When I recently opened Dr.J’s blog, I immediately felt frustrated after seeing all of the posts he had involving problems within our country. Even though the information was very interesting, I did not really enjoy reading the articles because they were so negative. This feeling of frustration reminded me of many of the recent conversations we have had in my Nature of Human Nature class; most of our recent discussions have lead to the many problems that America has right now. America problems themselves are not the main reason for my frustration; the people who represent America’s problems are what frustrate me. When I see posts like “Dumbest Poster Contest”, and when I listen to many people my age talk politics, I am constantly reminded about how many problems our great country has. I sometimes cannot believe how ridiculous people’s ideas about politics are, mainly because people will comment on something that they do not understand. An example of this would be the common misunderstanding that people have of the concept of socialism. I become extremely aggravated when people comment on something that they do not know anything about. Even though Dr.J’s blog brought back my feelings of frustration, one post helped me realize that our country has many great people, and a lot of hope. When I read the article that was attached to Dr.J’s blog post named “The Cheneyists Continue to Invent Reality”, my thoughts about America immediately became positive. The article itself discussed a very negative topic, but I realized that as much as I read about American’s who represent the problematic nature of America, there are actually a lot of American’s who are leading the fight towards positive change. The author of the article, and most of the people who left comments seemed to have intelligent views about the issues in our society, and I felt pretty good about the future of our country. This good feeling about our countries future reminded me of all of the great discussions I have had during my first year of college. In many of my classes, I have discussed many important issues and I have heard great opinions from other bright young minds. I feel that with all of the negativity in the media and all of the problems in our country, we sometimes forget that we have some great people that are leading us into a brighter future.
Do you believe that our society often forgets about the positive aspects of our world? Explain.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
In Response to Megan Cooney (3/13/2010)
Q: “Why, do you think, parents will sometimes go to the extremes of either overprotecting their child and giving into every demand of their child?”
Parents act these two different ways for reasons that are related, but the relation between the two parenting styles is not immediately obvious. When parents overprotect their child, they often try to be perfectionists and attempt to prevent anything bad from happening to their child. They believe that if they work hard enough at parenting, then nothing can go wrong for their child. These parents believe that they have complete control over how their children develop, and nothing else affects their children as much as they do. Parents who give in to all their children’s demands usually are the less strict types of parents. These parents believe that they only have a small effect on their children’s development, and so they want to make sure they have a positive effect. This style of parenting involves giving into all of their children’s wants, which usually means little rules and small punishments for misbehavior. It is clear that each style of parenting relates to the amount of control that parents feel they have over their children. I think that parents should know that they do have a significant amount of control over their children, but they also cannot control everything; even more importantly, they will have a small amount of control once their children become adults, so they need to let them learn lessons on their own. I think parenting is one of the main areas of life that involves finding a balance; the two parenting styles involved in the question clearly have not found a balance. Parents go to these extremes because they believe that their actions will have a positive effect on their child if they act a certain way. Even though these parents believe they are doing the right thing for their child, they are usually wrong. The problem is that parents will often not listen to others about their parenting because they believe that their parenting should not be changed. Parents need to be less stubborn about accepting help because their children’s future well being depends on their parenting.
1.Is bad parenting one of the main problems of our society, and if so, how can we fix this problem? (If not, what are the main problems?)
Parents act these two different ways for reasons that are related, but the relation between the two parenting styles is not immediately obvious. When parents overprotect their child, they often try to be perfectionists and attempt to prevent anything bad from happening to their child. They believe that if they work hard enough at parenting, then nothing can go wrong for their child. These parents believe that they have complete control over how their children develop, and nothing else affects their children as much as they do. Parents who give in to all their children’s demands usually are the less strict types of parents. These parents believe that they only have a small effect on their children’s development, and so they want to make sure they have a positive effect. This style of parenting involves giving into all of their children’s wants, which usually means little rules and small punishments for misbehavior. It is clear that each style of parenting relates to the amount of control that parents feel they have over their children. I think that parents should know that they do have a significant amount of control over their children, but they also cannot control everything; even more importantly, they will have a small amount of control once their children become adults, so they need to let them learn lessons on their own. I think parenting is one of the main areas of life that involves finding a balance; the two parenting styles involved in the question clearly have not found a balance. Parents go to these extremes because they believe that their actions will have a positive effect on their child if they act a certain way. Even though these parents believe they are doing the right thing for their child, they are usually wrong. The problem is that parents will often not listen to others about their parenting because they believe that their parenting should not be changed. Parents need to be less stubborn about accepting help because their children’s future well being depends on their parenting.
