In class this week we discussed a mess of interesting topic discussions that related back to Sigmund Freud. One of these particular conversations was about the differences of the "Id, Ego, and Superego" amongst different species and living creatures on the planet. This conversation became fascinating to me when it came to describing the differences between what life is like when you only have certain pieces of this equation.
The example that we had discussed in class was that of a dog. A dog has an Id and an Ego, but lacks that of the Superego. The dog has an ambition for the pleasures of life, and it knows full well that its actions have certain effects on its ability to receive such pleasure (i.e. getting a treat for doing a trick). However, a dog does not have a superego, the dog has no ambition to get out some cleaner to go and fix what it has done to the rug when it decides to pee on it.
This conversation is interesting to me specifically because at some point in our developing as humans we came to understand and utilize this "superego". So the question that is on my mind is: what if other species are in the process of becoming fully aware and capable of understanding the same way that we understand things? Do we even know if there hasn't already been a case where other creatures can reason the same way that we are with respect to the Superego?
In class we also discussed that some birds literally use their ability to sing as a means of pleasurably making music, just for the sake that it is pretty.... are we even going to have the capability in the future to communicate with these creatures to understand if they are indeed that intelligent?
It is an interesting topic, what are some of your views?
Saturday, April 3, 2010
A Response to Bryan's Post
This response corresponds to the conversation taking place on Bryan's Blog, found here:
http://bacton.blogspot.com/2010/03/do-not-forget-we-are-talking-about.html
To catch you up on things, currently me and Bryan are talking about how to perfect a socialist utopian society. As a response to his post, I felt that there may be some things to add to my original argument, these are my revisions to the plan:
For starters, this conversation we had was very basic and in the birth of its coming to completion. I think that the equal wages with freedom to spend it on what interests you is still a very valid argument, it just needs some help with other potential circumstances to encompass the things that you think would be wrong with it.
With respect to the jobs situation, equal wages has to be rephrased a little bit. The real solution to that statement would be that jobs would pay differently based on how much you have to do / contribute to society. Rather than saying that everyone gets equal wages, it would be a statement of everyone gets appropriate wage caps based on their contribution to society.
Another important part to this conflict is that of the self being frustrated with this system. What you had mentioned is that the normal person would notice that they don't need to do as much work as expected and still make the same money. This is a very true statement, and thus my solution to it is that there must be a form of punishment (whether to the wages you make or the job itself) for not complying with the job that you are participating in. This would work very similarly to firing someone from the job that they are clearly not adequate for, expecting that the person who will now not have any wage coming in will find a different job that they will actually participate in.
This leads to the next interesting issue of running out, and or wasting away the wage money that you are expected to use appropriately. My solution to this brings the whole argument to a level of finally making sense. For if you have been fired from your job, and or you have been wasting your wages away to the point that you can no longer survive without government help, then you are sent to jail. This would have to be a slightly different kind of jail than what we have now though. It would have to be more of a rehabilitation to society program; where you take these people who have wasted their money away and have them do community service without pay until they make up for what they have done wrong. Once they have proven to be humbled by this means of service, they are sent back out to try again with the expectation that they can now appreciate their wages.
This concept of the jail would also make up for the people trying to take advantage of the system. For you can go back to jail as many times as you want, but it would be more efficient to keep your job and try and save your money for what you want; rather than a means of taking advantage of others.
This concept of the jail system would also take the blame on the government out of the people's eyes, because it is a standardized system that would work efficiently without bias to any one person who ends up there.
What do you think of the revisions?
http://bacton.blogspot.com/2010/03/do-not-forget-we-are-talking-about.html
To catch you up on things, currently me and Bryan are talking about how to perfect a socialist utopian society. As a response to his post, I felt that there may be some things to add to my original argument, these are my revisions to the plan:
For starters, this conversation we had was very basic and in the birth of its coming to completion. I think that the equal wages with freedom to spend it on what interests you is still a very valid argument, it just needs some help with other potential circumstances to encompass the things that you think would be wrong with it.
