Why is it a part of human nature to have humans neglect the things that will increase their survival rates?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Procrastination
In order to survive, man needs to perform certain tasks, like work for money, or buy groceries for food. Yet it is a part of human nature to do what one desires, such as play a game of football, surf the web, or read a book. So obviously, some things that are neccessary conflict with thing that we want to do. Now, it is in everybody's best option if one does the things that will keep one alive longer and inrease one's chance of survival. Yet we have things like procrastination, and neglect which make us not do these things.
Is it ok to be selfish on the path to your dreams if your dream is an altruistic one?
-By Cameron Hamlet
-I find this question to be very interesting. I would have to say the answer lies wit the person and how far they are willing to go to pursue their dreams. A dream is a goal or an object that someone wishes to attain. Everybody has dreams and everybody wants to achieve them. The question one must ask is 'what is one willing to do to achieve ones dreams?" A dream usually makes someone happy and is desirable, would one not wish to then do everything in one's power to achieve it? Also, the American way and culture is stereotypically created so one can pursue one's dreams. Therefore it is not bad to pursue dreams. So, if to achieve ones goals is highly desirable, and is morally acceptable, the only thing that could stop one from achieving it is one's conscience.
As long as one does not break any personal or social mores, then one will not have done anything morally impermissible.
-By Cameron Hamlet
-I find this question to be very interesting. I would have to say the answer lies wit the person and how far they are willing to go to pursue their dreams. A dream is a goal or an object that someone wishes to attain. Everybody has dreams and everybody wants to achieve them. The question one must ask is 'what is one willing to do to achieve ones dreams?" A dream usually makes someone happy and is desirable, would one not wish to then do everything in one's power to achieve it? Also, the American way and culture is stereotypically created so one can pursue one's dreams. Therefore it is not bad to pursue dreams. So, if to achieve ones goals is highly desirable, and is morally acceptable, the only thing that could stop one from achieving it is one's conscience.
As long as one does not break any personal or social mores, then one will not have done anything morally impermissible.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Q: Is is possible to love someone but to not be in love with them?
-Sam St. Pierre
A: What does one think affection for family and close friends are? Love is a broad and vague term that simply means a feeling of intense bonds for another person. There all sorts of love within that. There is romantic love, familial love, platonic love, all sorts of types, which means that love can encompass a whole different variety of situations.
Is it possible to love someone, but not like them?
Isn't everybody selfish?
Speaking of altruism and selfishness, one can hardly neglect to bring up the philosopher Ayn Rand. In one of her books, "The Virtue of Selfishness" the co-author of the book, Nathaniel Branden held a topic discussing on whether or not humanity can only do things that they 'want,' or 'choose' to do. He refutes the commonly held belief that people do indeed do this by claiming that people are confusing the words selfishness and egoism. He claims that if one is selfish, they will only perform acts that benefit themselves. Egoism, on the other hand states that people perform all actions because they 'want' to. In this manner, a selfish person would never engage in a behavior which would cause him harm, while an egoistic person could.
However, could this just be changing the words of the debate? Instead of saying selfishness versus altruism, and we now say egoism versus altruism, are we just changing words?
However, could this just be changing the words of the debate? Instead of saying selfishness versus altruism, and we now say egoism versus altruism, are we just changing words?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
More contradictions
Human nature goes against itself if one truly thinks about it.
It is within human nature to try to save others, yet if everybody gets saved, we weaken our gene pool and decrease or species rate of survival. So it is within our nature of survival to slowly weaken our chances of this very thing that we are trying to preserve. We keep people who have been born with defects alive, we keep people with incredibly weak body parts alive, and we keep those with health problems alive too. Natural selection works by ensuring only the strong survive, but in our following our nature, we have ensured the weak also survive, thus polluting our gene pool and giving us more defects. I find this incredibly ironic. However, I am not saying that we should stop keeping people alive however, because once again, this is only our nature and the nature of the universe. Who is to say that one must follow the nature of the universe in order to be good, or one must follow one's own nature? All this is is what we are predisposed to do, nothing more, nothing less.
If human nature is so contradictory, does that mean that we will never be able to discover it completely?
It is within human nature to try to save others, yet if everybody gets saved, we weaken our gene pool and decrease or species rate of survival. So it is within our nature of survival to slowly weaken our chances of this very thing that we are trying to preserve. We keep people who have been born with defects alive, we keep people with incredibly weak body parts alive, and we keep those with health problems alive too. Natural selection works by ensuring only the strong survive, but in our following our nature, we have ensured the weak also survive, thus polluting our gene pool and giving us more defects. I find this incredibly ironic. However, I am not saying that we should stop keeping people alive however, because once again, this is only our nature and the nature of the universe. Who is to say that one must follow the nature of the universe in order to be good, or one must follow one's own nature? All this is is what we are predisposed to do, nothing more, nothing less.
If human nature is so contradictory, does that mean that we will never be able to discover it completely?
Proof.
If ghosts were proven to exist would that be a step towards proving that gods exists?
-Jenny Beers
Well, say if ghosts were proven to exist, we would still need to knowhow they exist. Just because they exist would not be because God made them. There would be plenty of valid theories other than divine intervention. However, I think that this question does lead into a more serious problem of what would constitute proof of god. Just as how the believer can dismiss proof against god, A naturalist can dismiss proof for god quite easily that the parting of the red sea could be a hallucination. It would be quite a stretch, but the believer can do many great feats with the imagination as well.
Could any proof for god not be dismissed?
-Jenny Beers
Well, say if ghosts were proven to exist, we would still need to knowhow they exist. Just because they exist would not be because God made them. There would be plenty of valid theories other than divine intervention. However, I think that this question does lead into a more serious problem of what would constitute proof of god. Just as how the believer can dismiss proof against god, A naturalist can dismiss proof for god quite easily that the parting of the red sea could be a hallucination. It would be quite a stretch, but the believer can do many great feats with the imagination as well.
Could any proof for god not be dismissed?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)