Response to Megan

The question was: "Do you agree, is change a necessary part of life for there to be any progress of any kind?"



I do agree actually, that change is necessary for progression to be made. If everything stayed the same forever and ever, no one would ever go anywhere and we would all continue doing the same things. Change is not always the best thing at certain times but it can and does move things forward. Change doesn't even have to be big things like a new president; change can be trying a new type of food, or listening to a new type of music. These little changes progress your life in variety, which is a good thing, but again, it is still moving forward even though the changes are very little. People tend to be afraid of change because they generalize change as being something huge and new and unknown. But if it is taken at small steps, change doesn't have to be so bad and progression will eventually be made. Staying the same is not a bad thing either, if it makes people happy, but you never know if your life could be better until you try new things and make changes (big or small).



If someone were to never change their life at all, would you think there was something wrong with them?

Seeing is Believing?

This post is in response to the question from Cronin's Thought Maze: "Do you believe there is more to life than what we see? "

I think there are certainly things out there that we have not discovered yet. And I also think that there can be things on earth or in the spiritual realm that we cannot see but we must just believe or choose not to. A lot of people choose only to believe something once they have seen it for themselves with their own eyes. Seeing is Believing. But sometimes just having faith in something can make the belief stronger as was said in the blog. Believing is Seeing. Once you truly believe in something, it will open you up to so much more and faith can be guided by something strong. If we rely on only what we see, life would not be nearly as interesting as it is if we take risks and believe in things that we cannot neccessarily see for ourselves. Take the idea of ghosts and the spiritual world. There are people who believe in them, people who are skeptical, and people who don't believe in this at all. Either way, the possibility that something like a ghost from the past could haunt a place, object, or person makes for an interesting idea and brings up debates about beliefs and faith.

What do you think about the supernatural world?
Are we being tricked? Is there something else really out there?

Answering Laura

Laura brought up the question "What do you think about Buddhism?"

The question is simple enough but the answer could go in so many ways. I agree with a lot of things that Buddhism goes by. I think it's a great idea to take violence out of the picture but not necessarily to the extent of not being able to defend yourself. Being able to defend yourself is really important if you get attacked but if violence was taken out of the picture entirely then there would be no need to defend yourself.

Another aspect I like about Buddhism is that there is no karma, only cause and effect: good actions cause good effects and same for bad actions causing bad effects. It's along the same lines as karma because what you put in for effort will cause what you receive in return, but you don't get the idea of getting a random good thing happen to you if you behave or a random bad thing happen if you wronged someone or did something bad.

Nirvana is another great thing to believe in. The idea that this is your life here and now, try to get what you can while you can and achieve whatever goals you want to while you still have your life ahead of you because there (according to Buddhism) is no reincarnation afterlife. There is no chance of reaching enlightenment after your turn in life is over so learn as much as you can, do everything you want to (without going past harmful societal limits like murdering) and you will have had a successful life once it's over.

One thing that can go either way in Buddhism in my opinion is the fact that there is no worshipping of gods. A good thing about not believing in a god is that you don't have anyone to turn to; you decide for yourself who you are going to be/what type of person you are and what your ultimate purpose is in life. But not having anyone to turn to can also be looked at as a bad thing. Sometimes its nice to know that someone is always there no matter what even if it seems like you're all alone and you are just looking for some type of guidance.

If I had to choose between Hinduism and Buddhism I would probably choose Buddhism. What would you choose?

Immortality response

Posted in response to Julia's question about immortality: "Would you choose immortality?"

This was one of the topics we discussed in my ethics class in high school. It was a very interesting subject because it could be interpreted in many ways as Julia discussed in her post. It could mean we live forever but still age. It could mean we can never die..etc. But immortality does interfere with the natural order of life in my opinion. The nature of things is that all beings are supposed to die to make room for the new ones being born. If no one or even some people were to never die, overpopulation could come into effect. Another problem that might occur is jealousy. If one person were to become immortal, others would get jealous and cause riots because they want to experience immortailty for themselves. What if it were only available to certain people because if it were a new thing, only the wealthy would be able to obtain it. But getting back to the original question, I personally would not choose immortality. I would want to keep things the way they are supposed to be, meaning i would eventually die, to let others have their chance to experience life when my turn ends. Immortality would upset the balance of nature and so I myself would not choose it.

Do you think immortality will ever become available with our advancing technology?

