Bad Faith

I really liked reading about Sartre's idea of bad faith. He states that "bad faith is an attempt to escape anguish by trying to represent one's attitude and actions as determined by one's situation, or . . . anything other than one's own choices" (190). I think that this is a great counter argument to all of the discussions we had about determinism versus free will. No matter whether or not our actions are predetermined by some greater force or not, we all make choices. These choices reflect our thoughts and cannot be pawned off on something other than ourselves. I think that people who have bad faith, in this sense, are those who cannot handle the radical responsibility that comes with radical freedom. They are not ready to handle the consequences of their actions when there is no longer a mediator watching everything that they do. If people can get over, or avoid totally bad faith, then I believe that they are capable of living a radically free life, but not until then.

Consciousness and Objects

Another of Sartre's ideas is that of conscious beings versus unconscious beings. He says that a human is a "being-for-itself" while an inanimate object is a "being-in-itself"(185). The distinction for this comes to subjectivity, or the awareness of being something other than an object. This is what happens in early human development. A baby is not sure of its identity for a while until it determines what it is not, and then it begins to understand that it is something, it is somebody and that there is a world outside of it. On the other hand, a sapling does not go through this process on the way to becoming a full grown oak tree. Trees, or any other unconscious object in the world have no ability to differentiate themselves from other objects and are thus in a different state of consciousness.
Sartre then goes on in the discussion to say that we want to become God because we want to be a being that is "in-itself-for-itself" (Sartre qtd. in 186). I disagree that this God is "perfectly complete and self-justifying" (186). In order to be God, one would be completely aware of everything in creation. This requires the asset I just mentioned in being able to distinguish oneself from another being. In doing this, God becomes simply a being-for-itself, not a being in-itself-for-itself.

Late Sartre and Existentialism

The chapter on Sartre's work starts off with a brief overview of the ideas of existentialism. It touches on the ideas that existentialism focuses on the individual and their experiences, if there is a point to life, and exercising one's freedom and encouraging others to do so. This made me think back to Sartre's later works in which he talks about helping others. He says that we must first “use our freedom to change ourselves for the better; and second, to do what we can to work toward a worldwide society in which all people have equal opportunity to exercise their freedom” (199). So while the first priority is still on the individual, Sartre turns to an idea of a more universal well being. Is this idea of helping others straying from the idea of existentialism? I honestly am not incredibly well versed in existentialism, but it seems that if the main focus is on the self and the debate over a meaning of life, helping others would not be high up in the priorities of an existentialist, but maybe I am seeing existentialists as more selfish than they are.

Radical Freedom

As I wrote my Q&A I thought about whether or not people really do want radical freedom? Obviously everyone would say that they do, because what is better than freedom right? It's what America stands for! (little bit of sarcasm for the conversation a few weeks ago...) But can people handle the responsibility that comes with this freedom? I think that laws are around to help us make the hard decisions in life. If there was pure anarchy and we all had radical freedom, why wouldn't we steal if we were hungry? We need to satisfy those basic human needs that Sartre admitted to in his later work, so what is to say that we wouldn't steal food for ourselves? The idea that stealing is illegal restricts our radical freedom in a way that allows us to avoid difficult situations. Without the law we would simply have a moral struggle with ourselves to decide whether or not to steal the food, but with that freedom slightly restrained, the decision is easy. So I still can't decide if people would want to live a truly radically free life, I think that many would find it far too demanding on their morals and would crawl back to the easy life of laws and regulations.

Sartre

I have never thought of the idea of anguish at all other than fear. However, I really like the way Sartre sees anguish, as "the reflective apprehension of freedom by itself" (Sartre qtd. in 189). Freedom, at its purest form, is pretty scary. We already have to deal with this as college students. We have new found freedom with where we go, when we go, what we do, when we do it; almost everything is completely up to us. I would say anguish is what happens when we wake up in the morning and contemplate not going to class. It would be so easy and so nice to crawl back under the covers, yet most of us (well some of us at least haha) make the decision to get up and get dressed and go to class. This is why we grow so much as people through college, we learn to deal with this anguish, this fear of having to make a decision, and we get conditioned to (hopefully) make the right decision. Now that I think of it, athletics seems to be a great example of anguish. It doesn't even have to be out on the court or the field, it can happen in the gym. We have the freedom to do what we want yet we decide to stay on the treadmill for another mile, we decide to squat another set, we decide to hold planks as long as we can. This may not be the best example, but I thought that it could fit in sorta kinda maybe.

