Recurring Dreams

No religion is testable and I understand that creationism and other stories from the bible can be described as bad science. But I'd like to revise. Religion is not bad science, it simply isn't science at all. Which is fine and dandy, that's not to say that faith is bad it is just not science. I agree with Hobson that dreams are sporatic scenarios that we create in order to explain a physical stomach ache or such. It makes sense. But I don't know if he successfully answers my question about recurring dreams. Because I've been having this one dream at least three times every year or a long time now. Is it because our minds get used to the story, so when we physically feel that certain pain, or hungar, whatever, that story kicks into our mind. Are there only a number of dreams corrosponding to the number of physical feelings that we get? If so, are these dreams what our choices consist of? Maybe its not that we are protecting our sleep, although we need sleep to survive. I think that maybe after having these recurring dreams, since we know how it is going to end, we try to push ourselves past the last time that we woke up, maybe to get more of the story.

Protection of the habitat as well...

Yes. More and more people are watching porn. Although, there are many genres that treat the subjects in the pornography as equals, some even give the women a stronger role. Not dominitrix or anything, but the ability to say no and to have some control. Many of my friends are into that stuff. Maybe it is the creativity that they thrive on, I'm not sure. The fact is that it is still a falsified reality, but so are books. The genre of eroticism in books have been around for many years now. And with women's sexual revolution and realization of the power of one's own body it is not "unnatural" for women to be curious. This growing independence I do not see to be a bad thing in any way. But the porn that we were talking about in class is not a art, it isn't creative or imaginative in any way. It is exploitation of women, and men in some cases, just as some zoos are exploitating animals. But I think that ecotourism and conservation efforts through sanctuaries for animals are important in reviving the species that human kind has diminished and in many instances destroyed. But the fact is that the habitats have to be protected as well as the animals. Otherwise, what is the point if the animals being protected in captivity have no where to go afterwards?

Pornographic zoos

Zoos are pornographic in the sense that the animals are being demeaned and exploited, as women are mainly exploited in main male oriented pornography. The animals are not wild and can not be no matter what the food is that is given to them, or how well they are being taken care of. The interaction over long periods with humans is going to change the animal. The cages and bars containing the animals does not allow the animal to be "wild" or "real." This falsifies the animal, as does pornography to women. The image of the woman in porn is not of an actual woman, it is instead imaginary. But the image of a woman gives viewers the idea that all women are like this and should be treated this way. The addict of porno is changed as well. He is no longer a real man looking for a real woman. INstead he is falsified with wrong judgements and is happy with his false image of the other sex. This kind of fear of reality promotes insecurity and being anti-social to the extent of looking for human connections through exploitive images.

I Am Animal

My first question on the film we watched on Animal Rights is if that one lady volunteered to be on the panel. Because she was so nervous and anxious that I was paying more attention to her body language than what she was talking about. Anyways, the idea that animals are lesser in ever way that means anything to humans has been the societal norm for so long, but taking even five seconds to think about the problem of animal rights will leave a bad taste in any sentient beings mouth. While watching the film they brought up if retarded or senile human beings were considered as individuals then they would be thought defective and then should be sent to live on their own little island. But we don't do that because they are human, because of their genetic code. But we do not in any way treat animals with that kind of consideration. I thought of horses who are shot and killed because they can no longer race as fast because of age. And although some cultures take elderly humans and send them out on a raft to die an "honorable" death, animals are not even given the honor of death. It is more like the horse is a prisoner or war stood up against a wall, blindfolded and then shot or beheaded. It is not right. While runt piglets are killed off because they are considered defective, kinds with autism and disabilities are given more protection and rights. It's rather disgusting since we are all animals. Every single one of us. Perhaps people are just having a hard time seeing the truth as it is, that we are all animals. Saying that humans are animals and actually believing the words are two very different issues.

