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?

Perception and Reality

Two days ago I was watching a movie and one of the people said something that I feel relates to this class and the recent topic we have been dealing with. In the movie one of the characters said, "Perception is reality, truth has nothing to do with reality, reality is what we make to be true." This immediately sounds like a constructivist view and I was so shocked that this was in a lifetime movie. I learned to agree with this view when I took an AP literature class in high school with led to numerous discussions on existentialism. In the class I was taught that there is no such thing as the "real world." What constitutes as the real world is what we get out of it. We define ourselves through the actions we take and outside of our own definition of our lives there are no reason as to why we are alive. I found this morbid, however I was convinced that this was true. I do believe that perception has a big deal to do with how we view the world, because we have nothing else to go on but perception. However, I don't think that it is only self-perception. I believe that truth consists of how we view the world along with what is really in the world. I can see how perception seems to imply truth, but what about the notion of illusions and the idea of seeing isn't believing? Take this scenario for example, picture yourself in class and some mad man comes and punches the teacher and leaves. The police comes and asks for our own individual account of what happened. Out of everyone in class whose recount of what happened would be correct? Whose would be wrong? Think about it................................................................................................................................No one. No one would be right and no one would be wrong. Everyone is write and everyone is wrong. My teacher gave me this scenario to illustrate how we each construct reality, but as I asked before can we really trust our perception if seeing is not always believing?

Response to Blog- No time

This is a response to Joel Siskin's blog in which he asks what would reality look like without the institution of time? In other words, what would it be like to just live in the now and not be conscious of the past or present.  Honestly, I believe that life would be chaotic. If you look at it time is our life and it is basically one of the mechanisms that make us function and who we are. Without time I believe there would be no hopes, no dreams, or no goals. I have so many plans for my future and even though the future my not turn out the way I have it planned out in my head, it is the motivation force that keeps me going. I think of where I Want to be 5, 10, 15 years from now and that is why I do the things I do now. I do believe that the present affects your future; without time there would be no idea or concept of consequences.  We do the things we do mostly because we think about how it is going to play out in the future and base our actions off of that. I am happy that we have time because without time I wouldn't be able to plan where I am going, where my life is going. Even if my life doesn't turn out the way I want it to in the future, right now I am happy with the bundle of hopes and dreams that time has allowed me to have. With that said, if there was no institution of time would that mean that we wouldn't be conscious of death, we wouldn't know it is coming (in the future) ?

Should Everyone be Fed?

From time to time I like to overlap classes and bring in a topic from another class that seems fit to discuss in this class. Today in my future of food class the teacher broke us up into groups to have a debate in whether or not everyone should be fed. When this question was raised, someone turned to me and said I understand it is the moral thing to want to feed everyone, but it isn't the realistic thing. So it is morally correct, but not realistic. Of course she was on the side of playing devils advocate and man people made points that the harsh reality is that to feed everyone isn't going to happen and that to try so will mean eventually depleting what little resources we have left and  making many people suffer for no reason. For no reason? I remember food being a necessity of life and saying that we should save people at the expense of the poor dying is murder and unjust.  Other people that decided to play devils advocate, said that if we interfere with the natural order of things (what's natural about starvation I don't know) then things will never balance out, that things (food and population) will eventually stable each other out.  But an argument from the other side (which I would deem as the moral side) was that we have already interfered with the "natural order of things" and that is why  things are the way they are. We have to just continually interfere with things until we things start to change, because there is no going back now. I believe that everyone should be fed, because everyone is a human and has needs. I know we may not have the resources for it, but if we stop the things that are depleting our resources, like pollution, like war, like deforestation, like building mini-malls and condominiums on farm land and fertile soil, there WOULD be enough. I have a two part question in this blog post, do you think everyone should be fed and what steps can we take to make this a reality?

Response to Blog-The U.S.

If a person asks me where I am from I usually say I am Jamiacan, then quickly say "Well my parents are from Jamaica, but unfortunatly I was born here."  I am not really fond of the US  when it comes to its political and economic issuses. This is a response to Professor Johnson's post about the nine myths about socialism. I must say that I do agree with everything the article says. Myth one which says The US governemnt is in class warfare attacking the rich to lift up the poor. I think this a load of crock, hence the reason I do believe it is a myth. In the US the rich is definitly getting richer and the the poor poorer. Instead of helping poor people the US is helping people that can help themselves, and letting the rich slip under the radar as far as taxes goes. Instead of helping people who really need assistance, they make it a difficult process that takes a lot of time weeks! months!! YEARS!!! If you want to talk about illusion, the US is setting an illusion that they are helping people, but they really aren't.
Please pardon my french but the second myth about the US having the greatest healthcare system is BS!!! TO be honest out of the OECD group, Canada has the best health care. Canadians basically get paid to have children and have many benefits. To be honest in Canada the gevernment amek it their duty to take care of their citizens and you can have no money or can be on welfare they do not charge you at all for health care because they feel like it is a right for the people. (That is why you will always see baby seats in 9 out of every 10 cars in Canada.
I have something to say about all the myths and I know that I have to limit myself, because then this would be one long post. The last myth I would like to discuss is the 7th one that says the US spends generously on public education. I remember when I was in high school. The textbooks that I had were really old and there weren't new ones until I was graduating. Many of my teachers were only satisfied with their salaries, but knew they were underpaid. My public high school didn't have a gym nor did it have an auditorium; it was just this one big room that was a gymatorium. There were many renovations that needed to happen, but they didn't and I know the stories may be the same for many people in public schools. These are definitely myths, and I think the US just needs to be honest with themselves and know that they aren't the best country out there. With that said, my question is which country is becoming the leading world power and why?

