W 21/Th 22. Wittgestein, Arendt, Popper & Kuhn, Foot & Thomson-LH 34-37, FL 27-28, HWT- Concluding Thoughts
- Was Wittgenstein's main message in the Tractatus correct? 203
- What are some of the "language games" you play? (What are some different things you use language for?) 204
- Can there be a "private language"? 206
- "Eichmann wasn't responsible..." 208 Agree?
- Are unthinking people as dangerous as evil sadists? 211
- Is "the banality of evil" an apt phrase for our time? 212
- Was Popper right about falsifiability? 218
- Was Kuhn right about paradigms? 220
- How would you respond it you woke up with a violinist plugged into your kidneys? Is this a good analogy for unwanted or unintended pregnancy? 226
FL
- Pro wrestling is obviously staged. Why is it so popular?
- What do Burning Man attendees and other adults who like to play dress-up tell us about the state of adulthood in contemporary America? 245
- What do you think of Fantasy sports? 248
- Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure? 250
- Is pornography "normal"? 251
- Is globalism and the decline or amalgamation of national traditions in philosophy and culture a good thing? 320
- Is metaphysical agnosticism and "way-seeking" better than standard western "truth-seeking"? Must we choose between them? 324
- Is "nature as much in silicon and steel as it is in sand and sea"? 326
- Is Pragmatism's "emphasis on what works" better suited to America than more traditional philosophies that assert truth-as-correspondence to reality etc.? 331
- Is philosophy continuous with literature and poetry, or should it be? 334
- If there cannot be a view from nowhere, can there still be views from everywhere? 338
DQ
- Should we be silent about things we can't prove? Should philosophy concern itself with more than understanding the logic of language?
- Do you use language as a pictorial medium, a tool for managing social relationships and expressing our thoughts and feelings, or what?
- Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?
- If the government attempted to round up, detain, and deport millions of Latinos and Muslims, how would you respond
- Is "the banality of evil" relevant to our time?
- [DQs on Popper & Kuhn, Foot & Thomson, FL, AP]
thinkPhilosophy (@tPhilosophia) | |
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" - Wittgenstein's *Tractatus*: ow.ly/ClvRr #phil |
thinkPhilosophy (@tPhilosophia) | |
Wittgenstein on problems translating language, computer science, and artificial intelligence. slate.com/articles/life/… |
Ray Monk (@Raymodraco) | |
The video of my Turing/Wittgenstein lecture has now been posted & can be found here: britishwittgensteinsociety. |
Philosophy Matters (@PhilosophyMttrs) | |
Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad ... buff.ly/2IpZf10 |
- April 26 is the birthday of the man who said, “Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open”: Ludwig Wittgenstein (books by this author), born in Vienna in 1889. He was described by his colleague Bertrand Russell as “the most perfect example I have known of genius as traditionally conceived: passionate, profound, intense, and dominating.” He was the youngest of nine children; three of his brothers committed suicide.
Wittgenstein was born into one of the richest families in Austro-Hungary, but he later gave away his inheritance to his siblings, and also to an assortment of Austrian writers and artists, including Rainer Maria Rilke. He once said that the study of philosophy rescued him from nine years of loneliness and wanting to die, yet he tried to leave philosophy several times and pursue another line of work, including serving in the army during World War I, working as a porter at a London hospital, and teaching elementary school. He also considered careers in psychiatry and architecture — going so far as to design and build a house for his sister, which she never liked very much
Wittgenstein was particularly interested in language. He wrote: “The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.” And, “Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination.” -Writer's Almanac
- “The world is everything that is the case.”
- “Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.”
- “I give no sources, because it is indifferent to me whether what I have thought has already been thought before me by another.”
- “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
- “A nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said.”
- “A logical picture of facts is a thought.”
- “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.”
- What do we see when we observe the above figure? What we see in the above figure, of course, is dependent upon that with which we are familiar. Those who are not acquainted with the shape and form of a rabbit but are with that of a duck will see only a duck--and vice versa... When we normally speak of seeing in our everyday language-game, we are not inclined to say, "I see the picture as a duck," but rather we simply say, "I see a duck."
- “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”
- “If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.”
- “Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.”
- “I give no sources, because it is indifferent to me whether what I have thought has already been thought before me by another.”
- “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
- “A nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said.”
==
- “The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
- “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.”
- “The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
- It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us-the lesson of the fearsome word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.”
New Republic (@NewRepublic) | |
Hannah Arendt's writings warn us that danger comes when people no longer care if something is true or not. bit.ly/2pieugo pic.twitter.com/j8Io2VanwA |
==
M 19/T 20. Russell, Ayer, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus-LH 31-33, FL 25-26, HWT 24-26 (Transience, Impartiality).LH
- Reading Mill's autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God. Do you agree or disagree with his reasoning? Why? 185
I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day at the age of eighteen I read _____'s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. Why I Am Not a Christian
- Should it bother us that logical paradoxes that seem to be true AND false can be formulated in grammatically correct statements? Does this show something important about the limits of language, thought, and (thus) philosophy? 186
- Were young A.J. Ayer and the Positivists on the right track with their Verification Principle? Or was the older, post-Near Death Experience Ayer wiser about beliefs that cannot be conclusively verified? 190, 194
- Do you agree with Sartre that humans, unlike inanimate objects such as inkwells, don't have an essential nature? Is our common biology, DNA etc. not essential to our species identity? 197
- If you become deeply involved in your work (or seem to, like Sartre's Waiter) are you in "bad faith"? 198
- What do you think of Sartre's advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? 199
- Do you agree with Simone de Beauvoir about accepting a gender identity based on men's judgments? 200
- Is life a Sisyphean struggle? Is it "absurd"? Do you agree with Camus that Sisyphus must be happy? Why or why not? 201
FL
- Do you see any parallels between 1962 (as reflected in the SDS Manifesto, for instance) and today? 212
- What's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America? 218
- Do you think of The Force (in Star Wars) as a "spiritual fantasy" or does it name something you consider real? 222
- Was the sudden and widespread availability of contraception (The Pill) in the '60s a positive development, all things considered? 230
- Is the fantasy of perpetual youth an infantilizing force in America? 233 (Compare with our next read, Why Grow Up)
- Are we becoming "fake humans"? 234
HWT
- What do you think of the Japanese sensitivity to nature and the seasons? 293
- What do you think of Shinto's "no clear-cut separation between the aesthetic, the moral, and the religious"? 294
- What do you think it means to think without concepts? 295
- Do you agree with what "the enlightened [Buddhist] declares"? 296
- Is time more a feeling than a concept? 296 What would Kant say?
- What do you think of Hume's "is/ought gap"? 297
- What can tea teach us? 299
- What is wabi-sabi? 300
- Was Kravinsky crazy? 301 How about Peter Singer? 302
- Should we consider the welfare of distant strangers as much as of kith and kin? 303
- Are Mozi and Mill saying the same thing? 304
- Kant's categorical imperative, again: any comment? 309
- Do you like Rawls' veil of ignorance idea? 309
- Do you agree with the key principles of the Enlightenment? 310
- Is Owen Flanagan right about "no sensible person"? 312
- Is the mixing desk a good metaphor for moral pluralism? Do you agree that it's not the same as laissez-faire relativism? 314-15
"What was Jean-Paul like?"
-"He didn't join in the fun much. Just sat there thinking..."
- “Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female — whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.”
- “Fathers never have exactly the daughters they want because they invent a notion a them that the daughters have to conform to.”
- “Why one man rather than another? It was odd. You find yourself involved with a fellow for life just because he was the one that you met when you were nineteen.”
- “Self-consciousness is not knowledge but a story one tells about oneself.”
Albert Camus gave us the Existential version of Sisyphus, and the “fundamental question of philosophy”:
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer.”
thinkPhilosophy (@tPhilosophia) | |
Jean-Paul Sartre: more relevant now than ever | Books | The Guardian: theguardian.com/books/2014/ |
DQ:
1. Have you ever read a book that changed your mind about something important to you? What would you say to Bertrand Russell and J.S. Mill about the First Cause Argument?
2. Are linguistic paradoxes a philosophical problem, or just an amusing quirk of language?
3. Can you give an example of an unverifiable statement that you consider meaningful?
4. What's your "essence" or specific human nature? Did you construct it, or were you born into it? Can your essence change?
5. What does it mean to say that women are made, not born? Do you have particular ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman? Where did those ideas come from? Are there any professions or occupations you think no women or men should enter?
6. Are there any Sisyphean aspects to your daily life? Do they make you unhappy? Do you imagine you'll someday escape them? How?
thinkPhilosophy (@tPhilosophia) | |
"Why Life Is Absurd" Essay that won an Immortality Project Award - NYTimes.com opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/ |
An old post-
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Oxbridge superstars Bertrand Russell (Cambridge) and A.J. Ayer (Oxford) are the classic 20th century British philosophers on tap in CoPhi today (Russell was actually born in the 1870s and made it to nearly the century mark). We'll squeeze in another Cambridge don, Frank Ramsey, if time allows.
That's a small philosophy pun, PB's Ramsey expert Hugh Mellor is also an expert on time. And it's in marginally bad taste too, given that poor Ramsey's un-Russellian time was tragically short: he lived only to age 26. But as Mellor says, he accomplished far more than most philosophers manage in that fraction of a lifetime, including the "redundancy" theory of truth that (ironically, paradoxically!) implies the gratuity of theories of truth without disavowing truth's centrality to philosophy.
Hugh Mellor on time (he says relax, it’s not tensed”).... Russell @dawn... Russell... Ayer... Logicomix]
So much has been said about Russell, and by him. The truth question was pretty cut-and-dried, he thought, like religion and the pragmatic approach in general.
- There isn’t a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. If it’s true you should believe it, if it isn’t you shouldn't… it’s dishonesty and intellectual treachery to hold a belief because you think it’s useful and not because you think it’s true.
- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.
- And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.
- Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.
- Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? [Why I Am Not a Christian... More Russell]
Clearly, "for Russell there was no chance of God stepping in to save humanity." The concept of an Afterlife is, to anticipate the over-zealotry of A.J. Ayer's indiscriminate philosophical wrecking ball, "nonsense." We must save ourselves. (As Carl Sagan would later say, there's no sign of help coming from anywhere "out there" to rescue us.)
Russell said family friend and "godfather" J.S. Mill provided a satisfactory answer to his own early childhood query, posed by so many of us: "What caused God?" If anything in the universe can exist without a cause, why can't the universe itself?
Having settled the question of God to his own satisfaction, he turned full attention to the philosophy of logic and mathematics, to paradox, to set theory, and other conceptual conundra. If something is false when it's true ("This sentence is false" etc.), then it's back to the drawing board for the logicians. It's not even a close shave. (Yes, that's another marginal philosophy pun- this time alluding to Russell's paradox of the barber who shaves only those who shave themselves.) As for the extent of my own interest in set theory and its ilk, I think young Ramsey said it best: "Suppose a contradiction were to be found in the axioms of set theory. Do you seriously believe that a bridge would fall down?" No I do not.
"How can we talk meaningfully about non-existent things?" That's never really hung me up, nor anyone who appreciates good literature. Either young Russell was not a big reader of fiction, or maybe he thought he had to justify his reading. I'm glad he cared about "the present king of France," but I frankly could care less.
A.J. (“Freddie”) Ayer, with his Verification Principle, loved to detect and discredit nonsense. Good for him, we're choking on it. But he went too far. "Metaphysics" (not to mention "ethics" and "religion") may have been a dirty word, for him, but there's far more sense on earth (let alone in heaven, if a heaven there be) than was dreamt of in his Logical Positivism.
Ayer, by the way, apparently had a Near Death Experience of his own, in his old age. Interesting, in light of his youthful philosophy as exposited in Language, Truth, and Logic, "in every sense" (he admitted while still a relatively young man) "a young man's book, "according to which unverifiable statements are meaningless nonsense.
Old Ayer claimed his premature dalliance with death in no way impinged on his atheism. But an acquaintance reported that “He became so much nicer after he died… not nearly so boastful. He took an interest in other people.” But again, Freddie denied that the experience made him “religious.” [continues here]
- …a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express — that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false.
- “Stealing money is wrong” has no factual meaning — that is, expresses no proposition which can be either true or false. It is as if I had written “Stealing money!!
- No moral system can rest solely on authority. [Or as Russell said: nothing externally imposed can be of any value.]
- There is philosophy, which is about conceptual analysis — about the meaning of what we say — and there is all of this … all of life.
And with that last insight the former Wykeham Professor of Logic may at last have hit on a profound truth far beyond formal language and pedantic logic. Ayer's greatest moment, for my money:
One of the last of the many legendary contests won by the British philosopher A. J. Ayer was his encounter with Mike Tyson in 1987... Ayer -- small, frail, slight as a sparrow and then 77 years old -- was entertaining a group of models at a New York party when a girl ran in screaming that her friend was being assaulted in a bedroom. The parties involved turned out to be Tyson and Naomi Campbell. ''Do you know who [the bleep] I am?'' Tyson asked in disbelief when Ayer urged him to desist: ''I'm the heavyweight champion of the world.'' ''And I am the former Wykeham professor of logic,'' Ayer answered politely. ''We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men.'' nyt He might have been inviting another NDE, right then and there! [Ayer’s "Language, Truth & Logic." archive.org/details/Alfred…]
Every moment of life, especially during the Occupation, was an NDE for the French existentialists, Sartre (& Mary Warnock on Sartre), de Beauvoir, and Camus.
Jean-Paul Sartre, his companion Simone de Beauvoir, and their cohort Albert Camus were Resistance fighters as well as French intellectuals. "Paris needed a philosophy that would give to individuals a belief in themselves and their own powers," says Lady W., and that's what JPS and his cohort tried to give them. That’s important to remember, when considering the extremity of some of their statements. They were up against the wall, with Nazis in the parlor. And they’re on tap today in CoPhi.
[Sartre, Camus @dawn... roads to freedom... deB SEP,IEP... "Stand By Your Man: The strange liaison of Sartre and Beauvoir...trees and bridges... Sartre's cat]
Warnock seems to find some of Sartre's terms and concepts puzzling: existence precedes essence, "whatever that means!" But I always thought this was one of Sartre's clearer statements: "if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it." And we are it.
What did Sartre mean by "freedom"? Inquiring minds want to know how any of us can be really free, when we still have payments to make on the fridge. Well, that's the crux of Sartre's "Roads to Freedom." Isn't it, Mrs. P? -"We'll ask him."
"What was Jean-Paul like?"
-"He didn't join in the fun much. Just sat there thinking..."
[Breaking: guess who's getting back together?!] Got back together...
Some more extreme Gallic/Existential statements:
- “So this is hell. I’d never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the “burning marl.” Old wives’ tales!There’s no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS–OTHER PEOPLE!”
- “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. “Life has no meaning a priori … It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.”
- “Life has no meaning, the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal.”
- “Words are loaded pistols.”
- “Life begins on the other side of despair.”
- “Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being – like a worm.”
- “There is no love apart from the deeds of love; no potentiality of love other than that which is manifested in loving; there is no genius other than that which is expressed in works of art.”
- “An individual chooses and makes himself.”
- “If I became a philosopher, if I have so keenly sought this fame for which I’m still waiting, it’s all been to seduce women basically.”
- “It is disgusting — Why must we have bodies?”
- “I carry the weight of the world by myself alone without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant.”
- “Life is a useless passion.”
- “There is only one day left, always starting over: It is given to us at dawn and taken away from us at dusk.”
And so it goes. Picture him dropping his verbal cluster-bombs in a dingy Parisian cafe, ringed by his own unfiltered smoke and an adoring cultish audience, all wondering if he and his confreres would live to fight another day. “Useless passion”? Generations of Sartre’s politically (if not metaphysically) free French successors might disagree. But removed from that context, I find these weaponish words hard to love. At least the guy who said hell is other people liked cats.
