Confusion and Letter to Alison

Does Hans succeed in avoiding all ontological/metaphysical assumptions?

This question has posed quite a challenge for me because I tend to get the terms epistemology and metaphysics confused and sometimes, the definitions can intertwine with another. However to answer this question thoroughly, we must begin from the basics. Epistemology more or less, is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It addresses of what knowledge is, how it is acquired, what people know, and how do we know what we know? This field can be debatable because how do we know what knowledge is, and what constitutes as knowledge in relativity to humans. In other words, how do we know what knowledge truly is? On the other hand, metaphysics investigates the principles of reality transcending those of particular science. Ontology the branch of metaphysics we are analyzing in this situation studies the nature of being and their relations. Now we have the components to solve the puzzle and that is if Hans successfully described and defended an “epistemology” without metaphysics. In general, I feel, as Hans did not successfully defend what he should have defended. The reason why is because I feel as though Russell and him just went on a never-ending tangent. They had made some good points, but lacked an ending to their conversation, thus not solving an epistemological/metaphysical claim in relativity to Ernst Von Glasersfeld.

1.Since I am a little confused about the first question, could someone give me his or her perspective on the first question?

Dear Ms. Bridges,

Primarily, I would like to apologize for being so offensive to your grading system by analyzing you so harshly. You have pointed out many key points on my previous letter that I have sent you and it does seem like you do have some knowledge on the subject of philosophy. I do completely understand that I received the grade that I deserved because as a teacher myself, I have been in similar situations. Honestly, I would never assume that I am the greatest creative writer or that I deserved a better grade than what I earned. A grade only states what a person’s competency is within the course, and mine seemed to be average. Thank you for not taking my letter personally and I would be delighted to attend you dinner party. I hope you are in the mood to dance.

Most Sincerely,

Jules Randolph Govier

From the letter at the end of the book (Alison to Jules), does it seem that they have a better relationship in respect to being colleagues?

Book Review on Philosophy of Law by Roscoe Pound

Philosophy of Law by Roscoe Pound presents the foundation of what Jurisprudence is and how it functions within the legal systems around the country. The book is clear and concise, giving the audience a clear perspective of what the subject, even if there is no prior knowledge with this field. Pound, a former Harvard Law student and scholar, brings an immense amount of knowledge about the history of the legal system (originated in the 18th century) while intertwining the basic concepts of law to create a concise summation of Jurisprudence. As one of the greatest Jurisprudence scholars in the United States his thoughts embrace the two great legal systems in the world, the Roman-civil law and the Anglo American Law which are significant jurisprudential writings of Western Europe and the United States, and a wide range of European/American Philosophy.

Some may ask the common questions, what is Jurisprudence or as some may refer to the subject, legal philosophy or philosophy of law? As stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law which encompasses branches of Law such as natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, and critical legal studies. Jurisprudence began in the 18th century and primarily focused on the nature of law, civil law, and the law of nations. It can also be further broken down into categories both by the questions scholars seek to address and by the common theories of Jurisprudence (schools of thought regarding how those questions are to be best answered.

In regards to the book, Pound does give a concise overview of the historical aspects of jurisprudence, which I found to be extremely interesting. Jurisprudence originated in Ancient Rome, even if at its origins the discipline was a “periti” in the jus of traditional law, which is a body of oral laws and customs verbally transmitted from father to sun. Praetors established a workable body of laws by judging whether or not singular cases were capable of being prosecuted either by the edicta, the annual pronunciation of prosecutable offense, or in extraordinary situations, additions made to the edicta. An iudex (modern day-jury) then would judge a remedy according to the facts of the case.

Their sentences were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but effectively it was an activity that, apart from formally reconsidering for each case what precisely was traditionally in the legal habits, soon turned also to a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to the newer social instances. The law was then implemented with new evolutive Institutiones (legal concepts), while remaining in the traditional scheme. Praetors were replaced in 3rd century BC by a laical body of prudentes. The admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience.

Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and the activity constantly became more academic. In the age from the early Roman Empire to the 3rd century, a relevant literature was produced by some notable groups including the Proculians and Sabinians. The degree of scientific depth of the studies was unprecedented in ancient times and reached still unrivaled peaks of skill. After the 3rd century, Jurisprudence became more bureaucratic, with few notable authors. It was during the Byzantine Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again undertaken in depth, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis was born.
In general the book was extremely interesting but is also very challenging because the subject matter was just difficult to comprehend at some points. Also, this topic was more of an introduction and does not go into the topic at a microscopic level but more of a macroscopic level. Because of the terminology, I would highly recommend that anyone interested in this subject would either have a legal or philosophical dictionary to clarify any words that seem unknown and to accompany in the readings.

Re: Michelle Webb (4/25)

Q:The question that I am asking you is, in school if there were no grading system, how would students be able to be graded and would it be a better alternative?

In response to your question(s) I do believe that grading within colleges can be biased in some situations. For example, in some classes the one who sucks up to the professor gets a better grade over the student who works harder but does not participate during class. This is just one little example on how grading can be extremely unfair and biased in some situations. Truly what is a grade? Does a grade reflect what type of person you are or does it portray your overall competency in the subject. I would have to say in most grading systems, your overall competency in the subject is what will earn you an excellent grade. Professors truly like to see the student that will work hard in order to achieve an excellent grade and even sometimes getting to know the professor at a personal level wont hurt at all. However there is a term that we are well aware of and that is the "teachers pet". For those who do not know who the teachers pet is, usually it is a person that will do anything the professor wants, in laments terms this would be known as "sucking up". However who is to tell you that you are a D+ writer or a C- mathematician? Just because a professor earned a doctoral degree (PhD), which in many cases is a research degree does not mean they have full competence in the subject. They may have competence through what they have experienced and researched but they do not have competence in everything (which some believe they do). Ever since my collegiate career began, I have not had any professors that were unfair to me. Each and every one of them has stated what they expect out of their students and how their grading system functions on the first day of classes. You know what to expect out of all of them on day 1 and if you do not like their teaching style, drop the class, or look on a professor ratings website (www.ratemyprofessors.com) to see how other students liked or disliked this professor. However I have experienced students that would purposely suck up to a professor, doing anything to please them. They would agree with them on everything even if they were wrong, they would ask the most ridiculous questions, and even try to have lunch with them in their office to know them at an ultra personal level. This for an example should not constitute on who receives the better grade because being the professors best friend shouldn't equate as anything that would affect the students grade. What should affect the students grade is if he or she completes all of the assigned work, studies hard for the tests, attends the class when it is scheduled, and participates in class (If it is part of the grade). If all of these expectations are met, then the student should receive an excellent grade being a B+,A-,or an A.

