(NN) What are our obligations to others and how far do our ethical obligations extend?

Like I have said in previous blogs, humans have obligations to them-self first, society second. We are obliged to make our life helpful to the race while keeping up moral obligations and keeping your-self happy.

(NN) What is more fundametal the indiviual or the group?

I think that neither is more fundamental then the other, that human’s need both to survive. Individually if humans didn’t think of them-self first they would not survive but on the flip side humans could not survive with out each other.

(NN) How are the two sexes related?

Sad to say I think that there are genetic qualities that set females apart from males. Males are prone to being more aggressive and violent where as women are prone to beings more gentle and nurturing, in humans as well as many other species on Earth. It is this fundamental difference that has led to the evolution of the thought that females are subordinate to males because women don’t tend to be violent to get what they want; they’re the more empathetic of the two sexes. Just because I believe in this difference does not mean that I think that women should be considered subordinate or be given less rights then men. Women are equal, just different, and should be treated as equals. This is the 21st century and any thoughts that women are subordinate in Western culture is just naïve and slightly barbaric. Yes, the idea women’s equalities is still a newer idea in Western thought but it is not one that should be disregarded for that reason.

(NN) How shall we live?

Every person should live their life doing what they like while helping out society at the same time. Meaning, that one should find a way to make what you like to do into something that will help man-kind. Someone who loves to teach should become a teacher, because not only will it make them happy in life but it will also be good for man-kind because we can’t survive as a race without teachers.

(NN) What can we know?

I think that humans will never know all there is to know about anything. It’s a sad thought but I think that there are some things we should just not know in this form of life. That’s not to say that we should try to learn all we can know. The search for meaning and reason is one of the things that sets humans apart from other animals and it is something we should continue to do

What is our Telos or destiny?

I believe that every person has a point or reason here on Earth, and that is to make a positive difference and a lasting impact on at least one person’s life. People can continue to live after they’ve completed this, or their death may be the thing that makes the impact. Once a person is dead I believe there is an afterlife for us to look forward to. Being Christian I do believe in heaven, but, I do not believe in Hell. The Bible says that God is all forgiving so based off of that he would never condemn someone to Hell.

Do we have free will or are we wholly determined by antecedent causes?

I like to think that humans have a free will to do as they chose. But, I also do believe that some things are predetermined by factors one can’t control. Who our family is, where you go to school as a kid, who you marry (pre-arranged marriage), those are the types of things that you can’t control. So the human life is a mixture of both free will and antecedent causes.

What is the truth about human nature

I feel that humans are embodiments of our spirits, made in the image of God. And I do follow the typical view held by religious people that humans have a divine essence in us because of our link to God and that we do have to be righteous and try to follow in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ.

(NN) Purpose

"Man would rather have a void for a purpose then be void of purpose," sadly this statement has a ring of truth to it. Without a purpose man feels empty and void; like they have a pit in their stomach and they don't know what to do about it. It's like having a purpose makes life worth living and without that purpose there is no point to living. Typically when someone feels like they have no purpose in life then they become depressed; it's like we've made having a purpose the reason and cause of life. Like the qoute said humans would rather make their purpose in life to do nothing then to live with no purpose. Both do the same thing, make the life void and give it no meaning, but one sounds better then the other. Humans as a whole decide they would rather have one thing over the other because it sounds better even if in the end the two choices are equal.

(NN) Results of Faith and Reason

In class the other day someone said "If faith produced results it would be called reason; reason produces results," I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Faith isn't void of results; it calms the soul and gives people comfort. I see a result as something, anything, that happens in reaction to another thing. So being calmed by the faith of God would be a result of faith. If reason was the only thing that produced results I think it would be a bleak World. I say this because reason is a very non-emotional state being so if results only came from reason there would be non emotion in the World. Emotions are one thing that sets humans apart from animals; we recognize our emotions and act on them. Thus, humans are a mixture of reason and emotion. If humans were to be void of one or the other life would be very different because either we would be emotionless or fully run by emotions, both a dangerous way for the human race to live. So, I think that reason does produce results, just those void of emotion, and the faith produces results as well, just those filled with emotions.

(NN) The Thesis of Existentialism

There are three general thesis held by most existentialist; the first is that existence precedes essence, two the absurdity of existence, and three radical freedom. This blog is going to focus on the second of those thesis.

