My final post "Gender differences"

In our final class we discussed the possibilities of born gender differences vs society causing these differences. We discussed the role testosterone plays in aggressive behavior. We also talked about how testosterone levels may be different in males and females due to gender differences caused by society over years. To me if testosterone causes aggression, and males are currently being born with more testosterone "and have been as far back as we know, although I am open to the possibility this could potentially change in the future, although I don't think it will" Then I don't understand how how one can deny that there are natural born personality differences, and that social situations only add on to these. I do believe that society causes these natural differences to grow, but I believe there are some differences before society plays its role.

Response to "Conception"

I agree with you in that it seems silly to believe nothing exists if we aren't observing it. From a philosophical standpoint it makes a lot more sense to say that we can't be 100% sure something exists if we are not currently perceiving it, rather than just assuming if we can't perceive it it must not exist. The assumption that something does not exist because it is not in our perception seems foolish.

Respnse to "excuses for God"

I completely agree with you in that philosophers basically contradict all of there views by inserting God. They come up with theories almost completely based on logic, and when they come to a question they can not answer they just insert God into the equation. It seems as though frustration for not being able to solve a problem is eased by just saying "God knows" or "It is the work of God" While I do not oppose those who believe in God, and I believe there are some good reasons to want to believe in God, I find it to  be an easy way out for a philosopher who can't find an answer.

Memes to Genes?

When examining the concept of memes proposed by Darwin I was wondering if these led to evolution. Do memes facilitate natural selection? Is this this one of the basis for choosing which physical traits will succeed. Are those who don't follow memes weeded out? I was just wondering if memes could be one of the first steps in natural selection and then evolution. Or do memes come and go to fast to have any effect.

Response to "The Importance of Science"

I strongly agree that science should be used when creating theories of human nature. We can use material evidence to try to explain why we do the things we do. My one warning in using science, is to be aware of the fact that there is a lot of things that we do not understand. We can be deceived in believing science has given us the answer, when in fact we are still missing information. At one point we "knew" the earth was flat, and i am 100% confident that there is something right now we think we "know" that will be proven false. Science definitely should be used in creating theories of human nature, however we should use it cautiously.

No Equal Worth?

Nietzsche believes that if we realize there is no rational basis for believing in God than the notion of equal worth would dissolve. My problem with this claim is that often times religion is the cause of people feeling superior to others. They will have the attitude that they are better than someone else because they are Catholic, Muslim, ext. it seems as though the notion of all humans being equal is rooted in the fact that nobody would want to be treated worse than someone else. This can seem like a selfish concept, but if everyone wants to be treated at least as well as others, they would rather settle for equality, rather than failing to reach superiority and being treated as an inferior being. To me removing religion might enhance the idea of equal worth by removing the one way thinking of what it means to be a good person.

Freud vs. Marx - Religion - Response to Dom Cooper's Response

I agree with you that it is problematic when people interpret the bible "literally." However I believe interpreting the bible is a little more complex than interpreting a Christmas story. While I believe the key points in both are the morals, the difference is there is some factual truth to the bible. Most scholars would agree that Jesus did exist, or that he was crucified. this is where I believe the difficulty comes in, which stories to take literally and which ones to just take the morals away. My rule of thumb would be always accept the most logical, and least miraculous explanation. The whole point of this post is that I believe interpreting the bible can be tricky because some of the writing have some "literal" truth to them, while others are just morals.

response to "Nightmares, a glitch in the system "

I tend to think that Freud has touched on a good topic about dreams deeper meanings. A few of my main thoughts on dreams would be
1) They can and do have some underlying meaning
2) They don't always have to have such a deep meaning that Freud is looking for
3) We are still very far away from being able to truly understand them

I believe that we have begun to be able to decode simple messages, ex/ something representing something else, but I also believe that we could hear two different interpretations of a dream, have multiple "experts" agree on each different one. My overall belief on dreams is that we ave discovered that they can have meaning, but we are just scratching the surface on how to find this meaning.