1.Is bad parenting one of the main problems of our society, and if so, how can we fix this problem? (If not, what are the main problems?)
Bias Society
In class on Friday, we discussed Rousseau’s ideas as being right in principle, but wrong in practice. Dr.J made the point that many times in our society, people are correct about their principles, but no one will accept their principles because the person is wrong about the ways in which we should practice their principles. Thinking over this class discussion, I immediately began to realize a common theme from the different ideas we have studied over the course so far. Almost everything we have studied seems to be correct in some way, but many times people will discredit whole ideas because they have a few problems. I feel that if our society is going to make progress, we will need to be less quick to ignore ideas that we do not fully agree with. When we first studied Christianity, many people were quick to ignore all the ideas that this religion offers just because they disagreed with a few. I think it is important that we use some of the ideas that Christianity offers; things like peace, love, and turning the other cheek could be very useful if they were more important in our society. I think another example of this would be Hobbes’ principles. Many people are quick to avoid his ideas because the ideas are pessimistic. If people would actually study his ideas, they would be very useful. Our society is known for being afraid of accepting ideas that are different, and I believe this is one of the major flaws of our society. If we would use our reasoning to consider the actual usefulness of people’s ideas, our society would run a lot more productively.
Is our society bias as a whole, and if so, how can we reduce this bias?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
In Response to Megan Cooney (3/6/2010)
Q:“Why do we have phrases like "follow your heart," "gut instinct," etc? Why is it not like listen to what your mind tells you?”
Phrases such as "follow your heart" and "gut instinct” are popular in our society for the exact idea that your question brings up. People often do not want to use their mind to make decisions because listening to your mind is a type of reasoning. Having a "gut instinct" is more of an instant feeling because you do not have to think about it. A good example of this is a multiple-choice question that you do not know, but you have an instant feeling that one of the choices is the correct answer; a problem soon arises because you start to think about the choices and you begin to think a different answer is the correct choice. At this point, you must make a choice,either go with your “gut instinct” or listen to "what your mind tells you". I understand that the mind controls the “gut instinct”, but I feel that anytime you use the word mind, you are talking about a type of reasoning. I believe that “listening to what your mind tells you,” means that you trust in simple reasoning. The “gut instinct" is more of an automatic feeling that you do not know where it came from. I feel that a true “gut instinct” is something that is impossible to explain; it seems like it may be an unconscious process because we just feel something that we cannot explain the origins of. For this reason, I think that people often say that they used their “gut instinct” when they actually used simple reasoning. When making decisions, people often come up with two choices because of reasoning they use. They may say, “Most people want me to do this, but I’m going to use my gut feeling and do this instead”. Many situations like this do not represent a true “gut instinct” because the person had to decide between two choices, which both were discovered through simple reasoning. With that said, if the person decided to make a choice using a feeling that they could not explain, then that would be an example of using a “gut instinct”. This brings up the idea that “following your heart” and using your “gut instinct” may be two different things. I feel that “following your heart” is used in situations where a person has to decide between two different choices, and they decide choose their original feeling. It seems that “following your heart” could be defined as when a person chooses to follow their “gut instinct” instead of deciding to trust in their reasoning; therefore, I feel that “following your heart" and using your "gut instinct” are not the same concept but relate closely. Even though I understand exactly what these concepts mean, I am wondering when exactly they should be used. It seems like there are examples in our world of situations where using “gut instinct” has worked and other situations where reasoning has worked better than “gut instinct”.
1.Do you think that we should ever follow our “gut instinct”, and if so, in what situations should we use it?
2.What do you think that Plato and Aristotle would feel about using “gut instinct”?
