Goodbye!

Well, it certainly has been quite a journey in this class. In this last blog entry I would just like to thank you all for your contribution to the course, because between blogging and class discussion I truly have expanded my understanding of philosophy and human nature as a whole (and I am not just saying this to please Professor Johnson, I truly have ;) ) I hope you all have a wonderful summer break!

I am not an artist.

"Painting is easy when you don't know how, but very difficult when you do." ~Edgar Degas

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up." ~Pablo Picasso

     Upon looking up quotes about art, these two definitely stuck out to me, and this is most likely because I in no way consider myself an artist. Only on occation have I been able to produce some nice sketches or creations. My best friend on the other hand has a natural ability to draw fantastically and I think this is part of the reason I always wished I could. It has always seemed that everyone around me has some sort of natural talent, where as I have nothing. Nevertheless, this friend of mine decided last winter than she would try to teach me how to draw some basic things. First of all, she was not a very good teacher because she had a natural ability to correctly place the lines of the drawing and was consequently bad at attempting to explain how she knew what to do. Second of all, the more she said the more confused and frustrated I got. I was pretty much ready to give up entirely until last summer. I found an old sketch book in a pile of my things and decided to print a few interesting pictures offline and attempt to draw them. After sitting in my dimly lit room late into the night, I actually produced some acceptable looking drawings. They did not look identical to what I was trying to copy, but they were still good. Then it hit me that I simply have a different drawing style than she does. Therefore, when she was trying to teach me I was not able to produce things in the same manner that she could.
     I believe that if I actually took an artclass I might actually be able to learn how to be a better artist. I would never be as good as someone with a natural ability, but nonetheless. This leads me to wonder, can anyone learn how to be an artist or do people need to have a natural tendency or ability to be able to create art? As humans, I also wonder how much we are capable of actually learning. There is a show on MTV called MADE in which a teenager gets a coach and is made into anything they want to be: a break dancer, surfer, a beauty queen. But, could someone ever truly transform themselves into anything they want?

The Oddities of Museums

     All of this contemplation about art has really led me to realize how odd museums, especially art museums, really are. As humans, we give money to walk into a building and look at pictures we could easily see online or in books. Not all of these works were even intended to have an audience. Some pieces were created for others to enjoy, but I suspect that most of them were created when the artist felt they needed an outlet for emotional release. In this sense, I feel that if I were an artist, having my painting hung in a museum would be somewhat embarrassing. Imagine that you are upset and paint a magnificent piece. While most people will not understand its meaning because it is so abstract, you still know that you bared your soul on the canvas and are letting the eyes of the public tear it apart. Nevertheless, why do humans find art museums, or any museums for that matter, so fascinating? After all, people of ancient times would most likely laugh if they knew their shoe or toilet was on display. I suppose people enjoy museums partially because of reputation society has created for museums and galleries. People are made to think that they are intelligent and sophisticated places, and that is most likely why people force themselves to go to a museum, even if they know they will be bored. Humans are curious creatures, and they often go to art museums while on vacation so they can brag that they went. They would not want to hear friends tell about their museum visits and not have any stories or experiences to share themselves. Likewise, humans like to look at artifacts because their curiosity drives them to know about the past. People understand that they can never know what the distant past was like, but they are so intrigued by the mysterious goings-on of another time that they will pay twenty dollars to go see the artifacts from the period. What type of museums do you enjoy more, those that display only art or those that display artifacts?

Art Museums!

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Do you like going to art museums? A lot of people think it is utterly boring, how about you?"...

     I honestly have mixed feelings about art museums. Since I am so interested in archeology I enjoy museums such as the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, for it contains a wealth of artifacts as well as a decent sized collection of art as well. In the eighth grade however I did go to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. This museum was truly impressive and even at that age I was able to appreciate the museum's collection. But, I only spent a few hours there and I am unsure if I would be able to stay longer. Unlike many people who visit these museums, I do not spend twenty minutes looking at one painting. I stop and gaze at one that catches my eye for a minute, then move onto the next one. I do not get bored per say, but I definitely have to be in the mood to visit an art museum. Additionally, I believe that half of the draw of such a museum is the amazing architecture, with the sweeping galleries with their high ceilings. As for modern art at museums such as Mass MoCA, well, I have already blogged about my dislike and misunderstanding of them before.
     I tend to find small art galleries more interesting than huge museums of art, and perhaps this is because it is simply enjoying art in smaller doses. This past summer on the way back from Plum Island Beach my two friends and I stopped to browse through downtown Newburyport, Massachusetts. It is a gorgeous little area, and we walked into a couple of small art galleries there. The art was truly magnificent in this one gallery that sticks out in my memory, and I wish I actually had enough money to buy some of the works there. So, I will say that I sometimes enjoy going to art museums, and while I do not find them immediately boring, after a few hours, I do begin to feel that they are. Have you ever seen a famous painting such as the Mona Lisa in person? What did you think of it? Did it live up to your expectations?

Reflections...

     As this semester comes to a close, I find myself at a loss as to what I should blog about. That being said, it is probably best for me to make this post broad and somewhat of a conclusion about my now refined view of human nature. Stepping into the classroom in January, I am sure that most students did not really know what they were in for. After all, "The Nature of Human Nature" sounds pretty vague. But, as the class progressed, I found it increasingly interesting through its discussion of a range of philosophical topics from altruism to the supernatural. Through blogging I have been able to think about these topics fully by applying them to the world around me and drawing examples from my own life in order to understand them. I now realize that human nature is simply those pre-programmed tendencies in our brains that are relatively universal across all humans, no matter what their culture is. As humans, we all act in certain ways and do certain things that we wish we could change. In other words, we discriminate against each other, wage war, and when it comes down to it, we always put our own interests above those of others around us. For thousands of years people have been trying to change these things, but if history can tell us anything, it is that we are most likely not going to change. In general, the broad themes of the future will most likely be extremely similar to those of the past, despite advances in such areas as technology. To quote a Kesha song, "we are who we are" and that is not going to change. Perhaps the best way to improve our future would be to recognize our weaknesses and attempt to modify our behavior so as perhaps it will one day evolve to be different. Do you believe that the human race will ever have the capacity to truly change? Do you believe that our race will ever become extinct?

Is It Possible to Treat Others How You Would Like to Be Treated?

In response to Shannon Ciuk's question, "Do you always treat others in a way that you would want to be treated?"...

     To be honest, no. In all actuality, I do not think anyone treats others how they would like to be treated. Situationally, there might be a few instances in which you refrain from acting in some way or stop yourself from saying something, for you realize you should be considerate. But, normally people act very rash, even if they try not to. For instance, imagine you are not on the best terms with your roommate. They have been waking you up in the middle of the night talking loudly on the phone, stealing your cereal, and snoring loudly at night. Essentially, little things are slowly adding up and making you angrier by the day. So, one day you come back from class and they start apologizing to you because they spilt nail polish on your rug. You loose it and scream at them. This is the natural reaction for many people given the circumstances, but imagine you are in the other person's shoes. They have been going through a very rough patch with their boyfriend and when he calls in the night, they get so worked up and forget that you are sleeping. They have no food left, and you had said at the beginning of the year that you would share, so they take a couple bowls of cereal. They have a really bad cold and that is why they have been snoring. As for the nail polish, that truly was an unfortunate accident. But, most people do not immediately think of all of these things. They only would think about how their roommate's actions are impacting them directly, not why the person is doing any of it.
     Basically, as much as people might try, it is very difficult to treat people how you want to be treated. In my above example, if you were the roommate, you would want the other to understand why you were doing what you were. Unfortunately, humans fight all the time because though they might deny it, they are all very self-centered. People care for one another, yet they always subconsciously have their own interests in mind. So no, I do not always treat people how I would like to be treated, but this is an unfortunate part of our nature. Do you think it is ever possible for someone to truly live selflessly, always putting others before their own, or will their own interests always take priority over that of others?

