Ways of surpassing out of petty mental illnesses?

I am by no means an expert, but I thought that perhaps people with conditions like ADD should try alternative activities which can perhaps better their acclaimed disorder than taking pharmaceuticals. One thing that helped me with focusing was acting. I am not saying this is suitable for everyone, but it may provide a good idea of how one can improve themselves. Starting out in high school my grades were so-so. Sometimes an A or two, but mostly B’s and C’s. In tenth grade I started taking the drama courses my high school provided. The more I acted the more my grades seemed to improve. By the end of high school I was getting mostly A's and a few B's. I am not sure if acting is the exact reason why my grades improved, but it was an activity that taught me self-discipline, awareness, and how to think critically. 

This is because the activity [acting], as Aristotle might say, gave me happiness and provided me challenges. It made me better myself and filled my life with meaning and purpose. Music or a particular sport may be other activities which can have similar effects. 

Another way people could try taking over these lesser ‘mental illnesses’ is by meditation. This allows a person to discipline his or her mind. For instance, if a child was taught to meditate for a half hour each day, perhaps then their focus would be better in class and they would not have to take prescription drugs. Meditation also brings many other great benefits. Finding an activity that will help a person think critically and give them meaning seems to have a positive effect on mental health, which can disperse negative effects that cloud the brain. This could allow an individual to live up to their full potential and not be reliant on drugs, but a positive, and even virtuous, activity that will allow them to be happy. 

Refusing One's Nature with Pharmaceuticals?

Are the solutions of ‘mental illness’ trying to refute a person’s nature?

I'm going to focus the way pharmaceuticals are used in America and other developed countries. If someone is diagnosed with a mental disorder it seems like this is going against the individual’s basic nature. The pettier mental illnesses which are apparently taking over many people in first world countries interests me. It seems that society, or maybe more specifically the government, has devised a way to make people act and behave similar. For instance, giving Adderal to a person who apparently ‘lacks focus and concentration’ can start taking the drug to help with his productivity building a certain amount of ‘x’. This ability may undermine the nature of an individual and can contribute to a variety of factors such as social control and ridiculous profits by the selling of pharmaceuticals.

 When doctors issue prescription drugs they are not really treating the illness at all. They are really just putting a cognitive bandaid on their patient’s brain. They are giving humans drugs which are ‘safe,’ but these drugs have only become popular since the late 20th century. They may appear to be safe, but what are the long term consequences of having your brain altered every day in a way it doesn’t normally function? When DDT first came out it was considered safe, but then it effected entire ecosystems and cause devastating effects on the well-being of many creatures. So what is Adderal for people with ADD really doing? Children will probably not develop the same if they are subjected to irregular mental states caused by the drugs. But this again calls to the question of what a proper mental state is,

This way of giving prescription drugs seems rather hypocritical when juxtaposed to the banning of narcotics and other drugs. What qualifies for a drug to be legal and illegal? If regulated and illegal drugs are both having such profound effects on the brain what makes one more valid than the other. Countless people testify on the behalf of spiritual experiences which seem far more greater to mental health than perhaps Zoloft or Concerta. Inner and transcendent awareness can help people regulate the body’s natural energy in a more concise manner by understanding the self and their own biochemistry. Marijuana for instance is another greatly debated drug, but why in the land of the free, should big corporations be able to distribute their drugs and not a naturally growing substance which someone could just happen to stumble upon it the wild (unlikely, but possible). 

I’m not saying that everyone should take illegal narcotics and everyone be under the influence of powerful psychoactives all the time. But they should have the choice to take them. Obviously people would need to use it in moderation, but distribution doesn’t necessarily concern me. Illegal drugs should be enforced similarly to alcohol laws, but depending on its power perhaps a way of prescription and diagnosis before hand. Driving while intoxicated should never be allowed for instance. It just brings back the question though of why chemical X is okay, but chemical Y is not. It seems that the idea of soma, such as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, is coming to be a real thing. How we deal with our stresses and mental problems by taking the various pills proves it. Just because a doctor provides it and it has a nice commercial doesn’t mean it is necessarily good for you. The way we live by watching television and most diets today (and various other conditions) don’t seem to be effecting the health of mental functioning positively, so we turn to these quick fixes. We take our soma. Instead of looking for permanent solutions for our problems or “mental illnesses” we turn to synthetic drugs. Maybe instead we should be try finding other ways to change ourselves.

The Venetian Government's Order vs. An Artist's Mind

This is a late entry, but one I wished to post due to my involvement with the Theater Department’s Mainstage show Scenes from an Execution. The plot in the show is a perfect example of how we discussed the sides critical thinking and critical pedagogy. The Venetian government sets up to commission a painting of the Battle of Lepanto with the best and most famous artist of the time Anna Galactia. The will of the Doge and his council represent the embodiment of critical pedagogy, for they wish to have the painting rendered in a particular way to glorify the event. Galactia however, being the creative and critical artist she is, depicts the battle in a way she sees fit being that of a slaughter. 