Phrases such as "follow your heart" and "gut instinct” are popular in our society for the exact idea that your question brings up. People often do not want to use their mind to make decisions because listening to your mind is a type of reasoning. Having a "gut instinct" is more of an instant feeling because you do not have to think about it. A good example of this is a multiple-choice question that you do not know, but you have an instant feeling that one of the choices is the correct answer; a problem soon arises because you start to think about the choices and you begin to think a different answer is the correct choice. At this point, you must make a choice,either go with your “gut instinct” or listen to "what your mind tells you". I understand that the mind controls the “gut instinct”, but I feel that anytime you use the word mind, you are talking about a type of reasoning. I believe that “listening to what your mind tells you,” means that you trust in simple reasoning. The “gut instinct" is more of an automatic feeling that you do not know where it came from. I feel that a true “gut instinct” is something that is impossible to explain; it seems like it may be an unconscious process because we just feel something that we cannot explain the origins of. For this reason, I think that people often say that they used their “gut instinct” when they actually used simple reasoning. When making decisions, people often come up with two choices because of reasoning they use. They may say, “Most people want me to do this, but I’m going to use my gut feeling and do this instead”. Many situations like this do not represent a true “gut instinct” because the person had to decide between two choices, which both were discovered through simple reasoning. With that said, if the person decided to make a choice using a feeling that they could not explain, then that would be an example of using a “gut instinct”. This brings up the idea that “following your heart” and using your “gut instinct” may be two different things. I feel that “following your heart” is used in situations where a person has to decide between two different choices, and they decide choose their original feeling. It seems that “following your heart” could be defined as when a person chooses to follow their “gut instinct” instead of deciding to trust in their reasoning; therefore, I feel that “following your heart" and using your "gut instinct” are not the same concept but relate closely. Even though I understand exactly what these concepts mean, I am wondering when exactly they should be used. It seems like there are examples in our world of situations where using “gut instinct” has worked and other situations where reasoning has worked better than “gut instinct”.
1.Do you think that we should ever follow our “gut instinct”, and if so, in what situations should we use it?
2.What do you think that Plato and Aristotle would feel about using “gut instinct”?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
That's not what Aristotle meant.
Today in class, we discussed Aristotle’s ideas about happiness in relation to being virtuous. Aristotle was a realist because he believed that people could be miserable, even when they are virtuous. Aristotle went against Socrates idealist beliefs because Socrates felt that people who are virtuous would always be happy. In class, I stated my point that Aristotle may be wrong because everyone has the ability to be happy, no matter what situation they are in. Even though I made my point in class, I feel that I was not able to expand on this idea in a way that I truly wanted. I do not think that people realize the great flaw that Aristotle‘s argument regarding happiness has; I feel it is important for people to understand that in many ways, Aristotle did not outline what happiness truly is.
It makes sense that Aristotle is a realist because his background is in the sciences. This is the reason I understand why he believes that being virtuous does not mean being happy. I agree with him that there are good people who are completely miserable. The major problem is that people often misinterpret Aristotle’s ideas. People often feel that Aristotle meant that we cannot be happy from just living as a good person, but we must look for happiness on the outside of us. I do not think Aristotle meant this, but his argument seems to point to this idea. What people need to realize is that happiness is inside of us; we create our own happiness. For some reason, most people think that happiness relates to what happens to a people in their lives; this idea is simply not true. It is a simple fact that we determine how we feel about the world around us. It does not matter if I have a million dollars, or one dollar, I can be happy whenever I want to. We can change our feelings, by changing the way we view our surroundings.
It is obvious to me why there is so much depression in highly economically developed countries like America. People do not understand that they control their own ability to be happy. There is major problem with flawed cognitive reasoning in our society. People need to realize that what our society provides for information is not always true. People grow up thinking that the happiness is created from things outside of themselves. These people need to follow Socrates advice, and begin to examine their lives. The problem is that people are too busy in their hectic lives to realize that they will never reach happiness until they change the way they feel about their surroundings. I feel that Aristotle may be right that being vitreous does not mean you will be happy, but I think that people our misunderstanding his point. There are good people who can be miserable, but they also have the choice to be happy; being happy does not relate to the what happens in a person’s life, it relates to their thoughts about what happened. Everyone has the choice to be happy, no matter if they are virtuous or not.
1)Do you think it is better to be a realist, or and idealist? Support your opinion.
2)Do you find it interesting that the occurrence of mood disorders is a lot higher in economically developed countries then other countries? Explain.
It makes sense that Aristotle is a realist because his background is in the sciences. This is the reason I understand why he believes that being virtuous does not mean being happy. I agree with him that there are good people who are completely miserable. The major problem is that people often misinterpret Aristotle’s ideas. People often feel that Aristotle meant that we cannot be happy from just living as a good person, but we must look for happiness on the outside of us. I do not think Aristotle meant this, but his argument seems to point to this idea. What people need to realize is that happiness is inside of us; we create our own happiness. For some reason, most people think that happiness relates to what happens to a people in their lives; this idea is simply not true. It is a simple fact that we determine how we feel about the world around us. It does not matter if I have a million dollars, or one dollar, I can be happy whenever I want to. We can change our feelings, by changing the way we view our surroundings.