Natural Nature

Using "nature" as one thing in a specific field and then using it in a different way in another, I think is a big problem and where the main cultural confusion comes from. Mnay people agree that human beings are animals (those who do not admit I suppose would only be devoutly religious). But for some reason, perhaps the fact that humans have the capability to self reflect is why the majority of people place humans although animals outside the realm of nature. Many people think of nature apart from humans because of the societal/cultural definitions placed upon the word. The variety of meanings does not help to simplify the issue. In my environmental class nature is used to describe everything except humans, so it is not surprising that Professor Johnson received the reaction that he did in class today. I agree that there is nothing unnatural about human beings destroying their habitat, its just unnerving and horrible. The terms that we use in everyday life are being meant to mean one thing while their actual definition is perhaps very different. This complication of language is another way that humans with such "high" intelligence have made life more complex.

The Greatest Threat

I don't have the facts. But I do not understand how the USA is the greatest threat to the world. If anything it is the greatest threat to itself, but I think that is relevant to every single country and every single individual as well. Perhaps one of the greatest threats to the world is China or India, that continue to increase the population by hundreds of thousands or more every year. That is why there are so many third world countries that can not support themselves, why everyone is worrying about the scarcity of water, etc. The United States has a lot of negative attributes that it needs to work out but so does every other country in the world. Everyone needs to be looking for new ways to stop pollution and to create new forms of energy and so forth, but I do not see how the United States is to be blamed at the forfront. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their short comings. Although I do agree that terrorists are not the greatest threat to the world. The greatest threat is the Bush administration. Period.

Working it out

Work defines a large part of who I am. So, to me, it just makes sense that what I put into my work, the final product, will be a part of who I am and that will be shown through a material object. I do not agree with the idea from Marx that work alienates its workers. Instead I believe that workers are competetive. But it is in no way a bad or negative attribute. Competition forces humans to use their minds and to create new and better technologies in order to make people's lives better and more effiencient. I know that many people complain about their jobs, I do, but for the most part they do not know where they would be without the job that they hold. Partly because people need to know that they are needed and capable of doing a good job at something. This is not just miners or desk jobs, but also housewives, stay at home moms, and children. Everyone wants to know that they are doing something well and by getting this kind of appreciation they are more apt to do better/more.

Competition for All

Alienation is an interesting idea, especially when it is used in comparison with education and students. It is something that we can relate to, which I think is very smart on Ollman's part. I do not think that we are alientated in most classes. For me, I decide what I want to research, when I want to hand it in and how well it is done. And as far as others having control over how and what I write, I think that for the most part that is structure, not alienation. I use the essays and research papers that mean the most important to me, they are not worthless, and the ideas inside them can be used over and over again. In class someone mentioned that socialism would get rid of competition, whic h I think is a horrible idea. I think that competition is very healthy and forces people to go above and beyond what they normally would do.

Honor Students Everywhere!

The truth is that esppecially for freshmen, being an honor student is a great idea because you get to sign up for all of your classes before almost everyone else. That means that you are practically guarenteed to get every class that your little heart desires. I admit that I loved this part of the process. Although I understand how the benefits can be exploited by students who take one honor class and then never think about taking another, instead they continue to register for their classes early. I'm just glad that I have enough credits to be one of the students who will be registering first anyways, because of my amount of credits. I'm safe, but the freshmen and sophmores, not so much.
There are a lot of characteristics that I think honor students should exemplify. Skepticism was a great one, a girl in class brought up. You can not sit back passively. I think a great idea for a first intro to honors class would be to come in saying a lot of things that no one in the world would agree with just to get the students to call you on it. That way they are speaking in class and also realizing that dissenting is okay and that there are going to be diverse opinions no matter what topic is being addressed.
ANother characteristics is work ethics. I think that more is to be expected of honor students. In the amount of work that is given to them, also in the response senction of classes. Although not everyone feels absolutely comfortable speaking up in class, blogs are a great way to say what you need to without having to do it in front of a class. But that showing of critical thinking is important.
Also, an open mind, that respects all other views while having their own is important for honor students. No one is going to agree with everything that someone else believes, because every individual is just that, an individual. The action of listening to other view points without getting up in arms defensively, but being able to add to the conversation by saying that you do not agree and explaining why.

