How can one express truth through art? (Art in the sense of visual works such as paintings, sculptures, or drawings)
1. Who decides what makes art good or bad? Can art be good even if its technically poor but has a strong emotion, feeling or message attached?
2. Is art a personal experience where the viewer gets to decide what it means through their own rationalizations or is it determined through authority, and societal consensus?
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Friday, September 07, 2007
Stereotypes and how to avoid/analyze using TOK
When researching how stereotypes occur, I found a startling piece of information. It seems that it takes just 2.5 seconds before one has a first impression, and in turn has the first stereotype.
So, feel free to choose any of the following questions, and analyze (to the best of a TOK student's knowledge using AOKs, Reasoning behind beliefs, etc.)
1) How does one avoid stereotypes? Even if you have them, how do you eliminate them?
2) What would happen if there was a world without stereotypes? Would it be better/worse?
3) Why do you assume that it takes only 2.5 seconds before one already has made a (most likely) false assumption about someone else?
So, feel free to choose any of the following questions, and analyze (to the best of a TOK student's knowledge using AOKs, Reasoning behind beliefs, etc.)
1) How does one avoid stereotypes? Even if you have them, how do you eliminate them?
2) What would happen if there was a world without stereotypes? Would it be better/worse?
3) Why do you assume that it takes only 2.5 seconds before one already has made a (most likely) false assumption about someone else?
A Generation of Voyeurs?
In the past 15 years, the Internet has allowed every person with a web cam and a mic to truly claim their 10 seconds of fame. Whether it is lipsynching to a Backstreet Boys song or to an obscure, Turkish pop hit, across the world everyone has been searching for the silicon spotlight. While this instinct to fame has always been a natural and present one in humanity, why in this modern day and age are we so open to watching each other complete these embarrassing, ridiculous escapades. In Hollywood, where it seems every woman under 25 has gone utterly crazy, the rest of the country eagerly watches to see the fate of Britney's hair or Paris's prison time. The other day, while browsing the Internet, I came across a website created by a Yale Philosophy graduate, which features several individuals who literally live their entire lives in front of a live broadcast web camera. No privacy. Over 5,000 viewers at a single time. For those interested, though the concept sounds raunchy, they are strictly PG rated existences: http://www.justin.tv/ijustine
So, my question is......why, particularly our generation, are we so entranced with the daily lives and troubles of others? Why is privacy growing to gradual extinction in our society today, and what do YOU think about it's departure, and its possible impact upon future society?
~Jordan C.
So, my question is......why, particularly our generation, are we so entranced with the daily lives and troubles of others? Why is privacy growing to gradual extinction in our society today, and what do YOU think about it's departure, and its possible impact upon future society?
~Jordan C.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Sexism
The second sentence of the wikipage I feel adequately describes the intent of the Feminist movement: "Feminism is also described as an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes."
I am going to make a huge generalization here, but I imagine by that definition everyone here is a Feminist. I hope that that is the case.
However, as much as you may claim you are a feminist, I ask you girls: Have you ever asked a guy out? Would you, before this listing, have thought of proposing to a man? When I googled "Woman proposes to man" it blessed me a total of NINE finds.
Several of the ladies I know have attributed this to a fear of rejection that they for some reason think we are immune to. Some even said that guys wouldn't appreciate it, if the girl asked. I, personally, would have no problem with it.
So the questions are:
Girls: Why don't you ask people out?
Guys: What would you think of a girl asking you out?
All: Is anyone a feminist if they refuse to accept true equality, down to the social aspects of dating? Isn't it sexist to put all of that pressure on one half of the population?
I am going to make a huge generalization here, but I imagine by that definition everyone here is a Feminist. I hope that that is the case.
However, as much as you may claim you are a feminist, I ask you girls: Have you ever asked a guy out? Would you, before this listing, have thought of proposing to a man? When I googled "Woman proposes to man" it blessed me a total of NINE finds.
Several of the ladies I know have attributed this to a fear of rejection that they for some reason think we are immune to. Some even said that guys wouldn't appreciate it, if the girl asked. I, personally, would have no problem with it.
So the questions are:
Girls: Why don't you ask people out?
Guys: What would you think of a girl asking you out?
All: Is anyone a feminist if they refuse to accept true equality, down to the social aspects of dating? Isn't it sexist to put all of that pressure on one half of the population?
Truth
Is there really such thing as actual truth or is everyone's ideas of truth different? Is there something that is universally accepted as true and do things need to be accepted to be true? Can one person's truth be untrue to someone else?
What is TRUTH?
What is TRUTH?
American role models
Before starting any serious questions, i just want to know what people think of this girl being Miss Teen USA since she is supposed to be a role model to young women.
Of course, the only reason she really is such an influence is because of the media exposure, but what does this say about our country?
Of course, the only reason she really is such an influence is because of the media exposure, but what does this say about our country?
The Un-Raw Carrot
To continue with another somewhat general topic, let us migrate towards the discussion of hope. In specific, your reaction(s) to the following quote, and also how it differs from your idea of what hope is.
"Hope is the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it."
Personally, I took this quote to mean that when you have hope, you are blinding yourself to reality. In connection to the Allegory of the Cave, I saw the light as not reality, but as hope. It lights the darkness, but leaves shadows in its wake, and those shadows are what we fear, because they are the unknown. The darkness is reality, and the only way to face reality is to look away from the light. Thus, they are no more shadows, they are a part of the darkness. The quote goes on, latter, to say that we need to take the carrot away and walk with our eyes open. Hope is not going to save us, hope will do nothing, and if we follow the carrot, we'll be following it until we realize how we've wasted away.
That's how I took the quote in a nutshell. What do you think?
~Kari~
"Hope is the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it."
Personally, I took this quote to mean that when you have hope, you are blinding yourself to reality. In connection to the Allegory of the Cave, I saw the light as not reality, but as hope. It lights the darkness, but leaves shadows in its wake, and those shadows are what we fear, because they are the unknown. The darkness is reality, and the only way to face reality is to look away from the light. Thus, they are no more shadows, they are a part of the darkness. The quote goes on, latter, to say that we need to take the carrot away and walk with our eyes open. Hope is not going to save us, hope will do nothing, and if we follow the carrot, we'll be following it until we realize how we've wasted away.
That's how I took the quote in a nutshell. What do you think?
~Kari~
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
The Meaning of Life
Ok, I will kick off the TOK year with a very broad topic, one as mysterious as it is intriguing. What is the meaning of life? Why do we exist? Countless generations of human beings have long pondered this bottomless question and have reached their own conclusions. What is yours?
"We sit here, the mountain and I, until only the mountain remains." -Li Po
"When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice"- Cherokee Proverb
"We sit here, the mountain and I, until only the mountain remains." -Li Po
"When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice"- Cherokee Proverb
War and Peace
“War cannot be justified as a means of maintaining ideals if our ideals are based on peace” –Unknown
So in English we were looking at quotes and I chose this one to analyze. I posted it on the English blog but I thought that with the nature of the quote it would also be relevant here, this is what I wrote about it.