- “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”
- “She was ready to deny the existence of space and time rather than admit that love might not be eternal.”
- “A man attaches himself to woman — not to enjoy her, but to enjoy himself. ”
- “If you live long enough, you’ll see that every victory turns into a defeat.”
- “I am incapable of conceiving infinity and yet I do not accept finity.”
- “Few tasks are more like the torture of Sisyphus than housework, with its endless repetition: the clean becomes soiled, the soiled is made clean, over and over, day after day.”
- “I am awfully greedy; I want everything from life. I want to be a woman and to be a man, to have many friends and to have loneliness, to work much and write good books, to travel and enjoy myself, to be selfish and to be unselfish… You see, it is difficult to get all which I want. And then when I do not succeed I get mad with anger.”
- “Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female — whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.”
- “Fathers never have exactly the daughters they want because they invent a notion a them that the daughters have to conform to.”
- “Why one man rather than another? It was odd. You find yourself involved with a fellow for life just because he was the one that you met when you were nineteen.”
- “Self-consciousness is not knowledge but a story one tells about oneself.”
Some stories ring truer than others though, no? De Beauvoir rings truer than Sartre, most of the time, for me. And Albert Camus with his Sisyphean view of life offers the starkest challenge when he says the ultimate question in philosophy is that of suicide. “Should I kill myself, or have a cup of coffee?” More coffee! It makes me happy, and it’s the braver choice. But no room for cream, please.
Camus also said
- “You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”
- “There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for.”
- “I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist.”
- “Always go too far, because that’s where you’ll find the truth.”
- “Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present.”
Albert Camus gave us the Existential version of Sisyphus, and the “fundamental question of philosophy”:
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer.”
OK, got it. My answer is yes, of course life is worth living. Living’s not always easy, but there’s usually something to show for your hard work. It can be a source of happiness. (And what does Sisyphus do after hours?)
The next question, having consented to live, is how. Politics is supposed to help with that. But in this perpetual season of political discontent, when the polls say all politicians and parties are uniformly scorned by the populace, there have been moments when many of us have wondered if it’s all worth it. Camus felt the same.
“Every time I hear a political speech or I read those of our leaders, I am horrified at having, for years, heard nothing which sounded human. It is always the same words telling the same lies. And the fact that men accept this, that the people’s anger has not destroyed these hollow clowns, strikes me as proof that men attribute no importance to the way they are governed; that they gamble – yes, gamble – with a whole part of their life and their so called ‘vital interests.”
Politics was supposed to be all about freeing the people to pursue happiness, Mr. Jefferson said. If it’s hard to imagine Sisyphus happy, it may be harder to expect that from our politics these days. But we must keep on pushing.
Theists of all kinds have very largely failed to make their concept of a deity intelligible; and to the extent that they have made it intelligible, they have given us no reason to think that anything answers to it.
The existence of a being having the attributes which define the god of any non-animistic religion cannot be demonstratively proved... [A]ll utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical.
[Much later in life, Ayer had a Near Death Experience and wrote about it in an essay he titled "What I Saw When I Was Dead"...]
My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no God.
[A few days later he added:] What I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief."
[His wife said] "Freddie became so much nicer after he died… not nearly so boastful. He took an interest in other people."
There is philosophy, which is about conceptual analysis — about the meaning of what we say — and there is all of this … all of life.
[Near death, explained]
Not long before his NDE, Ayer had an improbable run-in with prizefighter Mike Tyson. Ayer -- small, frail, slight as a sparrow and then 77 years old -- was entertaining a group of models at a New York party when a girl ran in screaming that her friend was being assaulted in a bedroom. The parties involved turned out to be Tyson and Naomi Campbell.
''Do you know who [the bleep] I am?'' Tyson asked in disbelief when Ayer urged him to desist: ''I'm the heavyweight champion of the world.'' ''And I am the former Wykeham professor of logic,'' Ayer answered politely. ''We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men.''
"If God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it."
So this is hell. I’d never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the “burning marl.” Old wives’ tales!There’s no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS–OTHER PEOPLE!
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. “Life has no meaning a priori … It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.
Life has no meaning, the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal.
Words are loaded pistols.
Life begins on the other side of despair.
Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being – like a worm.
There is no love apart from the deeds of love; no potentiality of love other than that which is manifested in loving; there is no genius other than that which is expressed in works of art.
An individual chooses and makes himself.
If I became a philosopher, if I have so keenly sought this fame for which I’m still waiting, it’s all been to seduce women basically.
It is disgusting — Why must we have bodies?
I carry the weight of the world by myself alone without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant.
Life is a useless passion.
There is only one day left, always starting over: It is given to us at dawn and taken away from us at dusk.
Should I kill myself, or have a cup of coffee?
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer.
You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.
There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for.
I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist. [Sounds like (Groucho) Marxism again...]
Always go too far, because that’s where you’ll find the truth.
Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present.
The existence of a being having the attributes which define the god of any non-animistic religion cannot be demonstratively proved... [A]ll utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical.
[Much later in life, Ayer had a Near Death Experience and wrote about it in an essay he titled "What I Saw When I Was Dead"...]
My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no God.
[A few days later he added:] What I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief."
[His wife said] "Freddie became so much nicer after he died… not nearly so boastful. He took an interest in other people."
There is philosophy, which is about conceptual analysis — about the meaning of what we say — and there is all of this … all of life.
[Near death, explained]
Not long before his NDE, Ayer had an improbable run-in with prizefighter Mike Tyson. Ayer -- small, frail, slight as a sparrow and then 77 years old -- was entertaining a group of models at a New York party when a girl ran in screaming that her friend was being assaulted in a bedroom. The parties involved turned out to be Tyson and Naomi Campbell.
''Do you know who [the bleep] I am?'' Tyson asked in disbelief when Ayer urged him to desist: ''I'm the heavyweight champion of the world.'' ''And I am the former Wykeham professor of logic,'' Ayer answered politely. ''We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men.''
"If God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it."
So this is hell. I’d never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the “burning marl.” Old wives’ tales!There’s no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS–OTHER PEOPLE!
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. “Life has no meaning a priori … It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.
Life has no meaning, the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal.
Words are loaded pistols.
Life begins on the other side of despair.
Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being – like a worm.
There is no love apart from the deeds of love; no potentiality of love other than that which is manifested in loving; there is no genius other than that which is expressed in works of art.
An individual chooses and makes himself.
If I became a philosopher, if I have so keenly sought this fame for which I’m still waiting, it’s all been to seduce women basically.
It is disgusting — Why must we have bodies?
I carry the weight of the world by myself alone without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant.
Life is a useless passion.
There is only one day left, always starting over: It is given to us at dawn and taken away from us at dusk.
de Beauvoir:
One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.
Fathers never have exactly the daughters they want because they invent a notion a them that the daughters have to conform to.
Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female — whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.
She was ready to deny the existence of space and time rather than admit that love might not be eternal.
A man attaches himself to woman — not to enjoy her, but to enjoy himself.
If you live long enough, you’ll see that every victory turns into a defeat.
I am incapable of conceiving infinity and yet I do not accept finity.
I am awfully greedy; I want everything from life. I want to be a woman and to be a man, to have many friends and to have loneliness, to work much and write good books, to travel and enjoy myself, to be selfish and to be unselfish… You see, it is difficult to get all which I want. And then when I do not succeed I get mad with anger.
Self-consciousness is not knowledge but a story one tells about oneself.
Why one man rather than another? It was odd. You find yourself involved with a fellow for life just because he was the one that you met when you were nineteen.
One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.
Fathers never have exactly the daughters they want because they invent a notion a them that the daughters have to conform to.
Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female — whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.
She was ready to deny the existence of space and time rather than admit that love might not be eternal.
A man attaches himself to woman — not to enjoy her, but to enjoy himself.
If you live long enough, you’ll see that every victory turns into a defeat.
I am incapable of conceiving infinity and yet I do not accept finity.
I am awfully greedy; I want everything from life. I want to be a woman and to be a man, to have many friends and to have loneliness, to work much and write good books, to travel and enjoy myself, to be selfish and to be unselfish… You see, it is difficult to get all which I want. And then when I do not succeed I get mad with anger.
Self-consciousness is not knowledge but a story one tells about oneself.
Few tasks are more like the torture of Sisyphus than housework, with its endless repetition: the clean becomes soiled, the soiled is made clean, over and over, day after day.
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer.
You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.
There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for.
I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist. [Sounds like (Groucho) Marxism again...]
Always go too far, because that’s where you’ll find the truth.
Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present.
What's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America?
ReplyDeleteI believe they have a corrupted sense of what it is to be “tough” or “manly", as I would lump them into the same category as those who drive overly large trucks: they do it because it makes them feel strong. There’s nothing wrong with owning something like a handgun or a .22 rifle, especially if that person lives in a dangerous area, however unless someone is living in Somalia or Columbia there is no excuse to own these giant AR-15s. Hunting isn’t an excuse as no one hunts with an AR-15, “defending themselves against the government” is no excuse because a military drone strike could wipe out a militia of rednecks in seconds, target shooting is no excuse because someone’s hobby does not take priority over a child’s right not to die, and the second ammendment is no excuse for the same reason that AR-15 owners could not fight against the government like they did in 1776: the technology gap has become massive. America should do exactly what Australia did, a mandatory buyback program. The government will pay for any firearm that fires over 6 shots, everyone is compensated and the country is made safer for everyone. Some will regurgitate the same tired argument of: “well then criminals would be the only ones with guns because they don’t follow the law", however this rubbish simply doesn’t qualify as an argument as with that logic drinking and driving should be legal solely because some people still do it. If something is made illegal it makes it more difficult for criminals to do, it doesn’t act as an instant fix but it at least does something. Guns simply won’t last forever if gun manufacturers stop making them for public consumption, and I believe that we owe it to the next generation to do all we can to ensure their safety considering my generation grew up in the height of school shootings due to the complacency of the previous.
I think your answer is so smart. I wrote my essay on the same topic and I'm so glad you brought up Australia's mandatory buyback program. I think that would be so good for this country, but I cannot imagine the hate it would receive. People can be so stubborn that they ignore what is the safest for themselves and their children because they want to stick to their wild theories.
Delete10/20/20
DeleteWeekly Essay (+3 points) (this is also a comment/response to Matthew's post but I will make another two comments on other posts just in case). Part 1 of 2.
I heavily disagree with this viewpoint but I appreciate the way you presented out your argument in an organized and concise manner. I don't believe that gun owners have a corrupted sense of being tough or manly. Gun owners instead take the responsibility for their own personal protection as well as the protection of others (you as the individual are the front line of defense). Gun owners are often people who are unable to effectively defend themselves and who are vulnerable to be victimized (these groups include women, African Americans, disabled, and the elderly). Although. I do not prefer to make arguments from the basis of ones experience (population data is much more accurate), I have heard the stories of many people who have been victimized by violent offenders (robbers,murderers,and rapists) and forced in a position where they are unable to call for help or do anything about it. Personally (since I am studying forensics and criminal investigations), I watch a lot of shooting breakdowns and violent interactions and have seen the amazing work done by individuals who are armed and ready to put a stop a violent interaction. Hunting, taking up arms against a corrupt government, target shooting, and the freedom to bear arms as provided by the 2nd Amendment of the constitution are not "excuses" by any means but instead fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom as is the foundation of this country.
Weekly Essay Part 2 of 2:
DeleteI do agree that gun violence in the United States is a problem to be analyzed and carefully dealt with but we may disagree on the solution to that. My belief is that the solution to gun violence consists of the following components: 1. Education, 2. Responsibility, and 3. Cultural integration. I believe that people are generally uneducated with regards to firearms, self defense, and responsibility and that slow and steady integration of education on these topics will make people more vigilant and safe (check out Sheepdog Response by former Special Forces Green Beret and UFC fighter, Tim Kennedy). People with such real world experience truly understand that the evil in the world that exists and take responsibility rather than being complacent sheep (they instead choose to be sheepdogs who defend those who cannot defend themselves from the predators that lurk around). The honorable men and women who serve our country fight hard to defend our freedoms of speech, freedoms of religion, and our freedoms to bear arms. With regards to the point about school shootings, I have to say that is a very complex topic with many spinning wheels at play. It is very difficult to isolate all non-related factors and identify the factors that lead to an increase of school shootings. Personally, I like to correlate the increase in school shooting with the gradual decrease in serial killers throughout the years (note, however, that correlation does not equal causation and I very well may be mistaken). Law enforcement, science, and technology have rapidly advanced, rapidly diminishing the ability of evil people to get away with a series of murders over time. Now bear with me, I am bringing in another factor into this reasoning, which is the internet (aka social media). Social media has negatively impacted societies in many ways and has made us insecure, angry, unheard, and hungry for attention. I believe that there may be a link between the reduction of serial killers and the negative impacts of social media, with school shootings. Those people who commit those atrocities want to be heard, want to make a statement, and want to cause chaos. Although the Modus operandi is a bit different with serial killers, our societal problems in the modern age are also different which may account for that. This is one of the reasons that I previously outlined that cultural change may be necessary as there is a mental health crisis in this country. I hope that our freedoms to defend ourselves and our families are not infringed upon and I highly encourage that those who may be apprehensive of guns to do some research, go to a range, and lean as much as you can to better understand you rights. I also highly encourage women to empower themselves and acquire a skill that will not only lift you from a victim to a victor, but also give you the ability to help others in your community.
"The only thing that's gonna stop evil is good men that are skilled at violence." - Tim Kennedy.
TBH i think no one should be able to own any guns. Most countries like Iceland don't even allow their police to have guns and their crime rate is significantly lower than ours.
Delete5. What does it mean to say that women are made, not born? Do you have particular ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman? Where did those ideas come from? Are there any professions or occupations you think no women or men should enter?
ReplyDeleteTo be made, you must be created from something – a sculpture, a painting, etc. If you believe in the Old Testament of the Bible, then you accept the story that God created Adam and then saw he was alone and needed company, so he made him sleep and then took one of his ribs and made a woman. For a rationalist, there are several problems with this story, but if you believe it, you are entitled to your belief. For me even as a young boy, these were some of the issues I could not get answers to.
1. All other female mammalian species are born with a uterus and they give live birth after having sexual intercourse that leads to conception and pregnancy, why is a woman any different?
2. Why are all men born with non-functional nipples, which would suggest that woman was born first and then man was created from woman, and as the sexes evolved, nipples on men became vestigial breasts?
3. Women are born with a clitoris which is a smaller penis whose structure is more internal than external like a man’s so evolution took the reproductive process internal for a woman to protect the baby in the womb.
4. If Adam’s rib was taken, why are not all boys born with one rib less?
I think both women and men are human beings first. They must deal with life’s issues daily as women and men. It is nice when they work together and support each other.
There are women who can do strenuous jobs that stereotypically are associated with the male gender, but which many men could not do. Other jobs have been labelled that way for a long time to gender stereotype the job, e.g. mail man, policeman, fire man, steward, fisherman, and chairman for a few. We have seen some progress, but even in the professional arena, people associate the term “nurse” with a woman and “doctor” with a man even though there are male nurses, and many female doctors.
We do seem to be moving to a more gender-neutral name labelling, but the only restrictions on a job, is can you do it? Think of female combat pilots.
Very interesting read, as someone who has thought a lot on this topic I appreciate and like your stance on it very much.
DeleteI like the way that you numbered your points to make strong statements that support your position. However, I do think that the evolution of sex in mammals/humans is a bit more complex than outlined but regardless I found the points to be a very interesting thing to think about! I might actually talk to an evolutionary biologist at MTSU to get her thoughts on the matter.