Life and Death

What is life and its meaning? This is the question I will pose at the end. I mean not to sound morbid or depressing but I think it would be interesting to know the different views people have on life. I for one believe life is precious and due to my beliefs I believe that God put us on the earth to play a special role, He designed us with a purpose in mind and once our purpose is fulfilled we die.  This topic seems interesting to me because today there was a death in my family and it is really something that I am wondering about right now. I find it interesting that we are born, and they we grow up trying to define our life and find out what purpose we are to serve. Are we here to be a confidant? Save a life? Change a life in a special way? I still don't know what purpose I serve and am still trying to define my life in a positive way.  It is just interesting how abruptly life ends, how quick people are taken, and you never know how positively they affected your life until they are gone. Sometimes they have been able to impact your life for one small moment and that was all you needed. I am trying to make sense of this blog post, but I don't know if I am doing it justice. Like I know where my definition comes from and that is in following my religion ,that I am positive about. I know people scoff at the fact that "something isn't suppose to define you, you are  suppose to define life" but that is just how in-tuned I am with my beliefs.However, I know many people, especially now-a-days, don't believe in heaven or hell or God. I just don't know what other purpose there is for me to serve here in life. Like I said I am still learning and growing, and I am sure one of these days I will know where I stand, and what I am suppose  to do.  So to you what is life and its meaning?

Response to Blog- Time

This is a response to Ben Hollows blog in which he asks, is the flow of time merely subjective. I think the flow of time is subjective and depends on whether you believe in time first of all. However, then it gets tricky because we are all caught in the flow of time everyday. When we are doing work, doing something we enjoy and going through the motions of life we are all caught in the current of time. It is when we become aware that we are in time and look at the clock that the flow is broken. I think the flow of time is related to the saying, "Time flies when you are having fun." There are days when I am cleaning my room, doing homework, and having fun when the day seems to have come to an end just as quickly as it began. This is most evident when I go on vacation and I am in the airport on my way back from vacation. You spend a lifetime waiting for the day you leave, and you pack, you go through the motions and before you know it your vacation is done. The flow of time can be said to be subjective because there are people who go through their whole day looking at a clock with routine activities that they have to do each hour. What I mean to say, it is like a person who says OK I am going to wake up everyday at 6 am, make my bed at 6:01 brush my teeth at 6:05 go downstairs at 6:10, turn on coffee at 6:11 etc. A person who lives like that can said to be living out of time and therefore do not know the flow that many people feel as it relates to time. I don't know about anyone else, but I think the flow of time is a wave of time when it comes to sleeping at night. There are nights that I feel like I have just put my head on my pillow and the next thing I know my alarm is going off!  The flow of time is subjective as to how we live our life and as to how in-tuned with time we are. With that said,what would a world without time be like in your opinion? What would a timeless world really be?

The recent class discussion brought me back to last semester in which I took the power of words. In this class we talked about Alfred Korzybski idea of the map not being the territory. He created the structural differential which illustrate the different way we process things that are happening around us. I find this very important to our conversation on experience because the structure breaks down the experience as it is and as we see it. The very top of the structure is the world as it is. It is reality, the events in reality and what is constantly happening around us. The next level is the objective level which is how we experience the events of the world as they are happening. This level is pure sensory and is strictly non- verbal.  The next level then becomes the verbal level in which we talk about what we experience at a non-verbal level. As the structure goes on the level after that is talk about the talk of our experience. Each level something is lost. Something is left out at each level because we can't fully experience everything the world has to offer. We can't experience the world as is. Then when we reach a verbal level we can't get across how we feel, we can describe how we feel but another person won't experience that same feeling. For example, if I stub my toe, I can describe to you how it feels, I can compare it to something else so you can know how excruciating the pain is, but still at this verbal level, there is something being left out. Someone mentioned in class that to get across our experiences we are limited to language and I must say that I agree. Language is the most reliable thing to get across an idea or experience unless the person decides to go through something themselves, but then how would you know that my experience and your experience are the same? How do you know if we both stub our toe you would feel the same pain I felt? Maybe you have a higher tolerance for pain than I.  Experience is a topic that is really complex because our experience is never complete. With that said, on the topic of experience, what do you think about the saying that with age comes experience? Is it true? And is there such thing as being experienced in every aspect of life?