This quote is made powerful by the simplistic phrasing of an eloquent idea. It has relevance to a present day situation, making it more powerful, as people can relate to it by opinion and emotion. It is a call to justice, stating that we need to take a different action for war if we are truly at war to maintain peace. The word justify implies that the war needs justification, but because of the two contradicting words, it is implied that the justification is faulty, and needs a new one. The words “ideals” and “peace” have become important words in our society, as have freedom, liberty, and happiness; which are contained within American ideals. The quotes main statement is how hypocritical “we” are by using the war as an excuse to maintain ideals, when in fact, we state that our ideals are based on peace.The fact that “ideals” is used twice makes us connect the two action words together. Peace and war are paradoxical, and therefore the reader is forced to look at how exactly they are being connected. Simplifying the quote by taking out the connecting “ideals”, it becomes “War cannot be justified as peace”. A more direct statement of what the author is trying to portray. In this quote the wording is vital to how it is perceived. It is short and to the point. Without the comparison the author makes with his contradicting words and the repetition of “ideals” to enhance the comparison, the quote would not have the same meaning or effect.
So in English we were looking at quotes and I chose this one to analyze. I posted it on the English blog but I thought that with the nature of the quote it would also be relevant here, this is what I wrote about it.
This quote is made powerful by the simplistic phrasing of an eloquent idea. It has relevance to a present day situation, making it more powerful, as people can relate to it by opinion and emotion. It is a call to justice, stating that we need to take a different action for war if we are truly at war to maintain peace. The word justify implies that the war needs justification, but because of the two contradicting words, it is implied that the justification is faulty, and needs a new one. The words “ideals” and “peace” have become important words in our society, as have freedom, liberty, and happiness; which are contained within American ideals. The quotes main statement is how hypocritical “we” are by using the war as an excuse to maintain ideals, when in fact, we state that our ideals are based on peace.The fact that “ideals” is used twice makes us connect the two action words together. Peace and war are paradoxical, and therefore the reader is forced to look at how exactly they are being connected. Simplifying the quote by taking out the connecting “ideals”, it becomes “War cannot be justified as peace”. A more direct statement of what the author is trying to portray. In this quote the wording is vital to how it is perceived. It is short and to the point. Without the comparison the author makes with his contradicting words and the repetition of “ideals” to enhance the comparison, the quote would not have the same meaning or effect.
Cultural Death Ceremonies
Okay the title is very morbid, but I have always been curious about this subject. How come different cultures have differents ways of seeing of the dead?
For example, in Mexico death is more of a celebration of the loved ones lives, instead of being extremely dark and gloomy. They even have celebrations such as the Day of the Dead to not only bring them back, but also to celebrate and appreciate their lives.
In the United States, funerals take on a different role, and it is meant to remember, rather than celebrate a life well-lived. Funerals are usually very solemn and rarely festive, like the Mexican culture.
How can you explain these differences? How do other cultures, say "goodbye"?
For example, in Mexico death is more of a celebration of the loved ones lives, instead of being extremely dark and gloomy. They even have celebrations such as the Day of the Dead to not only bring them back, but also to celebrate and appreciate their lives.
In the United States, funerals take on a different role, and it is meant to remember, rather than celebrate a life well-lived. Funerals are usually very solemn and rarely festive, like the Mexican culture.
How can you explain these differences? How do other cultures, say "goodbye"?
This may be volatile...AIM
I know this could potentially turn into a "lets bash AIM" post, but I genuinely am interested in what people think. (This is about senior AIM for me, but I want to know what junior AIM is like as well).
Today for example, my class was asked what we wanted to get out of the class and so we answered with ideas like college prep time, homework time, food, team building activities (like the ropes course) and the like. Immediately after we had finished the discussion, we were told that the teacher did not see anything that we wanted out of the class. He saw ways we were trying to avoid the class. However, he had not told us the purpose of senior AIM, and then critiqued us without actually knowing what he had wanted us to come up with.
How is this logical?
This class was supposed to be implemented in order for us to make the "transitions", but how can you make the transitions without actually graduating high school (hence the homework time), or applying to colleges (hence the college prep time), or the team building (since the IB kids "run around in packs throughout the school"). However, when we had tried to make the class work for us, we were immediately shot down with "you guys aren't even trying to use the potential this class has". When authority talks to people like this, i believe they lose some of that authority because they lose respect as well.
So, why do we have AIM?
What is going on in other classes? (I know this isn't exactly ToK, but our class isn't exactly the most open to the "IB kids"). Why do people gravitate into cliques when in a class thats meant to break that?
Why do people automatically reject something thats new (think allegory of the cave), or is it when the new thing is forced upon people? (Or do we reject it because we lost late start in our sophomore year?)
-Also (from AIM) can a place (location) be important to someone or is it the event or memory of something that happpened there the true importance?
Today for example, my class was asked what we wanted to get out of the class and so we answered with ideas like college prep time, homework time, food, team building activities (like the ropes course) and the like. Immediately after we had finished the discussion, we were told that the teacher did not see anything that we wanted out of the class. He saw ways we were trying to avoid the class. However, he had not told us the purpose of senior AIM, and then critiqued us without actually knowing what he had wanted us to come up with.
How is this logical?
This class was supposed to be implemented in order for us to make the "transitions", but how can you make the transitions without actually graduating high school (hence the homework time), or applying to colleges (hence the college prep time), or the team building (since the IB kids "run around in packs throughout the school"). However, when we had tried to make the class work for us, we were immediately shot down with "you guys aren't even trying to use the potential this class has". When authority talks to people like this, i believe they lose some of that authority because they lose respect as well.
So, why do we have AIM?
What is going on in other classes? (I know this isn't exactly ToK, but our class isn't exactly the most open to the "IB kids"). Why do people gravitate into cliques when in a class thats meant to break that?
Why do people automatically reject something thats new (think allegory of the cave), or is it when the new thing is forced upon people? (Or do we reject it because we lost late start in our sophomore year?)
-Also (from AIM) can a place (location) be important to someone or is it the event or memory of something that happpened there the true importance?
Insane Tv Ad
"Eat all you want and still loose weight. And we couldn't say it on TV if it wasn't true!" O.K. so I know that TV is famous for outrageous claims. Why do you think that people believe these ads? Its not as if they are an authority or anything, so why does it work?
-Caitlin A.
-Caitlin A.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Truth?
What is something that you thought to be true but later learned was not?
(go beyond Santa Claus... link it to an AOK or personal experience)
(go beyond Santa Claus... link it to an AOK or personal experience)
You as a Knower
What is on epiphany you had when writing your Knower Autobiography or since, when considering what you know about personal and proper justifications?
Allegory of the Cave
When considering "Allegory of the Cave", how is it possible that some people can believe in illusion and accept it as reality? Give examples.
Knowledge in your Classrooms
What is an example of "knowledge" that you have struggled accepting based on authority in any of your academic courses? Why has it been difficult? What is it about YOU that possible has influenced this?