Revolt Now or Later?

One of the main ideas of Marx is the fact that the capitalist system needs to be overthrown. The question then is, when? Obviously a huge revolution of a whole system is not an easy task, so many have tried to reform it and make it a little bit easier for the people. Is this a good thing? Marx's followers were split on the idea. On one hand there were people that did not want reform because they thought that reformations would distract the oppressed. Rather than thinking about, and struggling for their rights, they would be worrying about the levels of oppression they experienced. These thinkers wanted workers to be  held at the worst conditions without reform to force an overthrow of the system. On the other hand, those in favor of reforms thought that reforms were like windows to a better world; you're not there yet, but you can see it and now you want it. These people thought that the glimpses of a better world that are brought about by reforms would cause a chain reaction in the pursuit of better and better lives, culminating in the overthrow of the capitalist system. The editors then go on to note that the capitalist system in Marx's time is so changed by the reforms that have occurred that many communist ideas are actually embedded in it. So my question is; what do we have left to do? If all of these reforms have made today's capitalism merely a shadow of what it used to be, is it really that bad? To what further extent do we need to act towards communism to defeat capitalism?

Modern Economics

On page 172, the editors talk about how Marx's theories seem to have come out so wrong for the western world after being so accurate for China and Russia. China and Russia, notice, had communism rise up early in the 20th century, while it is still delayed in the west. What is the reason for this? Technology. We have been living in the information era. We are no longer a society that depends on the physical production of goods because we need many more services provided. We need someone to do our taxes and to cut our hair and take care of our pets. This is the reason that China is flourishing so much under communism these days. Since "there are now large numbers of white-collar workers such as office staff, government employees, medical staff, teachers, and lawyers" (171) here in America, all of our labor demands go to China. China is then the perfect habitat for production, because of communism, and they do what used to be slave work, for an incredibly low price. When the editor says that "Marx should have paid more attention to slavery" (172), I think he should have said that  Marx should have paid attention to the labor that slaves provide, not the slaves themselves. Through technology, we now have more needs than simply those of manufactured goods and harvested agriculture. Although those maintain their status as important goods, we are able to have them produced in China at a low cost. Until this changes, I don't see communism making its way to the United States because the labor market here with all the office workers and so on cannot be regulated in a way that physical, manufacturing labor can be.

Marx the Scientist

The reading this week talks about Marx's quest for a scientific way to understand history and people in order to determine where things will go in the future. I think we can all agree that that is not only a little over ambitious, but impossible. I say that it is impossible because of the same issue we came upon with Freud's dream theory. The problem with Freud's theory was that it was not falsifiable, we could not find a counter-example because none existed; all of Freud's examples were dream's of his own. I think that this is a similar situation. As the editors put it in the book, "We know of no similar histories elsewhere in the universe - nor can we do experimental reruns of historical events!" (170). This shows the fallibility issue. There is nothing that can be tested or compared. History happened, and while one could analyze it and attempt to find patterns in it, there is no way to test it. Theories of human nature may be a little easier to test  and monitor, but when applying such ideas to 'history' in general, encompassing all the countries of the world, it is not possible to determine causes and effects for everything that happens. I think Marx was smart to say "that the economic basis has a very significant influence on everything else" (170), but is not a total determinant for what happens everywhere in the world.

Where You at God?

One of my questions on my Q&A that I passed in today in class was about God these days. The Bible is a good collection of stories, literal or metaphorical, but why has there been no follow up in the last 2,000 years? Where has God been? I'm sure He isn't up there saying that He did a good job and everything has worked out just the way he wanted... So when are we going to hear from him? When is the Bible's sequel going to come out? I'm not as interested in it as the second Hunger Games movie...but it would still be pretty interesting. In all seriousness, the world is not a place of prosperity and loving kindness, and if that is what God wants us to be all about, why did he intervene in the world for a short time span back then and then never since? I think we could use a little guidance, a word of advice, or even a threat to flood the whole planet unless we get our acts together.
On the other hand, what is keeping us from saying that this is proof that God doesn't exist? For all we know, we are victims of the biggest hoax in the history of the world, at the hands of a few tricky scribes of the ancient past. People say it all the time, what kind of god would let things happen to people? What "mysterious way" is God acting in that allows for the Holocaust, genocides in Africa, and worldwide terror attacks? If He exists, I think it might be time for God to show us that he's still around.