Absurdity of existence:
The phrase "the absurdity of life" is in reference to the idea that all our lives humans try to remain on top and avoid death even though we know that death is unavoidable. It's about the cat and mouse game of life, everyday we do things to prolong life and avoiod death when we can drop dead at any second for a number of reasons out of our control. I agree with existentialists that this cat and mouse game is absurd, but I think that it is necessary. If everyone where to wander the World with the constant thoguht "I can die right now" then the World would be a crazier place then it already is. Some people wouldn't care anymore, why should I get a college degree if in the end I'm just going to die and it the degree will be worthless. Yes, some people do live their lives thinking that way but the great masses don't. The majority of people would rather sit and not think about the fact that one day we will all be dead and everything we do it pointless. That is just a depressing way to live, thus the cat and mouse game we have turned life into.

(NN) Nietzsche

The existentialist Nietzsche believed that the "force that motivates all creation is the will to power", as summarized by Pojman. This means that humans run around this planet trying to affirm our power over others and that those who do so successfully will be the ones that survive. This is very similar to Darwin's theory of the fittest where the stronger will always prevail over the weaker. I disagree with this because I feel that those perceived as the "weaker" are not always so and thus prevail despite their weakness. Nietzsche also believed that this process of weeding out the weak was being ruined by religions that supported being weak and humble. These religions, he thought, we ruled by the weak who were jealous of the strong noblemen and trying to prevent the natural process. I disagree with this as well because I see being humble and kind not as a weakness but a strength. As you can see by reading not only this blog but some of my others as well I'm a stronger dis-believer in the idea that humans are split into the weak and the strong.

(NN) Politics of the Election and the Economy

In our last class we spent some time talking about the election and the economy, that was then coming and now past, and I would just like to say some things that I didn't say in class.

When looking at the candidates for this election I can honestly say I didn't really like any of them. Being turned off by both the main candidates I looked to third parties but found no comfort there. To be honest I focused my attention on the economic plans of the two main candidates because I felt that the economy was the greatest problem that needed to be addressed, since that is an area that has a large impact on me as a college student as well as in the area I come from. Neither candidates plan was all that great; Obama's to socialist, which in my eyes is not a good thing, and McCain's to Republican.

Many are relating Obama's plan to that of FDR's plan back during the Great Depression, first off we're not yet in a depression, close but not there. FDR had to pull out some drastic stops to try and help the country out of the hole it was in. But, try to remember it wasn't these programs that pulled the country out of the Depression, it was the mobilization for WWII that pulled the country out of the depression. Also it is some of these programs and plans that were instituted by FDR, that were good then, that are creating some of the economic problems that exist today because they are easily manipulated and corrupt. So if we're not in a Depression and these socialist type programs don't really do much for the economy except enable those who don't do anything to help themselves but sap money from the government how is Obama's plan going to help? Now, on the flip side, McCain's plan is not a walk in the park either. His is just easier to scrutinize and can be scrutinized successfully in one sentence: Trickle down is proven faulty and the rich already have money why give them more?

So, as you can see I was not thrilled that this was the first election I got to vote in, I was hoping to vote for a candidate I truly agreed with. Now, that election has passed I do want to say that no matter how I feel about his plans I do support Obama as the President-elect!

(NN) Some More Freud

"We are conscious of only a small part of our existence"

Pojman said this quote while paraphrasing Freud and his beliefs. I agree with this idea. If humans were fully conscious of our existence studies like philosophy would be unneeded because we would already understand and there would be nothing to study. Imagine though if humans did understand all there was to be understood about our existence, what would life be like. Many would be out of jobs because, ideally, with all that knowledge we would know how to end death and suffering. Would a World of all knowing humans be a utopia or would it be the opposite because we would be fully aware of the evils of humans and the World would be one big danger zone? I could go on hypothisizing the different ways the World could go if we were to be an all knowing race, but I feel this two extremes make my point clear. Although humans do not know all there is know about our existence is that necessarily a bad thing or are we meant to never know all?

(NN) Human Wanting

"Our desires are insatiable, for as soon as one is satisfied, another takes its place"

Sigmund Freud makes many statements, both true and untrue, when discussing humans and their feelings. This statement, as stated by Pojman, happens to be one of Freud's true ones. Humans are always wanting more in the search for happiness. We believe that once we have that "one more thing" we'll be happy and want no more, that's never true. Humans always want more; no matter how much we get there's always one more thing we want. We're all like the little kid who sees a bike in the store and says "Mom, can I have it? I need it Mom, I have to have it! If you buy my it I'll never ask for anything again, I promise!", sure enough that little kid will be asking for something new within a week. That's just our human nature, to want to live outside of our means and always want what we can't have.

