Ah, love.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about love lately and how it fits into human nature. What is love really and what gives humans the capacity for it in a way that other animals don't have? These are huge questions that will probably take me a lifetime to answer. We haven't really touched on the subject too much in class, probably because many of us don't have too much experience with it. But I think it's worth mentioning even if we don't have any experience with love at all. Here, I'm talking about the romantic kind of love, the Nicholas Sparks kind. Most of us have at least loved vicariously through books or movies and probably have some idea of what love is or at least should be. Those of us who have experience with love have probably found (at least I know I have) that love is really not too much like the books and the movies and is probably a lot different from what we thought it should be when we were little.

The most basic question is, of course, what is love? An 8 year old would probably tell you it's getting butterflies and chasing someone around the playground, a teenager would tell you it's about not being able to function without the other person, and an adult may say that it's a commitment that you make to a person everyday no matter how much you might like them. I would tell you that love is when you care for someone so much that you want them to be happy even if that happiness doesn't have a single thing to do with you, even if it means losing the person. What I know of love is brief and I've got miles to go before I sleep on the subject, but I can say that I believe it is the most unselfish, difficult, and impossibly possible act in the world. It's paradoxically loving yourself enough to allow someone to love you back while being willing to, at a moments notice, sacrifice yourself completely for someone else. I think love is a zillion miles past falling in love with someone. It has nothing whatsoever to do with jealousy or rules. It's everyday and it's not easy, but it's worth it. It hurts just as much as it makes us happy. It's extensively flawed and fragile, but it's sort of all we have. Can it last forever? I cannot even begin to answer this question. I certainly hope that it can, but I don't think that is something that we can ever know. I hope that there is that one person out there that we're supposed to be with, but who knows? I think it's more likely that every person we're with is who we're supposed to be with, for whatever amount of time we're lucky (or unlucky) enough to spend with them. This goes along, of course, with destiny, a subject that I won't get into here...

How does love fit into the theories of human nature that we have studied this semester? We have certainly determined that people are social creatures who somehow always come up with some kind of hierarchical structure to live by. Perhaps love is just a result of those two elements of human nature. We desire to relate to someone so we pick someone to make extra special to us and say that we love them. To scientists, love is just an insane dopamine level. For whatever reason, humans are able to love and feel compassion in ways that no other beings can. Perhaps this is what has allowed us to advance in ways that other species have been unable to do. If there is a universal human nature, maybe it is that we all have the capacity and desire for love. I hate to bring him up yet again, but even Hitler had a wife.

There are a million more questions that I have about love in all of its various forms. But here, I'll ask you just one: How do you think love fits into destiny in relation to soul mates and what exactly does that kind of love entail?


And as a last thought, because I cited him above, here's a quote:
"But now, alone in my house, I have come to realize that destiny can hurt a person as much as it can bless him, and I find myself wondering why - out of all the people in all the world I could ever have loved - I had to fall in love with someone who was taken away from me."
~Nicholas Sparks, Message In A Bottle

Response to "Human Nature."

Tyson asked the question: Can all human beings be classified by some sort of universal human nature, or is the idea of one inaccurate to some?

At the beginning of this class I thought that I had a good idea of my views on human nature, or at least a basic foundation. I have never been more wrong about anything. I was guilty of trying to group humanity together and slap a label on who we really are. The truth is, human nature isn't some pretty bow that we can tie around everyone. There will always be some people who do not fit into even the most basic idea of human nature. I left myself out of my own theory of human nature when I said that everyone in inherently selfish. That isn't how I see myself. In all honesty, I probably only see other people that way so that I'm less disappointed when people act selfishly. Why do we continue to try and figure out a universal human nature when we've all taken a class and discovered that we all see human nature differently. The fact that we all have different opinions on our nature is evidence in itself that we cannot all be the same. I think the only thing that we can say about human nature is that people are fallible and do things to avoid that fallibility in whatever ways they see fit.


My question: What do you think about this quote from The Great Gatsby: "Everyone suspects himself of at least one of the cardinal virtues, and this is mine: I am one of the few honest people that I have ever known." Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Response to "The Art of War."

In Josh's blog he asked the question, "Why should we prepare for war in peace and prepare for peace in times of war?"

