long time. Supposedly, the horse had seemed nervous about something but was keeping itself relatively calm. Suddenly, the horse reared up and fell backwards, landing almost entirely on top of the girl. The girl was, amazingly, relatively unhurt, which was determined by X-rays taken at the hospital. However, the X-ray revealed a tumor that the girl had (one that nobody knew about), and she was immediately given surgery to remove the tumor. If she hadn't gotten the surgery then, or if the tumor was not detected, it would have killed her. Now, some people would argue this as coincidence, but why would a horse who knows that behaving badly (such as rearing) means punishment, but rear up anyway? It was a very well trained horse. I believe that horses (and other animals) have the ability to sense things that humans simply can't. Whether intentionally or not, the horse saved the girl's life.
Any thoughts on these stories?
Another example of the quasi-Superego in animals would be horses. I heard a story of something that happened at a barn I used to help out at (though I was not there when the incident occurred). A girl was riding around on her horse, a very well behaved creature that she had owned for a long time. Supposedly, the horse had seemed nervous about something but was keeping itself relatively calm. Suddenly, the horse reared up and fell backwards, landing almost entirely on top of the girl. The girl was, amazingly, relatively unhurt, which was determined by X-rays taken at the hospital. However, the X-ray revealed a tumor that the girl had (one that nobody knew about), and she was immediately given surgery to remove the tumor. If she hadn't gotten the surgery then, or if the tumor was not detected, it would have killed her. Now, some people would argue this as coincidence, but why would a horse who knows that behaving badly (such as rearing) means punishment, but rear up anyway? It was a very well trained horse. I believe that horses (and other animals) have the ability to sense things that humans simply can't. Whether intentionally or not, the horse saved the girl's life.
Any thoughts on these stories?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
On Being Moody..
This is a response to Bryan Acton's post. He asked: "Do you find it interesting that the occurrence of mood disorders is a lot higher in economically developed countries then other countries? Explain."
I'm not at all surprised that economically developed nations have higher occurrences of mood disorders. This is because many "disorders" may not be disorders at all. At least in the U.S, we are quick to give pills to people. Now that pills are being advertised regularly on T.V, audiences can see "symptoms" that they normally wouldn't think twice about and realize, "Oh no, I must have *disease name here*." However, there are of course people who do have legitimate disorders. There may be more people like this in developed countries than developing countries because of the pressure we put on ourselves. We have to get good jobs to make money, we need to "find happiness", get good grades when we're students, make ourselves look good ("beauty" is cause for stress around here, especially to teenagers). It's no wonder that there are so many people with anxiety or depression who feel that they haven't fulfilled their lives just yet, or who are worried that they will never find "true happiness", whatever that may be.
In developing or impoverished countries, I think the people have a very different mindset than us. They are focused on living from day-to-day and are most likely grateful for things that many of us take for granted, such as food, shelter, and education. Many people do not even have those, but still remain positive where we would feel hopeless.
Do you think that true happiness comes solely from within, or does it have some outside factors affecting it as well?
-Megan
I'm not at all surprised that economically developed nations have higher occurrences of mood disorders. This is because many "disorders" may not be disorders at all. At least in the U.S, we are quick to give pills to people. Now that pills are being advertised regularly on T.V, audiences can see "symptoms" that they normally wouldn't think twice about and realize, "Oh no, I must have *disease name here*." However, there are of course people who do have legitimate disorders. There may be more people like this in developed countries than developing countries because of the pressure we put on ourselves. We have to get good jobs to make money, we need to "find happiness", get good grades when we're students, make ourselves look good ("beauty" is cause for stress around here, especially to teenagers). It's no wonder that there are so many people with anxiety or depression who feel that they haven't fulfilled their lives just yet, or who are worried that they will never find "true happiness", whatever that may be.
In developing or impoverished countries, I think the people have a very different mindset than us. They are focused on living from day-to-day and are most likely grateful for things that many of us take for granted, such as food, shelter, and education. Many people do not even have those, but still remain positive where we would feel hopeless.
Do you think that true happiness comes solely from within, or does it have some outside factors affecting it as well?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Platolotics Reply
This a reply to the question: "In my mind this [having people represent different classes of society in office] would make for the most effective means of political power change within society, do you agree?"
