My View , (This is my opinion so if it offends I apologize).

1. In my opinion, I believe that people are interesting emotional beings. We were placed on this earth by God and given His commandments to follow, but in the end, we end up letting our wants and desires drive us and become victims to sin. God gave us the power to choose, he gave us the ability to reason and be competent of the world around us; as weak enslaved beings to our desires we often want more and do the opposite of what we are told. God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and gave them many types of fruits to eat minus just one type of fruit from one tree. He told them not to eat from it, and they did. This made sin enter the world and causethe fall of mankind. It seems to be a trend that people do not like authority, all though we are here to please God. People want to rule themselves and everyone wants to be on top. I should correct the statement I just made; everyone wants to be on top with as little work as possible. This is why we throw away religion because it’s just “too hard” to follow the laws set before us by God. When I say that humans are emotional beings I mean that we are all driven by our emotions. When we are angry we yell and fight, when we are sad we cry,etc. Though this is true I believe we are all spiritual although many reject the idea of God and accept the love of science. We are born into sin, but we have the option to find salvation. We give into the earthly pleasures and riches around us which makes us fall short of the kingdom of heaven. The Bible says, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matt. 19;24). The world is based on many superficialities, which is making it harder for people to see the real purpose of life, to carry out God’s will and love him. God gives us the free will to choose to be with Him or without Him. So, we all have free will to choose how we want to live, however we will all be judged in the end. God is our destiny and our truth.

I believe we were born into this world with a purpose and we live our lives trying to fulfill this purpose. We are taught through nurture of our families (they play a vital role), and helped by our genetics. When we are of age to reason and no longer depend on our parents we must all live by faith trusting that God will always prepare the way and help us live out his will for us. Don’t you realize something? The people who don’t turn to religion are the ones who are always questioning things. It is those who treat religion as the physical and not the spiritual who are always wondering why they are on earth? What is their purpose? It is always the ones who are scientifically endowed, who are always searching for the reason we are here instead of searching how to better themselves to gain salvation. Those who are connected spiritually and emotionally to God have faith and are looking through their faith to their purpose. These people know that we should live through love, through Christ, through grace to gain salvation. We should all “Do onto others as we would have them do onto us.” We should live by comprehension and trying to look at other peoples’ lives through their glasses. We must give up desires of the flesh, which are keeping us enslaved to this world, and seek forgiveness and love through the spirit.

Women and men are both human with two different roles in life. They are equal and should be treated equally because their potentials are the same. It is hard to put a real label on the sexes because each person has their own drive, which causes them to use a little or all of their potential. Fundamentally, people are looked at both holistically and individually. Due to the sin of Adam and Eve, we do die, and we do know and live in a world of sin. Though God made a holistic choice he looks at us individually also. When judgment day comes, he isn’t going to judge us as a group, he is going to judge us individually of our actions because he believes we are morally responsible for our own sin. The sin of Adam and Eve just made sin enter the world, as humans it is up to us to stray as far away from sin as possible. There is no doubt that we are all interdependent and classified into groups. For example: I am a Jamaican American and belong to the upper-middle class, one can say that that is my group. Individually, I am Michelle Webb. We must know that though we are our own individuals, we must not forget that we depend on others for food, health care, income, etc. For example, we wouldn’t be able to eat if the farmer didn’t raise the cattle, and the manufacturer didn’t kill and package it, and the supermarket didn’t sell it to us. There is no way a man can be “an island.” This is my view on human nature. As you see, I have a strong belief that everything starts and finishes with God. Only through Christ are we living.

Money = life?

I understand that this isn't something we have discussed recently, but I feel the need to blog about this since this can be connected to human nature. Why is it that we are so fascinated with the idea of money? Is it true that money literally makes the world go 'round? I know and understand that we need money to survive, because in this day and age buying things is just the trend. No one hunts and gathers so money is the only way by which we can get our necessities, but is it something that we need to kill and hurt others for? If our daily needs are being met do humans have to be so enslaved to the "green master?" I know the economy right now is in horrible shape and we are in the midst of a recession and looking at the stock prices is just depressing, however why do we need to hurt each other for money? Is it because we are enslaved to our desires, that when we see that there is a possibility of it not being met we just snap and result to immoral acts.
In this case I guess one may not say that we are free. Since the 12th grade studying Kant and Thoreau, I know that we are enslaved to our desires and wants. As humans, its hard to only meet needs because we look at our wants as needs. Think of it, as humans could we do the experiment David Henry Thoreau would we survive? Can we live in the woods away from technology and do our own hunting, cooking, and weaving of clothes? It's interesting that some people live through money and superficial things. When are we going to be free from the illusions of our happiness? When are we going to step out of the cave and into the sunlight? When are we going to live a truly happy life?
The reason this topic came to my mind is that just two or three days ago I was going through a news article online and I saw that a bus driver in my city was killed due to an issue with money. He was stabbed in the chest because he wouldn't give a man on the bus (who didn't pay because he had an insufficient fare on his metro card) a transfer to go onto another bus. The bus driver didn't deserve to lose his life, it was only done because the man didn't have any money and he was denied something. When will things like this stop. A connection between money (or any other superficial thing) and violence can be made. Look at it, in the poor neighborhoods violence and robbery seem to be higher than in well off neighborhoods. Is money and material things that important? Remember material things are not forever. When you die you aren't able to take your 50 million dollars with you. The Bible also says a lot about material objects, it all will pass away someday!

Punishment.

My teacher in one of my classes said something very interesting today that made me think of the topic of punishment on pg 251. As he was explaining the reoccurring theme in movies, he came to the conclusion that in every movie, "Villains have to be punished." On hearing this this instantly reminded me of what I read in chapter 15 and how I felt about it. The book states, "we cannot help but hold people responsible for their actions: they ought to be praised and rewarded for their virtuous actions and blamed and punished for their vicious actions. We may call this the responsibility thesis." The book also gives examples of those who deserved to be punished,"racists who harm others......Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers." I agree to the fullest with these statements. I do believe that the unjust/immoral acts of others should be punished and thy should do hard time for hurting/offending people. This is why we have time out and "spankings" for children and prison for adult offenders. The point that I am slowly driving to is; since it is OK for people who do crimes to do the time; morally is it right for humans to enforce the death penalty?
There are many states that use the death penalty, whether it be the lethal injection,electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, or even firing squad. Are we authorized as humans to kill another human? Why not let them stay in confinement for life instead of taking their life as their punishment? Why do they want to play God? I believe in punishment for crimes, but there is no justification for killing people at all!

Free Will.