While on the other hand I do understand when you gave the scenario when students were appealing their grades in an attempt to receive one better than the present. One though crosses my mind when I think about this. First and foremost, why is this student appealing the grade? Was it because this individual was treated unfairly due to their gender, age, or race? Or was it because that they felt like they deserved the grade even though they did not? In my opinion, you should not be able to appeal a grade because the professors authority should be respected, thus not being challenged. In most cases the individual is either a lazy student or their "sucking up" tactic backfired on them. You earn the grade that you receive, the grade does not earn you. In my experience, I have met many people who believe that they should only receive straight A's because they are a straight A type of person. This is completely ridiculous because people only deserve the grade of an A if they work extremely hard for it. They are not given out like candy on Halloween to a special "trick or treater" and you cannot buy them by monetary means or other (stated above). Usually in most situations in the process of a grade appeal, the university or college is on the same side as the professor. They will defend them at any means possible, even if they are right or wrong. This is not a win-win situation but more of situation that cannot be won in most cases and should be abolished. I can understand about people that do receive grades based on biases and that is unfair. But shouldn't the university hire people who fit the universities criteria?

However you general question was that should we abolish the grading system. in this situation, I will say no. The reason why I would say no is because then the people who usually do nothing during class would recieve the same outcome as the person who worked their tail off in class. Also, what would be the criteria for admission into graduate schools and professional schools (law,medicine,pharmacy)? There frankly would be no type of criteria for admission because the grading system would be erased and with it being erased we would have nothing that would separate Person "A" from person "B".How could we deal with such a system and another more important question is how would this function in education at all levels? The grade you earn is the grade you should properly receive and there should be no debating over it. If anyone is disappointed with their previous grades then work harder the following semester.

Truth (Of Experience and Of Correspondence)

During the previous class we had discussed the two theories of truth, through experience (constructivism) and correspondence. truth of Correspondence basically states that if the statement corresponds the way the world is, it is true, but if it does not then it is false. On the other hand, truth of experience states as long as the individual experiences something like a rock it is true and if it is not experienced then it is false. For example does a rock only exist if we experience it or does it exist based upon if it corresponds with the world, being present. Personally an item such as a rock does exist through both theories because the rock may not be in existence to a person who had not experienced what a rock even is. But on the other hand, there are millions of rocks that exist throughout the world in which do correspond the way the world really is. Sometimes these terms are confusing but I would like to analyze each in detail.

Such is in the case of experience or from a constructivist perspective objects and events have to be experienced to be true. An example would be that do mountains exist if we do not even perceive or experience them. German philosopher and psychologist Ernst Von Glaserfeld would probably state that you do need to experience a mountain to believe that it is true. Lets say that if a constructivist lived in an urban environment like Boston,Ma, mountains would not exist if one was to remain in the city their whole life. However skyscrapers, big businesses, forty floor apartments and condominiums would exist but not mountains. Theoretically mountains do exist in general and can be viewed pictorially or on a map but how can you convince a constructivist that a mountain actually exists. You could not state or proclaim that there is such thing as a mountain because they would deny of such thing would exist. A constructivist would have to experience a mountain via climbing, sightseeing, or being one with the mountain (meditation). This theory does make sense but to the normal person you could state that the constructivist has no common sense and a lack of geography. How could someone become dumbfounded to the point that they deny the existence of mountains, even though they are present. An example that was given in class about a couple weeks ago was that constructivists would deny that their hands exist and that hands are a figment of our imagination that only our brain tells us mentally. This is a ridiculous statement because our hands do exist anatomically and we do experience our hands on a daily basis. If our hands were to be separated from our body, then we would feel uttermost pain and suffering which would imply that our hands do exist.

Truth of correspondence states that if something corresponds with the way the world is it is true and vice versa, then it would be false. Now let us analyze the theory in relation to mountains again. Mountains do exist on a correspondence theory basis because mountains do exist with the way the world is. They are prevalent over the entire world ranging from the United States to China. There are pictures and even physical notations on maps and it does correspond the way the world is. If we said there were no such things as mountains, then the theory would be false. However do mountains correspond to the way the world is or do they not? If they did not, what are some examples?

Hans or Russell

During the beginning of the book, three of the four characters start by discussing about Julies Govier in regards to the letter to Alison Bridges about his sub-average grade (C-) and further into other philosophical topics such as constructivism, metaphysics, and solipsism. However, the conversation turns into an argument or debate between Russell and Hans, with Alison being the intermediate or the conversational referee. Both characters (Russell and Hans) have a solid background in philosophy but seem to have different perspectives on many of the issues discussed. Again, it is tough to distinguish who is seemly more convincing but t\in the end, Hans seemed more convincing than Russell did.

The primary reason why I found Hans more convincing is that he seems to have this aura to him, similar to a sage, and his responses were refined in relativity to Russell. Russell jumps to far more conclusions then Hans, thinking that they are in complete accordance with the topics. For example in the beginning of chapter two, Russell seems to think that they in accordance over Jules Govier’s letter of disappointment. In return, Hans disagrees with Russell, stating that he is far too quick to judge, jumping to hastily conclusions. In addition, Russell does not have as much conclusive evidence as Hans has. There seems to be two roles to this argument is that Russell would be the “rough draft” to this argument while Hans would be the “editor/proofreader”. I am not saying that Russell is false in his interpretations, he has some good points to his arguments but they lack substance. Russell is sliding down a slippery slope (an argument fallacy) and he seems to believe that his assumptions are correct, on all aspects of the playing field. Sometimes Russell does remind me of Ernst Von Glaserfeld in which, he defends what he thinks is correct but is not.

Transitioning to chapter three, starting on page sixteen, the argument shifts from ontology to constructivism. Russell states that there is such thing as an unexperienced rock, existing out of thought. He gives the example of Alison stumbling on the rock along a trail in Vermont. It is true that she does not think it into existence, but that more likely that the rock was never noticed instead of experiencing a rock. Hans questions that how can you tub your toe on a rock you have never experienced; it does not make any sense. Again, this brings us to the theory that Von Glaserfeld brewed up that we can unexperience things, such as an apple. Russell is basically making minimal sense and I feel that if Hans has more expertise in the field of philosophy even though he is an education professor and Russell is supposed to be the philosopher.

1.Is Russell committing a numerous amount of argument fallacies and if so, which ones other than a “slippery slope”?
2.Does anyone else agree that Hans is more convincing than Russell or is it the other way around, Russell is more convincing than Hans?

Response: Jacob Wheeler (2/5)

Q; Words are Indicators of What?

