should i?

I was brought back to this blog after I was showing an incomeing freshman what this class was like. now i wonder, should i continue to blog about my thoughts about the world? perhaps i will, but on my own terms, i'm not gunna worry about punctuation and stuff. yeee!

Billions

     Approximately 3 billion animals are slaughtered each year for food alone. This is done at the hands of humans. Is this morally correct for humans to do? Is it okay for us to simply slaughter others by the billions as we wish to fulfill our greedy consumer needs? Perhaps this is the price for being overly sensitive to our own kind. We want even the weakest humans to survive, and so we need to feed so many more humans than if we let the week die off. So yes, we are moral for wanting all of our species to survive, but does that also make us immoral for killing billions of others for our own sake? Here we go again with all of our contradictions!
   

Categories

   Human emotions and actions cannot be categorized into specific general boxes. Our emotions come in a bundle. As much as we want to be the best human possible, and win at everything, often times we can't help but to assist those below us on our climb to reach the top. We have so many emotions that we do not know how to handle or explain them. We feel different things at the same time, and those feelings all contradict each other.
    The emotions of humans I think is what exempts us from many of Darwin's theories of survival. Humans are far too social and rely too much on each other to want to completely destroy those who are less than them, in our own species anyway. 

Charity

     Charity and welfare programs have become a common topic of discussion and action in America society. There is always a call to help the less unfortunate, and there is always a debate about who should be able to get welfare benefits. Are these acts contradicting the the theories Darwin created to explain the animals that live on earth? Darwin expressed the concepts of survival of the fittest and only the strong and most able survive. But we, as humans, now take extensive measures to try to save those who are weak and less able.
    I think that this shows how advanced and social humans really are. We care so much about our own species, and wanting more of us around we created ways to keep even the weak alive. So I guess some could say it is unnatural, but I think that it is a new form of natural. It is proof that we have advanced so much that we now are able to see the value of every member of our species and keep even the weakest of  it safe.

Survival is dependent

      Some may say that survival of the fittest means to be the strongest, biggest, and most dominate creature. I however, disagree to a certain degree. Survival can be extremely dependent on a creature's mind or small size to survive a situation. Think about it, animals like possums rely on their ability to appear dead to stop animals from eating them. Butterflies have patterns on their wings to look like owls to scare of enemies. Bugs can appear to be a leaf or a stick so that their attackers will bypass them rather than eat them. Some of these things cannot be controlled directly by the creature, but they certainly have learned to use these natural things to their advantage.
       The mind is also a very powerful tool for creatures to survive. Humans are the prime example of this. There are countless animals that are stronger, faster, and bigger than our race. Or brain and ability to hunt better, build shelter, provide ourselves with warmth, and discover how we can use everything to our advantage has allowed us to become the most dominate animal on the planet. 

perhaps

      Perhaps I over stated my case in my last blog, kind of what Sartre did. Sometimes humans cannot control their emotions. I know this from first hand experience. Chemical imbalances in the brain can cause depression, and cannot be controlled. Although I still do believe that humans choose to feel things, some things cannot help but to be felt. I think that humans can also choose not to feel things, again, the depressed feeling of numbness cannot always be helped but to be felt, I think that humans can also choose to block things out, to be numb. I think that needing to block things out and not feel is as much a part of human nature, as feeling is. I think that as much as humans love to feel, too much feeling can lead to an overwhelming feeling of pain, or too much doubt in happiness. I think that it is part of human nature to block out emotions and feel numb in order to control emotions, especially when they are strong, too strong. As much as humans love to feel emotions, humans need to not feel, or block out feelings to keep themselves sane.