Rejecting Sex Drive

Overall I seem to find a strong tendency for people not to agree, or "Want" to agree with with Freud that sex plays a huge role in our decision making, and daily life. While I definitely would not take it as far as Freud and say that sex is the answer to explaining almost everything we do, I accept the idea that it strongly influences us. It seems as though society has built in a negative connotation to someone being influenced or motivated by sex. I think Freud has over exaggerated the effects, but it still plays a major role in making up who we are. Marketing has shown it is very powerful, yet most people seem to say something like "Well it seems to work on a lot of people" as if to exclude them self. It seems as though a lot of people either won't accept, or don't realize that it is also working on them. I was really hoping to get some more feedback on this topic, either an explanation as to why you believe this to be true, or a contrasting opinion thanks

Nature vs Nurture?

The question raised in our Q&A's about the quote "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness" seemed to be more tied into our previous debate about nature vs nurture, than it did to Communism. In this quote Marx definitely seems to be siding on the nurture side of the debate, by saying society makes the person, but the person does not make society. It is not exactly the same as the nature vs nurture debate as Marx is talking about the nature of humans as a group not individual characteristic, however he is expressing an opinion that society shapes people. it is just interesting to see how all of these debates tie together.

Respnse to "Fear of Marxism"

While I believe there are multiple intellectual arguments that could be made against Marxism, it appears obvious to me that the overwhelming reason Americans reject the ideas are because of the relationship and connections Marxism has to the Soviet union. While most of these associations are false, or misinterpreted, most people are not aware of the mistake they are making in associating the two. I believe that Americans as a whole still can't separate the ideas and concepts of Marxism from the Soviet Union, therefore they can not objectively look at the theories. 

Conflicting aspects of Human nature

During Mondays class we touched upon the idea of there potentially being conflicting aspects of human nature. I was thinking that this directly tied into last weeks discussions about consuming other animals. Could it be that human nature is to eat other creatures, and also to do what we believe makes us a better person? If so the idea of killing another animal for consumption would definitely create tension, and as a result we will use cognitive dissonance to justify our actions.

Human nature?

I seems as though almost the entire class would agree that animals should have a moral status. The logic seems to dictate that killing and consuming animals would go against the moral status we apply to animals, yet I would bet some of the students in class do consume meat (myself included) So my question is, is it human nature to consume meat even if we find it morally wrong?

I am not trying to say that it is or isn't morally wrong, I have personally not come to a decision on what I believe yet, my point is just that human nature may be to eat meat anyways even if our thoughts tell us otherwise.

Response to "Patrio-country?"

I definitely believe that one can feel a level of Patriotism toward a country they were not born in. I do not necessarily believe that one could take part in extreme Patriotism toward a country they were not born in, but they certainly could feel a less extreme version. I personally know somebody who lived in Ghana for about a year, and currently identifies with anything Ghanian. She was born American, and currently lives in America, but she identifies herself with both countries. This is a real life rather than hypothetical example who feels connected and Patriotic toward multiple countries.  

Proximity Partiality

During our discussions we raised the question of when partiality was acceptable. I believe that partiality is not only acceptable in certain situations, but also that it is essential in humanity pursuing a better world. Because we as humans are not capable of reaching out to every single person on the planet and treating them with the utmost care, it is only logical that we give this special care to the people we are closest to. The key to this is that we never do it at the expense of those not within our inner circle. example being if there is a child next door that does not have a coat, or a child in Russia that does not have a coat, we should help the child next door first. The exception to this rule is if by giving the child next door a coat will cause further suffering to the child in Russia, ex/ child labor ext.. If the entire world operated under these conditions everyone would be able to receive special, personal care and nurture, whereas if we did not have partiality to those around us, and we chose to just treat everyone exactly the same, it would be hard for anyone to receive great care.  

