Determinism

Q: If not God, then what entities manage determinism? -Israel Diaz

A: No entity is needed to manage the universe or fate in my point of view. I believe that when people think of fate, they shouldn't think of God planning their life from day one to the day they die. No, The universe is subject to the laws of physics, and one of those laws is the law of cause and effect. These chains of cause and effect are the ones that determine our fate, not some outside entity. Since the beginning of time, there have been causes that have been made which have made effects which cause other things. So ever since the first atom was created, we have had our fates sealed because that atom was caused to act in a certain way, which causes other things to act in a certain way and so on, until due to that one atom behaving in that one way, I am typing this blog post. 

Although, I will concede that there must be a 'first cause' of some sort, and many apologists use this as proof for god, but there are many things it could have been as well, other than a being with will. It could have been a random fluke of the universe, which is what I'm betting on.

Human Action

Q: Do we revolve around the Earth's patterns, or do our actions shape the way the Earth changes and forms?

-Brittany Guntor

A: This is like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first in many respects. The Earth causes us to act a certain way, which sometimes causes us to alter the Earths Patterns, Which causes us to react again. For example, the idea of global warming. The earth's environment allowed us to make these machines, which affect the environment, which cause us to try to create different machines. This ties in with the chain of cause and effect. In my opinion, the patterns of the Earth affect us more than we affect it however. Mainly because we live on the earth and it's patterns affect multitudes of people. A single individual can not change the earth in any significant way without the help of technology or many other people. 

I do not know why, but this is reminding me of a scene from The Matrix where Agent Smith compares all humans on the earth to a virus. He said that humans use the worlds resources and mold them to their liking, they spread and multiply, and are very hard to completely remove. My question would be is 'Is humankind like a virus?'

The nature of religion

        In my opinion, religion appeals to the very core that is mans nature. It has been around since man first developed rational thought. It was the first guesses as to how the universe worked, and as Ayn Rand states "Religion is a primitive form of philosophy." So in this sense, religion fueled mankinds quest for knowledge about our world and satiated our inborn curiosity. However, if this was the only true part about religion, religion would be much less prevalent nowadays. 

       The reason it is still around and still going strong is that religion appeals to another part of the human mind: Our egocentrism. Everyone wants a security blanket in every sense of the word. They want to know that there is someone who is looking out for them, and they want to believe that they are so important that a divine being would create an entire universe just for them. Another thing on that note is that their fear of death, their fear of impermanence, makes them want to believe that their soul will live on after death. These are the reasons why I think religion has stayed for so long.

Is egocentrism a bad belief to hold?

I do?

Why do some people never get married? Is it their choice? Or do some people never find anyone to love? I will also add.. Do those people chose to be alone?-Jenny Beers
      Does anyone choose to be alone? Barring a few exceptions, I would have to say the answer is no. As Aristotle said, 'Man is a social creature.' I am sure that if someone had the choice to be together with someone that they love, or be alone, they would choose the first option. Although, I am not saying that not having a significant other is a bad thing. Many live perfectly good lives. However, I am sure most people would find their quality of life improve and their overall happiness improve if they find someone else. This is probably because this fills an almost primal role for us humans. It is instinct to want to have someone who will be by your side and help support you. Now, as for marriage, marriage is simply an institution that was created by religion to show your devotion to one other person. So for some people, they may choose to get married, or if they feel like they won't need it, they won't. 
   Marriage is a human concept.  What other human concepts are there that we use to define ourselves and the world?

Tell me about your long term goals.

                So, a little while ago I held a conversation with my room mate on what we thought would be mankinds greatest achievement. Although we disagreed on what the greatest achievement would be, we ended up getting a really philosophical debate. It turned out that both of us, and indeed other people as well, believe mankinds ultimate achievement is to achieve some kind of permanence in the universe. Both of us viewed that if mankind could make a significant impact into the universe, then we would have achieved greatness, and I was wondering why people want to make an impact so much. I thought about this for a while afterwards and decided that we try to do this because we don't want to feel like everything we do is meaningless and therefore try to change the universe in some way shape or form.
              Why does mankind try to prove it's importance by altering the universe when the universe is a nonsentient, uncaring, object?

Balancing acts.

If human nature drives us towards independence while society drive us towards interdependence, wherein can we find the proper balance?
Sean provided some great insight into my question about how societies are actually self destructive, but the question posed by Sean is a loaded question in the fact that there is only a subjective answer. Every person has a different level of need for independence and interdependence and it is near impossible to satisfy every single person with a proper blend between the two, which is one of the reasons in my opinion, governments fail because they try to satisfy everyone and end up just failing miserably at this impossible task. So if a society will ever reach a balance between these two forces that I find good and acceptable, it might be unbearable to other people. Therefor, Society and as a result government will never be perfect for everybody. Yet at the same time, one cannot dissolve society and government (Which are intrinsically linked together) permanently because it is within our nature to create groups and societies. 
Since Society and government can never be truly perfect and it is indestructible due to human nature, does that mean it is in human nature to discriminate or have other humans in unfair situations?