I have started reading chapter 15 and so far I find it interesting to see the duel views of free will. If I had to pick a side as to where I stand, I would say I agree with the Libertarians view that we do have free will. I believe that we are all responsible for our actions, granted that we are in sound mind. The only way person isn't in charge of their action is if they are mentally/ emotionally unstable; other than that we do have free will. Even believing in God, you have your free will to choose if you want to do whats morally right or morally wrong. Many people think that you are not free because God supposedly "brainwashes" you to do what He wants; not the case. God loves us and does have our will set out for us, but He makes us choose whether to follow Him or not. This choice was due to the fact that Adam and Eve ate the apple and "their eyes were open," forcing them to know the difference between good and evil.
We have a free will to choose our actions as long as we are ready to take responsibility for them in the end and not make excuses. Now that I think about it, it seems like existentialists and determinist's would be great enemies since they have conflicting views. In what I read so far I can only see the determinist's as excuse makers, using past events/ancestors always as an excuse to get out of the consequences of their actions. To clarify my self even further, I do believe in involuntary actions as well as voluntary actions. If we have to think and reason about something and come to a conclusion, that is a voluntary action. If our body does something without us thinking then that is a involuntary action. Being hungry is involuntary, because we do not think about being hungry it just happens. Whether we eat or not (or even what we choose to eat) is voluntary because it takes reasoning and deliberating.
Another thing stated by the determinist's that I want to clarify is the subject of want and desire. OK, we cannot help the things that we find appealing and that is arousing to us, but we do choose as to whether we give into our desire or not. If a person placed a huge chocolate cheesecake in front of me and they know that is my weakness, the cheesecake is something I really want, but I know if I eat it I will get fat it is up to me whether I give into my want or my reason. I could show weakness and indulge or I could show discipline and walk away. The same can go for any desire people have. It's their choice. Free will is free will!

Superiority

"The infirm or the stupid should be sterilized so their genes are not passed on,"this was a statement made by Darwin. This strikes me as a negative thought that may have been used as one of the justifications for many evil things done in the world. As soon as I read this I thought of Hitler's take on ethnic cleansing and his belief that the Aryan race was superior. This also puts me in the mind of slavery and how many people may use this as their reason as to why they enslaved those "under them. I do not believe anyone should be sterilized and that anyone is stupid and weak. Everyone is human, and everyone (though may not be equal in strength and knowledge) is equal in their right to live and breed.
Another thing that bothers me is this Survival of the Fittest thing. I think just hearing this theory creates a superiority complex in people making them think that they have all right to live, but they can do w/o the people who are "beneath them." Isn't this theory saying that one person has more value than the other? Can anyone be called less fit to survive? We are all created equally to carry out our purpose, but then Darwin states that people should be sterilized and the fit will only survive; why and how did he come to this conclusion? Darwin did take a great leap to press on a seriously touchy issue. This doesn't only denies the role of God but it blatantly tells those who have been sick most of their life that the reason why they are sick and are going to die is because they are not fit to survive. They have no reason to breed; they need to be sterilized. They are an unequal to the healthy "superior" person. I don't understand. Maybe I am not understanding what Darwin meant. I don't get it. :-x

Evolution and Ethics

First I just want to state my opinion on Darwin's theories (again). I don't know who I thinks is more absurd Nietzsche's or Darwin's. I mean this is just my opinion; I know there are people out there who agree with Darwin, but I fail to see how I come from a baboon or monkey or whatever he says we evolved from.
Now that got that out of my system, I wanted to take a closer look at the at pages 217-219 which talks about ethics. I do not understand what Pojman is trying to get across. He tells us about three types of birds, who usually attract parasites and the only way to free themselves of the parasites is to clean themselves. Technically they cannot literally clean themselves, but they rely on other birds to clean them. I see a connection to humans we don't rely on others to clean us, however, we do rely on other people to survive. Now these "birds" have three different personality traits; the sucker (who cleans everyone whether they reciprocate or not), the cheater (who never cleans any other bird but expects other birds to clean them) and the grudgers (who as their name implies only cleans those who cleans them and holds grudges against the cheaters). Since I believe the birds are suppose to represent a community of people which the book says that the suckers are the Christians, being totally altruistic, what is Dawkins implying? Is humanity suppose to be grudgers? Why are the Christians labeled as the suckers? Is it because we believe in love for all no matter what they have done to us? Why is that so wrong? Should we only do good deeds as long as we get something in return? Only do things for gain and not for the morality we hold? This is what I do not understand. I believe that good deeds should be rewarded on occasion, but don't let that be the only reason you do something. Do things because you know its morally right, not for fame or fortune. For the bad you do, yea you should be punished. I don't know, all I do know is that I found this interesting and it sparked many questions for me.

Religion, Evolution, and Evil!

OK, so I began reading the chapter on Darwin and I just have one thing to say...........what? I do not understand any of this evolutionary mumbo jumbo and the parts that I do understand are just going against creationism. I have talked to many people and when we do end up talking about Christianity , someone always says there is no room for Christianity anymore because so many people aren't acknowledging God as the creator of the Universe and everything in it, but they always turn to Science. There was a movie made a few years back called "The Reaping," and in this movie there was a scientist who was once a Christian, but then rejected the faith because of a personal problem that happened to her. As a Christian friend was talking to her he told her to explain all the plagues that happened in the bible when Moses asked Pharaoh to let his people go. Within less than a minute she gave a scientific explanation for all the plagues that happened, ruling out any possible involvement that God had. I was really shocked, but back to evolution. I so not believe I cam from a monkey. OK so there have been tests and research and data that shows humans and chimpanzees have almost identical genetic structure. OK and?
I was never big on this whole big bang/ evolutionary theory and I still am not. Maybe that is why I am having such a hard time with this chapter. What really set me of is that on pg 211, it states, " whereas religious accounts of the origin of evil have less impressive credentials." How dare they!? Then Pojman go on to question God and Him not being "more efficient." I mean come on, it was said in this chapter that the evolutionary theories have little proof.
Even though science and Christianity and all of these other theories differ, I must say that I did find one interlacing fact ( yea I was surprised). The bible says, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Jesus also says to make sure not to get caught up in the things of this world. Giving into the things of the world and bodily desires is what causes sin and greed and many of the philosophers agree with this. It is because of a persons wants and desires and their yearning to fulfill these wants and desires that there is evil. In this chapter it says, "Much, if not most, of moral or human made evil is the "unintended" result of nature's making us creatures with insatiable wants but limited resources and sympathies." I interpret this as due to the desires of man, evil (sin) is the result. That is the only underlying theme that I see between philosophy and religion.
I will try my best to finish this chapter, but like I said before it is hard to understand. I am trying my best to be patient, but it is just a fact of the matter that I don't believe in this and they are bashing religion harshly.

Real Truth.