The collision of the two sides soon ensues as the show progresses. The original motivation for Doge Urgentino is to “teach” Galactia what a good painting should be with undertones of sexual desire (as this is the theater of seduction). Urgentino can never flat out say what he wants though. That is how Howard Barker’s plays work, there is always a secret that is driving the action of a particular scene, the secret of the Doge being that he wants the painting to have a positive emphasis on the strengths and dignity of the Venetian people. Galactia disregards the wishes of the Doge and continues to paint the battle as a horrible depiction of death. Galactica is thereby taking the matter into her own hands, by trusting her own decisions on what is the truth, and putting her life and reputation on the line for her message. 

Eventually the Inquisition, led by Cardinal Ostensible, arranges a case against her and she is imprisoned. By the end of the show she is released and the painting is a success instead of a blasphemous work. The Doge has had a complete reversal in terms of his aesthetic ignorance, although the Cardinal is unable to reach such a perspective due to, “the credit of his Jesuit professors.” It shows the stubbornness that results from sometimes sticking with a particular order or way of thinking. He is not able to, like the Doge, to approach the idea of a, “great nation . . that shows its victories not as parades of virility, but as terrible cost.” 

Is there still gender bias in America? (Q&A9)

Is there still a biased society in America today on women or are we making progress? 

Today in most parts of where I have lived it seems that people treat gender with a sense of neutrality, or at least they seem to talk about it in that way (but who knows what they could really believe). This view could just be enforced by the fear of the law as today stresses that sexual harassment in the work place and in general is wrong. Still there is a broad scale of standpoints in America and throughout the world that have not reached a level of moral maturity or critical thinking that sees through the idea of supremacy among gender. Some radical feminists for example tend to do the opposite of what most feminists are advocating, the radical one’s express that females have a superiority over men. As much as I prefer the company of women over men, I still think that both genders should have equal standing on all grounds. The exception being anatomical implications of gender. For we would not prescribe “the pill” for a male as that would be doing little good for the man it was prescribed for.

As much as I wanted to believe we were making the progress in moral activity, the recent presidential election arises some concerns. It seems illogical that birth control issues should be of any consideration within the law as most people who are Pro-life have a religious background. This is not to say someone should have abortions left and right, but if someone was raped for instance or the pregnancy was by failed birth control that the impregnated woman should have a say about the baby. The opposition, about a 1/3 or so of the country, seems to have forgotten the principles of America and its division of church and state. It is religious affiliations in most cases that often prevents critical thinking and allows an individual to only have a narrow scope in terms of ideas such as freedom and equality (this is not to say all Christians are woman haters or anything like that, but for some of these religious affiliated people male supremacy is something they believe to be almost a divine right). 

Everyone is a person who will be different from everyone else. This is the main idea of Standpoint theory. Although we can not discover who is more right by this method, we can have an awareness of how a particular person feels on a matter based on who they are and their experiences. To demonstrate how gender affiliations are obsolete, especially today, I will use an example from my own life. My girlfriend likes football. I do not. Men are typically characterized to be interested in football, but in this case it is a female who likes the sport instead of the male. This stereotypical opinion on how men like this sport can show a male and female having a gender reversal on a particular topic. Although this is sort of a silly example, it could be demonstrated to show how a form of progress in gender identity and equality can be forming in America and hopefully the stretch of the planet. 

Ancient Greek Dualities and Gender Roles? (Q&A9)

Could the idea of opposites in Greek philosophy have caused male-dominated society? 

The idea of opposites was a fundamental way of scrutinizing the way reality was within the minds of the ancient Greeks. Empedocles for instance spoke of the two forces, love and strife, one that brings things together and one that tears things apart. This view influenced other Greek philosophers, and the idea of a duality within our reality became quite apparent and believed. This perspective seems very reflective of their society and the way they viewed women and other people who were not acclaimed citizens. 

This is a list of commonly considered opposites in ancient Greek philosophy:

 Hot – Cold 

Dry – Wet 

Limit – Unlimited 

Odd – Even 

Right – Left 

One – Plurality 

Male – Female 

Resting – Moving 

Straight – Crooked 

Light – Darkness 

Good – Bad 

Square – Oblong

The two columns were often associated together such as the left side pertaining to light and goodness. However, we can see that females would be clumped together with the more negative associations such as badness, coldness, and darkness. This probably started to put in place within their society an assumption that men were the stronger half, for they in the Greek perspective, were more fond of logical thinking as opposed to emotional thinking. In Plato’s Republic he talks of his society saying, “we pride ourselves if we are able to keep quiet and master our grief, for we think that this is the manly thing to do and that the behavior we praised before [emotional suffering] is womanish.” This clearly distinguishes the idea of logical and emotional, which seems to be associated with men and women. This is an interesting point to think of as much of the ancient Western philosophy would have tolls on the way Christianity was perceived and how it would effect the course of society and gender roles for centuries to come. 