Why God Created Evil

In class the other day we were talking about why God even created evil. If he is so powerful, why would he create evil when he could just create a nice, perfect little world? I think that He created evil to empower us. This ability to be good or evil gives us a power to choose our own lives. By doing this instead of determining that we will all be good, God gives us a sort of trust. Then, I believe, God hopes that the desire to be evil will eventually fade away in people and they will realize that they still have the ability to convert back to good. This fits in perfectly with the ideas of salvation and forgiveness. If God determined us to always be good, I don't think that people would be happy with the idea that they don't have a choice to live their life. But how would that work anyways? If we were created to always be good then would it be possible for us to resent it? It seems like it would work out, for God at least, if he determined our lives to be good. So did he mess up? Or did he just think it would be more fair for us if he gave us the option to decide how we want to act? It just seems like a whole lot of questions can be asked of God, and frankly, the whole "God works in mysterious ways" excuse isn't cutting it.

Blame the Bible, not Kanye

While I was just doing some catching up on the reading I noticed the conversation about equality of the sexes. First off, I find the inconsistencies in the Bible really interesting. This evidence of multiple contributors is pretty obvious since it is unlikely one person wrote the entire bible, but it is interesting to see these different views come together. One example of these differences is the relationship between males and females. In Genesis, the first mention of the creation of humans has a man and a woman being created simultaneously, while, later in the chapter, the man is created first, and the woman is created from his rib. Already we can see where this is going; one view seems all for equality while the other view hints at women's dependency on men. This view also shows that Eve was the first to give into sin and then coax Adam onto the dark side (Genesis 3:6). This decline in humanity turns into ammunition for future sexism by attaching sexuality and sin to women.
So to bring this back to my title, I'm going to say that although I don't agree with the way women are portrayed in music these days, the attitude did not start with Kanye West and Jay-Z, but with some  Hebrew guys writing the Bible back in the day. Apparently we don't progress as quickly as we should if we haven't gotten away from sexism after however many thousands of years.

Take a Hike

Jensen mentions in his article that he is often told that if he doesn't like America he can leave. He responds to this with the idea that he is exercising his right to become part "of a struggle to make real a better world" (6). While I understand where he is coming from, I can't help but feel a little resent towards this response. Why should he struggle to make the world better through writing articles? Why shouldn't he leave? I do realize that these are somewhat ridiculous questions to ask, but I want to entertain the thought for a few minutes. One of the main arguments against patriotism in this article is the fact that freedom, democracy, etc. are not American ideas. It is also mentioned that some other countries do a better job exercising certain of these characteristics. So, Robert Jensen, go there. Go live where you can be happy and have a great democratic government with plenty of personal freedoms. Some people might see this as giving up on America, or giving in too easily but is it really? Why do we pick majors in college? We like subjects, but we are also usually better at these subjects. Why am I not a science major? I detest the subject and I have been utterly unsuccessful in it over the last 6 years. So I gave it up and I'm now a Sports Management major, something I like and I think I might be pretty good at. Is it really that terrible for me to give up science? I don't think so. Is it really that bad for a citizen to get fed up with their country and leave? I don't think so. It doesn't seem like such a terrible idea, so why not give it a shot Jensen?

Patriotism and Politics

As we were discussing how to more properly define patriotism, I began to wonder about politics. All week we talked about how Senators and presidential candidates always say that the U.S. is the best country in the world, and how that is patriotic in a self-centered way, but not in the internationalist sense of fighting for freedom and the rights to voice opinions and defend the greater interests of people. So what would you have Barack Obama say? "Reelect me so that we can maintain our status as the nation that has good intentions but is no better than the other countries of the world" That will get politicians real far in the polls. Now, all sarcasm aside, is there an actual solution to this? I think that the problem is not in the politicians, but in the citizens, for the reason I just stated; politicians won't get anywhere in polls if they speak in an internationalist sense. Is it possible to broadcast this message farther than MCLA's philosophy department so that our fellow citizens can become enlightened? I'm not so sure it is, and for this reason I also do not believe that any political candidate will refrain from the phrase "America is the greatest country in the world".