DeleteI like your take on this topic, and I think that you brought up some interesting points. You mentioned a couple factors involving evolution that I have never really considered too much before.
DeleteI like your view on this topic. I agree that men and women are simply human beings and we must build and support each other in that fact. I like your take on this and thought it was very interesting to read!
DeleteI love your view on this topic it opened up a lot of thinking points for myself. Great essay!
DeleteDaniel Lopez, Section 1030-011
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Sartre that humans, unlike inanimate objects such as inkwells, don't have an essential nature? Is our common biology, DNA etc. not essential to our species identity?
I would have to say that I don't agree with Sartre's argument that humans have no essential nature, from a purely philosophical standpoint. As I don't have an inherent belief in a creator, this does seem to conflict with my acknowledgement that humans do seem to act and do seem built as though with some sort of purpose in mind, though what I would suggest as the creator of those qualities is beyond me to say. I believe the inherent issue with Sartre's argument and many other philosopher's arguments is that they seem to start from an axiom with no reliable way of justifying that axiom other than it seems one of the only few ways to describe the world, for instance, if you reject any arguments in favor of a creator of the universe. The obvious question should be what necessitates that humans are in fact born with no essence, just as much as one should ask what necessitates that we are born with an essence. The argument only makes sense if you start from the position that there is no creator, in which case, that which is not created with a purpose would logically seem to exist without an essence. But even that which is created without an essence follows very rigid laws of nature, and in that way, seems to have an essence, so then the question would be what qualifies something as having an essence as part of its being.
Weekly essay 8/27/20 (3 pts)
Weekly essay 9/3/20 (3 pts)
Weekly essay 9/10/20 (3 pts)
Weekly essay 9/17/20 (3 pts)
Weekly essay 9/24/20 (3 pts)
Weekly essay 10/01/20 (3 pts)
Weekly essay 10/08/20 (3 pts)
Weekly essay N/A (0 pts)
Midterm essay N/A (0 pts)
Weekly essay 10/19/20 (3 pts)
Total: 24 pts
What's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America? 218
ReplyDelete“Gun nuts” have always scared me because I have grown up in a no-weapons household. To me, shooting anything for fun just seems ridiculous unless you actually eat everything you shoot. I also had 5 years’ worth of gun awareness day in elementary school where we would color these coloring pages that said what to do if you saw a gun. “Stop, don’t touch, tell a grownup.” The second question is actually a pretty tricky one for me. Before 2020, I definitely would’ve said that there needs to be more laws and less guns. In high school my junior year, we had an active shooter drill at lunch. At my school, we had between 600-700 kids in each lunch and we ate in the atrium. Basically, as soon as you enter the school doors, there’s just this huge open space where all the lunch tables are. During the drill, one of the principles got a megaphone, announced the drill, and told us where to go. We were all supposed to exit down the gym hallway and out the bus doors. The issue was that there was so many of us that this caused a huge traffic jam. The principles started announcing all the people who were “dead” because we weren’t moving in a timely fashion. (Me and all my friends “died.”) This moment has always stuck with me because I can only imagine how horrific it would’ve been if the shooter was real. If an active shooter started while anyone was at lunch at my school, because of the way it is designed, it would be very dangerous. It is so crazy to me that we even need these kinds of drills in school. I think this definitely reflects the fact that something has gone wrong in America. I firmly believe that mass school shootings should not have had to been one of my worries all throughout school. But then came 2020. After I saw peaceful protests being stopped by the police and national guard very forcefully, I rethought my answer. (I always knew someone who was in the national guard who got deployed and was really hoping that he would get to shoot people with rubber bullets. He ended up just sitting in a hotel room in Washington DC for 4 days and he called it “a very fun trip.”) This goes back to the “crazies” that started this country by standing up to their old country. In 2020, I saw why the right to bear arms was a thing for this country. Not that we need to overthrow the government, but there definitely needs to be reforms. If the United States continued in the downward direction as quickly as it has been going recently, I could see some sort of messed up world where we’d need a new government. Hopefully, that could be done peacefully, but knowing some of the people who live here, it doesn’t seem likely. This all seems super pessimistic, but it’s mostly inspired by a tiktok I saw the other day where a British person asked if the American people were okay. The comments were so sad because everyone was afraid of the fallout of the next election, no matter who wins.
I definitely agree with this and before this year I also thought that guns weren't a good idea for citizens, but know what will happen if the government lashes out? Who will stop that from happening? I think the need for citizens bearing arms kind of shows itself in this time.
DeleteWeekly essay 3
DeleteCommented on Matthew Pace and Cole Walker’s posts 2
Total 45/45
It's scary how our views have gone from gun reform to "maybe I need them to protect myself from the very people meant to protect us." While I am white and have the privilege of not really needing to worry about policemen shooting at me for no good reason, I can't imagine how POC feel knowing that they can easily be targeted by the people meant to protect us civilians. I wish gun reform had been taken seriously earlier.
DeleteI also wrote about this question and I really like your response to it. School shootings are scary to think about and it still blows my mind that they actually happen and we have to practice what would happen if someone came into our school and did like. I like how you mentioned British people hearing about America and guns. I have heard their responses and it's crazy to hear how shocked they are about the amount of people that have guns in America.
Deletesection 11
Was the sudden and widespread availability of contraception (The Pill) in the '60s a positive development, all things considered? 230
ReplyDeleteI am one of those who gets hated on by saying that men don't get to vote on what happens to a women body so if your are pro life maybe this isn't a read for you. I think that contraception in all forms is a must have for our society. People should be allowed to practice safe and consensual intercourse without repercussions whether those be physical or from other people. For far to long premarital sex has been seen as this taboo thing that is just innately wrong and if you do it you are a bad person without good morals or values. These are just falsities that have been spilled by a male dominated (and often times extremely insecure) society. In terms of actual contraception I think it should be free for all people and it normally is in most places, but it is still so frowned upon to be "on the pill". So I do believe its a massive win that this was made and distributed safely to many people in America. My only hope is that we are able to let the woman decide what to do with her body instead of trying to own them. The positive of the pill along with other forms of contraception has saved many lives whether it be actually in terms of the possibility of dying or just not being able to have a child. I know countless amazing women that are on the pill and honestly without it I don't believe they would be where they are today. The rate of the father leaving after a pregnancy has skyrocketed and a young college student cannot financial support another living human. For these reasons I believe it is a very positive advancement.
Weekly Essay (3 points)
DeleteCommented on Barbara Frizzell's post (1 point)
Commented on Don Enss' post (1 point)
I do believe that scientific and technological advancement that has allowed for the widespread use of contraception has shifted societies in a positive direction. The freedom to choose is a part of this country that I think the availability of contraception has positively impacted.
DeleteI agree that contraception/birth control should be free. Even when people are Christians, there is no reason they should force this on anyone else in society. The justification "I don't want people to have access to birth control because I don't want them to have un-Christian sex before marriage" is so insane to me. These are the same people who advocate for freedom of religion. I also think that a very important aspect of this discussion is the use of birth control as a means of hormonal control. Conditions like PCOS and endometriosis are very common, and those women should not be forced to live (in some cases) in extreme pain.
DeleteI agree with your take on this. I think that being able to have sex responsibly and for the most part deciding when, if ever, you are able and ready to have a child is an amazing development.
DeleteI totally agree with all the points you've made, and I actually have another thing to add that supports your stance perfectly; many women, such as myself, take birth control for things besides sexual conduct - like period cramps. Many women experience cramping so horrid that they pass out, can't move, and much more. The pill itself supports more than just the freedom of the right to potentially have a baby or not.
DeleteI agree with this. Part of responsibly having sex, premarital or not, is knowing the possible outcomes. Ignoring how "taboo" premarital sex is, a married couple that is not ready to have a child has the responsibility to prevent it before conception, be that with the pill or a condom. The pill also has numerous benefits, like period management and the like.
DeleteThere's two things I'd like to share about what tea can teach us and also the sensitivity to nature and the season, which could also fall into the aesthetic,the moral, and the religious.I'll try my best to not sound like I'm rambling on and on-
ReplyDeleteWhat can tea teach us, when I first saw this question I thought about Avatar:The last air bender, with the character Uncle Iroh who was a powerful military general, very spiritual and wise and he loves tea. One of the quotes that stuck out to me were,"Understanding others,the elements,the other nations, will help you become whole." He explains to his nephew while he understands one aspect of his skills and the lifestyle he had, there's so much more to learn to and understand from others that can help him grow during his struggles. Tea is delicious,there's four elements to it. The dry leaves,water,heat,and steam. There's different kinds of leaves to boil,there's different temperatures to drink tea,and there's different scents to smell before drinking. There's various kinds of tea and it's still delicious because one thing cannot work without the other,it's not exactly whole.
When I was little,(and maybe to this day) I never liked getting my pictures taken, whether it be for my yearbook, on a holiday with friends or family,or vacation at a beautiful sight. I never enjoyed it,I never understood why I would dragged into taking a picture or asked to smile in the picture.I understand it's to be pretty and nice, but what more? I fake my smiles because I don't taking a picture.I remember during the fall on a family trip,alongside my mom's friend, we went to Gatlinburg to see the color leaves in all variations of yellow and orange descend like snow.It was quite beautiful, I remember standing around, looking at the vast trees of the same colored leaves and enjoying the moment.My mom's friend with her ipad took many pictures and videos of the scenery and us. When my mom wanted to take a picture of me, I actually said I didn't want to, of course it made her upset, I told her that I wanted to enjoy the moment,but her reasoning for taking pictures is for memory's sake. Of course I apologize and took pictures,but I was upset afterwards from that conflict and also the lost immersion of being surrounded by the wilderness.
The reason I mentioned this story here, is to have me share my thoughts,I think seeing numerous phones taking pictures makes me feel discourage because I feel like people aren't enjoying the moment. Like you can watch it over and over again, but doesn't it feel exhilarating to be apart of the moment, to embrace the change and time. When we record things, we record a moment of our life,but do we remember the rest before/after that recorded moment.A still image or record moment never changes, it repeats because we look back at it, but if we visit a place over and over. Not only we have changed,but who we are around change,our mind, the world is different but still beautiful.I feel like we limit what we see,like lens,everything is flat when you look at the image even if it has depth. It is how far you can reach it to the end.
Rose with thorns is beautiful but sharp,Venus flytrap blends well in the environment but they can bite, and Cacti is prickly but absorbs well in the heat.You can compare a person's traits to plants. We all grow different,live differently and far,we look different,and as we grow we learn or lose new things in life,sometimes things eat up our time that can benefit for others or harm us, but we will also trace back to our roots and learn to grow till the end.
Weekly essay: 3+
DeleteBrittney Sherrell 2+
Kate Allen 2+
46/45
Section 10
Is pornography "normal"? 251
ReplyDeleteI think that "Fantasyland" does a good job of explaining why pornography is not normal. Sex is a part of life in almost all animals, including humans. In humans, some people have a much stronger desire for it than others. I do think that the urge to want to watch porn itself is bad if controlled, and should not be as shamed as it sometimes is. However, there are some problems with pornography that need to be addressed. As mentioned in "Fantasyland", women in pornography now shave themselves, making them seem younger and more childlike (251). Women also increasingly get different cosmetic surgeries to make themselves look more like those around them. While I think that it is okay to change some things about yourself to make you feel more confident, it is important to assess the reasons why. The look that those in porn have and the actions that they perform are not a real representation of people or how sex actually is. While it is fair to say that most people do know that what they see in pornography is not an accurate portrayal of sex,it is still for many young people the first experience of sex in some way. This also brings up the issue of the poor system of sex education in America that needs to be addresses, but that is a whole other problem. Along with the influence of social media, porn adds on more standards that make both men and women feel inadequate in today's society. Even though sex is natural, porn is not an accurate portrayal of it and the people in the videos or pictures are not usually the average person.
Weekly Essay (section 12) +
DeleteCommented on Don Enss' Essay +
Commented on Cole Walker's Essay
I also chose this question to write about and think your viewpoint is very interesting. I agree that it adds an unhealthy standard to men and women that is dehumanizing and unnatural.
Deletei do think that there is some big issues with the things that the porn industry propagate which is... monstrous. one of the most revealing videos i have ever seen was an interview of a famous porn star Asa Akira, she went on to explain that she would never be able to work with children because of her past career, she also stated that she would probably never be able to adopt a child. these are the consequences of the porn industry and its awful.
DeleteI enjoyed your post and definitely agree in what you said about porn is not an accurate portray of sex. Many times guys watch porn and then when they have sex with a woman they think it should be like that. Sex in my opinion should be very special and not like a game.
DeleteThis is a very thought-out take, great job.
DeleteI definitely agree, that the unhealthy standards for women, compared to the standards for men, are outrageous.
I think, and hope, that as our generation progresses, the standards like that will soon be wiped out.
I've really liked your response and agree with how the porn industry sets up unrealistic expectations for people watching them. I agree with you that sex is just one part of our nature and having fantasies about sex are normal and shouldn't be ashamed about it. However, people need to have that reminder that porn are just that: fantasies. Real-life is way more complicated as not all of us have the perfect body or that everyone is having the most amazing sex all the time. Sex is natural and we shouldn't be ashamed of it whether we decide to do it or not. Porn, on the other hand, can only provide an escape and simulate just a fantasy.
DeleteIs pornography "normal"?
ReplyDeleteIn today’s time, I think porn has made its way into many people’s lives as “normal.” The way the media and other social platforms publicize porn and even promotes it is, in my opinion, disgusting, but sadly the reality of it. I believe viewing or even participating in this dehumanizes people, whether it be men or women, and can distort people’s views on what can be real in a true relationship. In Fantasyland, it states that after the rise of pornogorphy, many women started shaving and following the standards of what many men were watching. Many people and the media address porn an easy, commitment free, way to instantly gratify one’s sexual needs. But I believe the effects of it can be damaging and harmful to relationships, unhealthy habits, and addictions. Research has shown that porn can create major issues in one’s relationship with others and themself, especially if you are involved in a romantic relationship. I even think tv shows, well-known celebrities, and social media platforms have a huge role to play in this. These things influence and affect viewers and partly the way they perceive what is to be right and wrong in life. I believe because of this, pornogrphy has become normal in many lives, but it doesn’t have to be. There are many other ways to spend one’s time in a healthy, beneficial way. But sadly, the truth is that many people spend time watching these things and waste away a lot of time and energy to simply receive instant gratification.
i couldnt agree more-- i would argue that its become one of the darkest industries the world has ever seen. if you ever want to hear the effects that the porn industry has on peoples lives there is a incredible interview with Asa Akira where she talks about how she will probably never be able to work with children because of her career (or even adopt.) she goes on to talk about how from the ages of 30-50 she would basically be unable to work because of the demands of the pornagraphy Industry
DeleteI agree. I believe the rise of porn has created a rise of an excessive focus on sex, especially the more unrealistic side of it.
DeleteI think it's a bit crazy how much the porn industry has such an influence over the day-to-day, especially with the standards for women, like I mentioned, in another post with this topic.