Response to Jenna

Jenna posted the question "Do you think these are results of children not being educated well enough about violence and the severe consequences? Or some people just live for thrills no matter what the consequence?" concerning the kill thrill that teens/pre-teens seem to have

I don't think that these children are hurting people because of lack of education on violence. There are plenty of classes and clubs and even events like mock-accidents out there to teach kids about the acts and consequences of violence to not just other people but themselves. I think people will hurt others when they believe that those others don't matter to them. Like in your example of the story of the 18 year olds attacking a homeless person they probably believed because he was of low status that his life did not matter to them and because he wouldn't do what they wanted and buy them alcohol that it was okay to harm him and maybe even kill him. Some people like those teens think that nothing bad will ever happen to them and that they can do whatever they want to people who they believe to be inferior to themselves. They may think they won't get caught and the consequences of harming someone (stranger or not) won't happen to them. People forget the golden rule and don't treat others as equals just because they don't appear to be equal to them.

Could this just be teen rebelliance or a violent gene? or something else completely?

Response to Bryan

My post is in response to Bryan's questions "Do you think the fear of change exists? And If so, Do you believe that it is problematic in the lives of most humans?"

A lot of people are afriad to make changes in their lives, and yes, it can be a problem. I know from experience because when I was younger I was diagnosed with OCD for that reason. I was afraid when life changed around me and it affected me and my life. It still scares me a little becuase I like my daily routines becuase they make me feel safe and under control of what is going on. But big changes in life can scare anyone, whether they are like me or not. People find comfort in consistency and routines because it is what they become accostumed to and when people can control their own lives they find more comfort in that than if something happened that was out of their hands. Like Bryan commented on, people are afraid of the unknown. New things and new opportunities come about every day and the only way to learn and to improve in life is to sometimes take some risks. Take a chance and go for the opportunities because there might not be another chance for a long time or maybe not ever for that opportunity to show up again. Even little things like trying a food you've never tried before or going to a new part of town can make a difference in the way you live or see the world. Being afraid is a problem and a challenge people need to overcome all the time. But once we get past our fears it makes us feel so much better and a stronger person for having improved ourselves. Changes aren't always for the better but taking the risk to find out isn't the worst thing that could happen.

Are people only afraid of change because they worry things won't turn out they way they want them to?

Night of Dreams

This is in response to Karla's question: "Would you prefer a night without dreams, or with dreams? Why?"

First of all, there is no such thing as a night without dreaming. Everyone dreams. You may not remember all your dreams or any of them but they do happen. I practically never remember any of my dreams and it is kind of upsetting when you dont because you would like to know what you dreamt about and maybe what it could mean. So to change your question around a little according to my answer, I would prefer a night when i remember at least one of my dreams (seeing as we have more than one every night). Dreams are just really interesting because they are mysterious images and stories and scenerios that show up in your head when you're unconscious. We try to figure out why they are there and what they mean but i dont know if that'll ever really happen. They could mean anything or nothing at all but they are still fun to have and to wonder about. Sometimes people even discuss their dreams with their friends either because they want to talk about what the dream might have meant, or just because it was really ridiculus. Dreams are a way for people to connect with each other and possibly to motivate us into doing something we wouldn't normally do.


Why is it so hard for some people and so easy for others to remember dreams? Does practice really make it any easier or is it just a predetermined thing?

In response to Designer Babies

I actually discussed this same topic with my high school science ethics class. I thought it was a really interesting idea that we are already into the science that can basically decide what our children will look like, what gender they will be...things like that. Though it would be beneficial to know that the child is healthy and the way we would preferably want them to look, I personally think it goes against nature. Babies are supposed to be a gift of nature and a surprise the day they are born. If we alter everything about them or even just one or two things, it does in fact upset the balance of how life is just supposed to fall into place with the idea of birth. Making sure babies are born without possibly harmful diseases of course would be a great thing to have discovered but ethically, it just isn't right. If born with a disease it is sad but as i have said in past posts I believe everything happens for a reason and it seems people are losing faith in the fact that things will turn out okay without having to genetically alter things. Even though technology has come a long way, there is still the possibility that things could go wrong and end up worse then if we just left things alone. You also have to take into account what will happen when the child grows up having been genetically altered. What are you supposed to tell them? "Oh by the way you're not biologically natural, but you are still my child and I love you." ? I just think that choosing baby characteristics and stem cell research should be left untouched and let nature take its course.