I would agree with that. I think that having multiple classes represented within the government would greatly help equality in a society. However, at least in the case of the United States presently, I believe it would not be possible. It costs millions to run for office (at least, Presidential office) and, needless to say, someone from a poor community would not have enough money. They couldn't pay for the campaign ads and whatnot. We also have to consider that many people who run for an office have had very expensive, higher educations. At least this is achievable through financial aid and scholarships, but then we return to the issue of raising money for the campaign itself.
I would enjoy having more diverse classes in office, but right now I don't think it would be possible. What changes in society would have to take place for this to be possible?
-Megan
I would agree with that. I think that having multiple classes represented within the government would greatly help equality in a society. However, at least in the case of the United States presently, I believe it would not be possible. It costs millions to run for office (at least, Presidential office) and, needless to say, someone from a poor community would not have enough money. They couldn't pay for the campaign ads and whatnot. We also have to consider that many people who run for an office have had very expensive, higher educations. At least this is achievable through financial aid and scholarships, but then we return to the issue of raising money for the campaign itself.
I would enjoy having more diverse classes in office, but right now I don't think it would be possible. What changes in society would have to take place for this to be possible?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Memories
Somewhere in our discussions in class, we stumbled upon memory. Though the discussion was brief, it got me thinking. How does memory work? What about human instincts? So I looked into some interesting theories, and one caught my eye: Genetic memory.
In psychological terms (according to Wikipedia)"genetic memory" is based on an idea that a species' common experiences become incorporated into its genetic code. Some other theories, however, believe that humans have the ability to tap into the memories of their ancestors. Some believe we could also see into past lives. It also tries to explain human instincts, such as infants knowing they have to suck on a bottle or their mother's nipple to get nourishment. While others argue this is simply a built in response to a stimulus, advocates of genetic memory say that we know what to do because our ancestors passed on the knowledge, whether we know it or not.
I think that the idea of having genetic memory is very interesting, though I do not agree with part of it. I don't think we could see into our ancestor's memory. I don't think memories can become written into genetic code. However, when it comes to past lives, I think we could (with much training) learn how to see those. I believe our soul stays the same from life to life, so perhaps it retains some memory from each life before this one. However, that is simply my opinion and belief, and is straying from the main point: Ancestral genetic memory.
What's your opinion on genetic memory? Do you think we are subconsciously able to learn from our ancestors, or even "see" their memories?
-Megan
In psychological terms (according to Wikipedia)"genetic memory" is based on an idea that a species' common experiences become incorporated into its genetic code. Some other theories, however, believe that humans have the ability to tap into the memories of their ancestors. Some believe we could also see into past lives. It also tries to explain human instincts, such as infants knowing they have to suck on a bottle or their mother's nipple to get nourishment. While others argue this is simply a built in response to a stimulus, advocates of genetic memory say that we know what to do because our ancestors passed on the knowledge, whether we know it or not.
I think that the idea of having genetic memory is very interesting, though I do not agree with part of it. I don't think we could see into our ancestor's memory. I don't think memories can become written into genetic code. However, when it comes to past lives, I think we could (with much training) learn how to see those. I believe our soul stays the same from life to life, so perhaps it retains some memory from each life before this one. However, that is simply my opinion and belief, and is straying from the main point: Ancestral genetic memory.
What's your opinion on genetic memory? Do you think we are subconsciously able to learn from our ancestors, or even "see" their memories?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Thursday, February 25, 2010
What Feels Good
The question from Alex: "If feeling good makes what you are doing good, than are the people we see as evil just taking pleasure by doing bad?"
I would say yes. I do not know why anyone would want to do something that makes them feel bad, so I suppose someone doing something that we perceive as "bad" feels good about what they are doing. I think that the person does the evil act because they have convinced themselves that it is a good deed, and therefore do not feel bad in doing it. What we perceive as a "bad thing" is probably very different from their perception.
However, when you take into account the people who do bad things BECAUSE they are bad, this theory is thrown off. So my question for this blog is: Why do people do things that are evil when they know that it is evil and it makes them feel evil?
-Megan
I would say yes. I do not know why anyone would want to do something that makes them feel bad, so I suppose someone doing something that we perceive as "bad" feels good about what they are doing. I think that the person does the evil act because they have convinced themselves that it is a good deed, and therefore do not feel bad in doing it. What we perceive as a "bad thing" is probably very different from their perception.