Religion as Denial

So, religion was first used in order to explain natural phenomenom, such as
Q. What causes the sun to move throughout the day?
A. The (Greek) God Apollo pulls it everyday in his chariot.
I can understand that religion gives a hierarchal structure to its believers:
God
Priests
Believers
And it does give people a feeling of belonging and communionship. But I do not see where that is such a bad thing. Yes, the radicals are nuts, but for the average person who chooses to believe in whatever God they choose, how can that be harmful.
Yes people fear death. Why do others have to criticize those who believe in heaven or reincarnation, or whatever, if they are not harming anyone in the process? I think that believing in something greater can be very beneficial. It's not denial, it is faith. For many believers it is not a way to escape the reality of death, or loss, or failure, instead it is a way to cope with reality. And if their relaity is to believe in something which is beyond, I see nothing wrong with it. We all lie to ourselves on a daily basis, in order to make ourselves feel better and to get through the day. So even if Heaven ends up being just a dirt sleep, that isn't anyone else's problem.

Relating to Relationships

I still think that nurture and the environment that we live in along with the experiences that we have as we develop into adults are the main points that shape us as individuals. It's not the genes from family members that make us sarcastic or emotional, it is simply the family members themselves.
What I don't understand is the fact that debaters on the subject don't seem to want to change their viewpoint in any way. You would think that giving into the parts that you can agree with on the otherside would make your argument all the more concrete. As Coleridge points out. But maybe its stubborness, the act of not wanting to be wrong, or perhaps as stated above, they simply can not give into any other side in the smallest degree because that is not how they were taught. Again, its not in the genes, it's in the relationships one has with the people and the world around them.

Assuming Responsibly

I think that assumptions are always a good thing. The more knowledge you have about a topic or subject, even a person, the better you can understand why they act the way they do and when/if ever to remove yourself from that subject, when it is in your best interest. Even if you look at the foster children example that we used in class. If the kid was violent when confronted about a certain issue, it is probable that the issue would resent itself, if you knew how the kid would react then you could be ready to act a certain way to the assumed reaction of the child. If you hadn't known what would cause the child to react violently you would have placed the child and yourself in perhaps even more extreme danger.
Assumptions are not bad, but the way that we act towards a person once we know their history is what could be detrimental to a relationship between the individual and yourself. Being neutral and somewhat of a mediator is the way, I believe, to address situations with the best possible finese. I can't think of an instance when I would want to be left in the dark and not told the truth.

Nature v. Nurture

As far as Nature versus Nurture goes, I believe that we are all born with a blank slate and the environment impacts us in a variety of ways which cause us to see in the world in a particular way or another. When I use the word "environment" I mean the surrounding world around a person including family members, peers, and the physical location, etc. Although genetics has to play a part since many diseases are hereditary but I think that for the most part tabula rasa is the point to begin at in order to figure out the personality of an individual. I lean more towards nurture than nature, although I am not ignorant enough to think that nature does not play a part as well. Homosexuality is a nature occurance, it is not a choice. But what you find attractive in a person I believe is through experience and nurture.

Brain-Washed...Just like the rest of you

Someone in class said something about the religious radicals as being brain washed. I wanted to ask her, "Aren't we all?" To some degree that is. This was shown throughout the film that we watched. We are given, over and over again, images of the enemy as a monster, or a demon, or an animal that we give very little morality to, a rat, or a snake. These images in themselves has made their way into our society as bad and evil, but to place stereotypical characteristics on them as well, to emphasize that the Arab is bad, or the Jap must be stopped in order to protect our country, in order to protect our families is outrageous. By what we are taught by our parents, and teachers, and presidents we are subjected to images and themes that provide us with morals that are not necissarily our own. If a person was to grow up in a home saying that homosexuals are bad and if teachers told us that homosexuals are contagious and if the presidents insists that homosexuals are going to Hell, so steer clear of "their kind" of course we would consider that a kind of brain-wash. But the fact that propaganda that has been going on for years that has been telling us that we need to save the Iraqis, they need us to help them, to save them has not been thought about as brain washing at all. Instead we call ourselves heroes and cheer when we torture men and women without just cause. No one sees our rights being taken away under our noses. But that's not being brain-washed, no, that's just America.