A choosing nature

     It is not only necessary in like to make choices, but it is our nature to do so. I think that it is our nature to want to do what makes us happy, or to decide on our own terms what to do or how to do it. I think that humans are always looking for an adventure, an alternate rout, a different way to explore the world. And with that we are constantly choosing what to do and where to go. I think it is human nature to sometimes pick the decision that has more negative consequences in order to feel emotions that we don't often get to feel. We choose to let people close to us and break our hearts because the experience is exhilarating and new. The pain we feel in heartbreak is no doubt awful, but it gives us experiences, and proves that we lived and experienced something that some may not get to. We choose to heighten our emotions feel things more that we really need to. I think that enlarging our emotions more than we need to is part of human nature. We choose to feel things more deeply in order to simply feel something. Humans enjoy having emotions. We choose to have them, acknowledge them, feel them, and explore them. So why is it human nature to choose? Well I think it is because it is human nature to want to feel and have emotions.

Never right, and Never left

     There is never a right answer. Just like there is never a full truth. There are simply thousands of ways one can chose and explain things. People tend to blame their choices on external factors. They blame it on the alcohol, on morals, on teachers, parents, basically anything other then themselves. But intimately it is you and only you who made the choice. You chose not do a homework assignment, not because your teacher don't care, or your parents will never find out, but because you simply chose  not to do it. It's kinda hard to think about making a choice with the absence of external factors or without morals, but that is what Sartre implies what happens. I think that it is exhilarating and scary to think that we make decisions based  on nothing other than ourselves and not outside factors.
      We can say that morals have something to do with the decisions we make, but how is anyone to say that your morals are right or wrong. And with that, someone can not say that you made a wrong decision. This means that a decision can never be wrong or right, it is simply a decision.

Free?

    According to Sartre we have no chose but to be free. But is that really freedom? It seems like that isn't truly freedom. Its a bit of a contradiction. You are completely free, but you have no other choice to be free. You are not allowed to not be free. It seems simple and almost obvious to have complete freedom. But then again, freedom means having choices, but you can't choose to not be free, you have to be free.
     According to Sartre, slaves were free, and I guess if you think about it, they were free to leave or not do the work assigned to them, but that was at the risk of death. So, yes they had a choice, they had the freedom to choose, but that also meant that they had to choose death or life under another person. I guess that seems so abstract because of the American idea of freedom isn't about choosing death or slavery, but about choosing your own path and thoughts and actions.

Why God?

     Religion is safe. It provides answers for the things that cannot be explained. I think that is why people cling to it. With religion we are able to give reasons for the things that confuse us. As humans, we do not like the unknown, it scares us. So religion takes care of that unknown for us. Religion provides a safe blanket for humans to land on when they are sad, confused, mad, or just looking for answers. Is that practical? I personally don't think so, but I think it is good for people who need it to have. I think that people who search so hard for answers that they will never find need a reason, and religion is that answer for them. Although I do not agree with it, I don't have a problem with those who choose to look to a god for their explanations or answers. I just ask them to not force their beliefs on me.

Why?

     Why does doing a good deed or treating people with decency make them a good christian. Why doesn't it just make them simply a good person. I never understood why people find the need to attach a religion to the good acts of another. Doesn't the Jewish religion or Buddhist or other religions express the desire and want for people to do what is right and just? Why do we find the need to attach the Christian religion on to acts like these? 

God not so mighty

       My question is, if God is this all mighty being, than why must he send others out to do his work and to spread is greatness. Shouldn't a God that is the only true god, allegedly,  be able to get followers because he is simply so great and powerful? Why must God convince people that he is great, and make others preach his greatness to get them to follow him. It never really made sense to me. I always thought that if something or someone is so great than others do not need to be convinced of it. They will simply believe it. Perhaps that is just naive.

How is "He" any different?

    People talk about God as if he is the most powerful and all knowing person or spirit that has ever existed. I however disagree. If the God that the Roman Catholics talk about does exist, than he is as peaceful, forgiving, and loving as they make him out to be.
    This God they talk about seems spiteful, selfish, and egocentric. If this God was so forgiving, than there wouldn't have been a reason for the flood that washed over the earth, for natural disasters, or anything that kills a mass amount of people in a destructive manner. If God was so powerful than there would be no need for him to command that people on Earth are not to worship any other God or person as well or over him. If this God was so loving and all powerful, I don't understand why he must insure that he is the greatest, and constantly prove his strength and power. It seems pointless to me. Perhaps it is my atheist ways, but this chapter hasn't done much to convince me that there is a God. I don't know if it was suppose to, but it didn't.