Please discuss subject matter, NOT teachers or teaching styles.
Please discuss subject matter, NOT teachers or teaching styles.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
IT LIVES!
Alas, I am lacking a link to this article I had found. Sorry.
So, being the tech-savvy man I am I was reading an article about College and the internets the other day. Specifically those fancy-pants essay writing companies. My question relates to the students involved in this, who claim that the fancy-pants plagerism checks are a breach of honor, and should no longer be used, and they are in fact suing the company in charge for some millions of dollars of copy-right infringement.
So I ask, who is right?
~Wolf
Also, if you find the article please link.
So, being the tech-savvy man I am I was reading an article about College and the internets the other day. Specifically those fancy-pants essay writing companies. My question relates to the students involved in this, who claim that the fancy-pants plagerism checks are a breach of honor, and should no longer be used, and they are in fact suing the company in charge for some millions of dollars of copy-right infringement.
So I ask, who is right?
~Wolf
Also, if you find the article please link.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
A list worth Checking twice.
Personally I want to be able to continue using the Blog Next year.
So I am writing a post for people who want to continue use to comment on.
So I'll start By saying keep me on!
So I am writing a post for people who want to continue use to comment on.
So I'll start By saying keep me on!
Sunday, April 29, 2007
how many genders are there?
think outside the traditional two, which don't include transgendered (spell check is telling me to write it trans gendered) or transvestites.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
We are Unblocked!
I know that it may be too late for many of you, but I want to thank all of you that helped build this TOK blog. Because of your ability to use this blog in a professional, educational, and serious manner, the district has seen the educational value of what we are trying to do.
You are now able to access this Blog (and post) from PSD computers.
Thanks again for all of the hard work you have done.
You are now able to access this Blog (and post) from PSD computers.
Thanks again for all of the hard work you have done.
Monday, April 23, 2007
What were they thinking: Arcadia
The chaos theory states that in the complete disorder of the world there is order as described through fractals within Arcadia. The name chaos though implies complete catastrophe and strife rarely do I personally think of chaos as a good thing, which brings me to my point. Why name it that to me it compares to renaming the death penalty "killing people," or Chinese capitalistic politics "baby labor." This is a distinct language issue that they should really clear up
Friday, April 20, 2007
Automatons
So, in Arcadia it is said by Chloe that "Sex is the attraction newton left out."
Imagine a very very complicated machine. Complicated to the point it seems as magic to us. Could that robot ever actually feel sexual attraction? of would the attractions it felt be governed by it's programming? if the latter, wouldn't it still (more or less) follow Newton?
Imagine a very very complicated machine. Complicated to the point it seems as magic to us. Could that robot ever actually feel sexual attraction? of would the attractions it felt be governed by it's programming? if the latter, wouldn't it still (more or less) follow Newton?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
the end
How can you tell it's the end of the school year?
Okay, pretend that you're an observer rather a participant of high school. If you ignored the summer component, and you knew that the school year cycled, how could you track the beginning and end of each school year? How do you know? What is the chain of events? How would your conclusions be limited by the fact that you're an observer, not a participant?
Okay, pretend that you're an observer rather a participant of high school. If you ignored the summer component, and you knew that the school year cycled, how could you track the beginning and end of each school year? How do you know? What is the chain of events? How would your conclusions be limited by the fact that you're an observer, not a participant?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Sunday, April 08, 2007
TOK Blog Survey
Help Me Out...
Soon, I'll be giving a survey to all of the TOK students to help me evaluate the blog this year. Overall, I've been happy with what I've seen but considering the blog is still in its infancy, I'm looking to get feedback as to what has worked and what hasn't so that I can figure out what I want the survey to look like.
My goal is for it to be a forum for discussion between classes as well as schools in the future. I love the idea but it isn't there yet. It's been great at times, inconsistent others. It's provided a place to discuss but hasn't generated the discussion that it could. So what I would like from you, at least those of you that still surf occasionally...
What has worked? What hasn't?
How could it be improved?
How could we build a stronger online community?
How could it be better utilized?
Any other suggestions?
Thank you in advance.
Soon, I'll be giving a survey to all of the TOK students to help me evaluate the blog this year. Overall, I've been happy with what I've seen but considering the blog is still in its infancy, I'm looking to get feedback as to what has worked and what hasn't so that I can figure out what I want the survey to look like.
My goal is for it to be a forum for discussion between classes as well as schools in the future. I love the idea but it isn't there yet. It's been great at times, inconsistent others. It's provided a place to discuss but hasn't generated the discussion that it could. So what I would like from you, at least those of you that still surf occasionally...
What has worked? What hasn't?
How could it be improved?
How could we build a stronger online community?
How could it be better utilized?
Any other suggestions?
Thank you in advance.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
NYC Condom Campaign
So, we had a presentation in our class on Thursday for the IA about the NYC condom campain. After seeing the presentation or looking into the topic, I was wondering what everyone thought about this campain and then why do you think this?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Time-Why and How?
So, I have recently been pondering the element of time. How it impacts our lives and why man felt the need to develop this concept. But is that a truth for man-does time actually exist or is this something which is subject to change for any of us? What has society done to make it either acceptable or not to feel the need for this idea of time itself?
If you would like a little distraction, check out this link:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
If you would like a little distraction, check out this link:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
Friday, March 09, 2007
Wikipedia.com - Ethics
Skim the BBC article about Wikipedia.com.
From the information, Ryan Jordan seems to have committed an unethical action by creating a false identity. His made up PhD allowed him to edit articles more freely and gave him the authority to “arbitrate disputes between authors.” But what if his motive was to educate? BBC mentions he researched what he posted (I.E. Catholicism for Dummies – though this was actually meant to undermine his authority). Would this assumed ‘educational’ motive justify his actions?
OR
Can forging an identity ever be justified? Recall the ethics presentation we had a while back, where a police officer impersonated an attorney in order to capture a murderer.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Emotion/Ethics in Awakenings
Since we all watched the movie Awakenings in our TOK class, I have a question regarding ethics and emotion in the movie. So, to what extent does Dr. Sayer use emotion in justifying what he believed was an ethical decision to give Leonard an overdosage of the revival medication? Also, why would one think that he was so deeply committed to the one patient, Leonard?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Science and Philosophy
In modern physics, much of the research being done is on extreme conditions. The result is more and more strange and hard to believe theories. One of the hardest to understand is the theory of Quantum Mechanics. What is the role of the scientist to look into the implications of science? My question is does a scientific theory need a philosophy explaining the science, or should science be seperate from philosophy. Mainly the idea of the quantum wave function, since the wave function has to be collapsed but currently there is no theory of why quantum wave functions are collapsed.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Ethics in Awakenings
Hey all! So in a last ditch effort to post on ethics, I decided to talk about ethics in the movie Awakenings, which we're currently watching in class. I thought the conversation between Dr. Sayer and the previous neuropsychologist who had worked with these patients was really interesting, especially when the first psychologist said that they cannot be thinking, because that would destroy his sense of morality *ie, he wouldn't be able to live with that knowledge, which then informed his ethics in how he treated those patients; he made it ethically permissable to avoid treating them at all. Another ethical dilemma raised is the dosage of l-dopa that he gave to the patient; this far exceeded what his supervising doctor allowed, and what he legally had permission from the mother to give, but because he morally felt compelled, thinking it would help, he administered it anways. It will be interesting to see how this plays out through the film, and what further ethical issues are raised, along with seeing how others will treat him *ie- will he be punished?* when he acts on morality, rather than ethics.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Fermat's Last Problem
Hey, this is actually Michael. I can’t post on my own account, so I am posting on Kyle's.