In general throughout history, over thousands of generations words have been essential for communication among humans and animals in which we can express our own feelings or proving our points. Communication is essential with one another because if there was no such thing as communication via words, how would we communicate, excluding body language? It has been true that communication through body language is successful but can we communicate exactly what we want to at a given moment. For example if I was having a great or bad day, how would I express those given factors that made my day go by extremely well or bad. I could by telling anyone pictorially or writing on paper but could that type of communication function in everyday life? Generally speaking in the instance of people who are deaf, they speak through sign language which could be a form of body language, and has been extremely successful since sign language has been innovated. However what if we did not know what these words meant? This brings me to the question that you generally asked and what truly are words indicators of? In my opinion words are tools that we (humans,animals)use to communicate with each other. Each word has its own meaning and each meaning is mostly distinct but some words can be synonymous with each other. For example when an individual expresses an enjoyment for anything, each word has a different meaning e/g I love sports because of the competitive nature. Every word is the example sentence has a different meaning and with those different meanings a complete sentence is put together. But in general words have different meanings,each word indicates a specific meaning or definition, and we have used words as tools for everyday communication.

Re:Ed Manak (4/19)

Q:Is there, in fact, a difference between experience and conceptualization?

Throughout the past week we have analyzed the works of Ernst Von Glaserfeld and what radical constructivism is. He presents a debatable question in which can we experience anything that is not conceptualized, such as an unconceptualized apple? In general I believe we can experience a conceptualized apple because we know the physical properties in which it is round, red, and derives from an apple tree. However on the other hand, can we experience and unconceptualized apple and if we can, what is an unconceptualized apple? When the term unconceptualized comes to my mind, I envision something that is foreign to me, something that I cannot even envision whatsoever. For example something that was unconceptualized to me about a year ago was the subject of philosophy because I did not know what the subject was or even what the main goals of philosophers are because I had never taken a course in this discipline. There was no concept even thought of and thus this subject was unconceptualized as of last year and before. However once I had taken a philosophy course, the concept of the subject was conceptualized and I understood what philosophy is, what the main concepts of the discipline are, and the message philosophers are trying to send. In regards to an unconceptualized apple, I would believe there is no such thing to many individuals because we know what an apple is and we can envision the concept of an apple. But there are a certain number of individuals that do not know what an apple is such as new born babies and toddlers. The reason why is because they are far to young to understand what an apple actually is but they may know what it is but pictorially and not what it actually is. Also Dr. Johnson states that there is no such thing as unconceptualized apples because there is no concept of an unconceptualized apple. The reason why is because it violates the principles of truism is because how can there be no concept of an apple that is not a concept. This whole topic just sounds like a double negative and is extremely confusing. Truly when Ernst Von Glaserfeld tries to prove his point with this subject it seems as he knows the he is wrong but still tries to defend his points, which he does a great job of.

Now to get back to your question Ed, I believe that experience and conceptualization are not synonymous because these are two completely different words but they do correlate with each other. In one case experience is a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something while conceptualization is when the mind mentally forms a concept (an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars). However wouldn't anyone have to experience something before it is even conceptualized. Such as in the case of apples, how would you be able to form a concept about an apple before if it is not experienced. For example if I was foreign to what apples were, how would you describe it to me, and if so would it be described through experience? Experience through description would probably be the easiest way for anyone to from a concept. Personally in my current anatomy course you can describe what a heart or an organ is but how will I know what a heart or an organ (specific) looks like? There must be pictures involved to even envision what a heart truly is and better yet, to experience what a heart actually is through laboratory dissection would form a complete concept in anyone's mind would be the ideal goal.

Re: Sarah Dion 3/31

Need Vs. Want

First and foremost I do completely agree with many of your thoughts and statements that you have articulated. In general when it comes to what humans need only a small handful of things come to mind such as shelter,nutrition (food), and a sense of well being (social interactions etc.). However in America, our culture promotes that we must or should purchase immaterial items that honestly, we do not need what so ever. For an example what is the point of purchasing something that you do not need such as a pair of $200.00 Oakley sunglasses. It is true that these sunglasses may last us a couple summers and springs and they may be durable, but what if they are not? Could you purchase a cheaper pair of sunglasses of a generic brand that would be of the same quality? Truly humans do have the ability of choice but mostly will try to keep up with society in an attempt to be trendy or with the fashion period. Again I know personally many people who drive a car that is worth over 50,000 dollars and what is the point of having a car of this worth. The same goes for the car as for the sunglasses. The car may be extremely luxuriant and spacious but at the price of what? Sometimes I believe that certain individuals have more of an egotistical personality when they have to have the best of everything. Having the best car,clothing, watch, and even the best suits (Italian Imported leather etc.) is so important to them because they have to only settle for the best. But why not settle for average, middle class, but having all of the money that could be saved up safely in a savings account to secure a successful future and even retirement? The reason why is that Americans have been brainwashed by society, being deceived into what they don't need is truly something the "normal" human being does need. It can be confusing most times but society in the United States will not change for a small population of human beings, thus staying constant until the end of time if that does exist.

Q:Is it possible that language is shaping our view of the world? Or could we just be shaping language?

To answer both of your questions, I believe that us as humans are shaping language to communicate easier with multiple ethnicities. For example from the early neolithic ages, the neanderthal (caveman) used to communicate with each other through body language, which was successful for the time age. Moving even later into the future, our language of English derived from "Germanic" tribes (Germanic language etc. if I am correct and even before, Latin. so in general, we as humans have shaped language (personal opinion) if that has answered your question

Radical Realism

Radical Constructivism is a prominent proponent of radical constructivism, which claims that knowledge is the self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. That is, the process of constructing knowledge regulates itself, and since knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data, it is impossible to know the extent to which knowledge reflects an ontological reality. For example, our hands are real, tangible, and are a physical component anatomically on humans. However, radical realists believe that hands are not anatomically there because our brain is telling us that they are present even though our mind could be deceiving us. Such as in the examples that if someone were to lose a limb (extremity), constructive realists would say that there is no arm present, (which there is not) but in response the human being who had lost the limb may think that the limb is still there. This brings me to the argument that traditional realist theories of knowledge assume that truth is a correspondence relation (as stated in Dr. Johnson’s blog post). For example when a concept (C) corresponds to the way the world (W) is, it is true (and false otherwise). Now when we analyze that if we can conceive an “unexperienced apple”, we must analyze the argument from both sides, the view of a constructive realist and the side of a non-constructive realist (Can range from an epistemologist to a normal human being).