Acceptable vs. Radical

One of the points that I really liked this week was the distinction between emotional attachment to a country and comparing the value of lives throughout different countries. I think that we all agreed that emotional attachment is acceptable, healthy, and expected for citizens of a country. This attachment comes about for many different reasons, mainly the fact that most of us were born and raised here and have physical and emotional connections to the people and places inside the borders of our country. There is nothing wrong with this behavior until we start valuing these connections that we have more than the connections that other country's citizens have. It would be incredibly ignorant of us to think that we are the only people capable of having attachments to our country, which is why it is no more acceptable to kill an Afghan than to kill an American. I think that the sports analogy we made in class did a great job of clarifying this point. Being a fan of a sports team is great. It gives you something to do on the weekends and gives you bragging rights when you get to class, but things get out of control once violence gets involved. The Vancouver Canucks hockey fans in Canada last year were clearly out of line in trashing their city as a result of losing the Stanley Cup Finals to the Bruins, just as any person would be just as wrong to kill an Afghan as to kill an American.

Patriotism

I like Jensen. I had never thought of patriotism this way. What does separate "American" ideals from human ideals? I understand why many of his words are not very popular, they make sense. People don't want to think about the fact that they are in favor of Americans more than humans all over the world. In reality, internationalism should be the only moral view. Patriotism and nationalism are fine and dandy, but when it comes to morals and the treatment of people, it makes sense that there should be one universal idea. What I find most interesting about this issue is the fact that there is an issue. It seems that one would have to be pretty ignorant and close minded to refute the idea of internationalism. If one is really arrogant enough to value one over another, there is an issue. Where this issue does get tricky is during war times when people are fighting to take the lives of others. I could be being a hypocrite right now, but if two people are fighting in a war setting, then I would, as an American, hold more value on the American's life. This is only so because of the war setting. If it were a situation with two civilians I would hold an equal value of the two lives.

I'm Conflicted

On one hand, I believe that we currently don't have the technology to make Freud's theory testable and therefore scientific. On the other hand, I don't agree with Hobson's counter-theory. For me, the coincidence is far too unlikely that dreams are unpredictable and random. Hobson himself states that in the lowest point of non-REM sleep our brain is 80% active. So if only 20% of our brain is not working, it seems to me that our dreams probably come from the 80% of the brain that is working. And if our brain is working, wouldn't it make sense that it is active in a cogent way? I don't think that 80% of our brain is thinking random, unpredictable thoughts that are completely irrelevant to our lives.
Now, I do agree with Hobson's idea that our brain tries to put together the best story it can around the ideas of our dreams, but again, I do not believe that it is all random. It cannot be that these random thoughts just happened to turn into a lake full of snakes in my dream a couple weeks ago. I really struggle to think that my fear of snakes had nothing to do with the fact that they were circling me. So while I am not completely satisfied with Freud's theory, I am not completely sympathetic to Hobson's alternative theory. If, as Soames states, Freud's theory can be updated, modified, and improved upon, I could easily be talked into being a believer.

Testing

Back to the idea that Freud's theory might not even be scientific at all, let's think about it a little more. As Hobson notes, psychoanalytic institutes have been around for 105 years and have not tested this theory at all. All of a sudden our in class ideas of keeping a notebook next to your bed aren't sounding so great. Are we really the only ones to have this idea in the last century and then some? I doubt it. I might not know enough about the theory or about how to test it, but I do not think it is as easy to test this theory as we thought in class. If a person is involved in a study, they are going to be looking for things in their dreams, they are going to try harder. As a result of this, they are going to remember what they want, no matter how objective they try to be. For whatever reason we want to believe in neurobiology, we forgot much of our dreams and we do so frequently. Therefore it won't be so easy to remember them and if we try to put the pieces together to make a complete story, I am sure that there will be personal add-ins that were not in the dream. Because we are looking for testable material, we are going to produce it whether or not it is original and authentic data from our memory. I think it is simply too hard to do. For this reason, at this point in time I do believe that we cannot see Freud's theory as legitimately scientific. If there is some kind of technology that evolves that allows us to view or remember dreams, it is possible that we can test this theory, but until something reliable and consistent emerges I do not think that we can call Freud's theory scientific.

Infantile Wishes

So I hope I wasn't the only one that completely forgot about blogging after vacation. One point that kept coming up this week was the idea that dreams are brought about by infantile wishes. Much of our debating came about because of different views of what the word infantile meant. The idea that we have such complex dreams about what would be such basic desires was puzzling and the fact that we could even have these thoughts or desires as an infant was intriguing as well. I believe that the author simply had a poor choice of words when he used infantile. I think that libidinous or even instinctual would have worked better. Infantile got too stuck on the fact that as babies we cannot have these big complex thoughts, but when it comes to the libido and our instincts, we do not need to have these intricate thoughts, our desires are our desires. These desires are controlled in every day thought by our superego, but the unconscious mind brings forth these urges in our sleep, causing libidinous, not infantile, wishes.