With respect to the jobs situation, equal wages has to be rephrased a little bit. The real solution to that statement would be that jobs would pay differently based on how much you have to do / contribute to society. Rather than saying that everyone gets equal wages, it would be a statement of everyone gets appropriate wage caps based on their contribution to society.
Another important part to this conflict is that of the self being frustrated with this system. What you had mentioned is that the normal person would notice that they don't need to do as much work as expected and still make the same money. This is a very true statement, and thus my solution to it is that there must be a form of punishment (whether to the wages you make or the job itself) for not complying with the job that you are participating in. This would work very similarly to firing someone from the job that they are clearly not adequate for, expecting that the person who will now not have any wage coming in will find a different job that they will actually participate in.
This leads to the next interesting issue of running out, and or wasting away the wage money that you are expected to use appropriately. My solution to this brings the whole argument to a level of finally making sense. For if you have been fired from your job, and or you have been wasting your wages away to the point that you can no longer survive without government help, then you are sent to jail. This would have to be a slightly different kind of jail than what we have now though. It would have to be more of a rehabilitation to society program; where you take these people who have wasted their money away and have them do community service without pay until they make up for what they have done wrong. Once they have proven to be humbled by this means of service, they are sent back out to try again with the expectation that they can now appreciate their wages.
This concept of the jail would also make up for the people trying to take advantage of the system. For you can go back to jail as many times as you want, but it would be more efficient to keep your job and try and save your money for what you want; rather than a means of taking advantage of others.
This concept of the jail system would also take the blame on the government out of the people's eyes, because it is a standardized system that would work efficiently without bias to any one person who ends up there.
What do you think of the revisions?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
A Response to Yvonne's Post
So you say that the heart and mind should be balnced, but what are the extreme's of either argument?
Alrighty, this is an interesting set of statements that I want to talk about. For starters, I agree, life must consist of balance, for balance is what lets us survive most peacefully as a whole. The Heart and the Mind are an amazing example of this, for the two of them separately are each one extreme, but together, they create one flourishing system of complete understanding.
The benefit to living in the extreme of the heart is that you will endure the life of a character, as if your actual life is that of a play. For the heart is the center of all that is love and giving, and thus you will experience great happiness, and great sadness. Some people are absolutely in love with this style of life, for it leaves the idea of epic free to explore within one's personal life, which is something that should not be ignored. But be warned that great sadness is a powerful thing to deal with, and not everyone is ready to handle it.
The life of extreme knowledge is the exact opposite. You are that of a computer, one who must weigh out every decision as if it would end your life if you chose wrong. This ideal of life is beneficial since you appreciate the things that are potentially dangerous, and thus live a long safe life. But alternatively, this life will leave you with an empty feeling in the bottom of what you will think is your stomach (but it’s really your heart). You will never fully appreciate all of the stupid things that other people have done and got away with, the adventures that you could have had. But these things are also not for everyone, and cannot be forced, so let them be.
In the end, the wise warrior will appreciate what things are truly too dangerous, but will leave themselves up to take advantage of all aspects life has to offer that won't kill them. They will be fulfilled with adventure and knowledge, and thus live a happy life for the life that they have actually lived.
Alrighty, this is an interesting set of statements that I want to talk about. For starters, I agree, life must consist of balance, for balance is what lets us survive most peacefully as a whole. The Heart and the Mind are an amazing example of this, for the two of them separately are each one extreme, but together, they create one flourishing system of complete understanding.
The benefit to living in the extreme of the heart is that you will endure the life of a character, as if your actual life is that of a play. For the heart is the center of all that is love and giving, and thus you will experience great happiness, and great sadness. Some people are absolutely in love with this style of life, for it leaves the idea of epic free to explore within one's personal life, which is something that should not be ignored. But be warned that great sadness is a powerful thing to deal with, and not everyone is ready to handle it.