It is obvious to me why there is so much depression in highly economically developed countries like America. People do not understand that they control their own ability to be happy. There is major problem with flawed cognitive reasoning in our society. People need to realize that what our society provides for information is not always true. People grow up thinking that the happiness is created from things outside of themselves. These people need to follow Socrates advice, and begin to examine their lives. The problem is that people are too busy in their hectic lives to realize that they will never reach happiness until they change the way they feel about their surroundings. I feel that Aristotle may be right that being vitreous does not mean you will be happy, but I think that people our misunderstanding his point. There are good people who can be miserable, but they also have the choice to be happy; being happy does not relate to the what happens in a person’s life, it relates to their thoughts about what happened. Everyone has the choice to be happy, no matter if they are virtuous or not.
1)Do you think it is better to be a realist, or and idealist? Support your opinion.
2)Do you find it interesting that the occurrence of mood disorders is a lot higher in economically developed countries then other countries? Explain.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
In Response to Austin Bodzioch (2/25/10)
Q:"If there was one ultimate truth and goodness, do you think that there would be social conflicts between people of how to be good and true?"
I completely understand what the question is asking, but I think truth and goodness would need to be explained differently from what you explained it as. The examples you used did not really seem to show people having completely different Ideas of what is good and true. If my friend’s mother thinks her son only does good when he gets straight A's, and my mother thinks I did good with C's and B's, It does not necessarily mean that each mother has a different Idea of what Is ultimately good. My mother could know that A's are truly what is good, but she chooses to support me If I get C's because she knew I tried. I feel that you outlined the idea that people have different standards for what is good, but I think you used examples that follow your own opinion about the subject. You made the point that certain people follow religious Ideas of what Is good and these ideas do not apply to all of us, but we cannot really know whether they do not apply to all of us. Maybe certain ideas are actually the truth about what is good, but we just choose not to believe them. You say that someone can be just as good when they do not go to church, but I do not understand how you can know that. Your first claim is that you do not feel that there is an ultimate truth or goodness, but from the examples you use, it seems like you do have an Idea of what is ultimately true and good.I think it is also interesting that you point out that people think being gay or bisexual is wrong, even when people who are gay or bisexual may be nice or true people. I find it interesting because it seems like when you make this claim, you are saying that what gay and bisexuals represent is ultimately good, but before you said that there is no such thing as ultimate truth or goodness. The point I am trying to make is that everyone has their own Ideas of what is true and good, even If they say they do not. For this reason, I feel It would be difficult for everyone to agree on what is true and good because humans naturally have different Ideas of what they believe is true and good. With that said, I feel that if every person were proven what is ultimately good and true, there would still be social conflicts. Even If everyone knew, what is good, people would still commit evils, which would cause conflict; this would happen because people commit wrongs, even when they know what is right. I do not feel this is Important because there could be one ultimate truth about what is good right now, but we might just not know it. I believe it is human nature for people to have different opinions about what they believe is true and good ; even when people deny that there is ultimate good, they still have an idea of what they believe is good.
If we all have some idea of what is good, are we born knowing the basics of what is good, or do we develop it?
I completely understand what the question is asking, but I think truth and goodness would need to be explained differently from what you explained it as. The examples you used did not really seem to show people having completely different Ideas of what is good and true. If my friend’s mother thinks her son only does good when he gets straight A's, and my mother thinks I did good with C's and B's, It does not necessarily mean that each mother has a different Idea of what Is ultimately good. My mother could know that A's are truly what is good, but she chooses to support me If I get C's because she knew I tried. I feel that you outlined the idea that people have different standards for what is good, but I think you used examples that follow your own opinion about the subject. You made the point that certain people follow religious Ideas of what Is good and these ideas do not apply to all of us, but we cannot really know whether they do not apply to all of us. Maybe certain ideas are actually the truth about what is good, but we just choose not to believe them. You say that someone can be just as good when they do not go to church, but I do not understand how you can know that. Your first claim is that you do not feel that there is an ultimate truth or goodness, but from the examples you use, it seems like you do have an Idea of what is ultimately true and good.I think it is also interesting that you point out that people think being gay or bisexual is wrong, even when people who are gay or bisexual may be nice or true people. I find it interesting because it seems like when you make this claim, you are saying that what gay and bisexuals represent is ultimately good, but before you said that there is no such thing as ultimate truth or goodness. The point I am trying to make is that everyone has their own Ideas of what is true and good, even If they say they do not. For this reason, I feel It would be difficult for everyone to agree on what is true and good because humans naturally have different Ideas of what they believe is true and good. With that said, I feel that if every person were proven what is ultimately good and true, there would still be social conflicts. Even If everyone knew, what is good, people would still commit evils, which would cause conflict; this would happen because people commit wrongs, even when they know what is right. I do not feel this is Important because there could be one ultimate truth about what is good right now, but we might just not know it. I believe it is human nature for people to have different opinions about what they believe is true and good ; even when people deny that there is ultimate good, they still have an idea of what they believe is good.