Should We...?

In response to Griffin Thayer's question, "Is it alright to celebrate the death of an enemy?"...

     For thousands of years people have had enemies, engaged in war, and fought with each other. As a consequence, billions of people have died because humans are so diverse in their opinions that they cannot get along together. Recently, the U.S. has succeeded in killing Osama Bin Laden. Within minutes that the news broke, my Facebook news feed had dozens of posts celebrating his death. There were a few posts though that condemned people for celebrating. The other day in class it was said that torture and murder are all based off of viewpoint. In other words, while we killed a mortal enemy, we also killed someone's husband. When soldiers are killed in the Middle East, their families are loosing a beloved member. It is all based off of perspective. I believe it is good that he is deceased and no longer a threat, but it does seem strange to celebrate someone's passing. Instead of having riots of celebration, such as there was at UMASS Amherst, perhaps we should just give a satisfied nod and move onto the others we perceive as threats. What bothers me is the fact that people are very quick to identify those they see as their enemies. In reality, we all are humans, and because of that, we should at least try to make an effort to live in peace. It seems like so many do not even want to attempt to do so. Do you think it will ever possible to have universal peace?

Creation of Art

     Why is it that humans, unlike other species, feel that they need to create art? I really do not know the answer to this question, but it most likely has to do with the size of our brains. Due to our anatomy, it is true that humans have the capacity to accurately understand time. Dogs do not though. When you leave your dog for three days at a time or just for one hour, they believe the same amount of time has past. Humans are able to understand the difference between days, months, and weeks. Also, humans might have the unique ability to create art because of their natural tendency to want to create things: machines, technology, and tools. I remember back on the first day of class people were debating whether or not air conditioning in our homes is "natural." I said that it is, for it is within human nature to want to create things. Consequently, when we have an issue like it being too hot outside we create air conditioners to make ourselves feel more comfortable. When we have an emotional issue that we need to deal with, we create art, using it as a medium of expression.
     However, do you think anyone can create "good" art? Additionally, why is it that certain humans seem to be blessed with the ability to create art "better" than others? For that matter, why are people naturally gifted in some fields and not others? I will say that I wish I was good at art. I do play about four instruments and have been in my school band from fifth grade through twelve grade. But, in regards to visual art, while I do have a good eye for some things, overall I am not too good. I took an art class for a couple of months my freshman year of high school, and I was actually praised at being relatively good at all the projects by my teacher. But, I believe my artwork was good more because I was determined and hard working, not that I had any sort of natural ability. I feel like this with a great deal of things in life. I work extremely hard in school, and therefore get all A's. Although, I have never been like some of my friends who will work on a paper an hour before class and receive and A on it. I write my papers at least a week in advance and edit them on average three times. I get an A on them, yet I cannot help but to wish I had the capacity to do less work and still get the same grade.

More on Torture...

While browsing my Yahoo homepage on my computer I found this article that is quite interesting given our discussions on torture and the recent death of Osama Bin Laden:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110504/ts_yblog_thelookout/bin-laden-killing-wont-settle-debate-over-enhanced-interrogations

Uncomfortable Art

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "How do you react to art that makes you uncomfortable? Do you like how it evokes that emotion in you or do you find yourself wanting to get away from it and not consider it art at all?"... 

     I will admit it, I do not like art that makes me uncomfortable. In other words, Mass MoCA is not my favorite place to be, for I do not understand how most of what is inside is categorized as art. I suppose I just have a problem with modern art that looks as if I could have made it myself. So, slapping a few ordinary objects onto a canvas and attaching it to a wall is something that is rather unimpressive to me. I took Art and Philosophy last semester, but this still did nothing to aid in my appreciation for modern art. I still hate the uncomfortable feelings art gives us and do not consider all such things art. This might make me sound close-minded, but it seems that over the years art has come to include such a broad range of things, and it is questionable as if it should. This is part of my definition of art:

     "Through my eyes, art can be defined as an artifact that is the product of an act of creativity. When someone creates such an artifact with the intention of it being an art piece, or identifies an ordinary functioning object as having aesthetic pleasure, they then place it in a museum and/or assure that it is presented to viewers. This object then becomes art because society accepts it as such."
    
     However, I now question whether this definition was too radically inclusive. I did say at the end of my piece that the definition of art does need to be relative inclusive for some things are not meant to be definied or understood in this world. Basically, some art may make me feel uncomfortable, but that is its intention, no matter whether or not anyone agrees with it. The world is the way it is, and unless modern art or other art that makes us uneasy decreases dramatically in popularity, it will be around for many years to come, whether we like it or not. Do you like modern art? If you do, what do you like about it? 

Meditation, Mind, and Matter

     All of this talk about torture has reminded me of the common phrase, "mind over matter," and I simply wonder if it is even possible to do such a thing. People usually say this quote when someone is attempting to endure great amounts of pain. It is a way to stress that it is only physical pain, and one can overcome it if they have enough concentration. Evidently, some people claim to be able to do this, and say that they can get past torture or extreme pain by getting into some sort of trance-like state. In my anthropology class this week, one girl gave a presentation about the Native American sundance. In the sundance, men from the community get pierced through the chest by bits of bone, and this bone is tied to wire. The wire is then slung over some sort of structure, and on the other side men pull so much that it lifts the man in the air, hanging by his chest. They would leave the man in the air until the force became so great that his muscle would rip out of his chest and he would fall to the ground. The men who did this thought they were taking pain away from their tribe by doing it, and therefore did it willingly. These Native American men and Westerners who now practice body suspension claim that they go into a trace during the whole ceremony and do not even feel pain. This is pretty unbelievable that someone would not feel the immediate pain of their chest muscle being yanked out. But, perhaps it is not so unbelievable for those who support the whole "mind over matter" notion.
     We are after all, souls that inhabit a physical body. By being able to block out the physical world and explore our minds, we can escape the world around us. Consequently, we do this at night while we are sleeping, for we live out our dreams in our heads. The sundance also reminded me of the yoga class I took last semester. At the end of every class, we would meditate for ten to fifteen minutes. During this time, if I was not too engulfed in my stressful thoughts, I was able to truly meditate. It really is an odd feeling to describe, for I would lay there with no thoughts in my head, and simply exist. Once I broke out of the meditation it was odd, for I could feel myself coming back into my body, which at first felt like a foreign object. This relates to the fact that while trying to create a conscious robot, scientists have been able to figure out everything except for how to give it a soul. It is one huge mystery that no one has been able to solve. So, while many reject notions of the supernatural and gods, perhaps they can exist if we are somehow this living, nonreplicable force inside of a physical shell. Have you ever been able to meditate? If so, how do you think it works? How are we able to disconnect our mental body from our physical body?

Gettin' Lucky

In response to Katie Russell's question,"Do you believe that there is such a thing as luck? Why or why not?"...

     In short, no, for I believe that everything in the universe is truly up to chance. Some argue that there is a god who determines what happens in our lives, but it commonly believed that there is not enough evidence to prove his existence. Honestly, I just believe what happens to you, happens to you, and whether it is good or bad has nothing to do with "luck." What is luck anyways, some mysterious force people claim exists? I simply believe it does not exist because some of the greatest people in the world get the "worst luck." There is a woman I have known for a long time who attends my church. She is an incredibly person, but within the last year her family has gone through some of the worst events imaginable. Her father suddenly passed away, and both her husband and son have been in the hospital for an extended amount of time. While I have been here at college, I learned that she herself has gotten two types of cancer simultaneously. Basically, my conclusion is that luck is yet another concept people have constructed to make themselves feel better when they loose or win a game, for instance. While there are many things in this world we do not understand, it seems people construct many fantastical notions to justify things to themselves and others.