Does a religious affiliation dictate how one views animals? (QA7)

          When thinking of someone’s morality it is often derived from religious affiliations in the determination and perspective of what is right and wrong. For example, a Catholic may blindly accept their religion’s authority and to be a ‘good Catholic’ one must constantly embrace their ideology because that is how ‘God’ insists they behave. To this end they must look down on gays and abortion, which are two of the most popular issues in politics today. Had they never been religious they probably wouldn’t have had these negative connotations which evidently arise by social pressures of authority and peers. Regardless of whether the issue is right or wrong by means of fairness and analysis, it can be seen that religious acceptance will eventually develop an idea of what good moral standing is. 

Can this effect someone’s view on animals however? In Christianity, man is created in the image of God, which in turn means they are similar to God. They might not be equal to him, but they definitely have the reassurance of self-importance by this fact. This sense of self however seems to mean that they are separated from the animal kingdom and they are their own superior group, Catholics especially. I can remember going to Catholic mass with my girlfriend last Easter (for her to appease her family [they basically just go because their grandfather is quite religious]) and having them play music with the lyrics saying something along the lines of, “we are the most holy people on Earth.” Another thought that made me raise this question was when my brother was going to Sunday School he asked the pastor if animals went to heaven. He said no. This  could be another reason why I disliked authority and ridiculous religious principles because most dogs I meet are better than most humans I meet. They are protective, loyal, and if you hurt by accident by stepping on their tail will not retaliate with aggression. To this end dogs are more Christ-like than followers of the Catholic faith from what I have witnessed. 

It is in this sense that religious perspective can then view that animals are lesser as they cannot go to heaven or Catholics by having a heightened self-importance which can make one believe they are above the animals. In that case, killing them is not necessarily wrong but can be viewed as God’s will. He created them for us to eat otherwise why would they be here? This is of course taking on a view of Christian creationism which is absurd due to the constant reinforcement in scientific observation that evolution is possible, has had happened, and is still happening. The question though of animals being treated differently by a religious affiliation is yes and for partial and self-focused reasons. 

Is hunting morally wrong? (QA7)

Hunting on the most basic of levels seems to be justified in terms of past historic conditions. Today, however it seems to be more a pleasure with game hunting and such (and of course we have poaching which is wrong morally and by the law). I was discussing this topic with my housemate who is a environmental studies major. In the past hunting was a way to get one’s dinner for the night. Native Americans would hunt buffalo by herding them over cliffs, yet they still had a deep connection and respect for all things around them. In regards to ethics today, it seems that the killing of animals is immoral. I still eat meat, although have considered becoming a vegetarian (although I will never eat veal), but I don’t think there is any way to justify my actions in support of killing for food when there are so many alternative ways to still get protein. In the same way, I supposed meat is similar to smoking cigarettes; you know you shouldn’t smoke, but you smoke anyway [if you are a smoker]. 

Game hunting I initially thought was an immoral practice, although their are some benefits to hunting which may assist with protecting the environment. To this extent could hunting be a force for good paradoxically? Fisheries are created for the breeding of fish in lakes which are in turn helping population control by rising populations of fish in ecosystems. Many of the fish die on the way of transport, but the ones that survive go and replenish the stock of the wild. Now it may seem that hunting would be bad in this aspect as it is depleting the stock, but the agencies that are replenishing may very well be putting more fish in lakes and rivers and, therefore, actually helping the environment. This is all funded by hunting associations which, I assume, are required to regulate hunters in the first place so environments can be protected.

It seems then that game hunting can help keep environments functioning, which thus protects animals and biodiversity, which is then morally good. Although a some fish have to die, the greater goal of keeping the ecosystem functioning and healthy keeps alive, which is similar to many situations in historical circumstances. Could we get to a point however, where instead of having regulations, people are just eager to assist the welfare of the environment because they know it is for there own benefit? That seems to be the biggest problem of our age and a constant threat to the ideas of big business which we are forced to bow down to. 

Q&A#6 Question Two

Is our ‘experience’ within the block the closest thing we can get to reality?

The experience we are living seems perfectly real to us (as long as we allow to not question it), but is there a way in which we are actually able to understand what is out there? We have touched on this question in past discussions such as with time and supernaturalism vs. naturalism, but we still seem to be at a standstill for a real answer. Since we can’t arrive at an answer it seems that everything is a matter of opinion which derives from our experience. It seems then quite easy to say that our experience is the closet thing we could get to within regards of reality. Everything is really just a concept, but now this sounds like constructivism/idealism. At the same time though, the conclusions we come to take to be real through the interactions of others shows that their must be some kind of consistency “out there.” Since now it seems it is just our experience at play, it seems ignorant to take any one side too highly and should agree that maybe there is a harmony between the two, or until there is we can really never know for sure.

Q&A#6 Question One

Can one actually change his/her life (have free will) and thus use discretion/judgement?