DeleteYou have a very well written post! Great job.
weekly post: 3+
ReplyDeletecommented on Kimmie Steakley and Don Enss post: 2+
Section 10
ReplyDeleteI believe the situation surrounding Adolf Eichmann is more than interesting, it provides an important lesson that ties in with a generally well known effect that happens all the time, Bystander apathy. Eichmann's dilemma is of course much more extreme, as Arendt greatly put it as the Banality of Evil, an unthinking man doing great evil that can only be described as such to the greatest extent. I, for one, believe in the statement that an unthinking man is just as dangerous as an evil sadist, because all though they can do good if told to do so, they can easily turn their heel and not have a second thought about it. This goes back to the Bystander effect, where say a man is hurt on the side of the road along a busy crosswalk. Not a single person will rush to help that man, blindly assuming someone else to do it/has already done it. A lack of good leaves room for evil to settle in, for even though if you were one of the people to walk by, free of responsibility, you did nothing good to help that person. Again, it's not comparable at all to Eichmann's, for even though all that he did, he still thought he did good. At least for those bystanders, maybe they had a false hope that someone would help the hurt man. But in Eichmann's case, his morals lied in Kant's philosophy, where I previously criticized as being more immoral than moral where said morals only relied on ones duties. That truly shows ones evil, unthinking nature, where they don't even believe that they're doing evil, only doing what they think is right.
Hi Zalen. Your essay is well-written and well-thought out. In a somewhat counterpoint, maybe the circumstances for Eichmann could be thought of as a trolley problem. If he fails in his job or refuses to do it, would he not be put to death by Hitler or the SS and then replaced with another person dealt with in the same scenario? It is almost like we need a third option in the trolley problem. In the trolley problem, there is no solution available where the onlooker is able to sacrifice himself to save all six endangered people but only solutions where someone else has to die. I doubt Eichmann was even good person at all but he might have had limited options and chose self survival.
DeleteEssay 3/5
DeleteComment on Molly Belk 4/5
Comment on Shelby Pittman 5/5
What does it mean to say that women are made, not born? Do you have particular ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman? Where did those ideas come from? Are there any professions or occupations you think no women or men should enter?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, there is, in my personal view, not just a set of genders such as man and woman. Many people identify as nonbinary, genderfluid, etc. - this question seems to almost alienate those identities. In any case, you have a certain part when you are born that labels you into boy, or girl; with those constructs in mind, they are both raised in different ways in a societal standpoint. Boys are, normally, taught they have to be manly and strong, that they can't have feminine qualities or show emotional vulnerability - which I believe is a load of garbage. The same goes for how girls are raised more often than not; as they are "feminine," many young girls are subject to thinking they have to meet random beauty standards made by social media, that they need makeup, and that they aren't "good enough" for STEM work. Again, a lot of hot garbage if you ask me. These ideas for these particular genders tend to come from a strange sense of tradition and fragile masculinity, if I'm being blunt. Older generations that weren't exposed to the idea of differing gender stereotypes, lack of identifying gender, genderfluidity, etc. are mostly hostile to the change in newer generations that seem to cross their imaginary line of gender construct. Fragile masculinity, which stems from the gross ideals of strong, burly men, makes it so men feel wrong for wanting to feel more feminine, or for experiencing normal, human emotions. In this same field, I don't believe any gender should be restricted from any form of profession - they're human, why should their supposed gender drive them towards, or even away, from something they enjoy and can succeed in?
section 011
Deleteweekly essay +3
comments on barbara and cole's posts +2
I completely agree with your post. I feel like anyone can do any job regardless of gender. I like how you mention the older generation and I agree with what you said about them as well. Things have greatly changed from when they were kids until now. Some of them are willing to accept new things but others are not. I liked the way you answered this question.
Deletesection 11
Honestly I agree, sometimes my mother tells me I need to wear perfume or buy beauty products for my skins, to make myself feel confident. I personally don't wear make up unless it's a special occasion or just to chap my lips. Sometimes she tells me I need to look beautiful to find the right guy, but how does that prove what I'm capable of. How does making myself LOOK good make intuitive and creative in my working environment. For people who identify as a different gender from birth, it's hard when people aren't accepting or don't respect their identity. It's a new era of find ourselves in a world filled with people, just because we changed our name and our identity,doesn't mean we are different person or a monster. I think when it comes to society, there's this 'perfect' way of how things flow, sometimes there's debris in the way and that can change the flow, but eventually things break down and soon the debris will flow down the stream. Amazing analysis and reflection on this topic.
DeleteI've really enjoyed your statement and I do agree. Gender is rather a spectrum rather a dichotomy and is a bit like language and money. I know that it exists and it informs how humans interact with one other but we made it up. Thankfully, we live right now in era where it's becoming less taboo for women to be interested in traditional male pursuits. Unlike past generations, there are conversions and examples in both media and real-life on how confidence, ambition, and strength is no longer seen as the slightest unusual for girls just as beauty, sensitivity, and gentleness are perfect normal for boys.
DeleteBailey Stephens
ReplyDeleteSection 11
The Trolley Problem by Phillippa Foot
Ever since the TV show The Good Place had an episode based on Phillippa Foot’s Trolley Problem, I had hoped that we would discuss this topic in class. If you have not since this episode, you can see a scene from it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWb_svTrcOg . So the Trolley problem is a thought experiment to discuss the morality of sacrificing one to save many other people. In the basic problem, you have the ability to stop a runaway trolley from running over five people by switching tracks, but if you do it will run over a different other person. She discussed whether it was morally right to kill one person in order to save the five. For me personally, I think the right solution is to try screaming or another method to warn the five people so I could say that I did something. The options seem to be 1. I send the trolley on the other path but then I am guilty of knowingly killing the one person or 2. I do nothing then circumstances have killed the five people but I have guilt for not trying to help when I could see a disaster coming or 3. I try to find an alternate help method (like yelling) because I do not directly kill anyone but I might not be successful. I did not think there was a right answer but people have to do the right thing for them. Phillippa Foot added many variations of the problem to further explore the ethics of the choice like making one of the people your friend or changing the scenario to killing one healthy person to save five sick people. All of these thought experiments seem pretty far fetched until I was doing my reading for history class today. On page 731 of our textbook Of the People, the FDR administration knew that the Nazis were using Zyklon-B gas to kill Jews at Auschwitz concentration camp. Jewish leaders begged the War Department to bomb the camp or the railway. They never targeted the camp. Maybe they did not want to kill some prisoners to save others. The book quotes historian David Wyman saying this decision was FDR’s greatest failure. Later in WW2, the US had another trolley problem when deciding to drop the atomic bomb on Japan (p. 737). In this case, they decided it was better to immediately use the bomb to force Japan to surrender sooner then let a long war go on that might or might kill more people but stopping from sending American troops to war in Japan would save American lives. I am not going to judged these choices but I will say that it did show me the value of thought experiments and how they can be used to help us make good decisions in real life.
Weekly Essay
DeleteCommented on Zalen Ingram October 21, 2020 at 5:37 PM
Commented on Nate Carley October 22, 2020 at 9:22 AM
Grand Total: 46
What's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America?
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic that has been very debated on in America for quite some time and has come up recently. I feel like it is hard to come to a conclusion on gun violence. I think there are very responsible people out there who are able to have guns and use them for purposes not intended to harm anyone. However, there are people out there who would rather use guns for evil than for good. So, I feel the gun laws should be more strict for people to be able to get one. I feel like it is too easy for people to get them and we should find a way to make sure only people who are properly equipped to have a gun can purchase one. I also feel like there should be more precautions people take at home. I have seen too many stories on children finding their parents' guns and accidentally shooting themselves or others. We should prevent things like this from happening.
Reading Mill's autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God. Do you agree or disagree with his reasoning? Why?
I pondered on this for a while and after going back and forth between my answers the answer I think is best is that yes I do agree with him. Of course this is something we will never know until it is too late and our opinions can also change throughout life. I think that everything has a cause and if that is true what is God's cause and so on. This topic is completely guessing and if we use this principle it seems there is no cause of God, therefore how could he exist? Every effect that happens comes from a cause, so God had to come from somewhere. This is a hard question we won't know the answer until we will never be able to tell anyone.
section 11
weekly essay +3
Deletereply to Brittney Sherrell +1
reply to Barbara Frizzell +1
grand total 45/45
I do feel like gun laws should be more strict, there has been time where government members believed that teacher should possessed a gun in an instances of a code red when an intruder is there. People in possession of guns who have trained in general,in the military or use it for hunting animals, understand how powerful they are. It would reckless to leave a gun insecure or unsupervised.People believe that by possessing a gun, they are more superior,but they don't understand the unintended consequences. Also we need to take into consideration and fund hospitals, rehabilitation, or schools to help kids have guidance and focus on mental health,bullying etc.It's important to be in a safe environment where you can express your feelings.
DeletePersonally i think guns are too dangerous to be as common in this country as they are. I can think of several countries that are better off without them and I dont see why America would be any different. Quite frankly I also think that the people who profit off of the gun industry in America have too much politcal power as well.
DeleteI think you have some good points on gun control. I believe that it is really a mental health and maturity issue. This is why I think the age to own a firearm should be raised to 21 in order to allow kids minds to mature. "Gun Nuts" put out a lot of negative things on social media that can poison younger generations minds.
DeleteAn interesting theological point was brought up in class this week and while I may be taking the question of bit out of the context it provided, I feel it does authentically relate to the existential idea of meaning. The question that sparked my intellectual curiosity was “if God made us, then who made God?” now in all frankness all I could think about was the ACDC song “who made who?” but that is inconsequential to the matter at hand. Existentialist often refer to the phrase “existence before essence” and as members of the pragmatic dimension that we inhabit, I can see the logic in their statement. But what if we took the dimension of time out of the equation? What If there was a being who was not restrained by the fabric of time and space? Would this statement still be valid? If God is the creator of time, does that mean he would have to adhere to it? Absolutely not! God does not have to adhere to any aspect of reality that created. Only when we try to put God into a box (to keep his logic and abilities merely confined to our own limitations in this discussion.) does God a true disservice. God could not have been created if he created the idea of creation! I believe that he put it best when he described himself as “I am.” God does not need a purpose (especially one given to him by us.) it is simply by his love and affection that he is in our lives at all.
ReplyDeleteNicolas Smith
Deletefrom the class of october 20th
weekly essay
Delete2 comments on essays:
kimmie steakley
anna collins
I think you beg a lot of interesting questions and I can think of a few philosophers that would love to intertain the ideas. I am glad to see you found the subject as equally as interesting as I did.
DeleteWhoa, mind blowing post. I think the concept of time and an infinite God can confuse a lot of people. I love the way you actually raised and answered so many questions that can trip people up regarding this topic.
Delete• Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure? 250
ReplyDeleteI think it is absolutely safe to say that Michael Jackson was a tragic figure. It may seem at first glance that Michael Jackson had a perfect life. That there is simply no way to ever consider someone who lived as luxurious as Michael Jackson a tragic figure. However, if you know anything about the Jackson Five you know that the members didn’t have a normal childhood. The father of the boys was often abusive towards them and never allowed them to do normal kid things. Michael especially, from a very early age he showed talent and literally spent his entire life cultivating it. However, the lack of a childhood wasn’t completely due to his father. He was swarmed with fans before he even understood what was going on. He was unable to attend school and never made friends like normal kids did. This created a need in Michael’s life that was never fulfilled. Kurt Anderson says that America had issues growing up and, in that way, Michael Jackson was the figure head. He literally created theme parks to play in with children that weren’t his own. He had exotic animals that he kept around his house and literally said that it was all because he never had a normal childhood. To say Michael Jackson is a tragic figure is an understatement. He is actually a perfect specimen of the consequences that having an abnormal childhood has on people. I’m sure people would still properly say that they would like to switch places with him, but I still think that is misguided. I can’t imagine having anything like the life Michael Jackson lived.
Hi Nate I really enjoyed your essay! When you say Michael Jackson is a tragic figure it made me think of this quote in Harry Potter. "Clearly fame isn't everything". So my understanding is Harry Potter would be as famous as Michael Jackson just in another world. Also both Harry and Michael Jackson didn't have the best childhood even though they were both famous and many people would say they would want to be just like them. Both had the money and fame to have anything that they wanted from a very young age. However only harry grew up to be mostly (normal) because Dumbledore protected Harry from his fame and he had experiences where he was treated as unexceptional. Michael was allowed to live any fantasy he desired that grounding in the real world is what gave harry the advantage in life. Money doesn't sustain happiness.
DeleteIt’s sad to see someone who did have such great talent end up the way Michael Jackson did. I think when kids are stripped of their childhood and aren’t able to grow up in a more regular fashion that it’s hard for them to adjust to life as an adult. Sadly it’s true for kids in all socio-economic backgrounds. My husband has been a police officer in some of the worst neighborhoods in Jacksonville, FL and has seen where kids that have been raised in bad home environments or stripped of their childhood have committed small and escalating crimes from their early teens. As some, not all, kids grow up In tragic environments they don’t know how to become good contributors of society later in life.
DeleteIt really is interesting when people say they would want to switch places with a celebrity. We have no idea what is going on with them, and it was really unfortunate that while Michael was super successful, he was robbed of many things that are "normal" to people.
DeleteCommented on Kate Allens post
ReplyDeleteCommented on Nicole Smiths post
Completed Essay
"Eichmann wasn't responsible..." 208 Agree?
ReplyDeleteThe feelings that Arendt has regarding Eichmann frankly don’t make sense to me. I see Eichmann as just a responsible party as Hitler. His excuse for being taught to always follow orders and obey the laws is unconscionable. He knew that his job was sending thousands of Jews to their death, and yet just because it was the “law” of an insane tyrant he felt he should blindly obey them? Right is right and wrong is wrong. It has always been and will always be wrong to take a human life. His actions directly led to Jews being killed. He wasn’t raised Or indoctrinated with Hitlers ideology from a young age, so I believe he wasn’t a product of the system, he took the “easy way” and turned a blind eye to the atrocities that were happening around him and that he had a firsthand in creating.
Weekly essay:( 3)
DeletePeer comments: Nicolas Smith and Nate Carley(2)
I agree with your main point entirely, even if it wasn't his idea, he willingly committed to his job. Although depending on his rank, I saw another point that he might've not had a choice or they could've simply found someone willing.
DeleteI think you did a good job of defending your answer. I totally agree with you in that he was responsible in the role that he played. I like that you brought up that he wasn't raised in that environment so he was not a product of the times he deliberately chose to ignore the wrongs that he was committing.
DeleteSec 10
ReplyDeleteWhat's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America?
This is personally a big topic to me as someone who has grown up around guns and your so-called “gun nuts” and one big thing I’ve noticed is for the ones that believe in regulating what we have, like banning bump stocks or high capacity magazines, are more ignorant towards guns than activists for a cause. For the most part, they focus on a “oh no gun bad” mentality rather than realizing that just maybe it’s the people who are bad. It’s not the availability of guns that has caused an increase in gun violence, it’s a mentality issue. For example, in my parents’ generation, during hunting season everyone would leave the stands early in the morning and head straight to school. As a result, most people had their guns in their trucks. If the availability of guns is an issue, why did my dad never experience a school shooting? Blaming the issue on guns is not targeting the root of the problem. It’s an issue with mentalities in my generation. The gang attitude is widely praised, mental health is widely talked about but has become more of a trend, thus making it harder for people to get correct treatment, and there’s a huge lack of discipline for children early on, which I believe does have an effect on this. Banning or adding excessive regulations on guns will not solve the problem. If gun violence goes down, other types of violence will just increase, as is seen in most of the countries that have banned guns. The Australia buyback program is an argument often used, but it would not work the same in America. It would be much easier to smuggle illegal weapons into America, considering people can just walk over the border from Mexico or Canada and sell us guns, similarly to how they do with drugs, than it would be to do the same in Australia, as it is surrounded by the sea. To solve the problem, I would suggest that first, we educate more people on gun safety and put guns in the hands of good, educated people. Second, I believe we should focus on fixing the mentality issue in our generation. Blame it on the people rather than the guns. The only thing that will effectively stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
40/45
Reply to Anna Collins and Cole Walker
I personally think that the gun laws should much more strict against the person and not the gun, starting off with in order to get a license, you must have the necessary education and mentality to own one. I also think that inappropriate use of firearms should result in an immediate termination of the license for either a long period or permanently. However, a counterpoint I see is what if a person gets a hold of a gun without a license through whatever means anyway? Examples being the illegal gun trade as mentioned, or even a child getting ahold of an unsecured weapon. How could we counteract these situations?