Torture on Television

     All of this talk about torture has reminded me of my favorite television show which ended a couple of years ago: Prisonbreak. I love action movies and shows, and that is probably why I enjoyed it so much, for watching someone break out of three different prisons was incredibly fascinating and a thrill. But, this show also involved a huge amount of violence, and when the show first came out, I was in seventh grade. That year, I ended up watching Prisonbreak and Lost and loving both shows tremendously. My parents on the other hand strongly disapproved of me watching Prisonbreak. They did not understand as to why me, a seventh-grade girl, would want to watch a violent prison drama. Truth be told, it is odd that I enjoyed watching a show where people were constantly being shot, stabbed, or getting beaten. However, the show was not just violence. It was also a love story between the main character and the doctor at the prison. It was a story of brotherly love between a wrongly accused inmate and his brother who actually committed a crime so he would be sent to prison where he could break his brother out. It was a story of innocent people who were targeted by a secret organization and a corrupt government. This, was what I loved.
     This has got me thinking though, why is it that people enjoy watching people be tortured on television shows? I know for myself I would sometimes look away if the torture got too graphic, but I did not turn off the television and walk away. Why was this? I think it may be because people realize that television and movies are truly fiction. They forget the fact that the actors are portraying real-life scenarios and get lost in the fantasy world. It is obvious that if they were to watch someone actually be tortured, they probably would not be able to handle it. This also reminds me of the saying, "It was so bad I just couldn't look away." Often people say this when talking about a "train-wreck," or one scenario that is playing out in front of them in which one person is suffering, usually from extreme embarassment. That then reminded me of when my sociology professor last semester told my class that people truly are obsessed with death. This is true, for if someone dies in public, there is often a large crowd of people who surround them. People slow down on the highway to get a better glimpse at the fatal car crash on the side of the road. If someone in public is having an emergency, most people stop and stare at them instead of trying to get help. This is called the bystander effect, in which everyone in a crowd will assume that someone else will get help so they do not need to. Obviously, this can lead to deadly results if everyone is assuming someone else will get help and therefore no one does. Why do you think that this happens? Why are humans more prone to stand back and watch than actually help in an emergency? Relating this back to what I discussed earlier, why do humans voluntarily watch extremely violent shows and movies in which people are being tortured?

An Interesting Dilemma...

In response to Cameron Hamlet's question, "If the person you were taking torture from was better at being tortured would you still take it for them?"...

     I hope that I never, in my entire life, have to go through torture. Obviously most people would agree with this statement, but I feel like it would seem even truer for those like myself who have a low pain tolerance. For years I always thought my pain tolerance was the same as most, but I have come to realize recently that I do have a lower pain tolerance than most of my friends. However, I hate that this is the case and when I am in pain, I try to appear as if I am not feeling it to the severity that I am. Essentially, I have conditioned myself not to tolerate it, but to act like I am. Though I am not afraid of needles or anything of the like, my pain tolerance is why I have never given blood or gotten a tattoo. If I needed to I would, but I choose to not subject myself to the temporary pain.
     So, it is evident as to why this question Cameron posed is such a difficult one for me to answer. I do not know if I would take torture from someone I knew could handle it better. It probably would depend on who the person was. If it were my mother or my best friend for instance, I would certainly take the torture instead of having them suffer. But, if it were someone who I felt less of a connection to, unfortunately I would let them take the pain if I knew they could handle it better than myself. I know this sounds horrible, but the reality of the matter is, humans do anything they can to avoid pain. If it is unnecessary for us to feel it, we make sure that we do not. Nevertheless, it is miraculous that we can be so devoted to another member of our species that we would endure agony to keep them safe. Some people perpetuate their own mental or physical pain, though it is sometimes unintentional. Such people sometimes claim that they actually like the pain. Do you think it is possible for anyone to ever truly "enjoy" pain, or do they just trick themselves into believing it is so?

Torture...

     Which is form of torture is worse, being physically harmed or being mentally harmed? This question was posed today in class and I will admit that it is an intriguing one. It is also incredibly difficult to answer. This is because, quite frankly, no one would prefer being locked in a coffin when they are claustrophobic to being punched in the face. In reality, neither one is quite pleasant. So, perhaps it would be helpful to analyze them individually. First, we will start with mental forms of torture, which can include anything from making someone believe their child is being tortured, to having a person who is deathly afraid of rats be strapped down and covered in them. The type of agony that comes out of this torture is unique. It is the type that makes one hyperventilate, have a heavy ache in their chest, and sob in frustration and anguish. While it is not physical pain, it is pain nonetheless. Often, people say that mental, or emotional pain is "not as bad" as physical pain. It actually is, for as humans, our minds and bodies are connected. Therefore, the pain we feel physically can be just as unbearable as emotional anguish.
     Physical pain is pretty easy to imagine, for we all have experienced it to some degree. In extreme amounts, such as when someone is being tortured, this pain can be so severe that it can make someone wish for death. In fear of being tortured, most people will even confess any information that the torturer wants to hear. Some though, such as experienced terrorists, have the capacity to withstand this pain. They do the whole technique of "mind over matter" and somehow endure it. In some respects, it seems that physical pain could be worse than mental pain because physical violence often results in death. After mental torture, generally speaking, the person will come out of it alive.
     Basically, I believe that being physically harmed and being mentally harmed can be equally as bad. Our minds inhabit our bodies, so therefore any type of torture is horrible. So, I do not understand how people are able to strongly withstand either. If they can, they are clearly stronger people than myself. Would you ever let yourself be tortured to keep a relative or close friend safe? 

Parents, The Good and The Bad

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Will you raise your children similar to how your parents did for you?Or is your goal to raise your children in a completely different way?"...

     I have to say, I love how my parents raised me. So many of my friends complain about their parents constantly, and while I occasionally do when they do something particularly annoying, for the most part I fully appreciate their years of hard work. As cliche as it might sound to say it, one of my role models truly is my mother, and every day I find out that I am more like her than I initially thought. While we obviously do have some differences in personality, how I socialize, my view on life, and my opinions on many things are exactly the same as hers. She is an incredible woman and I am proud that I have somehow subconsciously adopted some of her amazing traits. It may seem like I am gushing about her, but I have good reason to. My friends complain about their "helicopter parents" and say that they will never raise their children like their parents did. But, my parents truly did prepare me for the world. They taught me how to work hard, be independent, and have a complete sense of maturity about matters. Growing up, I have had so many teachers tell my parents how mature I was for my age, and even when I spend time with my friends I sometimes feel like I have grown up a great deal quicker than them. For instance, I know how to manage my finances, work hard, multitask, manage time extremely well, get to places on time, and handle situations professionally. My friends are not so lucky to have learned these skills, and I wonder if it is because of the age of their parents. My parents are in their late fifties while most of my friends' parents are in their late thirties or early forties. I know from personal experience that some of these younger parents do not know how to manage their money and handle a great deal of parenting situations in a fickle, childish way. On the other hand, the rare friends I do have who have parents the same age as me, are very similar to myself in many aspects. They automatically seem to have a different, more mature world view.
     So, if it is not clear thus far, I definitely will raise my children like my parents and I have thought this way for years. Obviously my family is not perfect, and I do believe I will make my husband or father of my children not be as rash and close-minded as my own father. Nevertheless, dealing with my father has made me have the capacity to deal with many short-tempered individuals. I truly do love my parents, and for that precise reason, I do not fear having children like many of my children do, but see it as a happy experience that is far in my future. Do you think that your parents' age had anything to do with how you were parented and how they handled certain situations? How have your parents shaped how you see the world?

