In Response to Megan Cooney (4/22/2010)

Q: “What is it that changed the minds of people to become more accepting of atheism?”

I enjoyed reading your blog post because I think that it highlighted something that we did not really discuss in class about Darwin’s ideas. It does seem that a major consequence of Darwin’s idea was that society began to accept the idea of being an atheist.

I think the fact that people changed their minds about atheism relates to one of the main reasons why religion is popular in the first place. Most religions have a story of why humans exist, and what will happen once we die. In addition, humans are afraid of the unknown; this is exactly the reason why religion is so popular. Religious beliefs provide people with the feeling of security because it provides them with a purpose and the certainty of knowing what happens after death. There are many unknowns in our world, and most religions are able to provide answers to these unknowns.

As far as unknowns, the question of how humans were created is one of the most important unknowns that exists. For this reason, I think that Darwin’s ideas were able to use scientific evidence to prove an explanation of this unknown, and his ideas were the first that could give a scientific answer to the question of how humans were created. This leads to the idea that people began to accept atheism after Darwin’s ideas because before Darwin, there was no way to scientifically explain how humans were created. Many people accepted the ideas that religions provided as an explanation for the creation of humans because there was no other idea that could be proven.

Once Darwin’s ideas began to become accepted, people began to realize that some major religious ideas could be wrong. This is exactly why I believe that people began to accept atheism. Darwin’s ideas proved scientific evidence of why religious ideas could be incorrect. Before Darwin and other scientific breakthroughs, there was not much science that could disprove religious ideas. Once the idea of natural selection could be proven, I think people began to second-guess religion.

There are things that I like about religion, but I absolutely hate their exploitation of human uncertainty. Most people are extremely afraid of death, and I believe that certain religions, especially Christianity, take advantage of this human characteristic. I see things all the time that try to convert people into being Christian by saying that they will go to heaven if they choose to be Christian, but hell if they do not. This whole strategy turns into a type of scare tactic into getting people to convert to a certain religion. I do not believe that an all good, all powerful being like God would want people to be scared into obeying his standards. For me, religious values relate to things like peace and love, not fear mongering.

The idea that religions often use the exploitation of the fear of uncertainty to convert people relates back to your original question because Darwin’s ideas helped remove one of the human uncertainties that religions used. Even though I highly doubt it would ever happen, if someone were able to prove what happens after death scientifically, then I believe atheism would be accepted by people even more than religion was. With that said, I believe that religion will always exist.

What do you think about theories that combine Darwin’s ideas with religious ideas?

A Different Standard

In class yesterday we concluded our conversation on the ideas of Charles Darwin. I enjoyed the whole discussion, but the end of the discussion was the part that interested me the most. We ended the class discussion by bringing up an idea that seems to be very important in today’s society: the constant debate between human morality and natural selection.

During the class, there was a lot of discussion related to the idea that humans are trying to avoid natural selection by trying to find cures for anything that would lead to a premature death. People in our class kept bringing up the idea that humans are unable to let other humans die, which is something that other species do; people were trying to say that the human species is trying to avoid natures attempt at eliminating the weaker part of the human species.

I found this idea very interesting because it seemed to imply that humans should not be helping other humans that are in situations that are difficult to survive. Then the idea that humans are supposed to be moral creatures came into my head. Humans are supposed to follow the “golden rule”, which means we need to help others who are in difficult situations because we hope they would do the same for us. It seems the idea that humans should stop avoiding natural selection is completely ludicrous. If humans decide to not help others who are having trouble surviving then we do not seem to be following the “golden rule”.

I do not know if anyone in our class actually feels this way, but it seems that people were implying that humans are wasting their time searching for revolutionary scientific breakthroughs. I agree that it is smart to go natural by reducing wasteful technology such as automobiles, but there is absolutely no reason to stop trying to find ways to help more humans survive. If learning to clone human hearts could save lives then I do not see why we should not try to learn. I think it is ridiculous for people to think that we should not try to save human lives when we have the opportunity too. I know that it may seem like we are cheating the system by doing things like cloning, but I believe that it is each humans responsibility to follow normal moral values. If we have the opportunity to save other human lives then we need to take advantage of it.