Response to Blog- Language

This is a response to Sarah Dion's blog in which she asks the question, Is it possible that language is shaping our view of the world? Or could we just be shaping language?

In all honesty I believe we are just shaping language. Language, as time goes on, is getting worse. As I have stated in many blogs past, humans are creatures of conveninence. To many people it is easier to talk in slang and in ebonics and so language (good grammer) as we know it is declining. It is easier to slur words together and shorten them because saying things properly takes too much effort. You know what else takes a lot of effort? Saying positive things or even finding the positive. It is easy to see and put forth negative things, it is easy to complain  and talk about thing that haven't gone your way and it is even easy to put someone down and talk crap. It does, however, take effort to not gossip, not talk about someone behind their back, etc and due to this things just go south. I know the question didn't give off a negative context, but hey it's just easier to explain it this way.  Many people have a negative world view and I do believe in someway that the negative world view that people have are connected to their negative attitudes and negative language. So in some way our language shapes our view of the world but we are doing it indirectly. We are shaping language which affects how we act in the world, which gives out a particular understanding/perception of the world.

With that said, Why is it that we are so fond of instant gratification and convenience?

Time

Imagine your life without the measures of time. Can you think of a way to exist without using hours, mins, seconds etc? As humans we are dependent on time. We need time to live, to eat, to work etc. Without time we wouldn't be able to tell how long dinner should be in the oven for, how long it will take the police to get to a certain place, or how much we should get paid for every hour we work. I know the concept of time has been debated, but if we really think about it time isn't an illusion, it is the measurement of time that is an illusion; a much needed illusion. Also, I do not understand the argument that the past, present and future does not exist. Yes the past is no more but we know that yesterday did happened and the remnants of that day is em-brazened in our minds. Yes the future hasn't come yet, but we need to know that there is a potential future to actually be productive in the now. I understand the argument that the future isn't a fixed thing and is dependent on actions in the present and therefore the future is said to not exist, HOWEVER, I believe the future exists because for every action there is a reaction. Every action is guaranteed a consequence god or bad which will eventually happened and is therefore only potential in the present, but is sure to bring a future. I think the idea of time and the arguments about it should be cleared up. No matter what time is flowing, wehtehr we are active or keeping still, time is passing and we are getting older to the sure FUTURE of death, which is when time will cease for that particular individual. So my question is, how do you think we would get through everyday life without the existence of the measurements of time?

Response to Blog- Hating

This is a response to Shelby's blog in which she asks, If you envy someone, you dislike them for what they have. However, once you get what they had, would you hate yourself, since the possession was the reason for hating the other person?

I must say that this is an interesting question. I also must say that I don't think that the person would hate themselves for envying the person who had it first. I believe that there is a major selfish nature to humans. People aren't usually satisfied with what they have, we are restless creatures who are always wanting. If one is hungry, and then given something to eatm they are then thirsty, after both hunger and thirst are satisfied, it is then noted that one needs something else. I don't think there is any period of time where any one person is content. I think I am beginning to sound like an existentialist, but existentialism was the first branch of philosophy that I was ever introduced to so I am just going to run with it. I have talked about instant gratification and convenience alot in my blogs. I do believe that human nature is based on that because one, we are always wanting something, and two we have never learned delayed gratification. So to go back to the question, I do not think that there would be one ounce of guilt or hate on the side of the person who envied the other person. I think once the person got the thing that they wanted, they would be delighted with it for a few days (I am really being generous here) and then go on to start wanting something else that someone has and the cycle will repeat itself. I forgot which philosopher it was, but he talked about as a child always wanting to fill holes; holes like our belly button or our mouth so that is why we suck our thumb. We always need to be satisfied and due to this need for satisfaction, it will make us not feel guilt or hate towards ourselves when we get what we want. I also think it depends on what you actually do to get what you want and how much of a conscious you have as a person. With that said, my question is, what determines the capacity of our conscience? What determines how far we will go? 

My Vegetarian Challange

My challenge was to be a vegetarian for one week and I must say that it was hard for me. I went into this with a positive attitude but three days in I got really weary. I unfortunately failed my challenge, but am determined to do it again and succeed this time. I do not know what was hard about it, I just feel that maybe old habits die hard? I think one issue was that I like variety and the only thing that I had access to were garden burgers and vegetables. Other than that being a college student without a kitchen, I couldn't make tofurkey or anything of the sort. I mean for breakfast I would have cereal or oatmeal with fruit and that wasn't a problem. Even during the weekends I go for vegan sausage because they are more delicious than the regular sausage (plus the regular sausage contains pork which I can't eat).  Lunch for me was a bit of an issue but I got around the boring slump by changing my lunch between a garden-burger and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and a tasty elf parlor hummus sandwich. Dinner was my ultimate problem, what do I eat for protein? I know aramark has vegetarian options, but they have more of a non-vegetarian allure than a vegetarian one. What about the pizza you ask? I don't like the stuff, and even though there is plain cheese, there is pizza covered in bacon, chicken, and pepperoni right next to it. I did this challenge because I know a lot of people are passionate about their choice and I want to be open minded. I like to experience something and see things from other peoples point of view. As I said I failed this time around, but I am asking for feedback before I start this challenge over. How can I succeed with the vegetarian challenge and how can I keep my meals interesting?