If we bring to mind the “eternalized” idea of the universe then free will is just an illusion. If our universe is developing as it progresses then we could possibly have a choice in what outcome the universe has by consciously making decisions, but to some degree it would be influenced by the past no matter what. Where the distinction of whether this means we can have a choice is still debatable though. Since we can not be sure of if this reality actually is progressing or has happened, whether your a realist or a constructivist one would have to admit that what we see is just an illusion whether the ‘material world’ is actually there or not. For the realist should know objects are made of atoms so to some degree it is an illusion, while the constructivist would be in favor of an illusion regardless if it actually there. Is there a way then that makes sense for us to use judgement, regardless of if it is an illusion or not? I would say yes. 

In Pedro Calderon de la Barca’s ‘Life is a Dream’ he brings up the idea that life is merely an illusion, interestingly enough though he suggest that there is free will (or at least the illusion of it). In his play though, a king is told by the oracle that his son will grow up to kill him. The king now frightened locks his son in a tower and tells his people his boy died shortly after his birth. The boy grows up in the tower thinking this is reality. The king now plans to tell his son of his heritage so he has him drugged and to wake up in the palace. When the son learns that his tower life was not the ‘real’ reality he gets outraged and acts out. The king fearing his own safety has his son drugged again and brought back to the tower. The son wakes up and begins to cry as he can’t tell if what he was just living was a dream or not. From then on he decides to do good at all times, for he would never be able to tell whether anything is really just a dream or real. To this end, we can assume that whether an illusion or not we should use our judgement (regardless if this too is an illusion) for the sake of good and therefore are forced to use our discretion . . even if it is just an illusion. 

I dream that I am here

of these imprisonments charged 

and I dreamed that in another state

happier I saw myself.

What is life? A frenzy.

What is life? An illusion,

A shadow, a fiction,

And the greatest profit is small;

For all of life is a dream,

And dreams, are nothing but dreams.

Q&A#5 Question Two

Can time be slowed down by our mental processes such as in a state of nirvana? 

Nirvana is essentially a state when you are in complete harmony with the world around you and due to this everything slows down to an instant which would seem like an eternity (this is how I have come to understand it). This seems rather impossible to most people (for those who think time is a physical time is real) as time seems to move at a pretty constant rate, at least in the physical idea of it. Psychological time would then need to come into play when talking about Nirvana. This is because it is effecting the subjective experience of the person. For instance, when I am on stage or acting, time seems to become irrelevant and usually altered. If you mess up, or there is a gap of time when a line slips, that moment seems at least three times as long than the audiences perspective of what it actually is. Or you can just be acting and time seems to have gone by in a no time at all.This must be due to the adrenaline and your brain function during that time. 

Now brain function is composed of neurons and electricity. The appearance of time being longer would then be relative to the activity in the brain at a faster speed. If we think of how fast we can send messages wirelessly today, we see that electric waves move at an almost unfathomable speed. This speed of electricity though is occurring constantly within our bodies and brain effecting how we interpret and interact with the world. If being in a trance like state, such as acting, can effect our psychological time, then why couldn’t a meditation master control his brain functions to the point of it seemingly stopping time? It seems almost unreal, but the experience/state/idea of nirvana to me then seems real and possible, just extremely difficult (why else would so many Buddhists dedicate their lives to becoming enlightened?)

Q&A#5 Question One

Was there a beginning to physical time?

        I do not think that there could be a beginning of time. If we look at time as going forward, then we see it moves within the confines of a linear fashion. This is because of time, at least in our perspective, of having a “now” (present), past, and future. If we look at an instant however, we can see that it has no real duration. A duration of an instant is always a fabricated measurement by us. Time then is just our perception of change (whatever that actually is) from instant to instant. This would mean then that for physical time to be real it would have to have these instants be connected. This would imply there is a point of contact between the past and now, along with now and the future. If they were connected though, how could any change actually occur? Since an instant has no real duration though how could physical time continue? It seems then that time is only real due to our subjective nature of it. Since it is not real then how could it have had a beginning?

An easier way of looking at this questions is by saying, okay, there is a beginning of time. This for instance could be the Big Bang, but as soon as we have discovered this “beginning” we can right away ask, what came before that? Thus, this idea of a beginning falls flat on its face. In terms of questions then, asking if there is a beginning of time becomes a pointless question.

Q&A#4 Question 2

 Would it be possible for all the people of the world to fall into the idea of internationalism? The idea that everyone is a citizen of the world which they should protect and promote allegiance to. 

        This question is extremely difficult to answer in terms of realistically approaching the situation. Assuming you were able to get away from the problem of having everyone agree on something in the first place I feel this ideology would really have to start with the idea of education. As I may have mentioned in some of my other blogs, assimilation is how people think and act how they do. I feel pretty confident in this idea because how is one perspective more valid than another when you really get down to it? But anyway, onto education. If we taught people a better and more optimal way of living and perceiving it would initially have to start at a young age. This is not in all cases, but in most for they are easily persuaded into opinion and thought. It is also much harder to change the perspective of an adult who is already a firm believer in what it is they are assimilated in. 