(NN) Sexual Drive and Freud

"Whatever case and whatever symptom we take as our point of departure,
in the end we infallibly come to the field of sexual experience" Sigmund Freud

Freud was a person who believed that everything about humans stemmed from sexual experiences in one way or another, I disagree with this completely. This statement is way to broad, some things in life may be tied back to the human sexual drive but not all things. For example, my want to do good in college is so that I can get a good job not because I have "penis envy" or the Oedipus complex. The idea that sexual drive is the strongest of all the factors that drive humans may in fact be true. But, just because it may be the strongest drive does not mean that it drives everything in human existence. I feel it's human nature to want to peg down one reason for everything when we know full well there is no one reason for everything. Freud just feel into that trap when discussing psychoanalysis.

(NN) American Economy

"Socialism for the rich and capitolism for the poor"
I agree with this statement but feel it has a flaw in it. It seems that in America today the rich and the poor reap the benefits of a socialist state while the middle class sits back and gets the burden of a capitolist economy laid on their backs. When looking at the economic policies in action right now and the ones being proposed by the two frontrunners for the office of President you see differing plans that all have one thing in common; they don't help the middle class. The ideas being thrown out there are either tax breaks for the rich or extra assistance for those who already have plenty of assistance. Why is there no one trying to help the middle class, which is slowing being drained in order to assist those above and below us? Going back to my last post, the American Dream is a dream of a happy middle class existence, so why don't politicians try to help the middle class? What happens to the American Dream once the middle class is wiped out of existence? Referencing the Marists view, America can't even move to Socialism without a middle class and referencing those who believe in democracy; how can democracy exist without a middle class. Yes it is human nature to want to reach the top as those in the upper class did, as well as it's human nature to take assistance without working for it when it's offered, so if that's how the government runs then why should it be expected that a middle class last?

(NN) American Dream

"Since when is the American Dream a greedy one?"
Like the question implies the American Dream was not a greedy one to begin with and I believe it still is not a greedy one. I believe that the American Dream is the want to be happy and free at the same time. The human dream is to rich, it's in our nature. I feel that these two should be keep separate because they are two very different things. Now-a-days people relate the American dream to the human dream because the way America is run is more conducive to the human dream. The perfect example of the American dream is that middle class family, like in "Leave it to Beaver", and that family is not a greedy one. I thinks that from the outside looking in at America the two dreams can seem very similar but they're not and I feel that Americans of all people should know the difference.

(NN) Human Nature an overview

"All History is but a continuos transformation of human nature" Karl Marx

Karl Marx believed that as time went on human nature transformed and evolved along with human society and that no "common" human nature exists and I completley agree with this. I think that human nature is a mixture of instincts and the way we grow up. Our enviroment, parents, friends, mentors, enemies,the economy, international as well as domestic events; they all effect who we are and what our nature is.

I also agree with his point that as the World grows and changes so does human nature. This sounds contrdictory, if every human has a different nature then how can human nature as a whole change? Simple, even though our natures are very different we still have similarites in ur nature from the instincts we are born with. As I said I think human nature is a mixture of nature and nuture.

I brought up the question of whether or not humans can change their nature in class a coupld week ago and someone said that it's human nature to change our human nature. Like most of what is brought up in this class, that in and of it-self is a contrdiction, but it makes sense.

So that is where I will stop this blog, with the question of, do you think humans can change their nature?

(NN) Schopenhauer

For this past week we had to read a chapter on Arthur Schopenhauer that focused on how he continued Kant's Copernican Revolution, along with how he disagreed with Kant.

One major point of Kant's that Schopenhauer disagreed with was the idea that God is the first cause. Schopenhauer's response to this was: if everything has a cause then what caused God? It is on this point that I would like to focus this blog on.

I agree with Kant on this one, that God is the first cause. If we were to take Schopenhauer's view on this point then a first cause would never be found because what caused that first cause. Somethings are just beyond human knowledge and I think the "First Cause" is one of those things, if you take Schopenhauer's route. But, if you take Kant's route and simply take the leap of faith and believe that God is the First Cause then all your beliefs in life and human nature will follow suit. I don't understand how you can believe anything if you have no belief of a beginning. I for one believe in a God and believe that God is the First Cause, so I just don't agree with the over analyzing and extra questioning to the point that no answer exists.

