If We Could Turn Back Time...

     One question that always puzzles individuals is, is time a human-constructed concept? I have always heard from others that people "made" time and we need its structure to lead our lives. But, as it was raised in class, time really was not ours to "invent". So, this means that time existed far before humans did, and was simply not given a label until we gave it one. This leads me to wonder, are there any other animals who have a similar conception of time as humans do? If so, how did it affect how they led their lives if they existed before humans evolved? It also seems strange that humans, as a part of nature, need clocks and the concept of time to function. There are no other animals on the planet who have invented clocks, and it therefore seems strange that we needed to. Most animals do not need to think of time in the same way we do, for they have natural instincts that tell them when to wake up, when to migrate, when to return to a certain place to mate, etc. So why is it that humans do not have as many of these natural instincts? It almost seems that humans have evolved to be lazy. We do not live in the "wilderness" as most animals do, and most people do not have very many instincts like sleeping lightly to wake up if there is danger. Instead, humans sleep in, spend so much time being unproductive, and are extremely dependent on the very technology we have invented. It is just puzzling that if you put any animal in a very isolated place in the wilderness, chances are they would be able to survive if they could live in the climate. If you strand a human out in the middle of no-where though, they often cannot sustain themselves. We have invented so much technology, but it has driven us backward in our ability to live independently of these forces. Often I wish I could travel back in time and live as the first settlers of America did, like the people of Medieval Europe, or even as the Ancient Egyptians. It seems that the time we live in right now has so many problems, and so much negativity. But, would living in a different time really be any healthier for the planet or ourselves? What would be the positive and negative aspects of living in another era?

When You Don't Know What to Write...

In response to Brittany Guntor's question, "Is writer's block an actual psychological problem, or just an excuse to turn in sub-par work?"...

     Just before I started writing this post I was searching for questions to respond to, for I felt that in that moment a free post of my own thoughts was too daunting of a task. So, it was pretty coincidental that I stumbled upon this post about writer's block. While some people may use the words "writer's block" as an excuse for poor work, I do not think this happens very frequently. I believe it is usually a legitimate psychological problem that stems out of frustration and the constant distractions that surround us. Today people, teens especially, are surrounded by so much technology that it can be overwhelming. Therefore, when a student sits down to write a paper, they are often periodically checking Facebook, chatting with friends, checking their cell phone for text messages, or playing computer games. It becomes very hard to put away one's phone, shut down the other computer programs, and just leave up the word document they are working on. All of these distractions seem to be causing writer's block, for they fill our minds with so many other thoughts than what we need to be thinking about. So, like we talked about before in class, one may go on Facebook and get into a fight with a friend. When they sign off of the website, they then might be distracted with this anger and sadness. These thoughts obviously will be overwhelming if someone is trying to write something relatively intelligent for class. I do not think that writer's block is an excuse, but rather a psychological problem that has developed in more severity over the past years due to the rise in the amount of things to distract us. Why do you think writer's block occurs? Is it possible to train yourself to not experience writer's block as often?

Meant to Be, or Pure Coincidence?

In response to Lauren Lemieux's question, "Are some things really 'meant to be'?"...

     This is a very difficult question to answer, but I think to an extent, some things are truly are. After all, everything follows causally from one thing to the next, and there is some predictability in our actions. What I mean by this is that, if a person drops a pencil, certain actions can be anticipated. So if they drop it, it is very likely they will bend over to pick it up, or they might just leave it where it fell. What will not happen though, is that person will be transported to another time and place, and they will not transform into an animal. These actions could simply not happen because, first, they are not possible, and second, they would not be caused by dropping a pencil. Therefore, actions can determined, to an extent. But, does this mean that things are "meant to be"? That all depends on if a person believes in determinism or not. Determinism is the idea that our lives are one big chain of events and, essentially, we are therefore never "free" because we are always tied down to cause. It also depends on whether or not a person believes in a higher power or god. If they do and believe that this god has some sort of plan for their future, then they will think that things are meant to happen the way that they do. However, if a person is lacking religion, it is unlikely that they will believe such things. So, it is really up to personal interpretation whether or not anything is meant to happen. Personally, I am a religious person and believe our lives are somewhat determined, but that is only my opinion. Certain questions such as whether there actually is a god may never be answered, and therefore, questions such as this may remain unanswered long after we are gone. Do you believe that people have a "destiny"? If you do, do you believe that they have the power to manipulate or change it?

It's Raining Cats and Dogs...

In response to Israel Diaz's question, "Is it 'natural' for a dog or cat to be used as a pet?"...