Proud to be an American

       I am proud to be an American. I am aware of it's flaws, and of its corruption, and it's money driven politics. But I am proud. That is what I believe Patriotism is. It is being proud of where you come from, no matter how horrible the country may be, it is where you were raised, where you learned about different values, and it is where you created a life for yourself.
     I think that being patriotic is loving your country, and doing good things in honor of it. Meaningless killing and torturing is not patriotic, and war might not be either. But when one is facing death defending their country, that is patriotic. War happens, it will never stop, and in war there is death. The death may seem meaningless, and it may be but it is a part of war. Being patriotic in war means that you overcome the enemy, even if that ultimately means death. It does not mean that you intentionally kill others who are not fighting. Yes, it may happen, but it does not make that person unpatriotic if they didn't intentionality go out to kill the innocent.
      But being patriotic doesn't have to mean fighting in wars or joining the army. It can mean that one holds their own country to a higher standard because they expect so much from it. You know its flaws, but you embrace them, because it has the potential to change. It is the people of the country that we want to succeed because they are a part of you.  Being patriotic simply means that you love where you come from and you are proud of it.

I think you can do both

    Some people may say that you cannot support the troops but not the war. I disagree. Supporting the troops means that you want them to stay safe and healthy. Sending food, letters, care packages, those are things that can make their days a bit better, and those are things that can be done to support them. Working to help with veteran rights and benefits is needed to help keep the troops safe when they return, and it is an effort that can be done by regular citizens. Whether you believe in the war or not, you can support the troops because they are there to keep us safe. They are fighting in honor of America, and that is a cause that should be supported. I don't understand how a person can not support the troops because what they are doing is honorable. They are putting their life on the line for their country and it's people. Support the troops, send them home safe. Ending the war is supporting our troops.

You have to choose

    Is it really morally wrong to chose to save an American over a person on another nationality simply because you are from America as well. I thought about this for a while after class, and I still think that I would choose the American, but I'm not sure if it is morally right. But I think that it is what most American's would do. I tend to think of it on a smaller scale. If I had to choose to save someone from my city or another one,  I would choose to save the one from my city, because there is an unspoken bond that links me to them. I think that between every American, every person from the same country, there is an unspoken bond and draw to them over another. Being from the same country gives you a common thing between the two of you to bond over or to feel apart of. I guess that when it comes down to it, I would choose my own kind, simply because we come from the same place. We most likely value similar things, and we were raised on similar ideas. We are apart of a giant American family, and so I chose my family because they are apart of me and where I come from.

The beauty of imperfection

    I thin that fighting for our country means fighting for its' people. Fighting for its theories, beliefs, morals, and history. When fighting for America, I think we are fighting for our right to change, to speak, to give opinions, and to live freely.
      People are flawed, and so, governments are flawed. I don't think you can speak to any solider and have them tell you that no matter what the government is always right and will never lead you down the wrong path. But what makes fighting for a flawed country so great is because we are able to fight to correct and fix those flaws. We can protest wars, policies, decisions, anything that the government passes. We have the right to stand up against our government and try to fix a flawed or broken system. Being patriotic does not mean that you have to think your country is perfect in every way. I think it simply means to be proud of where you come from and to fight to keep enemies from overtaking the values and area that you are from. Yes, pride may be a human flaw, but it does not mean that we shouldn't fight to try to keep outsiders from trying to change us, when we can simply change ourselves. 