My reasoning on this subject goes back to the final discussion that we had in class; Dr.J brought up the idea that some people try to find a balance of animal nature and human morals that just does not exist. People try to say that their decision is okay because animals do it in nature, and humans are apart of this same nature. The problem with this argument is that once humans use any type of human morals, it then becomes difficult to suddenly use the excuse of animal nature.

The idea that Dr.J brought up relates perfectly to my overall argument, which is that humans are not making a mistake by trying to “avoid natural selection”. It is our moral obligation as human beings to want to save as many lives as we can. We cannot let people die because of a disease just because animals die naturally of diseases all the time. Of course humans are still apart of the overall concept of nature, but humans should be looked at differently then animals are; human nature and animal nature is much different.

Do you feel that it is right to view human nature at different standard from nature in general? Why or why not?

Doing new things

I thought that Dr.J's speech about doing new things in your life was extremely powerful. His lesson was the second profound lesson that he has brought up in the last two weeks. I have read a lot about the idea of doing new things in your life in self-development books; therefore, when Dr.J brought up the idea, I found it interesting. I brought up this idea again because I think it is very important for people to gain the benefits from this lesson.

Most people constantly look for ways in which they can improve their lives. Many times, the people who want to improve their lives do not know where to go to make such improvements. They feel stuck, and they believe that nothing they can do will help. Most people in this position do not realize that the easy way to fix this problem is by making changes in their lifestyle. This may sound like an obvious decision, but most people do not realize this. In general, people are afraid of the unknown, and therefore they are uncomfortable with changing their normal habits. Making sometimes-drastic changes does not seem to them like a good idea because they do not want deal with new things. These people believe that improvement in their life will only be caused from making progress in the things that they currently do; they need to realize that making changes in their life will open new opportunities for positive change in your life. You cannot find success in the forest of life if you keep looking for it on the same path.

I feel that the reaction of some students who listened to Dr.J’s lesson shows a major problem that humans have. I could tell from many students that they enjoyed Dr.J’s lesson, but they would not implement it into their life; they are comfortable with the food they eat, the people they talk to etc, and therefore they find no reason to change. As far as I know, as long as people are not fully satisfied with their life, then there is absolutely no reason why they should not be ready to make drastic changes in their life. It is important to mention that, when I am talking about drastic changes, I do not mean decisions that will obviously cause problems. The changes I am talking about relate to things that are clearly beneficial, but people do not make them because they are different. One of the worst obstacles with success is being comfortable. If someone is not ready to change the current habits that they have, then it is not likely they will see improvement in their life. If you keep doing what you have always done, then you will keep getting what you have always gotten.

Dr.J’s lesson was important in itself, but I think that his act of teaching this lesson shows something important. Some of the most important things that I have learned from my professors were not a part of the curriculum at all; I find this fact interesting because it shows that the so-called life-lessons that we learn are often the most important. In addition, I believe that is important that people listen to any type of advice that they receive. I think that many people were too quick to throw away Dr.J’s lesson on trying new things, and that it is the main reason why I wanted to bring up the idea again. People need to understand that getting too comfortable with their lifestyle can be a waste of their life, and I believe that functionalists would be strongly against the fear of change that many people have.

Do you think the fear of change exists? And If so, Do you believe that it is problematic in the lives of most humans?

In Response to Megan Cooney (4/17/2010)

Q: “What do you make of the phrase "live every day as if it were your last?"

We went over the idea of living everyday as if it were your last day in class briefly, but I would like to expand on it. Dr.J originally made the point that it is irrational to live everyday like it was your last because there is an extremely high probability that we are going to be alive the next day. I think that Dr.J made a great point and he is completely correct, but I also believe that your point at the end of your post is important to analyze. You make the point that the phrase of living everyday as if it is your last could be helpful if people followed the idea of the phrase and not the phrase itself. I think this is a powerful idea because it seems that people could benefit from thinking of everyday as their last day to live.

