Response to Blog - The Closing

This is a response to Sarah Dion's blog where she asked what have I learned in the class. I must say that this proved to be one of the most difficult seminars that I have had thus far in my college career. I do , however, also appreciate what I have learned in the seminar more than any other class. I may have not talked much in class, but I was busy contemplating the many points that were made and writing down the profound theories that we discussed. By far I think the most intriguing conversation that I had was the conversation about meat eating and the morals beind that. I enjoyed it so much because it was around that time that I was talking about the same thing in another class. That is something else that I truly appreciate. Even though it isn't planned, I like the way topics of different classes coincide with each other.

Though there were many discussions that I didn't understand, I am happy to have had the opportunity to come back to my room and reflect on what was said in class.  Especially with this recent topic we have been discussing. The book Bridges to the World, is one of the most complex yet profound books that I have ever read. It explored so many topics that I never really understood, but eventually comprehended. It opened me to the world of the many extreme views of philosophy that relates to how the world really is around us and  how we reach to "truth" and "knowledge." Before this class, I could have only guess what constructivism and realism was(among other difficult words) but I have come out of this class more aware of the world around me as well as the people. Time, morals, truth, vegetarianism and other topics were wonderful topics that were discussed in this class and I must say I will be forever grateful for the experience I will take away.  With that say, What have you learned in this seminar and what did you appreciate most about it.

Philosophy and the Gray area

As everything is coming to an end and everyone gets summer break fever, I must say that I have enjoyed this class. After finishing this book,  I have come to the same realizations and points that I have come to near the end of every philosophy class.  We study these theories, old and current and we can extract from it what we want. The underlying concept however, is always going to be the same. Philosophy isn't black or white, even though many philosophers want to think so. The arguments that are usually made, reviewed, scrutinized, studied and contemplated are biased and extreme. The book that we have recently finished reading in class is a perfect example. There are three main characters discussing the letter of a fourth character. One is an extreme constructivist, the other an extreme realist and the last one the balance between the two. The book Bridges to the world didn't only serve as a philosophy book for me, it served as a book that, as an English major, I can decipher plot and characterization. From the beginning it is obvious that Allison is the mediator between Russell ans Hans; and by the end she herself figures that she is needed to keep both philosophers balanced. She introduces the notion of constructive realism which combines the two extreme foundational arguments of the book. This book has highlighted how I feel about philosophy. Philosophy is gray matter. There is no right or wrong. There are always going to be strong arguments and interesting points that seems to be the "truth," but what it all boils down to is that philosophy is something that should always have a balance. With that said, What do you think of philosophy?

Response to Blog- Jules

I am responding to Shelby G's blog in which she asks the question what if Jules had gotten an A? Would he still be making his argument? Despite what was discussed in class I still want to give my opinion on this. I believe that if Jules had gotten an A he wouldn't have written the letter. His complaint was that he got a C which is a grade that he thought was mediocre compared to his work. He is obviously arrogant enough to think that he is an A student (that is one point) and another point is that no one thinks of themselves of anything but an A student. Everyone wants to be the best, and no one wants to be told otherwise.  He didn't agree with his grade and if he got an A everything would most likely be alright.  By writing the letter Jules was making an appeal of his grade. Also I feel like he was hurt, as any student would be, and wanted to set the teacher straight by saying "I don't give a damn what you think, I know what kind of a student I am and you are stupid to have given me a C."  He did what any student would think of doing, but never really do because they don't have the courage to do it. It isn't right that people give people things that they think they deserve and half of the time it isn't really based on an objective standard, but it is based on a subjective standard. I understand where Jules is coming from because here he is working his butt off and a teacher gives him a grade that basically says "eh you are doing OK, but your work is still mediocre."  The objective standard that I am talking about is awarding a person something because of the work they have done and how well they have mastered something. Not giving someone something because you feel they are well liked or because they did a personal favor for you.  I seriously can't really blame Jules for saying the things he said, I don't believe it is the philosophy that he is really concentrated on, but he wanted to prove that he was a good writer while at the same time explaining how hurt he was. My question if you were in Allison's shoes how would you have responded to the letter from Jules?

Construction and Life

This blog is a bit personal, however I promise that it has a point to it at the end. All my life
I have listened to people. I have let people define who I am, what I say, what I believe and even what I eat. I have never been able to think for myself or even do what I wanted to do. Now, that I am an adult, I am left in the world to fend for myself and continue on with my life, but it is so hard because I was never given the opportunity to live my own life.  For example, I was always instructed to stay thin. Always instructed that to be skinny is to be beautiful and because I was taught this I am at war with myself.  As an adult, a part of me wants to say Forget you world I am going to eat anything I want and be happy. But the other side of me feels disgusted and depressed when I gain weight. I want to be happy, I want to live life according to my rules, morals, and values, but it is hard because of the reality that was constructed for me. When it comes to my weight and other things I feel like I really am battling myself psychologically and emotionally. When I look in the mirror I can hear the things that was said to me when i was younger, the verbal abuse, the hatred and the name calling.  I wasn't given a chance to construct my own reality and that is why I am having a difficult time now. I cannot break free of what I was manipulated into thinking no matter what people say.  I wanna be healthy and happy. I myself don't know what weight I am comfortable at, and I don't know if I ever will. As I said this is really personal, however it is something I am recently struggling with and thinking about. With that said my question is, can people construct reality for you and if so how can you start to construct your own reality and morals?