The reason behind it all

       I don't think we can ever have true proof of anything in psychology. Sure we can have things that happen most often, but every single person is different, and have had so many different experiences and so there is no one set law or rule for everyone. There is so many things in all science, psychology included, that have no definite explanation. Maybe there are invisible goblins that pull things down to the ground and not gravity, but we will never know. I think that is what makes science so fascinating; there will always be a new theory to investigate, or a new person to interview and figure out. I don't think there is one reason behind an action in the world of psychology. But in the wold of other sciences, that may be a different story. All I know is, we will never know for sure. 

My idea of Nightmares

      Nightmares wake us up. Ever wonder why? Well here is my explanation, I'm not sure if it goes along with Freud's views, or someone else's ideas, but this is my theory. 
     Our nightmares are still wishes that we have, just a different kind of wish. I believe that nightmares are more unconscious wishes that we have. Wishes that we are afraid of having, and don't want to admit that they exist. We hide them so deep in our unconscious that we forget that they exist, and simply classify it as a fear, when really it is a wish we are afraid to have. When we have nightmares we wake up. I think this is because our conscious is becoming aware of it. When our conscious is aware of what is going on, it forces the body to wake up, because it doesn't want to deal with the suppressed wishes that are coming to surface. Either that or is still only sees it as a fear and so it makes sure to wake up to protect itself from the fears.
      Sure, my theory may be a bit out there, but its what I think. I wonder if Freud would agree with me.

a DREAM is a WISH your heart makes

       Some may say that wishes instigate dreams. I believe in that statement whole heartedly. When I dream it is about things that I want to happen. Sure, it may be a bit abstract, or hard to understand, but i know that it is something that I want to happen. I know that when I'm dreaming about being best friends with a celebrity I admire, it is something that I wish would happen, and so I dreamed it. I think a lot of the time we have to live out these wishes in dream because other wise we would often times never get to experience them. I think that often times dreaming occurs so that we do not go completely insane from all the wants and wishes that we, as humans have. Without dreams we would be so constantly consumed with thoughts and desires that we wouldn't be able to concentrate normally. Dreams allow us to play out and feel like we are living our wishes enough so they do not constantly consume our very being. ...But that's just me.

Ice burg! Straight ahead!

       I really liked how the layers of consciousness was compared to an ice burg. It made it an easy visual to think about how the layers of our mind, according to Freud are laid out.  If you think about it, it makes a lot of since. I believe that a person is only aware of a small portion of themselves; they only know the top of the ice burg. As the ice burg gets deeper and deeper into the water, it becomes bigger and wider. I believe that out pre-conscious and our unconscious are so much larger than what we would assume. Think about it. More often than not we don't know what we think or dream things, and too often we don't know why we mixed up two words, or said or did something we didn't mean. Our layers of consciousness really are like an ice burg. The deeper you travel, the wider, bigger, and more complicated it gets.

Eco-Feminism

      This is one of the most logical titles I have ever come across. Everything that is natural is womanly, well in my opinion anyway. Think about it, Mother Nature, woman. Child birth, natural. Woman. So many things that are natural are often referred to as women.  Nature completely rules the lives of humans and, in a way, women often control what is going on in the world. Without woman there would be no children. There would be no way for humanity to survive. Perhaps it is my feminist views, but I think that nature and feminism and womanhood is completely related. Nature is so often given female traits and names, and so often women are related to the beauty of nature. The two are so finely intertwined, it only makes sense to create a category where they both co-exist.

Where do I stand?

      I stand far more on the naturalist spectrum. Having essentially no religion myself, I believe in science and finding explanations in logic. I find it hard to believe in something without some sort of proof. Part of the reason I struggle with faith is because I find it hard to believe in something without being able to doubt it. Doubt is what makes things stronger, and what finds proof. Religion is something that cannot be tested, but can be doubted. And what I find hard is being able to doubt, but not be able to prove. People can debate about the existence of God or some sort of higher being, but no one can ever prove it. That is something that I just have trouble doing. 