I don’t know how many classes other than Malone’s watched the movie about the proving of Fermat’s Last Problem, but I wanted to post on it anyways. I just thought it was interesting that the people in the movie were just so much more immersed and knowledgeable in mathematics, that it went over all of our heads, and the we thought it was funny the way they talked about and interacted with math. We had no idea what they were talking about for most of the time, and the mathematicians talked about the math as simple and elegant, when the class had no idea what was going on. So this leads me to my question: How does each area of knowledge create its own culture?
I don’t know how many classes other than Malone’s watched the movie about the proving of Fermat’s Last Problem, but I wanted to post on it anyways. I just thought it was interesting that the people in the movie were just so much more immersed and knowledgeable in mathematics, that it went over all of our heads, and the we thought it was funny the way they talked about and interacted with math. We had no idea what they were talking about for most of the time, and the mathematicians talked about the math as simple and elegant, when the class had no idea what was going on. So this leads me to my question: How does each area of knowledge create its own culture?
Monday, February 19, 2007
Ethikos
Should the data gathered from the Nazi Death Camp Experiments be allowed to be used?
I say yes.
1. Data has no ethics in and of itself. Apples are red has no moral implications, no matter how many apples you threw at people to convice them that they are red. The data gathered from the experiments, although from undeniably evil means, are amoral and cannot be held to any moral standards as it is just a peice of information.
2. Although some of the data may be skewed, there is no way we can get other data to prove that it is skewed. This is the basis of all scientific theories. They can never be true, they can only be disproven. As soon as the data from the experiments is disproven then it can be discounted. Currently it is the best data we have, so we need to deal with it.
3. It does not set a precedent. All that we say by using the data is that we need data. There is no condoning of the Nazis in using their data anymore than touring their death camps is equivalent to reopening them.
4. The data has already saved lives.
Argue away!
I say yes.
1. Data has no ethics in and of itself. Apples are red has no moral implications, no matter how many apples you threw at people to convice them that they are red. The data gathered from the experiments, although from undeniably evil means, are amoral and cannot be held to any moral standards as it is just a peice of information.
2. Although some of the data may be skewed, there is no way we can get other data to prove that it is skewed. This is the basis of all scientific theories. They can never be true, they can only be disproven. As soon as the data from the experiments is disproven then it can be discounted. Currently it is the best data we have, so we need to deal with it.
3. It does not set a precedent. All that we say by using the data is that we need data. There is no condoning of the Nazis in using their data anymore than touring their death camps is equivalent to reopening them.
4. The data has already saved lives.
Argue away!
Monday, February 12, 2007
South African Plays
In theatre class lately, we have been talking about African theatre, and one of our units was on South Africa. I found it interesting that after apartheid was ended, there was a dryspell of theatric material. It seems as though every playwright in South Africa had been writing out against apartheid, and now that it was over, they had a lack of material to write with. I guess my question is this: How much can an piece of art: be it a painting, a book, or a play, affect a culture's ideas and understandings?
Monday, February 05, 2007
Censorship
So in the "Censorship and its Progeny" packet we just read it talked about a controversial art show in Anchorage Alaska. It focused on Dread Scott's piece "What is the Proper Way to Display a U.S. Flag?". In this piece there is a U.S. flag lying on the floor and a comment book on the shelf above it. But to leave a comment as to What is the proper way to display a U.S. flag? a person must step on the flag. My question to you is would you walk on the flag, and what comment would you write in the comment book? I know what I would write.
I would say: To me the flag symbolizes the United States (that part is obvious). But to me it is the 50 stars in the corner of blue that truly represent the concept. By having the stars close like that it represents the closeness of the United States. However, because of this I have preminitions about having the flag high on a mast. Although I understand that this is displaying the symbol of America proudly for everyone to see, to me it makes the united states seem unattainable. Like it is something we strive for but never quite reach. As if it is in our dreams, but can never quite come true. One example for this view is the division between red and blue states. It is always a contest to see how many red and blue. Thus we are never fully united. By putting the flag on the ground it brings the dream of being fully united much closer to me, and everyone. For that reason as I write this comment I am standing right on the stars so that I can feel connected to everyone in every state through the stars.
So although this is a really long entry I would love to hear what everyone else would do and say.
I would say: To me the flag symbolizes the United States (that part is obvious). But to me it is the 50 stars in the corner of blue that truly represent the concept. By having the stars close like that it represents the closeness of the United States. However, because of this I have preminitions about having the flag high on a mast. Although I understand that this is displaying the symbol of America proudly for everyone to see, to me it makes the united states seem unattainable. Like it is something we strive for but never quite reach. As if it is in our dreams, but can never quite come true. One example for this view is the division between red and blue states. It is always a contest to see how many red and blue. Thus we are never fully united. By putting the flag on the ground it brings the dream of being fully united much closer to me, and everyone. For that reason as I write this comment I am standing right on the stars so that I can feel connected to everyone in every state through the stars.
So although this is a really long entry I would love to hear what everyone else would do and say.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Is there a fundamental difference between the male and female brain?
Can we claim that, in general, men are inherently better at math and science, or is the disparity between numbers of men and women in scientific fields due only to cultural bias?
If it's only because of cultural bias, then why did that bias develop in the first place?
I think this issue is interesting, and I can think of several good arguments for both sides. However, I've noticed that those arguments are based mostly on emotion-- the main premise behind most of the points is that the arguer wants their point of persuasion to be true. For example, I would really like to think that men and women are intellectually equal in all areas. I based my decision on what I wanted to be true, and only found supporting evidence afterwards. When responding, try to see if you're doing the same thing.
If it's only because of cultural bias, then why did that bias develop in the first place?
______________________________________________
I think this issue is interesting, and I can think of several good arguments for both sides. However, I've noticed that those arguments are based mostly on emotion-- the main premise behind most of the points is that the arguer wants their point of persuasion to be true. For example, I would really like to think that men and women are intellectually equal in all areas. I based my decision on what I wanted to be true, and only found supporting evidence afterwards. When responding, try to see if you're doing the same thing.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A story with a moral
There were once two islands separated by a body of water. There was a ferry boat that traveled between the two islands once a week. On one island lived "A", on the other island lived "B". One week "A" and "B" met on the ferry boat and instantly fell in love. Neither of them had any other means of transportation, so they met eachother eery week on the ferry boat.