Country Girls and Boys

"Chest Thumping Patriotism"
I know these kinds of people. Coming from a very small country-bumpkin town, you are introduced to the men and women who do not have to think twice about stoning a person's house who has decided to support flag burning as a form of protest, or think that we should not be at war, since it is pointless to so many different extremes. And the women who have had an American Flag tattooed on her arm and on the side of her house. America, I think, is not about the symbols but about the people. So I don't have a problem supporting flag burning as a form of protest, but I have felt the reprecussions of believing as I do. But the idea that these radical patriots are only found in small country towns is a stereotype. The idea that country music is all about supporting the war, and that all people who like country music are republicans who are narrow-minded nationalists. These are all wrong.
Some country lovers are pig-headed, are quick to judge, and are infantile members of society who have never used a rational thought in their lives. But.....you can find these men and women in businesses, the city, and especially in politics.

Information Changes Everything

I have always agreed with the death sentence, I figured that the pediphiles and rapists, the murderers and psychopaths should be killed. I always thought that it was too easy for them in prisons, and that we had to pay more to keep them in there than it was to kill the suckers. After last class I was dumbfounded by the statistics and informations that was brand new to me. That it is cheaper to keep the prisoners in prison than to kill them. I know that the system is absolutely flawed in the sense that innocent men and women are put in jail and killed, but the men and women who are guilty and are "rehibilitated" then sent back into the world and do the same disgusting things are ridiculous. You can't judge which is better, innocence being wrongfully accused, or letting the guilty go free to corrupt the world even more. Neither should be happening. But there is no way of knowing the truth, is there? Nothing can be proven without doubt, unless the enrtire act is taped, and even then, perhaps it is not 100% certain. All evidence can be corrupted. So where does that leave us? Torture is not a means to get anything done. Honestly if I was tortured because I was thought to have done something, I would admit it, just to escape the torture part. It is not reliable at all. But I think that it has to be an option in the most extreme cases. But then again it doesn't make much sense either. I am torn, I would want to use any means possible in order to save an innocent but torturing another innocent is not the way to get there. Is there even an answer?

Disgusted by Humanity

Alright, this blog may make quite a few people angry with me, but I think my message is more important. What makes me more sick than watching the animals in the video that we watched on Friday (and only on friday) is the fact that no one was willing to see the movie through to the end. Literally, the really disturbing part (or at least the part which should be most disturbing since it was focused on animals we consider beloved pets) was over. No more cats crying from being boiled and still be alive. What America is doing to the other animals, the ones that we eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, the ones that we pay money to have slaughtered, the ones that really affect us, those are the ones that no one in class wanted to watch. I don't think it was because everyone felt like they were going to be sick. Maybe that was part of it. But how can someone not want to see this film through? To "bury our heads in the sand" as Professor Johnson said. To deny the fact that pigs are slit open, still alive, in order for you to have bacon in the morning, a ham sandwich for lunch and pork roast for dinner is ridiculous, in my eyes. I am not going to say that I have decided to become a vegetarian, because I haven't. But at least I don't want to deny that the way these animals are killed for my fulfillment is inhumane to say in the least. It sickens me to hear the cries, but the cries are real. The suffering is real. I do not think that I was the only one who looked at the hamburger that I was given for dinner in a different light. The video gave more to the experience than words ever could have. I would have read an essay on animal abuse said, "Wow, that's sad" and moved on to cooking my roast beef. It doesn't stick with you the way that visuals and oral presentations do. Why are people so scared of living a truth since after all that is how we can change things in this world. Not just by getting the statistics and reading about the different cases, but by feeling the hatred, pain, and suffering of exploition around the world. I am very upset that we could not finish the movie, and now as a class we will never be able to go into how horrible and inhumane primate testing is, no matter what it is for. We are not the ultimate species, we can't even look a kitten in the eye while it is crying out for our help.

Aesthetics: The Nerve

The idea that all living things, because they are alive are equally valuable is simply ridiculous in my mind. To have to question whether to run over a squirrel or a human child is not much of a question at least to me. A cat is not an ant, a puppy is not a porcupine and they all have different values to human kind. In theory it sounds great that all living things would be seen as equals. That protecting ant eaters is as important as protecting horses is a great idea in theory, but in all reality a person is going to first protect the animal that they find most appealing.
This idea of aethetic pleasures gives me the idea of Hitler in a sense. He wanted to have only one kind of human being in the world. The Aryans who were blond haired, blue eyed, etc. And that was obviously ridiculous. But it feels sometimes that that is exactly what we are doing when we pick to protect the "pretty" animals and let the "ugly" ones die off. Okay maybe that's not a very good analogy but I do have a problems as to how we categorize what animals we place upon pedastals and the ones that fall by the wayside.