Do you think there will be a time when technology takes over what we as humans are trying to accomplish in life?

Responding to Courtney's response to Bryan...

So Bryan originally asked if finding meaning to dreams would make a significant improvement in life and Courtney posted her view. In my opinion knowing what our dreams mean would have the same feeling as knowing your future or knowing how you are going to die and when. It would take the wonder and mystery out of something that is supposed to stay mysterious and unknown. It would be really cool to know what maybe one or two dreams meant but knowing the whole meaning behind all of them would be going too far. Also I think that knowing dreams meanings would definitely make a big difference in people's lives but not necessarily an improvement. Because just like my example of knowing when or how you are going to die, you might live your life constantly worried about your actions and how they affect future actions and maybe things will turn out differently than predicted. If you knew what your dreams meant you might also take precautions that you wouldn't normally take and you might act differently towards peopel who were in your dreams than you would if you just didn't know the meaning behind why that person was in your dream in the first place. Not knowing is better because it forces us to make our own decisions and take our own risks and shapes our personalities and characters separately instead of something being decided for us. Sometimes some of my dreams help me make decisions in life. I don't rely on my dreams and it's not all of them but one or two of them have helped me get closer to people I didn't think I would without my dreams.

If we didn't dream at all would that change our actions toward life too? Do we (or others) actually make certain actions based on our dreams?

In response to Austin

This post is a response to Austin's question: Do you think it would be nice to turn your dreams into reality sometimes?

I think that this idea is really interesting. Everyone has probably thought of this at some point and wishes that their dreams would really come true and turn into reality. But this is only true when we really like or enjoy our dreams. Of course we wouldn't want our bad dreams or nightmares to turn into reality! Dreams are just imagined (even though we don't really know exactly what they are) but a lot of the time they can seem so real you wake up and get confused as to what happened and what was just a dream. Sometimes dreams take your memories and morph them into your desires and what you really want to happen in real life. For example once I had a dream about someone I used to be best friends with but haven't seen this person in years. In my dream we were hanging out together and talking like no time had passed in between. Whether this is something I want to happen or just a memory of what someone said, it would be nice if I could turn it into reality. I have wished a lot of times that certain dreams would be real because the dreams that use my desires/wants make them happen into my ideal situation. I don't know if my dreams are just playing a trick on me or if maybe they could be telling me something that will happen and just hasn't happened yet.

Is it possible that some dreams are predicting the future instead of using the past or memories?

Leggo my ego

I personally thought today's class discussion on Freud was really interesting. In my opinion the id, ego, and superego are the strongest aspects of Frued's view on human nature because they break good ideas down into something that makes sense. A lot of the time philosophy can be really confusing but Frued was to the point on how humans think. The id is all our instinctive urges, the ego is reality and the superego is ideality. It can't get much more simply explained than that. We as humans are [most likely] the only beings that have a superego and are able to imagine how the world ought to be. Are any of these areas dominating though? As we talked about in class we see a lot of certain types of advertising in the media. Are we taking advantage of our egos and superegos to bring more of our ids out? Almost all commercials and magazine covers are based on ideal desires to get us motivated to either buy their product or act a certain way or look a certain way. Anything the companies think is pleasing or attractive to the eye of anyone in the community will be put into the commercial or put onto the cover of the magazine. It is to play upto the sexual motivation that exits in everyones id. How long will it be before it gets too out of hand? Or has it gotten to that point already?

Has the media gone too far with the sexual motivation?

Response - Emotional Strength

this post is a response to Misty's question: Do you think good emotions can always overcome the bad ones?

I think that there is always the possibility to overcome bad emotions, but we just have to find the strength within ourselves to do so. For example if someone is afraid of something - anything - lets say..the dark; You may be afraid to stay in a dark place or go somewhere dark but if you make yourself think it's not so scary or that it would be the same place and objects as in light, you could overcome the fear emotion. Another example of a bad emotion is sadness. Just because you are sad doesn't mean you don't have the possibility or opportunity to be happy. It may take a lot or a little or it may take time to overcome the sadness but I believe it can be done. Even if the sadness or fear (or whatever bad emotion it may be) is just pushed aside or stored away in the back of the mind, there is still room for good emotions and optimism either to take the bad emotion's place or to overpower it. There are also so many different emotions out there that there is enough good to overcome all the bad we think is out there.

