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

"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone

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?

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

"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone

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

"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

"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life."-Tombstone

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

"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

"There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life." -Tombstone