I think what Sun Tzu meant by this is that people should be prepared for anything. We have to remember that this was written in a time of constant struggle for power and territory. If a country was not prepared for anything and everything to happen they could be easily defeated. I think it's important for us to prepare for peace in times of war because we often put aside our ability for compassion and unity in times of war. We have to, or we'd never be able to fight anyone. If there is any hope for a resolution in war we have to make gradual steps toward peace. We should prepare for war in peace if for no other reason than to protect ourselves from the inevitable. Wars happen, we might as well be ready. A person who believes that we can reach true peace would disagree with Sun Tzu saying that we must be preparing for war in peace. Is there really a need to be continually preparing for war in a world in which we no longer continually struggle (at least not violently) for territory or hegemony? Most people would probably agree that a country must be able to defend itself, but some would say that the country should not be continually readying itself for war.

My question is: do you think there will ever be a world in which war does not exist?

Response to "Rambling"

This blog is in response to Jillian's question: Its difficult sometimes for me to truly grasp the infinitude of time and space. When thinking about space, I always raise the question, "well, whats beyond that?" My question for you is, How do you deal with or comprehend the infinitude of both time and space? Do you ever think about it?

I think more about time being infinite than I do about space being infinite. I suppose that's because I know that space is probably infinite and doesn't really effect me personally, but I know that my time is not infinite. I find it equally difficult to think of being "alive" or lasting forever and not lasting forever. I think it's extremely different for humans to think of a time when we will no longer exist. It's hard enough to picture our lives in fifty years, let alone forever. I happen to believe that there is something beyond this life, but it seems like there must even be something beyond that. In a life in which everything ends and is constantly changing, it seems impossible to grasp the idea of forever. Trying to imagine things not going on forever seems strange too. Imagining not imagining is almost impossible.

For those of you who don't believe in a afterlife, how do you comprehend the infinitude of time?

Exceptions

When I wrote my Q&A on my view of human nature I wrote about how I view people as being inherently selfish beings who only seek to do good if it is beneficial to them or makes them feel good about themselves in some way. The same day that I wrote the Q&A I was in the shower when I heard someone getting violently sick in one of the stalls next to me (it was the middle of the day, so I highly doubt that the girl was drunk.) I should tell you here that I have a pretty extreme fear of getting sick and usually avoid sick people at all costs. However, at that moment I seriously considered getting out of the shower and going to help the girl. Why would I do this? There would have been no reward for me to help her. In fact, I probably would have gotten sick. For whatever reason, I found myself feeling strongly that I should help the girl out. I should also mention that I don't exactly care for most of the girls on my floor. I think what Professor Johnson said in class now holds some weight for me: people just have some natural inclination to help each other out.

Have you ever wanted to help someone even if the consequences could be negative for you?

Response to Kelsey's Question

Kelsey asked, "Do you think that there parts of us that never change or is who we are constantly in flux?"

I think that it all depends on certain aspects of your life. There are small personality traits that seem to never change, but that is probably because they are so small that those traits aren't effected by most of the things in life. There are a lot of aspects that make up who we are that do change depending on what happens to us in life, if we realize it or not. We never notice those changes until we look back and can't believe how different we were a few years ago. When we're young there are so many things that change who we are, simply because we are young. That's not saying that older people aren't changed by the things that happen to them, but they are usually more confident in who they are and where they want their life to go. I think it's important to allow elements of our personality to change. The truth is, you're probably going to change in some way whether you like it or not. Fighting every single change to who we are would be a waste of energy. There are some things, however, that I think are important to fight for such as your moral standards. Being human and therefore imperfect, it's often difficult to hold to what we think is right. I don't think that who we are is constantly in flux but I also don't think that we never change. Everything changes because it has to.

My question is: What do you think Darwin would say on this issue?

Expelled

I also recommend that everyone watch this, especially if you aren't religious. It's a good representation of the other side, not just bigots spouting unintelligent theology.