The life of extreme knowledge is the exact opposite. You are that of a computer, one who must weigh out every decision as if it would end your life if you chose wrong. This ideal of life is beneficial since you appreciate the things that are potentially dangerous, and thus live a long safe life. But alternatively, this life will leave you with an empty feeling in the bottom of what you will think is your stomach (but it’s really your heart). You will never fully appreciate all of the stupid things that other people have done and got away with, the adventures that you could have had. But these things are also not for everyone, and cannot be forced, so let them be.
In the end, the wise warrior will appreciate what things are truly too dangerous, but will leave themselves up to take advantage of all aspects life has to offer that won't kill them. They will be fulfilled with adventure and knowledge, and thus live a happy life for the life that they have actually lived.
Only Enough Room for One
In class this week one thing that we had talked about briefly was that of where philosophers get their true ideas. It had been mentioned that "No great philosopher gets his ideas by himself, that there must always be some stealing."
When this was mentioned, I really had to think about the way that it was worded. After giving it some thought, I think that this is an inappropriate statement. The way that I look at it, philosophers are descriptors and pattern seekers of things that are happening and created by other people whom they happen to be surrounded by while alive. This lead to some round about thinking, but in the end I came to this conclusion:
One cannot be a Philosopher without taking the ideas and thoughts as a collection from the people whom they are surrounded, for it is those things that influence and establish their observations. Without people to sit down and interpret and observe, then there would be nothing for the philosopher to describe and appreciate. The real issue is that there cannot be more than one person who is famous for the works that get published within their lifetime, as is similar to the idea that no two people can be singularly famous for the same piece of art.
What are your thoughts?
When this was mentioned, I really had to think about the way that it was worded. After giving it some thought, I think that this is an inappropriate statement. The way that I look at it, philosophers are descriptors and pattern seekers of things that are happening and created by other people whom they happen to be surrounded by while alive. This lead to some round about thinking, but in the end I came to this conclusion:
One cannot be a Philosopher without taking the ideas and thoughts as a collection from the people whom they are surrounded, for it is those things that influence and establish their observations. Without people to sit down and interpret and observe, then there would be nothing for the philosopher to describe and appreciate. The real issue is that there cannot be more than one person who is famous for the works that get published within their lifetime, as is similar to the idea that no two people can be singularly famous for the same piece of art.
What are your thoughts?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Noble Scholar
During class this week we spent a lot of time talking about Hobbes and Rousseau. While discussing the things that Rousseau thought about in terms of his philosophy I started to really think about his idea of "Emile" or what would be the best way to raise a child.
this concept was really striking to me because it is something that I had considered from time to time, but never really sat down and though about, because as it is, it isn't particularly urgent in my life yet. When really thinking about it though, I wonder what sort of things would be said when asked what you think the perfect way to raise a child is.
So this is my general outlook at a good parenting guide, and my question to you is, what would yours consist of?
From birth until schooling the child should spend almost every waking moment with at least one of the parents learning about life within the confines of natural skills (i.e. music, language, communication in arts, science, coordination, and understanding).
The child should be brought out into the real world in all kinds of conditions (like sun, snow and rain) so that they can begin to learn what life is like beyond the confines of their home and begin to explore the worlld around them.
I think that adventuring would be important to their life, but its not necessary that they do it alone, go out on hikes and explore rivers or other surrounding natural interesting things, let them become experienced in the immidiate world with you.
Avoid current stereotypical cartoons and "toys r' us": instead let them watch some charlie brown... break out the old lego's and brio train sets, these are things that would be more educational to them than any elmo toy, trust me.
Play to their interests, if you start teaching them about everything and they pertain to certain skills, let them thrive on that, but make sure not to give up on the other important things for them to learn about.
this concept was really striking to me because it is something that I had considered from time to time, but never really sat down and though about, because as it is, it isn't particularly urgent in my life yet. When really thinking about it though, I wonder what sort of things would be said when asked what you think the perfect way to raise a child is.
So this is my general outlook at a good parenting guide, and my question to you is, what would yours consist of?