We have nothing to fear...

What are some things that you believe are in our nature to fear?
This was the question posed by Julia Ashton. Ever since humankind came out of his caves and developed conscious thought (and probably even before then), they have been fearful of many things. In order to answer what is within our nature to fear, I think we first must answer what is fear? Fear, in my definition springs from conditioning, which is a psychological term which means that one learns one's behavior from ones environment. If one is unfamiliar with these terms, look here for the definition of classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Pretty much, the more one is exposed to a stimulus and an experience of that stimulus, the more one will start associating that stimulus with that experience. Pretty much, if one is exposed to snakes at an early age and one bites them, then they will start to associate snakes with pain which will cause one to avoid seeing them. 
Now, using this theory, what fears I would view to be a part of human nature would be a fear of certain stimuli that have held negative experiences for such a long time that it has become instinctive for us to avoid them. For example, many people fear the dark since one has learned to associate the dark with the unknown (which may contain dangers and predators), Some other fears might be a fear of death, fire, or strangers. All of these things were viewed as dangerous due to their known harmful or unknown natures.
 One thing I have noticed is that humans tend to fear the unknown due to the possible dangers that may lurk there. This even happens today. Why do humans tend to focus on the dangers of the unknown and not on the possible benefits?

The implications of human nature.

Alright, so, hypothetically speaking, say mankind had finally discovered the overall nature of humanity. I want to know what implications or changes that might cause, because in reality, all one has found out one's nature. Ones still does not know whether it would be ethically good or bad to follow them. For example, some may say it is withing human nature to kill, or that men are born sinners, does that mean that one may accept this fact and embrace it even? Or should one reject one's own  nature and fight against it.
 Our study of human nature might lead us to deeper understanding of ourselves, but that will simply give us knowledge. My question is, How will knowledge of human nature change a person ethically, personally, and socially?

A response to Katie Russel's question

Katies question: Is there such a thing as a trust worthy person?


That is a question that is highly subjective. Trust is a very personal concept and depends on the person and how naive/cynical, or optimistic/pessimistic the person is. For example, for myself, I have maybe one or two people that I can trust one hundred percent, some other friends of mine I do trust somewhat.  That is another thing, trust does come in gradations. I can trust my friends not to kill me in my sleep, but I would not trust some of them to handle some deep secrets of mine, so I would say that trustworthiness all depends on the person, because I also know one girl who would trust her life to a random stranger.
        Is it better to be too trusting or not trusting enough?

Response to Sam's Question

Q:  Do you believe that it is within human rights to sentence criminals to the death penalty?

My colleague Sam is asking a question that ethicists, politicians, and theologians have been asking for centuries. I think that humankind has a basic right to survival, since survival continues the human race. Therefore, things that decrease mankinds chances of survival would be considered undesirable. Self defense is a way to preserve one's self, no one can argue with that.Therefore, defending oneself from someone who would wishes to harm someone would be considered an act of survival. 

Now, in my view, a human life is priceless, and anyone who takes another life commits a heinous crime, yet they might be able to be redeemed and focus their future on a better path. However, if a person has taken human life and shows no hope of redemption and threatens the life of future persons, society as a whole is allowed to sentence that man to death which will protect the survival of their race

Who gets to decide who is irredeemable?

Contradiction.

So, I believe it was Aristotle, one of the dead Greeks, who said that 'man is a social animal.' I would definitely agree with him for the most part in that, aside from a few exceptions, this is true. Although, I would also like to say that often, mankind does things that are contradictory to this statement. . A man needs a woman in order to have kids, and a person needs friends for allies at the very most primal level. And being comrades with others entails that one entails a certain level of trust, and that they all depend on one another for aid to an extent.So why would it be seen that some people refuse to seek the counsel of one's friends and when confronted with a problem, often tries to deal with it by themselves and not seek outside help and treat it like a sort of shame?


Should beings who are actually social and interdependent seclude themselves? Or is there another force at play?
My theory is that this is society at work. Society in my opinion holds a very different nature than human nature. In the western society, individualism is cherished and I think that interdependence is looked down upon. Thus proving that society can be incompatible with human nature. 
If humans are social animals, then they must form societies, but if societies then counteract what human nature is, would that not cause a great psychological contradiction in someones head? So could it be that our drive to form societies actually is a bit self destructive?