The Young and The Old

In response to Shannon Ciuk's question, "What is your first impression when you see a young female with an elderly man or the opposite, a young male with an elderly woman? Thanks to the media and stereotypes I bet most people think the younger person in the relationship is in it for the money. Do you agree or disagree?"...

     As unfortunate as it is to admit it, when I see an elderly person in what seems to be a relationship with a young person, I think what many of us probably do, "What is he/she doing with him/her?" As Shannon mentioned, in our society our perceptions have been shaped so that we assume that the young should not be in relationships with the old. In some evolutionary sense, it makes sense as to why the pairing would seem so odd to us. First of all, when looked at from a eugenic viewpoint (and I am not saying that it is correct to think this way), the young ("fit") should mate with the young (also "fit") to produce the strongest children genetically. Additionally, if the young mate with the old, the old are likely to die sooner, which would leave the young to take care of the child by themselves. Not to mention, older women often cannot even produce children with a younger man. So, perhaps some of these perceptions are automatically built into our minds, causing us to feel such uneasiness when we see a young woman with an old man, for instance.
     However, I also believe that we see the relationship as odd because "looks" are such an overpowering force in a relationships, as much as we would like to deny it. After all, we do not think the relationship is odd because of the personalities of the individuals, but rather because of how they each look. In other words, we do not understand why a young, and in our view, and automatically more attractive person would want to be with an older person, who we automatically assume to look worse because of their age. Considering this, we do not see young paired with young as odd, for they are considered both relatively attractive. We do not see old paired with old as strange because they are on the same level of attractiveness in our minds. So, young and old is processed in our minds as an odd pairing.
     Personally, I do not agree with Shannon's statement that most people would assume the younger person in a young and old pairing to be in it for the money. I feel like primarily people feel subconsciously uneasy about the pairing for the reasons I have mentioned, and some, in an attempt to justify it in their minds, attribute the pairing to money for they cannot think of any other explanation for it. I know when I see a young man with an older woman I do not automatically assume that he wants her money, but instead I first register how different of a couple they are. However, with media promoting Hugh Hefner and the Playboy Bunny, it makes sense as to why people would assume this money connection. Imagine there were two suitors available to you and you had to pick one of them to marry. Would you choose the very attractive, poor individual or the very rich, but highly unattractive person?Do not take personality into account. 

Attraction versus Beauty, Love versus Lust

In response to Griffin Thayer's question, "Is there a difference between attraction and beauty?"...

     In short, yes there definitely is a distinction between attraction and beauty. Attraction essentially has to do with lust. Compiled from their genetic makeup and life experience, there are certain types of people some are attracted to, and others they are not. So, for instance, one of my friends is attracted to grungy, dirty-looking guys. Another friend is attracted to males who appear more androgynous. People have such varying views of what they consider attractive, for genetic makeup differs so much from person to person. Attraction also has a great deal to do with sexual preference. So, men may be attracted to certain parts of a woman or man that others may not find so appealing. People can also be attracted to someone, without actually "liking" them or wanting to spend time with them. Not all attraction is sexual though, for people are attracted to certain qualities in friends as well. So, there may be one person that you cannot stand, but yet there are many others who value them as a friend.

     Beauty is entirely different. People can fall in love with beauty, and people tend to conceive beauty as being long-lasting. What is meant by this, is that a person might try so hard to make themselves young and attractive, but looks do fade over time. It is commonly thought that those who are truly beautiful have such a quality about them that they stay beautiful even as they age. Of course, the conception of beauty in society most definitely changes over time, for what one generation might consider beautiful, another generation might not. Conceptions of beauty vary cross-culturally as well.

     So, beauty and attraction definitely are two completely different things, even though they may seem to slightly overlap. After all, people are attracted to beauty, but what is beautiful is not always attractive. Do you find people more attractive because of their looks or their personalities upon first impression? Most people make an initial impression of someone based on their looks. Do you agree or disagree with this? Why are looks, and not other qualities such as intelligence and compassion, most highly valued in our society? 

"Oh wait a minute, I'm just going to check my Facebook!"

In response to Shannon Ciuk's question," How drastically do you think our lives would change if Facebook was shut down? How 'lost' would we be without it?"...

     I will admit it, I am addicted to Facebook. I check it multiple times during the day, and when I am bored I can spend hours on it talking to friends, looking at pictures, and playing games. I even checked my Facebook while writing this blog post, to see if one of my friends had responded to a message I sent them. Facebook obviously does have some positive aspects though, for otherwise it would not be so popular. I use Facebook mostly to stayed in touch with my friends from high school, and it is wonderful that one is able to connect with so many that they would not have been able to otherwise. However, this addiction to technology, and especially to Facebook, is overall more negative than positive. For instance, I do not remember the last time that I was with a group of people my own age who did not text or check their Facebook while I was spending time with them. It does become rather disappointing, for it seems that they care much more about talking to others who are not there, than talking to those right in front of them. Then of course, there is the security issues with Facebook. Though it is rare, there have been instances of sex offenders "stalking their prey" on the site. Many individuals are ignorant of their privacy settings, and they often make a great deal of information public that they did not intend to.
      I definitely feel our lives would undergo a positive change if Facebook was shut down. Last summer I went on a vacation with my family to a cabin on a lake in New Hampshire. The cabin had a wireless Internet connection, but at the time I did not have a laptop. I could not access the Internet on the cell phone I had at the time, so I spent a week and a half without checking the Internet or Facebook. Honestly, it was refreshing, and though I did have a slight urge to check Facebook a few times during the trip, I soon forgot about it with everything that was going on around me. However, if Facebook was shut down, there might be a chance that some other social networking site would take its place. After all, MySpace was extremely successful until Facebook gained more popularity.
     Without the site, some extremely addicted people might feel "lost" at first, but as the case with myself, eventually people would feel better for not spending so much time on the site. Today my R.A. made a very good point as my roommate's parents picked her up. He said that unfortunately with technology, we might stay in touch with people too much. Many of my friends here call, email, and talk to their parents on Facebook frequently. While they do miss their parents still, when they do reunite, it will not feel as special as it would have if they had not made contact with their parents as frequently. So, while technology does keep us connected, it can drive us apart and make us take our relationships with those around us for granted. Sometimes we need a break from the people in our lives, and with the constant use of Facebook, it is extremely hard to truly get away from anyone. Have you ever spent a great length of time not using Facebook? During this time were you anxious to check the site, or were you content with your present activities?

Near-Death Experiences...Reality or Hallucination?

     Today in class we were discussing why individuals enjoy the feeling that accompanies near-death experiences. After all, many people are drawn to sky-diving or bungee-jumping just to get that thrill, that moment of clarity. Obviously in these situations people are experiencing this feeling without the danger of actually dying. But, what about those who claim that upon drowning or dying temporarily in surgery they had certain visions? I was curious about this and looked up "near-death experience" on Google. It brought me to a site that is run by the Near Death Experience Research Foundation, which is made up of doctors attempting to solve the mysteries of such experiences. In one part of the site individuals could share with others what their near-death experiences were. One person "recalled" stepping into a peaceful place and being greeted by a person in white when having almost drowned at age two. Another, when temporarily going unconscious from an illness, recalls being suddenly on a sunny beach, and having a woman with a child wave him to go back from where he came. Yet another person remembers while having almost drowned as a teenager, floating upwards above their body and feeling a force pull them into a light before meeting their deceased grandmother who bid them to go back.
     So, it is clear that many of these experiences have common themes. Often, people remember going to an extremely peaceful place and not wanting to leave. Then, usually some individual bids them to go back because it is "not their time." This is all so fascinating, and I wonder whether people are just hallucinating due to oxygen and blood flow being restricted to their brains, or if they really did experience these things. Obviously there are many unexplained things in this world, and just like religion, people's near-death experiences probably will never be proved to be true. As I have mentioned before in my discussions on religion though, stories do come from somewhere. They may be exaggerated over time, but they most likely have at least a slightest bit of truth to them. Is the same true of near-death experiences? Do they really happen or is a person just imagining it? The way I consider things, out of all the things scientists have been able to replicate in a robot or clone, they have not been able to recreate the human soul. I am not saying that all supernatural phenomena necessarily exists, but there definitely are things that humans are not able to understand. If it cannot be understood how a human gets a soul, it would therefore be logical to conclude that a soul could still exist outside of the body after the person is deceased. Unfortunately, none of us will find this out until we meet our own end. Have you or someone you know ever had a near-death experience? Did it change you/them?

