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?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
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?
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?
Friday, March 26, 2010
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?
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?
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?
Monday, March 8, 2010
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?
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)