Oedipus Complex

On page 332 of Kheel's essay, she explains that growing boys "must not only disengage from the mother figure, but they must deny all that is female within themselves as well as their ties to the female world". I would counter the idea that this is caused by patriarchy with Freud's Oedipus Complex. As many are aware, the Oedipus Complex explains that young boys have a sexual desire for their mother. However, if the boy continues these desires, a fear develops of the father who has the ability to castrate him and remove his sexuality forever. In my eyes it seems important that this separation is made between a young boy and his mother. Despite what society will do to the boy in the future, removing his sexuality would also remove his identity as a man, and eventually lead to a unisex race. How would that work out? Possibly slippery slope, but that's the only connection I can make right now. If people's identities should be chosen by themselves and not be shaped by the norms of society, specifically those of patriarchal domination that Kheel points out, would it not be important for the young boy to develop an identity of himself as a man. What good would it do for him to grow up and be confused as to why other people are definitely identified as man or woman but he is not? It seems impractical for him to keep his connections to the female world if he is to develop as an individual.

Sacrifice

On pages 331-332 Kheel says that, in the eyes of those who sacrifice, "Birth from a woman condemns one to death, but "rebirth" through sacrifice integrates men into a transcendent order that transcends mortality and death". I'm not sure how I feel about this statement. I think it is safe to say that sacrifice can be classified as an ancient activity, and in the extent of my research, was done to please the gods. Now I admit that I am not an expert on the practices and reasons of sacrifice, but this is what I have learned. Based on this I do not agree with Kheel's statement. The only transcendental quality of sacrifice, that I observe, is an attempt to communicate with beings far greater than mere, mortal humans. If women's connection to nature is to be maintained, and these sacrifices were generally a plea for help or mercy from the gods that control nature......then I guess I just proved against my own point. If the plea is for control of nature and we maintain women's relation to nature, then sacrifices are a manner of further suppressing nature and hence suppressing women. Although I just came to this self-defeating conclusion, I still do not agree with Kheel's statement that "Birth from a woman condemns one to death". Yes, obviously we die and we come from women, but if this is such an obstacle, why would men keep women around forever? Why keep around a source of birth that condemns all to death? Naturally because men have no other way of reproducing, but if they held that much faith in the gods to transcend death, would they not also have faith in the gods' ability to give birth free of condemnation?

Paul Shepard

On page 331 of Kheel's essay she quotes Paul Shepard as saying that "whereas the ecstatic consummation of love is killing, the formal consummation is eating". What? I wasn't too clear on the meaning of consummation so I looked it up and found at that it means a kind of fulfillment, or when something becomes complete or finalized. This further added to my confusion. The ecstatic fulfillment of love is killing and the formal fulfillment is eating? I'm not too sure what kind of love this guy is talking about. I thought maybe I missed a secondary meaning of the word 'erotic' but I can't seem to find something different than sexually arousing. So if we substitute these words we have "the sexually arousing fulfillment of love is killing and the formal fulfillment is eating". I understand that this essay is addressing the dominance of men in cultural relationships, but since when does this domination of women lead to their killing? Yes the domination of non-human animals leads to killing, but the domination of women does not.

Toppling Patriarchy with a Fork

To respond to the Q&A question, I do not think that vegetarianism can be a strong challenge to patriarchy. I think that the ideas behind Kheel's essay are not well known enough to cause a problem with the patriarchal society that we have today, and I think that they will struggle to gain popularity if they become more well known. As Kheel notes, meat is a central part of many western diets and it will take more than an emotionally charged essay to change that. Yes, her points make sense and opened at least my eyes, but I also left the library, went to dinner, and got a turkey and salami sandwich. While I do think that the ideas of male dominance in society are important to research, I do not see a quick solution to the problem. A change from patriarchy is a change from the society that has existed for thousands of years. This research may be the first step to positive changes for society, but it will take much more to actually implement these changes.

New Ideas

What allowance does supernaturalism have for new ideas? It seems irrational to never take into account new discoveries when one’s “revealed, intuited, empirically unresponsive worldview is necessarily true, [that] any contradictions of it must be discounted as illusory and wrong-headed” (5).