Changing DNA

We have debated whether our characteristics are built into our DNA, or if they are developed based on our surroundings. While making this debate we have worked under the assumption that if we choose the nature side, our nature is set and stone and can't be affected. There are current theories and studies that show that perhaps our DNA can change due to our surroundings. This could potentially be the bridge that links the two sides of the debate together.

Response to Elizabeth Pitroff

One thing that Pinker does not mention in his twin studies are cases where the twins are separated at birth. When two identical twins are separated at birth and they do not know each other growing up, they tend to be very similar even if raised in different environments, however when two non identical twins are put in the same circumstance they do now show as many similarities. This would definitely support the nature side of the debate.

Response to Dom Cooper "Determination and the Legal Process"

I too was pondering this topic, here are a few of my thoughts. I believe the actions that are punishable would remain very similar, however the punishments may be altered in a determinist system. Current consequences involve protecting the public, trying to correct the problem, and just pure punishment. I think a determinist system would really try to push keeping the public safe, and influencing the offender enough that there "determined" future will be safer for society. One more question I thought about it could somebody still plead insanity if everything is determined?

Viscious circle

The arguments between naturalists and theists have not, and will not be solved anytime soon. The main problem is that you can not disprove either theory unless you look at it from the other theories perspective. If you believe in reason, and you don't believe there is a god you can say that there is no proof to show that god exists, and that because there is no physical evidence we should assume he doesn't. If you are a theist you would argue that god does exist and you would cite faith as proof. While naturalists don't believe faith is evidence, theists don't believe that humans can comprehend the works of god so they believe naturalists trying to use science and reason to explain everything is foolish. This viscious circle does not appear to be breakable in the near future.

response to Siearra's post about cliches

The cliche "everything happens for a reason definitely ties into the topic of determinism, a few more cliches that tie into logic could be "It is what it is" which is essentially the law of identity. "Treat others the way you want to be treated" This could go along with what Aristotle says about morals, that we need others to live a good life so the reason we are good to others is so they are good to us.

First I want to say that the last line you used "I am simply determined to be free in my decisions" was very clever and interesting. I also think you made some good points when you were almost asking what would the implications be if we sided in one direction or the other. I think the question of what the implications are is as large as the initial question itself.

A cool experiment you should watch!

Interesting video that shows a very odd result. It shows the presence of someone watching changing and object.  Sorry for how cheesy the video is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

A World of Probability

Quantum mechanics, one of the most excepted and accurately tested theories in physics tells us that the world may not run on absolute laws, but rather on probabilities. Quantum mechanics says that the reason classical physics seems to work at the macro level is because it takes the most likely outcome. The reason we don't see these probabilities in physics is because at the macro level the probabilities of the expected result are so high that it could take over a million years to get a different result. On the micro level these probabilities have been tested and seen many times. I am not sure if this proves that we have free will because probability is not choice, but I do believe this proves that the world is not completely determined because probability plays a role.

response to Siearra Edition "Is Prior Knowledge Important

"Is Prior Knowledge Important"  Plato believed that humans should all just "know" whats good and bad based on "built in knowledge" I believe that he is completely missing how much humans learn from experience. He believes that as we grow older and wiser we learn how to tap into already known knowledge. I find it odd that a man who so strongly believed in reason would come to this conclusion. To me it seems like the longer we live, the more we see, and if we properly exercise reason we can connect things together to find answers. I also think Plato pushes the subconscious mind away in the learning process. As humans we probably learn as much subconsciously as we do consciously.