While we were going over the existentialism chapter, my attention was directed towards page 191 on the discussion of truth. The parable of the two worshipers interested me not only on a philosophical level, but also a realistic level. The parable states that there are two worshipers one who prays to the one true God and the other who prays to an idol. The worshiper who prays to the true God and has a real conception of God prays in a false spirit. He maybe just prays because he feels like he is obligated to and has no real emotion towards God. The person who worships the idol, though the idol isn't the real thing , the worshiper prays in a real spirit. To be honest I agree with Kierkegaard when he implies the person who is preying to the idol is the one that holds the real truth. I can see this on a realistic level because when I go to church I see people jumping up and down and fainting, and sometimes I think they aren't feeling the real spirit, they aren't worshiping truthfully. I really don't know because I am not inside their head, but sometimes I feel like they jump up and down because they may feel like they are obligated to. Then I look at the person who sits there not making a sound, just sitting there quite as a mouse and I think maybe they are the one who is having the real connection with God although many think in order to worship God you must jump and dance. I didn't mean to go into something like this , but the parable just made me think about that.
There is no real definition to truth, everyone has their own truth. Kierkegaard says that "the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an existing individual." In other words, once someone is doing something whole-heartedly and full of emotion and not faking it, that is their truth. Truth requires feeling, emotional feeling that one exerts into somthing. Ithink this topic struck me also because of the example that is always used in class. Look out the window and you see the tree, how do you know the tree is really there. Unless you believe whole-heartedly that you see a tree , instead of just thinking "yea I guess thats a tree," then you have discovered your truth. It is important hold on to your truth once you have attained it. It is important that everything is done in truth and with passion. It is only through truth that we can have faith and only through faith we can have life.

Our Journey called life

Life itself is a journey. Within this big journey of life we have mini-journeys which are the roads we take in order to reach goals we set up for ourselves. There is a problem with setting goals however. People don't realize that they shouldn't only concentrate on their goal, but how they go about their goal, the road that they take to reach it. We learn from our journeys and if we do reach the end we can say that achieving our goal is our reward. Even if things don't turn out the way we want them to, going through that experience made us more knowledgeable than we were before we started.
The journey of life shouldn't be taken for granted. It should be looked at as special and even though there are rough times, we should continue on with life learning from the rough times. We should also be mindful that if we live our life well that in the end(when we die), our reward will be that in heaven (if you believe in heaven). Life is taken for granted everyday just because we find things don't go our way, which may lead us to say "I hate my life or "Life sucks." I am guilty of doing such a thing, when life gets stressful for me I say, "ugh life is so hard I just want to die." Of course I don't mean it, but I realize now that I still shouldn't say things like that. Life being "hard" or "stressful" is just a journey in which you learn to juggle more than one task and learn patience and endurance. I know one cannot be happy about life all the time, but I feel we should start analyzing why do we think we feel the way we do about life. What can we learn from each circumstance we go through? There is always something to be leaned from life, we just have to be willing to be taught.

Philosophical Sayings.

Today in class I heard a quote that stuck to me, "No man is an island." I agree with this to the fullest. I am the type of person who wants to be independent and loves doing everything myself but, even though I may not want to, there are times where I just have to bite the bullet and ask for help. We live in an interdependent world, as I did state in an earlier blog. If we were to go to the woods and try to live alone without anyone, which I believe Thoreau tried to do, we wouldn't survive. Humans are social animals, relying on others to reproduce, talk to, help, and just be around. Though it is hard for me to be around people due to my introverted personality I know I have to be.
Another thing that I have been thinking about for quite awhile is, since we, as humans, are suppose to define themselves and our life, why is it said that life is pointless and absurd. Doesn't that mean we are making it pointless, since we have the power to do what we want. I , at many times, had said "I'm bored", and I am sure you have to, but aren't we just making ourselves bored? Don't we have the power to make our lives exciting? On this topic I want to talk about Nietzsche. He describes the "routine" life of someone who wakes up, goes to work, comes home, showers, watch TV, go to bed (just to do the same thing the next day) as wasting life. How is that wasting life? People have to make a living don't they? Also, I am almost positive that the same thing doesn't happen in the same order everyday. This is why I do not like his theories and many other theories of philosophers. They love to generalize and try to make it seem like every one is the same Everyone is evil, everyone is naturally good, everyone has lives that are absurd! I just don't understand , and I don't think I ever will.

Suffering and Nietzsche

OK, so listening to the side of the tape about Nietzsche was a bit interesting and confusing at the same time. He likes pain? Maybe because of the sheltered life he lived, he grew up to despise and rebel against it. He is one of those philosophers brought up in a good Go atmosphere , just to turn into a atheist who talks about pain. On the tape it was explained that suffering is good. And that the healthy persons life is full of suffering. Is this true? I mean I know to go through many trials and tribulations is to be made stronger, but it can be detrimental to a person to have a life of suffering. Not everyone can bounce back after going through such pain.
I do not agree when it was said that , "Suffering just happens" and that it was "Bound to happen." No, suffering doesn't just happen, it happens because people take certain paths in their lives that causes them and others to suffer whether it be intentionally or accidentally. I do believe there are circumstances that blaming oneself is appropriate , but Nietzsche asks , "Why blame yourself for something?" You blame yourself maybe because you see that there was something you could have done, but didn't or you see that there was something you shouldn't have done but did. This philosopher really had some ideas that were out there, and needed to stay out there. I didn't like his points at all, at least the way they were portrayed on the tape.

Faith vs Proof: A response to "The Leap of Faith."

Faith is the belief in something/ someone without it being physically present. People, however, cannot believe without having faith. How can you seriously know that 2+2=4? Because your teacher taught it to you? Wouldn't you have to have faith that your teacher actually knows what they are talking about to believe them? Yea, you can do the math for yourself with objects or even your fingers, but who is to say that addition isn't really subtraction and what we were taught is subtraction is really division? We had faith in those who taught us math to believe what they say and take it for the truth. People have faith in people,(trust) to teach them what is what sometimes without physical truth. Believing teachers and parents is the "Leap of Faith" that we take and then establish truth. Another example is religion. It has a lot to do with faith because one cannot see God, but those that are devout to Him knows that He is there. People who believe in religion believe that God is present in the atmosphere around us and do not need a physical being to know that He is there. The recording was talking about the difference about faith and proof. Well it seems that proof feeds into faith for some, if not many.
Another thing from yesterdays class that got me thinking was when the speaker was talking about people imagine they believe in religion and then you have those who truly do believe in religion. Religion,like i said in a previous post, isn't a physical thing; it is a spiritual and emotional thing. Those who supposedly "imagine the believe in God" may not have that connection with Him and don't acknowledge Him unless they need something. Also these people listen to sermons, but are absent minded while the sermons are going on and do not digest the word. They hear the pastor taking , but they don't understand or practice the Word of God. Those who truly believe try their best to please Jesus and listen whole-heartedly to the sermon digesting it and practicing it. Faith is a hard thing to have because we are spoiled to always have physical objects to cast our senses on. To get over not having faith, we must get over fully relying on our senses.

Freedom of Life?

What is freedom? Why do we have freedom? Are we truly free? Personally, I believe freedom is the ability to choose a direction or path we want to take. Humans do have freedom but as oxymoronic as it sounds, we have a restricted freedom. We have laws to guide us (even though we choose whether or not we follow the rules) and we have social moral codes that we follow (if we don't we can be exiled or looked at as an outcast.) I do believe that God has a purpose for all of us, but he gives us the freedom to choose whether or not we want to live out the life he has for us. We have the freedom to do good/ we have the freedom to do wrong. In existentialism, it is said that we make our morals and define ourselves by what we do; I agree. If we do just things we can be defined as just, if we do things that are wrong then we can be looked at as unjust; though this is true, each individual has their own definition of moral and immoral things.
The topic of freedom is a complex one. Everyone has their own concept of freedom. People feel free because they have religion, others don't feel free because of religion. People only feel freedom if they are harming someone and others feel truly free if they are helping. "We are free to create our own essence...We are totally responsible for our actions, for what we become." Though our parents raise us to hold certain values,when we are older we have the freedom to choose whether or not we keep those values. As long as we make sure we take responsibility as to how we use our freedom, I think no one can really say what is moral or not.