From the view of a constructive realist, we probably can conceive an unexperienced apple because the knowledge of an apple is a self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. In laments, terms if we have knowledge of an unexperienced apple, than an unexperienced apple can be conceived by the human mind. However, from another perspective, an unexperienced apple cannot be conceived by the human mind because there is no such thing as an unexperienced apple. From the view of a normal human being, the inexperience of an apple is more of an event rather than a concept. You can experience an apple by consuming it or making it into some type of art. Nevertheless, as from the equation stated in Dr. Johnson’s blog, (When a concept (C) corresponds to the way the world (W) is, it is true (and false otherwise) this statement does not correspond with the way the world is thus being false. In addition, we must ask are these concepts in the mind, can they be conceptualized, and are some of these concepts some of “x”. If these first three questions do not correspond to an unexperienced apple (does not exist because it does not correspond with the way the world is, than the statement is false) than we cannot conceptually experience an unexperienced apple.

1.Is there such thing as an unexperienced apple?
2.Why do constructive realists argue with “things” that are here (such as hands) are not real?

Time

Q: Is time real? What is it? Does it "flow"?

What is time, is it a measurement of the course of a day or week, or is time the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. Generally, philosophers and scientists have studied time for 2,500 years and nevertheless many issues remain to be resolved. For example, who is the chief discoverer or creator of time? Was it the Neolithic cave dwellers (Neanderthals) or has time always existed since the origin of the planets and of the universes? Who really knows but as time continues to advance or progress into the future, humans tend to age, structures begin to deteriorate and falter, and the earth ages but also regenerates. To answer the primary question, time is real because there is enough conclusive evidence to support what time really is. Time progresses our life as human beings while it flows constantly in a smooth transition.

However one question that I have pondered over many years, is that why is there time and does time ever end? Will there ever be a moment when time will stand still and if there will possibly will be, does that mean the existence of human beings and earth come to an end, expiring? Time is more of a measurement of days, weeks, and years that humans have invented to navigate a complete day (starting with) over the course of 24 hours and branching into larger units (days, weeks, months, years, decades etc.). The concept of the “length of a day” was already implemented by Gods (religion) or by the big bang theory (science) which originated the template to develop a time-related system. On a daily basis, time does flow because if it did not, time would stand still while nothing would progress in an orderly fashion. To analyze the flowage of time there are two theories that physicists have proposed in order to answer how time flows. First and foremost is that the flow is an illusion, the product of a faulty metaphor. Time exists, things change, but time does not flow objectively, although there may well be some objective feature of our brains that causes us to believe we are experiencing a flow of time; but in that case time flows only in a subjective sense of the term. Secondly, the second theory of time flow implies that time low is objective, a feature of our mind-independent reality that is to be found in, say, today scientific laws, or, if it has been missed there, then in future scientific laws. With these conclusive theories which are factual (scientifically), how can time not be real and most importantly if physicists have found answers to prove that time flow is real, how would it be false?

1.How can time be false (scientifically and non-scientifically)?
2.If ‘”time flow” did not exist, what would happen?

Response to Emily Burke (3/9)

Q:Why do so many people only care about the issues of one oppressed group, instead of all of them?

Generally speaking when the topics of oppression come to mind, I tend to think about racism, sexism, and genderism. For example such as in the situation of sexism,many women in the workplace whether it is in business, law, or politics they are frequently not paid the same amount of money in regards to men that have the educational background. In the same situation such as racism we tend to think about one group of individuals in a population, such as the minority whether the are Chinese, African, or even of a Latino descent. But the reason why we only tend to analyze only one oppressed group can be questionable? First and foremost,it would be much easier to only care about the major issues for one oppressive group and also to concentrate on only one group such as the ones stated above (examples).

Sarah Palin, Terrorist or Not?

"We'll aim for these races and many others," she wrote on her Facebook page. "This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight." These are only some of the word said by Sarah Palin in an attempt to "take out" or decimate house democrats who voted for the health care reform that was just recently passed just a week ago. The health care reform under my own personal understanding calls for a universal health care(insurance) (probably government based) that many Americans would benefit from thus making insurance (healthcare) far more affordable. For an example elderly people would not have to spend thousands of dollars for prescription medications or routine appointments to the doctor, dentist, or even a podiatrist. In general the new health care reform is in favor with the general American population because they voted for it. On the other hand, Republicans became angered from this most recent bill because they believed the complete opposite, that this bill would put insurance companies out of business and leaving the economy deeper with the most current recession. This is where Sarah Palin comes in because she truly has some type of animosity or hatred for the Democratic party. She personally has her own let me say "hit list" of several Democrats that are facing re-election and voted for the health care reform. This brings myself down to the question in which is Sarah Palin a terrorist? In general many would interpret her intentions in this situation to maybe be metaphorical or even just figurative. However in this day and age since there have been many killings in the past decade ranging from the events on September 11th, 2001 to the Virgina Tech killings, should we take these threats serious or just as a joke? More or less I would say that she is joking around about this but then on the other hand there are many who believe that she is extremely serious but who really knows, only time will tell.

1. Is Sarah Palin really a terrorist?
2. What are your opinions of the new health care reform, will it benefit the American population or destroy it?

Response to Abigail Lindamood (3/8/10)

Q1:Do extroverts ever feel the need to "get away" in the absence of social stressors?

Generally speaking this is an extremely interesting topic to blog about and something the average college student experiences on a daily basis. As you stated there are two different types of people, introverts and extroverts. An introvert as an individual in which obtain energy through relaxation, finding highly social situations to be draining after a while, and needing to take a break every now and then. While on the other hand, extroverts are the complete opposite thriving on social interactions as their energy. I am would also say that my behaviors are highly introverted around school but around work and athletics, my behavior becomes a hybrid between the both. The reason why I would have to say that my behavior is highly extroverted is because in general I am a self motivator and natural energy is prevalent throughout my body. However the more people I see that are working extremely hard, it just makes myself want to work harder and harder. However switching back to the academic environment, the reason why I tend to be more introverted is because school tends to be extremely stressful due to the multitude of work presented on a daily basis. Also there are many times in which personal time is extremely vital during peak academic semesters and personally, just being around people just stresses myself out even more.

But in response to your question, I believe that extroverts do have to "get away" from society because there is no such thing as a human being that never needs any personal time. Psychologically how can anyone or a personal be around people every moment of the day and every day of the week. Physically I could never see it happening because people do create stress either by themselves or from another person or people. There is no such thing as the perfect person in anything, everyone needs some type of personal time off whether they like it or not, and it creates a healthier environment for anyone mentally.

Re: Jacob Wheeler (3/24/10)

Q1:Given that egalitarianism is meant to provide equal opportunities to everyone, why is it so central in governmental thinking?
Q2:More precisely, can government exist in an egalitarian society?