This is the website I was referring to. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will see people's accounts of their own near-death experiences.

http://www.nderf.org/

Labels...Good or Bad?

In response to Griffin Thayer's question, "Do you think that labels will confide us and make us stay within their boundaries?"...

     While Griffin formed this question out of the context of discussions on theism, atheism, and agnosticism, I will expand this to a broader context. Labels have existed  for hundreds of years, and have been a way to include, cast out, and separate people and things. They do confide many people. People tend to see themselves as strictly in the categories of male or female, American or non-American, black or white. But, as with anything else, their are thousands of exceptions. Humans were not born to fit one label, but instead cover the broad ranges in between them. So, there are transgendered people, those who identify equally as being from America and another country, and people who are born both black and white. Society likes to strictly impose boundaries, and people do not like the fact (though it is true) that the lines are fuzzy. While categorizing people may seem logical in theory, it often has repercussions, as is evident through the social revolutions of the 20th Century.
     Labels might be something that we use to find where we belong, or to keep us feeling safe, but as I have mentioned, many people staunchly resist the label that is placed upon them. For though it might be human nature to give labels, it is also within human nature to resist them. Have you ever been labeled? Did you agree with this label, or did you try hard to resist it?

Money, Money, Money!

In response to Lauren Lemieux's question, "Do you think that money can buy happiness in any other way?"...

     Lauren was very right when she said at the end of her blog that money can prevent a great deal of stress, and in a way, preventing stress is "happiness" to some people. Along with this, I think money can buy people security and safety, and I mean that both literally and figuratively. It can buy you literal safety, but also safety in the sense that  your family can have food to put on the table every week, and normal everyday expenses can be covered easily. So, to many, this would be buying happiness. 
     Money can also ensure that you get a good education. As mentioned in class today, the costs of both private and public education are skyrocketing. It is incredible that so many families are able to spend thousands of dollars just for their child to get a college degree. For those who cannot afford to do so, it does come "at a cost." In other words, today our society is set up in such a way that if you do not have a college degree, you have no hope of getting a decent, well-paying job. As Lauren touched upon, it is so ironic that you need a degree to get money and a job, but you often need a job to be able to afford the degree.
     I do believe that having a moderate amount of money can buy happiness. If you are comfortably middle class and can buy a few nice things with out spending exorbitant amounts, then this is great. You probably will be better off for it. It is when people start crossing the line into the upper class, where money often fosters feelings of dread and regret, instead of happiness. We spend a great deal of our lives wishing we had more than we do. But, people must realize that the fact they do not have everything has made them a better person. Basically, if you have to work a little for what you have, you are all the more deserving in the end. Do you think you would be happier if you were much richer than you are now? In the news there are many stories about miserable millionaires. Do you think there are people who have great amounts of money and are happy with their lives? How do you think they managed to retain such happiness?

"Undercover Boss"

     All of this talk about CEOs has reminded me of a television show I have watched a few times called "Undercover Boss." On this reality show, CEOs of huge businesses like Hooter's, Norwegian Cruise Line, Subway, and Chiquita Brand go undercover at entry level jobs at their company, to see what needs to be improved and what is being done right. Many times, the CEOs enter expecting everything to be perfect and well-run. They end up often uncovering unsanitary work practices, overworked employees, and sexual harassment. In the end, after working a week with the low level employees of their company, they do have a whole new appreciation for them and how hard they do work for such low pay.
     This really should be something that every CEO is required to undergo. It is usually true that a CEO is in their boardroom, extremely isolated from the very people who are ensuring that their million dollar salary is getting paid. Many CEOs did not start off at an entry level job at their company, and being able to experience it really does give them a new outlook. I believe if a CEO had started out at an entry level job, or was able to experience one, then they would have a better view of their company as a whole, and would perhaps deserve more of their astronomical salary than they do now. Do you believe CEOs should only be hired out of a pool of those who started off very low in the company and were able to work their way up to the top? Or do rich outsiders with no experience in the company deserve the position of CEO?

Inheritance or Incapacitation?

     Sometimes I wish I was rich. It gets frustrating when I see my friend's parents willing to shell out thousands of dollars just to send them on a one week trip to Europe, paying for huge expensive cable TV packages, and buy them any clothing they want. I do not mean to say I am poor, and I do not think any of my friends could be considered rich. But, it just seems that many parents are a great deal more willing to drop such huge amounts of money, which is often, money they can barely afford to loose. Growing up, my parents have taught me to be very responsible with money. We are a middle class household, and my father who worked on the fire department for thirty years has now retired. My mother works part-time at our city's library and tutors high school students for the SATs so we can get a bit of extra money. We go on vacation every year, and if I am in need of something, my parents are able to buy it. They put my sister through college, and while I am now attending M.C.L.A., my brother is a senior at UMASS Amherst, all of which they are paying for. However, we have never had cable TV, my parents would never pay for the cell phone bills of my older siblings and I, and they would never dream of buying any of us a car. Basically, while we do have money, we just tend to save most of it. This is a very good thing, especially seeing as so many people are in debt in America today, and we are not at all. Nevertheless, I will admit it has been hard to grow up watching friends have things that I do not, and I believe everyone struggles with this to a certain extent. All of this responsibility surrounding money though, means that I am all the better prepared for the future. Many times children of millionaires or billionaires are not so lucky.
      Everything I have just explained might seem irrelevant, but it is not, for it is what I thought about when we had a discussion on inheritances in class this week. CEOs are obviously paid astronomically high salaries, and many times their children inherit their companies immediately after they pass away. But, are inheritances a blessing or a curse? I have occasionally followed the rich children of America's big businessmen through entertainment news. Often, they are crazy partiers and lack any knowledge of the company, responsibility, and money itself. These children often take over these gigantic companies though, and this does not make any sense. In Harris's article, he mentions that there should be equal opportunity for those who want the job of a CEO. This is incredibly true, for I believe everyone in America would rather have a multimillion dollar corporation in the hands of someone who is qualified, rather than an inexperienced young adult. I think inheritances can be a curse, and it is good that some millionaires refuse to pass their fortunes on to their children. After all, many of these people have worked very hard to get to the point in their lives that they are at. It is simply unfair to just hand to their children what they spent the past fifty years trying so hard to get. Children should get at least a small amount of possessions or money from their parents, for many parents wish to provide for their families even after they are gone. But, millions of dollars and a huge company should definitely not be passed onto the children unless they are qualified and responsible. So, after all, I really am glad that I was raised as comfortably middle class as I was! What skills do you think you would have and what skills do you believe you would lack if one of your parents was a millionaire?

Fight For Your Country!

In response to Shannon Ciuk's question, "Do you believe that in order to be considered completely loyal to your country you have to be willing to physically fight for it?"...

     

     For many people today, this statement is entirely true. As someone mentioned in class today, the term patriotism has simply come to mean "super-patriotism." So, it is no longer acceptable to just mildly support your country, for you will not be viewed as a patriot. Instead, you must actively, physically, defend your country. In the minds of many, the only true patriots right now are the soldiers stationed overseas who gave up their life, closeness to family, and many of their freedoms just to be able to fight for what the government of this country says is correct. Obviously there are some flaws in this system of belief. Patriotism also can mean having the strength to protest the government and say what their doing is wrong, while often, soldiers just go along with what the government tells them to do without much choice. 