First off, I want to take into question the quote from page five. We must keep in mind that this quote comes from a naturalist describing supernaturalist ideas and not in the most charitable way. However, I am skeptical about new ideas and supernaturalism as well. I simply cannot accept the excuse that God acts in mysterious ways that we cannot understand  for an event that contradicts common beliefs. Although we may not have the knowledge or technology to explain everything that occurs, I personally do not believe in inexplicable events. However, I do not believe that religions overly reject science these days, especially in comparison with the past. The church's role in the middle ages through the crusades and other acts was despicable. The whole institution was based on keeping people in ignorance and practically stealing their money away from them. Although this has significantly changed, I am still wary of the history behind certain religions that rejected science for so long.

Question #1

1.      What determines whether we are naturalist or supernaturalist? Is it the way we are brought up? What creates the difference between an appeal to science as “necessarily curious creatures” (2) and an appeal to faith because “afraid of death and wanting our suffering on earth to be redeemed, we gravitate toward the possibility of having souls and gods that transcend mere matter” (2)?

In response to this question that I asked this week, I believe that naturalist or supernaturalist views are determined by our upbringing. I believe that at a young age when we begin to understand the world a bit more we adopt the ideas of our families. If a family goes to church every Sunday and says their prayers every night and really impresses religious beliefs on a child, they will probably develop into a supernaturalist. However, as we grow up into ages similar to ours now, I think these beliefs come under question. As we start to form our own, more informed views of the world, and develop stronger opinions on matters, we have the ability to change our thoughts. Sometimes this change can simply be a result of a change in habit. Since we live at college now, how likely are we to maintain a weekly visit to church? This alone can let religious views fall away if only because there is no longer a parental pressure to go to church every week. So, while our views are developed through how we are raised, they come under much scrutiny especially at this age and then forever more as our world views change.

Clean Up of Last Post

My last blog post was about a "supposed bias" that I found that actually ended up just being my ignorance of the author. Thomas Clark is indeed a naturalist which explains the attitude throughout the article. As for the contradiction I posted about, we spoke fairly extensively on it in class and I believe that I have found the distinction between his two statements. His statement,  "[w]e can reassure the forces of faith non-empiricism that naturalism as a worldview isn't assumed in public policy or discourse" (7) seemed to contradict his previous statement that "whatever our worldview, we have to act as this-world empiricists when arguing for policy" (3). However, the view of this-world empiricists does not carry into further beliefs, only those of the physical world. Therefore, it has no implications on the beliefs of supernaturalists about the afterlife, the birth of the universe, or any other matter outside of the physical here and now. I like this more because it does not seem so biased against supernaturalists and establishes a necessary constant for public policy. It would be impossible to create effective public policies based on different world views and beliefs. The position of this-world empiricism solves that predicament nicely.

Clark

I disagree with the claim in the Q&A that Clark believes that naturalism and supernaturalism can exist peacefully together. In the first several pages I could see where he was going and I agreed with what he was saying. However, as the later stages of the essay progressed, I sensed a very strong bias against supernaturalism. I will have to pay attention this week to see if I am just making hasty  misunderstandings about the article, but I think that Clark contradicts himself several times. My biggest source of irritation came right at the end of the essay. In his second paragraph of REASSURING SUPERNATURALISTS, Clark states that "We can reassure the forces of faith non-empiricism that naturalism as a worldview isn't assumed in public policy or discourse" (7). Really? Earlier he stated that "whatever our worldview, we have to act as this-world empiricists when arguing for policy" (3), so which one is it? He first says that we need to think empirically when making policies, and I agree with this. But to then go on later to say that supernaturalists don't have to worry about being governed by naturalist policies is ridiculous. The entire essay has a sort of pity emanating towards supernaturalists. I feel that Clark is a naturalist and does not hold a high opinion of supernaturalists. His speech belittles them and he then throws in this contradictory remark in the REASSURING SUPERNATURALISTS section. The word choice of "reassuring" seems to me to be like a parent talking to a child, "O don't worry, you can still think what you want". Maybe I'm just ignorant to Clark's message because of the bias I supposedly found, we'll see.

History Repeats Itself

The other question I brought up after our discussions was relevant to any history class I have ever taken. I believe that we have all heard hundreds of times that history repeats itself. I began to wonder why. Does determinism have anything to do with it? I always thought of it before as a coincidence, but what if it isn't? What if all the natural laws that create determinism also create tendencies towards certain things? It seems to me that this could be true. We could possibly say that it is a natural law that people do not like living under a totalitarian government. When has that ever worked? It didn't work out for Hitler's regime, or Stalin's communist set up, or Mussilini's fascist control over Italy, and more recently, there are doubts about China's future as a communist state. People do not like being told what to do, they want to choose what they do, or, in my opinion, be under the impression that they are choosing what they do. From there we can probably assume that China will have problems in the future as communist nations had in the past, and in the future the attempt will be made again, and it will probably fail again, and so on and so forth. I think that is the most obvious notion of history repeating itself, I can't think of anything else right now seeing as  how I always hated those history classes. I'm sure there are other instances though and I think that they are results of these natural laws that compose determinism.