Tangibility

In class someone said that God makes people feel insignificant because God is not tangible. It has been my experience that most people who believe in God feel the exact opposite way. Believers do not feel alienated by the idea of an intangible God, they feel comforted that there is someone out there that cares about them. God is only intangible in the sense that one can never become God (but honestly, who would want that job?) One of the basic idea of Christianity is that there is a small spark of God inside of us all. For this reason, I think, people will continue to believe in God even when science can answer all--or at least most--of our questions. Science can never make people feel safe or looked after when things go badly in their lives. By definition, science is void of emotion. Also, there will always be people who refuse to believe scientific fact because it goes against their theological theories. It seems like most of the people that the class have encountered accept the theory of evolution as fact. This is a strange and welcome thing for me. In the south, most people (I'd say at least 85%) do not accept the theory of evolution as fact at all. Many people still hold to the idea of some form of intelligent design. Convincing people that their God "lied" (in a way) is extremely difficult if not impossible. There will always be the God of the gaps because if need be, people will create those gaps. Hopefully, as people progress, religion will become less about seemingly mythical ideals and more about fact and faith. I think that this can only happen if people on both sides of the argument keep an open mind and respect the idea of a each other. We have to remember that people are the ones that come up with theories, both religious and scientific, and people are fallible.

My question is: Do you think that religious people will ever come to completely accept all scientific fact.

Response to "Destiny"

I do happen to believe that everyone has some purpose in life. Life seems all too important for me to say that everyone is just here by accident, bumping into each other on occasion for no reason. I'm not sure if we have preset paths to follow. I think we control the things that happen in our lives, but I find it interesting that things always seem to work out even when we think it's all over. I don't think destinies have to be something big and grand. You don't have to impact the world to have a destiny. I don't think that's my destiny. If destiny does exist at all, I think it has more to do with doing the best that we can with what happens to us. Destiny means loving some people and learning some stuff for the brief amount of time that we're here. I don't think you can ever know your destiny except in hindsight, which (to me) makes it kind of beautiful in a weird way. So, no, I don't know what my purpose is but I'm sure that I have one, however small it may be.


And just because I have to:

How Simone Feels

"One's life has value so long as one attributes value to the life of others, by means of love, friendship, indignation and compassion."
-Simone de Beauvoir


Note that she is talking about social relationships with others, not radical freedom, making life meaningful.

Radical Freedom

Early Sartre placed extreme emphasis on radical freedom and the ability for one to make choices using that freedom regardless of one's place in life or one's surroundings. Of course, we know that doing that would be impossible (because we now know that we are not conscious of everything that we do and the reasons why we do it) and Sartre himself later denounced this so called "radical freedom" unaffected by our surroundings. The later Sartre still believed in the freedom (and necessity) to choose for oneself, but he recognized that certain aspects such as our surroundings or economical places in life effect the way in which we use our freedom, like it or not. I do wonder, though, what the world would look like if all people used their "radical freedom" that Sartre states we are born with. Sartre thought that if we all reached the point of leaving our anguish behind that we would have somewhat of a Marxist utopia where everyone can make their choices and do whatever they want without consequence of society. While I do find the idea of Sartre and Marx's utopia, I have to ask if that could ever really work.
Some people, using their radical freedom, would choose to do immoral things that would obviously effect society. If someone used their freedom to kill your brother if would effect you even if they thoroughly thought things through and claimed responsibility for them. Even things that are not as extreme as that example would effect everything in one's life as well as the lives of the people around them. Humans are social creatures that are highly aware of those around us because it is in our nature to be so. Take love for example. If someone that you're involved with decides, through their own free choice, to go have a relationship with someone else, it will probably adversely effect your life. Sartre would have highly disagreed with me there.
Using Sartre (and his wife, Simone de Beauvoir) as an example, one could argue that radical freedom is suited for some people and not others. Sartre and his wife maintained an open marriage, which they were both allegedly happy with. It would appear that they each made free choices without regard for the other and were able to maintain a happy, lifelong partnership in doing so. However, I do not think that those who are not completely devoted to the existentialist cause could truly follow such a life. Most people are too highly effected by the choices of those around us. This leads me to ask:

Do you think that you could be a true existentialist? Is radical freedom suited for everyone, or a select few?

Facebook Ideology and the Power of Lables

I will admit that once upon a time (about six months ago) my facebook political views said, "Socialist." I got a lot of backlash at school for posting such a horrible, horrible thing on my facebook page. Didn't I know that communism just doesn't work?! We've all read the chapter on Marx, so there's no need to go into a discussion about true communism here, so back to the point. I defended my decision to post that political ideology by saying that I had been driven to extremes by the staunch conservative/capitalist attitudes around me. This would imply that I was an extremist for being a socialist, which is false. I see no extremism in challenging the capitalism that has failed us time and time again. I made an excuse so that people wouldn't label me as some crazy Marxist, but wasn't that exactly what I was? If I'm crazy for believing in a little bit of economic equality then so be it. I think that we need to stop looking at socialism as the enemy here. I find it laughable that we are still influenced by the propaganda of the Cold War and the Red Scare. We should all be able to embrace whatever social/political ideology that we truly believe in.
Professor Johnson pointed out that labels strongly effect the way that we see someone before we ever really look at them. I can think of many times that I have formed opinions on people due to the way that others described them. Unfortunately, the words that people use carry connotations that none of us can avoid, no matter how good of a person that we are.