Response to Blog-Knowing

I am responding to Beky's blog in which she asks, How do you truly know someone? and Is this a radical constructivist view on people?

I too have heard people talk about someone I don't know (usually in a negative light) but I usually dismiss it. Though it sounds cliche, you can't really listen to people when they talk about someone else and until you have experienced them for yourself. There are usually two sides to the story and maybe the person who is talking malicious things about a person one doesn't know is fuel to the fire. I have heard so many things about people I don't even know and have believed some things and dismissed other things. I know it is wrong to believe anything you hear but, I'm human. It isn't until my interaction with them that I am able to confirm, or dismiss the things I heard, (usually for me it is the latter).  Though what I just said should be taken into consideration, you must also know that you can NEVER truly know someone. This is because people are always changing. Values, morals and beliefs aren't set in stone and therefore the way a person acts or the way you get along with a person is never set in stone. People change everyday for the better or for the worse. A person changing always happens because life changes people, experiences and circumstances changes people and therefore by the time you think you know someone 100% you are back to 0%.
I am not sure if we can call this a radical constructivist view on people. It is hard for me to really answer the second question because I feel I have to contemplate on it more. One thing I do know for sure is, as stated before, don't believe everything you hear about someone before you yourself experience them as a person. When you finally get to know the person, take them in as the days on. With that said, what is trust to you and if you can't 100% know someone how can you have it?

College Students and Grades

We are all college students and we are all anticipating the day that we can go on stage and get our diploma. Before that great day comes,however, we are to take the required courses, work hard, get good grades on tests and projects, and then pass the class. After reading a part of the book and having the discussion in class about how the letter in the beginning of the book made us feel, I must say that it got me thinking. Though Jules, the person who wrote the letter, sounded really arrogant and pretentious, he provided points that I think most of us as students have felt multiple times. You know the times when we give in an essay and we get a D on it instead of the A we thought it deserved. To be honest, not to long ago my friend was talking about appealing a grade because she didn't deserve the grade that she received. Think about it, most of us work hard and put our all into an essay, hoping that the professor would see how much time an effort we put into it and they just don't.  Sometimes when I get work back from professors, my first thought is did you read everything I wrote or did you just skim it.  This leads students to have this I hope this is good enough attitude towards the assignment. Another friend of mine who also have been getting bad grades on essays and projects has resorted to asking the teacher what she can do in order to bring her grades up on essays.  Another person I know is in a class in which if you disagree with the professor you fail. REALLY?? I think this is wrong. If you really think about it learning is turning into what the professor wants and sees fit, instead of what the student takes away from the assignment. I do think pedagogy (as mentioned in chapter 7) is something that should be thought about in depth.  Seriously,Who are you to say that I can't write? Who are you to say that I didn't put enough effort into my project? How can you put a grade on my learning? None of these are the question that I want answered. The question that I am asking you is, in school if there were no grading system, how would students be able to be graded and would it be a better alternative?

Response to Blog- Needs

In her blog Sarah Dion asks what would providing the basic needs to everyone in the world do to the world? Is there some kind of balance in the world with the way it is?

 To be honest, I really do not want to sound pessimistic, but as stated in Sarah's blog as well as mine, there can be steps taken to illiminate the obstacles keeping people from receiving their basic need but I don't think it i possible to provide basic needs to everyone. In my world I would love it to happen, but then after thinking about it it can't and you know why, we are greedy people. Our basic needs aren't our basic needs anymore. This has been discussed already, but I think it is a sad enough reality for it to be discussed again. People aren't happy with what they have and the things that we knew as basic needs, the THREE things that we knew as basic needs no longer suffice people. If everyone had their basic needs met they will constantly want more or better (than that of someone else).  Nothing would be good enough and people would eventually try to outdo each other like they are now. I believe the world started out with everyone having their basic needs met but as time passed, the line between need and want became a thin one and then it stared to blur. As sad as it is to admit, there is a balance in the world now, I don't know if there can be a greater balance. I would love for evryone to have a house and for everyone to prosper, but the fact of the matter is, that if there was a constant with basic needs, the population would grow and then eventually, we would all die.
WIth that  said , I was in class and the topic of a beautiful world (beautiful reality) came up. To you what does a beautiful world mean and how would you describe your own beatiful world if you had to construct it?