Until one day "B" said, "this long distance relationship is just too hard. I can't handle it, it's over." Well, "A" was devasted, got off the boad, sat on the dock and cried.
Along came "C" who asked what was wrong. "A" retold the story and "C" said ,"No problem! I have a canoe; I'll take you across to the other island. But there is one condition. You have to spend the evening with me." "A" thought about it and agreed.
The next day "A" and "C" set off for the other island. But news travels faster than "C's" canoe, and "B" had heard about "A's" decision before they arricev. "B" was waiting on teh shoe when the canoe docked. "B" said, "'A', you have been unfaithful. Leave!" Again "A" was devasted, sat on the shore, and cried.
Along came "D" who asked what was wrong. "A" retold the entire story, "D" became very angry, stormed off, and beat up "B".
Rank the four characters fromt the best to the worst where 1 is the best and 4 is the worst
We're mostly talking Moral/Ethical grounds here - How did you make your choice?
Until one day "B" said, "this long distance relationship is just too hard. I can't handle it, it's over." Well, "A" was devasted, got off the boad, sat on the dock and cried.
Along came "C" who asked what was wrong. "A" retold the story and "C" said ,"No problem! I have a canoe; I'll take you across to the other island. But there is one condition. You have to spend the evening with me." "A" thought about it and agreed.
The next day "A" and "C" set off for the other island. But news travels faster than "C's" canoe, and "B" had heard about "A's" decision before they arricev. "B" was waiting on teh shoe when the canoe docked. "B" said, "'A', you have been unfaithful. Leave!" Again "A" was devasted, sat on the shore, and cried.
Along came "D" who asked what was wrong. "A" retold the entire story, "D" became very angry, stormed off, and beat up "B".
Rank the four characters fromt the best to the worst where 1 is the best and 4 is the worst
We're mostly talking Moral/Ethical grounds here - How did you make your choice?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
"We'll Pay You Not to Have Kids"
The following is a brief summary of an article found in the CNN archives (June 28, 1999), concerning ethics. It says: A California-based private group called Children Requiring A Caring Community has reportedly been succeeding in its goal of preventing drug-addicted women from having unwanted children. The program offers cash payments of $200 to men or women who undergo long-term birth control (like Norplant, or an IUD) or permanent sterilization (such as tubal ligation or vasectomy). And now the organization has begun exporting its program to other states. This approach pits the goals of protecting children from harm against reproductive liberty, and we need to ask how far we should go in favor of each.
In my opinion if a woman does not want a child, she does not have to procreate. And if a woman wants contraception she may be able to recieve free pills from clinics such as Planned Parenthood, etc. The problem in my opinion, is that recovering addicts are already concerned about recieving money and using it for drugs...paying a recovering addict money is not a good idea, and it is not necessary. The article has its opinions but what are yours? Is this practice ethical?
In my opinion if a woman does not want a child, she does not have to procreate. And if a woman wants contraception she may be able to recieve free pills from clinics such as Planned Parenthood, etc. The problem in my opinion, is that recovering addicts are already concerned about recieving money and using it for drugs...paying a recovering addict money is not a good idea, and it is not necessary. The article has its opinions but what are yours? Is this practice ethical?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Murder and Morals: the Mystery
This is essentially a post to create discussion about the topic in my previous post (the long one), since I doubt many people are going to read it. You can try to prove the following statement untrue, and I'll respond to defend it as true. It should be interesting...
Killing other humans is not wrong, morally or ethically - it just happens to be a mostly convenient guideline.
(Oh, and please don't take this to mean that I would go out and kill people for fun. I wouldn't. Really. It's just to generate discussion on an idea I find intriguing)
Killing other humans is not wrong, morally or ethically - it just happens to be a mostly convenient guideline.
(Oh, and please don't take this to mean that I would go out and kill people for fun. I wouldn't. Really. It's just to generate discussion on an idea I find intriguing)
Monday, January 22, 2007
Forgot one
I forgot a very important issue that has yet to be brought up as well.
Is the War in Iraq ethical?
See previous post for my whole long spiel about the sanctity of BLOG. Please respect all guidelines and opinions here as well, as people may not share your own.
I say nay. The War in Iraq is not ethical. This is because the true reasons that we are there have been hidden under red tape, and have, even currently, been hidden from the public. The government's job is for the people, and when the people are not being told what the government is doing then there is a breach of etiquette. This breach or etiquette is what makes this unethical. I agree with what I see as the reasons for us going to Iraq are, but that is irrelevant. I oppose it all the same because it isn't ethical for the Govt to hide facts from the public, any more than it is ethical to impersonate a lawyer to capture a psychopath. What we need to understand is that there is a difference between morals and ethics. Morally both are acceptable (to me at least), but ethically they break the code of honor (the Constitution and Laws) that this country is based on, and indeed the citizens gain power from. Therefore: The War in Iraq is not ethical.
Is the War in Iraq ethical?
See previous post for my whole long spiel about the sanctity of BLOG. Please respect all guidelines and opinions here as well, as people may not share your own.
I say nay. The War in Iraq is not ethical. This is because the true reasons that we are there have been hidden under red tape, and have, even currently, been hidden from the public. The government's job is for the people, and when the people are not being told what the government is doing then there is a breach of etiquette. This breach or etiquette is what makes this unethical. I agree with what I see as the reasons for us going to Iraq are, but that is irrelevant. I oppose it all the same because it isn't ethical for the Govt to hide facts from the public, any more than it is ethical to impersonate a lawyer to capture a psychopath. What we need to understand is that there is a difference between morals and ethics. Morally both are acceptable (to me at least), but ethically they break the code of honor (the Constitution and Laws) that this country is based on, and indeed the citizens gain power from. Therefore: The War in Iraq is not ethical.
The Big Guns
We have started to discuss ethics, in case you didn't notice for whatever reason, and so I decided to bring out the two biggest ethics arguments i could think of!
Abortion -- this is the (controversial) removal of fetuses. This often (at least 90% of the time) results in the death of the fetus. My question is: Is abortion ethical.
The Death Penalty -- This is the (controversial) removal of criminals. This often (at least 90% of the time) results in the death of the criminal. My question is: Is the death penalty ethical.
Just as a reminder I feel that I should remind everyone that this will get people very, very tense and angry, so please be careful with words. No ad hominim. This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a flame board, and please respect that. I am saying this again because I am very selfish and don't want to get hurt because I brought this up.
Thank you.
Abortion -- this is the (controversial) removal of fetuses. This often (at least 90% of the time) results in the death of the fetus. My question is: Is abortion ethical.
The Death Penalty -- This is the (controversial) removal of criminals. This often (at least 90% of the time) results in the death of the criminal. My question is: Is the death penalty ethical.
Just as a reminder I feel that I should remind everyone that this will get people very, very tense and angry, so please be careful with words. No ad hominim. This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a flame board, and please respect that. I am saying this again because I am very selfish and don't want to get hurt because I brought this up.
Thank you.