In response to your most recent blog post, you have brought up many thoughts and ideas that I had also had in common with you. Within the definition of Egalitarianism, one of the main concepts is that everyone is created equal economically, politically, socially, and also in regards to civility. However I believe that having an egalitaristic government would perhaps create some problems if not executed properly. When I thought about a government that is most likely Egalitarian, I though of a communist government such as in Russia. Communism is stated as a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society. So for example everyone is also equal, making the same amount of money, living in the same type of house, working normal jobs, and there are no social classes. But is this type of government ideal? Generally speaking, I truly believe and Egalitarian government like this would not succeed in a country such as in America that is highly democratic or any democratic country at all. Also from a personal standpoint, I understand the concepts and the basics of Egalitarianism and since in a communist government which is Egalitarian and everyone is equal, what if a handful of citizens within the government did not work or did nothing at all such as in the case of welfare, in which some citizens take advantage of governmental programs. What if some citizens in this type of government basically took advantage such as in the case of the example stated above. Also on the other hand, what if there were a handful of citizens within this same type of government who worked extremely hard and earned advanced degrees such as an M.D (medical) or a J.D (Juris Doctorate;Law), does this seem fair that these citizens earn the same salary as someone who has no education at all? However to fully answer your last question I strongly believe that an Egalitarian Government would not work within a government, thus democracy would be the ideal fit.

Analysis of Dr. Edwards Presentation/Envy

Generally speaking Dr. Edwards gave an excellent presentation in which she discussed multiple topics that I would assume that many would not know a great deal of information on. In general when she first started to discuss her presentation she started off with on how many individuals within American society envy material items and constantly trying to wear the best clothing, driving the best cars, and generally being within accordance with the new styles. While this may be true she also discussed the origins of the Black Hebrew Israelites and how they have established their own way of living through their own personal beliefs, not in accordance with American culture which is an accomplishment that should be noted. However what actually attracted me the most about her presentation was the concept of envy came to mind and made me think about why Americans have to have material items as stated above. For example why do we need to have a luxurious car that almost costs as much as a house or the most expensive clothing on the planet? Truly it does not make sense whatsoever because are these necessities that we as humans need on a daily basis or do we obtain these items as a mean of satisfying ourselves through our impulses?

As Dr. Edwards described with the Black Hebrew Israelites, they started their own culture or religion in an attempt to free themselves from the "Western" way of thought, referring to American culture. In accordance they would also live a life with an organic diet, would wear clothing only produced from their homeland made from natural organic fibers, and they would basically isolate themselves from mainstream society. In addition one quality that many Americans lack is the ability to retrace to their own heritage whether it be Italian, Irish, or Polish. Truly America is a gigantic melting pot of elasticities but how come we have lost the culture from our homeland? Is it because we have been assimilated into something that was inevitable that we could not avoid or when many of our ancestors immigrated to the east or west coast did they intend to start with a fresh slate or a new beginning? Generally there are many families that do still practice their own cultural "way of life" but have we lost some our beliefs and standards in regards to this matter? However as we approach new generations, what will the United States be in regards to envy and being the best? Will it be better or worse?

Envy

Throughout history, envy, one of the seven deadly sins has commonly been charged with being unreasonable, irrational, imprudent, vicious, or wrong to feel. Many times this common emotion can be puzzling and complex and can truly tear apart the morals of a human being. However, many individuals and countries have not succumbed to this deadly sin thus progressing on a daily basis. For example, the country of Russia lives by a communist government, which is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society. In laments terms, citizens are told what they are destined to do from birth, there are no social classes, and everyone is economically equal to each other. But in any type of egalitarian society which holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights has numerous benefits but also some downfalls.

Such as in the example of communism almost everyone is created equal except politicians that hold a substantive amount of power. In this situation, envy would be prevalent even though the general population is equal to one another in regards to social class. Biologically it is natural for any human being to become envious of one another because we always looking for an upgrade from our current life and it would be quite convenient to experience the luxuries we do not possess. In many cases, certain individuals succumb to envy because there is such a hunger to become better whether it is financially, socially, or physically. In America, we tend to be the best that we can be at all necessary measures possible. Honestly, who wants to be the person at the bottom of the totem pole? Probably nobody would because that denote that a certain individual is either unsuccessful and who wants to be unsuccessful throughout life?

However reverting to the subject of communism and since everyone is created equal socially and economically why do many Russian citizens move out of their home country to attain a better life somewhere else? Is it because communism tends to be oppressive and nobody has free will to do whatever they want in regards toward education and career possibilities or would it be that they are envious of the material items such as having a luxurious house, nice car, and a high paying job? Honestly if my homeland created myself equal in regards to my next door neighbor who does not have the education level that I have, then I would also probably move to another country to have a better shot at life.
Two Questions of My Own

1.Are egalitarian governments truly based on envy and if so, is envy a byproduct of egalitarianism?
2.Is egalitarianism something that more countries should try to implement into their governments to wash away the concept of envy?

Analysis of Meat is Murder

In general this current paper presents arguments for, and against vegetarianism in which Michelle Carter expresses both sides completely. However is consuming any type of meat product truly murder? Murder is defined as the killing of human beings under conditions specifically covered in the law (Webster’s Dictionary) and are animals that are common for consumption such chickens, cows, and pigs ultimately covered by the law? Generally speaking the answer to this question would be no because consuming meat has been part of the human culture since creation and has been necessary for survival, obtaining the necessary amounts of protein the human body needs daily, along with the necessary vitamins and minerals. While on the other side of the issue can humans survive as being vegetarians, also obtaining the proper nutrients from fruits, vegetables, and legumes? Even though both styles of living have been documented as acceptable in the United States of America, are both sides considered immoral, and throughout the document “Medium Rare Morals: A Moral Justification on Meat Eating”, there is no distinct answer to the dilemma but more of arguments that would justify which lifestyle would be moral or immoral.

From the perspective of a carnivore, consuming meat is a daily activity in which is necessary for survival and staying healthy. However Carter tends to disagree with this statement because essentially murdering an animal is considered murder, cruel, unjust, and ultimately immoral. She also states that we us humans only think about only eating whichever meat we are currently consuming instead of understanding where the origins of the animal came from. But does this mean that we do not know where the specific cut of meat came from or we just don’t care because we the objective of consuming meat is to satisfy our current hunger and to supply our body with the essential nutrients (protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals). Truly if meat was literally considered murder, why isn’t every single carnivore within the entire world arrested and tried in court for murder? The reason why is because killing an animal for human consumption is not considered a crime and personally I do not understand why animal rights activists argue with Michelle Carter. However I would believe that Carter’s perspective on this issue would be neutral because she weighs out the pros and cons of each issue but ultimately she would defend that meat would truly be moral and unjust.

1.If meat eating is truly immoral, why don’t human beings stop slaughtering animals for consumption and instead derive essential nutrients from plants, fruits, and vegetables?

2.Why do animals have rights and if they do have rights, why are they not equivalent to humans?