We are Fish

We are failing our world. Along with pollution, cutting down forests and completely destroying our ecosystem. Traditions mean more to many people than morals do. Many have the idea that as long as we keep a species alive then we are doing our job as human kind. But we can't even do that! Day after day species are becoming endangered and extinct and it is because of us. Global climate changes, excess pollutant, and this is all because of our "advanced" technologies and sciences. Someone in class said that we have evolved since cavemen-times. Is that a good thing?
At least then we were hunting to survive, now we are hunting to destroy. Our world is not going to last and there may be no way to stop the domino effect, the chain reaction, that our parents and grandparents were part of, that we still are a part of. Human beings, being of a "superior" race don't seem too superior to me. Sure we can reflect and ask why we are destroying our one and only world but if we don't do anything about it what is the point?
Sometimes I think we are as simple as goldfish. One moment we are told that the world is going to end so we freak out, swim around in circles and make plenty of bubbles. The next moment we are looking at the perdy yellow fish that is looking back at us from the other side of the glass.

All Dogs Go to Heaven

I have a science class and we went out to find wood turtles. We found one and I hated it when everyone was passing him around, prodding and poking him. I felt awful. Today we went looking for spotted salamanders and didn't find any. But we did find worms and centipedes, misquitos and caterpillars. The thing is that I cared most about making sure the caterpillar was safe. I could have cared less about the others. The caterpillar doesn't reflect humans in any way, it was not cute and I could not see any intelligence in its eyes. So why did I care about it more than say the worm?
I wonder why people think that we are protecting creatures by trapping them in zoos or searching them out in the wilderness. Why can't everyone just let everyone be. I guess that is my take on religion and beliefs as well. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, what is the big issue?
Animals can make decisions, they can think as far as consequences go (as they have been trained) but the reason we do not put a cat or rabbit on the witness stand is because they don't understand good versus bad, no matter how many times we say "Awww, you are such a good puppy!" If a person believed in souls, would they consider animals to have souls as well. Since they have morals I wonder if it goes hand in hand. Or it is all different? What would be the corralation between animals, humans, and souls if humans can reflect on their choices but animals can't? Is it possible that because of this reason all dogs really do go to heaven???

Animal Morals

No. I don't think that animals can think about thinking. Who knows? Maybe they can and we have no way of knowing but at far as our reality goes in this world at this moment I do not believe that animals contemplate peeing in the house in order to seek revenge for their owner leaving them for a weekend (with pleanty of food and water and someone to look on them from time to time, of course!). I think that animals are cognitive as far as feelings and emotions are concerned. When you are sad, yes, they come to comfort you, but they will also tear you to shreds if they get hungry enough and you are lost in the wilderness.
It is interesting that we don't have a problem killing cows for beef but throw a fit when the topic of horses and glue comes up. There is an obvious level in which we place horses and it is above the cows. I think that it is because we have been taught and trained to think of the cow as food and the horse as companion or at least a form of transportation. Do we judge all animals in the way they benefit us the most? The more beneficial they are, on a human emotional level, the higher they rate on our scale of importance?

Instinct Bites Back

Bertrand Russel said something along the lines of: if instinct is ignored it will fight back. I whole-heartedly agree. If you just think about anger you will realize that he is right. If a person gets royally pissed off but tries to supress it, hoping it will fade away, that anger turns into rage eventually and the longer that the person tries to control the rage the more likely it is to burst. And in many cases the explosion will be about the most mundane thing; not picking up your shoes. Why is it that we try to supress our feelings, whether they be anger, lust, or sadness? I believe it is because of the society that we have grown up in. The idea that you must put everyone before yourself in order to make the world happy and to appear as a "good" human being. Whatever that is. Who defines what a good person is? But in order to live easily in this world one seems to have to submit to the boundries and rules that have been placed upon us. If you answer questions too often you are a "teacher's pet," if you add what you believe and it contradicts what someone else does, you are a pushy overly-opinionated wretch who should keep his or her mouth closed (but especially if you are a girl. It's so unlady-like). How does anyone who is different (which is everyone) get by in the world without being labeled as a "freak"? Whatever that means.