Is it a bad thing to let our emotions get the best of us in situations?

Response to Courtney's question

"If a person is spoiled throughout their childhood does that mean that they are going to act spoiled in adulthood? What of the other extreme?"

Most people who are treated a certain way as children swear to themselves that they won't be the same type of parents to their children (as their parents were to them). For example a person who is under a strict household as a child vows that they will never do that to their own child and they will let them have more freedom and be their best friend. Though this might not be the best decision, the parent is determined to be the "ideal" parent to their child and have the child like them. Every parent wants their child to like them, but still respect them as the adult. But a person who was treated a certain way throughout childhood whether it was spoiled or over protected or controlled, will probably end up doing the same to their own child whether they mean to or not. Personally my dad was raised in a strict household and his father yelled at him a lot. He didnt want to be the same way towards me and my sister but it did happen (even though he's gotten better). People want to change who they are all the time. Sometimes they change a little or a lot and sometimes they cant.

Is this a cycle that will never end?

In Response to Bryan

"Do you believe that our society often forgets about the positive aspects of our world? Explain. "

I agree that society presents more negative views and news about America than anything else. It seems that they think that is what people are interested in and want to know. Though these things may be true and are happening, we shouldn't just avoid or ignore the good things that are out there too. The good aspects of our world and our society are what keep us going as a whole if not as individuals towards a hopeful future for what our country can bring us. Of course America has problems but who's to say we can't try and be optimistic about them and strive for something better? If we push and challenge what comes out of society we can find alternatives to the problems we come to face all the time. And if it's not something you know or have strong feelings for, leave it alone and let others who have better knowledge of it voice their opinions. Because like Bryan mentioned, people who comment on subjects they don't really know anything about, end up causing more problems and are just adding to them instead of learning about the problems and trying to change them. It's like if you vote for a certain candidate to be president and then get upset when they make a mistake or fail to meet your wants as president of the country. Don't get upset because you made your choice. Either deal with your decision, or next time learn more about the person or just don't vote at all. We can't ignore or forget there are problems in the world but even more importantly we can't forget that there is good in the world too and society should turn a little more attention to that.

Do you think there is hope that our country will ever realize its mistakes?

Response to Megan Cooney's question

Why do we have phrases like "follow your heart," "gut instinct," etc? Why is it not like listen to what your mind tells you?

I think that your mind is the rational voice, your heart is the irrational voice, and your gut is just first impulsive instinct. Following your heart may not always seem like the most rational thing to do but a lot of the time its what is right for you deep down. Your heart holds your secret wishes and hopes and dreams (as corny as that sounds) and your mind distinguishes whether or not to listen to what your heart is telling you. Your gut instinct is usually right the very first second you think of it. Thats why when you second guess yourself, it leads to more complications or wrong answers. (like multiple choice test questions. everyone has second guessed an answer, changed it, realizing they had the right answer before they changed it.) Listening to what your mind tells you can also get complicated because it takes into account what everything else is saying. Your mind may think: 'I need to get some homework done'. Your gut instinct says 'I should get some homework done.' and your heart usually wanders to anything but the homework.

So my question is
What do you think is the best to listen to? Your heart, mind, or gut?

In response to Austin's post:

Austin asked "Do you think that everything be based off of scientific research for the proof of something's cause?"

In my opinion, i dont think that science can explain absolutely everything. Most things, yes, are proved through research and studies to find out answers to the most puzzling questions. But some things i think just cannot be explained through science. You can explain why something is blue by getting extremely scientifical and saying that certain light gets refracted and reflected and all that but do we need to know all that every time we ask why something is blue; is that really why we want to know? And you cannot really explain why someone feels the way they do or acts the way they do. People may say, yes you can - through psychological science. Study the brain and people's behaviors. But can you prove those reasons are true jus through that research alone? And getting into religion, can science explain if their is a God? It seems that science is more directed to the physical aspects of proof and causes but not always everything else.

Can we really know for sure if psychology is true?