DeleteI think you nailed part of the problem in the gunnut mentality. Most firearm owners I know are the most trustworthy when it comes to safety, but there will of course be bad apples. so as you were saying the mentality is what needs to change and who can own weapons in the first place.
DeleteI think you did a great job on your post. Back in the day when our parents were kids guns weren't really a big deal. You are right in saying alot of times kids would have them in their truck. If that were to happen know they would get kicked off the school campus if someone found it. I personally believe guns laws should be more strict and I believe everyone should take some sort of mental test.
DeleteI think the biggest problem that needs help to stop gun violence is mental health. Most often shootings come from mentally ill people who have been neglected. Guns have the potential to be very positive or very negative. It all depends on who's holding it and unfortunately the mentally ill often find themselves attracted to them as an answer to their problems.
Delete-This is a great post, and you make so many good points. My dad also grew up in the times that you speak of, where everyone had a gun, had it with them all the time and it wasn't weird at all. Was they're still violence and violence and violence related to guns? Yes of course, there has been violence since the creation of mankind. But I think that gin violence had risen significantly in the past few generations because of mental health like you said, which is still not good news.
DeleteI agree with a lot of what you are saying. There is a fine line between someone who supports the second amendment and a "Gun Nut". I feel like a lot of the issues are mental health and guns being allowed in the hands of young people. I believe the only real thing you can do to stop gun violence is maybe raise the age to own a firearm to 21, other than that, leave it alone.
DeleteI do agree with what you said, however I do have a few counterpoints. First off, I think that the term "Gun Nut" is used in a very wide manner, to the point that anyone with more than one firearm could be considered a "Gun Nut". However, this is definitely not the case. I have encountered several actual "Gun Nuts" and they are, to put it bluntly, the cancer of the gun society. They are like Hollywood with their designer clothes, some of the most snobby gun owners with the most expensive brands and 'holier than thou' mindsets. Dealing with them is far less than enjoyable, so yes, "Gun Nuts" are real and they should be excommunicated from the gun society in my opinion. Secondly, I believe that the main reason our parents never experienced a school shooting was because if they had a problem with another person, they took care of the problem. In today's age, if you defend yourself you become the attacker, and your teachers/mentors do next to nothing to help you, and they baby the situation if nothing else. I believe this form of "dealing with the problem" is creating the problem by letting it fester within the individual that is being attacked to the point of no return. Finally, your last point, "The only thing that will effectively stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". While this can be true, it is a very close-minded approach, and I think a lot of people get themselves into trouble this way. One should not go into a situation with the mindset of "he has a gun, the only way to stop him is to shoot him". Deescalation is the first step to any "hot" situation if it is applicable. A truly successful end to a situation is one where nobody dies, including the attacker, however that's not say you shouldn't remove a threat if innocent lives are at stake, just be prepared to defend yourself in court.
DeleteOverall, I agree with your statement, and I believe the mental health aspect is very well said and not paid enough attention to.
Section 011
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think it means to think without concepts? 295
It's hard to really conceptualize as it honestly goes against what this is kind of referring to. I think it means to use your mind but not to have some set of solutions, answers, or even a picture in your head of something. Really, it means to just hone in on the feelings that thinking brings to you. How does that thought make you feel, what are those thoughts, are those feelings stemming from another feeling all seem to be part of what it refers to. When I think of it, I almost envision a blank slate in my mind filled with colors of feeling, but in a way that still defeats the purpose of not conceptualizing. It's somewhat difficult to explain as it almost defeats how it is described in the first place. Really conceptualizing the explanation goes against its whole idea.
Are unthinking people as dangerous as evil sadists? 211
I'd argue in some ways, yes they are just as dangerous. Unthinking people can unintentionally do just as much harm as "evil sadist" by not being aware of their actions. Unthinking people in the masses is especially dangerous. One evil person does not nearly have as much power as a whole populace of people who just go about their business and don't think of the world around them. Being unthinking in a way means you don't care about the world around you, now whatever the reason is, you are still actively participating in it. Not considering the world or not caring to do any thinking with your actions is essentially someone who is evil, it's just the evil person thinks evil thoughts.
Comment on Nate Carley and Shelby Pittman's post.
DeleteI think I would agree with how you articulated your thoughts. It's difficult to explain an idea of thinking without concepts. It makes me wonder how blind people think without being able to visualize what they want to think about. I think what it means to think without concepts is to reach our "6th sense" of reality and interpret an idea with feeling rather than logical concepts.
DeleteI agree with you on this that it is very hard to understand exactly what this means. I think it means to kind of guess and interpret what will happen next by like you said, our 6th sense.
DeleteI think you did a good job of explaining why you answered the way you did on those. I totally agree with you on your response to the second question you answered. Nice job.
DeleteThe first question I decided to write about is, Are we becoming "fake humans"?
ReplyDeleteI would say in this world today a lot of people are "fake humans". Many people pretend to be someone they are not and they focus too much on media and others to influence them. Many people change the way they are for more followers, friends, a better job and etc. According to page 234 in Fantasyland it states, "Fake realities will create fake humans. Or fake humans will generate fake realties and then sell them to other humans, turning them, eventually, into forgeries of themselves." A Lot of times people think too much and need to be more realistic but instead they act differently to fit in and they dream weather than realistic.
The second question I decided to write about is,Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure?
I would say Michael Jackson was a tragic figure in not only America but in the world. A Lot of people looked up to him and a lot of artists wanted to either be like him or have his career. However his career started to turn for the worst. According to page 251, he started getting plastic surgery. This was also the time pornograpghy which he was taking part of. I think a lot of people started getting a different opinion on Michaela Jackson. There was also a rumor that he physically assaulted children and a lot of people believed those rumors. Although he messed up in his life I would say overall people admired him and I would say a lot of the world was sad and shocked by his passing.
Points total of 5. 3 for essay and 2 for responses
I'm intrigued by your topic of whether human are becoming fake personifications of themselves. I am currently taking Fundamentals of Mass Communication and one of my topics is about social media. I think social media and even pornography, based upon my research, is manipulating the minds of young individuals because these things are so easily accessible to young audiences. I found that social media companies have developed methods which place habits in us to constantly check the phone, check the insta post, like the newest post our friend makes, and see the comments others make about our own posts. This surge of media interaction has shifted our priorities to become something we are not and I think thats where we get the idea of becoming fake humans.
DeleteThis is very interesting and I think the word fake as far as describing someone is becoming more and more common. I think people are fake all the time and put a different face on to adapt to a situation. Some are better than others but it is sad we cant just be ourselves.
DeleteI mean I agree that more and more people are becoming fake humans, but maybe I don't. I'm not too sure, because back in the 40's and 50's, men had to live a certain way, women had to live a certain way, people were separated by color and sex and age, and all people had to act to their roles. Men had to be bread winners, women had to have the home cleaned and prepared, so on and so forth. So when I look back at stuff like that, we seem much less fake than we are, but then I think about social media, and how people put on fronts to the lives they're living, or trying to live. People pick whole majors, essentially what they're going to dedicate the rest of their lives to, based on what they think the people around them will find acceptable. And that's just one example, so I don't know if we're becoming fake.
DeleteOne topic I wanted to address is how morally acceptable social media companies and their methods are for society?
ReplyDeleteI think personally, with these many advancements in technology that have exponentially developed, social media has become corrupt and these companies have manipulated its users and primarily the young audience into using their platform. Since phones are becoming more and more ingrained into our lives, social media companies have been able to abuse this fact and tap into the framings of the human mind. Social media to my understanding was originally created as a tool for society, however we have shifted from a tool to a money machine. Companies like Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat have made extraordinary monetary gains at the expense of its users by advertisements placed within these. The moral issue with these companies is how they manipulate us into constantly using our phones. If you have noticed, once you look at a facebook group or are intrigued by an ad and click on it, you'll notice more of the same thing popping up. If you like cars and watch an ad about a beautiful lady who examines cars, the "algorithm" will put more of these car ads in your face. This surge of phone usage has increasingly separated us from true physical-social interaction. Due to the length of this post, I think I should stop here.
I could definitely talk more about this but this has constantly been on my mind.
DeleteReplied Matt Kolzow (+1)
DeleteReplied Miranda (+1)
Weekly SA (+3)
+5
1 - (+5)
2 - (+0)
3 - (+5)
4 - (+5)
5 - (+5)
6 - (+5)
7 - (+5)
8 – (+5)
this week (+5)
Total: 40 pts
This is definitely an issue that needs more attention. We are becoming more like salesman for ourselves over social media instead of just being ourselves in real life.
DeleteI just recently watched the new netflix documentary social dilemma and it really opened my eyes to the corruption of social media. You did a good job or explaining how big media companies are becoming a big issue. I agree with Gavin this issue does need more attention.
Deleteis pornography "normal"?
ReplyDeleteYes, unfortunately it is. I know many men who admit to being addicted to it. They even will tell me examples of how it has negatively impacted their life, however, because it is so normalized, they do not feel the need to stop or get help, continuing to damage their mind as well as relationships with others. You can make the argument that porn has it's place in normal life, and I'm not arguing against that, but there are many damaging effects it can have, and with the amount it has been normalized, many young men are suffering from addiction from a young age before they even knew what they were getting themselves into. Basically, all things can be harmful in excess and this is a perfect example of that.
Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure?
Yes, he was. Although many see him as a pop icon, it's very hard for me to see him for more than his suffering mental health caused from his strange childhood. His story is one that represents what can become of someone in show business, especially growing up in it. It's a philosophical thought of its own. What is it worth to become one of the greats? A great movie that represents this philosophical question is "Whiplash". Despite being a great movie, it really dives into this question. Definitely worth a watch.
Shelby Pittman (+1)
DeleteJared Quillosa (+1)
Weekly post (+3)
Weekly Total (+5
-It is very unfortunate how true this is. I know several people from the generation above me that have admitted to me that they have struggled with pornography addiction since they were extremely young. They told me how its risked their relationships, taken over their lives, damaged their minds and almost ruined their marriages. Luckily they were able to realize how bad it really is and get the help they need, but they mentioned how it will always be something that they have to fight against. I wish that this wasn't such a problem in the world, not only is it a corrupt multi-billion dollar cooperation, but it degrades not only the "performers" but also the users as well. Didn't mean to make my own blog post in the comments section, but its something I feel very strongly about. Great post!
Delete
ReplyDeleteIf the government attempted to round up, detain, and deport millions of Latinos and Muslims, how would you respond
This is a very interesting question where whether or not these people are illegal aliens that come into the country illegally and do not have proper citizenship or if they are actual citizens of the United States who pay taxes and make a living. This is a huge difference there that a lot of people confuse. One thing that I think people are also very confused about what President Trumps view on this topic is. President Trump is pro-immigration but is not pro ILLEGAL immigration. One of my best friends is an immigrant from China. He came here in about 5th grade and was adopted. He had to go through all of the processes in order to become a United States citizen. I am and so is our president pro having open borders for people to become citizens of our country legally and pay federal and state taxes like the rest of us unlike the illegal immigrants that take money and resources from us.
To answer the question, I think the United States government should round up every single illegal immigrant in this country and force them to become United States citizens if they want to continue to stay. I understand some people are here on work contracts and a bunch or other shorter term stuff but the people staying here for years and years must become legal citizens and pay taxes or else they are stealing from the United States. Therefore, I encourage the government to round up these people who are here long term and make them become citizens or deport them if they are here ILLIEGALLY.
45/45 8 essays 17 comments
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePro wrestling is obviously staged. Why is it so popular?
ReplyDeleteAlthough the truth of wrestling being staged has been proven it doesn’t take away from its plethora of entertaining attributes. Wrestling is more than just a fight to see who wins the belt; it's packed with action, drama, humor, love stories, and even overcoming adversity. This comes with the very talented wrestlers in the field, though they portray these characters with so many different personalities that adds to the intriguing platform. There have been stereotypical roles for instance the foreign heel (Rusev), the weird backwoods cult (Wyatt family), and the undead monster (Undertaker) but the way they are perceived to the audience they become larger than life. Other than those normal roles every once and awhile the wrestling platform would bring on an underdog who against all odds made it big. Daniel Bryan, Chris Benoit, and Eddie Guerrero’s are all examples of the not so typical muscle-bound guys who instead were underdogs and dominated the WWE roster. They are small in size but yet still insanely talented which plays a big role in the excitement of it all. The bumps that these guys take are crazy and can cause major injuries at any given time if wrongly done. Some incidents even have really bad effects long term causing pro wrestlers to be seriously injured like concussions, fractures, or muscle tears leading to an early retirement. Most recently during Payback Enzo Amore was injured in the match against The Vaudevillians, thankfully he is getting better soon. Seth Rollins, a professional wrestler, had a horrible injury and was forced to vacate his title. These people put their bodies on the line in order to entertain us. They are on the road for most of the year and it’s not something everyone can do. So while it may all be scripted or fake, the men and women going out there are working their asses off to keep the audience happy. Giving them the respect they deserve.
Essay on 10/22/2020 (+3)
Commented on Matthew Pace’s Essay 10/22/2020 (+1)
Commented on Don Enss’ Essay 10/22/2020 (+1)
Total Points- (40)
i don't know much about pro wrestling and i never understood why it was so popular because it was so obviously fake. but you have enlightened me on why. i never realized they endured so many injuries and it makes sense why people would be entertained by it.
DeleteUsed to love pro wrestling as a kid and you really hit most of the nails on the head. People watch it cause it’s fun to watch people fight it’s even better when there’s a great story behind it.
DeleteI agree, the entertainment of wrestling doesn’t rely on its authenticity, but instead its ability to tap into the widespread fantasy of its viewers. People are happy to suspend their disbelief because it’s an outlet for their fantasies. They want to believe that the angry muscular men will solve their differences through chair throwing so they do just enough to be entertained.
DeleteHow would you respond it you woke up with a violinist plugged into your kidneys? Is this a good analogy for unwanted or unintended pregnancy? 226
ReplyDeleteI mean unsurprisingly I imagine that I'd be in pretty extreme distress- probably incredibly frustrated and at least in the moment, incredibly angry. If they had to make a rushed decision to keep the person alive we could eventually come to an understanding despite the breech of boundaries. Ultimately though I would not be willing to lose my life to keep someone who I do not personally love alive. Even for someone I love that would be an incredibly difficult choice. I imagine I could live with it for a while though- at least until they get their affairs in order or until they could find a replacement. I don't know I won't lie I assume if someone said that they would keep this person alive- I think they're being unrealistic. Like not thinking of how they would respond in the moment, or thinking to highly of themselves. Everyone says they would jump in front of a bullet for x person until they're given that choice.
This reminds me of a short comic that followed this prompt- it was about an obsessive serial killer who kidnapped an anti-abortion radio host and performed this operation on him- requiring him to sacrifice all of his freedoms to keep this stranger alive. Then it was just a discussion between the two- of how the kidnapper idolized the radio host until the host couldn't stick to his ideals that he preached and demanded to be let go. Basically just talking about how people will be willing to push the most intense and terrifying agendas for their own needs or because of their lack of knowledge/willingness to understand until what they push is forced back into their face.
In terms of whether this is a good analogy on its own for an unintended pregnancy- I would strongly say no. Solely because it can only function if you would define a fetus as an equivalent to an adult- a sentient, conscious being. And unsurprisingly, I do not. I think a more accurate metaphor might be to an organ. Both are unthinking and unfeeling, but technically alive in some way and might bare importance to particular people. But even then that's not a great improvement either- an organ could be necessary for someone's life, a fetus cannot physically be.