A Moral Debate

     Can you have a moral debate without inflicting religion? Of course you can! I have them all the time! My friend Paul is an extremely religious person and I having no faith are able to argue and debate over moral issues without inflicting religion. We both agree that religion harms the strength of a debate. To bring the class discussion into this blog, we actually would debate about abortion a lot. He is pro life and I am pro choice. We debate about the morality of it. We discuss what is life, woman's rights and how it can have effects on the people involved in the initial pregnancy. So yes, debates can happen based solely on moral arguments without inflicting religion or even science.

Seeing is believing?

      I agree with what was discussed in class that faith is believing in the absence of being able to see. I think that faith is hard for the visual person to believe because there is absolutely no way to see a god, or see god preform a godly act. Maybe this is one of the reasons I have such a hard time with religion, because I need to see things to believe that they are true. I need a full and complete explanation of something to understand, believe and comprehend it.
      So how do some people give into faith so easily? I think that people are too afraid not to believe. I think that their fear of there not being a god, or even a life after a worldly life scares them into believing in a god that may or may not exist. We are taught to fear a life with no god.

I just don't know!

   I wish I could be  a compatablist, but I'm not. I don't know where I stand. Perhaps I just don't believe in either theory. I wish that I could believe that everything happens for a reason, but we have the choice to change it, but if I take each theory wholly, then it simply can't be done.
   Maybe I am a determinist. The more I think about it, I do believe that everything happens for a reason. I think that we are meant to live our lives exactly how we do. I guess it is just weird to think that we have no say in what happens in my life, and that it is all planned out. So I still stick to my position as an incompatablist, but I don't really like the theory of determinism in its entirety.

Some things don't mix well

   I don't think a person cannot realistically combine the ideas of determinism and free will. I think this because one cannot freely make a choice if everything that is going to happen is already predetermined. So logically, one would not be able to combine both ideas into one. But then again, since we may not have free will, it could be predetermined that we are not going to think that there can only be one answer, and so we think that they can. If it is predetermined, or if it is the free will to choose so, on one will ever know. It's kind of hard to think about.  But I guess that is where I stand, or where it was determined I stand.

Maybe I'm not so decisive

  If everything in the universe is predetermined, then maybe I don't make as many decisions as I thought I did. It is a weird concept to think about; that nothing I do is my choice.  It is actually kind of depressing if you think about it. You have no choice in what happens in your life, it is completely predetermined. And if everything is completely predetermined, can we ever really examine our lives? Is it predetermined that we will think about what we never had a choice in thinking? What would be the point?
    If some of the best philosophers in history said that we must examine our lives, than did they think that we had a choice in what happened in our lives? Did they not think that the world was as predetermined as it may actually be? It makes me wonder. What do you guys think?

Can it be bad and good?

         After this recent found information about the Salvation Army, it really got me thinking about how absolutely horrible some supposedly positive organizations can really be. How could this organization that gives to the poor also have such evil alternatives? But then again, so many other organizations do the same thing. Think about the Catholic Church. It preaches about loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek, but yet some followers commit violent crimes in the name of God or the church.
        So can an organization be good and bad? I think yes, but it takes away from the purpose of promoting goodness. I think it also takes away from the purity of the virtueist or altruistic acts. I think that having impure alternatives takes away from a lot of goodness that is done by people.

What are your reasons?

      I think that being happy that others are being helped is a good thing, and possible. It happens all the time. For example, think of telethons. Have you ever personally called that 1-888-number to donate to the Katrina Fund, or the Haiti Fund? I haven't, but I certainly was happy that all of this money was being donated to help.
     What I think is a problem, however, is if the only way a person can be happy is if help is only coming from them. So, for example, if the only way John Doe can obtain happiness is to be the only one who helps a person in need, then there is far too much selfishness involved in that. This is kind of what is asked in the Q&A this week. If John wants to be happy, and so he goes out to help others so that he can find joy, it is virtuous, but not altruistic. It is not how one should really live. One should strive to be more altruistic, or at least less selfish about attempting to be more altruistic.