My question is: Do you ever think there will be a time that labels will no longer matter?

Response to "Vegetarianism."

Skyla's question was: What, in our human nature, allows us to eat slaughtered animals even though it really isn't necessary?

Basically, survival. Back when humans were hunter/gatherers living in small bands they needed the occasional game to sustain them for longer periods of time than plants can. That tradition developed along with human society. What in our nature allows us to kill another thing when we don't really need to is a mystery to me. Some people, such as myself, could never kill another animal, but I can certainly eat one and enjoy it. This is extremely hypocritical. As Catherine Anne Porter said in one of her essays, "Morally, if I wished to eat meat I should be able to kill the animal--otherwise it appeared that I was willing to nourish myself on other people's sins." However, I know that I could kill an animal if my survival depended on it. I can even see the potential appeal in doing so. Perhaps our arrogance in thinking that we are above nature for being human is what enables us to kill and eat other animals. Most of the animals that we kill and eat pose no threat to us and we could certainly live on plants alone and supplements. So why don't we? I don't think that humans have advanced enough to abandon such an integral part of being human. We continue to relish being on top of the food chain. I think that so long as we see ourselves as being superior to animals we will continue to kill and eat them.

Human Arrogance

The thing that I have found most interesting in all of the theories of human nature that we have been reading is to separate our animal needs from our human nature. Are the phiosophers that think this suggesting that we are above nature simply by being human? Are we not animals at all? Religious thought suggests that humans are God's greatest creation, so of course we are above nature in the eyes of God. But then why do we have these animal needs at all? Many of our most basic instincts are animalistic. Without those inherent qualities humans would have gone extinct years ago. I think that it's important that we look at ourselves as people as well as animals. However, this could cross into making excuses for doing bad things and blaming it on being animalistic. There must be a good balance to realizing our humanity and keeping in our minds that we are not above nature itself.


Do you think that we will ever be able to overcome our animal needs and desires? Do we need to?

Response to "Human Competition."

Skyla's question was, "What would life be like if there was absolutely NO competition?"

Having zero competition in life sounds like a great idea, but I'm not sure that it could ever work. It is in our nature to be competitive. Even if most of us could put aside our selfishness and learn not to be competitive I don't think that everyone could. It would only take a few people to bring the whole system crashing down. That said I think that we've reached a degree of competition that concentrates power in the hands of fewer and fewer people (capitalism). I'm hopeful that someday we'll find a way to reach a balance of competition that will be beneficial for everyone, but for now that doesn't seem realistic. I don't think that we will ever be able to eliminate competition from our nature entirely, but there has to be a way to guide that competition in a more productive, less destructive direction.

Rousseau

In an interesting twist of thought, Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that the development of civilization has in a way "enslaved" people. To Rousseau, our natural happiness has been taken away by civilization and unnatural inequalities have developed as a result. Most people would argue that the more civilized we become the more inequalities fall away. Of course, we have to keep in mind the time frame that Rousseau was writing (pre-revolution France). I wonder, then, if Rousseau would have held those same beliefs if he lived and wrote today. I think that he probably would, considering all of the inequalities that are still evident around the world and even in America. It is also interesting to consider whether or not Rousseau would be in favor of communism. Here I am talking about TRUE communism, not the socialism that we have seen develop in parts of the world and call itself communism. It seems that Rousseau would love the idea of having no government at all, of having no need for one. Rousseau may argue with Marx that such a state would be idea for the elimination of inequalities and the increase of "natural" happiness and freedom. However, Rousseau also says, "It is unnatural for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized and united for specific action, and a minority can." Rousseau makes it difficult (if not impossible) to say what his ideal form of society would look like by contradicting himself.


My question is, do you think Rousseau would have leaned more toward the idea of a Philosopher King society or a Marxist society?

Response to "All Sinners to go Heaven."

Skyla asked the extremely personal question: What constitutes as your religion and what beliefs do you have that are unique to other religions of the world?