The Improper Closure of the 2010 Winter Olympics

Last night was definitely a first for the Winter Olympics held in Vancouver,Canada. In regards to closure of the winter Olympic Games, usually there are a couple bands that sing,the Olympic torch is put out, and also there is usually some cheezy speech post-games speech. However the closing ceremonies started of the same as usual. The Canadian National Anthem was sung like Frank Sinatra would sing it and then after instead of a speech or acknowledgment of all of the successes and camaraderie between all of the countries, Jerry Seinfeld's new show, "The Marriage Ref" premiered at the Winter Olympic Games. But why this instead of a traditional Olympic closure? Truly this just seems bizzare and why would NBC even abruptly end the games is this type of fashion? Generally speaking the closing ceremonies were at 11:30 pm and probably nobody was watching them at all because who cares, this process happens every year. However was NBC thinking about the concequences about this action and would it retain some negative publicity? However I personally believe that this truly was an improper way to close out the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and also disrespectful to the tradition of the Olympics. At any type of closing ceremony, people should be paid respect and honored for their accomplishments so that everyone is aware of them (the athletes). There was no closing speech or even any acknowledgment of any of the athletes, no Bob Costas sign off, and even no end credits.

Is the way NBC closed out the Olympics improper and disrespectful to the tradition of the Olympic games and the participants. If so, why?

Response to Barry Sullivan (2/22)

Q1:Should morality be sacrificed in the name of patriotism?
Q2:Can patriotism be anything but immoral?

Generally speaking within the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stephen Nathanson states that patriotism contains four distinct rules or laws. First and foremost it is defined as a special affliction for ones own country in which one would value with uttermost pride. Secondly the second two laws coincide with one another being that one would have a sense of personal identification with the country (Ex/ I was born in the United States of America therefore I am proud to be an American) and one would have a special concern for the well being of their country (Ex/ I watch the news and believe that this current tax cut (fictitious) would not benefit our economy, therefore my personal opinion should be heard and considered. Now these first three laws demonstrate the positive aspects and qualities of patriotism but the last law (rule) can be debatable and ultimately have a negative connotation. The last law states that and individual should be willing to sacrifice to promote the country's good and well being. However is this situation this law can be extremely inclusive in which anything is not limited. For example is it patriotic to kill in the name of your country or assault someone because they are not patriotic, thus being a vigilante and immoral.

In your current blog post on patriotism, you break down the multiple aspects of patriotism into three distinct categories. In general I do agree with all of your personal aspects and I believe that it would be appropriate that I would answer your questions stated above. For the first question, morality should not be sacrificed in the name of patriotism because an individual should retain their morals previously learned through church or their personal upbringing via parents. In your situation you seem that you come from a christian background and it is the same in my situation. Even though I do not attend church on a weekly basis, the teachings of Jesus Christ are practical in relation to some of the problems we currently face in today;s world. We should love our neighbor like we love ourselves regardless of their ethnicity. Patriotism is far too inclusive and there are no limitations to the concept. Is murdering a middle eastern - Muslim American just even though a person of this ethnicity has been responsible for terrorism in the United States of America? The answer to this question would be no because it would be immoral thus compromising ones ethics and most importantly their personal morals.

For your second question patriotism can be moral in some situations if one is to honor their country like their brothers and sisters. In general there are many people who love our country (USA) because we are free to do whatever we want and nothing is predetermined such as Russia, where communism is prevalent in which one does not have a decision on what they want to do or become. This is the only situation I can generally think about that patriotism would have a positive effect because anything else would just be far too inclusive, thus compromising the concept.

Response to Brendan Tomasi: Anxiety (2/16)

Truly anxiety can make or break a persons life causing him/her to become fully consumed within it or to emerge and become victorious. But when the feeling of anxiety comes to mind, the word has a negative connotation or stigma, which in general makes "anxiety" have a predisposed feeling because with many individuals, many cannot cope with it, and it fully consumes them, making some go psychotic and crazy. However you said that Heidegger stated that "anxiety is useful in that it shocks you out of your life as a man in a crowd (das mann) with the reality that no one is going to die for you so we should focus on the essence of our being, enabling us to live an authentic life". In this situation, I would have to agree with Heidegger because anxiety is useful because it does remind us that we are human beings, thus imperfect and that anxiety is a normal feeling that we all experience in small or large doses. However anxiety can have some negative attributes in some situations. For example focusing on the issue on a minimal level, it is common for college students to have test anxiety or general anxiety when finals come around. The reason why is because in this situation there is a massive amount of stress inflicted upon the individual, and usually one is not accustomed or used to a vast amount of stress. But when we analyze this issue at a more serious level, there are some individuals that cannot function in life because they are anxious at an abnormal level, such in the case of agoraphobic individuals who are extremely scared to leave their own house.

Generally speaking everything in your blog post is 100% accurate. Anxiety is a serious issue because as you stated it can ultimately cripple (psychologically) an individual and also absorb all of their happiness. But personally I believe that anxiety in small doses, such as in when finals come around or even when a person is nervous to take a woman on a first date. Again in small doses we are reminded that we are humans and we also imperfect but that does not mean we are not subjected to pain whether it is physically or emotionally such as in this situation. However when anyone is subjected to anxiety at a high level when medication and advanced psychological therapy are needed, this can devastating.

Patriotism and Nationalism

“Patriotism versus Cosmopolitanism: Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?”

Throughout the debate, the topics of Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism contrasted with one and another in which the main question comes to ponder, “Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?” This can be an extremely difficult question to answer because generally who or what is more important, your own country or the common humanity that you share with other people or strangers? Truly, an American citizen would prefer helping about another American citizen because with many of us it is accustomed for us to do so and many American citizens already have some type of unity or a cultural bond that has been implemented in our behaviors. However, this issue is extremely complex and we must analyze this issue from both perspectives.

Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all kinds of human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality. More or less this type of ideology contrasts heavily with the topics of patriotism and nationalism in which can be confusing from time to time. However, Cosmopolitanism may entail some sort of world government or it may simply refer to more inclusive moral, economic, and/or political relationships between nations or individuals of different nations. For example in the philosophy debate (Philosophy Talk), what if there was an individual was drowning but you have bought new sneakers that you do not want to get dirty and what if this person is not an American citizen, should you save this individuals life? Generally, if we know how to swim than most likely we would attempt to save this individual because it is morally right. However if we were looking at this situation from a patriotic standpoint, why would we even care about saving this individual and what if this person comes from an ethnicity that rivals the American culture. When it comes to patriotism there is far too much leverage in which some unjustified patriotic acts have led to violence and chaos. For example, was slavery patriotic even though many Americans knew that this act was extremely immoral? But to answer the primary question there should be a moral or rational limit to Patriotism because again there is far too much leverage and some acts are unjustified and it is an excuse to commit a crime or wrongdoing to one another, of the same race, and of a foreign race.