Existentialism

"Your life lacks definition. It is meaningless. Life is absurd." These were the first ideas pumped into my head about existentialism. It has always been a complex subject for me because it raises many questions and clashes with the thought of religion. In existentialism, a person supposedly defines themselves and gains their own self moral and self worth not relying on society's standards. Everyone, each individual is suppose to remain an individual having their own thoughts, concepts and values , not relying on the outside world. For me, being religious, I believe that essence precede existence in the fact that God has a plan for our lives and that is to live by His word so when we die we go to Heaven.
On the topic of death it is,I feel, another complex topic in existentialism. Many people wonder, if I am suppose to define my life why was I made in the first place? They may also say, Life is full of heartache, tragedy, and disappointments and then eventually I die, Why live now? Then the topic of suicide comes in. People know death is inevitable though sometimes we forget and think we are immortal. Though we don't ponder about death 24/7 when it does come to mind it is a scary and nerve racking thought. It becomes so nerve racking that people take death into their own hands and commit suicide. Another reason why people may commit suicide is that in the process of trying to "define" their lives they hit an obstacle that seems to be never ending or people may think that they have done putting definition to their lives just to have that one thing be taken away. My opinion on existentialism is that i is a gloomy and depressing subject that has a few points that are true in my eyes. I do believe that people have their own truth and they live that truth through their actions; even though society may take a persons truth and distort it making people think that what they hold as true is really their truth but it isn't, it is society's truth. Also, I believe that we have to make decisions in life and are granted that freedom, but that is for a later entry.

Let's not talk about sex?

In class today the topic of Pansexuality came up and someone mentioned that sex is a topic that isn't really talked about even though it is everywhere. I must say that I agree, sex is everywhere and it supposedly thought about multiple times throughout the day. It is in movies, magazines, the Internet, and even in books, however to blatantly talk about sex, it doesn't really happen. Sex has always been. and still is an intimate topic. It was said that even during the time that Freud wrote his theories, sex was not a talked about subject. So it made me think, why did he make such a bold move? also where did he get all his sexual references from if sex was not popular? Did he only base it off of his sexual desire?
Another thing I don't understand, is that Freud says that as children, the girls had penis envy and we do not remember having penis envy because we were little. I mean the only reason I would think a girl would have penis envy is because guys can stand up to pee and girls have to sit down or squat. But if we were so little and we didn't even know what penis's were how could we have penis envy. My parents were strict and never knew a male appendage until I was of age to remember my thoughts. Some of his theories seem to be really under-developed.
I also was wondering about something else. You see, I am in this class called Popular Hollywood films of the 1950's and I watched this movie in which the younger man fell for an older woman. How would Freud explain this? Would he say that the man never went through the Oedipus complex and is finally going through it as he is choosing a mate? In the movie he never talked about his mom and only his mom so one can assume she died while he was young. So does having/desiring an older mate connect in anyway to Freud's theories of development?

The nature of sex!

Sex is natural desire that all humans feel. Though we all get sexual urges, there are particular places and times for sex, however when the urge strikes, one must find a way to expiate there sexual frustration. I do believe people use other alternatives to sex such as exercising , eating, or even playing an instrument. I believe that if you try to abstain from sex for all of your life it is fighting against nature, you are trying to fight against something that you were given the "instruments" for. Another thing is that sex is on peoples minds (maybe not 24/7) but that is the reason why it appeals to us so much. We may unconsciously have sex on the mind and when we see it on TV/ or in movies we can relate to it and even get stimulated by it.
I don't think that everything relates back to sex as Freud may have implied , but it is a part of human nature. It is interesting to talk about this topic in NHN because I am talking about the same topic in another course. In my class we are talking about how sex actually came to be a public thing. Parents in the 1950's did not talk about sex with their children and made it seem like it was something awful. Sexual references or actions were not allowed on TV and it wasn't even talked about in schools. Many teenagers rebelled against their parents as soon as the music of Rock and Roll was introduced, because hey! It is music that involves sexual movement. We then saw how these people became sexually aware of their environment even though parental figures tried to suppress it. Sex is natural and it is something that should be done , like everything, in moderation.

To be Human is to want

It seems that it is human nature to want, to have desires, to yearn for things. Freud says "We think that we could be happier if our every whim was satisfied...that idea of continual sense gratification seems a delusion.Our desires are insatiable, for as soon as one is satisfied , another takes its place. Part of the secret of happiness is to learn to be content with what one has, not to seek for more than life can offer." I agree with this statement from the "Who Are We" text (pg 178). The more things we want and the more things we get is the unhappier we will be. Desires/ ants aren't easy to get rid of because whenever you do get what you "really want" you will see (desire) something you "really really want." It seems that in this day and age people are hardly satisfied with their necessities and must have the things that they want in order to survive. Why is that though? Why is it so hard to not want anything? Is it because we live in a complex world where having something makes you "better" than the other person? Is life an on going never ever ending competition of I have this now I am better than my neighbor, then the neighbor sees it and desires it? Do not look for or try to gain things that is not necessary for survival if it means you being really unhappy and missing out on life until you get it. It is going to be a never ending cycle, and then guess what.....you die. Then when you die what happens to your 5 houses and 8 cars, it gets donated, given away or if your very possessive buried with you? All the things that you desire and working yourself up for and being unhappy about is going to be here after you die, so why kill yourself trying to gain material stuff and miss out on living? I don't think I will ever understand.

Sexuality

As I read the Sexuality part of Freud's theory I found it really interesting. I do not agree when he says, "..the sex drive is the most powerful drive in humans." I do, however, agree when he says "people varied in sexual drives." In some people their sexual drives are the strongest and only thing keeping them going. Other people, may have other drives that push them harder than their sexual drive; some people have no drive at all. With sexuality, people need to learn how to control their urges. Freud says " For some, the drive is so strong that they cannot sublimate all of its impulses in socially useful action...some of there people...act out in unsocial behavior." I agree with this statement; there are those who cannot control the sexual urges they feel. These people never learned delayed gratification and they act out on the people around them. These people are rapists, nymphomaniacs, promiscuous people, etc.
Another thing I found interesting about this part of the chapter are the different stages he describes that children go through. I remember studying the different stages in psychology. Reading this I remember that the oral stage is a critical part of child development. It is during this stage that the baby does connect with its mother (both physically and emotionally). Weening a baby early does scar it and results in an unstable adult. So, maybe I was right in a previous post I made; nurture does play a bigger part than nature. If a child is in the oral stage and is weened too early and too late , that helps lay the foundation as to what type of person it is going to be. Another thing I found interesting is the reason he gives as to why women become gay. They try to surface their masculinity in another way since they aren't able to grow a penis. As girls, as does every girl according to Freud, suffers from penis envy, it just seems that these women don't get over the envy and never reach the third and final stage. Freud was a brilliant philosopher; he had many interesting points in his theories.

