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?