Monsters vs Ourselves

     A lot of the books that we have been reading and talking about lately have suggested the innate ugliness of human nature.  For example, Dorian Gray uses the portrait of Dorian to show how Dorian's soul is rotting and becoming gradually corroded and corrupted.  In Jekyll and Hyde, Hyde is the corruption and badness within Jekyll's soul.  Jekyll likes being Hyde and he gets enjoyment from it.  Everyone scorns Hyde's animalistic tendencies.  The message of both books to me is that humans are innately ugly.  However I disagree with this idea that all humans are like that.  These authors try to make it seem like people are just bad inside and I think that even now in modern society, we are always blaming people for being bad or saying even that the badness should be celebrated. Why does everyone think that we are so animalistic? I read some of these things in books and see it on social media, blaming people for social problems, acting as if it is normal to be this way and that everyone is at fault in some cases.  Honestly? None of these thoughts or ideas even cross my mind and I have such a hard time relating to books like Dorian Gray and Jekyll and Hyde is because I just don't get it.  I know a lot of people who will do some things even if it doesn't benefit them in any way. They are nice people and they would not do things to hurt people even if they could.  We are born with an innocence that is, yes, eventually broken, but it is what people decide to do with that loss of innocence that determines their true character.  It is a conscious decision and has nothing to do with how we are born.  It is based on how we develop our character and events that happen surrounding our lives.  Some people may have more traumatic events while others do not, and don't become bitter, which may not cause them to have those irrational and malicious tendencies.  Therefore I do not think that the innate tendencies of humans as depicted in the novels to be monstrous, are in fact true.

31 January 2015

Feminism

     I think that while feminism was once a prominent issue in the past,  it has gotten a lot better especially in recent years.  Ironically, the less feminism there actually is in society, the more enraged women become about their rights.  For example, in "A Doll's House", Nora was treated like a trophy or a pet rather than a wife or a life partner.  She would sometimes be able to use it to her advantage to get him to forget about all of the stupid mistakes that she made. She played dumb but to an extent, it was her fault.  This was around the time when women were first starting the movement to gain rights.  People were more disdainful towards the character of  Nora instead of her husband because, "How dare she try to think for herself. She's only a woman".  Now, if a man were to so much as (for example) pity a woman who had a child out of marriage who was living on her own, he could be scorned and thought of as sexist because somehow it is misconstrued as him thinking that she can't make it on her own with a child.  The media especially  makes a big deal out of things that people sometimes accidentally say and turn it into a feminist issue when it is not necessary.  Everyone wants to be equal, but nobody feels bad bashing white males.  Issues like this have turned society to complete political correctness.  While I think that this is necessary to an extent, too much of it turns this world into something that it isn't and inhibits people from their own feeling.  Sometimes, people have reasons for not agreeing with certain policies or ideas of certain groups.  It isn't necessarily because of the color of their skin or their gender or their religion. It's just one idea that they agree with, or one simple misinterpreted question.  I think that people, particularly Americans, should stop being so sensitive about all issues, including feminism.  Instead of taking it to mean that all women are doomed and discriminated against, they should put themselves up to the challenge to prove everyone else wrong. 

1 December 2014
Cultural Relativism

I believe that cultural relativism is almost an excuse for people not wanting to say that they believe others are wrong.  Sure, maybe as people not all of us agree on what can be defined as "morals" for other people.  Nobody can say definitively that one culture's practices are unjustified based on what they may believe. However, you can say that you do not agree with that other culture's practices.   For example, in 'The Challenge of Cultural Relativism', James Rachels discusses the practice of Eskimos killing their infants not out of malice, but out of necessity.  I completely disagree with their practice of infanticide no matter what their morals are.  They can give all of the reasons in the world and I still will not think that infanticide is humane or justified.  But the people who sit down and break down the potential thought process of the Eskimos in order to ask why they do what they do are just trying to be politically correct so thT nobody can call anyone else wrong.  If we didn't think that some ideas are wrong, we wouldn't be human. No progress would be made as far as cultural advancements and relationships.  We wouldn't have anything to live for if we didn't have our beliefs.  As soon as people come along and start to think about why people do what they do, and try to stretch it so that it all boils down to everyone "believing the same thing" or having the same morals but expressing it in different ways, the different sides of things start to disappear. I love to get both sides of an issue, but once people try to connect both sides, there is no longer a compromise. Instead, everything is temporarily mended when really, people should recognize that they have ideas of right and wrong, understand their own reasons, and then understand their opposer's reasons for having opposite beliefs.  That is how people build stronger relationships and characters-when there is a recognition of difference but an acceptance of difference and a respect for why  we have our differences.  It is humbling to take a look at where we may be wrong every once in awhile.  I think that cultural relativism tries too hard to smooth things over and say that everyone thinks the same way deep down on the inside, when really that cannot be proven; it should not be necessary for all of us to think the same way or have the same morals in order to coexist.

