Seeing that this one is my last post for the semester, I would first off like to say that you to my classmates that participated in class and on the blogs to provide interesting conversation. I really enjoyed discussing these philosophical questions with you. Also, I would like to thank David Johnson for being an amazing professor and finding interesting material for us to read and talk about. Although you tended to go on monologuing at points (Kidding, sorta :p), You really brought new ideas that I never considered and I loved thinking about. I can't wait to have philosophy of music with you next semester.
Now, onto the actual part of the post that talks about human nature. Since this is the goodbye, I thought I would talk about death, since they both have to do with parting. I have been thinking for a while and was wondering which people fear more, death, or dying. My mom always says that she doesn't fear death, but she fears dying. Death is the fear of the actual oblivion, while fear of dying is the fear of the process that results in death. but then I thought about things that the reason one probably fears dying is because they fear the fact that their body will fail them, which will result in the oblivion, so in a way they are the same. Fear of dying is just fear of death, just once removed.
Which do you fear, death or dying?
(Thanks for everything again. Have a great summer all of you)
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Response to Julia's question
Q: Do you think it is ever possible for someone to truly live selflessly, always putting others before their own, or will their own interests always take priority over that of others?-Julia Ashton
A: It depends on what one means when one talks about selflessness. If one means that one puts others before them, then I would claim that the answer is no. However, if youy mean that one holds more interests in helping others for personal reasons, then I would say yes. This reminds me of that essay we had to read when we talked about altruism, where although one might not be able to act outside of one's own 'want,' one can still channel that 'want' into the wellbeing of others.
Q: The question I have is, is one morally obliged to be selfless?
A: It depends on what one means when one talks about selflessness. If one means that one puts others before them, then I would claim that the answer is no. However, if youy mean that one holds more interests in helping others for personal reasons, then I would say yes. This reminds me of that essay we had to read when we talked about altruism, where although one might not be able to act outside of one's own 'want,' one can still channel that 'want' into the wellbeing of others.
Q: The question I have is, is one morally obliged to be selfless?
Nature or Nurture.
Since I should be studying for a behavior analysis final tomorrow, I think I might as well write a blog post on the behaviorist perspective perspective on human nature. Behaviorism is a psychological theory that believes that all human behavior, thought, and action (actually, thought and action are a part of behavior) are influenced only by environmental stimuli and conditioning. They leave room for genetic influences and disabilities, but beyond that, all human behavior can be traced back to environmental influences. It is an interesting theory to say the least, because they believe that with the right environmental stimuli a human can learn to act or behave in almost any way. People often use behaviorist theories and techniques to treat people with mental deficiencies, suffering from phobias or other mental problems.
The philosophical problem comes when one realizes that through this theories, not only is there no free will, but one is merely a puppet to external forces. What is scarier is that more and more evidence is pointing to the fact that this might be the truth.
For those that are interested, one can read more here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/
The philosophical problem comes when one realizes that through this theories, not only is there no free will, but one is merely a puppet to external forces. What is scarier is that more and more evidence is pointing to the fact that this might be the truth.
For those that are interested, one can read more here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/
Human nature and sexuality
It struck me that we completely neglected a large facet of human nature. Human love and sexuality. What is love? What kinds of love are there? What fetishes are acceptable? Is homosexuality natural? Does one learn to love? Is homosexuality wrong? What kind of love is acceptable?
Because I viewed that We neglected this aspect, I thought I'd just get a brief overview of the theories behind them.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/sexualit/
These I viewed were great summaries of the ideas behind them. Although I just skimmed and read the parts that interested me, I found them quite informative. So in order to breed some possible discussion on this concept (although I doubt anybody is going to respond to this, my question is, what do you think love is?
Because I viewed that We neglected this aspect, I thought I'd just get a brief overview of the theories behind them.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/sexualit/
These I viewed were great summaries of the ideas behind them. Although I just skimmed and read the parts that interested me, I found them quite informative. So in order to breed some possible discussion on this concept (although I doubt anybody is going to respond to this, my question is, what do you think love is?
Free will?
So, according to this article, there is a drug called burundanga, which is rumored to possibly be able to take away a persons free will, which raises great inquiries about free will and the neurology that allows us to possess it, if we do indeed have it. If there is a plant that can shut off one's free will, then that instantly eliminates the possibility of the soul existing. Because only something physical can be affected by something physical, that negates the possibility of the soul.
Another interesting thing this article brings up is the possibility that certain chemicals can tamper with our 'free will' which means that our free will could be easily influenced and manipulated. Could our will be not as free as we thought?
Another interesting thing this article brings up is the possibility that certain chemicals can tamper with our 'free will' which means that our free will could be easily influenced and manipulated. Could our will be not as free as we thought?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Celebration of death
So, as most of you already The death of Osama Bin Laden was confirmed by president Obama on May 1st 2011. And upon the release of this news, many places I go to online (*cough* Facebook *cough*) has exploded in expressions of celebration, skepticism and debate. However, one of the biggest arguments I encountered was the debate over whether or not one should feel happy about the murder. People are celebrating the death, saying 'good riddance' and 'thank God,' while others are claiming that it was a bad thing that he was murdered. Often they say that his death was not worth the amount of lives needed to kill him.
However, I notice that there is a flaw in the logic of the objectors. What they claim is that his death was not worth the cost. While the celebrators are just celebrating the fact that a dangerous enemy that killed many people is gone. The objectors and celebrators are discussing two completely different things. I am sure that most of the celebrators would agree that the life cost was too high in order to finally get him, but that is not the point. The point is that he is out of the way finally and can do no more direct damage (however he might inspire a couple terrorists who make him out to be a martyr).If the objectors truly wished to argue this case, then they would need to argue more along the lines of how murder and death is always wrong no matter what, but I am sure defending a terrorist who killed thousands of people and promoted hatred and violence won't go over very well.
Is it alright to celebrate the death of an enemy?
However, I notice that there is a flaw in the logic of the objectors. What they claim is that his death was not worth the cost. While the celebrators are just celebrating the fact that a dangerous enemy that killed many people is gone. The objectors and celebrators are discussing two completely different things. I am sure that most of the celebrators would agree that the life cost was too high in order to finally get him, but that is not the point. The point is that he is out of the way finally and can do no more direct damage (however he might inspire a couple terrorists who make him out to be a martyr).If the objectors truly wished to argue this case, then they would need to argue more along the lines of how murder and death is always wrong no matter what, but I am sure defending a terrorist who killed thousands of people and promoted hatred and violence won't go over very well.
Is it alright to celebrate the death of an enemy?
Response to Julia
Have you ever been able to meditate? If so, how do you think it works? How are we able to disconnect our mental body from our physical body?-Julia Ashton
To answer that question, yes, I have entered meditative states on multiple occasions. I have also gone through guided meditation and hypnosis. All in my opinion are very similar. From my viewpoint, meditation is all about bringing oneself to a different state of consciousness and focusing one's concentration and focus on certain concepts. It can be self improvement, or contemplation. It is very relaxing and can often help me personally get in touch with my own self, imagination, and willpower. It allows me to focus my energy on the object that I want accomplished for that session, and even if I don't get it accomplished, it provides me with a great way of relaxing. As for how it can separate your mind from the body, it is just like anything else that requires a lot of intense focus and concentration. When you focus your mind on one specific task, you only pay attention to the parts of your body and environment that you need. Therefore, when one is only using one's mind, the rest of the body fades out and 'disconnects' with us.
If the mind can do such amazing things like tune out the entire body and focus solely on the mind, could the reverse be true? Could the mind ever focus solely on the body and completely shut off the conscious mind?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)