Second essay assignment

The second essay assignment is available on Blackboard.

Being a Christian

Reading your essays had made me do a lot of thinking about happiness, which I hope to be able to write something about. However, in the meantime it has posed a question I in turn want to pose to you. 

The question is: can you be a Christian if you do not understand the depths of human suffering?  

Now by Christian I mean specifically someone who clings to the teachings of Christ, not merely someone who reads and "follows" the Bible (for the latter can do many "Christian" things that contradict the teachings of Christ). 

My question is not if understanding the depths of human suffering is a sufficient condition for being a Christian, but only if it is a necessary condition. 

Secondly, my question assumes that you can understand things without living them, for if lived experience were the condition for understanding, this might mean that everyone understands all of their own experience (and that is clearly false). 

Which is stronger- a male or female friendship?

Now that we have discussed both male and female friendship in class, I was wondering if we can classify the friendship among one of the gender stronger than the other. Female friendships were said to have a more superficial beginning but they then grow to have a deep emotional connection. Male friendships are more focused on competition between one another or achieving some goal together. The friendships are definitely different in what they entail, but is one better or stronger than the other?

A little bit more on men and women

To elaborate a little bit more on the point I mentioned at the end of class today, I would like to provide a little background information on where I got idea to pose the question. I was reading a magazine article (I don't remember exactly which one) but the article was written for a female audience to attempt to explain some sources of misunderstanding between men and women. The article pretty much asserted that based on the differences in the way that men and women think we are bound to arrive at certain misunderstandings. The article described the differences in the "wiring" and structure of the male vs female brain and stated that men are wired to naturally be problem solvers, a trait that has its roots back in the days of hunting and gathering. It is this reason why women are frequently frustrated when talking to men, they want to be able to just express themselves and have somebody there who can listen to their problems instead of attempting to solve their problems for them. When men listen to the problems of their female friends/girlfriends/wives they will naturally attempt to solve the problems that they hear in the stories they are being told. This point was a little strange to me when I first read it but when I thought about it in greater depth it actually made a lot of sense based on my own experience and observation. Does anyone else agree with this point? If so, do you feel that it influences the manner in which we understand male friendships and female friendships? Would my original statement that most male friendships in movies and stories seem to revolve around the accomplishment of a task seem more justified with this background?

Dialecticals

So there's this concept in Sociological Theory called a dialectical. In this theory, society and the individual interact with each other, which explains why stereotypes and social norms are perpetuated. Society sets these norms (whether they're gender roles, class norms, etc.) that dictate what it takes to participate within society. The individual then internalizes these norms and acts accordingly. When a group of individuals collectively all act based on the same norms, those norms are perpetuated. This is how children become socialized. Lexi's example of the couple of young girls talking versus the couple of young boys talking is a perfect example of how children are socialized. Girls are subliminally taught at a very young age to be gentle and emotionally open, hence sitting facing each other and having a discussion that way. Boys are subliminally taught to be more physically relaxed but reserved with their feelings, hence the sitting side by side while talking. This same concept of a dialectical explains a lot of how we perceive female and male friendships to be different. Thoughts?

Friends

In going off the discussion we had in class about friendship, an interesting point that was brought up was regarding the question, "do our friends determine our happiness?" This was an interesting question for me as I argued in the recent essay happiness is individually determined. However, I believe here that friends play a great role in determining our happiness. This question was kind of passed over but this question really ties into what we have been discussing the entire semester. So, what do we think? Can you be happy with miserable friends? Can you be happy with no friends? Can you be miserable with great friends? I'm very curious what you all think!

The Friendship of Perfection?

Aristotle says that in a friendship of virtue “there are no accusations or fights” because this friendship is based off of mutual love and reciprocated goodwill, as well as the enduring virtuous qualities (134). It seems that Aristotle is describing a perfect friendship. With this in mind, can we say even those whom we consider our “best friends” are friends of virtue? I have definitely had disagreements with my best friends, so does that automatically disqualify our friendship as being labeled a friendship of virtue? Furthermore, is this type of friendship, in which there are no fights, realistic? 

The Stone: The Reign of ‘Terror’ http://t.co/tXHkeIdwKJ via @nytopinionator

— Ashley U. V. (@ProfVaught) October 20, 2014

Positive and negative freedom and nihilism

I have alway thought of nihilism as a type of choosing in which all options are equally valid, ... which would mean that nihilism is a form of negative freedom.  And yet it has also seemed to me that there must be some distinction between nihilism and negative freedom.

Negative freedom is the concept sustaining basic libertarianism, in which all human action is promoted insofar as it does not interfere with others, but libertarianism does not mean all choices are equal.  In fact, it merely establishes that law should work to protect all action, while society will approve or disapprove of human actions (and by the latter, distinguish values).  It seems a good model for comprehending historical change.