Response to blog- Pride and needs

This is a response to Becky's blog in which she asks does our pride determine what we feel our needs are and the level of which we feel we deserve? After reading her blog and thinking about it I must say that this is an interesting question. I work really hard, I don't get sleep some nights, and at the end of the day all I want to do is cry because of the massive amount of homework I have to do. Nevertheless, I work hard and I believe that I should get recognition for it and I feel that I deserve to get good grades due to the amount of work I put into my academics. I think many of us think that we are constantly doing our best at something, even though there is no measure of what THE BEST is and that we all deserve something. We take pride in our work and our completed tasks and based on that  we determine that we NEED to be recognized, we NEED a trophy or a certificate, we NEED some sort of material thing that est reflects a job well done. I remember when I was little and I got A's in school my mom would treat me with a new toy or a night out on the town and so I worked had in school; this made me think that every time I  did something right or got a high score I deserved to be treated with something, I needed recognition. It wasn't until my mom brought the harsh reality to me that I should not work hard in school because of the end result, I should work hard in school for the experience that it is giving me and knowing that eventually that I will take knowledge away from my work and not a "night out on the town." I do think pride gets in the way when it comes to people thinking about what they deserve or what they need in order to feel satisfied with a completed task a move on to the next one. It shouldn't be the case, but it true that everyone needs motivation. You can't teach a old dog new tricks unless you have a bone.  And I feel that it is because of pride that people think they deserve something, or that they are entitled to something even if others may not believe it. I, however, am not saying this is completely a bad thing.  With that said, my question is in this modern time, what can we say the basic needs are now?

Enslaved to technology

This past Friday, I sat down at a desk and used a typewriter. It was weird to do so because I grew up in the ae of technology; the age of internet, cell phones, and caller ID. After using the typewriter I quickly called my sister and asked her how the heck did she use a typewriter when she was in school. Looking back at that moment and remembering our discussion yesterday about technology being a basic need, I realized that I have fallen into a technological trap. We have become so dependent on technology, that we can't distinguish it from a need. We live in the age of instant gratification and convenience. I even caught myself today asking my co-worker "How did we ever survive without texting." I admit that I am a slave to technology, that I either need the internet or the TV to keep me entertained or I wouldn't know what to do with myself. I know that I am not the only one who feels this way, but is it OK that we are slaves to technology?  I mean whatever happen to using a map instead of a GPS, playing outside or inside instead of playing video games, or reading the news paper and listening to the radio instead of instantly getting the news on our Iphones. Admit it the reason why we are so dependent on technology is because we are spoiled with it. If we never grew up with it, we would be able to do with out it. I look at the Amish people who do not expose themselves to technology and everything works out just fine for them. They are able to function in everyday society while not being enslaved by a computer or cellphone.  I would love to know what it is like to be free of the balls and chains that binds me to technology, but I find it so hard. With that said, my question is, is it OK that we are slaves to technology?

Response to Blog- Future of Food

This is a response to Sarah's blog where do you think the world is heading diet wise? OK so as I ave stated in one of my posts, I think we are heading towards the jetsons age where food comes in pill form and all you need is water. I mean look at the crap we have to consume, boil-in a-bag rice? instant mac and cheese? instant mashed potatoes? eleven year old Twinkies that are still edible? Like really? none of this stuff is good for us and that is why we have so much health issues and so many strong emotions about health care due to the fact that people are getting sick and it is the food that is killing us. It all revolves around convenience and money, which I think is sad. One fact that I read in Michael Pollan's The Omnivores Dilemma was that we spend so much on flat screen tv's, cars, big sound systems and other material things, but when it comes to our food we have to compromise? I mean yea real organic food is tough on the pocket and rare to come by because there isn't always a local farmers market around, but still people  compromise when it comes to food. It is the compromising that is going to lead to more "convenient" packaged food, and more health issues. I mean if we look at genetic engineering now a days, it is just getting worse and worse. I think the future of food is a bleak one unless we initiate change. We need to support local forms and fight for big industries to become transparent so we can see what is happening with our food. Unless we initiate change it won't happen. On that note, my question is, do you think that convenience and cheapness of food is something to consider even though you are compromising your health?

