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?