Determinism and Society

After a few days of discussing the different theories of determinism and free will I began to wonder how the world would be effected if it were possible for determinism to be proven. Although I myself believe in determinism, I am not trying to say that it is possible to prove, I just find it interesting to contemplate the state of society if it were proven. Free will would not be a problem at all because most people enjoy the idea of being able to decide the paths of their own lives. I noticed this just the other day even in a business textbook. The section was talking about business ethics and that when managing an ethical dilemma it is necessary to weigh all the rights of those involved, most importantly the ability for people to decide their own destiny. What if they were unable to decide their destiny? Would there be such things as ethics? I would hope that people would still behave ethically or morally correctly but it would be impossible to control. Any ethical lapse could simply be written off as an unavoidable scientific circumstance and any altruistic acts the same. This is my one soft spot in my defense for determinism. Maybe it is a selfish idea, but I enjoy being applauded for my good actions and I find it helpful, if not necessary, to be berated for my bad actions. So back to my original question, how would society react to this idea that any actions are determined so there is no necessity for moral standards or discipline or awards or, it seems, almost anything at all. Would people find life worthless, or would they be able to put determinism aside and just live their lives regardless of whether it is determined or not?

Incompatibilism

Based on our discussions yesterday, I am coming to the conclusion that I am an incompatibilist. Determinism seems to me to be a pretty legitimate position. Although it is far too broad of a concept for us to attempt to understand, I think that it makes sense. I think that the major obstacle for us in understanding determinism is how vast the information seems. As Professor Johnson noted yesterday, determinism does not mean predictability. Although I believe that if we had the information described by determinism, we could predict the future, it will never be within our reach. So determinists do not think that they can predict the future, but what will be will be. This is pretty creepy when it comes to our own thoughts. We think of our minds as the last frontier, a space completely to ourselves that nobody can access, yet determinism states that if there was enough knowledge, our thoughts would be predictable. This is where the free will argument comes in. They think that our thoughts are our own and that we can change our mind at any moment and throw off the "determined" outcome. My view on this is that free will is an illusion. If determinism is correct in saying that there could be a level of information so great that thoughts were already set, we could say that we knew when someone was going to change their mind, we could expect the unexpected. For this reason I think that free will is just an illusion caused by determinism. This being said, I think that this illusion is incredibly important to our existence. If we did not think that we had the ability to write our own futures, many would find life pointless. This idea of free will keeps people motivated despite the fact that is an illusion.

The Past

I'm not sure how much of this weeks reading I understand. It seems like nothing has a set response and neither free will nor determinism reign in the universe. What really confused me in particular is that "another way to think of compatibilism is to question the assumption of the past being 'fixed' in some way" (6). How can you question that which has already happened? I don't get it. What I do understand is thoughts about different outcomes. If the situation were slightly different, then we would have chosen differently and we would not be in the same situation as the present. How, though, does that say anything about the flexibility of the past? Are they trying to say that things could have gone differently? That seems to fall under common sense...but maybe it doesn't? I don't know. It's a good thing that we only have class twice this week, I think this subject is going to be just as exhausting as altruism.

Moral "Bar"

On Friday I brought up that Houchin does not agree with the idea that "[J.O. Urmson] sets the basic level of duty for everyone at the same level" (24). I support Urmson's idea. When I brought this up in class it was quickly put to rest simply because of the fact that some people are more able to help than others. While I acknowledge this, I do not think that that is sufficient reasoning to dismiss the idea. At this time, at least in the U.S., we are all born with equal rights. Why then should we all be held to different moral standards? And who determines those standards? I am not talking about how much people give to charity or how much time they spend at soup kitchens because, while that is altruistic, you don't need to constantly act like that to become altruistic. I am talking about morals in regards of respect and manors; how you treat people. Houchin's disagreement with this idea, I think, leaves too much room for excuses. If there is not a set standard then who does set the standards? Each individual person. Then, they could act as despicably as they want and say "O I'm so sorry, I'm just not capable of acting as nice as you!" and we would have to accept that. I think that this attitude has spread to many aspects of education as well, and not necessarily for the best. Many times, credit is given for effort. Work is not necessarily reviewed and graded, just acknowledged as being done to the best of one's ability. What happens, then, when we graduate high school and maybe graduate college and get into the work force? "O sorry boss, I really tried to get that work done but I was just so tired, I'll get it done eventually" Now you're out of that job, looking for another one. I just think that we all need to be set to a standard every now and then. Self awareness and responsibility is good and important, but I think that sometimes we all need some guide lines. 