Envy

I have been thinking a lot lately about the topic that we are currently on,envy. This is something that I have heard a lot of because it is said everywhere that envy is one of the seven deadly sins and that one should always be content with what they have. In the bible it  says " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's." This is the tenth commandment given to Moses by God. We should not envy or want anything that or neighbor has because we should enjoy what we have, even if it is less than our neighbors. This, however, is easier said, than done. No matter what other people have, someone else wants it and that I feel is the basis to why we have so much crime and betrayal in this world. No one is content and no one seems happy with their position, status, or even life. It seems like the basis of this world is to constantly outdo the other person because we must have what they have and we must be better than them. As far as envy goes, I want to pose a question, would you say that envy is this never ending cycle and that it is done unconsciously? Let me explain what I mean, we all see people with statuses we want, we see them with the life we want, and so we envy what they have and strive to be like them, we call these people role models just to put a little bit of icing on the fact that we secretly want their life. So as I asked before, would you say that envy is a never ending  cycle and is something that is done unconsciously sometimes?

Response to Blog- menaing of life for animals

This is response to Becky's post in which she asks the question, what is the meaning of life for animals. Well not to sound corny, but I believe that we are all apart of the circle of life. Animals are born, they grow and use their enviroment, they reproduce, then after a full life they return to the enviroment. In my future of food class, we looked at the cow and how it is a cycle of how it aids the enviroment. The sun contributes to the grass growing through the process of photosynthesis, the cow eats the grass, the cow fertilizes the grass with it's manure, which combines with the sun to grow the grass, which feeds the ow, etc. Animals contribute to the balance of the ecosystem, but I don't think that they know that themselves. I think they just do what they are naturally inclined to do. They hunt when they are hungry,reproduce when it is time, they graze, and they just exist in this symbiotic relationship with the environment and other animals. I don't think they are aware that they are doing what they are doing. They don't know that without their everyday function the earth would be in chaos. It is like us humans, we go on our daily tasks doing what we have to do,  not knowing that in some way or the other we saved someones life or contributed in some special way to the environment. So though animals are not aware that they are here to keep a particular balance, serve as food, or help the ecosystem, they do. With this said my question is, what would the world look like if everyone decided to be a vegetarian?

My Eating Morals and The One Week Challenge

Before I write I just want to write a discliaimer. In no way, am I bashing or mocking the vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. I for one respect people for their lifestyles that they hold and would never mean to force my view on any one.  I am just justifying and trying to bring to light why I choose toeat meat and my understanding of the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle.--------
   I for one love veggie burgers, vegetarian beans, and any natural whole grain food. I know that I myself couldn't be a vegetarian because I also LOVE chicken, turkey( yummm) and fish. You notice I didn't mention beef or pork because I am not a fan of the former and my religion prevents me from eating the latter.  I do eat goat occasionally , but all in all I am not a fan of red meat. I do believe a piece of meat is good for you now and then and a persons diet is all about balance. Everything I believe in extremes is bad for you. Too much meat makes you obese and gives you heart disease, not enough makes you lack essential nutrients like heme-iron that is only found in animals (non-heme is found in veggies but aren't absorbed as well as heme vegetables.)  I think there are two things people need to do in order to have a better life. The first thing is learn moderation, we have adapted this all or nothing attitude, and it is killing us. We have to realize that too much of one thing can have a negative side effect, for instance too much water gives us water poisoning.  After realizing that, next we need to make a choice to really reform the food industry, or in the future there will be no meat eaters or vegetarians, there will only be pill poppers due to genetically modified food in pill form (ever seen the jetsons?) If we take a step to help local farmers and kill industries that serves mystery food on a genetically modified bun, then I feel people would feel more safe about food. We can make the food industry become transparent, so they have no choice but to treat our meat with care and the food that we so heavily avoid now , would be OK to eat. I mean would people change their minds about eating meat if the food industry treated the animals better and took more care of them?  Like I stated before, I am all about health and nutrition and that is why I do pay the extra dollar for a chicken leg at a farmers market.My religion promotes vegetarianism, but doesn't require it and that isn't a choice I think I can make. I do have a challenge for myself though. For 1 week I will try to be a vegetarian, just to see if I can do it, just so I know that I am not being stubborn or close-minded to the idea of it. I don't know,  I feel like a lot of people stay away from meat because of the brutal conditions that the animals are subjected to. I mean is that the case?

Response to Blog: Purpose of joining Frats/and Sorors

This is a response to Becky's question what is the purpose of joining a Fraternty / Sorority. Too be honest I really do not know.  I see these girls walking around like zombies, no makeup, no jewlery and bags that go from their eyes to the ground. They walk slow and can only eat alone or with other pledges. They ge tyelled at, degraded and other things that I have heard. They trick into joining with being nice to you, but as the weeks go on, they turn into monsters. You get no sleep, you get yelled at and this is all because they choose to join.
The only reason I can think of that would make someone want to join is either the fact that they have low self esteem or they feel like they don't belong. They want to be wanted and will do ANYTHING it takes to be loved and apart of a group which I feel is not OK. Belonging to a group shouldn't mean that I have to be physically a mentally tested, but we can't blame the sororities because it is just another social structure/category in life. It you really think about it like is categorized beyond measures. To be an RA or Orientation leader you have to have a certain GPA for them to either consider you and then you are put through process to prove that you can be apart of a team and that you can excel. Same in the job world, you have to prove yourself to people who critique and criticize you and prove that you can "make it." So my question is, is there anything that someone can be apart of without having to prove themselves?