Like Skyla, I like to think of myself as someone that does not share a religion with any particular group. I call myself a Christian simply for my belief in Jesus as the Son of God and I call myself a Protestant because I despise church and you can't really be too Catholic without it. Other than that I can't say that I have had too much in common with any Christians that I've talked with. I don't buy the creation story, but I do believe in intelligent design of some sort. I absolutely believe in evolution and scientific fact holds more weight in my mind than religious text of any sort. I don't take every word of the Bible as fact, I actually take very little of it as fact. Most of the time when I talk with other Christians about their beliefs I wonder if we have read the same Bible or not. I think that God loves you even if you're a gay black Buddhist. Hatred is in no way part of my personal Christianity and I think my Jesus would be ashamed of most Christians today. As my best friend loves to say, "Jesus loves the people you hate." My belief in "hell" is something that I'm still cultivating. I can't seem to bring myself to say that people like Hitler (to bring him up yet again) are sipping tea with Jesus, so there must be a hell. At the same time, I refuse to believe that good people like Gandhi were cast into the lake of fire simply because they weren't Christian. My mother, an agnostic of sorts, believes that everyone goes to heaven, but that they're not the same people as they were on earth. She thinks heaven in like earth in the sense that there is a structured society that's something like reincarnation to the Hindu's. The people who lived the best lives that they could are rewarded and those that weren't so good are their "servants" of sorts. I like to imagine Hitler serving my mom (the agnostic) and Jesus (the Jew) milk and cookies. Perhaps my mom has it right, or maybe Skyla does. I suppose that I find comfort that crappy people will be getting theirs however Jesus sees fit (again, the Hitler image). I believe that we must all have some purpose for living, be it big or small. I believe in both destiny and free will. To me, God sounds like "Fix You" and tastes like mint chocolate chip ice cream. God is the Costa Del Sol in June. It's getting caught in the hail after you've gotten a B on the paper you worked your ass off on and being able to laugh about it all. My God isn't about rules and regulations, but figuring it all out as you go along. Life isn't some multiple choice test and eternity isn't pass or fail. God's a beautiful gray area. There has to be more to it than "right" and "wrong" or "sinner" and "saint." I think there's "human" and "God" and that we're more connected than we can ever hope to understand.


My question is: For those of you who don't believe in God or heaven, what do you think happens when we die? Do you believe we have souls?

Question Everything

In class last week we talked about the "philosophy" of the Bible, if there is such a thing. Up until this point in the class religious views of the philosophers we have studied were minimal if there were any at all. Their polytheistic beliefs did not make it too far into their philosophy. This leads me to wonder why monotheism promps such devotion among human beings. I think perhaps that we want to feel like we're not alone in the world and most people find comfort in knowing, or at least believing, that there is something else out there, perhaps anything else. Our ability to wonder about things like no other animal in a way makes us very lonely. We are in a constant fight to figure out what is wrong and what is right, what we should do and shouldn't. I think that each one of us feels like there are things about us that nobody else will ever understand. What a lonely life of misunderstanding we live. I think, then, that it is only natural to look to something beyond human beings in the hope that there is some reason for this misunderstanding among us. There must be someone, or something, that understands the smallest things that make us who we are. If there is not, what's the point? Why even bother wondering about huge questions unless someone out there has the answer? No matter how far we advance as a race we will always have questions that remain unanswered. In class we called this the "God of the gaps." People fill in God where they cannot find answers. We look back on the Greek Gods and laugh at how they seriously thought that those Gods could have existed. Are we doing the same thing? Are we just filling in God for all of the answers. The more we know, the less of God(s) we need, thus monotheism. Will God ever cease to be important and the human race become completely secular? I don't think so. I think that even with all of the answers we have to look beyond ourselves for something more, something bigger, something that we cannot ever understand and perhaps are not meant to. Ignorance is bliss, after all.


Do you think what religion people grow up around ultimately influences what God they believe in. For example, do you think if the Christians that grew up in America had grown up in Iran would be Muslims today?

Response to Mary Marcil's question.

Mary asks, "When there is a friendship that just flows smoothly and is enjoyed without struggle, can it ever truly flourish?"

