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.