Sweet Dreams

I began reading chapter 11 and I found what was said about dreams to be really interesting..."he argued that dreams are a form of wish suitably interpreted, reveal deep desires and secrets locked in the unconscious." I believe that this statement is true, things we feel and want to do in real life are acted out in our dreams sometimes. I also believe that dreams are not to be taken literally. Sometimes, like stories, there is symbolism in dreams. With my Caribbean background when someone dreams a particular thing it symbolizes something that is going to happen in real life (not all the time.) For example, we say that if you see clear water or a funeral in your dream, it means that its good fortune that is coming. If we see a wedding or dirty water in our dreams bad fortune is ahead. If we see fishes in our dream that mean someone is pregnant, if we see someone eating fish in our dream the person eating it is pregnant. It is a weird interpretation of dreams, I know but I grew up on ideas like these.
Dreams have been around for as long as the first man walked the earth. Dreams are there for us to take a glimpse into our subconscious. Dreams are also fragments of our memory. Whenever I watch a scary movie I always dream about the killer and myself being hunted down. Dreams also remember days conversations, like if you were talking about water all day , it just may happen that you dream about water. It also goes on feelings, if you are mad at someone you may have a dream that you are arguing with that person or even fighting that person. Dreams are also really random and you may wake up the next morning, like " Why did I dream about the tooth fairy and Santa Clause wrestling?" Dreams are universal, everyone has them. Everyone dreams, even if you wake up the next morning thinking you didn't. What puzzles me though, is how is it possible that when dreaming we can feel things? Like if I had a dream I fell I would feel it in my dream and wake up to find that I feel pressure on that particular spot. I guess that's just getting into the scientific aspect of things.

The Role of the Parent

Today a brief statement about parents were made and how they relate to children. While on this topic for a brief second, I pondered many questions about parent/ child relationships. For one thing is it possible (in the nature of mothers ) for mothers to despise/ hate/ envy their children. When I was in high school my teacher explained to the class that the reason why our mothers yell at their daughters for wearing "revealing clothing," is because mothers envy their children for their youth. Is that why we have so many restrictions when we are teenagers (especially girls) or is it just parental nurturing? Is it possible that secretly our mothers and our fathers hate the fact that we are young, vibrant and free and they are getting on in age?
Another thing that came to my mind is how much percent does nurture really play in a person's life. Maybe, for the beginning of a child's life the parent is able to mold the child into a "perfect citizen" and it is only when they are released into the world when they start to see choices that their parents hid from them. They then abandon principals, morals, and ethics they were grown with and let nature takes its course. Is it possible for a kid to be fully nurture or would a parent have to shield the kid from the outside world?

The Simple Life

No I am not talking about Nicole Richie's and Paris Hilton's show. I am talking about the subject that was briefly touched on in class. I do believe that the simple life, the road less traveled, is the happier life. It seems like nothing is kept simple anymore; weddings are now over 1.2 million dollars (and then the divorce 2 yrs later costs about the same), birthday parties for children are thousands of dollars, (even though they are not going to remember them, and the list goes on. Capitalists aren't happy people. They may have 30 cars or 12 mansions, but they are never able to be happy with these material things. I must say that I do admire the Amish people. They stay away from material things and don't let modern times and technology affect their way of living. When did the simple life get cut out and the life of capitalists get introduced? Was it the Industrial Revolution that started this greed and corruption or was it way before that?
Another thing is that I do not understand people who buy things for crazy amounts of money. Does the amount of money you spend make the product look better? What about those people who only have money for their basic needs, yet blows next months rent on a new Prada bag. Does knowing that you spent $500 on a bag make you feel better about the bag? Does it make you feel better about yourself? If I just spent five hundred big ones on a bag it would make me feel depressed and sick. Its like the more expensive something is, the more fascinating it becomes, and the more people strive to get it. I don't understand, is a bag not a bag whether it costs $5 or $500. Isn't the $500 bag going to eventually lose its thread and its straps. For the person who wears $200 dollar jeans, if you gain weight wouldn't the jeans stop fitting you like any other jeans pants would (even if its $12). It's puzzling and interesting to see how money is handled by people.

Religion

I must say that so far in this class religion and spirituality has come up a lot. In each chapter we read it seems that each philosopher has their own view on religion and how it connects with human nature. In chapter 10, Marx has strong feeling on the aspect of religion; he is against it which is why is labeled an atheist. Marx speaks of a revolution that would happen one day and how the lower class will take over the wealthy and create a utopia where everything is distributed equally. He then goes on to imply that in this new founded utopia there is no room for religion and it should be abolished. Then he says that religion oppresses people and that religion is an illusion to the happiness of man and only when it is abolished will man find real happiness. I feel that Marx , and others, speak of religion like its a physical thing like its something you can just get rid of and that it is there to make people miserable.
Religion is suppose to be something spiritual something you feel and then practice. It isn't something you see, touch or smell; it has no physical principles. Religion is a connection that you have spiritually with God, however this is just my opinion because I know everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Just the way Marx talks about religion is something that edges me the wrong way. When its abolished people will know true happiness and no longer be oppressed? How and why does religion become a burden?

Class Struggle

After reading chapter 10, I must say I agree with Marx on the topic of social class. It does make sense since the rich can identify with other rich people and the poor with other poor people. Though it makes sense for things to be this way, it doesn't make it right. For too long has there been a separation between the rich and the poor; it just seems like the economic gap is ever expanding. Since people do identify with their social class it is easy to have bad remarks about the other. The rich view lower class people as undeserving and lazy. Some probably believe that if lower class people wanted to be rich they could be and that they jut want rich people to take pity on them. Lower class people most likely view rich people as bullies and thieves, always pushing the little guy down and then kicking him where it hurts. Since I have been little I have always heard of the saying, the poor is getting poorer while the rich is getting richer. I have always wondered why is it that it seems money is depleting from mid to lower class people and the wealthy people can still afford to have 6 houses and three times as many cars.
Money is a big issue in the lives of humans. It is necessity to survive because everything relates back to monetary value. It just seems that this huge gap between classes is a struggle and has caused much evil in the world. In the bible it says the love of money is the root of all evil; though Marx was an atheist he eludes to this in this chapter. The wider the gap between the rich and the poor the more crimes happen. If there was a balance and no class system, and no label of rich or poor crime would if not cease be lowered. Marx makes some interesting points in this chapter.