Objective vs. Subjective

While reading Pojman about happiness, what sparked my interest was the comparing of objectivism and subjectivism. The objectivist view was that the goal is a "contemporary bias in favor of valur pluralism...the view that theres many ways of finding happiness. 'Let a thousand flowers bloom.'" leading to subjectivism in which "happiness is in the eye of the beholder; you are just as happy as you think you are." So what i took from that is (and i think we touched briefly on it in class today) what if people were living with false happiness? They could believe they were currently happy with their lives but internally be unhappy. And how would we know if it is true happiness or not if we are trying to seek happiness? Take Aristotle's answer of "you'll know when you see it"? I do believe that you can make yourself be happy with a positive attitude and believe that you can be successful and then you will be happy but the feeling might not last for long. Then the question that came to my mind was can there be an opposite of false happiness? Can someone believe they are unhappy when really they are? Some poeple think they have it rough when others have it ten times worse but are they happy?
so thats my question.
Can someone believe they are unhappy when really they are?

Response to Jenna

"Living in a fast paced society denies us the time we need to take a step back and discover who we are. Do you think that the people who struggle to keep up are the ones who have the time to get to know themselves better?"

Society is very fast paced and not everyone moves at the same pace to follow it. Maybe our mind can and our body cant, or vice versa. The people who can follow the fast pace are not necessarily the ones who are better off either. Just because they are moving along with the rest of society does not mean they know themselves fully and understand what they are trying to achieve. To tie this in with the reading from Pojman, Aristotle believed the body and soul were one together and that people who use their body are superior to those who dont and are natural slaves. The rational people who use their bodies supposedly will rule over the inferior people but will be kind to them. Is this a right way of thinking? That there can be inferior and superior people. We all have a life to live in which to grow and function and to discover our purpose of nature. I dont know if its really possible for someone to fall behind in discovering themselves and getting to know themselves better because life moves at its own pace aside from society and everyone is different.

If we as humans are the only animals with the ability to reason, why is it that we have the right to decide what animals' purposes in life are? Cant they just live their lives the way they want to?

In response to Daniel Gaines

"Lots of people’s lives have been affected by the media just like this, is it alright for the media to do this just because they are dealing with famous people or is it wrong?"

Private lives of celebrities is what makes up the media and entertainment. Yes, it's interesting to learn about what is going on in their lives, and yes some of them do like the attention. But most celebrities probably just want to be left alone. Personally I dont think it is any of our business what goes on with the famous. If they want us to know something they wll tell, otherwise I think they should be asked permission to submit something to the public. If something wrong (like the Tiger Woods situation) happened and the person admits they made a mistake and wants the public to realize that and what the details were then fine, let the media have their way. But if an embarassing story about you got out to the public, how would you feel? It is an invasion of privacy whether it is a story about a famous person or not. Whether it is an embarassing story or one promoting charity; stories should be given permission to be sent out no matter what. So the news might have less interesting stories, at least they would have the right to be in the news in the first place. Stories made about celebrities for entertainment are how rumors get started and rumors that get out of hand. The more you know about a famous person will not change your life or theirs. which leads me to my question:

Can the more knowledge we attain distort our visions/views of [the] truth?

Good people, Bad things

Prof. J brought up a good point that sometimes bad things happen to good people. These obstacles in life are what people like to complain about because they want life to come easy. In reality, life is never easy. If we take a closer look into these situations though, are they all bad things? Or rather, should we worry about them being bad? Maybe the challenges that we perceive as bad things are steps to something coming that is good. Perhaps there is something better in store and all the bad things that lead up to that good thing makes it all worthwhile. It also might be difficult to tell what things are supposedly bad and what are good because everyone's view or opnion of good and bad could be different. There are of course, generally good things like helping someone in need and there are general bad things like stealing. So for instance something bad happening to a good person would be that they got money stolen from them. But maybe a few weeks or even days later, they win a brand new car. From a different point of view, maybe after getting money stolen from them the good person gets the opportunity to help at an orphanage and realize that there could be worse things than losing some money.

I remember when reading Pojman I read something about "all opinions are true." I get what this sentence is saying but my question is:

Is saying that all opinions are true like stating an oxymoron?

In Response to Courtney's blog

"My question, in short, is...do we greatly rely on our conscience and, if we did not have them then would that make us evil?"

I think (disorders aside) that everyone does in fact have a conscience. So in my opinion that automatically answers the second question by default. Whether or not people decide to use their conscience is a different story. Conscience is just that little voice inside us all that pops up when we feel unsure about something or maybe guilty about something. So do we rely on our conscience? I think we rely on it if we are put in the situation in which it shows up and we believe what it says to be the right thing. That being said, is our conscience always trying to tell us the "right thing?" What if it was telling us the wrong thing and we relied on it? Would the situation turn out badly? It's hard to tell if conscience is good or bad really. And because it's not always there (it only comes when we think we are doing something wrong) we associate it with being a good thing. But it's only an inner voice of ourselves who are doing the wrong thing so how can we be sure the conscience is right?