However, when you take into account the people who do bad things BECAUSE they are bad, this theory is thrown off. So my question for this blog is: Why do people do things that are evil when they know that it is evil and it makes them feel evil?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Listening to Ourselves
This is a response to Nicole's question: Should we listen to our conscience all the time? Well, I believe that a conscience is a reliable way of determining whether or not a situation is positive or negative. I know that if I suddenly feel very uneasy about doing something or going somewhere, I don't. However, should it be listened to all the time? No. In my opinion, your conscience fluctuates with your emotions, and when under stress or clouded by anger, your conscience can tell you to do things that you would not normally dream about doing. My friend had a story that proved this. She had seen a verbally violent fight between two people that were close to her. Well, "fight" isn't really the right term, because only one of the two people was yelling while the other listened. My friend felt threatened by the person yelling, and became upset that the person would dare to yell in the first place. She wanted to protect her friend, and the first thing that came to mind was to kill the person yelling. That way, she would not have to hear the yells or curses, and she and her friend would no longer feel threatened.
Obviously, she did not kill the person. But when under enough worry, anger, and stress, that was the first option that was logical to her self-conscious: Remove the threat. So no, I do not think relying on your conscience all the time is a good idea.
Is there a situation where relying on conscience when under stress may be a good thing? Or should logic always take over?
Obviously, she did not kill the person. But when under enough worry, anger, and stress, that was the first option that was logical to her self-conscious: Remove the threat. So no, I do not think relying on your conscience all the time is a good idea.
Is there a situation where relying on conscience when under stress may be a good thing? Or should logic always take over?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Scents
This is (are you ready?) a response to a response to a response. Yikes. The Question: Do you think we would react differently to certain smells, if we weren't raised to like or dislike them?
Well, I think what smells good or not does depend on how you were raised, in many situations. Sense of smell can remind us of where we were raised, which depending on the person, may be good or bad. As for how the same people would react to one smell: Take the example of smoking. I was raised in a non-smoking household and I cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke. My friend Missy, on the other hand, has a mother and older sister who both smoke. She barely notices the smell in her house, and doesn't seem to mind it as much as I do. She is used to it by now, whereas I was raised without it and taught that it was bad for me.
However, if I was not raised to dislike cigarette smoke, maybe I would not feel this way. People have been smoking for years, so it's not like humans are naturally set against it. In fact, I love the smell of woodsmoke (different than cigarette smoke of course, but still smoke.) I also believe that the other senses have an impact on whether or not a smell is good or bad to us. Example: I do not like the taste or texture of Deviled Eggs, and I think they smell really bad. Even the egg in potato and egg salad smells bad to me, and it's masked with other things. And today, as another example, I had a bite of some grilled chicken that tasted repulsive. For the rest of the afternoon and into the evening, the smell of chicken was making me sick, and I usually love chicken. The senses all affect each other.
If one of our senses stopped working, how would the others be affected?
-Megan
Well, I think what smells good or not does depend on how you were raised, in many situations. Sense of smell can remind us of where we were raised, which depending on the person, may be good or bad. As for how the same people would react to one smell: Take the example of smoking. I was raised in a non-smoking household and I cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke. My friend Missy, on the other hand, has a mother and older sister who both smoke. She barely notices the smell in her house, and doesn't seem to mind it as much as I do. She is used to it by now, whereas I was raised without it and taught that it was bad for me.
However, if I was not raised to dislike cigarette smoke, maybe I would not feel this way. People have been smoking for years, so it's not like humans are naturally set against it. In fact, I love the smell of woodsmoke (different than cigarette smoke of course, but still smoke.) I also believe that the other senses have an impact on whether or not a smell is good or bad to us. Example: I do not like the taste or texture of Deviled Eggs, and I think they smell really bad. Even the egg in potato and egg salad smells bad to me, and it's masked with other things. And today, as another example, I had a bite of some grilled chicken that tasted repulsive. For the rest of the afternoon and into the evening, the smell of chicken was making me sick, and I usually love chicken. The senses all affect each other.
If one of our senses stopped working, how would the others be affected?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Friday, February 12, 2010
Passive-Aggressive
This is a response to Bryan Acton's blog. The question: "Is there any situation in life when you should not act passively towards aggressors? And, If so, when should you not act passively?"