From birth until schooling the child should spend almost every waking moment with at least one of the parents learning about life within the confines of natural skills (i.e. music, language, communication in arts, science, coordination, and understanding).
The child should be brought out into the real world in all kinds of conditions (like sun, snow and rain) so that they can begin to learn what life is like beyond the confines of their home and begin to explore the worlld around them.
I think that adventuring would be important to their life, but its not necessary that they do it alone, go out on hikes and explore rivers or other surrounding natural interesting things, let them become experienced in the immidiate world with you.
Avoid current stereotypical cartoons and "toys r' us": instead let them watch some charlie brown... break out the old lego's and brio train sets, these are things that would be more educational to them than any elmo toy, trust me.
Play to their interests, if you start teaching them about everything and they pertain to certain skills, let them thrive on that, but make sure not to give up on the other important things for them to learn about.
Julia's Happiness Machine
This is a response to your thought provoking question about the happiness machine..
I think that it would be hard for me to decide on every single thing that would be different in my happiness machine especially with respect to things that would be physically possible / probable. Assuming that anything could be different in this happiness machine, I would add some fun to life in terms of super natural ability: i.e. the ability to control given surroundings with telepathy, to be able to shoot flames out of my fingertips or the ability to fly :)
however, I think that if given the option to walk into my own happiness machine... Where I am right now I don't think that I would go inside, because my life is pretty happy the way it is, and stepping inside would take away the things that I have worked for to get to where I am now. I would leave it to someone else who needed it.
I think that it would be hard for me to decide on every single thing that would be different in my happiness machine especially with respect to things that would be physically possible / probable. Assuming that anything could be different in this happiness machine, I would add some fun to life in terms of super natural ability: i.e. the ability to control given surroundings with telepathy, to be able to shoot flames out of my fingertips or the ability to fly :)
however, I think that if given the option to walk into my own happiness machine... Where I am right now I don't think that I would go inside, because my life is pretty happy the way it is, and stepping inside would take away the things that I have worked for to get to where I am now. I would leave it to someone else who needed it.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
When in class on Friday, we were talking about the theories of Hobbes’ views of human nature. The thing that absolutely caught my attention when we discussed his philosophies was our quick discussion on Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. When we had talked about this I ended up writing about why I think people help one another out in terms of Hobbes’ idea of psychological egoists. My idea of this is similar to the ideal of the psychological egoist in that we feel like we need to help someone in order to quell our own needs, but the difference in my thoughts is that it is most definitely not a selfish / selfless act situation.
To my understanding, we slingshot each other by doing good acts in order to slowly bring one another closer to the greater good. The great part about this is that even the most simple of “selfless acts” can be put through this test.
As an example, there are two people in the given situation, person “A” and person “B”. If person “A” has fallen on the ground (thus being slightly on the lesser pleasant side of their day) allowing for person “B” to offer a hand up to the fallen one; then person “B” is offering a free ride on the slingshot to happiness. By helping out, person “B” has brought “A” through a very small level of bad and left them better off than they were before, but at the same time leaving themselves back where they had started in terms of happiness. This is just part of the ladder of happiness, and if we can all help one another climb the steep climb that has been presented, then in the end we would all be better off, wouldn’t you agree?
To my understanding, we slingshot each other by doing good acts in order to slowly bring one another closer to the greater good. The great part about this is that even the most simple of “selfless acts” can be put through this test.
As an example, there are two people in the given situation, person “A” and person “B”. If person “A” has fallen on the ground (thus being slightly on the lesser pleasant side of their day) allowing for person “B” to offer a hand up to the fallen one; then person “B” is offering a free ride on the slingshot to happiness. By helping out, person “B” has brought “A” through a very small level of bad and left them better off than they were before, but at the same time leaving themselves back where they had started in terms of happiness. This is just part of the ladder of happiness, and if we can all help one another climb the steep climb that has been presented, then in the end we would all be better off, wouldn’t you agree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