(NN) Immanueal Kant

Part of this weeks reading is to read about Immanuel Kant's philosophies, and, although he is a hard philosopher to understand I agree with the basics of his views on human nature.

Kant believed that humans, through reason, have dignity and that this dignity is what allows us to have a moral law. I believe that humans are born with a sense of dignity and morals, it is in our instincts to be so. Our morals and our sense of dignity are two of the many things programmed into us before we are even born that set us apart from other species on the Planet.

I do disagree with Kant's idea that belief in God is necessary for humans in have morality. I believe that from birth humans have morals, some don't follow them, but they are still there. Just because you're atheist doesn't mean that you don't have morals, or because you believe in God doesn't mean you have morals either. So, I basically agree with Kant's view of the human nature of morals I just don't agree with his idea that God is a necessity for humans to have morals.

(NN) Freedom

Freedom: The condition of being free of restraints (dictionary.com)...This is the basic definition you will find in a dictionary for the word freedom. Yesterday in class we got into a discussion of what exactly do we mean when we say "freedom."

Is absolutle freedom having no constraints either social or Worldly? Or rather, is it simply to be left alone? Even when one tries to look the definition up in a dictionary you get a vague answer. Is freedom another one of the aspects of human life that is determined by the person, like thruth or happiness, or is there a all encompassing answer.

Do people in the United States have "freedom" or do we just have less constraints then others? Someone gave the point that even humans did reach a point of all encompassing freedom eventually we would go back to self imposed restraints because it is human nature to have rules and a "social contract". So, steering towards the discussion of human nature, assuming the idea that it is human nature to need rules then is it against human nature to have all encompassing "freedom"?

(NN) Hobbes/Classical Conservatist

This weeks reading assignment was on the ideas of Classical Conservatist and Liberals, I'm going to do one post on each of these ideas. This post will be on the Classical Conservatives view of Human Nature.

The main focus on the classical conservative view is Hobbes and his views on human nature. Hobbes stood firm on the idea that "human beings are pleasure-seeking machines who invented government as a social contract" and that "nature simply consists of bodies in motion".

I disagree with these ideas because they are basically stating that humans have no free will. Saying that humans have no free will is like saying that everything we do in life is pointless. That, every time we do something and thinks it's out of free will it's really something that has already been planned out for us. Well, not even "planned" out but more predestined and there's nothing you can do about that. It's similar to the idea Aristotle held that you may think you are happy but are you really happy; you may think you're acting of free will but are you really acting out of free will.

If humans have no free will then everything we do is basically pointless. Why should we worry about schoolwork, social relationships, or even the future if it doesn't even make a difference. Basically, I don't like Hobbes ideas that "nature consists of bodies in motion" and that "human beings are pleasure seeking machines who invented government as a social contract" because it makes me feel hopeless and like there's no reason for me to care anymore.

(NN)Happiness

This past week we spent a lot of time talking about happiness and Aristotle's views on happiness. Although I did state my opinion in class I would like to reiterate it here.

In class we decided if one were to say to Aristotle "I'm happy", he would reply with the response "You may feel happy but are you really happy?" Well I for one think that question makes no sense because as I said in class; happiness is happiness is happiness is happiness. I see no difference between "feeling" happy and "being" happy. And if there was a difference I would rather sit here and say "I feel happy and I know I'm deluded in feeling so, because I'm not truly happy, but I don't care!" then sit here and say "I should be happy right now but I know it's only a feeling not a substantive happy, so I'd rather be sad." Which then brings up another point from class if you can feel happy but not be happy then can you feel sad/mad/lonely and not be so?

I definitely agree with what Derek said...happiness was the wrong word for Aristotle to use; instead he should have used a word like "fulfilled".

...I just felt like reiterating my views on this because they really hit home with me and made me think...

(NN) Aristotle

While reading this weeks’ assignment I realized that I agree with many of Aristotle’s views in regards to how he disagreed with Plato and Socrates. I also found that I strongly disagreed with many of his views as well.