What now maybe you are asking would be a optimal way of living and perceiving the world? I would say one that is obviously open to new ideas and not focused on the self, but of helping others (establishing community). A lot of these ideas stem out of Aldous Huxley’s novel Island which inspired my idea of how society should be. One of these notions is living here and now, which is a phrase that pragmatic empiricism is fond of. He goes and demonstrates ideas of personality within animal fables that were told to children, which has a more notions of just straight up morality. The book explains that it shows how all people are part of a system, suggesting interdependency and having a sense of where we come from in terms of the environment. Thus, the idea of a citizen of the world, internationalism, is more or less produced for we are all apart of the giant system embedded on Earth. 

They also taught ideas that explain the idea of experience at a young age. Saying that we describe our experiences based on symbols (words) that we can all take from. In that sense, every experience is different from one another’s, and in turn showing that every human is unique, demonstrating the preciousness of human life. The specific example would be that everyone experiences a pinch differently, so today their would be 6 billion unique interpretations of pinch. Another idea is that “All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours.” To prove this point, the society in the book, makes scarecrows that resemble various deities and gods. It is then that the children in the fields protecting the harvest understand how the ideas of Gods and supernatural entities work. 

Q&A#4 Question 1

Gratitude, in deflated patriotism, is one of the biggest factors of this definition of patriotism. Can gratitude, however, be skewed to irrational forms of thought that could lead to a stronger sense of patriotism?

If accepting the idea of patriotism, the notion of how exactly a citizen of a particular country should act will variate to many different degrees. In the less extreme version of patriotism, the one coined deflated patriotism, it shows how gratitude is a large factor in a particular citizen’s allegiance towards a country. This is because by this reasoning for this kind of patriotism, we are indebted to the country. A citizen should have a sense of gratitude towards his or her country because he was allowed to be born and raised there, learn their values, live there, and in some regard be able to acknowledge that all other aspects of life, in this citizen’s life, were possible due to this place of origin. 

Now this is more or less true, but the real question would be does this gratitude achieve anything? If so, does this gratitude enable a sense of bonding between an individual and their alleged country? Taking into account Socrates, he was more then willing to die for what he believed in. He believed that he was bound to do what is right, and in so doing what was right, he had to achieve just actions. This sense of justice  through action, then would be to obey the law, which is exactly what Socrates does in the dialogue Crito. From this though, we see that even the most legendary philosopher had some sense of gratitude towards his country. 

Is this gratitude dangerous or beneficial then? If this gratitude is complying with laws and justice wouldn’t it surely be good like Socrates? I would say that it could be good if the laws were impartial, but this definitely isn’t always the case, especially today. Loopholes, a great lawyer, and other strange measures can get people around laws and such. In that way, I could not find that laws in our country are particularly impartial because not everyone always get the same punishment. The more money the less punishment is often the case. This then brings me to my next point.

If the laws are not impartial is any good being done? Can any good be done within the confines of unjust or impartial laws? It would seem quite obviously that this could not be so. Our country is formed on the belief that there is equality and justice for all, thus translating that the law and system of America is being impartial. I have come to the decision though, from the last section, that punishment is not always the same based on the crime (especially when the punished has more money). Therefore, our country’s laws and system is not impartial.

If the majority has gratitude towards impartial laws is this beneficial for the country? The beginning of this question I will assume to be true if a citizen were to have a sense of patriotism and gratitude for their country (and for the sake of shortening this blog). It is then that the person, agreeing with what their country is promoting, becomes real. So for Americans, saying that we are a land that gives justice and equality to all is already proven, from my previous statements, to not be true. It becomes dangerous because progress seems to halt and retrogress due to their idea of reality. For instance, if we say we have freedom then we do not. This is because the idea of freedom is constantly changing based on the circumstances surrounding it. Three decades ago, the idea of freedom of information would not seem like something worth fighting for, besides copy right laws and such. Today however, the internet is starting new debates on how information should be regulated and controlled. This can prove though that freedom is not a concrete idea, but something that morphs to its situation. 

By these conclusions it is shown that gratitude may not be beneficial in terms of the greater good of a country. I think Socrates was trying to prove that. He had to die or he would have looked like a hypocrite, instead of a tragic figure. He had to succumb to the injustice of the law in hopes of changing it in the future. Gratitude for one’s country is good, but only in so far as it is able to do good and not bad, as I have hopefully explained. (Unfortunately I feel I have left out other points that could have strengthened this blog post, but I did so in the sake of not writing a novel . . so to speak). 

Q&A#3 Question Two

What are the problems that are inhibiting the United States from establishing a pure “pragmatic empricism”?

              I believe religion and the media are the two fundamental aspects of why people are not able to form a secular society that functions neutrally, regardless of beliefs. As we have discussed, it is possible to be imposing an empiricist view that could reflect similar methods of that of a totalitarian. I think this is a bit of a radical claim, and maybe necessary only to appease those of religious faiths (or more critically inquiring readers), for I think the basis of common experience through our five senses seem justifiable. As Clark says it is available to all. 