The Philosophy of Trust

I have talked about love, I have talked about loyalty, I think it is fit that I talk about trust. I am going to state my question now, and then again at the end. Why is trust so easily lost and so hard to gain? I, like many people, have been hurt before. Boyfriends have dumped me, parents disappointed me, friends have back-stabbed me etc. As the years  have gone on I have found it harder and harder to trust people because of the amount of hurt that I have been exposed to. I know it is wrong to make others pay for the actions of someone else, however it seems like whenever I do finally open up to someone, Boom! I am shot down again. Is it my fault? Do I have crappy choices in friends and guys? I don't know maybe, but all I know is that recently the topic of trust has been on my mind. As stated before I have been hurt before and it has affected my friendships that I currently have. I have slowly gotten over the pain of being hurt and have opened up more to my friends and have slowly beginning trusting them. Through my relationship with others, I have realized that thee are different levels to trust. For instance, I trust my friends not to talk behind my back, but it will be a few more years before I totally and absolutely trust them with my life. I trust my parents with my life and that is about it, but I still have one more person I trust beyond my parents and that is God, because my parents have let me down  before. I trust my friends with secrets more than I trust an acquaintance. So you get the point of these levels of trust, the thing is I just find it interesting.  The next thing that I find interesting is the amount of time that pasts that enables you to trust someone. I am going to trust someone I have known for years more than a person I have known for days (although this mentality sometimes backfires).  Trust really isn't black and white. It really is a complex topic. So my question again is, Why is it so hard to trust someone and so easy to lose trust?

Response to Blog- Food

This is a response to Dr. Johnson's blog. The food we eat is seriously disgusting. Our meat, when they are alive sit in their own waste, they are given hormones and grain when naturally cows are herbivores and she only be grazing on grass. The one thing that I do want to say though is that not all of our food is like this. Sure a majority is and when you go to McDonalds (especially! when you go to McDonalds) you are eating "mystery meat" in-between your buns. There is no denying that industry has damaged the future of food as we know it.  Remember mad cow disease? It happened because the meat industry (weeks before they killed the cow) forced  the cows to eat the brains and other parts of their sick brother and sister cow.  Yes these ways as well as other ways are slowly poisoning and killing us (like the genetically modified food we eat Go plastic corn!) But what are we doing to escape these ways and find a normal healthy way to eat? There are organic farmers who only grass feed their cows and let them roam the pasture, however they are dying out. They are going further and further into debt because people LOVE instant gratification and was never taught to wait.  It is due to the fact that just eating industrialize food is so convenient that people just decide to die for the food they eat. O YES! and then there is also the factor of cheapness, I mean people can put much deliberation and thought AND money into a new car or new flat screen TV (with surround sound) but when it comes to paying a little extra or spending more time shopping for good food that won't kill you its too much. So with that said, Why is it that people have yet to learn delayed gratification? Why do most of us depend on instant gratification to get through life?

The Philosophy of Being Loyal

Lately, due to recent observations. I have been wondering a lot about loyalty. Exactly what is it and why do people go through desperate lengths to prove their loyalty to something or someone. I understand that recently in class that we have been talking about patriotism, but that is a bit different from what I am talking about. If you have ever read Alexandra Robbin's book Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities, you would understand my concern. If you have even walked around campus and heard the stories of hazing from sororities, you would understand where I am coming from.  Girls and guys degrading themselves to be apart of a sisterhood/brotherhood. Doing things and wearing things that they wouldn't normally do or wear over a certain period of time just to prove their loyalty so they can be accepted by a particular group of people and be labeled "cool and touch." I am sorry but I am not going to ever degrade myself, and sleep with a guy as an initiation into a "club." Neither would I let my "Big sisters" or "Big brothers" dress me up and leave me in the middle of nowhere only to let me find my way back by myself at night. (These are all instances in the book by the way which is a real account of real sororities). Do you know the number of girls (and guys) that have died or been hurt executing these orders put out by their "older pledge masters." I mean of course they are to blame, but the people who put themselves through it are to blame also. Why do the things you are told to do, just to show how "loyal" you are. Then at the end of this period, you wouldn't knwo that these people went through the things they went to because htey are all buddy buddy with the person who at one point in time was calling them ugly fat good for nothings. So with that said What exactly is loyalty and why do people go through such lengths?