     First of all, as we have learned in class, we should identify what is meant by the word "natural" in this question, for often people substitute it for about four greater meanings. So, is keeping a cat or dog as a pet morally wrong? This is quite a difficult question to answer. Today, the cats and dogs people keep as pets are domesticated, and these animals might have a difficult time living in the wild on their own if they had to. Obviously, there are some "outdoor cats" which would be alright, but for the most part it seems that the two species have adapted to enjoy and need the comforts of a nice home. Abusing animals is evidently morally wrong, but it is up to individual interpretation if keeping animals such as these is wrong. People will argue that humans think of themselves too highly and should not enslave other animals to keep as pets. But, I believe it is alright if we do as long as we treat them kindly and respectfully. It would just be cruel to release some domesticated animals out into the wild where they would not be able to survive.
     Another interpretation of the word "natural" is human-made, and in a sense, keeping animals does appear to be a human-made notion. After all, we domesticated animals hundreds of years ago by keeping them as our pets, and I cannot think of any other creature who keeps pets like humans do. So, is our tendency to keep pets based off of our levels of intelligence, sentience, memory, sense of self, etc? I believe it must be. In my last post I responded to Jenny's question about what animal would take the place of humans if we were not so superior, and I had a difficult time answering. It just seems that there is no animal that would have the ability to dominate to the extent that humans do, and therefore perhaps be able to keep pets. There are animals on the planet who use "lesser" animals to their benefit, but is this the same as humans keeping a cat or a dog? It seems that animals keep other animals for some physical or biological need, whereas humans keep pets for emotional reasons. Perhaps most animals do not keep pets because they do not have the capacity to feel emotions to the extent that humans do. Additionally, it is interesting that the more popular pets amongst humans seems to be those who can feel emotions similar to what we do, like cats or dogs.
     Keeping cats or dogs as pets is not uncommon, as one interpretation of "natural" goes, but does it upset a balance in the world? This is hard to answer as well, for humans have kept animals for so long that it is hard to imagine a time that we did not. However, I believe that it does not upset such a balance. Cats and dogs are relatively loyal animals, and it just so happens that over time we have domesticated them to become loyal to humans. But, this is just how history has played itself out, and there have not seemed to be any severe consequences of it.
     So, it is clear that there are many different interpretations of this question, and I hope I have adequately answered all of them. But in response, I offer you a few more questions...  What is one animal that you believe could never be domesticated for humans to use as a pet? What would the world be like if humans never kept cats or dogs as pets? What kind of different qualities do you think the animals would have, living in the "wild"?

Battle for Superiority

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "If humans saw themselves far from the superior beings on Earth, what living creature do you think would take our place?"...

     This question is absolutely fascinating, but I do not think that it has one single answer. My immediate thought upon reading this was, what is the creature with the closest levels of intelligence, sentience, memory, communication, and sense of self to ourselves? In other words, who is at the top of the food chain, literally and figuratively? Several animals crossed my mind, from lions to dogs, from dolphins to monkeys. It does not seem without the presence of humans though, that these animals would necessarily dominate to such an extent. What is a very distinct possibility however, is that just as when humans sparsely populated the earth, certain creatures would dominate depending on what climates they resided in. So, instead humans dominating the entire planet, certain whales might dominate in the Arctic, the big cats like lions and cheetahs in Africa, bears in North America and so forth.
     There are so many incredibly intelligent animals on the planet, but why is it that humans so dominant? We do have the ability to think about our own thoughts and analyze our actions after all, but surely out of millions of other creatures, there must be others who can do this as well. Nevertheless, somehow, whether it be biological, evolutionary, or by the influence of a higher power, humans have been graced with the features that have led us to the point we are at today, and though I am human, it still does seem unfair to me that we are seen in so much a higher regard than the other animals. Furthermore, most people even use the term "animalistic" with a negative connotation, forgetting that they themselves are, have been, and always will be animalistic in every sense of the word. Perhaps I am getting worked up over something that can never be changed, but the future is unpredictable, and there may come a day when we encounter more intelligent and therefore greater beings than ourselves. How do you think humans would react if things shifted so that they were no longer the dominant beings of the planet?

Thrill-Seeking...Within Our Nature?

     Recently, it seems that my suite in Berkshire Towers has been overtaken with ghost mania. All semester, we have been noticing really odd things on the eighth floor. Furniture has been heard moving in locked rooms when no one is inside, my friend's laptop has flown across her room randomly, we have heard voices, and items have mysteriously gone missing and turned up in odd locations. We have been relatively intrigued, so my friends and I have even begun to watch the television show, "Ghost Adventures". What does all of this have to do with philosophy one might ask? Well, in my last blog post I talked about fear of the unknown, and for centuries people have feared ghosts for that precise reason - they know virtually nothing about them. I just wonder, are there really alternate universes and dimensions in which beings exist? Do ghosts exist? Do gods exist? People get very frustrated because they will probably never know the answer to any of these questions. But, that does not stop many from spending their whole lives trying to find the answers. Some of those are the three member crew of "Ghost Adventures". They go from town to town spending the entire night literally locked in "haunted" buildings, and enjoy it in the long run.  But, why do some individuals spend their whole life chasing the unknown while most others run away from it? What do you think about these "thrill-seekers"? Do they go against human nature by finding pleasure in unexplained phenomena? I do not believe I am one of these thrill-seekers, but am I in a sense? It is within our nature to be inquisitive. So, where is the line drawn between fear and simple general interest for individuals? Is this line the same for everyone, or does it vary? In other words, why is what some consider fascinating, what others consider deathly frightening?

To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before...Or Not?

In response to Griffin Thayer's question, "Why do humans tend to focus on the dangers of the unknown and not on the possible benefits?"...

     It seems to be within human nature to worry. Early in our existence, humans worried about getting adequate food, shelter, and water. Hundreds of years ago, they worried about the supernatural, whether that be the gods in the skies, the world beyond their seashores with its potentially dangerous creatures, or what happens once you perished. Today, humans are still concerned with much the same things, but we have seemed to evolve to worry more about finding love, avoiding rejection, and fitting in with the rest of society. But, it is impossible to deny that throughout all of the phases of human existence, people have worried about the unknown, and it is often the greatest fear that some people have. The word "worry" implies that they had negative feelings towards their uncertain futures, and as Griffin asked, why do humans not find pleasure in the unexplained? Perhaps it is because for some reason, it seems to be easier to feel badly than to feel happy. Why is this? That is a question that can probably never be answered. But, if I had to guess, I would simply have to say that it is within human nature to be in control. As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, people thrive on similarity and routine, and control comes with the power to impliment such things. When humans are out of control they often do whatever they can to regain the stability, and it seems that humans have this fear because they know many times throughout their lives and beyond they will lose control. So, it appears that it is just within human nature to see the unexplained as negative and dangerous, and there is not much anyone can do to change our evolution to this point over thousands of years. If you could change one aspect of our human nature, what would it be? What would the world be like if the human race had no fears?