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.