How liberal should our "arts" be?

As discussed in class and in the post before, we are placing so much emphasis on getting a job right out of college that it would seem as if we, as a generation, are placing increasing emphasis on jumping right into your major and ignoring other types of classes. While this is not so much of a trend at Villanova, I am sure everyone can think of friends at other schools who may have had to declare a major as soon as they got in and began their courses for that major right away. We all like this idea to a degree because it eliminates many classes from our schedule that we deem to be unnecessary, but at the same token we all seem to recognize the value in a liberal arts education. While we may not always be enthralled by the idea of taking Ethics, I find this class to be more mentally stimulating than many of my other classes. To my mind many of the things we talk about really matter and I see an application for them in my everyday life. The principles of Ethics are present in all areas of life and it is important to contemplate them and understand them as best we can. Should students be required to take a set of core requirements that cover things such as philosophy and ethics? If so, would you model your ideal conception of the core requirements in a similar way to Villanova or would you change it?    

Where does the modern student attitude come from?

Today as we discussed student's attitudes and goals during college, we discussed that students are more focused getting a good GPA to then get a good job rather than actually learning and perhaps exploring new subject matters. It got me thinking well who is responsible for this attitude students have? It could be the students themselves, but I think it is more accurate to say that it is society's fault. Society has conditioned us to get good grades and do well on standardized tests, but they are never saying I hope students are learning a lot. Do people agree with this or do they think this student attitude is due to something else?

Positive Responsibilities

I was very interested in our discussion today on the Corporate Social Responsibility and the Common Good. I particularly enjoyed our discussion about positive versus negative responsibilities. Personally, I think it would be very difficult to promote a "positive responsibility" culture where we are tasked not just with doing or not doing various things outlined by law, but rather going beyond and doing those "good samaritan" things because we deem them ethically just. I wonder if we will ever experience a society which will not just applaud those praiseworthy actions (i.e. driving a fuel efficient car), but rather condemn us if we do not. If our concept of unethical actions was extended to include certain measures to promote sustainability, for example, perhaps we would live in a "greener" world. Do you think we can ever reach a point where people take on those positive responsibilities for the sake of living a more ethical life?

Enhancement Usage

The other day in class we talked about the use of enhancements such as medicine, prosthetics, glasses and so on. I thought it was interesting that most of us agreed that enhancements were not a bad thing if they were necessary to bring people back to a state of normality. However, I think there is still some controversy as to what society's definition of normal is. The way I look at it is, if someone is uncomfortable or unable to function as they usually word, perhaps enhancements are acceptable in order to bring that person back to their comfortable state. It would seem unfair to allow someone to suffer if there was something that could be done to help. Therefore, is it only unmoral to use enhancements if they are being used to gain an advantage over others? Or are there other instances you guys can think of that would make enhancements unmoral?

Cyber Relationships

There was an interesting point in class about how the “present body” provides some truth to an online relationship (i.e. the first interaction over skype) confirming if the person is who they claim to be in reality.   In this instance comparing the online relationship to one that is formed through physical interaction, is there one relationship more truthful than the other? In other words, can an online relationship be more deceiving than one in reality? Or can they both be deceiving in a similar manner? I just wondering you guys thought.  

Does our body control us?

The book I mentioned in class today is What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People by Joe Navarro. In this book, Navarro details what he knows about the human body and body language. The biggest takeaway point from this book is: How we think we act outwardly may not be the best indication of what we actually feel on the inside. If a murderer is confronted with evidence regarding a murder case, then the murderer can try to deny the claims until the cows come home. However, this is a pretty cognitive function. When looking at limbic and emotional responses, humans really don’t have much control over any ticks which may give up the truth (mainly because limbic functions are primitive and control acts such as fear and aggression).
Here are some questions I have: Does the body really try to defy us? Clearly, our limbic system can give away anything we hide from others. If we remove outliers such as sociopaths and those with limbic system issues, people, for the most part, can have their bluffs called with some diligence. If this is the case, why bother entering relationships for long periods of time without meeting face-to-face? Also, does this mean we have little control over our body? If our emotions can give away our darkest secrets, what is the point of having them? 

Eros & Venus

After Wednesday's discussion on the body, I began to wonder about the roles eros and venus play in our lives today. It seems to me that an ideal romantic relationship would involve both components, but I was wondering whether you think that eros and venus can exist individually. Is it possible to be in love without expressing sexual love? Is it possible to express sexual love and feel no genuine love at all?

Friendship as a Development

We have talked a lot about the different categories of friendships and it made me start to analyze my relationships with my friends. I took a look at how they all began and why I've remained friends with some people while others have drifted away to mere acquaintances. It got me thinking that, although there are friendships like we discussed in class (utility, pleasure, true), a friendship is a constantly developing idea, even with our closest friends. In my personal experience many of my closest friends have at one point been some of the people that I tried to avoid at all costs. We have discussed that point and came to the conclusion that as we age (not necessarily in years but in maturity) our interests change and certain behavior that repelled us before is no longer present and therefore the differences have resolved. Even now one of my close friends is going through a phase where he is distant from the group and even though I still consider him a close friend I wouldn't necessarily place him into any of the three groups. Neither of us get any utility out of the relationship and though we can have fun times in a group I wouldn't call it purely a friendship of pleasure, he has simply drifted away for the time being and so it isn't a true friendship either. In conclusion, I think some friends don't fit in to the groups we have talked about in class and each case varies based on many criteria.