             This week made me ponder as to how I came to my own conclusions about the existence of God, reality, people, and so forth. I remember that by the time I was 5 or 6 I no longer believed in Santa Claus, for the idea just seemed to silly to me, plus it had been reinforced by movies in which someone has to be Santa, or they are a mall Santa, etc. It must have made an impression on me in my future evaluations of reality. I remember having to go to Sunday school, but I was never to be confirmed (luckily, my mother had the sense to not make me go). In fact, I remember the last time I went. It was my first communion and we were all in some kind of big study, each student with his parent. The Pastor decided that we should say what we wanted to get from attending Church and God. I was the first one who had to go. This event wound en up being one of my first performances as an actor, for to this day I remember lying about how I wanted to learn more about God and luckily was able to get through that moment. I may have believed in God for a while after, but I remember that it had to do with fear of hell that I would pray. I didn't want to go to hell, obviously. 

              As I entered high school, punk rock soon influenced how I viewed the political spectrum of things. Bush was bad. Republicans were ignorant. Everything seemed easy and well laid out. I was a realist and not praying to some false idol, some invisible man in the sky. George Carlin helped me out a lot with these ideas too. Being associated with the Democratic party felt right to me. My brother was gay which swayed my opinions to tolerate everyone. War seemed pointless and unnecessary and only happened due to the greed of others. Essentially I wanted the freedom that was so homed by our nation but never seemed to truly live up to its name. By my senior year of high school, I had taken a philosophy course called the Theory of Knowledge. It basically blew my mind in the different views of how to look at the world. It introduced me to Plato's Simile of the Line/Cave, which I have always loved due to its ability to incorporate all things and clearly view the human condition on what is truth.

              Today however, I believe strongly in the idea of assimilation and that we all play an active part in the creation of our reality. For instance, the reason that people believe in God is because that's what they know. It is what they have experienced. I am fortunate to realize the reasoning for why people obviously believe in what they do. In that way, I cannot find that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's, but I do believe that it will have an outcome on how we interact with the world. Our hates, loves, desires, and notions of things are self-created based on experience. I think it would almost be impossible for someone in Kansas to start praying to Allah or meditating to Buddhist mantras if they have been going to church their whole life. In that way, it is almost purely up to chance on what you believe in, essentially based on where you were born. 

             Since we are actively creating and shaping our world by our actions we all have a responsibility. This responsibility extends to doing things that wouldn't essentially lead to others suffering. Suffering is a universal experience of living and acknowledging this is one of the first steps into relieving our suffering. The media in my opinion adds to this suffering. We are constantly in fear of unknown enemies, people who we think are out to get us. This may be true to a small degree, but it is highly over exaggerated. Clearly these enemies of ours are suffering too. Why else would they want to seek revenge? Many Americans overlook this fact, and feel that their own perspective is right because of what they know and what they are told. Blindly listening to the news anchors and not coming a conclusion based on your own beliefs is dangerous because it will influence our actions.  Rhetoric, such as the Sophists used, is how the media and politicians try to win the opinions of others. I feel we have stopped listening to our own opinions because in this technologically advanced world, most people do not have the time to stop and think about what is really going on, for they are constantly bombarded by "professional" opinions. They put blame on others when they don't see that these people are just as unhappy as they are. 

           Going back to assimilation now. As we have grown up, the people in my generation, and probably within our parents generation too, have always had two parties (and voting for any other party would just seem silly). We have been strayed to believe that this is the only way in which the democracy of the United States can function. This leads me to the question of how can two sides ever be neutral? That will never be the case because our idea of reality correspondent two diametrically opposed states and not individual issues. The hype from the media just fuels the fire and stagnates our problems, dumbing down our perspectives on matters, until they are so beyond our control that war seems to be the only solution. Meanwhile, the rich enjoy their luxuries at the expense of blood, lives, and happiness. 

           As we look at today, we are seeing that liberals and republicans are still battling for supremacy and rule. In my opinion, our country is in a cold civil war between itself, although most fail to acknowledge this. Some though, like those of Occupy movements realize that their is something critically wrong with our state. Many others around the world are doing and realizing the same. One can only hope, that although their goals and ideas may be divided or different, that even if their is no leader or figurehead among their ranks, that we can come together, as a united people, and take back what this country and the most beautiful ideals of man had intended. This realization that change is needed can be the spark that will inevitably change our way of life and viewing others. 

           There are other groups such as the Tea Party though, who for some reason, assume that America is a Christian nation. I do not understand their reasoning for this. They feel however though, that others are at fault for the problems of the America and the world over. This is a response from a person I know who is a Tea Party supporter: 

                           "I am a huge Tea Party fan and supporter....Remember the Intolerable Acts...they started the American Revolution. America for the Americans. Illegals...leave. Mantra: Pro Life, Anti-gay marriage, support the right to bear arms. Less Government. Freeze prices and six months later freeze wages. I am a strong Conservative that believes that this country is doomed because we no longer allow God into our lives. Just think: 20 years ago, we had Ronald Regan, Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. Today, we have Obama, no CASH and no HOPE. And due to the recent events, I call for an all out War against Muslims who need to get the hell out of America and enjoy their sand and deserts. Yes I am a hater."