     It seems that today's notion of patriotism is very close to what pride of one's homeland was in the past. In medieval Europe, people willingly fought to defend their country from the encroaching powers of other nations or territories. Many people felt so strongly that they were willing to die for their country. But, why is it today that there are so many less people who are willing to physically fight for America than in the past? With improved technology and medical practice, one would think that more people might be willing to fight, for they have a much lower chance of dying than in the past. Today, being a soldier just seems to be a scary profession to many. In the past, it was expected of people to become a soldier so they did. Now, with more choice, people are simply choosing not to risk their life on missions that may or may not make a true difference. So, there is such a conundrum, for many people believe that in order to be a true patriot you must fight, though many are not willing to take such a risk.

Required Religion?

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Do you think kids should be 'forced' to attend church? What age do you think a person can truly begin to understand religion and develop their own thoughts about what they want to believe?"...

     It is obvious that children are usually unable to make good, logical decisions. That is why parents often choose what their child should wear, where they should go to school, what they should eat for lunch, and when they should go to bed. This lacking ability of children really is no fault of their own though, for they simply have not acquired enough wisdom yet to make such decisions. Nevertheless, one very debatable decision parents make is whether their children should attend church with them. Many times parents force children into going to church, which can often prove to be a boring, uninteresting activity for kids. As the child grows up with parents who believe in a certain religion, children are expected to have the same beliefs. If they do not, they are sometimes cast out and rejected by their families. 

     I honestly believe that when they are young, children should be required to go to church with their families, if the family already engages in this practice. The way people learn is by being exposed to so many world views and determining which one they want to follow. For kids, church can teach good lessons like the "Golden Rule," while putting them in a loving community. I know when I was younger, I hated church services, but I loved the feeling of family I got from the members of the church and my friends in Sunday School. There is nothing wrong with a child experiencing such a loving environment. However, that being said, I think the way in which people teach religion in Sunday School needs to be modified. Instead of ruling with an iron fist and telling the children they are required to believe all of the Biblical stories, the Sunday School teachers should instead just say what they believe. They should teach the children about how their own faith helps them in their life, but not make it seem like the child will be an outcast is he or she does not go along with such ideas. But obviously, the way in which people teach religion is something that might not be able to be changed. 

     I believe that as children move out of childhood and into young adulthood (ages 11-14) they start to be able to grasp what is being taught to them. I know at this age I started transitioning from wholeheartedly believing what these adults were teaching me, into questioning and wanting to know why they believed such things. Teenagers are incredibly inquisitive, so it is no wonder that as children become them, they try to get a better understanding of the situation they are in. At this age children start to develop their own beliefs, which in many cases goes strongly against what their church is teaching them. Nonetheless, once children are able to form their own concepts of religion independently, they should be allowed to attend church at their own will, and believe what they wish to. Do you wish you had not been forced to go to church as a child? Has being 'forced' to go to church affected you in any negative or positive ways?

Problems with American Prisons, Culture, Education, and Stereotypes

     In class this week it was mentioned that America has the highest rate of incarceration in the entire world. I have heard this statistic before, and have always wondered as to why this was the case. For instance, do Americans imprison so many people because they need to have a feeling of moral superiority? I read the link to an article on prisons in Professor Johnson's blog and it really raise some interesting points. For one thing, the cost of keeping one person in prison is actually more costly than one year's tuition at a state college. So, why is it that we are willing to take such a huge economic toll on our society? I believe it all just comes down to morals and control. Though many may dispute this, it is true that Americans very often stick their noses into business that really is not our own. Just look at many of the wars we have fought, loosing so many lives because we think we need to be involved in the future of another nation. Therefore, it seems that we also believe that we need to closely monitor the behavior of the citizens of this country. We put them in prisons because it is an easy fix. We lock them up far away so that people can forget about them and feel safer in their neighborhoods. But, prisons usually do not completely reform the lives of individuals. As the aforementioned article details, if a person is incarcerated once, they are likely to be imprisoned again. This is because when someone is released from prison, they still go back out into the world they came from. Poor minorities return to their urban neighborhoods, where the same bad influences are. These bad influences hold a huge influence and easily can drive someone to commit a crime again. So, it would probably make more sense to start reforming the neighborhoods of our country. If we start changing where people come from, by giving aid to those who need it, better education, and better housing, they will be perhaps less likely to end up in prison.
     But, this does not solve the problem of the stereotype embedded in minority cultures. Last year in my Introduction to Sociology class, we read an article about how black school children are automatically stereotyped by school administrators. The sociologist was walking down the hall of an inner city school with the principle of it, who pointed to a boy and said, quite literally, "He will end up in jail." This shocked the sociologist and he realized that by putting labels on children as young as elementary school, they are more likely to live up to them. I think everyone can identify with the fact that, if someone calls you something for long enough, you do end up giving in and eventually being that thing, whether this change comes consciously or unconsciously. Also in the piece, they interviewed many of the black children from the school about what they would like to be when they grew up. The answers were clear; the majority of black students said that they would want to be a professional athlete. Understandably, children do sometimes form unattainable goals. But within this culture, they see their futures, even as they grow older, as being an athlete which would be a ticket out of their circumstances, or remaining there and possibly going to prison. Of course, the chance of these children actually becoming professional athletes is very slim. So, they revert back to what they know and what surrounds them.
     It is clear from this example as to why so many minorities end up in prison. Not only are there racist overtones in law enforcement, but the concept of prison grows up alongside these children. Like I said before, our communities need to change in order for the prison populations to decline. But, this still does not answer the question of why America has such high rates of individuals in prison. I think that we are just incredibly insecure. We want our people to be free, yet we lock so many up. We do this because we are trying to create this image of perfect society. We do not want criminals roaming the streets near our youth. But, it is clear that even when we do remove the criminals from around the children, it still becomes a model for their future. And that, is incredibly disappointing. Do you think that prisons are a beneficial way of punishing criminals?

Altering Perceptions...

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Have you, or someone you know gone through an experience that has changed their religious views? This can be that they found religion or strayed away from it. Why do you think they decided to do that?"...