So going off Courtney's question, Should we listen to our consciences all the time?

In Response to Bryan's post

"Do you feel that Americans represent many Sophist ideas? And Do you believe that American people support the wrong principles of living?"

I agree with bryan that the American dream is seen in the Sophist's ideas about life. Americans want to achieve, get more money, and in the process, get ahead of others. Generations are starting to becoming more about competition and people are getting taught that consumerism and as you said "winning the game of life" is important. But I think not all Americans are following the American dream. Sure everyone wants to be successful but everyone's view of success is different. For some it may be to get that really great job and get all the promotions to reach the top. But for others it may be to get married and settle with a family. Both of these views can be good and true to the Sophist idea of a true successful life if you look at it thinking are they happy? There's not really anything wrong with wanting to achieve but if people went out of their way to push someone else down in the process then i think that would be crossing the line. So depending on the rules of society who is to say which people are living by the "right" or "wrong" principles of living?

So how can anyone "win" at life if there is no definition of what that is? Is simply living a life winning?

Forgiveness

I thought Prof. J.'s comment on forgiveness was really interesting when he brought up "as we forgive those who trespass against us" from the Lord's prayer. We were talking about enemies and God's view that we are supposed to forgive our enemies for the wrongs that they commit. How does God make it sound so easy to forgive people who have done something so wrong? I can understand if it was a mistake, but to do something really bad on purpose and just get forgiven so eaasily just doesn't seem like the right thing. Why would He forgive a murderer for taking someone away from their family, or forgive someone accused of rape while the victim could be scarred for life. I know these are extreme situations but it's just to prove the point. This topic of forgiveness ties back into chapter one of Pojman's book in the section describing turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. Enemies are really only caused because of jealousy or betrayal. Why do these things have to exist if God wanted us to love our enemies? They make it that much harder to forgive or love again. But maybe that's the point. The challenge of relationships and getting along with everyones flaws. But that also brings me back to thinking that murderers probably dont have friends...so who is there to forgive them? Do they even deserve forgiveness?

Why is it so hard to forgive when God wants it to be so easy?

Responding to Karla's question

"Is religion a fair pass to an eternal life?"
I was also thinking about this question, especially during today's class discussion.I seems like the possibility of getting into heaven after our time here on earth is one of the only reasons to be happy or go about our lives normally each day. But if that were the case how would non religious people feel about life? That we live the lives we were given, die and that's it? Being a good person and following God's rules from any position of religion could be the way to that ever lasting paradise in the heavens. It all relies on the faith of what each individual believes and that maybe there must be some great reason for why we are living on earth in the first place.

An intriguing question Prof. Johnson brought up today in class was the classic "if you could go back in time and relive a situation, would you?" I love this topic because it would be so interesting to have the knowledge of what we know today and bring it back to a time when perhaps we made a mistake. What would we change? What would we say or do different? Would we even want to change anything at all? Personally I believe everything happens for a reason and that it was supposed to happen at the time it happened for a reason too. So to answer that question for myself, no I would not go back and change anything.

I am curious to others' thoughts on this topic however.
Would there be any situation that you would want to go back and change? and why?

Nature verses Nurture

The debate about nature verses nurture comes up a lot in classrooms but I always find it interesting and to hear others' views on the topic. Nature is what people are destined to act and behave like and Nurture is supposedly the freedom of how life will be played out. But isn't that also like having our life decided for us in a way? How we are brought up influences how we make choices and how we will end up living. There is, of course, the argument against that saying that people do have their own minds and can make choices for themselves regardless of what their parents taught them.

While I was reading for another class's homework, I came across a part in the reading that reminded me of this class because it ties along with the conversations we have been recently having about truth and free will. "[People have been trying to figure out for a while now] whether ultimate truth was to be found through faith or reason, blind acceptance of authorities or the evidence of the senses, determinism or free will."
What interested me in this was the connection of blind acceptance of authorities and free will. Then I thought about it and realized that this occurs a lot whether people realize they are doing it or not. We as humans (sometimes, not all the time) blindly follow authority because we believe since they are of higher status or ranking, they must be more knowledgeable, and therefore trust them. The same can be true for religion and following God. People have faith in God and blindly accept his word without fully knowing what will happen or whether it is the right thing at the time. But because it's God it must be right! How can we be sure?