And yet, positive freedom implies a correct path, action, idea, against which our approximation is a measure of our freedom.  Who clings more closely to the idea, is more free.  The most prudent person  is the most free person.

Whereas, nihilism seems to impair choice, such that the action of choosing is pointless.  In that respect, it would be separate from negative freedom?  Negative freedom celebrates choice, without affirming any particular choice over another?

Freedom is an Illusion

Professor Vaught made the argument this morning that freedom can’t exist. He says the reason for this is evidenced by cause and effect relationships. Considering it is extremely difficult to determine the beginnings of the universe (we’re almost there!), it would be premature to assume there was some sort of premeditated thought or driving force behind the Big Bang. However, if we don’t look at the Big Bang and look at other examples (such as the condensation of space clouds to create heavier elements and even the decision to swerve left to avoid an accident), it seems pretty obvious that there are always driving forces behind all actions. Even if we take the example of the water which spreads out across a field, we know that the water does not act on its own accord. It moves as a result of hydrogen bonding, adhesive and cohesive forces, and gravity, among other forces. If we address the point that making a choice is completely free, we can show that it really isn’t. Remember, the reason why we are placed in a situation where we can make a choice is ultimately not in our control. Why do I have to choose between apple pie and an ice cream cone? My choice is sort of up to me, but I have the choice primarily because two people decided to set up shops which sell apple pies and ice cream cones right next to each other. The decision would not exist without external forces.

So…Any thoughts? I was thinking that we really can’t have freedom in these situations, because, as my chemistry teacher in high school used to say: “Everything is connected!” There can’t really be anything which comes out of nowhere; everything comes from something else.

Of course the big question here is: “Where did the universe come from?!” I’ll let you guys battle that out, if you wish to.  

Freedom on the Streets of Philly

I was very perplexed and intrigued by our discussion in last week’s class about how external forces, such as a community, a neighborhood, one’s parents, and one’s upbringing can either contribute or even hinder one’s freedom.  It was stated that kids and teenagers from certain parts of the Greater Philadelphia Area could never get out of their lives of poverty, welfare, crime, and violence because it was a physical restriction that hindered their own abilities and achievements.  It was also argued that those who are in those difficult current conditions are not free because it confines them to that particular state of living without the chance or even ability to be free from it – that they aren’t able to attend colleges other than their city community college or get jobs that are far from minimum wage.

I grew up and have lived my entire life in the Olney section of North Philly, where the crime and violence rate is about as high as the number of teenagers in that area who don’t finish high school.  In comparison to the people in Olney who can’t afford college or even the chance to get out of the neighborhood, there are a plethora of people who still strive to attain and assert themselves in order to combat their poverty-stricken lives and the drive-by shootings that occur right on their street.  I personally know more than a handful of parents in Olney who have respectable jobs and send their own children to likewise respectable colleges and universities.  I think that there are times when one does feel as if he/she can’t do or even achieve better due to their current lifestyles.  However, anyone, including those who live in difficult communities and situations, can and is very able to leave their current harsh conditions because the mentality of an individual is stronger than his/her own surrounding environment. 

- Camille De Ramos 

Nihilism - happiness/freedom

In class on Wednesday we talked about Nihilism and the characteristics of it. We discussed the four types of Nihilism but existential nihilism stood out the most to me. After learning that existential nihilism is the rejection of an intrinsic meaning or value to life, I was wondering how this belief affects happiness and freedom. I think we were able to discuss this question for a few minutes towards the end of class but I am still unclear as to how specifically happiness and freedom are affected.

Language and Nihilism

As we were discussing how Nihilism is the belief in nothing, I couldn't help but wonder what nihilists think of language. Based on the conclusions we came to in class today, I would say that nihilists (I'm thinking specifically political nihilists) would reject the idea of language because it is a social institution. If that is the case, could we say that nihilism is highly individualized to the point where not even thoughts are thought because they require language in order to materialize? In which case, I agree with Professor Vaught that nihilism doesn't even seem possible. Help me figure this one out. -Meaghan F.

Reason & Desire

I was very intrigued by our discussion of freedom in Friday's class. Topics like reason and desire seemed to play a major role in Augustine's concept of freedoms and I found this to be very thought-provoking. Augustine explains that men are free to make their own choices, and this sometimes results in "order" and sometimes "disorder." If in a state of "disorder" desire overcomes reason, I am curious why terrible tragedies and poor decisions can stem from premeditated actions. I brought up the example of 9/11 at the end of class and I am curious to hear what others make of this example. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, did reason not precede desire? If you think that desire acted alone, should you not consider the role of religious zeal in the attacks? Is this not also a form of "reason"? I obviously believe what happened that day was an absolute tragedy and a direct encounter with evil, but I cannot help but wonder how Augustine might explain this event. To me it seems evident that reason in some sort prevailed, so why then was tragedy the result?