I believe that if your health and life are in serious danger, that would be the time to stop being passive aggressive. Say you are being attacked repeatedly by someone and you have not struck back, but now you are on the ground and being kicked. I'd say that would be an ideal time to give one solid kick or punch to them. Just enough so that you can run away. There is no need to be excessive. All that would matter in a situation like that is getting out in good health. Perhaps some people, such as Gandhi, would disagree, saying that violence is never an answer. Surely Gandhi was an admirable figure, but personally I would fight back at that point rather than risk my well-being any further. Again, I wouldn't fight excessively, just enough to escape. And if I ever saw my attacker again, I wouldn't feel a need to attack them back. Don't be excessive, but keep safe. I believe that should be a rule of being passive-aggressive.
Then there are extreme situations such as military, where being passive aggressive is not the best idea (usually.) Though if someone is uncomfortable with violence, they probably shouldn't be in the military anyway.
Attacking people is, of course, not a good thing. I think I will end with a question that combines this and what we have been talking about in class (religion): If there was no reward (ex. Heaven) for doing good, would we do wrong more often?
-Megan
I believe that if your health and life are in serious danger, that would be the time to stop being passive aggressive. Say you are being attacked repeatedly by someone and you have not struck back, but now you are on the ground and being kicked. I'd say that would be an ideal time to give one solid kick or punch to them. Just enough so that you can run away. There is no need to be excessive. All that would matter in a situation like that is getting out in good health. Perhaps some people, such as Gandhi, would disagree, saying that violence is never an answer. Surely Gandhi was an admirable figure, but personally I would fight back at that point rather than risk my well-being any further. Again, I wouldn't fight excessively, just enough to escape. And if I ever saw my attacker again, I wouldn't feel a need to attack them back. Don't be excessive, but keep safe. I believe that should be a rule of being passive-aggressive.
Then there are extreme situations such as military, where being passive aggressive is not the best idea (usually.) Though if someone is uncomfortable with violence, they probably shouldn't be in the military anyway.
Attacking people is, of course, not a good thing. I think I will end with a question that combines this and what we have been talking about in class (religion): If there was no reward (ex. Heaven) for doing good, would we do wrong more often?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
(n) Chris-tian [kris-chuh n]
How do you define Christian? This was a question brought up in class today. I would say that anyone who believes in the teachings of Christ qualifies. However, this can be taken many different ways: Do they have to believe Christ is the son of God? I say no, though of course everyone has a different opinion. With so many different interpretations of the Bible and people carrying out its commands in different ways, I believe finding one definition of "Christian" is impossible. Does someone have to believe in God and Jesus' divinity? Just God? None of the above, but attend church? It is difficult to give a definition to something as complicated as a religion. How do you define Muslim? How do you define Hindu? Why bother defining it in the first place? If someone is a good person and has values people could look at as "Christian", are they? It's difficult to say.
Christianity alone has several sects. How do you think a person from each sect would define "Christian"?
-Megan
Christianity alone has several sects. How do you think a person from each sect would define "Christian"?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life."-Tombstone
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Paradoxes!
Well, I love thinking about paradoxes. They stretch my brain and the debates on how to solve them can go on for quite some time. So I have decided to dedicate a blog to some paradoxes I enjoy, and give a general overview of why they are paradoxes. The first:
"Can God create a rock that He cannot pick up?" At first, I thought, "Of course He can! He's God, He does what He wants." But then I realized that God is supposed to be all-powerful. A rock that cannot be lifted by anybody SHOULD be lifted by Him, quite easily. He can create a rock and choose not to lift it, but can He really create something that is beyond His own power if He is all-powerful?
Second paradox: "If Pinocchio says that his nose is about to grow, does it?" The easiest way for me to describe that paradox..Well, I can't, so my friend Dave will. "The only reason it's true is because it's a lie." HOWEVER, if his nose grows, it's now a true statement...So his nose SHOULDN'T grow...Because he didn't lie. Have fun with that one.
Final paradox, and one that doesn't really need explaining. It cannot be explained, really. Again, have fun. "Everything I say is a lie."
.....I feel like The Riddler.
How would you respond to these paradoxes?
-Megan
"Can God create a rock that He cannot pick up?" At first, I thought, "Of course He can! He's God, He does what He wants." But then I realized that God is supposed to be all-powerful. A rock that cannot be lifted by anybody SHOULD be lifted by Him, quite easily. He can create a rock and choose not to lift it, but can He really create something that is beyond His own power if He is all-powerful?
Second paradox: "If Pinocchio says that his nose is about to grow, does it?" The easiest way for me to describe that paradox..Well, I can't, so my friend Dave will. "The only reason it's true is because it's a lie." HOWEVER, if his nose grows, it's now a true statement...So his nose SHOULDN'T grow...Because he didn't lie. Have fun with that one.