TDLR- Rest in peace violinist + bad analogy because fetus's are without thought
I really like the points you made in the discussion question, also the analogy is a really great way of looking at the whole pro choice and pro life movements reasonings.
Delete-What did you think of Sartre's advice to the young man who wanted to join the Resistance?
ReplyDeleteWhile I do see Sartre's point: that no matter what people say to them a person will have to make their own decisions about anything in life. Sartre was certainly correct that people cannot escape the personal responsibility that comes with being a human. However, I personally do not fully agree with the way that he made his point, especially to the young man who was in as difficult of a situation as he was. He is 100% right that we have to make our own decisions despite anything else, but that does not make seeking the wisdom of council of those who are older, WISER and more experienced, obsolete. Think of your own life: when something big happens in your life or a huge crossroad presents itself to you, how many of us can honestly say that we would take that load completely by ourselves without seeking council or support from at least someone in our lives. Maybe you don't, and if so that's great. But I think it's personally understandable and justified to ask for advice with your decisions, and more impatiently to ray about your decisions. We are all humans after all, and we all need someone. I would also bargain to say that human should make worse decisions if we had absolutely no counseling at all, even if they are still very much our own decisions to make.
Essay (3 pt)
Delete-reply to Gavin Brown (1 pt)
-reply to Shelby Pittman (1 pt)
Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you?
ReplyDeleteThere have been many “ordinary” people that we have seen throughout history that have turned out to be evil and I am sure that there any many people out there hide in plain sight because they seem like a normal people. I think a really good example of someone who was considered normal but was capable of evil was a man infamous for his serial killings, Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy was a charming man who had a family and seemed like a pretty average guy. For the longest time he got away with killing many women and no one suspected him of doing anything like that. So, it was very shocking when evidence pointed in his direction.
Am I capable of great evil? I would say no. The worst thing I could do is lie. I could not commit a horrific crime unless my life depended on it. I could not even imagine doing anything that would be considered a “great evil.” I am too much of a sympathetic person.
How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?
We have to make sure that we continue to learn about the holocaust and making sure the generations after us do also. It is important that people know what the concentration camps were like and what people had experienced, therefore people have a better understanding of the evil that went on and know that nothing like that should happen again. My children will learn about the everything about the holocaust. They will know about the death camps and the intentions Hitler had for this world. I will make sure that my children have a good understanding of history and especially the holocaust.
Section12
Essay (3)
Comment (Jared Quillosa) (1)
Comment (Isiah Bryanton) (1)
Altogether 45/45
I like your example of ted bundy because his is the perfect example of an ordinary man with great evil on his plate. I answered this question with a different approach on my post with the thought that everyone is capable but everyone has a different likelihood of these great evils.
DeleteI agree with your take on ordinary people being capable of being evil and I feel like this is true even without using Ted Bundy as an example, crimes are committed by many of people who we would see as ordinary. A Florida attorney was arrested and charged with robbery of a bank, by the looks of him and his profession, robbery isn't something you'd expect from him however we never know who a person is and what they do when no one is around, therefore I agree with your stand on ordinary people being capable of being evil.
DeleteI believe that the introduction of widespread contraceptives such as the pill has positively impacted our society. The public normalization of both men and women being able to use contraceptives was a strong push forward for giving women the already deserved right of deciding what to do with their body and their life. Everyone should be allowed to safely practice consensual sex and have a clear mind regarding what the consequences might be. The use of both the pill and other contraceptives made the intimacy between people have a new meaning. Mainly in that dating changed, single peoples interactions changed, the culture of intimacy changed. As elaborated on in FL, the exciting and more fantasy part od sex became more explored. The looming fear of having a child washed away and allowed people to chase these exciting ideas they had. The intimacy of couples and married couples changed as well. The idea of having sex changed, It’s hard to think that the idea we have now was not the same under a hundred years ago. Though the pill was a positive change in many ways and most of those changes are very prevalent today in modern dating and married culture.
ReplyDeleteEssay(3)
section 11
I agree with this. When people say things like contraceptives or birth-control are unnatural, I'm quick to point out that automobiles and aeroplanes are similarly unnatural, yet have have an enormous impact on our society and species as a whole. Sure, you could make the argument that birth control makes people less conscious of safety or responsibility in sexual decisions, but could you not make the same argument that seatbelts and airbags making people less careful and responsible while driving? I don't think it's a valid argument at all. In a car crash, even with seatbelts and airbags, you end up risking seriously injuring yourself and paying a lot of money in the process, same as with an unexpected pregnancy. Obviously no one intends either to happen, but putting safety measures in place to reduce the fatalities associated with either is hardly what I'd call a bad thing.
DeleteI totally agree with what you've said, but contraceptive pills also have some negative effects physically and emotionally as well. I recently a case which concluded that women who take pills felt a drop in "well-being" and also felt a loss of sexual desire.
DeleteBlake Hughes
ReplyDeleteSection 010
My Essay (+3)
Comments (+2): Kimmie Steakley & Anna Collins
Overall Points: 45
Weekly Question #9:
“Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?”
I think this question is so interesting, because it has so many layers, and possible ways to look at it.
Do I think ordinary people are capable of great evil? Unfortunately, I do. While I think an argument can be made, that people aren’t born evil, meaning it’s due to their upbringing, I just don’t see it as a realistic possibility. There are so many people in life, who constantly get the short end of the stick, without turning into some grand, evil mastermind.
I believe people are born kind souls, and that people are born just as evil, as well. Which means ordinary people are capable of evil behavior, if they continue to feed into it.
I would suppose I am capable of great evil, as is everyone, but I would never act on an opportunity like that, because it isn’t who I am.
I don’t know if it’s possible for the Holocaust to ever happen again, and I don’t know if it’s possible to prevent it from ever happening again. I think the best thing we can do, with every situation in life, is to always show love, and kindness. If a person doesn’t have the opportunity, or the “reasoning” (to them, obviously there is never a reason or justification for something like that.) then I hope that will be sufficient in trying to prevent any evil catalyst happening.
I plan to teach my children fully about the tragedy of the Holocaust, and all of the other horrible tragedies we’ve faced in History, once they are old enough to process it, and comprehend it. I think it’s important to be educated on such serious issues, even though they may be tough to process.
I completely agree. You don't need to be a big influencer or have a large amount of power to be considered evil. Evil doesn't not have a certain age, gender, power. It can be brought forth by anyone likewise in good.
DeleteI agree with you. If I get married or whatever, I would teach my kids what happen in the past but I would not teach my kids to become evil because life is just to precious in this world. No one need to be evil but to become evil, you have to become insane to be insane and that is interesting question and mind bobbling about it. Its kind of scare.
DeleteI feel that our experiences and circumstances are largely what force us into "good" or "evil". A regular person, presented no real moral conundrums or unwinnable situations will mostl likely lead a normal and otherwise unremarkable life. It's only when said person is thrust into the position of making a highly impactful decision that their experiences and beliefs really come into play. If they have no empathy or prior history of dealing with life, death, or suffering, it's likely that they will make an decision that could hurt a lot of people, but similarly if they are familiar with all of those things, but ended up having some psychological inclination towards sociopathy or psychopathy, it's entirely possible that they'd still choose a darker path despite their experiences.
DeleteIt's really hard to define what an ordinary person is or who among us fits that description, but i feel it's largely dependent on the opportunities we (they) are presented in life that allows our light or dark sides to truly shine.
Are unthinking people just as bad as evil sadist? Well…yes, I happen to think they’re actually more dangerous than evil sadist. Most people in the scientific community have generally agreed that there isn’t that much variation when it comes to humans, we’re all more or less the same. So, that means that when the Nazis took over Germany the people didn’t all become evil sadist over night or, as Warburton called them “unthinking.” The people didn’t change, not unless you want to start believing the same messed up ideas the Nazis did, the statues quo of the country changed and the regular vast majority didn’t feel like it was worth it going against Hitler or were in favor of his policies. The thing that makes the idea of unthinking people so scary is because it doesn’t take anything more evil than just regular human irresponsibility. What I think I’m trying to say is that, it’s probably not likely that evil sadist can take over the government and do terrible stuff and kill a bunch of people, but that can be allowed to happen anywhere the people don’t notice the signs early enough because it can happen anywhere. Now for whether or not Eichmann guilty or not, I honestly don’t know, I didn’t look into the case much for me to think he was involved more than he says he was. Nor, do I personally know whether he actually agreed with Hitlers orders if he just was doing his job, in the end it probably was a little bit of both.
ReplyDeleteEssay 3
DeleteReply to KStephens and Isaiah 2
I agree with you that unthinkable people are just as bad as evil sadist.
DeleteIsn't it scary to think that the Holocaust happened less than a hundred years ago? When looking at the atrocities which occurred it's easier to think that it happened a long time ago and people today would never do anything like that. But obviously there hasn't been nearly enough time for there to have been an actual change in the way people are. And like you said, there isn’t much variation in types of people anyway. It makes you realize what is at stake with the constant spread of misinformation and propaganda. We must be actively aware of our actions and surroundings in order to prevent the truly evil people from taking power.
DeleteI am sadly, sad about what happen in the Holocausts and how the Jews were killed because of Hitler. I really do not want to discuss about this at all. The past is the past and you can not go back to the past and change that world plus I do not want to discuss about history either but I do agree with you. We as the next generation have to change the world.
DeleteI 100% agree, the fact that the populace let something like the Holocaust go on for so long, definitely made them evil by association. It was probably mostly because most of the populace just followed the opinions of those around them, and it became the new norm, not thinking what that actually meant, which in turn caused them to be "evil"
DeleteQuestion: (3 points)
ReplyDelete1. What do Burning Man attendees and other adults who like to play dress-up tell us about the state of adulthood in contemporary America? Along with, was Michael Jackson a tragic figure?
(FL p.245 & 250)
Question: (1 point)
2. Can there be a "private language"?
(LH p.206)
Question: (1 point)
3. Is philosophy continuous with literature and poetry, or should it be?
(HWT p.334)
1. I believe that most people participating in wearing Halloween costumes, attending burning man or cosplay event are trying to live their fantasy lives out; without jeopardizing their normal/regular lifestyle’s’. As long as it’s not negatively affecting anybody and these people(s) are having fun, I don’t have a problem with it. However, a lot of the American society pushes imagery to increase being a fantasy lifestyle is the norm. From cosmetic surgery—to dressing up in costumes is the same kind of fantasy, lifestyle, living in an alternate world; if this makes any sense. Again, my perspective that these individual(s) are probably not satisfied or are missing something in their day-to-day life structure, so, I say ‘to each their own’.
Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch was such a great home…if I was still a child. However, in his case, his upbringing was different then most people, so, if he felt he lost out on his childhood, then wanted to reinvent those lost years, then understandable. Therefore, this was why I expected him to have weird kinds of behaviors as an adult. I don’t want to be selfish, because of him being one of the greatest musicians/dancers to ever live, but everything that occurred in his past really had a negative impact on the latter part of his life. From the multiple surgeries, the costumes he wore daily, the drugs, changing his voice/hair, the lightening of his skin, wanting to be best friends/sleeping in the bed with adolescences, etc., just to name a few. He will defiantly go down as an American Great that was truly a tragic figure once he became an adult.
2. Hopefully I didn’t take this question out of context, but I believe you can have a private language as-long-as you have at least an additional person or persons involved/understand this language. Prime example, Ebonics is a way for people to communicate and have their own way of pronouncing their expressions, and it normally begins as a private language until it’s caught on by the masses, that’s when the word or expression is changed again. So in short, I don’t agree with Wittgenstein ideals on this topic.
3. I agree that philosophy is continuous with literature and poetry and it should continue to be. In the past, all the way into the present, all forms of writing and even music has been the focal-point; regarding change when a country, state, or outdated beliefs required changing, and it was normally what spearhead those changes, and also used as a form of communication to resolve these civil issues.
***Summary Posts 22Oct20***
Reading summary Adults who like to dress up/Michael Jackson tragic figure (FL) and answered an additional question for both LH & HWT.
I agree with you idea of there being a second language. It takes two people to make a language and if they understand it and can communicate through it then it is considered private until proven otherwise
DeleteI agree that Michael Jackson is a tragic figure, I think that the abuse that he suffered as a child at the hands of his father coupled with the stress of being thrown into show-business (which really is a hyper-adult world) at such a young age and being influenced to look and act and be a certain way, he just needed a space to be. He needed a space to be a child, a teenager, an adult and a parent. I think that because of the trauma he suffered he might have experienced a mental illness or disorder that caused some of his more definitely odd behaviors, like becoming inappropriately close friends with children (I don't want to comment on the allegations against him, it's bad to speak ill of the dead and no one will know the truth besides Michael Jackson).
DeleteWhat's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America?
ReplyDeleteSec 10
Well in order to answer this question, I believe I must explain what I think a "Gun Nut" is. I believe that a "Gun Nut" and someone who supports the second amendment are two very different people and have two very different opinions on fire arms in America. Someone who supports the second amendment will encourage people of all walks of life to go out and purchase a firearm and get the proper training if they wanted to carry in public. A "Gun Nut" does not entirely believe in the right for all people to bear arms, they just believe that they have the right to bear arms. It would be very uncomfortable for a "Gun Nut" to see a gun in the hands of a poor African American man. Someone who supports the second amendment however, would encourage people that live in lower income neighborhoods to own fire arms so they could protect themselves. I feel that "Gun Nuts" are very bad for our society. I believe that they are the real reason for some of these mass shootings. They hold the mentality of, "If you mess with me then you are going to get shot". They go on social media and boast about how these "Antifa" better not mess with them or they will shoot them. They associate their masculinity with an AR15 they own or an AK-47. This makes second amendment supporters look bad and cause other people to want to ban guns entirely. This brings me onto the next part of the question. What should we do about gun violence? Well I think there are a couple of things that we should do that do not involve getting rid of the second amendment. I am a full supporter of the second amendment and banning firearms will never work in the United States even if I did not support the second amendment. In order to fix the problem with gun violence is to attack the source, which is the toxic nature of "Gun Nuts". We should discourage any behavior of that sort and make it known that it is not okay to act in that way. However, as much as I would love to see all gun nuts eliminated, there will always be a certain amount of people that ruins it for everyone. So to my final suggestion on dealing with gun violence. Once you turn 18, you are aloud to own a fire arm and in many cases that is a senior in Highschool that is aloud to go out and purchase a fire arm. Someone who is in high school still has a mentality of a teenager no matter if they are considered an adult or not. This allows for certain things on social media to influence these high schoolers. A lot of the negative material put out by "Gun Nuts" gets into the hands of our younger generations and even though the "Gun Nuts" themselves may never act on the outlandish things that can be said on their social media pages, the 18,19,20 year olds might. I believe that their brains need to be able to mature in order to filter out crazy things talked about on our social media platforms. That is why I believe that the only real solution to gun violence is not restricting some guns and allowing others or even banning them all together, but raising the age to buy a firearm to 21 instead of 18.
Henry, I totally agree with your depiction of "gun nuts". I happen to own 5 AR-15 style rifles and I built 4/5 of them myself. I will not, however, boast anymore than that about them. Simply that I own them, and I am exercising my right to own and build them. As a gun owner, and having spoken to people that are against gun ownership, I would like to say that owning a gun is a big responsibility, and included in that is being responsible for training properly with your weapon. If more people understood that concept, I think gun ownership could be less controversial. As for being 18, I think, on the contrary, you should be able to purchase a firearm at 18, however showing proof that you have graduated, such as a high school diploma or GED, might be a better way to regulate firearm purchases rather than just age.
Delete• Pro wrestling is obviously staged. Why is it so popular?