The nature of knowledge and its components

What is knowledge exactly? Anyone can go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of it, but what is the essence of knowledge? IS it the capacity of how we understand things? The profound outlook we have on different topic? or is knowledge , like so many philosophers said, the ability to reason? When I first learned about knowledge in my existentialism course, my teacher explained to me that there are four components to knowledge. The first component of knowledge is called the I-inner. This is self-knowledge and is about knowing ones self. The next component is the You-inner. You-inner is your ability to empathize, ones ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person. This component is easy surpass because we are more aware of our I-inner.
The third component is the I-outer which is how people see you; the way you appear to other people. This is another area that is blind sighted because we think the way we see our self is the way others see us and are usually blind to the things we do that people notice, that we do not notice about ourselves. The last component is the You-outer which is the way we see the world; how we believe the world affects us even though we may not fully understand it and it is constantly changing.

Perception

Perception is the act of apprehending by means of the senses or mind, according to the dictionary. We all perceive things differently and we all notice that there are things around us inhabiting the same space as us. However, the scenario of a person seeing a rose arose in class. How does that person know that they are not the only one seeing the rose and not anyone else? Does the person have to go around to every single human being and ask if they see the same rose? I do not think so. I think that a person sees what is there and doesn't have to rely on others to make sure that they are not "seeing things". It is human nature to ask at least one other person , "Hey, do you see what I see?" However, a person should not initially doubt their perception of something. I feel that there are only special occasions in which a persons perception should really be questioned; when they are under the influence of drugs, when we see that something defies the laws of nature (a floating elephant), or a sick person ( one with schizophrenia).
Another thing I feel that it is human nature to do is pick and choose what we want to hear and see. Some people never want to be wrong, and always want to be right, however if someone is showing/ telling them something that would prove them wrong they would "close" their senses and only hear and see what they want to. The more and more I get into this class the more and more I believe in where I stood from the beginning. We are all different and it is difficult to take one general theory and place it one people.

Morality and Sex

While reading the Schopenhauer chapter, I realized that Pojman was right in saying that he is really pessimistic, however he did make some interesting points. The first thing he seems to imply is that there is no such thing as heroes, their are just "moral people." When people do a good deed, (especially when their lives are put at risk) they are just acting on moral impulse, so it seems calling them a hero would be a bit much, maybe even absurd.
Another thing that sparked my interest was when Schopenhauer touched on the topic of sex. He makes it seems that a humans highest achievement is to reproduce. This goes hand in hand with a persons will to live. A person want to live , however they know physical eternal life is not possible, sooner or later we perish and return to the dirt from whence we came. However, value wise, morally, knowledge wise we want to survive; and the only way to do so is to reproduce and teach our offspring what we believe hoping that they will keep the values we have. I do questions Schopenhauer position on this, however. What is he really saying about sex and the role it plays in human nature and life? Is he saying that one of our primary functions as humans is to reproduce?

It's human nature to...

We haven't really talked about this in class,however it is something that does relate to human nature. I was at a program today and the presenter stated that it was human nature to be reluctant to admit when we had a problem. I can't really say this is true for everyone but, from experience I can say that it is true for some. People are quick to say nothing is wrong when there is clearly something wrong; whether it be something wrong personally or with another person. It seems people rather act out than come to terms with the thing that is bothering them.
It isn't hard to say "You know what I have a problem and unless I finally come to terms with it I won't overcome it." It is crazy the things people go through than to just admit the truth. Maybe it's pride, a fear of maybe being rejected by others, or worse having to admit that they were wrong. If there is a problem it can easily be solved by naming it. If the problem is with someone else don't lie to others and yourself and go on without resolving the issue with the person. Things are made to be talked out hence the reason God gave us mouths and the knowledge to comprehend what people are saying. It isn't ok to not admit when a problem is at hand , because denial is a sad and sometimes tragic thing.

Hobbes and Rousseau

I do believe that after reading chapter 7 that we are dealing with two extremists. Though they do talk about two different extremes ,I agree with both to an extent. I agree with Hobbes when he says that people are naturally evil, because we have to be taught how to share when we are young. We have this innate behavior at around age two that everything is ours until it is scolded out of us that we need to share our stuff. After we are nurtured to share, it is then up to us when we are older how we want to live our lives. In the view of Hobbes we always look out for ourselves and when we do do a charitable deed it is because we want to alleviate the person's distress which is causing our distress. I disagree with Hobbes when he makes this point because I believe that there are people who are taught to be not selfish and stick to it and actually help people because they want to.
I have to disagree with Rousseau's idea that people are noble savages. I do believe we are born a blank slate, however like I stated in the previous paragraph when we are children the innate idea that everything is ours comes into play. I do agree with him when he says that the government is the playing role in the corruption of people. Government determines who has power and who doesn't and everyone wants to have power of some sort. Power and government is enough to tear family apart. In the movie "Man in the Iron Mask," it shows the life of a King in Paris, France. This King had a twin brother that he didn't know about until he was fifteen when his father told him on his death bed. The father separated the two sons because he saw too many kingdoms torn apart by brothers feuding and didn't want that to happen with his sons. After learning about his twin, the king imprisoned him and set an iron mask on him because he wanted to protect his power and his crown. The King was power hungry and it can be said that power can do this to anyone. Both Rousseau and Hobbes were smart men with great points, they were polar opposites and very extreme.

Knowledge is Virtue?

Moral Excellence, a good admirable quality, righteousness. These are some definitions of the word virtue. We have talked about virtue a lot in this course yet never gave it a real definition. I don't believe that knowledge is necessarily virtue, but i do believe that knowledge does lead to it. When you become knowledgeable about something you are able to be open minded about things and accept things more than when you are ignorant to facts. For example, I was told that I needed to call the holiday inn to make a reservation, the person who told me to do it told me that I should have "a white friend" call because maybe that will enable me to actually get a room. I think this is an example of a person who isn't knowledgeable about the times we live in and isn't knowledgeable enough to be proud of the skin they are in. It can be said that this person isn't virtuous because of the mind set they have.
To be ignorant isn't to be virtuous because if you are virtuous you try to be the best you can be . You try to be righteous but you aren't able because you don't understand the way the world works. So ignorance isn't always bliss, because ignorance is the opposite of knowledge and knowledge leads to virtue. Knowledge does encourage people to be open and accepting of differences that people have. Once you become more accepting , your more prone to doing virtuous things. :-)

Philosophers and Philosophy

OK, So in class we were discussing the topic of happiness, and you already see how I feel about Aristotle's view on happiness. But really, who is he to tell me that when I am happy I don't feel true happiness. Like I feel like questioning my happiness will eventually lead me to never feel happy before. I know that a person could force themselves to be happy and pretend that they are happy, but deep down inside they do know that they aren't truly happy and that it is just a front. Can someone be so good at faking to be happy that they start believing that they are happy themselves? I don't know, all I do understand is that when I am happy, I am happy in the moment, I am living in that moment.
I understand that philosophy is a really informative subject and it is a subject of much debate. However, I feel like philosophers expected people to take in their opinions on the nature of humans and not question it. Yes, people do have similar characteristics, but I feel like you cannot label one specific thing and apply it to all humans. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, they were humans just like us who wanted to know more about how things worked. They did research and came up with theories, however I don't think their theories apply to everyone. I just think we should all live and be happy with ourselves and others.