     I have in fact gone through such an experience, and though there might be a long explanation of this, I suppose that is what this blog is for. Ever since I was born I have been a part of the United Methodist Church in my city. I was baptized into this church, and eventually went through confirmation and became a member. One thing that I really appreciated about my church was the fact that no one pushed religion on you. They would tell you what they believed and welcomed you to join them, but it was definitely nothing like how some people describe Christians' promotion of their faith. Nevertheless, I always went along with what they taught me all those years in Sunday school because it just seemed to be the right thing to believe. Once I became a teen, I became even more serious in my faith, and instead of just agreeing with what people told me, I realized that I truly believed it too. I would believe all of the bible stories, but I always enjoyed the friendships I made with other youth in the church and the feeling of family I got, much more than the religious part of it.
     Then, five months ago I stumbled upon an article that I will post a link to below. I am a fan of alternative rock music and attend a great deal of concerts. I always check the music magazine, Alternative Press, and their website for updates about the bands I like. While scrolling through the news on the website, an article caught my eye. It was by Wil Francis, the lead singer of a band I like called Aiden. He was a contributor on the website, and though I knew he was a staunch atheist while I was not, I was still intrigued by what he would have to say. I believe it was a good thing I chose to read this article, for it really put a great deal in perspective for me in regards to my religious beliefs.
     Now, I will clarify that I did not believe every thing he said, though it truly did get me thinking about my beliefs, more than anything else ever has. What I got out of the piece was that I need to stop taking everything Christianity was preaching as true. To me, this did not necessarily mean to stop believing. Rather, it means I personally felt the need to find out the truth of these biblical stories on my own. I have mentioned several times before in this blog how I want to be an archaeologist in the future. I actually am extremely interested in biblical archeology, and for a while I even received a biblical archeology magazine in the mail. Therefore, this article really inspired me to find out what is true from the evidence that is available. Obviously some of the biblical stories are probably exaggerated. I just am so driven to find out for myself to what degree this is. I see myself on a sort of quest, to not take what Christians say as complete fact, but rather find out if it actually is. While some may say this is an impossible feat, I would deny that.
     As I mentioned before, I always loved the family aspect of my church more than the actual religion. The second most striking thing Wil Francis said in his article was that there is a difference between feeling spirituality and a connection with others, and something being religious. He said that the things I love, such as the feeling you get when you are at a rock concert in the crowd, and everyone is singing the same words to the song as you, can be thought of as spiritual. I feel such a connection to music and moments like this, and judging by what he said, this explains why I still go to church - I love the feeling of human connection, the feeling that I am not alone. This is not necessarily religious, but it appears to be just as, if not more, important.
     So, if you are to read the article now, you might definitely not get the same thing out of it that I did. For me, Wil Francis wrote in such a way that did not make me automatically adopt an entirely new position, but it instead made me seriously think. I would definitely not call myself an atheist, an agnostic, or a theist. Rather, I am probably just a questioning theist, and even though Professor Johnson said today in class that this is a paradox, I might be an agnostic theist. I still believe in God. I am not ready and do not feel that I can stop believing in his existence entirely. But I am questioning, for I believe, but do not know. Additionally, the reason as to why you might not see the article the same as I did, ties in perfectly to what we discussed in class. In order for some to change their opinions, the same piece of evidence is not sufficient. The evidence people need to change their view is very subjective, and it depends on what a person is influenced by as to if they believe something.
     So yes, I have had an experience that seriously changed my religious views, and I believe it is clear as to why it has. This whole post might seem overly personal, but I was not reluctant to share this information, because I believe it shows quite fully what we have been discussing of the process of how people change their minds in regards to religion. Also, it is no surprise that there are 275 comments after Wil Francis's article debating over what he says is true or not. Do you think it is possible for people to change their views about religion completely, or do they always still slightly hold onto the ideas that they were raised with, even if such a thing seems unconscious?

This is the article I have mentioned in my post:
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/god_is_dead_an_essay_by_william_control/

Some More Religious Ponderings...

     Why is it that people have such a negative conception of the words "agnostic" and "atheist"?  In our society today, it seems that people who do not have faith are looked down upon. It is understandable that our country was in fact founded on freedom of religion (which entails that people have a religion, and I am not sure atheism can be considered a religion), and therefore even after all these years, people are expected to believe...or at least act like they do anyways. I just wonder how many people would actually identify themselves as religious without the pressures of their families, friends, and society. I used to go to church every Sunday, and it was very clear who were the "Christmas/Easter" folk. In other words, those people who only show up to church two times a year out of a feeling of obligation. But, even those who show up every Sunday are not necessarily extremely faithful. As bad as it might sound for me to say this, I often enjoyed the feeling of family and camraderie within my church much more than the actual religious aspect of it. I just wonder how many people feel the same. As humans, everyone likes to feel as if they are a part of something. For some, though their beliefs might be questionable, they might go simply for this reason.  
     But still, why is a lack of faith or confusion seen as a negative thing? Somehow the word "atheist" has been associated with "pessimistic" and agnostic is not far from this either. Do people somehow feel threatened by those who do not believe? Perhaps even though people might be unsure of their beliefs, they still wish to hold onto the optimism that something does exist. I believe that in some way, humans have constructed religion because they needed to believe that not everything on earth is solely determined by their own actions. They might just like to entertain the idea of some outside force, which is somehow guiding their life, to take blame off of themselves.

Body Improvement, or Body Destruction?

In response to Lauren Lemieux's question, "Do you think acceptance for different body modifications will continue to grow for the work environment?"...

     Ironically, we have been talking about tattoos and other forms of body modification in my Culture and the Body class recently. By what I have learned and observed, I think that acceptance of tattoos and piercings will definitely grow in the future as our generation becomes older. What I mean by this is that right now, it is the older generation of our parents and grandparents who are unaccepting of the younger generation's body modifications. So, it is possible that over the next thirty to forty years acceptance will increase more and more, and after the older generation is completely replaced by those who are now my peers, tattoos might be finally fully accepted.
     Personally, I think that it is unfortunate that the older generation is so unaccepting of what some people choose to do with their bodies. I have no tattoos, but I do have five ear piercings. My parents were very against me getting any more than two piercings, no matter how much I tried to convince them. I eventually just waited until I turned eighteen and did not need parental consent in order to get it done. For me, I like my piercings for aesthetic reasons, but many of my friends who are tattooed see their tattoos as being highly symbolic and meaningful. I do understand why there is a stigma attached to body modification because of its origins in the working class. However, this old working class notion of tattoos is being replaced with middle class values and artwork. Today people are much more likely to go into a middle class custom shop rather than a working class street shop and choosing a design off the wall as they used to. The conceptions of tattoos are changing now that more people of the middle class are using it as a form of self expression. Tattooing and piercing are not nearly as rare as they once were, and now much more artwork is involved in the process. I believe there always will be a lingering stigma against these body modifications, but in the future, it will most likely not be nearly as severe and prevalent as it is now. Do you have any tattoos or piercings? Do people ever judge you because of your body modifications? Has the stigma against tattoos and piercings discouraged you from getting more that you would want if it was seen as acceptable?

Time...A Benefit, or a Curse?

In response to Brittany Guntor's question, "If your life were suddenly free from a constricting time schedule, do you think you would get more done? Would your stress level decrease or increase?"... 

     I am one of those people who so incredibly relies on time. I get very anxious if I am ever late going somewhere, I live off of my agenda which has everything I need to do penciled out in front of me, and if I do not have enough time to get something accomplished, I get very frustrated. The most valuable thing I ever learned in taking five Advanced Placement courses while in high school was time management. This has helped me tremendously when I look at myself and my academic standing compared to some people I know who never seemed to learn these skills. To function in today's society, we do all need to truly master time, and often you hear people complaining that there is "not enough time in the day". I completely agree with this. We bog ourselves down so much with everything we have to do, where we have to be, and for how long we must remain there. We feel as if we never get to truly relax, for there is always something that needs to be done. It seems to me that this stress is taking a great toll on all of our bodies.
     If my life were free of such a time schedule, I do not think I would get much done. The closest to this state I have ever gotten is summer break, when for the most part, students are free from most of their stressful committments they had during the school year. But, in the summer I still use a calendar to write down important days or things I need to remember to do. I believe this is because I am so fearful of forgetting to do something important. So, if such an event as described by Brittany happened, my stress level might decrease for a while, but then increse when I realize what still needs to be done. Additionally, quite frankly, I do not think I would get much done without a time schedule. All school year I stress myself out so much that by the time summer or winter break rolls around and I do not have many committments, I do nothing. And it feels good to do nothing. Do you think our lives are too structured by time? If so, is there any possible way to change this?

Psychics, Palm-readers, and E.S.P... Oh My!

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "How do you think psychics work?"...