ReplyDeletePro wrestling is popular because of how entertaining it is for the audience. Yes, everyone knows that there aren’t any punches thrown but people are there for the action, experience, and hype. This could be said about almost anything basketball is entertaining to some people although it is just a game or watching greys anatomy is entertaining to others even though it is all acting, or anime even though it is cartoon drawings and it is fiction. It all depends on the person some people get a thrill from watching acting and others from fake fighting scenes.
Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure?
Of course, if you bring his name up in a village in Africa, they would know his name. He was so idolized by the people and played a major role in people’s everyday lives. I remember a couple years ago I had a sub in high school and all he played was Michael Jackson he was his idol. It’s crazy to think decades after his death people still listen to his music and remember him. Earlier today there was a remix of one of his song with another famous rapper. Some people are born to influence people and others are born to influence the influencers.
Andreais C and Blake=2p
DeleteEssay=3
I agree with you on why pro wresting is popular.
DeleteI agree that Michael Jackson was a tragic hero. Even after he was abused as a child, he did not stop showing off his talents which I think is a great talent.
DeleteCan there be a “private language”?
ReplyDeleteCan there be a private language yes there can. If you think about it there already was. For instance, during WW2 there were the Japanese talkers and it was a private language that hey only understood to defeat the other countries. Armies also have their own language. They have hand signals and other different things for a private language. A private language doesn’t just mean it has to be a a spoken language. It could be hand signals or any type of thing that just gets the other person to understand. It would probably be really hard to make a private language, but it isn’t impossible. If you think about it any bilingual person or a person with more than one language, there can be private languages. Say I am hanging out with my friends and one of my friends speaks the same second language as me and we want to say something I don’t want my other friends don’t want to here we can speak our own language and that is actually a private language. Because the other person doesn’t understand what I am saying. Also, a language can probably be private if a limited number of people speak one language and others don’t. So, my final answer to this question is yes, they can be private language because there is private language just like I explained in the sentences before.
Section 012
Mohap Siddig
Essay: 3
Response: Ammar Idris(1pt) and Anthony Ozoh(1pt)
I agree 100%. People have used what we might call "private languages" for years. There are so many languages around the world that it is not difficult to believe that someone could invent another one, even if it has no spoken words. We might say that sign language is a private language spolen only by deaf people and others who know it. In a sense, arent all languages private in the sense that some people can understand them, and others cannot. If I went to China with a friend and we only spoke English to each other, is it impossible to believe that the Chinese would wonder what we where saying, and why it was something that we thought they did not need to understand?
DeleteI agree with the idea that language doesn't have to be verbally spoken in order to consider it a "language." It can be looked that as any way that information or ideas are shared and presented and your idea of hand signals is perfect to show language is not all verbal.
DeleteSection 10
ReplyDeleteAnna Johnson
Even though it wasn’t his idea, Eichmann was still responsible for the mass murders which he played a key role in facilitating. He put his efforts into making the most efficient system possible to ship innocent people to their deaths. Even though he didn’t break any laws and was only doing what he was told, at no point did he actually consider if what he was doing was the right thing to do. Because of this, he was just as responsible for the lives lost as the ones who were giving him the orders.
I’ve linked a powerful photo which is displayed in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The photo features German prisoners of war during WWII being forced to watch footage of Nazi concentration camps. When confronted with the atrocities, some of the prisoners just stared vacantly at the screen while others weren’t able to look at all. These were unthinking people who were complicit with genocide and hadn’t considered it until they were forced to actually look at it. It is a person’s duty to look past their own perspective and be actively aware of the affect their work and choices have on others. I agree with Arendt that the unthinking man is just as dangerous as the truly evil one. Evil, hate filled people are fortunately in the minority of the human population. However, they do not require the masses to agree with them in order for them to take power. Instead, their success relies on people to decide to not consider the consequences of their actions and allow this hate to continue. Unthinking people are tools for the evil. Without them, evil people would be powerless.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/german-soldiers-react-to-concentration-camp-footage-photo.html
Section 10
DeleteMain post 10/22= 3 points
Commented on Anthony Ozoh’s post 10/22= 1 point
Commented on Isaiah Bryanton’s post 10/22= 1 point
Grand Semester Total (excluding bonuses)= 45 points
I really was intrigued by your short essay, Anna. I even saw the picture that you attached to help me see the visual of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. You did an excellent job :)
DeleteBetsy Akpotu
ReplyDeletePHIL 1030-010
Weekly Essay # 10
10/22/2020
What are some of the "language games" you play? (What are some different things you use language for? So, my family multiply game and our favorite game is “War” and “Who’s and What’s” is a Nigerian game dealing with shapes and numbers. We play who’s and what’s by using our language in the game of saying if you put seven and it’s a triangle you go to the market and burrow money at the market, that means you need to draw two card from the deck of cards. Hahaha. Its kind of funny but that how we communicate in our language. The other game “War” is the kings, queens, ace etc... and you have seven people, and you flip the card and the people who have the highest points takes the cards.
Can there be a "private language"? No, because every language is different just like the bible said we speak in different tongues in that section plus Spanish is the second language in United States, 90 percent, that crazy. Pro wrestling is obviously staged. Why is it so popular? Well, back in the day. My brother and I plus my mom watched WWE. It was popular because of entertainment, hype up, storyline between wrestlers and the bloody, dangerous stunts. My favorite was the brother of destruction, Kane, and The Undertaker plus Eddie GurrÃa and Rey Mysterio. Fun Fact: Donald Trump came to WWE because of Mr. Mickman, who almost got his head shaved bold, but now in the present, it’s not good anymore. Kane, yes Kane is now the mayor of Knoxville, here in Tennessee.
I loved reading your essay blog. I also never have heard of the game "War" before but you made it sound extremely fun. Keep up the great work Betsy :)
DeleteIs philosophy continuous with literature and poetry, or should it be? 334
ReplyDeleteI believe that philosophy will always be continuous with literature and poetry. The reason I say that is because philosophy will never go away and you hear about philosophy in many different forms such as movies, television shows, book readings, on the internet, even in the newspaper. Philosophy will never go away and that is a great thing because there are bunch of people who love philosophy books and want to know more about the understanding and deep meaning about philosophy books and philosophy in general. On page 334 it states that Aleksei said "BY this intuitive knowledge we can distinguish between real and our mind's fantasy". I can relate to that quote that Aleksei was talking about because in philosophy it takes your mind to a whole new world and adventure that you never thought of and it also sparks ideas to see what is to happen next. I mentioned that philosophy can be everything but it has a true meaning when you are connected deeply with it as a reader, teacher/professor, etc.
45/45 is my total for the essays
Commented on Betsy Akpotu (1 point)
Commented on Anna Johnson (1 point)
I agree with you on philosophy continuous with literature and poetry. However I didn't really know about philosophy until this class but we see it in many different as you stated and its a great thing. Nice work!
DeleteI agree! I think the study of philosophy versus the practice of philosophy are different entities. Many people practice their philosophies without having any idea! This goes with characters in different mediums of fiction as well.
Delete
ReplyDeleteIs pornography "normal"?
I mean yes and no? It is normal in the sense that A LOT of people watch it, partake in it, so on and so forth. But like the product itself, far from it. People get addicted to it, but because everyone in watches it, they feel that there is no reason to admit that, like that is “normal.” People become reliant on it, and there are articles, or posts on forums out there that even state that sometimes they don’t even watch it because they need stimulation but rather, they feel they “need to.” That coupled with the fact that there are ongoing cases of child pornography and abuse on major websites like Pornhub, that everyone ignores because their social media is “quirky.” Only Fans has recently popped off, and is quickly gaining steam, which is more ethical in the porn front because most people make their content themselves, but also its grabbing more and more users that are essentially selling their bodies, which you should have every right to, just using it as a get rich quick scheme, not worrying about the long term ramifications of it. Porn also normalizes like unarguably weird trends, like the whole “Step-[insert]” here and caters to a lot of people’s fetishes, which don’t get me wrong is your preference, but sometimes that preference is just not healthy, and just because you like something doesn’t mean it’s good for you. Long story short, being horny, having desires that stuff is normal, the porn though, has a huge slew of issues, some of which can cause you to have a dependence on it that a lot of the times you and the people around you don’t notice, even after it’s too late, coupled with the fact of ethical concerns, and fetishizing certain things that are objectively not healthy for you.
Answered Question(s): +3
DeleteReplied to Anthony Ozoh: +1
Replied to Miranda: +1
This Week: 5/5
Total Points: 45/45
I agree when you say that it is normal and not normal at the same time. Like anything else, porn can be used responsibly and irresponsibly. Some people are going to abuse it like they abuse anything else, and some people will become addicted. I think there is definitely a line when it comes to porn, and just like anything else people can build up an immunity to it where they need to see more intense things to get the same satisfaction as before.
DeleteWas Popper right about falsifiability?
ReplyDeleteI think that Popper was right when it came to falsifiability. As someone who hates to take someone’s word for something without being shown any evidence of why what that person is saying is true, I really understand where Popper is coming from. Without Popper’s ideas, people could make any sort of outrageous claim that would be impossible to prove or disprove, and their claim, however ridiculous, would have to be considered correct. Popper honestly makes me think of truth. It seems like Popper really cared about finding what was, completely true, and what was true with the ideas and beliefs of the time. Popper’s idea of falsifiability has some serious implications when you stop and think about it. What is truth? How can we prove that anything is true? Is truth something that humans have come up with to make it easier to understand the things that happen around us? Do we make up these beliefs and have “proofs” so that we have peace of mind? The book uses the example that fairies are making Warburton right about Popper, and there is no way to prove or disprove this because there is no way to obtain evidence. While this seems absurd to us, he has a point. It reminds me of religion, which has no proof that has been discovered yet. I find it amusing that people believe in religions that where established when the it was understood in the known world that the Earth was flat and that it was possible to fall off if one went too far in one direction. Maybe Popper was onto something bigger than just proving or disproving things, falsifiability could change people’s day to day lives.
#12
Weekly essay
DeleteComment on Moustafa Shamdeen's post
Comment on Mohap Siddig's post
45/45 points
“What do Burning Man attendees and other adults who like to play dress-up tell us about the state of adulthood in contemporary America? 245”
ReplyDeleteWhat do I think of Burning Man and the propensity of adults across the world to dress up or flock to places of acceptance and fun-centric escapism? Well, I’d say I think those things are hardly new occurrences (see also: Music festivals such as Woodstock, detailed novels and books detailing long-imagined alternative universes, and a long history of costuming), but I feel that they’re largely symptomatic of a less-than-ideal of inclusive society in which the appealing concepts proposed by fantastical narratives or fictitious universes are more attractive than those of reality. Life 300 years ago was much more volatile and unpredictable, but as technology and efficiency have advanced, so too has the predictable mundanity of daily life in 90% of the world’s jobs. Given the sustained necessity for income and money to lead a comfortable or successful life in the world today, I don’t think it’s any surprise that adults with an excess of money and a deficit of adventure or fulfillment are seeking comfort in socially popular fantasies such as media-centric universes or thematic fandoms that lead to gatherings such as comic-con or furry conventions. To be presented with an opportunity to reinvent or commit oneself to something of their choosing without the harsh constraints of ones own physical appearance or unchangeable attributes grows more and more appealing with each passing day and I’m no exception.
When faced with being an emotionless corporate entity/labor vessel or something fantastic and relevant (even if only briefly) wouldn’t you find yourself at least slightly drawn towards the latter?
Hey Adam, I also answered this question and I love that you focused on the more Marxist approach to the question. Obviously, everyone needs to find reprieve and enjoyment in order to be happy in this world and what's the harm in dressing up fantastically if it doesn't hurt anyone? As The Shining so potently portrayed it: all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
DeleteWeekly Essay 3/3
DeleteReplied to Blake Hughes 1/1
Replied to Jeffery Monfort 1/1
What do Burning Man attendees and other adults who like to play dress-up tell us about the state of adulthood in contemporary America? 245
ReplyDeleteTo say that Burning Man attendees and other festival goers are playing dress up is a misconception about the point and experience of the festival for everyone involved. I think that if festival goers are considered as playing dress up then so should priests, pastors, the whole slew of Catholic liturgy, soldiers, police officers, firefighters and paramedics. The distinction between “playing dress-up” and professionalism or wearing a uniform or a socially appropriate adult outfit is based on the respect that the observer has for the people wearing those outfits and what they represent. In normal society everyone dresses for their environment and the emotional, mental or spiritual setting. You don’t attend church on Easter Sunday wearing your depression sweater or McDonald’s uniform. A festival is a large gathering and celebration which may or may not involve ceremony and ritual - it could be argued that all festivals have their own versions of ceremony and ritual involved, I know that Bonnaroo and Burning Man do. The practice of specialized adornment, especially for use in festivals, goes back many thousands of years. In Ancient Greece when Artemis at Brauron was honored yearly with the arkteia, arktoi (young girls that performed the ritual) dressed in specific robes to perform their dances which would be shed at the end of the festival. Similarly and more well-known was the Panathenea festival held for Athena, during which Grecians adorned themselves specifically for the festival but artisans of Athens also embroidered a Peplas to adorn the statue of Athena. Burning Man and similar festivals are a space for attendees to adorn themselves without the restrictions of social norm or professionalism but to suit their physical, emotional and spiritual environment in a creative way. I myself have dressed outlandishly for festivals that I’ve attended because my outfit helped me handle the weather and it was a way to display something of my personality and why I attend the festival - and I’ve been very popular among other attendees multiple times because they resonated with my display of creativity. I think that the practice of adornment is not a statement on adulthood in America (especially because festivals are held all around the world) but rather a statement on the importance of adornment to the human experience.
Weekly post above, comment on Andreais C's post, comment on Adam Chambers' post.
DeleteOverall points: 45/45
Section 12
Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure?
ReplyDeleteOf course he was! But there were many things that weren’t tragic about Michael Jackson which I really feel bad for. First off, he was famous since he was a child. And because of that, he never had a childhood because his father took that from him and had him perform all his young years until he finally left his father’s clutches. Then there is the media. Oh God, how they trashed him. Out of all the celebrities who have been destroyed by the media, Michael got it the worst and he still gets the worst from the media. He got called “Wacko Jacko” and other horrible nicknames. He got mocked because of his plastic surgeries and his changing skin color. His skin changed because of vitiligo and lupus but no one believed him until he died. Many of his later surgeries were simply necessary reconstructions due to lupus.
If the government attempted to round up, detain, and deport millions of Latinos and Muslims, how would you respond?
Honestly, this might sound rude, but I would not care if government deport any illegal person(s). Unless they have the proofs and all the required documents which claim them as a permanent resident, I would go against the government because they are not illegal. I know I am none to say whether they should get deported or not, but according to my own personal experiences, I am an immigrant, just because there are thousands of illegal immigrants, it makes some things hard for us legal ones (e.g. we are asked to show our green cards even if we have our IDs).
Section010
Essay +3
Responded to Ammar Idris +1
Responded to Jeffery Monfort +1
I agree with on MJ ( Michael Jackson) being a tragic figure. However don't really understand what he has been through truly, but well written. Nice work!
DeleteWhen it comes to your take on Michael it is something I fully agree with, I feel like he was treated horribly by the media at the time and many of the things said about him were very disrespectful, I feel like during his lifetime MJ was very misunderstood
DeleteI agree with your statement about Michael Jackson. His childhood was stripped away at an early age. He never got to experience what it was like to live an "normal" life.
DeleteAre we becoming " fake humans " ?