Happiness? :-)

Happiness isn't anything that can be defined. It is a feeling that many feel, when something happens the way we want it too. The accomplishment of a goal or the achievement of a merit are things that people may feel happy about. I think we should not rely on others to determine our happiness, just as the example on page 64, we should determine our own happiness, we should feel happy with ourselves then try to make others determine how we feel. On the topic of happiness I do wonder is happiness a momentary escape from reality? When we find our self caught up in the moment are we unconsciously forgetting what the real world is like and are faced with illusions. When we don't feel the feeling of joy or rapture are we coming conscious of what the world is really like and we go back into trying to make ourselves happy again? The book says that happiness is a deception and when the thing that does make us happy is missing we are hit with the harshness of the real world. I don't know about this, I do know when I am happy I am in a place that I don't want to leave.
Is it a fact that people search all their life to be happy, so that's why they do buy expensive thing trying to fill the void. Is happiness a materialistic emotion? I have never thought of these questions, and I try not to because it ruins the emotion. Now a person who reads this part of the chapter is going to ask themselves the next time the feel joy, "Am I truly happy or is this just an illusion." Happiness is an emotion and a feeling that everyone has. Everyone finds their own happiness in things and it's up to them whether or not they want to question it.

Our Soul and Virtue

On pg 35 the book says, "What good would it be to gain the whole world and lose my soul?" I don't think one should take this quote literally. I feel that when Jesus said "the whole world" he didn't really mean the world itself, but the materialistic world. I feel like he is saying, to what extent would we let our desires drive us? Would we be over taken by our desires that in the process we lose our morals? our souls? What good is it to gain earthly objects and to lose what you stand for, or what you believe in? I think that is the real question asked, because sometimes we do let our wants get the best of us that we forget where we come from. Sometimes our desires overpower us that we will do immoral things to gain our wants.
Another quote that struck me was the one that says "goodness leads to the highest happiness." I do agree with this, because to be constantly good can be a challenge. It reminds me of the first Q & A that we have asking whether or not contemporary Christians are up to the challenge of loving everyone. To constantly be good, especially when people are evil to you, is hard to do. When some one does wrong by us we are angry and are quick to want revenge. It is hard to do good by those who wronged us. I think goodness does reach the highest happiness because it is a challenge to constantly do good. So when you do good it makes your heart feel good and then in turn makes you happy.

Knowledge

I don't know, after our discussion in class I just cannot fathom the idea of people trying to answer these questions that can be deemed as unanswerable. The questions "Why do we exist?" "Where do we come from?" Are there people out there who dedicate their life to this and actually try to find the answer? The answer I believe is that people are necessarily going to believe what they believe. They may not want to expand on the "lower knowledge" they have to gain "higher knowledge" that is spoken about in Chapter 6. Can we actually generalize knowledge? Can we actually give one basic definition to knowledge? How do we actually measure knowledge? These are questions I have been wondering about because of the class we had on Monday. I do think it is wrong (maybe ignorant) to pretend you know the answer to something, when you have no clue about the subject at all.
Another thing that was brought up in class, evil is a result of ignorance. I don't know how I feel about that. I mean I understand that this could be the case, but it isn't all the time. Some people just have no conscience. They know what they are doing is morally wrong, however they just do it because it makes them feel better about themselves. They aren't ignorant so to speak, they are just evil and don't care. Some people do say to themselves hey I do know this is wrong but I don't care, I wouldn't call them ignorant. I would just say that they just don't have any self control and are slaves to their own selfish manner.

Just vs Injust.

I think we have all had an experience in which someone who is a malicious liar/thief gets ahead in life. We have seen them become such a popular person, because they hide who they really are around people. The person who always seem to do wrong things , always gets what they want out of life while the person who is living life in a just way gets nothing. It seems as if though life is easy when you are a two-faced backstabbing creep. However, you follow the rules and live your life helping people and you just seemed to get stepped on all the time. That same person who is getting ahead in life only looks out for themselves, not caring for the welfare of others yet people seem to love him/her. I never got this. I have seen it happen in my life over and over again, but then I realize I can sleep at night. The unjust person who is having life handed to him on a silver platter isn't happy inside. He is miserable, he needs to have people around him because the instant he is alone, he is reminded of his guilt and it starts to eat at him.
On page 49 it states, "Socrates develops his argument to the place where he concludes that the just person reaches the apex of human happiness, whereas the unjust person, exemplified in the tyrant, sinks to nadir of misery, using mock arithmetic, he concludes that the just person is 729 times happier than the unjust person." Even though the just person has to fight battles in order to get through life , and life comes hard to them, they have no guilt of being unjust which makes them not tormented like the unjust person. The just person is satisfied with themselves, the unjust person looks for way to expiate the guilt that he feels. Though things may be hard for the just person they are happier because they have a just soul and having a just soul and doing right in the eyes of God is the key thing in life.

Truth?? Individuality??

Reading chapter 2 the topic of truth came up on page 31. "What seems true to me is true. What seems true to you, though it contradicts what I believe , is true relative to you. One person's experience of the color green, cannot be had by another....assent to the proposition that nothing green can be read." I do believe in this statement. I understand that everyone has their own form of the truth. If 20 people see a fight, no one is wrong and no one is right. The statement is basically saying that everyone has their own opinion. In my eyes the way the truth is determined is if the story is as close to what really happened as possible. For example, if there was a fight between two people and someone added a third party that clearly wasn't in the fight then their spin on the story is further away from the truth than those who didn't add the third party. I believe that people try to get as many versions of what happened so they can get a story that is as close to the truth as possible. It is hard to find the absolute truth, because it is easy to exaggerate on events. It is normal when telling what happened in a situation, to either add or omit details , which with each addition or omission takes us further from the truth. Everyone has their own truth and no one can say that they are wrong. It's hard to tolerate differences in truth, because everyone wants to be right but that can not be the case. I guess that's what this class is all about, searching for the truth, but as stated on page 31 there is no one truth besides the one each individual holds (and the one God holds).
On that same page it goes on to say that sensations are private/ thought is public. Everyone has their own reaction to something because they have had their own experience. No one shares experience/ however when it comes to thought we cannot deny that the essence of the situation or object is the same to everyone. The book uses the example of the color green. Everyone has there own separate experience or feeling about it, but no one can say that the color green is really red. Every one has there own experience/ feeling about water, but even though that is true everyone knows that the water isn't fire.
Then lastly the chapter touches on that every group has their own custom and what may seem fitting in one culture seems degrading and disgusting to another. I have a Korean friend who said that in Korea there is a dish that includes dog meat. The rest of my friends twisted up their faces, because it seemed despicable when compared to their culture. This page in this chapter, touches upon the individuality of man. That men are separate from each other and have their own goals, virtues in life.

The Logos.