Wisdom
What is "wisdom" as far as TOK is concerned. We know have the ability to determine what knowledge, and how we reach the conclusion that we actually have some so called "knowledge." But does wisdom come into play ever? No.
So my questions are:
1.) What is Wisdom, a definiton.
2.) How do you get any wisdom? 7-11? Walmart (unlikely)?
3.) What is the cost of wisdom? (there may not be any)
4.) Do you have wisdom?
5.) Can wisdom every be something that you have a PJTB about? (Can you be sure you have wisidom)
So, for once I will actually answer my own questions, in an organized manner even.
1.) Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge. Very broad, but as far as anyone ever seems to be concerned, this seems to be the one real requirement to have wisdom, to have knowledge and understand how to act on it. Wisdom includes, by my definition: Knowing when to ask someone out, going into battle (physically, or even in a game), and even knowing what to order for lunch.
2.) Wisdom is no more aquired from age than knowledge from class. As Abigail Van Buren put it, "Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles. It's true, some wines improve with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place." (Thank you quotationspage.com) Wisdom comes from experience, which is dependant on how willing you are to experience. A man who is 80 and lives in a cave is far less wise than a 20 year old who has traveled the world. As van Buren put it, if the grapes are good, it will be a good vintage. You need an inherant want for wisdom in order to be able to aquire it, and a hermit doesn't have that.
PS I apologize to all of the hermits I am putting out of business with this blog post, but they shouldn't be able to read it if they are really hermits.
3.) The cost of wisdom is that of living, perhaps a bit higher. In order to gain wisdom you have to put yourself in a certain amount of controlled danger, so there is always the possibilty that you may suffer higher because you fail to forsee some accident that happens, no matter how small the probability. However, in all likelyhood, there is no more cost of wisdom then that of life. And despite the raise in the cost of living we can all see how popular it remains. (That was a joke btw)
4.) I have some wisdom, but there is always someone who has experienced more, and so I am definately not the wisest, but merely one of those common wise people; like peers, and parents all are.
5.) You never can truly know that you, yourself, have wisdom. Other people may recognize it in you, and you may understand that you have some shred of wisdom, but it can never be actually properly justified to yourself. "If I really had been wise, then I wouldn't have..." But that is just semantics really. However, to other people it can be properly justified, "He's so wise, he did..." The wisest (and perhaps most foolish) would say "Of course I am wise, I always did the right thing."
If you find any falacies in my arguement, notify me, and I will try to rectify them, also please poke at my ideas, and create your own. Yours is as good as mine.
So my questions are:
1.) What is Wisdom, a definiton.
2.) How do you get any wisdom? 7-11? Walmart (unlikely)?
3.) What is the cost of wisdom? (there may not be any)
4.) Do you have wisdom?
5.) Can wisdom every be something that you have a PJTB about? (Can you be sure you have wisidom)
So, for once I will actually answer my own questions, in an organized manner even.
1.) Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge. Very broad, but as far as anyone ever seems to be concerned, this seems to be the one real requirement to have wisdom, to have knowledge and understand how to act on it. Wisdom includes, by my definition: Knowing when to ask someone out, going into battle (physically, or even in a game), and even knowing what to order for lunch.
2.) Wisdom is no more aquired from age than knowledge from class. As Abigail Van Buren put it, "Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles. It's true, some wines improve with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place." (Thank you quotationspage.com) Wisdom comes from experience, which is dependant on how willing you are to experience. A man who is 80 and lives in a cave is far less wise than a 20 year old who has traveled the world. As van Buren put it, if the grapes are good, it will be a good vintage. You need an inherant want for wisdom in order to be able to aquire it, and a hermit doesn't have that.
PS I apologize to all of the hermits I am putting out of business with this blog post, but they shouldn't be able to read it if they are really hermits.
3.) The cost of wisdom is that of living, perhaps a bit higher. In order to gain wisdom you have to put yourself in a certain amount of controlled danger, so there is always the possibilty that you may suffer higher because you fail to forsee some accident that happens, no matter how small the probability. However, in all likelyhood, there is no more cost of wisdom then that of life. And despite the raise in the cost of living we can all see how popular it remains. (That was a joke btw)
4.) I have some wisdom, but there is always someone who has experienced more, and so I am definately not the wisest, but merely one of those common wise people; like peers, and parents all are.
5.) You never can truly know that you, yourself, have wisdom. Other people may recognize it in you, and you may understand that you have some shred of wisdom, but it can never be actually properly justified to yourself. "If I really had been wise, then I wouldn't have..." But that is just semantics really. However, to other people it can be properly justified, "He's so wise, he did..." The wisest (and perhaps most foolish) would say "Of course I am wise, I always did the right thing."
If you find any falacies in my arguement, notify me, and I will try to rectify them, also please poke at my ideas, and create your own. Yours is as good as mine.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Mysteries of Choco Canyon
While watching the movie, and seeing the logical steps the archeologists took to make their conclusions, a thought came to me. Why is it that we assume that the most logical answer is the correct one? Simply because it makes sense to our minds does not guarantee that it is truly what happened. Yet, so often with theories it seems we try to justify the current theory when new information pops up by either adding to it or creating exceptions to the rule. We seem to refuse to question accepted ideas until it becomes conclusive that the accepted ideas cannot coexist with the new findings. Any thoughts on this, or examples of this in other aspects of society?
Monday, January 15, 2007
Jabberwacky
This is an interesting website where you can have a conversation with a computer.
What do you think?
What do you think?
The Duck Theory of Logic
What do you guys think of this idea of logic?
For those of you who are inable to read Wikipedia here is the basic duck test: If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can infer that it is indeed a duck, even if it is not wearing a label that explicitly states its identity.
1. What if it isn't a duck?
2. How does this fit in with TOK?
3. Did Kyle steal the car?
For those of you who are inable to read Wikipedia here is the basic duck test: If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can infer that it is indeed a duck, even if it is not wearing a label that explicitly states its identity.
1. What if it isn't a duck?
2. How does this fit in with TOK?
3. Did Kyle steal the car?
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
On a lighter but much stranger note....
And here's a shorter post for those who don't really want to read the previous one. I'm pretty sure this man is insane, but it's interesting looking at the language he uses and how he tries to debunk the use of "word" and "singularity" by using pretty obscure and hard to follow terminology. It's interesting, but also more than a little frightening. I'm not sure how to connect this to TOK besides through his language usage, but discuss away.
Here's the site: www.timecube.com
Here's the site: www.timecube.com
Ethics?
This could be an incredibly controversial post, and if you're incredibly touchy about things such as ethics and morals then please don't take offense. And it's a long one, and if you don't want to read it all (it is interesting, though) please don't post a response. It's a big and messy topic.
"Ethics" don't exist.
Wait....what? The ideas and values that we base our lives around are pointless, meaningless, and paradoxical? Yup.
I'll begin with the simplest argument against this: It is wrong to kill another person. It is a basic fundamental belief in every major religion. It is hammered into our minds from the time we are born. Killing people is bad.
But then comes that little loophole that exists within every possible moral: ...except when...