ReplyDeleteWell I wouldn't say were becoming fake humans but Dystopias tend toward fantasies of absolute control, in which the system sees all, knows all, and controls all. And our world is indeed one of ubiquitous surveillance. Phones and household devices produce trails of data, like particles in a cloud chamber, indicating our wants and behaviors to companies such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google. Yet the information thus produced is imperfect and classified by machine-learning algorithms that themselves make mistakes. The efforts of these businesses to manipulate our wants leads to further complexity. It is becoming ever harder for companies to distinguish the behavior which they want to analyze from their own and others’ manipulations.
Essay +3
DeleteReplied to Khushi Patel & Jurnee Holloway +2
I agree with what you're saying sometimes I find it bizarre I could say something I'd like to have and it just pops up on my Instagram feed. At first maybe it's a coincidence but after a few times happening I feel like we are slowly being watched. Like in the book 1984 our "Big brother" is really just the government. I just feel like AI is very quickly making it's mark because everything is being tracked and observed even $100 bills.
DeleteIs pornography "normal"?
ReplyDeletePornography has, unfortunately, become a "normalcy" in our society. With the introduction of the internet came endless possibilities to grow technologically and have virtually any information, article, news reel, etc. at your fingertips. This includes pornography, and the internet is largely the reason pornography is considered "normal". To understand why pornography has become "normal", you must understand what it does to the brain. Pornography appeals to our natural desire for reproduction. By looking at the female/male body or watching the act of sex you are tapping into the part of your brain that holds that natural instinct, and your brain then releases what is called dopamine. Dopamine is essentially the brains pleasure system, thus, by watching pornography, you are deriving pleasure. This is much the same as an addictive drug as you soon become hooked on pornography because you derive pleasure from partaking in it, and one can find themselves depending on it and, in some cases, even pursuing pornography over pursing a relationship with another person. Millions of people access the internet every day, and with pornography inserting itself into advertisements, image searches, etc., it becomes hard to escape it and hard to suppress it. Pornography aims to control you by offering what, naturally, we want most, and it profits from that. However, we suffer from it. Pornography can lead to depression and a lack of motivation for those that partake in it, and it seeks to destroy the "family" by causing you to be unsatisfied with who you're with. So, pornography has indeed become an unspoken "normal" in our current society, however it is a dangerous "normal" that should be addressed and suppressed.
Side Note: Now, for those struggling with pornography, you're not alone. It takes about one month to rewire your brain to not objectify a relationship and not treat it as an invitation to satisfy your sexual desires, and it takes longer to solidify that. This, however, will not remove the temptation completely as that path in your brain will always be there, but it will suppress it and eventually render that path unnecessary. The best way to quit is to cut pornography out completely, immediately. Try to break the habits and set goals for yourself to begin the process of cutting out pornography. If you fail, don't give up. Failing can be necessary to realize that something is a problem and needs to be resolved. Do not be afraid to ask for help.
I agree with what you're saying with technology advancing it makes it easier for us to be exposed to pornography. It's normalized because it slowly became a desire for most. But besides the fact that our brain releases "Dopamine. It is also a good way to learn about sex since a lot of schools are starting to let go of Sex ED. They end up leaving it to you're parents or doctors and that's just such of an awkward conversation to have. But yes pornography slowly normalized itself.
DeleteThe trouble is that pornography is starting to be introduced to people at younger and younger ages. Considering I know of several children that have phones and technology at their fingertips, I think it's safe to assume that they are being exposed to things such as pornography. It's unfortunate because it gives such a warped impression of what relationships are.
DeleteWeekly Essay: 3
DeleteComment Henry Moseley: 1
Comment Shelby Pittman: 1
Total: 5
Grand Total: 16
Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that anybody and everybody is capable for great evil. I'm not saying that the world is evil, but I believe that as long as the human race still exists on this planet then I think that anything positive or negative is possible. You may look at someone that goes to church constantly and read the bible constantly as someone who is not capable to unleash great evil. The difference here is between the words capability and the likelihood of something. Anyone is capable of anything unless there is a disability or other adversary that completely disables them of certain actions and activities. Likelihood is different by looking at someone and considering the chances of something can happen based upon the person that they are and also what beliefs and idea they follow that help develop the person that they are in the present day. So, these “ordinary” people are 100% capable of great evil, but some are less likely than others. Many people can form this great evil from a traumatic event that triggers something in their brain that then makes then like a different person and can eventually gradually grow into this idea of great evil. I believe that any form of evil originates from some type of good/innocence and then it builds up over time and eventually unleashes into something unexpected of someone that you once saw as innocent. With what I said before, I obviously believe I am “capable” of great evil, but the likelihood of it happening is very slim. I can admit I have obtained some of the same anger problems that my father has because some of the smallest things tick him off and I am kind of like that, but not as extreme. For example, I took my Ap English Test online at the end of my senior year because of COVID and many people were talking about how it would not submit. Whenever I finished the test it would not let me submit it and I eventually got a little angry since I had to take it all over again and punched a hole straight through my door. Now that I look at that situation, I look at myself as very immature for that action and very stupid for even doing it in the first place. However, I am a pretty mature person outside of that one situation and also very calm in person, so I believe the likelihood of great evil coming from me is very slim. I honestly don’t believe that we can be sure that the Holocaust will never happen again. I would like to hope that we use history and its sole purpose of learning from the past to never let anything like the Holocaust happen again. However, we can’t just ignore the possibility of it happening because I recently found out about how there are Muslim “Internment camps” which are pretty much like concentration camps during the past. I know its not as big as the Holocaust, but great evil usually tends to start from somewhere small and then build up and keeps getting worse until it is stopped by an outside force. Finally, I can say everybody can learn a lesson from the holocaust, but I have never fully indulged in the information about it besides the basics you learn in high school. The main lesson that I would like to teach my kids from this is to never discriminate people for their beliefs and morals that they follow in life that keeps them happy.
Section 012
Weekly Essay+3
Responded to Mohap Siddig +1
Responded to Kiera Riordan+1
Overall (40/45)
Should we be silent about things we can't prove? Should philosophy concern itself with more than understanding the logic of language?
ReplyDelete-I believe we are all allowed to express our opinion to whichever subject that you'd like to relate. As well on expressing you're opinion you'd need to be able to let and be prepared for the opposition response. Also, it has to be relatable and backed up with a few facts or ideas. For example you're arguing with someone and he/her is stating facts about where you went wrong. You can't just interrupt and just let words come flying out you're mouth you need some sort of argumentative truth. Back to the question I'd have to say no to being silent, but to an extent. Meaning if their isn't any right or wrong answer to something that hasn't been proven then you can add something relative to it or similar. But if you have nothing relative to say and it makes zero sense to whatever you're trying to prove just remain silent and listen. Well when I think about philosophy I don't only think it's about how to understand language. I think of it in a way someone can fully express themselves without interruptions. A space where you can think and express your believes on another's thoughts by just listening to them speak. I'm not sure but philosophy just seems such a huge atmosphere like space. So Yes, Philosophy should concern themselves more then the logic of language.
-Is pornography "normal"? 251
- I just wanted to briefly answer this question. I personally consider it normal and not absurd. The majority of the human race all have at least a small concept of what pornography is. It's viewed almost everywhere Online, Tv, Magazines etc. so it's nothing new just something most people find enjoyment in watching. There's nothing wrong with it because it slowly just normalized itself with time.
Essay(+3)
DeleteCommented on Hunter Bowling(+1)
Commented on Robbie Wright(+1)
40/45
Section 011
ReplyDeleteEichmann wasn't responsible..." 208 Agree?
Are unthinking people as dangerous as evil sadists? 211
I agree that Eichmann wasn't responsible for the policy of systematic killing, but he was responsible, albeit indirectly, for the deaths of millions of Jewish people. By failing to "do something" he was contributing to the problem that was going on. I understand, to the degree that I am able, that he had very little say in what he was doing and if he went against it he likely would've been killed as well, but unfortunately that doesn't make it right. I do think that unthinking people can be just as dangerous as evil sadists because as it said in the book unthinking people are unfortunately much more common. It only took one evil sadist to start the ball rolling for what became the holocaust, it took the thousands and thousands of soldiers and citizens turning a blind eye and acting without thinking to actually make anything happen though. The parallel in America would be the racism that has run wild since the country was founded. Even as recently as the 1960's when the schools were desegregated racism was such a "normal" part of the culture that people would often turn a blind eye toward it. Even today with all of the inequalities that are still a part of our everyday life people still just think of it as normal instead of a problem that needs to be solved.
Blog post on 10-22-20 (+3)
Replied to Matt Kolzow on 10-22-20 (+1)
Replied to Molly Belk on 10-22-20 (+1)
Total points 38/45
The thing about history is all we know is what we’re taught. Unless one goes out of their way to research things about history, most of our information comes from what we learn from textbooks and in history class. The only way to ensure that history, such as the Holocaust, doesn’t repeat itself is to be educated on how and why it happened. I think often education in school is dwindled down to assignments, tests, and exams. History needs more particular attention because it’s where we came from, but it’s often brushed over by students. Many people know general information about the Holocaust, but not enough to provide them with the information to identify if it’s happening all over again. I will teach my children to pay special attention to history, and how it can be important for the decisions they make to shape history in the future. The imprisonment and torture of Muslims in China is a current Holocaust that has been brushed under the rug by media. In this particular situation, all we can do is raise awareness and plead to our leaders to give it the attention it needs. Besides that, we seem somewhat powerless over decisions made by our ruling officials, making it difficult to ensure that things like this won’t happen again.
ReplyDeleteSection 010
Deleteweekly essay
replied to Hunter Bowling and Jurnee Holloway
Pro wrestling is obviously staged. Why is it so popular?
ReplyDeleteI feel like the reason Pro wrestling is so popular even though it is staged is because it has so much going on that catches the eye of many. From jumping off of ropes in the air, doing a backflip and landing on someone's body just to pin them is so eye-catching. It's very entertaining to see that come across your television and keeps you watching to see how it all ends or how it continues to go on. Also, for many older viewers and adults watching wrestling, I feel like watching wrestling allows you to let out more of the inner child inside of a person. Growing up watching the WWE and then still watching it later on with your children will let you go back to those childhood memories and moments. It really helps you hold onto to a bit of happiness that you've had in your younger days still be with you as you get older. I also feel like the storylines behind wrestling and the controversy about it at times keep people wanting to keep up what's going on in the wrestling, on and off the mat. All in all, wrestling is watched mainly due because it catches the attention of many and it allows people to be able to hold onto their inner-child and those moments from being young
Main Essay: +3 points
DeleteReplied to Khushi Patel: +1 point
DeleteReplied to Kiera Riordan: +1 point
DeleteThe mention of John Stuart Mill’s quotation, “doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow, without impediment from our fellow creatures, as long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse or wrong,” caught my attention during lecture. In particular, “doing as we like…as long as what we do does not harm them,” as this is akin, almost verbatim to the Wiccan Rede, “an ye harm none, do what thou wilt,” which got me digging. Of what I could find in my brief search is that Mills was the originator and then went from a litany composed by Lady Gwen Thompson to Gerald B. Gardner’s quotation, “Do what you like so long as you harm none.” Gardner it so happens, was the one who gave the name to Wicca in his 1954 book “Witchcraft Today”. Now to get to my point, I believe that this quotation/rede/rule/code is much more limiting in a person’s actions than you would expect at first glance. It really depends on what your definition of “harm” is. If it were only physical harm, then yeah go crazy! But what about psychological, financial, sexual, and neglect? Can these types of harms really be ignored? In my opinion, no. If you were to take into account every action has a reaction and perhaps even energy can neither be created nor destroyed then whatever you do would send ripples out among others, whether you see them or not. Therefore you are free to act but not free of the consequences.
ReplyDeleteHow would you respond if you woke up with a violinist plugged into your kidneys? Is this a good analogy for unwanted or unintended pregnancy? 226
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would freak out as this incident was done without my consent which means I had no control in any way to prevent it from happening. After I would initially calm down, I would have to decide to unplug as I have no personal connection to this person. I don't think this was a good analogy for unwanted pregnancies. Sure, I believe that these two situations are indeed similar as my life would literally be tethered to another. It's not like sex to which I can have the choice to back out or take precautions to prevent pregnancy. If I were to do it knowing all the risks and get pregnant, I would personally indeed try to take responsibility. However, this is a case of rape to where someone plugged me in without my permission and violated my body without any concern for how I might feel. While I do believe that the violinist deserves a chance to life, I know that they don't have a right to another person's body without their consent.
Section 11
DeletePosted my essay: 3 points
Commented on Kimmie Steakly's post: 1 point
Commented on Brittney Sherrell's post: 1 point
Total Points Overall: 45 point
I agree that these two situations can be similar, but the first situation puts me more in the mind of rape rather than just a surprise pregnancy.
DeleteAre ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?
ReplyDeleteI feel as though ordinary people are not cable of great evil, but they are cable of following commands of a leader who is "evil." If your leader is someone who you look up to, believe in, and trust it is easy to follow what they say without thinking of how good or bad their commands are. As an ordinary person I couldn't do something that was considered "greatly evil" My conscious would not let me. I will make sure that my children know the facts about the Holocaust. They will know that every decision you make has consequences that not only affect you, but also others around you.
in order for someone to be evil they need three things: oppurtunity, ability, and malice. This is what makes someone evil. With just opportunity, and ability you can be immoral but without malice there is no evil
DeleteWeekly Essay - 3 pts.
ReplyDeleteCommented on Kushi Patel's post - 1 pt.
Commented on Alexander Jasso's post - 1 pt.
Is pornography normal? (Late due to death in family)
ReplyDelete“Fantasyland” is a great perception as to why pornography is not normal. Personally, I’m 50/50 about if it is normal or not because I see it both ways. Sex is a natural part of life, it is the reason why you came to Earth. While I think it is normal because everyone has desires, it also has a major influence on what many women and men think is the normal standard for their bodies. It creates insecurities and makes people think that having plastic surgery and such is needed to fit in with society. However, I do not think there is any problems with changes to your body, but I also do not think it is needed to feel good about yourself. The book “Fantasyland” provides great examples about how it can create negative thought process when someone looks in their mirror. In my opinion, pornography is very unrealistic when it comes to the actual sex, how it happens, and how you should appear. Another personal opinion of mine is that with the younger generation, they might not obtain as much education about sex which can definitely have negative impacts.
Weekly essay- +3pts.
2 Comments- +2pts
Total for semester 40/45
I believe pornography is not a normal thing in the manners in which the public consumes it today with full length videos. Before technology pornography was printed in magazine and you would have to purchase it in a store. Because of the digital age kids the age of about 13 are watching pornography in a much much bigger scale then they were able to get a few years ago
DeleteShould it bother us that logical paradoxes that seem to be true AND false can be formulated in grammatically correct statements? Does this show something important about the limits of language, thought, and (thus) philosophy?Should it bother us that logical paradoxes that seem to be true AND false can be formulated in grammatically correct statements? Does this show something important about the limits of language, thought, and (thus) philosophy?
ReplyDeleteLimiting language in any capacity seems to be damaging in my eyes. While this is personal belief I would like to expand why I believe what I believe. In the cases of paradoxes there is no reason why these should be limited in any regard. Paradoxes are seemingly false statements based on logic and reason and through those mediums may potential be true. For this reason limiting such ideas would be limiting thought. there is a quote by Jaggi Vasudev "The sign of intelligence is that you are constantly wondering. Idiots are always dead sure about every damn thing they are doing in their life." I feel this is very true. If you aren't asking questions and wondering about the big unknown thinking points then you aren't freely thinking. I believe that no speech, thought or idea should ever be silenced no matter how absurb. If speech becomes restricted it will change the way our brains think. We would look to avoid thinking about the banned topics. The government has no place in controlling how we think
essay: 3pt
Deletecomment: jalen dewalt 1pt
comment taylor christian 1pt