Final paradox, and one that doesn't really need explaining. It cannot be explained, really. Again, have fun. "Everything I say is a lie."
.....I feel like The Riddler.
How would you respond to these paradoxes?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Nature, Nurture, and Homosexuality
This is a response to Courtney's question. She asked if it is nature or nurture that creates homosexuality in a person. Everyone surely has a different opinion on the subject, but I believe it is fully related to nature. It is something that the person is born with, they don't learn it.
I have several friends that are homosexual and I've asked them what they think about this subject. All of them have agreed with me, saying that it is "ridiculous" to think that someone learns to be gay or is "turned gay." As a friend of mine just said, "It's something you are born with and discover."
Other people argue that they know many people who have been bisexual one day and straight the next. It is a valid point, I know of several people who went through that as well. I believe this is just a phase of experimentation that people go through, and may or may not reflect upon their true sexual orientation.
In class we talked about the concept of "evil", and whether it actually existed or if it is a fear or hatred we create in response to a threat. My question: Is there any true "evil" or does it depend entirely on perspective?
-Megan
I have several friends that are homosexual and I've asked them what they think about this subject. All of them have agreed with me, saying that it is "ridiculous" to think that someone learns to be gay or is "turned gay." As a friend of mine just said, "It's something you are born with and discover."
Other people argue that they know many people who have been bisexual one day and straight the next. It is a valid point, I know of several people who went through that as well. I believe this is just a phase of experimentation that people go through, and may or may not reflect upon their true sexual orientation.
In class we talked about the concept of "evil", and whether it actually existed or if it is a fear or hatred we create in response to a threat. My question: Is there any true "evil" or does it depend entirely on perspective?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Friday, January 29, 2010
Regarding The Cake...
This is a response to the post by Julia Les about the absurdity of truth and lies. What other ways of thinking can lead to a conclusion that everything we perceive is false? The answer: There are many ways. We can take the class-discussed "matrix route" and say that we are all brains floating in jars somewhere and that "there is no tree", we just think that there is. We could also be stuck in a permanent dream world, a hallucination, and not realize it. Perhaps everything we see is a hologram. What if we do not even have free will, and everything we go through is pre-recorded? This may explain deja-vu, if we assume that at some point in time, we heard the recording or watched the movie of our lives. Free will is funny that way. If we didn't have it, we wouldn't notice. We would think what we were doing was on our own when in fact it was all carefully planned.
So maybe it is all a big illusion. Though there really isn't a way of figuring out whether it is or not.
Now that I've somewhat touched on the idea of worlds outside of our own, here is my question: Realism or idealism?
-Megan
So maybe it is all a big illusion. Though there really isn't a way of figuring out whether it is or not.
Now that I've somewhat touched on the idea of worlds outside of our own, here is my question: Realism or idealism?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Would religion change if people only told the truth?
This is a response to Misty Elliot's post about how religion would be affected if nobody was allowed to lie. Well firstly, Dan Brown wouldn't be quite as rich, seeing as his books depend on the superstition that the church is lying about many events in history. Actually, many authors would not be able to publish. Quite an unfortunate downside to such a society. No more adventure-fiction for us.
Getting to the point though: Everyone believes that their religion, or faith, or perhaps their belief that nothing exists past death, is true. For example, if someone were to pray to God for some sort of comfort and have it happen, they could use that as proof that God exists. Others might say it is simply a coincidence. But even in a society that can only tell the truth, to say "I believe in God" would be a truth. The person is certain that God exists, therefore they are telling the truth.
Now that I've established that certainty can exist within religion, this poses the question: Is there any situation where an absolute truth can exist within religion?
-Megan
Getting to the point though: Everyone believes that their religion, or faith, or perhaps their belief that nothing exists past death, is true. For example, if someone were to pray to God for some sort of comfort and have it happen, they could use that as proof that God exists. Others might say it is simply a coincidence. But even in a society that can only tell the truth, to say "I believe in God" would be a truth. The person is certain that God exists, therefore they are telling the truth.
Now that I've established that certainty can exist within religion, this poses the question: Is there any situation where an absolute truth can exist within religion?
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Greeting
Hello, and welcome to my blog! This blog will be used for my Philosophy class (and occasionally off-topic thoughts, no doubt.) I hope you enjoy my entries. Have a good one.
-Megan
-Megan
"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)