Examples: war, self-defense, religious right, defending your "property", police action, etc., etc.
But wait...just because it's not wrong for some people doesn't make it any less wrong for me. Killing people is still wrong.
But it's also right. This is the contradiction - this is why, really, none of our beliefs mean anything. Something that is wrong can't also be right and vice-versa. Killing terrorists is a good thing for us to be doing right now - it is the right thing to do. But look at it from the point-of-view of the people who agree with the terrorists and you see family members and innocent people who believe in a cause that is not accepted being slaughtered by a nation with more power and wealth then their insurgency could ever dream of having.
People will say that this relativistic nature of each and every moral "law" doesn't mean that the morals are pointless. Just because someone thinks what we're doing is wrong doesn't make it wrong. But yes, yes it does. Just think about it: that notion itself, "killing people is wrong", is a universal notion. We automatically apply it to the rest of the world, every other human being, and make judgment calls based on that application. But when that notion fails, when that ideal doesn't serve our purposes, we toss it aside. It stops affecting us, we stop adhering to it. It loses its meaning.
For example, if someone with a gun pointed at your head backs you into a corner, and your hand finds a pistol on the counter or ground behind you, what would you do? Fight or flight. The cornerstone of our psyche. If there is no other option, then our morals disintegrate in front of the prolonging of our little lives. I know that if I were in this position I would take my chances and shoot the "someone" first. If I ran, I would die, so I choose to forsake my morals for an instant and kill this person standing in front of me. Doing so is neither right nor wrong to me at the time, because "(s)he started it", but (s)he is now just as dead as I would've been. One life gone, one still living. The fact that it was in self-defense doesn't fully apply. The moral "law" that had been followed throughout my entire life is now shown to be devoid of right or wrong sides, and as such, doesn't exist. That moral loses the pretense of meaning when faced with the truth of the action.
Now, the security provided us by our nice little things called "societies" or "governments" and by the "social contract" wouldn't be very effective if people were to go around killing each other, would it? Not really, no. In fact, anarchy would become the most popular government if people started acting out the ideas explored in the above section, and that wouldn't exactly be good for politicians. Or economists, or used car salesmen, or the IRS. If people didn't live by a code of some sort that delineates between "right" and "wrong", then the world would devolve into chaos. Yup. It would mean a resurrection of the notion of "survival of the fittest" that we as a species have slipped away from just like we have become immune to practically everything else this lovely but frustrated planet of ours has thrown at us. The people who can survive have the right to survive and will survive, until they let down their guard and someone removes them. They lost their right and gave it to someone else. It would be brutal, messy, and not much fun. But, I think we have to acknowledge the fact that our existence as it is now is based entirely off of lies: lies the government tells us, lies we tell ourselves, and lies we tell other people. If even a little of the truth were to seep in, the truth of life would be revealed through anarchy. Anyway, that's a tangent you can talk about if you want. Back to my earlier statement.
So, killing people as a moral doesn't really mean anything since it is relativistic. But what about the others? Is every moral negated because they're relative? Yup. Exactly. I'm going to stress this again: the argument "this moral is right for me and therefore, to me, it is right, signifying its existence." doesn't hold up. The whole point of having a moral is it's universal nature - the fact that it applies to everyone else in the world in your mind, not just you. If someone else believes your ideal to be wrong, then they throw a wrench into the whole thing. A moral cannot be right AND wrong and still be a moral, still be a guiding force in our lives. If it is both, then it is not universal, and therefore not a moral. Look at another example - stealing. If I walked up behind someone and stole their wallet, that wouldn't be wrong - I took advantage of said person's lack of attention in that particular moment for my own gain. Survival of the fittest. But it wouldn't be right, either: because I stole their wallet, I would have deprived them of money, identification, and practically everything that holds a life in this civilization together. The society we live in frowns upon that sort of thing. People living within a certain socity have to be productive to further that society's goals or aims. These two opinions clash and that is where the "meaning" of the moral disintegrates.
However, before I continue on that topic, another question has to be answered if it isn't clear enough already: "Why do we have morals, if they are negated because of their relativity?". The answer is rather simple - because the society we live in demands that we have them. As discussed earlier, societies would break down without a moral code, and no one would be happy about that who happened to have power in the society. So, they created a set of guidelines so that the workers wouldn't go about killing each other over silverware sets: our modern "Ethics". These are not a part of our psyche, as some would have you believe - if you can kill someone and you have the right to kill someone and you would stand to personally gain from killing this someone, you would. We are not inherently afraid of transgressing our morals, we just don't because we believe we shouldn't. Nothing directly relating to the action the moral deals with. The "moral" means nothing to us except that someone somewhere says it's bad. There is no more essence to a moral than that. And does "someone somewhere says it's bad" sound like a good enough reason to not do something? Not really. So then why do we continue to pretend, and go about our daily lives living with these restrictions (that's all they really are)? Because if we didn't, there would be chaos. And although chaos is interesting and alluring, it usually doesn't foster a long life. Look at teens today, for an example.
I am not saying that morals are bad. I am merely saying that they are lies. They are lies that make our lives a little bit more plush and extravagant, but they are lies nonetheless. I am also not saying that we should dismiss them all together. I'm saying that we should acknowledge that our existence as we know revolves around lying to ourselves constantly.
Whew....I think I'm done, but I probably didn't say everything. Anyway, thanks for reading the whole thing, but I do have one little request: don't post a simplistic, short, and false response to my statement here such as "Since this is right for me, it is right, and that signifies that moral's existence.". I think I already covered that. More than once. It's complicated material, so don't take it lightly.
"Ethics" don't exist.
Wait....what? The ideas and values that we base our lives around are pointless, meaningless, and paradoxical? Yup.
I'll begin with the simplest argument against this: It is wrong to kill another person. It is a basic fundamental belief in every major religion. It is hammered into our minds from the time we are born. Killing people is bad.
But then comes that little loophole that exists within every possible moral: ...except when...
Examples: war, self-defense, religious right, defending your "property", police action, etc., etc.
But wait...just because it's not wrong for some people doesn't make it any less wrong for me. Killing people is still wrong.
But it's also right. This is the contradiction - this is why, really, none of our beliefs mean anything. Something that is wrong can't also be right and vice-versa. Killing terrorists is a good thing for us to be doing right now - it is the right thing to do. But look at it from the point-of-view of the people who agree with the terrorists and you see family members and innocent people who believe in a cause that is not accepted being slaughtered by a nation with more power and wealth then their insurgency could ever dream of having.
People will say that this relativistic nature of each and every moral "law" doesn't mean that the morals are pointless. Just because someone thinks what we're doing is wrong doesn't make it wrong. But yes, yes it does. Just think about it: that notion itself, "killing people is wrong", is a universal notion. We automatically apply it to the rest of the world, every other human being, and make judgment calls based on that application. But when that notion fails, when that ideal doesn't serve our purposes, we toss it aside. It stops affecting us, we stop adhering to it. It loses its meaning.