I don't think that friendship in any way requires struggle to flourish, particularly not loose friendships. I have some people that I consider "good friends" and they are just that because there has been no struggle (or very little) between us. My definition of a flourishing friendship with a "good friend" is one in which (as someone said in class today) months can pass in between conversations but when you do reconnect it feels like no time has passed at all. I think these kinds of friendships are particularly special simply because, for whatever reason, we have found someone that we feel undeniably and permanently connected to. This kind of friendship may not flourish extravagantly, but it does indeed leave a lasting impression on the people who are in the friendship. That simple fact in itself is enough, to me, to constitute a flourishing friendship.
When it comes to best friends, though, I think that flourishing is a little different. Anyone that we care that deeply for we are bound to piss off at some point. Perhaps we feel that we owe our best friends our deepest honesty and sometimes they just don't want to hear it. Or maybe we love that person so much that we give them tough love for their own sake. In that sense, I think that struggle is inevitable in that type of friendship, but is it necessary? No. I think it just comes with the territory of caring deeply about a person's well being and not always about hurting their feelings. On that note, best friends also have to know when to lessen the grip on the friendship. It has to be somewhat flexible or it will break under all of the pressure.
In short, I think that some friendships learn a lot and are strengthened through struggle, but other friendships flourish precisely because there is no struggle. It all depends on the type of friendship and the type of person that you are friends with.

Beautiful Messes

In class we talked about the advantages and disadvantages of compartmentalizing. Aristotle was known as the great compartmentalizer of all time. Some look at this quality and see a really smart guy. I do agree that Aristotle was far ahead of his time, but I don't want to automatically label him a genius here. If Aristotle were such a genius, then I think he would have realized all of the things that he was missing when he placed everything into it's own little compartment, never to be heard from again. When it comes to pure science, it is nice to have everything in its proper place. It would be nearly impossible to learn Biology without compartmentalization. When it comes to humanity, however, I think that we have to be very careful how we go about filing information.
Humans are a vast and complicated species. There are too many kinds of people in the world for us all to fit into neat little slots. It is easy to say that humans break down into groups such as gender, national identity, ethnic identity, and even cultural subgroups built into ethnic identity. Even the most sub-sub-sub group of classification, however, is bound to leave somebody out. There are always things about us that are not shared with individuals of our own "group" that may be shared with someone from a different group. So, then, I think that it's important to realize how much we lose when we just throw people into compartments to be sorted. We miss the subtle nuances of one another through classification.
Also, compartmentalizing places or periods of our lives can be dangerous. We're in college. It's time to grow up, cut the cord, learn to stand on our own two feet. But does that have to happen just because we are in college. What does furthering our education have to do with distancing yourself from the relationship that you had with the family? I think it is more a natural inclination to say that when we each, on a personal level, feel the need to leave home and start our own lives then we should do just that. The act of doing so shouldn't be compartmentalized by simply saying that you're in college. Also, just because one leaves the home does not (and should not) have to mean that one leaves behind one's family. There is a way to have one foot in both worlds.


My question is: Can you think of a time when people gain more than we lose through compartmentalization?

Response to "Collectivism V. Individualism"

Joshua posted this question in his blog: "What does the world need for it to better itself a philosopher-king or a sage?"

My answer is neither. This whole "ideal" person as a ruler thing probably wouldn't work in our world. I think that sages are too moral to function well in politics and philosopher-kings would probably just look down on everyone. Some would say that if we made reforms in politics so that it was less manipulative then we could have a sage as a leader. I say that while this seems like a great idea, it's probably a bit too Utopian to actually work. I think the only way to better ourselves is to realize that we're all human, and that by definition we are all imperfect beings. We don't need someone who has already transcended their own humanity to lead us. I think that we need a leader very much aware of their own flaws that it willing to work toward being better with the people of society. Working together is the only way that we're ever going to make any progress. If you take the head of society out of that equation it makes it more difficult to foster national or global connectivity, thus eventually pitting us against one another and undermining the process entirely. Perhaps once we reach moral perfection or supreme intelligence as a whole we can have a sage or a philosopher king as a ruler, but then being a sage or a philosopher-king would be pointless because everyone would be. Essentially, I believe that the best way to be governed is by someone who is at least somewhat our equal.

Money doesn't buy happiness?

I couldn't resist. Fast forward to 1:35.

"Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains."