It seems to me that the act of implementing the phrase of living everyday like it’s your last needs to be a balancing act. As long as a person does not cause major problems for their future, than I believe that living everyday as if it is your last is a great idea. I think it is great that you mention that living everyday like it is your last is similar to living without fear. While I do not believe that the living without fear is exactly what that phrase means, i think that living without fear would be extremely beneficially to people. Fear is something that causes a lot of trouble in the lives of people, and therefore I feel that people need to find ways to start living fearless. Taking risks can cause many benefits, but most people are too afraid of the possibility of failure. Many books on success that I have read bring up a similar idea; they ask the question of what would you do if you knew you could not fail. I think that this is a very powerful question because I believe there are many things that people would do if they knew they could not fail. Fear of failing can be helpful but I think that it also can hold people back greatly.

The phrase of living life if it was your last day can be extremely helpful if people used the idea to take more smart risks in their lives. By smart risks, I mean risks that have a much higher rewards than risks. Sometimes people are afraid of making a decision because of possible problems that are not that bad. An example of this would be going to a party, or joining a group that you never have experienced before. Many people are afraid to do things like this because of the problems that could happen as a result from making the decisions, but the rewards greatly outweigh the risks. Even if some risks may cause problems, at some point at least one risk will be very beneficial. I think that the phrase living everyday like it was your last could be very helpful if the phrase was looked at as meaning living with out fear. If people started to live without fear, but not take unintelligent risks, then I believe that their lives would be tremendously improved.

What types of decisions would you make differently if you started to live everyday like it was your last?

Existentialism is a lesson that all college students should learn

After learning about existentialists, I personally feel that every college should learn about some of their values. More specifically, I feel that every student needs to learn the problems with living for a future moment. It is scary to me how many young people are so focused on their future lives that they forget about what is going on in the present moment. The problem is that people believe that some future moment in their life will fulfill them or make them happy. I have read many stories about successful people who could never reach satisfaction with their lives. These people would keep telling themselves that some future moment will make them happy, but once that moment arrived, some other future moment became the new moment that will make them happy. A person who is internally unhappy will never become happy because of some external event.

College students need to stop thinking that their college experience is only a bridge that will get them some future dream job. I have seen personally the problems that people who think this way will face. The main problems that they run in to relate back to the decisions that they make while in college. Students will become business majors so that can become wealthy after they get out of college; most times they will never reach the wealth level that they want, but even if they do, they will never feel fulfilled.

If college students began reading about existentialism, then I feel they would reach a sort of wake up call in their lives. Their reading may cause them to rethink what their true purpose in life is. Even though existentialists say that there is no absolute purpose in life, I still feel that people who read about existentialists may feel that they need to be looking for a deeper purpose in life. I feel that college students may realize that the main purpose in life does not relate to anything outside of them, such as money, and other materialistic things. After reading about existentialists, they would start to understand that they could only be fulfilled by living in the present moment, and living for future fulfillment is a major mistake.

I feel that existentialism is group of beliefs that would be extremely helpful for people to understand in today’s society, but it would be most helpful for college students. I do not agree with all of the ideas that existentialism represents, but I believe that college students could learn a lot because they generally have an open mind about things that they learn. Existentialism goes against many things that our society teaches, and I feel that it would be good for college students to learn about something that goes against society’s norms. Society teaches us the importance of having wealth, and that having materialistic things will make us happy. Society also tells us that certain ways to live are the right ways to live, and everything else is wrong. Existentialists instead encourage people to enjoy the process of living moment by moment, and they also tell us that there is no exact truth, and therefore people should find out what is true in their own lives.

Are the ideas of existentialism to vague to be taught as a class in college?

Response to Laura Laureano (4/10/2010)

Q: “Why [do humans] not have the ability to understand dreams?”

I believe that humans may have the ability to understand dreams, but there would be no way of scientifically proving this ability. There have been numerous theories about what our dreams mean, including Freud’s, but the problem is that we can never prove that these theories are correct. There is no black-and-white answer when it comes to understanding something like dreams. We have nothing to base our ideas about dreams off of, and therefore we can never know if our ideas are correct.

I thought the idea of describing dream theories as an attempt to describe what is in a closed box was a great idea. The fact that we may remember some of our dreams may provide us with the ability to shake the box, but we can never fully know what it is in the box. That is why Freud’s theory on dreams is interesting, but it can never be used as empirical evidence. I think it is great when certain Freud supporters will say that Freud’s ideas are just a gateway to an improved theory. I do not believe we could ever understand what dreams meant, but I do like the idea that we could use Freud’s theories as a gateway to maybe a improved theory of the human mind.