1.Since there are moral limitations to patriotism, what are some rational limitations?
2.Which topic should Americans abide by in the new decade, Patriotism or Cosmopolitanism?

Supernaturalism, Religion, and Law

Generally, any human being or citizen in the United States of America is entitled to his or her own personal freedom of religion and speech. However, does the first amendment pose some dilemmas whether they are ethically or legally? For example, Clark states that The Founders’ intent, in response to harsh English colonial rule, and then the populist whims of state legislatures, was to secure an individual’s freedom of conscience against the tyranny of both monarchs and majorities. Thus the separation of church and state, requiring an ideologically neutral public space, became an essential democratic precept. Thus from this example should or should not religion be intertwined with the law, in any country. Truly many Americans do have their individual beliefs but sometimes religion can be conflicting with multiple issues.

On the other hand, when it comes to the long term debate of abortion (Roe vs. Wade), is it immoral and unethical in or acceptable in society? On one side (religious) abortion is not even an option whatsoever, because the death of a fetus is murder even though the fetus cannot feel pain at the time of the abortion. However, on the other end of the spectrum, there is nothing wrong because in most cases it is either the female does not want to have the child for monetary reasons or personal. Either way there is a current dilemma and who is to tell whom in this situation, is right or wrong? After analyzing this article more at a legal and religious perspective (pragmatic empiricism), does succeed at carving out a neutral ground for adjudicating the contrasting worldviews of naturalism and supernaturalism. However, the terms naturalism can be extremely confusing because personally these terms have never crossed my mind, thus not being “second nature”.

When it comes to subject of religion, should an individual segregate their personal beliefs (Religious) from ethical and legal decisions?

Hold Onto Your Underwear: This Is NOT a National Emergency

Throughout the article "Hold Onto Your Underwear: This Is NOT a National Emergency",Tom Engelhart states that Americans are in constant trouble on a daily basis and even in massive danger. He states some common facts that 14,180 Americans were murdered, 11,000 died of the swine flu during April and December of 2009, and there were about 35,000 (approximately) fatal car accidents and so on. However he goes into more detail with specific current events such as U.S Airways flight 1549 in which the pilot made a successful yet miraculous landing on the Hudson River and U.S airways flight 253 in which the infamous Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off a bomb which would of killed close to 250 people if the attempt was successful. Again It would certainly have represented a safety and security issue that needed to be dealt with. But it would not have been a national emergency, nor a national-security crisis. It would have been nothing more than a single plane knocked out of the sky, something that happens from time to time without the intervention of terrorists.

Generally if anyone was to analyze life and dangers on a daily basis, there is apparent danger on a daily basis. For example physiologically you could be fine and in great health one day and then the next succumb to cancer or an injury such as a torn ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament). We face dangers every day and diseases and sometimes there is no way to avoid them but we may ask, who is responsible for causing all of these dangers. Is it fate balancing the universe out, is it religious, or do human beings put themselves in a position in which would be dangerous? Honestly this a more of a complex question that does not pose a correct answer and is there a correct answer. Personally most human beings do position themselves in such danger every day. When it comes to infectious diseases such as the swine flu or the Ebola virus, do we actually practice prevention in our society. Or maybe when we walk out the door first thing in the morning and commute to school or work and get into our car are we in danger from reckless or intoxicated drivers etc.? Truly who knows but when it comes to homeland security and the defense of our nation there have been some apparent problems that should be prevented and should of been such as 911. Any of these situations could of been prevented with a more detailed security system but why would we just start to improve airport security after a tragic event happened? Shouldn't airport security (homeland security) should of prepared for the worse and had this type of security system implemented in the first place before all these tragic events? But this situation perfectly portrays that human beings are imperfect, bi products of science or religion.

1. Why are human beings subjected to danger on a daily basis and if so is this more of a matter of fate or religion?

2. Who is responsible for terrorism in the United States, is it the government?

Response to Sally Perras (1/31)

Throughout history, pre determination has been a subject that has been in constant debate. Personally when this subject comes to mind religion also intertwines. The reason why is because from the beginning of the medieval ages, religion was first and foremost a way of life and secondary it was extremely strict. There was always a presupposition in which a sin was committed then probably you were going to hell unless an indulgence was paid directly to the church to remove the specific sin or sins from yourself. However who is to judge or make the decision that a certain individual will go to hell just because someone committed a sin? Other perspectives also should be analyzed such as how serious was the sin, did it break the ten commandments, and last and not least, why would paying money absolve anyone from a sin. The way I look at it is that committing any type of sin portrays that humans are imperfect, constantly sinning and making mistakes. If Adam and Eve did not sin at the beginning of time (Christianity), the world would be unnatural and perfect, and how do we know what that would be like? Truly pre determination and religion can be extremely confusing in which who is the chief dictator in life that makes all of these complex decisions on a daily basis? Honestly if there is a god, does he make the decisions or does he speak through clergymen (priests,bishops,cardinals,popes etc.)? Or on the other hand does everything just happen and do humans have the right to do anything they want, if their body allows so(fate)? But generally to finish answering your question more or less, humans created pre determination through some type of divine intervention when it comes to religion. These presuppositions were never decided before the beginning of time (science) or at creation (religion). These were just implemented by humans that had some type of power whether it was politically or religiously at the time.

Response to Michelle Webb (1/30/10)

Q:Why can't we just realize the reality and truth of the matter and humble ourselves?

Generally speaking the human race has advanced into a complex organism that what it used to be during the Neolithic and Medieval Ages. Truly as you stated we are a bunch of cells, tissues, and organs all attached to each other biologically. However I would consider the current topic of yours more of sociological or psychological because the quality of being humble("humbleness") can be derived and completely understood with an analysis or the person(s) mental processes. But the question still remains and that is why are humans not humble individuals? More or less many human beings do not understand the true value of life and that everything does not need to be regulated by currency (money). I do not know if you ever asked yourself these questions, why do humans need to increase their salaries, is driving five types of cars necessary to live, or better yet is a mansion with 30 bedrooms normal or extremely excessive? Again my point comes to why cannot humans settle to be average individuals instead of trying to be the richest or the most powerful in the world.