*In the same respect, any Occupy supporters who do not accept other people's differences will not be helping the problem.

To me this person obvious does not think for themselves and is revolved in the spinning debate of the media. I cannot understand how they feel such hatred if they claim to be so connected with God and following his order. This kind of response seems to be the thing that would get you into hell, if I am correct. In the Bible it states, "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." (John 4:8). This seems contradictory to the nature of their religion if this person is calling themselves a hater. Certainly Jesus didn't hate either. I am not religious, but I do believe in being a good person, since what we do will reflect our world. 

              Instead of fearing others based on our beliefs, we will need to be able to trust others and in this way accept our differences. I do not think religion is a bad thing, but when it is driven from fear to do good, instead of the joy of life to do good, then it is morally corrupt. This corruption materializes into emotions of hate and anger, which in turn reflect our actions. If we are not able to give the world openness and compassion we are most likely going to fail. Our greed will rape our planet, and in the fires of our intolerance and ignorance, we will fall. This will only happen if we continue to hate. Our assimilation by the media and religious affiliations has caused many of citizens the world over into close mindedness that does not embrace all of humanity. Until this realization that assimilation creates our reality and no one's reality is more valid than the other, then no one will take responsible action for all. Until people take responsible action for all, there cannot be a neutral-state where we can address our secular problems. 

            

Q&A3 Question 1

Q1: How would a theocratic country view the stance of “this-world empiricism? 

At first glance this question might seem to have a straight forward answer, such as “they obviously abide by their affiliated religious dogma, so empiricism is out of the question.” Countries such as Iran, which have strong beliefs in Islam, have implemented their religious doctrines within their legislature. This is also known as Sharia or Islamic law. I’m not regarding over whether these laws are moral or not, but how they would view empiricism? Some of these countries with Islamic law are fairly modernized in some cities and technologically advanced; Dubai is a perfect example. This is where it is interesting to me, because even though they are still following ancient ideology, they openly embrace all the benefits that “this-world empricism” has brought to the world. Indoor ski slopes and shopping malls. Regardless of what their regulations are within Islamic law, the fact that these consumeristic utopias are around seems diametrically opposed to the one thing that controls their lives; the Sharia. This might be an act of spite towards the Westernization of Middle-Eastern countries, but it shows that if you have the money you start being pulled into a consumer mentality, for whatever the reason (probably due an augmented sense of self) .This is rather frightening, for it comes at expense of the planet but now I am being side tracked. I do not know exactly how a society with such intense religious views, unless it is just for show, could embrace such hollow ideas of what to do with their wealth. As money seems to correlate with pleasure (at least today), and pleasure is derived from the senses, hence empiricism. I can only speculate as to someone affiliated with Dubai or another theocratic country would take into account of “this-world empricism.”

Q&A#2 Question 2

Could a concept be constructed on the way a person would construct and impose their thoughts or is it dependent on sensory experience? Could it be both, and if so which is more influential?

The way a person’s concept is constructed/developed I feel is highly influenced by their thoughts and is just as equally validated by sensory experiences. Depending though on the person, it would determine which aspect is more influential when they apply it to their concept of reality. For instance, Einstein it was probably more reliant within his thoughts, while the man walking down the street both are pretty equal in his idea of reality, but for the Amazonian tribe they rely more on their senses of what is around them to determine reality (this is hard to gauge though, because their beliefs and knowledge are radically different than ours).

It goes to show then that our lifestyles present obstacles with our reality. This is because they reflect what we will experience and how we think. At the core we are all human though, so we all have the ability to understand and experience things similarly (although not the same). This is dependent on innumerable factors, but the strongest would probably rely on how we define reality. An example in how we define reality can be shown by how scholastic monks of the dark ages viewed the world. They were the people with the most knowledge in Europe at the time, but they saw roses in terms of symbolic ideas which resinated through God’s ideal plan. The color red from the petals for example, was reflective of the blood of Christ and other numerous Biblical insights became apparent in their concepts of things. These connotations originate from their idea that God created it all. This is just one example of how a belief in how reality works can effect how we judge our senses and thoughts in all things. 

       Most Americans today seem to be very strong realists. This is apparent in their love of material goods. I used to be in a similar view, wanting more and more, but as I've been in college I've been wanting less and less. This is because my view of reality has been changing by many forces. This is getting off topic though. Essentially, both sensory experience and thoughts produce our view of reality, but what swings us to what is more important/influential is a matter of opinion (that would stem from our knowledge of our thoughts and sensory experience) and lifestyle. 

Q&A#2 Question 1

Is a personally constructed concept stronger than one based on the opinions of others?