Response to Blog - Science vs. Faith

In her blog, Emily asks the question, why does society tend to favor science over faith? 
    I am glad to answer this question because I have asked myself this question many many many many times. I have also had many arguments about this. I have come to the conclusion that people like proof. They love physical sensory evidence and are really skeptical about things that they don't know about or see. To people taking a leap of faith or having faith is equivalent to trusting a stranger with their wallet over trusting a friend. It has also been brought to my attention that people have a safe zone that they don't want to cross. You can find the mozt extroverted person who is willing to try anything once, but when it comes to having faith in the unseen and the unsure that is really out there they quickly retreat back to the known  or they take a step towards the unknown but onjly to a certain extent. Let us take religion for example since this is the most recent argument I have had with someone. I was talking to an acquaintance and they told me that they believe in God, thought Jesus was "cool" but doesn't believe that he existed. When I asked them why they had a lack of faith in the Son of God, they said because the things he did was too nice, "no one could be so perfect" "no one could be that loving and caring." On this response I gave up although now I wish I didn't. You see this particular person is so use to the emotions that they see every day that they can't believe something or in someone that portrays the opposite of what is sensed. Science, though ever changing, presents facts and numbers and figures. Science in short presents hard solid evidence, it is black and white. Having faith requires getting over what people will think of you, and holding on steadfastly. My faith is dear to me and being alive and getting through the day safely without harm is evidence enough I need to know that God is real, (although to the scientific observer it is luck, fate,coincidence...etc.).  With that said, why do people have such trust in science since it is always changing?

Animal rights

        In my future of food course this topic of course came up. The author, Michael Pollan of The Omnivores Dilemma began discussing the topic if animal rights. In the seventeenth chapter of the book, Pollan is reading Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation, while dining on a large piece of steak. Though these two things should not be enjoyed in the same setting, he does this in order to , I feel, spite Singer's argument that animals should not be eaten. This has been a long standing argument and believe it or not many philosophers have debated if animals should be eaten, and if they poses a true soul or do they lack a soul. It is also debated how much alike the animals we eat are to us humans who are also considered animals. The argument Pollan presents is an interesting one because it is a two sided argument. It is like good vs bad, omnivore vs vegetarian etc. On thing that I do want to question though is looking at this philosophically do animals have a soul or are they void of emotion. Many philosophers and scientists have come to the conclusion that the only thing that separates humans from other animals is our concept and understanding of death. We are no different from animals than in this one way. We know that death is coming and that as the days, even hours, pass we are getting closer and closer to death. I am a few minutes older and a few minutes closer to death than when I first started this blog. That is the reason why many people say that it is wrong for us to eat meat, they say that animals are like us in so many ways that eating the animal is like eating another human. Also, it is looked at as morally wrong what the animal has to go through in order to suffice a human's need. Though this is true, I do believe that many people are entitled to their own choice. So, with that said the question I want to ask is, Do you think animals possess a soul or are they void of it and is just a mere "subject of life"?

Response to blog-Beauty vs Confidence

I am responding to Becky-Jo's blog in which she asks" But can we have confidence in ourselves without being beautiful or attractive? Does being thin have anything to do with confidence?"

  It is funny because if you asked me  this question a few yeaers ago I would have said yes that being thin had EVERYTHING to do about confidence. As I grew up,however, and became less naive, I realized that confidence is just being comfortable in your own skin, not lettign what people say affect you and living life according to your own rules. When I was going through my weight-confidence issue, I would look at people who were bigger than me and wonder, how could they live like that, aren't they ashamed. I apologize if this post offends anyone, but I don't think like that anymore. You see, the thing is, I was conditioned to think that being beautiful meant thin, I was told that to be loved I had to be thin and being loved was one of the most important things in my life. Now that I am over the verbal abuse and negative conditioning I received as a child I realize what I believe those full-figured people lived their life by, which is confidence and beauty come from within.  If you have a great personality and are happy with yourself that is all that matters. Beautiful or attractiveness isn't as superficial as people make it out to be or at least it shouldn't be. Confidence, like beauty comes from within, confidence comes from knowing that you are able to make a difference some way or the other/ help people. Many people do make thinness and "attractiveness" rule how they think about themselves and how much confidence they have which shouldn't be the case. Confidence and beauty starts within and then shines through to the surface. This is why they say beauty is skin deep.  With that said, What do you think about the saying Beauty is skin deep and do you believe it?

A Thought from the Heart.

I went to a Valentines Day dance tonight and I had a lot of fun. Not because of the theme, but because I just needed time to just dance all my stress away and socialize. As time passed, however, I found my mood getting lower and lower and I knew why.  It was the theme and the sight of all the couples together, dancing, holding hands, laughing and smiling. It is interesting, I know, to get my inspiration for my post from  a dance but the question I want to ask is, what is love? How do we know when we are in love?  When I am talking about love, I am talking about the kind of love that is indescribable, the kind of love that needs no words and that can really move mountains. I am not talking about the kiddie kind of love or sexual infatuation because we all know that people say I love you only to get in people's pants now a days. I am not searching for love, but sometimes, especially around now I find myself thinking about it, because eventually I want to be in it. How do we know when we are in love with someone ? How do we know this thing we call love is real? Is love dead? Is there no such thing anymore? I know I am asking so many questions and I know I can't get them all answered, but I guess the main thing I really want to know is, what is love and how do we know we are in it?