Take for an example, why do people become doctors, and if so do they do it for the money or to truly become a doctor to help sick patients. From one perspective you can say that a doctor is equivalent to the strongest animal within the animal kingdom and an elementary school teacher is considered the blade of grass that you discussed throughout you blog posting. Again from a monetary perspective, the average salary for a doctor is well over 300,000 dollars. Honestly what can anyone do with 300,000 dollars except living an extremely luxurious life, but is it necessary? What I mean is that are humans within the 21st century more motivated to make an excessive amount money, living the "high life" or is it more appropriate to live a normal life, having a normal family, working normal hours (40 per week), and last but not least earning a normal salary. Indeed more and more individuals are earning more graduate and professional level degrees which is excellent b/c our future generations are a lot more educated, which means that humans are becoming smarter and the world is developing on a daily basis.

However to get back to your question, why cannot humans humble themselves? Honestly I personally do not know the direct answer to your question but I hope my examples gave your a better understanding of this matter from a financial or monetary perspective. However if more individuals such as economists, psychologists, sociologists,and perhaps millionaires could all collaborate to derive a direct answer from their thoughts, then I will assume that your question can be correct answered.

Is Beauty Really in the Eye of the Beholder?

Throughout our daily existence as humans, there are multiple events ranging from minimal to maximum interest. Some of us may enjoy to play sports such as basketball, lacrosse, baseball and soccer or participate in extracurricular activities at school. These are just some of the events that make us (as humans) different from another, having a unique personality, and better yet what attracts our attention? “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a universal phrase that is relatively easy to interpret or understand, but the does this statement hold true in most situations and if it does what does this statement relate to.

Personally when this statement is brought to question within a conversation it does make complete sense because who is to judge another persons opinion about the perception of beauty. However we must understand what beauty actually means and relates to. The denotation of beauty relates to the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations such as shape, color, or sound. Again does this definition truly define what beauty is within the relationship of humans? Probably not because in some countries beauty can range from multiple facets and categories. For example such as in Hawaii and Samoa, big is considered extremely beautiful and valued deeply but on the other end of the spectrum in America, the more developed a woman is (physically) is considered beautiful and sometimes stunning.

One concept that comes to mind is that beauty and attraction can either correlate and complement each other. For example what attracts humans of opposite sexes or the same together with one and another. From the beginning it holds true that physical attributes such as an attractive face or a curvaceous body in a female do attract the opposite sex (men) but after it is more of the emotional connection that keeps that attraction in combination with common interests and the enjoyment of each others company. However what if the rules of attraction did not exist, then would the concept of beauty exist and vice versa. Then we could also ask at a microscopic perspective that if none of these concepts existed what would the world be as we know it as today? But in as this theory can hold for relationships, it can hold for any topic that possesses the concept of beauty, such as art or aesthetics.

Generally the statement “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” does hold true in some situations but however it is far too inclusive and this statement could hold to anything that possesses “beauty”, even if anyone does not have an idea what beauty is.

1.Since this current statement is far too inclusive does it hold true to multiple perspecives of beauty or only to a personal outlook of what beauty is?

2.What if for example if the perception of beauty differs from culture to culture, what makes a certain culture correct about their current perception?

Re: Emily Burke "What Is Real/True ?"

Throughout your blog entry you stated that you preferred Math and Science to English because English and History are products of humanity, which is flawed. However Math and Science were discovered, but they were not always there. In general I do completely agree with you on the subjects of Science and Math are not flawed because they were not created by human beings but they were discovered. However when it comes to Math, can this subject be flawed because who really did invent the numbers system and all of these complex equations? Honestly when analyzing the subject (Math)how do you know that someone or multiple people just invented the mathmatical system like in the cases of history and english. Many of the applications do make quite a bit of sense but is the subject "organic", demonstated in the "Hard Sciences" (Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc.)? Truly the equations were "man made" but the logic behind the subject is more or less organic, in which humans did not create science but instead discovered it. For instance as Dr. Johnson stated the past week during class, fire did not exist but it was more of the idea and theory. In general a homosapian discovered that combining flint and tinder makes a fire complete and there is some type of scientific process happening, chemically.

However I agree with you completely that English and History are completely "man made: and thus flawed. When I personally examine the subject of history,how does the existence of these events actually happened. For example with the Adams presidents do possess some type of existence due that their bodies are buried in the heart of Quincy center and there are numerous historical markings that also do prove their existence. But on the other hand with some early historical events, such as the events in Greece and in Rome, how do we as humans know that there was such of an existence? Truly there are artifacts that would prove that these events were real but were these artifacts replicated by humans during the 17th, 18th, 19th,20th, or 21st century.Perhaps these events were false but how can this theory be proved? Generally it cannot and if not proven to be true are all of these events being false? Transitioning to the subject of English there is no arguing against this because humans did create language in the form of English. This subject is completely flawed and how do we know that with the rules of English portrays the correct form of the language?

Why the U.S owes Haiti Billions - The Briefest History

Why does the US owe Haiti Billions? Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State, stated his foreign policy view as the "Pottery Barn rule." That is - "if you break it, you own it."

These are some of the principles that are stated in the article, "Why the U.S owes Haiti Billions - The Briefest History by Bill Quigley (also posted on Dr.J's blog. Mainly what I derived from this article is that the United States and Haiti do not possess the greatest relationship with each other. Quigley states that we owe Haiti a matter of justice, not charity such as the 100 million dollars that President Obama has vowed to give Haiti in which is "Powerball Money". However the question comes into play, why do we owe Haiti charity? Is the reason because we are a major country and in most situations the United States would help an ally in need? Or is it because we have exploited the Haitian population, drained their economy financially over countless decades, and invaded them militarily as Quigley proclaims? Anyone is entitled to their own opinion and there is no incorrect answer and I would like briefly view some history to generate some type of conclusion for this data.

Historically the United States and Haiti have not had the best international relations whatsoever. In between 1915 and 1934 President Woodrow Wilson sent troops to invade the country, killing over 2000 Haitian citizens. For about 19 yrs after the United States collected taxes, controlled customs in Haiti, and ran government institutions, siphoning billions of dollars under Haitian dictatorship. Also Haiti used to be a mass producer of sugar, well not anymore, their product has became rice due to that the United States had ruined their agriculture. Again the United States has sexually exploited the Haitian people for years, recreating the events that happened in the slave plantations.

Truly the United States has caused a good amount of turmoil to Haiti morally and economically. It would be true to say that the United States does owe Haiti quite a bit of money (billions) but this article comes from only a journalist which is one opinion out of thousands of journalists in the country. Quigley does express his opinion rather harshly and does get his point across. However we must look at both sides of the story and even the truth, in which sometimes does not get discovered. First and foremost how do we know that these facts are extremely true why would it justify that the United States owes Haiti. Honestly if you look at many situations the involve the United States, we truly owe many countries what they have done for us and what we have not done from them. But why Haiti? Probably because it took a major earthquake to finally make the United States develop a conscience and help a country that needs help, Haiti.

Does the United States owe Haiti as Quigley states or do we owe them in the sense of charity?