I also find that your question could be looked at as maybe wondering why humans are not biologically capable of understanding dreams. If this was the point of your question, then I think I may have an interesting answer. If humans are biologically not capable of understanding dreams, then maybe dreams do not have a true purpose. I say this because, in natural selection, Humans develop things that would give them an advantage to survive; therefore, I feel that if dreams have a true significance, then humans who could understand them would have a great advantage over other Humans. For example, if my dreams were telling me an internal conflict that I was hiding from my conscious, then I could discover it and then solve my conflict. Maybe Humans do not have the ability to understand dreams because dreams do not actually have any purpose; dreams could just be a random activation of experiences that are stored in the brain.

I think that one of the most interesting ideas related to understanding dreams is the act of lucid dreaming. The fact that there have been scientific tests that proved that people could be conscious in their dreams is extremely interesting. Lucid dreaming provides me with another reason why I do not believe that dreams hold any significance. If people can be conscious in their dreams, and then control their dreams, then I do not see how a dream could really have a purpose. How can my dream have an inner meaning if I am controlling every part of it? I feel that dreams have always been analyzed to find a true meaning only because dreams are part of the unknown. Anything that people do not know will constantly be analyzed, and people will make theories about it. With that said, I do feel that Freud’s ideas about dreaming are important; for this reason, I did dome research about Freud and lucid dreams, and I found out that Freud actually wrote about them briefly. When discussing his own lucid dream, Freud said, "I won't go on with this dream any further and exhaust myself with an emission." It seems that Freud did not want to discuss lucid dreams because they brought up too many conflict into consciousness.

What do you think about Freud’s feelings regarding lucid dreams?

Response to Alex Massar (4/3/10)

I think that your revisions are good, but I still think that you are forgetting about the fact that we are talking about humans. Much of your theory depends on the human ability to follow a set of strict rules that prohibits individuality, which is not something humans are not good at doing.

I understand your idea to pay people differently on how much they do or contribute to society, but I think that this solution has problems. Who is going to decide how much a worker should be paid, and do you really think every worker would be satisfied with this process? It seems to me like this would not solve the problem of workers being angry because another job receives more money than theirs does. Deciding whether one job should earn more money than another, when each job is totally different is not a simple process, nor do I expect every worker to agree with the decisions made. Also, if people were paid for how much they contributed to society, then it seems like this is getting away from the main idea of a socialist community; it does not seem like anyone should be paid more than someone else because that would provide people with the ability to have more material possessions than their neighbor; paying people different wages sound more like a mixed economy, rather than a socialist one.

As far as workers not being satisfied with their jobs, I do not feel that the punishment you outlined would be a perfect solution. I do think your idea makes sense, but my problem relates to deciding which people should be punished. I feel that some people may not put in their best work at their job, while others put in effort but they still get punished; it seems like this type of punishment will create many unhappy workers. Even if the punishment did work, I do not see how a person would not just slack off at their new job; these people who were punished could not be left unemployed because a socialist society wants everyone to work. Also, if they were forced to a job with no pay, then I doubt they would want to work to their full potential.

All of these ideas lead up to your finally point, which is to create a rehabilitation type of jail for people who do not want to comply with the governments rules. I think this is absolutely your best point because it fixes most of the issues I have raised so far. If people complained about how much they were being paid, and therefore did not work to their full potential, then they could be sent to this type of jail. I think that having this type of facility would fix most of the problems within a socialist community because it could teach them to follow the rules of the community. Furthermore, if this rehabilitation center taught the idea of caring about the whole of the society more than the individual then I think it would help the people of the society function correctly under the socialist standards.

I do think a socialist type system could have a chance to work if a rehabilitation type jail like you pointed out was created, but I feel that the long term outlook on this type of system would not work. Unless there was an overall awakening in the human consciousness, I do not think humans could handle not living in a society where the whole is more important then the individual.

Does the idea of certain jobs being paid more than others (depending on their value to society) get away from the whole idea of having a socialist government?