Woody

So we have watched Toy Story 3 twice in the last week in my room... and I've recognized some of our class topics coming up in the movie. I'm trying to figure out whether or not Woody is altruistic. I think he might be. Andy chooses Woody to take to college and ops to put the rest of the toys in the attic. His mom ends up donating them to the Sunnyside Daycare which is ruled by an evil purpley teddy bear, Lotso. When Woody discovers what is happening to his friends, he returns to Sunnyside determined to break out his friends. Like we talked about today in class, Woody is doing this in plain knowledge of the fact that he will be in big trouble with Lotso if he is caught, probably spending the rest of his life in the Caterpillar Room (the younger kids that destroy toys, keep up with your Disney movies). Eventually Woody succeeds and even ends up with all of his toy friends at Bonnie's house to live happily ever after with a new owner.
On the other hand we have Lotso, the evil dictator of Sunnyside Daycare. He is the epitome of selfishness. His selfishness is a result of being replaced as  a toy in his past so now he runs Sunnyside under the notion that toys are made to be thrown out and toy's owners never have and never will love them. This also seems to tie into our recent discussions. Lotso seems to think that there is no point in life because no owner loves their toys, so that becomes his meaning in life; to make sure that all toys understand that and to make sure that he is in control. He even uses Woody's altruism to save himself and then tries to get Woody killed. This is a prime example of an unexamined life. Lotso's anger clouds his vision in life but gets back at him when he is strapped to the front of a tractor trailer truck at the end of the movie.

Struggling

So I finally finished Houchin's essay and I can't say that it is seating too well with me. I really liked the first half of the essay. The fact that it is the object towards which we act that determines whether our actions are selfish or self-interested was very helpful and I agree. However, in the second half of the essay, I do not agree with Houchin's idea that virtue is developed only through an attempt to improve yourself. In his example of The Plague, Houchin says that Rambert is "a morally superior individual relative to Rieux because Rambert is conflicted" (23). I myself am conflicted in how to take to this notion. Is it good for Rambert to improve himself? Absolutely. Does that make him superior to Rieux? Not exactly. If this is the case, what incentive do we have to become "Morally Praiseworthy/Commendable/Virtuous/A Fully Realized Human Being" (26)? Houchin himself states that all of our activities as humans have some aspect of self-interest in them. So what self interest is there in pursuing this morally praiseworthy state if, once we reach it, we "have in fact fallen to the bottom of [Houchin's] totem pole of virtue" (24)? Maybe I'm just missing out on some detail, but I'm not seeing a connection between the fact that everything we do is in our own interest, but attaining moral completion leads us back to the bottom of the totem pole. 

Houchin

I have to admit that I have not finished the essay. It's 11: 45 on Sunday night and I'm being that terrible last minute student that needs to finish his fourth blog post to get credit for the week. I apologize. I have read through page 16 and I've found some stuff I really like. James Rachels' idea that "it is the object of a want that determines whether it is selfish or not" (15), does a good job at refuting the claim that every action is a selfish one (13-14). I  believe that this is a very useful argument in our earlier discussions of volunteer work. In the first week, I think, we brought up this topic and talked about whether or not volunteer work is altruistic. Now, we can use this and say that if somebody takes part in volunteer work on their own free will, it is indeed altruistic. If they are doing it because their mom says they have to do it so they can put it on their college application, it is selfish. This is because the action only has the good of the doer in mind, it does not pertain to who is getting helped. The person is only volunteering so an adviser can sign off on their NHS slip and be done for the month until March. This is where I am of the opinion that Kirk Monfort is altruistic. I do agree that he "appears exceptional and altruistic because so many around him have much more restricted views of their home and community" (12), but that does not change the fact that he himself still is an altruist. Although he may be having an effect on the greater population of Chico, isn't that what elected officials are supposed to do? He is simply doing his job, and in my view, doing it well. He is using his power and influence to better the city, which obviously does benefit him, but benefits everyone else around him. I am interested to see where the rest of this article goes because right now I am pretty set on the idea of Kirk being an altruist. 11:57, crap!