The biggest point of Aristotle's that I disagreed with was his idea that there is an inferior class of human beings. In one of his works, Politics, Aristotle states "When then there is such a difference as that between the soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lowest sort are by nature slaves...". So, Aristotle is saying that one could detect a "lower" class of human beings by the build of their bodies (or the fact they use their bodies to survive) and that these "lower" people are natures slaves, like animals. I completely disagree with this view. First off I don't believe any human being is inferior or of a "lower class", especially not because of the way their bodies are built – or whether they use their bodies to survive. Yes, generally men of stronger build did the grunt work and the men of weaker build dis jobs oriented towards intelligent thought, back then, but that absolutely does not place the stronger bodied men as sub-human.

So, Aristotle did have many great ideas in views but I feel he went completely off base with this view and I felt I should "call him out on it".

(NN) Evil

In class on the 22nd someone said "Evil is the result of ignorance", and that is going to be the basis of this blog.I don't think I agree with the claim that ignorance is the cause of evil. Evil is caused by many different things, not just ignorance. It can even be caused by knowledge and logic, the opposites of ignorance. Say a murderer is on the stand and is asked if he realized what he did; that murderer may respond, “yes, I killed that person because I believe actions the victim partook in were wrong and he/she needed to be punished”. That person killed because of the knowledge they possessed and to them it was logical to kill.Evil can also originate from insanity. Many insane people find themselves committing evil acts unknowingly. They don't know what they are doing, but they do it anyways.So, in reference to the statement "Evil is a result of ignorance", I feel that is too limited of a statement. Yes, evil can be the result of ignorance, but it can also be the result of other states of human nature like, knowledge, logic, and insanity. In essence, it's human nature to partake in evil whether knowingly or not.
********
After entering this post I read the Chapter in our book on Aristotle, and he brought about another point of human nature that could drive someone to do evil that's not born from ignorance. Aristotle said that humans can commit evil at the height of emotion. Humans can do evil, knowing full well that they are doing wrong, without being evil or ignorant people in general.

This point adds to my other points against the statement "Evil is a result of ignorance" and I found it to be noteworthy in this blog.

(NN) Nature of the Superior

While reading this weeks chapters I came across the statement "nature teaches that the superior should exploit and rule the weaker". This was a belief held by a Sophist named Callicles, who lived circa 480-403 B.C.E.
This statement is similar to the beliefs held later by Darwin and his theory "survival of the fittest". Callicles along with Darwin believed that it was the job of the more "superior" humans to raise above the weaker of the species. Callicles even went as far as to say that it is human nature for the "superior" to "exploit and rule the weaker".
I for one don't agree with any of these points. I feel that all humans are equal and no one person is "superior" to another. When you look at what humans have made impacts they aren't always the people Callicles or Darwin would have called superior. Mattie Stephanek was a child who was born with muscular dystrophy disease, naturally Callicles and Darwin would put him into the "weaker" category, but he's not. Having lost a sibling to MD at a young age Mattie turned to the MDA and Jerry Lewis to help spread his message of peace. This boy, who died four years ago, is my greatest inspiration and in context to to this blog he is the perfect example of someone who you would think was weak but was not. I'm not sure the point I'm trying to make is completely clear here...if the human nature of the weaker was to be exploited by the superior than Mattie would have never made the impact he made on so many people, the weak have strength and they can use it. So when I think of Mattie and others like him I really can't buy the idea that "nature teaches that the superior should exploit and rule the weaker." Also being a Catholic I believe the quote from the Bible "the meek shall inherit the Earth", now I don't believe that as complete truth it is a metaphor for life.

(NN) Examining life

Today in class we discussed Socrates quote: "The unexamined life is not worth living", and personally I disagree with this statement. A life worth living is a happy life, and happiness doesn't come from examining your life but from living your life to it's fullest. By spending all your time examining your life I feel you can never be happy because you will never find all the answers, humans are complex beings and trying to figure out our nature is fine but assuming that by not doing so your life is not worth living is a wrong assumption. I'm not saying that people shouldn't examine their lives, but they should consume their lives with that examination. I say the over examined life is a life that's not worth living.
Someone in class said that through examining our lives humans will become more rational and that rationality will inversely cause a better society for human beings. In response to that I have to say that many times its the irrational things that humans do that lead to discoveries, and if we become a completely rational society all learning would stop, right then and there. I believe that it is human nature itself to be irrational. So that statement in and of itself is a contradiction, because how can examining Human Nature lead to something that is against human nature? If humans were rational then I believe we wouldn't know what little we already know and it would be impossible for us to function as human beings. I don't know what we would be, but we wouldn't be human.