Following are pictures of 3 fish, you may or may not already know what type of fish these are, but if I were to ask the question "Which of these fish can fly?" Which would you choose? I think almost every college age student whether or not they know anything about fish would choose the one on the bottom that has fins shaped like bird wings. So does this mean that seeing the picture and me asking a question revealed prior knowledge you already had? If so how come if I ask the question which fish has the longest life span only people with knowledge on fish would know? I believe this is because much of our knowledge comes from taking observation and consciously as well as subconsciously piecing things together to solve problems. In this case we can guess that the fish with fins shaped like bird wings would be the one capable of flying, why? Because we can take prior observations of flying things such as birds, bats, airplanes, and apply the concept of wings to the fish. This is because of prior observations and the ability to reason, not some built in knowledge that comes from the world of forms. (I am aware of the fact that many of us may already have some knowledge of these fish, the point is that even if we had never seen/heard of these 3 types of fish we could most likely still answer question 1)

Where I believe Aristotle's views of Hapiness miss a key factor

Aristotle believed that there was one true way to achieve happiness. As we talked about in class he believed that a person who attempts to live the good life, fails, and is miserable is living a better life than a fool who seems happy but has not pursued reason. I do not agree with these beliefs. I can see where Aristotle could think that a fool could be tricked into thinking he was happier than he really is. This is my biggest problem with the subjectivist view as well. I fully buy into the idea that someone can think they are as happy as possible because they don't realize that what they are missing. Where I strongly differ from Aristotle is how we achieve maximum happiness. I do believe that it is different for each person, however there are some common things that humans want. Things like self fulfillment, and relationships with friends/family are important to almost everyone, but the balance of how important each thing is changes person to person. Every person has a different balance of pursuing long term goals vs short term pleasure and I believe humans need to fulfill both of these to achieve true happiness. The example I will present would be a nurse vs a medicine scientist.  A medical scientist could spend his entire life to develop a medicine to help arthritis, he could accomplish his lifelong goal be very happy, in the process he gave up some day to day pleasure and satisfaction. A nurse could spend everyday helping people and receive a lot of day to day happiness, but in the process she is not as actively pursuing a large lifelong goal. My argument is that these are two different routes to a happy career/life, and there is no reason to think that one way is better than the other. This is where personal taste to me plays a central role in achieving true happiness, and where Aristotle seems to leave out the personal traits that make people individuals.

Another interpretation for Plato's Metaphysics

Plato believes in the world of perfect forms, and that everything that we see is actually just an attempt to copy one of these forms. What if we change out the idea of the world of forms with Humans ability to comprehend these objects like in the example below.


Under this new concept we do not have to make up another world without sufficient evidence to support that it exists. Plato believed that a world of forms existed and that the reason people can see two different, unique objects both as chairs is because they are both attempts to replicate the form of chair. I think it is because humans have the ability to reason and look at the shape of the objects and see that they are most likely to function as chairs. I believe that without humans, a flat piece of wood with four legs and a back would just be pieces of wood, and that its our ability to comprehend the function of the materials that makes it a chair. Overall I think there is some valid points to Plato's world of forms but I don't think he has fully captured the truth.

Response to http://wehavealwaysthoughso.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-socrates-idea-that-every-evil-act-is.html

I agree with your point that every act of evil is not involuntary. I think almost all of us can think of a time when we purposely did something that was not right, we may somewhat regret it, but we still did it knowing it was wrong. I simply don't buy into the fact that nobody realizes that they are doing wrong. Isn't that like saying that every murderer should be able to plead insanity? I do not believe that all evil is ignorance.

Religion as a reason to do the right thing

Socrates believes that Religion serves the central purpose of giving people reason to do the right thing. He sees that as religions central and most important function. Another function mentioned is the social benefits that religion can provide, however I believe one key point of religion is being missed. Religion provides people a way of coping with death. People do what there religion says is right hoping that in there "after life" they will be treated well. This goes along with the point Socrates makes. The one thing I believe was left out was how religion helps people cope with the deaths of others. This is the one area of religion Socrates seems to miss. This is one scenario where I believe somebody can make great gains without ever using sound logic. If one chooses to believe in religion, which is a purely emotional decision, they can receive aid in coping with the death of a loved one. While I am not religious I can see how this benefits millions of people around the world. This is one area of religion I believe Socrates missed, and it is not a huge surprise because he didn't believe that listening to emotion to make a decision was a good idea.