Thinking About Kindness

     Altruism is doing something at a cost or risk. But I wonder if you can still obtain altruism if you think about the act or risk that you are about to take on. I think that the answer is yes. I think that even if you are aware that there is a risk, if you chose to take it, than you are being altruistic.
     Heroism however, I think often involves less thinking. I think that Heroic acts are altruistic acts that are done on impulse, and of course often involve greater risk. For example, pushing someone out of the way of an on coming car is heroic because there was no time to think about doing it, and the risk of being injured was high. But it doesn't always have to be physical risk that is possible. For example, if a friend, or stranger needed a large sum of money for a life saving surgery, and you write them a check, right then and there, no questions asked, emptying your bank account, or even putting a large dent in it, then that is heroic. I think. What do you think?

Pete and Repete are on a boat...

      I think that if I gave all of my food for another to live, it would be an act of heroism perhaps, but it would also be a type of selfish behavior. I don't think I would be able to live with myself knowing that I watch someone else die on my behalf. My act wouldn't be selfless because it is what I want. But then I think, can anything be truly selfless? If you yourself are in every decision and action you make, how could one act be selfless? Does selflessness actually exist?

What is the point?

   If the meaning of life is meaningless, then why not simply live life to the absolute fullest. Sure it's a common, over used saying, but it doesn't ring more true than if life has no meaning. Think about it. If everything you do in your life has nothing to do with getting into a heaven, or being re-incarnated, then why not live your life exactly how you want to.
    But then I think, if we did exactly what we wanted to do, would the would be a horrible place? I think no, because we have the natural morals instilled in us, not to get into heaven, but to live in a civilized society.

Human vs. Animal

      Reason really is the only thing that separates us from other animals. Well the sophisticated reason that we use in our everyday lives. I do wonder if animals have a sense of reason as well. Is there reason the same as ours, but we are just too blind and arrogant to see it. But then again, maybe not.
      When you think about it, we are more similar to humans than we think. We seek companionship like they do. We do drastic things for food. We live according to a food chain. We care for our off-spring and we live in colonies. When I stop to think about it, when we say that something and animal does is human like, we aren't really correct. What should be said is that things we do are animal like. Often times this is said for a negative thing, but it should be said for everything we do. We are not really above any animal in the world, we just simply like to think we are.

Miracles

     What is a miracle? I had never really thought about the actual definition of one until class. I do not think that a miracle is brought on by praying to a god, or living a sin free life. I think I believe the explanation that Professor Johnson stated, that "miracles" have a reason, we just don't know, or need to know what that reason is to believe it. Sure, maybe some of you may say that the reason is God or something like that, and that is a fine explanation if that is what you believe, but I think it is something more than that.
       Will I never question a miracle, but I do think that there is a greater reason for it. The reason may be scientific, but I'm not going to find that out because science is not my forte. I think I believe that everything in this world happens for a reason. I don't think I will ever know the reason for most things, like why a child dies, or why a group of people decided to fly planes into the World Trade Center, but I think it needed to happen for the world to continue in a certain way. Perhaps this is just me looking at the world with the glass half full, but it's what I believe. Everything that has ever happened needed to happen for the world to exist as it currently does.  

Spirit, I don't know about that

     Some people may say that reason tells us to turn to spiritual life in times of worry, or panic, or distress, or anything like that. I'm not so sure I agree. I think reason tells us to release our emotions. I think reason tells us to reach out to other humans, and release the emotions that we are feeling. Think about it. When some people turn to a spiritual life, often times they pray, yes, but they also often times talk to the leader of their religious place, like a Rabi or Priest. Instinctual I think we need human contact more than a Spiritual world in times of distress.

Ignorance is bliss

       Why would anyone live their life in a cave? Wouldn't they get board of the same shadows playing over and over again? How can no one ever wonder about an outside world? I thought humans were naturally curious about things they do not know or can't see. But then again we are always hiding from things we cannot control, or things we don't want to know about.
      Finding out that we are ignorant about something that we were so passionate about hurts. It is like stepping out of the cave and into the light. Our beliefs are shaken, our heads are confused, our souls are torn. Sometimes I think that it isn't the fear of knowing the truth that keeps us in the dark, but the fear of the pain afterward that scares us the most.