     In many places I have read that psychics are frauds, and that they essentially appear to "work" by reading off the body signals of their client. I have never visited a psychic, but I would think that to be able to read off someones reactions that well is an incredible skill, even if it is not a "psychic" one. My mother actually went to a palm-reader/psychic when she was younger. The woman told her she was going to have three children, two girls and one boy - and she did! But, was this woman simply guessing, or was an extra sense helping her?
     It just is interesting to think about how much people can push themselves and their minds to do. A show I really liked a couple years back was called Kyle XY, and the basic premise was that there was this boy who was genetically engineered and stuck in a tube to incubate for sixteen years. In the scientific experiment, they figured the longer his gestation period, the smarter he would be, and the more super-human abilities he would have. He eventually escaped this place, and he did have strange powers, such as being able to walk on hot coals, climb walls extremely well, jump off buildings without being hurt, have super hearing, and make objects move with his mind. Basically, he was capable of E.S.P. It was an enjoyable show to watch, for it had a pretty interesting concept. But, people are able to do things such as walk on hot coals without being burned. They say, "mind over matter," but is that even possible? Do you think people who do things such as this are actually capable of it, or is it just a big ruse, like the shows of illusionists and magicians?
     I think that psychics are just like any other career field, there are those who do have the ability, and then there is an overwhelming amount of frauds which leads people to believe that no psychics are legitimate. Some people are capable of crazy things, from being able to manipulate their body in strange ways, to being able to communicate with the dead. There are almost 7 billion people on this planet, and I may be a fool to think so, but I believe there is at least one psychic out there, that is blessed with powers that basically no one else has.

Agnostics...Halfway in Between, Or Just Another Side?

      As humans, everyone holds numerous beliefs covering a broad range of subjects. Perhaps one of the most controversial of these areas is religion. But, why is this the case? Why is it that even after thousands of years humans are still trying to find which religion can be proven to be the "correct" one? And how does one even go about proving to the world that there religion is justified? The way I see it, religion is essentially based off stories that are passed down through hundreds of generations. Those who believe these stories are considered to be following that particular religion. Many would argue that this "game of telephone" with regards to religious experiences incredibly unreliable...but is it? After all, stories do originate somehow. I just get the feeling that though certain aspects of the Christian stories from the time of Jesus might be exaggerated, they probably do still have some truth in them.
     So, considering all of this, why do some people thing negatively of agnostics, who simply assert that they have no idea if there is a god or not, and that it is most likely impossible to prove either way? I have a couple friends who identify themselves as agnostic, and they basically assert that they do not know what to believe, though they admit it there is a possibility of a god, just as there is the possibility that there is not one. This beliefs seem rather reasonable, seeing as navigating the world of religion is often very confusing and strenuous. But, I have heard other Christian friends of mine make certain comments to the agnostics such as, "oh that's just a cop-out isn't it, so you don't have to choose to believe in anything?" It is just rather ridiculous how these things work. If you identify yourself as a Christian, people will attack you for believing in a higher power so blindly. If you identify as an atheist, people think of you as being a negative, pessimistic person who does not feel the need to go along with society's ideas of religion. Finally, if you identify yourself as somewhere in between, such as an agnostic, you get attacked for not choosing a side. When will this ever stop? It is within human nature to have a diversity of opinions, but people need to try harder to recognize that though someone may not know what to believe, that does not mean they need to be forced into choosing a side.

"Very Superstitious" (like the Stevie Wonder song)

In response to Mariah Key's question, "Talking about ghosts makes me think about superstitions; what truth do you think is behind superstitions?"...

     Last semester I took Logic and Critical Reasoning, and when we were studying fallacies, superstitions came up. I forget the exact name of the fallacy, but there is one in which one event follows another, and individuals assume that the two events are connected. In other words, an example Professor Nnodim used in class is, cheerleaders always wear a blue ribbon in their hair, and for the most part, the football team has a very good season. For one game, for what ever reason, they decide to all wear yellow ribbons. The team suffers an uncharacteristic, brutal loss. Many of the cheerleaders may then swear to never wear the yellow ribbons again, in fear that it might make the team loose.
     It may seem obvious that it is "stupid" to make such an assumption. But, if you examine your life a little closer, you might realize that you adhere to superstitions unintentionally quite often. Do you believe any of these things?

*Friday the 13th is an unlucky day
*to find a 4-leaf clover is incredibly lucky
*to blow out all of the candles on your birthday cake in one breath will make your wish come true
*crossing your fingers makes your wish come true
*to find a penny heads-up brings good luck
*a drowned woman floats face-up, a drowned man floats face-down
*to ensure a happy marriage, a bride must wear something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue
*washing a car will bring rain
*a beginner will always have good luck (beginner's luck)

source: http://www.csicop.org/superstition/library/common_superstitions/

     Many may say that they do not believe in superstitions, as I do myself, but when they walk under a ladder or see a black cat, they still might remember such a superstition, even if they do not believe it has any truth. Does acknowledging or remembering a superstition mean you do somewhat believe in it?
     Nevertheless, in response to Mariah's question, I do not think there is truth to superstitions. People come to believe crazy things all the time, and like the example I first mentioned, they falsely attributed two events to be connected, when in reality, they are not at all. But, if you believe in determinism (all events follow causally from the one before it), are you more likely to believe superstitions (two events are connected in a certain way)?

Yes, Let Me Get That Door For You!

     In our discussion on altruism in class, the act of holding doors for others was brought up. I had never really thought anything of it, except I obviously knew that to let the door slam in the face of the person behind you is generally considered rather rude. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the reason why individuals do it is because they expect others to do it for them in return. This makes perfect sense, in that we are engaging in an "altruistic" act in order to benefit ourselves further down the line. America is such an individualistic country compared to many of the Asian nations, though. So, if we put such stress on personal blame and doing things independently, why do we have such strict moral rules as to often wait a minute for the person behind you to catch up and walk through the door you are holding?
     All of this also reminds me of the concept of chivalry. For some reason, over time an expectation has developed that men should always be very kind and respectful to women, and do such things as hold doors for them, and pull out a chair for them when they sit down. Obviously, many claim that "chivalry is dead," and men do these things no longer, but how did the expectation for them to do it develop in the first place? As with many instances in history, it seems just as likely that men's and women's positions could have easily been switched in regards to chivalry. But, history took its course, and things are what they are. Needless to say, ever since our class discussions, I have chuckled to myself as I see the person ahead of me rush to hold the door open as I approach!

To Donate or Not To Donate...That Is The Question...

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Who is more inclined to donate money, people who have a lot of it or people who have just enough to get by?"...

     In my experience, it seems that those who give the most are those who do not have that much at all. It seems somewhat ironic that the "poor" would help the "poor" so to speak, but it makes perfect sense. Those who do not have much understand that it is very difficult to be in that position, and therefore are motivated to help to the best of their ability. It is kind of how a person is likely to give to a cancer research foundation if they have a family member who has had, or has, the disease. However, it appears that they are usually more apt to help causes in other ways that giving cash directly. Many people who start and run organizations volunteer their time to help raise money through certain events, or help to plan fundraising strategies. Those who can barely get by might offer to cook a meal or provide shelter to someone who needs it desperately. Thus, the more that I think about it, the more that I realize that those who barely have enough are not so likely to give money, but rather donate their time, love, and services.
     So, it seems that those who have a great deal of money are the ones who donate it, though the phrase "a lot of money" can mean many things. It can mean the middle class disposable income, or the funds of the rich. From my observations I have found that it is truly the middle class that donates money the most. This is probably because they are close enough to the working class to understand hardships with money, but close enough to the upper class as well to understand the concept of disposable income. In class, someone mentioned that the rich are very unlikely to give money because of their stinginess. But, I learned something different in my Introduction to Sociology course last semester. The rich are very likely to give large amounts to charities because it is built into the societal expectations of what the rich should do. They are expected to make connections and build business ties through private clubs, donate to charity, and go to prestigious schools. This is why huge charity benefits are often thrown by extremely rich families - they have the money to do so, and the community they reside in expects that of them. So, are you more likely to donate to a cause if you have been through such a situation yourself? Why does it always seem that though you may help others while they are in need, when the time comes for you to get help, no one will give it to you? Are you more likely to be more "charitable" after such a thing happens?