Response to Blog- Subjects

In what way has math been constructed by humans? Also, I think we tend to value natural, inherent things over the "constructed". Why is that? Is something not true just because it was constructed?

I am writing in response to Emily's blog in which she poses the above questions. In her blog she says that she prefers Math and Science of History and English because History and English seemed constructed and Math and Science is black and white. Though this is a great view I do have to disagree. I mean Science is ever changing and is not a topic that you can set in stone. One minute they say scientists have discovered that this causes cancer and the next minute it is said that that same thing that caused cancer actually prevents cancer. If any subject is constructed by man I would have to say science is number one on the list. As far as history goes, we don't know if the things that happened really did, I mean did WWI really happen or did the people of that generation just plot and decided to say it did because they were bored. The only history we truly know and truly can say happened is the history we lived through. I mean my kids may not believe me when I say to them that on my way to school one day in 2001  planes crashed into a NYC landmark and brought them down. Why should they believe me? As far as math goes, I mean who is to say that 2+2=4. All I know is that if I have two donuts and you give me two more I will be one happy person with 4 donuts.  But then this goes back to the discussion we had in class concerning the usage of numbers. The number system was made by humans so do numbers really exist outside of what we call them? Is two really two? Honestly, I think all subjects and all rules are constructed by humans and there is a flaw in almost everything. It is just up to us to believe what we feel is close to the truth. I believe truth is defined by people and the definition varies from person to person. Something isn't not true because it is constructed it just goes back, I feel, to what we are each willing to believe.

My question is when dealing with subjects in school and college how much faith should we put into our teachers/professors to lead us the right way?

Humble Humility

One of my favorite things about the subjects of life is that they all seem to intertwine. I am in a class called the future of food and we are reading a book entitled The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan. While reading this book I cam across a sentence that I found to be really interesting. The sentence said, "When poets liken people to blades of grass, it's usually to humble us, to pull the rug out from under our individuality and remind us of our existential puniness." I know this is more of a nature of human nature topic, but I found it to be a very interesting quote. People aren't aware of how small and powerless we all are. When we compare ourselves to nature, we want to be a fierce animal or a tall mighty tree, but never anything simple like a blade of grass. People want to be a whole forest than just one little tiny thing.  From time to time one may get a person that likens themselves to a humble creature such as an ant or a butterfly, but even those are movable creatures.  No one ever realizes that mankind isn't that great, I mean yea there have been a lot of cool inventions, and great discoveries, but other than that, outside of that what else are we. We are a bundle of cells, tissues and organs all neatly packed together by God to carry out His will. Why can't we just realize the reality and truth of the matter and humble ourselves?

Does the United States owe Haiti as Quigley states or do we owe them in the sense of charity?

I am responding to William Trial's blog in which he poses the above question. To be honest, sure one can dwell on the past and point fingers and say, hey remember when you invaded my country a long time ago you owe me now that I need your help. Personally, I never look for anything in return or sympathy when someone has done something wrong to me. In other words, if someone has wronged me in the past that is in the past, I am not going to play the guilt card and be like well you know you stole my chair or you kicked me in the leg now you owe me. I feel like the "remember when" game is childish and that just shows that some people aren't able to get over things and hold a grudge. As far as US and Haiti relation go, I feel like the U.S. may bring up the past and help haiti not only for chairty but also to say "hey here is a peace offering." Not everyone can get over a trauma or maybe it is just the fact that the US hates having another country against it,(although that isn't stopping them from starting wars with other countries.) I can't really give this question a yes or a no, I just know how I handle situations when I have been wronged. I feel like we owe them charity and a helpful hand in their time of need and it will just make unneccessary problems to bring up history. History should be history and thats that.
My question is, when it comes to history how much have we constructed ourselves and how much actually happened?

Faith and Philosophy

On  thing I am wondering is where does faith play a role in philosophy? I mean we will discuss truth and the different kinds of truth, but when it comes to faith in something, does truth really matter. For example, I am a Christian and I have faith in the Bible and in God, to me the Bible and my faith is true but what is true to me may not be true to others.  There are many atheist and agnostics out there, and even they have faith but they have faith that there is no God. In this search for truth, I feel like we can only get so far because everyone has their own capacity and knowledge of what truth is, the rest is just faith. When we talk about truth, I feel the truth that is talked about is mainley correspondence truth, for example "The Sky is Blue." We know that the sky is blue because we physically see that the sky is blue. So my question is as stated in the beginning what role does faith play in phlisophy?