Bertrand Russel said what?!!

"We are part of nature" "We are subordinates of nature" and that fear in essence is disgraceful are some of Russel's ideas. The main part about fear being disgraceful really irritated me and I wondered why I would have that reaction. Russel appears to be saying that the utopian way of looking at death in particular would be without horror. How can anyone have a mindset in which they are not afraid to die. I would assume that most people fear what they do not understand and change. Death is definitely a bit of a change. But why would anyone think that someone else who does fear dying is weaker (since it is disgraceful in Russel's theory). Perhaps it is not fearing death itself that Russel finds disgraceful. Maybe instead it is a person's need to belive in a higher being, God, Allah, whatever in order to feel better about dying. Any which way you put it, I do not agree.
Fine, these are his ideas and what he believes but I do not. I do not think that it is weak to believe in God. In many cases this belief in a higher power gives people the strength and courage to face problems that they would not face by "themselves." Russel mentions that people seek affection in order to escape lonliness. That it what God is for many people; they do not feel so alone. What is so wrong or disgraceful about personally believing something if it helps you and you are not forcing your own beliefs on someone else.

Determinism ruling, scary thought

Alright I believe that determinism is the main factor in our daily lives, but I still do not believe that it can determine everything. I do not think that free will is every completely free although it may seem like it is if not looked at carefully. But I do not think that all of our choices have been "determined" and who we end up being, that I believe is of our own choosing and own choices. My will to do something does not have to be determined and a person can tell me that no matter what happens that that was determined to happen "meant to be" but I don't believe it. If I believed in that then I would have to believe in soul mates, which I think is ridiculous. So, why can't there be both "free" choice although impacted through our environment, and some sense of determinism in the world at the same time? I think that they both co-exist. I understand that determinism does not mean to predict. But if you can blame your actions on determinism, what is the point in making the "right" choices? Is there such a thing as a right choice...or even a choice at all, if determinism completely rules the world?

Am I the Only One?

I am wondering if I am the only one that is completely baffled by this debate over free will versus determinism. For so long we have been told that beside from a higher being, God, that we had free will. "You can be anything you want when you grow up." If determinism is true, then this statement is not true. It has already been determined that you will be a doctor, an author, or a heroin addict. How can we expect anyone to take responsibility for any of their decisions if they can always use the fact that they didn't have a choice, since it was already determined that they would do it.
I understand that there has to be some kind of determinism, if there wasn't then we would not know if the sun was coming up tomorrow. And I do not believe that any of our choices are completely of our own free will. There are too many factors that impact us. Honestly I am not sure if a person would know what to do if they were not impacted by the society, people, and environment around them.
But, if we still can not find a concrete reason for everything, isn't complete determinism at least questionable. As the article we read stated, there are so many theories that are being proven false and new theories are being established, how can anyone be certain of either side of this argument as being the absolute answer to any of these questions?

Try this out: Define Philosophy

So, my definition of what is philosophy is rather short. I saw that the greek definition was the "love of wisdom" but that didn't seem exactly right to me. So instead I chose "Philosophy is the search for knowledge." Very simple, but I think that the definition fro philosophy can be so much to so many different people, not to mention how different each definition is going to be. I think that the reason my definition is so short is because I don't know where to begin to define it. To me philosophy is the voyage of deciphering how you want to live your own life depending on what you value as most important. When it comes to philosophy I wonder whether it is the individual search for knowledge (knowledge about oneself) or the journey to find a somewhat universal knowledge. No one is ever going to agree on anything, especially when it comes to something like religion, but maybe philosophy is a way to try and reach as many people as possible with many different possible ways to live your life and then it is the individual's right to choose which philosophy to believe. Over all, though, I think that "the search for knowledge" whether it be for personal or world-wide growth is a good definition because the more precise you get with a definition, I feel, the more people you are likely to exempt.