"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?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
(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.
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.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
(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?
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.
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.
Friday, October 10, 2008
(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.
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.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
(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"?
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"?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
(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.
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.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
(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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