The topic in class yesterday was an interesting one to me. We spoke about many topics, but the one that caught my attention was the one that mentioned God and how are we closer to Him through logos. Language I feel was created by God, given the story of the tower of Babel. When they said that God is Logos I feel that they mean God is able to understand all languages, including non-verbal language. The only Logos that does bring us closer to God is when it is paired with sincerity/ when it is from the heart. When people speak to Him he doesn't only look at the lips but he looks at the heart and how sincere it is. Anyone could easily say , "I love God." A non-believe could just say it because they feel like saying it. The only way we get closer to God through Logos is if sincerity is paired with it.
Another thing that got my attention was the talk of free will. Yes God did give us free will, but just because we exercise it doesn't mean we are going to heaven. God gives us the bible, and it is up to us whether or not we follow it, its not like if you curse Him (in this day and age) you will drop dead. It's your choice whether you believe or not. In the beginning we never did have the power to choose. When He made Adam and Eve (before the fruit was eaten)evil wasn't known. However, since they did eat the fruit that was when free will was born. That's when the knowledge of good and evil was known. Based on our choices now, i what we are going to be judged by God for later. These are just my thoughts on things discussed in class. I am not forcing these thoughts on anyone. It is just my response.

Love

Love? Is it impossible for people to love everyone? If we alter the way we think or act, can we achieve love for everyone? It is said that the views Jesus had were radical and that some of the things in the bible aren't to be taken literal. My view on this is that His words weren't radical, it is words to live by for a better world.
Do we not achieve love for everyone because we just give into our nature, we don't try to fight it we just accept right there and then that we don't like a certain person. What if we looked passed the differences and accepted people and their opinions? Is it possible to truly love everyone? I am not talking about the love that we share with a spouse or a mother, but I am taking about the love that goes hand in hand with acceptance and respect.
Another thing that was brought up in class on Tuesday was the question how do we know which denomination is the right one. This has been my problem for a while. How do I know which one is the right one since there is so many? In my opinion I feel like a person should read the bible for themselves and see what they understand from that. You pray for understanding of it and what you retain from reading the bible, you try to follow. These are interesting things to think about.

Enslavement by Desire (Chapter 6)

There are various points that struck me in reading chapter 6. Many things I agree with and others I don't quite understand.

I do think that we are all slaves to our desires. We are people who yearn for instant gratification. Instant gratification is the need to fulfill our wants and needs instantly, just like a baby who cries because they are hungry and the ,other rushes to feed them. Is it that hard to learn delayed gratification? Is it hard not to be enslaved by our yearnings or our wants? In my opinion that is why we have so many problems in the world, because we want to continually satisfy our desires and we will do anything , even if it means hurting others in the process. The cycle is never broken because many cannot control their lusts/desires. They let their desires run their lives. We suffer by our own means, we suffer because we haven't taught ourselves the art of delayed gratification; and within our suffering we do project the frustration on others causing arguments, violence, war. The only way we can reach peace is if we give up our material possessions and stop giving into our desires, but can people do that? That cellphone we just bought? The i pod? our prized collection?One of my favorite quotes from Chapter 6 is , "We find ourself driven by desire, cravings which are never really satisfied, for many desires are never met , leaving us frustrated, or if they are satisfied, the satisfaction is ephemeral. As soon as one desire is met, a new desire takes its place." So does this mean that humans cannot break this on going cycle? Are we forever enslaved to our desires?
Another thing that really caught my attention in this chapter is the quote that says "The most amazing thing is that although everyone sees his parents dying, and everyhting around him dying , still we live as though we will live forever." Why is that? Why do humans see so much death, yet they feel as though they are invincible? Again giving into their desires, they buy thosands of dollars worth of clothes, buy the most extravagant car , and the biggest house thinking that they are going to live forever but they aren't.
I heard a story once : There was once a poor guy who lived in a poor village. Every day he promised that if he had money he would buy food , and help everyone. One day he received money from a rich family member who died a became the richest man in the village. He then decided to buy out all the land leaving those who he promised to help homeless. Then he bought many cattle and sheep, and as soon as he finished buying everything he dropped dead. He gave into his material possessions, not keeping his promise of sharing his wealth and he died not able to enjoy his possessions." I think if people actually accepted the inevitability of death, they would rely less on material possessions and more on trying to live their lives. Its not hard to view deaths inevitability, because death happens everyday, so why would one think they are special as to not think that death would come to them?

Examaning

OK, so in class yesterday, there was much talk about the statement "The unexamined life is a life not worth living." I must say that I think that is an extreme statement. People have a choice as to whether they not to ask themselves the questions we are deliberating about in class. There was the example of Hitler, Did he examine his life? we don't know, even if he did that has nothing to do with his actions. Men aren't fully aware of themselves and no "examining of ones self" is going to make them aware of their wrongs. In Hitlers eyes he was doing something good, he didn't think taking the life of millions of Jews was evil, he thougt he was helping Germany out. No matter what people are going to choose whether or not they want to think about themselves and where they are going. There are going to be those people who ask, "Where did I come from? What purpose am I going to serve? Then there are going to be those who just don't care and choose to live their life not evaluating themselves, it doesn't make them any less of a person if they don't choose to think about these questions. I had more thoughts, but given the time that passed between this moment and class, most of them are lost. If I remember I will definitely blog again.

Two Things....

I found Chapter 1 very intriguing. While reading it, however, I stumbled upon a sentence that just confused me. On pg 6 it states, " God seems almost to be jealous of the fact that humans....should become more like Him in knowing good and evil." God wasn't jealous at all. He just didn't want what eventually happened o happen. He wanted us all to live in a sinless would, without war (like there is now), without killing, (like there is now), and without any type of sin ( like there is now). What just bothered me was the word that was used, "Jealous." God did say that He was a Jealous God, but only in the terms that he is jealous for our love. He wasn't jealous that Adam and Eve would become wiser, he was just worried that His plan for us, his plan for us to love, his plan for us to stay in peace would be interrupted with greater knowledge of good and evil.
Reading through the whole chapter, I must say that I enjoyed everything else, especially the part where a moral person is defined (pg 23). A moral person is a person who does things just because, without looking for any gain or recognition. Morality lies within doing something positive/ helping out because you know its right deep down without any hidden agenda. The best form of morality, in my eyes anyway, is doing things anonymously and not letting anyone know it was you, and making that want for recognition die inside you. Morality is knowing that you are a good person w/o anyone telling you, and there is no need for the satisfaction of ones ego.
~~These are the thoughts that crossed my mind~~

Destiny

In class today, the topic of destiny was one of the first topics we talked about. It did get me thinking back to when I studied existentialism in High School. I had a teacher who said our destiny was to reproduce and then die. I personally think (thinking from a Christian point of view), that God creates us for a purpose. He knows exactly why we are put on this earth, and once we fulfill that purpose we go back to Him.
Looking at it from a non-religious view I still think that we all do have a purpose, but asking the questions why are we here and what is our purpose is getting in the way of us living our destiny. I think life is precious, and every moment of it that we lose is a moment we can never get back. If we sit wondering things like this isn't our lives passing us by? Aren't we losing time that we can never gain back? Once we answer the question who are we? and where did we come from? aren't there just going to be more and more questions causing a never ending cycle of questions? Why not just live??