For example, if someone with a gun pointed at your head backs you into a corner, and your hand finds a pistol on the counter or ground behind you, what would you do? Fight or flight. The cornerstone of our psyche. If there is no other option, then our morals disintegrate in front of the prolonging of our little lives. I know that if I were in this position I would take my chances and shoot the "someone" first. If I ran, I would die, so I choose to forsake my morals for an instant and kill this person standing in front of me. Doing so is neither right nor wrong to me at the time, because "(s)he started it", but (s)he is now just as dead as I would've been. One life gone, one still living. The fact that it was in self-defense doesn't fully apply. The moral "law" that had been followed throughout my entire life is now shown to be devoid of right or wrong sides, and as such, doesn't exist. That moral loses the pretense of meaning when faced with the truth of the action.
Now, the security provided us by our nice little things called "societies" or "governments" and by the "social contract" wouldn't be very effective if people were to go around killing each other, would it? Not really, no. In fact, anarchy would become the most popular government if people started acting out the ideas explored in the above section, and that wouldn't exactly be good for politicians. Or economists, or used car salesmen, or the IRS. If people didn't live by a code of some sort that delineates between "right" and "wrong", then the world would devolve into chaos. Yup. It would mean a resurrection of the notion of "survival of the fittest" that we as a species have slipped away from just like we have become immune to practically everything else this lovely but frustrated planet of ours has thrown at us. The people who can survive have the right to survive and will survive, until they let down their guard and someone removes them. They lost their right and gave it to someone else. It would be brutal, messy, and not much fun. But, I think we have to acknowledge the fact that our existence as it is now is based entirely off of lies: lies the government tells us, lies we tell ourselves, and lies we tell other people. If even a little of the truth were to seep in, the truth of life would be revealed through anarchy. Anyway, that's a tangent you can talk about if you want. Back to my earlier statement.
So, killing people as a moral doesn't really mean anything since it is relativistic. But what about the others? Is every moral negated because they're relative? Yup. Exactly. I'm going to stress this again: the argument "this moral is right for me and therefore, to me, it is right, signifying its existence." doesn't hold up. The whole point of having a moral is it's universal nature - the fact that it applies to everyone else in the world in your mind, not just you. If someone else believes your ideal to be wrong, then they throw a wrench into the whole thing. A moral cannot be right AND wrong and still be a moral, still be a guiding force in our lives. If it is both, then it is not universal, and therefore not a moral. Look at another example - stealing. If I walked up behind someone and stole their wallet, that wouldn't be wrong - I took advantage of said person's lack of attention in that particular moment for my own gain. Survival of the fittest. But it wouldn't be right, either: because I stole their wallet, I would have deprived them of money, identification, and practically everything that holds a life in this civilization together. The society we live in frowns upon that sort of thing. People living within a certain socity have to be productive to further that society's goals or aims. These two opinions clash and that is where the "meaning" of the moral disintegrates.
However, before I continue on that topic, another question has to be answered if it isn't clear enough already: "Why do we have morals, if they are negated because of their relativity?". The answer is rather simple - because the society we live in demands that we have them. As discussed earlier, societies would break down without a moral code, and no one would be happy about that who happened to have power in the society. So, they created a set of guidelines so that the workers wouldn't go about killing each other over silverware sets: our modern "Ethics". These are not a part of our psyche, as some would have you believe - if you can kill someone and you have the right to kill someone and you would stand to personally gain from killing this someone, you would. We are not inherently afraid of transgressing our morals, we just don't because we believe we shouldn't. Nothing directly relating to the action the moral deals with. The "moral" means nothing to us except that someone somewhere says it's bad. There is no more essence to a moral than that. And does "someone somewhere says it's bad" sound like a good enough reason to not do something? Not really. So then why do we continue to pretend, and go about our daily lives living with these restrictions (that's all they really are)? Because if we didn't, there would be chaos. And although chaos is interesting and alluring, it usually doesn't foster a long life. Look at teens today, for an example.
I am not saying that morals are bad. I am merely saying that they are lies. They are lies that make our lives a little bit more plush and extravagant, but they are lies nonetheless. I am also not saying that we should dismiss them all together. I'm saying that we should acknowledge that our existence as we know revolves around lying to ourselves constantly.
Whew....I think I'm done, but I probably didn't say everything. Anyway, thanks for reading the whole thing, but I do have one little request: don't post a simplistic, short, and false response to my statement here such as "Since this is right for me, it is right, and that signifies that moral's existence.". I think I already covered that. More than once. It's complicated material, so don't take it lightly.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
How do we measure pain or suffering?
How do we measure pain or suffering?
This is not a question of emotion like "happiness" or "sadness" but rather how one weighs the impact of positive and negative experiences.
For example, (you don't have to use this particular one) lets say that a malnourished refugee has been isolated from his 3rd-World society and is on his own. How would he measure future experiences in terms of suffering and pleasure? Do you believe it to be mostly determined by:
1) A personal and relative experience: any event that occurs to an individual is measured in comparison to their most positive and negative frames of reference. In other words, a spectrum of their best and worst previous experiences determines how they scale or judge future ones. With the given example of the refugee, he would judge another day of starvation to be commonplace and would not feel any negative reactions because of prior personal experience.
2) Societally relative: The "feeling" of an experience is judged by how it compares to what society deems as the consensual standard. As with the example above, if a refugee starves one more day, he will not see it as negative if his society did not. His standards for well being are mostly dependent on prior societal norms, even when isolated.
3) Create your own.
In reality and most "normal" situations, both 1 and 2 would applicable to some degree. One might in fact influence the other.
Consider:
-Are times where one can take precedence over the other?
-If suffering is relative, personally and/or societally, can you compare levels of feeling between different people? For example, is a middle class depressed teenager's level of suffering comparable to someone who has experienced starvation and physical pain?
This is not a question of emotion like "happiness" or "sadness" but rather how one weighs the impact of positive and negative experiences.
For example, (you don't have to use this particular one) lets say that a malnourished refugee has been isolated from his 3rd-World society and is on his own. How would he measure future experiences in terms of suffering and pleasure? Do you believe it to be mostly determined by:
1) A personal and relative experience: any event that occurs to an individual is measured in comparison to their most positive and negative frames of reference. In other words, a spectrum of their best and worst previous experiences determines how they scale or judge future ones. With the given example of the refugee, he would judge another day of starvation to be commonplace and would not feel any negative reactions because of prior personal experience.
2) Societally relative: The "feeling" of an experience is judged by how it compares to what society deems as the consensual standard. As with the example above, if a refugee starves one more day, he will not see it as negative if his society did not. His standards for well being are mostly dependent on prior societal norms, even when isolated.
3) Create your own.
In reality and most "normal" situations, both 1 and 2 would applicable to some degree. One might in fact influence the other.
Consider:
-Are times where one can take precedence over the other?
-If suffering is relative, personally and/or societally, can you compare levels of feeling between different people? For example, is a middle class depressed teenager's level of suffering comparable to someone who has experienced starvation and physical pain?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