In our review of what Plato thought of the Utopian society a comment was raised regarding whether or not democracy places power in the wrong hands. Plato thinks that democracy absolutely places power in the wrong hands. He would argue that common people, most of whom are only moderately educated at best, cannot know what is best for society. My first reaction as an American is to say NO! I absolutely want a say in my government! Then that leads me to question what determines if we fall under the "common" umbrella or not. For the most part, when we think of common America we think of the middle class. This is a monetary measure of commonness. Of course, money and social standing effect the ways in which we think and act, like it or not. There are exceptions to that rule, but for the sake of keeping this blog fairly short I'll leave those out. So, in assuming that the middle class is the only criteria for the "common" people, it must be noted that the middle class offers a wide range of educated people. Can this diverse group make decisions that impact everyone in society? In my opinion, they are the only people that can effectively make decisions for society.
To answer the question, I do not think that democracy, at least not representative democracy, places power in the wrong hands. If we handed power to an educated elite, it may be difficult for them to understand the plights of the middle and lower classes, thus hindering their ability to rule. On the other side of the argument, if power were placed in the hands of the lower classes it may be impossible to pass more intricate laws. It is arguable that if power were in the hands of the lower classes that there would be more equality, as I'm sure Marx would agree. But we have seen, with the fall of the Soviet Union and with communist China now looking beyond Marx's theory, that complete equality comes at a heavy price. It sounds like a terrible thing to say, but a well functioning state appears to have need of some inequality to effectively function. In my opinion, the best way to ensure some equality and the efficiency of the state is to place power in the hands of the middle classes, the way that representative democracy often does.


Question: Based on your personal view of human nature, will it ever be possible to have complete equality in a state? Why or why not?

Response to "Questioning Benevolence."

Response # 1.

In Skyla's blog she posted the question "Can you think of anyone on this planet that represents benevolence to the very highest extent? Is there such thing as a human being who is truly and completely benevolent? If so, what makes them this way?"

I would love to say that I can think of a hundred people, or even a handful, that I can say live up to the Confucian idea of benevolence, but that would be a lie. Christians, such as myself, would say that Jesus is the only truly benevolent person that has ever lived. Because of His benevolence, and the sacrifice of it, we have no need to strive for complete benevolence. Yes, it is the idea that we strive to be "Christ-like" or "benevolent", but we can never fully become as such. If we could, there would be no need for Christ at all, thus undermining the basis of that faith. I digress.

Skyla's question wasn't a religious one per se, so I'll attempt to answer the question in a more secular sense. In my opinion, the trait of benevolence is over rated. I think that if we all fully reached benevolence we would be a very dull race. It is our flawed nature that make us beautiful and diverse. I also don't attempt to see benevolence as moral perfection. Doing onto someone as you would have them do onto you doesn't necessarily constitute moral perfection. Benevolence is a great thing to strive for, but it's just not realistic.

Therefore, I choose to view benevolence as the fight against indifference. Living in the most privileged country in the world somewhat hinders Americans in our fight against indifference. It is so easy to forget that there are people starving in the world, in our own country. We hear about things like ethnic conflicts in other parts of the world. No matter how sorry we feel for those people, it is extremely difficult to truly put that suffering into perspective. Thus, we forget those people as we lead our own lives relatively free of suffering. I think that the people who refuse to forget, who face tragedies that would otherwise be forgotten are the true sages of our day. Those people have, in my opinion, reached the only kind of benevolence that is actually attainable.

Self...ish?

We spent a good deal of class yesterday discussing the possibility of being inherently good, bad, or a tabula rasa. I would like to explore the possibility that human beings are none of those previously mentioned. My personal first reaction is to say that humans are selfish by nature. We desire only the things that are beneficial to us. An example would be doing charity work. It seems like a perfectly selfless and noble thing to do, but we only do it because it makes us feel good. Confucius knew that our motivations play an extremely important role in our nature as human beings. Confucius stated (roughly) that if your motivations are not good then the action is meaningless. I would disagree with him in that respect. A selfish action may be meaningless when attempting to reach benevolence, but in a not so benevolent world, all actions have meaning. Some self motivated things that people do promote good things for others. An example would be Walmart. This is a corporation that helps consumers "save money" and "live better" but they are ultimately in business to make money. Walmart is the largest retailer in the world and it did not become so through benevolence. I want to steer away from saying that people are "bad" because they are self motivated. If self motivation was removed from human nature, we would have no goals, no ambition. The technological, social, and economic advancement of our race may very well hinge on selfishness.

My question for this blog is: If people were-hypothetically-truly good and selfless beings, what would happen to us as a race? Would we continue to advance as we have?