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?