2 November 2014

Fate vs. Free Will

     I believe that fate is determined by the choices that you make.  It isn't necessarily predetermined by a higher power as most religions believe, but instead, there are neat little paths laid out and the path that you take is determined by your actions. It's really a mix of both in my idea, mostly because I am a strong believer in karma.  There are some superstitions (a lot actually) that I do not believe.  Karma is not one of them.  Ever since I was little, I've noticed that for every bad thing that happens to me, the universe makes up for it in some way. For every good or bad thing that I do, the universe also makes sure I get it right back to me.  However, what I do to DESERVE the karma is up to me.  If I make a good choice, the good path is laid out in front of me.  If I do something bad to someone else, the bad path is laid out for me.  It's honestly a very hard question for anyone to answer and choose one or the other.  

     Fate or free will is such a gray area and one of those parts of life that we don't think about too often because life just happens.  Humans don't generally think about the kinds of effects their actions will have on their lives (unless it is an extremely big decision) or even the lives of others.  Just even the slightest things that we do can impact loved ones and some people that we don't even know in ways that we wouldn't even think to connect or imagine.  It's the butterfly effect essentially.  However, while it is good to think of the impact that our actions will have on others, if we think about that always without thinking of our own interests and opinions, nothing would ever get done.  If everyone were so tentative to do things for themselves in fear of hurting others, we wouldn't be so advanced as we are in this day and age across the globe. I just think that it is a very thin line to draw between being too selfish and headstrong, and letting your actions run haywire affecting people's lives while you are completely oblivious to the fact, and letting your fear of taking action take control of your life.  

     Some people say that no religion goes into whether you are a believer in fate or free will.  I believe that it is absolutely a huge indicator of where your opinions fall.  The people who are more religious seem to be a lot more focused on trying to prove that there is a plan in place for all of us, while the more skeptical seem to have the approach fate as a waste of energy spent thinking of excuses as to why something didn't happen the way they wanted it to. 

 30 September 2014

Pure Selfishness vs. Greed

    I believe that question eight of the Socratic Seminar is a very intriguing and crucial question to understanding the selfishness and independence from society themes of the novel.  The question discusses the difference between Keating's selfishness and Roark's selfishness. Some may argue that Keating and Roark are both the same because they both want their work to be displayed and seen by all of society, but I don't see it that way. Roark is selfishness in it's purest, most raw form. Roark simply designs for himself and his own amusement. When Keating asks him to design for his company, Roark turns down the idea several times, but will only design for Keating when Keating takes the credit instead of giving it to Roark. When Roark wants to design, it is solely for his own personal satisfaction, pleasure, and even amusement.  He doesn't do it for the money or the popularity, which is the more advanced or manifested version of selfishness as exemplified by Keating.  Keating is selfish as well, but more so for the fame and fortune than his own integrity as a designer. He is very cutthroat and will do anything to get ahead whether by stabbing the backs of  fellow associates to rise to the top, or by sucking up to his boss. Peter Keating would rather stamp his name on designs he never created than to be recognized for the ones he does create, because he isn't confident in his architectural abilities, just his ability to manipulate people into thinking he has abilities.  The money and power he eventually gains are attributed to the fact that he is willing to do anything to get it, not that he can actually do anything.  Roark seems to have a more innocent selfishness than Keating and just accepts it as a part of his being. He uses it for good intentions, but this ultimately makes him more vulnerable to the ridicule of society because they don't respect him for only designing what he wants to design. I believe that the same selfishness principle can apply to any job for any person nowadays. It especially applies to politics. Some politicians have strong voices and sincerely want to change society according to what society wants. If you notice, they usually receive the most attention (good or sometimes bad) from the media. The ones that don't speak out and are just in it for themselves usually have their own agenda instead of listening to the people. It may or may not work out for them, but they don't worry about being liked by the people, just like Howard Roark never worried about being liked by his society.