Back to the nature vs. nurture, I believe in nurture. I side with empiricism and that people are born with a blank slate and are from then on influenced by the world around them. I don't think people are born good or evil, if either of those concepts actually exist. Though I do think everyone has both good and bad in them because of what we have experienced in the world. Whichever side of us we choose to use with our "free will" is how others perceive us.

-If God did create good and evil together, (evil being bad) why is it that he loves all his children just as they are, even if they are evil?
or
-What is your view on nature vs. nurture?

Response to Karla

This is in response to Karla's question "Are we part of nature or the willing of God?" This question reminds me of the whole conversation and discussion we had in class today and I thought it was a very interesting topic. We make choices every day as part of our own lives, big and small, and never really think too much of it. Many tiems we rely on the conditions and environment around us to help us make our decisions, but is that really free will? It is hard to be sure if these are decisions of our own free will or if they are planned as destiny from a higher source [God]. The choices we make may be what we decide at the time but they also may have been decided for us long ago as a planned future from what God decided and he knows exactly what will happen and what we will decide before it even happens. You always hear people ask the question Why would God let this happen to me? Was the consequence of our own choices or God's plan? This goes into the discussion we had on good verses evil as well. The tough choices we are faced with challenges us to help us grow and appreciate the good things in life no matter how small or great they are. We take for granted the easier choices we make every day like picking out what to wear that day or choosing what to eat for breakfast. Then we complain about a harder decision like having to have an intense conversation with a friend or whether or not to quit a job because of a possibilty of a better one. We blame God for these tough challenges because we wish everything would come easy to us. But again, the challenges make us appreciate the rest of life whether it is destiny or of our own choice. We as humans are only a tiny part of a bigger world. We sometimes forget how much else is out there around us and what is "supposed to be."

Aside from society's rules, would humans be able to differentiate right verses wrong?

Response to Misty's: Lying or telling the truth?

First, just wanted to say this is based on telling someone else a lie completely intentionally as opposed to just saying something false by accident. If everyone in the world told the truth to everyone and never lied, feelings would of course be hurt at times but it also might make people stronger over all to take in the truth and accept it for what it is rather than if they were lied to. My personal opinion is I would rather be told the truth all the time because eventually lies do get caught and I would be more upset to find out someone lied to me than just coming out and saying how they felt on a particular situation. I feel like lying is not necessary but because the truth can be hard to admit, people tend to fall away from it and lie or omit certain truth either because the challenge of telling the truth is to hard to bear or simply because people get caught up in their emotions and feel the need to protect themselves from the consequences of telling the truth. Also, most people don't really like lying, but instinctively they try to spare others' feelings from the absolute truth. Everyone can say "I'm not going to lie because i believe the truth is important, has value, and needs to be heard" but it's hard to know unless you are put in a situation where lying might be the easier choice (not necessarily the better choice).

Today's truth discussion

So here are my thoughts on Correspondent truth versus Coherent truth. I believe i favor the theory on truth as of correspondence because it is more realistic as to how the world actually is. Facts and evidence are easier to determine because there is visible evidence for it to be so. Though as we mentioned in class, we cannot be certain that what we visibly see is absolutely correct, and everything in the world in that sense could be questioned. But to me, the theory on coherent truth seems to be based all on belief. Coherence is claims that are believed to be true just because other claims say they are. The example of God existing because the Bible says he does really interested me. Not to take any sides on religion or say anything is made up but it is based on theory that God exists. The Bible has supposed evidence that has been around for a long time and is in God's own words. Who is to say it is or isn't true? We don't have any evidence other than the words that it in fact could be true. What if it was based on imagination? Philosophy is the study of knowledge and finding truth. How else to we find out things other than to ask what comes to our thoughts and imagination? Another thing that came to my mind during today's class discussion was people who hallucinate and are delusional. We assume they are crazy because they see things that we do not but second guessing what is and isn't true could make them completely normal and everyone else crazy. At least, thats how i saw it. So i guess my question is (and I dont't know if this makes sense) how do we confirm truth from the thoughts and questions that come from imagination according to the correspondence theory that the world is the way it is and the coherent truth being believed by other claims?