          I think the first thing to point out with my question is to answer it with another question; can a concept be personally constructed? I would say yes. When someone takes into account a play the first thing one must do is look at the script. Once they have analyzed the script, they then have a concept of what the play is. This aspect, especially for anyone who has seen two productions of the same play, can tell that, no matter what, they are both going to be different. This I think serves as a good analogy then. The script is our sensory impression of the world and the way we go about creating the play would be our past experiences and thoughts on the particular script (world), thus resulting in different productions (views of reality). Someone could feel very different about Romeo and Juliet than another (almost getting back into a view on aesthetic judgement). 

         Keeping with this theater analogy, if a new script is written then a new vision/concept of the play will need to be brought up, or at least will eventually come into being once someone reads it. It is then that a concept must originally be thought up by someone, to which it is personally constructed (you could say it was developed by the playwright, but someone like Ibsen wrote and directed his works). This concept is then either accepted as agreeable or disliked by the view of others. Maybe this is why RC  doesn't seem coherent at times, because if its only something you can "construct" or conceptualize what good is it doing? Realists can at least validate with one another to a degree. 

         If you were to try and copy a production, or replicate it, I do not think it would ever be as good as the original. Since the concept of the original production was conceived through the views of those involved, it would fall short in some aspect. This is the same with a concept of reality, since it was not brought upon by yourself how could you ever understand what the person was really thinking/conceptualizing? To this end, I would say that a personally constructed concept is stronger than those of others. This is not to say you can not learn from others, for inquiry is apart of finding truth. If you are closed off you will never find the connections that are surrounding you. You can copy a few things you've liked from a past production (philosophy) and make it your own, but a total reproduction would never live up to its predecessor. Someone's conception may not correlate to another person's own concept, but to have experienced that will only build your own ideas stronger. 

       - A side note, I may be trying to correlate what we learn in class with theater because this is what interests me. I think it should interest you, the reader, to some degree too, for theater is constructing reality. 

          

Question #2

Can a particular experience/object be universally beautiful based on the fact of us solely  being human? For instance, something such as an ideal natural landscape.

As a human being, we obviously have developed in our evolution certain adaptations into classifying, or at least, invoking particular feelings towards objects. Does this mean that, without a knowledge of an authoritative idea of taste, we would find things beautiful ‘in the raw’ so to speak. That is, would our minds illuminate things based on a survival instinct? I would think yes to a degree. Although the article we read discussed “disinterestedness” within the confines of beauty, which I took for, if I’m correct, pleasure without desire. 

  Setting aside sexual desire, symbols of fertility are among one of the first things to be produced in artifacts during early human development.  Would the idea of fertility in itself, suggesting big breasts and wide hips for example, be a finding of beauty? For once this idea is registered in our mind we clearly would impose it on particular females with these properties. This is though also inferring that their is at the most basic level, a form of social structure put in place. Evidently man has evolved as a social creature, for surely an infant could not fend for itself and grow up (or it’d be extremely unlikely). 

Going back to my original question then, could a natural landscape be seen as beautiful within the experience of a human just being human? I would say no. Surely the man would find wonder in what is around him, almost to the sense of magic, but without a background for comparing something experiences/objects would be determined merely on pleasure, for that would be all he would have to go on without contact with others of his kind. The man would only have himself to agree with, thus no universal concepts, so he could not make an aesthetic judgement and define beauty for himself. 

Question #1

Is the notion of ‘correctness’ just a trend believed to be true by a group of individuals?

As I think about this idea of correctness it seems to me influenced by a network of individuals. Thus they create and impose a particular idea of what characterizes an ideal sense of beauty. For example, Italian Renaissance painters would illustrate biblical stories in a whole manner of ways and interpretations. This resulted from the interest of beauty in Christianity. To be considered at the top, to be in first rank, one would have to paint in the conditions of the patron (thus reflecting in society’s view of beauty as it was people of power who were conditioning the public eye, for smaller artists would not have very much influence). This is what comes from an authoritative source within the confines of a society. To me this is important in defining what one thinks of beauty because correctness would then be put in place to the standard, or universality. 

Of course everyone at the same time is able to have their own subjective experiences. These subjective experiences would take into account a person’s own opinions, previous experiences, and personal development. This combined with the above standard, imposed by society, I would think would form the notion of correctness. As I do not think the correctness of today will be the correctness of tomorrow, for everything is constantly changing due to time and space and the phenomena around the world. 

Video on Hume and Kant

This is a small three part lecture I found on Hume and Kant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26-5BfI0AJw

Why, Hello!

       Hi I am Tom Leidenfrost. This is the first time I've had a blog, like this at least, for a class, yet I am sure it will be a fun place to put down my thoughts and learn from you all. I am a theater student (FPA: Theatre Concentration) who is getting a minor in philosophy. You may have seen me in a production here at school or heard me playing accordion across the quad on occasion if you don't know me. I haven't taken a philosophy class since freshman year, although I feel I have still been trying to discover the truth, or at least of a version of it, within my own artistic works. Theater to me is philosophy in motion, more or less, and my reason for taking this course is to investigate how I can apply some of these ideas to my work. As with theater one must be willing to take risks. I may not know all of the answers but will do my best to articulate them in my future posts!