(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.