If we all have some idea of what is good, are we born knowing the basics of what is good, or do we develop it?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The effect that Plato's ideas have on decision making in todays society
Yesterday in class, we discussed Plato’s idea of selective breeding and the idea of a guardian class. At first, it seemed as though Plato’s ideas regarding these subjects were completely wrong, but my idea on the subjects completely changed once Dr.j explained Plato’s ideas. Dr.j outlined the idea that Plato felt that Humans can be either rational, or emotional. This idea immediately made sense because Humans have one thing that separates them from all animals, the ability to use rational reasoning. Dr.j explained that Plato felt that humans need to take advantage of their ability to be rational and avoid using their emotional side. Plato applied these concepts specifically within the leaders of a community. Plato felt that the leaders of a community should use rational reasoning when making decisions; they should use their intellect to make decisions that will help the community and not just help themselves. Plato did not want any leaders who cared about advancing their own property and wealth. Plato wanted a class of leaders, called the guardian class, which would be made up of people who only make rational decisions that are in the best interest of the community. The only reason Plato suggested selective breeding was because he wanted this type of ruling class to be created.
The classroom discussion regarding Plato’s ideas soon lead into the affect that Plato’s ideas could have on the leaders of the United States. At this point, I became extremely interested because it seemed like Plato’s ideas relate a lot to what is going on with the United States Government. I feel that there is a ruling class of America, and the majority of this class is made up of people who only care about their own property and wealth. I think that Plato’s ideas could be very helpful for the people of America. Humans have the ability to reason, and make rational decisions; we need to take advantage of this by evaluating the process that the government uses to elect our leaders. I think that if people put more thought into who is truly making the decisions for our country,then our country would work in much more of a fair way. It seems like most people care most about their emotions when they make decisions. People need to listen to Plato and use their ability to reason rationally when they make important decisions.
It seems that examples of people using their emotional side over their rational side are obvious in today’s society. In almost every election for government positions, people seem to care more about the people running themselves, rather than focusing on how the issues in their life would be affected by the people running. People make major mistakes by electing the wrong people, only because they used their emotional side to make decisions. It seems that most people do not realize how useful Plato’s ideas could be for our current society. Even though the emotional side of humans has its purpose, I feel that Plato may be right that this side is over used in Humans lives. I do not think that all of Plato’s ideas are correct, but I feel that his ideas regarding human’s use of rational reasoning is completely correct; humans in general need to use less of their of emotional side, and more of their rational side when making decisions.
Do you feel that people’s use of their emotional side in their decision-making is a major problem? And,
Do you think that the use of Plato’s ideas could make a positive impact on today’s society? In which ways?
The classroom discussion regarding Plato’s ideas soon lead into the affect that Plato’s ideas could have on the leaders of the United States. At this point, I became extremely interested because it seemed like Plato’s ideas relate a lot to what is going on with the United States Government. I feel that there is a ruling class of America, and the majority of this class is made up of people who only care about their own property and wealth. I think that Plato’s ideas could be very helpful for the people of America. Humans have the ability to reason, and make rational decisions; we need to take advantage of this by evaluating the process that the government uses to elect our leaders. I think that if people put more thought into who is truly making the decisions for our country,then our country would work in much more of a fair way. It seems like most people care most about their emotions when they make decisions. People need to listen to Plato and use their ability to reason rationally when they make important decisions.
It seems that examples of people using their emotional side over their rational side are obvious in today’s society. In almost every election for government positions, people seem to care more about the people running themselves, rather than focusing on how the issues in their life would be affected by the people running. People make major mistakes by electing the wrong people, only because they used their emotional side to make decisions. It seems that most people do not realize how useful Plato’s ideas could be for our current society. Even though the emotional side of humans has its purpose, I feel that Plato may be right that this side is over used in Humans lives. I do not think that all of Plato’s ideas are correct, but I feel that his ideas regarding human’s use of rational reasoning is completely correct; humans in general need to use less of their of emotional side, and more of their rational side when making decisions.
Do you feel that people’s use of their emotional side in their decision-making is a major problem? And,
Do you think that the use of Plato’s ideas could make a positive impact on today’s society? In which ways?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)