Is the Unexamined life tangabel?

         At first I thought that the unexamined life was a way of living, living life to the fullest one might say. But now I am starting to think that the unexamined life might be a way of thinking. Perhaps the unexamined life is one where simply living is not enough. Maybe what Plato meant was that we should think about why we do things, or say,things, or why we think the things we think. Maybe in order to live fully and a valuable life we have to think about life.
          But if that is what he meant, then I don't think it's fare to make the statement that the unexamined life is not worth living, because often times what makes life enjoyable is not thinking about something. Some of the most enjoyable things in life don't involve thinking. Running, playing, loving, all those things don't need to be examined, we can simply feel the joy, and we feel like we are living a happy life.
           Should we think about our lives and the choices we make? Yes. But that should not be the only thing that makes our life worth living.  

Family and Government

       During class, the topic of how government and families interact was brought up. I think that the government absolutely has an impact on how families function today, and vis versa. The government argues, and cannot make decisions. This leads to unemployment, economic stress, rise in taxes; all things that have an immediate impact on how a family exists.
      Also, when someone comes from a dysfunctional family, often times their adult life is dysfunctional. A person can want to differ themselves from the environment that they can from as much as they want, but more times than not, old habits sneak into their lives. communication issues can play part in how a senator for example works and communicates in debates. How family's function absolutely has an impact on how others interact at work, government included.   

Fathers

   In class the topic of "following in their father's footsteps" when it comes to morals. The discussion continued about what should or is done when father has bad morals. I think that we know when our elders do something wrong or live in  a less moral manner. I don't think that we, as humans, want to, or tend to follow in their footsteps. It is heard all the time in television, movies, and conversations with real people; "I don't want to be my father." So I think that when we don't agree with our elders morals, we find new people to admire, people who have the same morals as we do.

A perfect God? And my purpose in the universe

     Some believe that there is a God that is all mighty and powerful, and created the world and everything in it. These people believe that this God is perfect and does not make mistakes. But I do not see how this is logical. I don't believe that a God who wants all of his people to follow his word would create evil, and give his people the free will to choose evil. It seems completely illogical to me. I think that many people use God as an excuse to explain things that they do not want to think about, or simply cannot explain for themselves. Don't get me wrong, I think religion is good for people, it gives them that excuse and belief that something or someone has a plan for them, but I simply do not agree with the idea of religion or God.
     When I think about what my place in the Universe is, I don't think that I am here to serve God, or even that I am here because of God. I think that my place in the Universe is simply make the best relations possible with people, and make them feel like they matter. I think that my place in the Universe is to be morally understanding and to help people through their problems. I think that everyone has a role in the Universe, and once you figure out what it is, life falls into place. What that role is? Well that is simply fate, not God.

Confucianism is a little confusing

      Is it just me or is this chapter a bit confusing. I think I understand it, but reading it defiantly took some time.
      I liked the idea that humans are self-disciplined, and I agree with that for the most part. However, I do think that sometimes humans need an outside force pushing them towards success, especially when the person is not in a right state of mind (depression for example). But then again, many times depressed people often want to get better, and try to seek help. But like most things, there is never a singular answer for all people. 
       As confusing as the chapter was, it got me thinking about my relations with the world and people around me. It made me wonder what made me the person I am today, and who put the ideas of my morals in my head. Having such different morals as my parents I really began to wonder if it was self taught, or if it was the morals of the world that has weaved its way into my brain and given me these ideas. 

Can't you believe in both?

What triggered my interest in the tool kit was the ideas of realism and idealism. As I read about it, I began to realize that I am a little bit of both. I am now more a realist than I use to be, but I still like to believe in the possibility that anything can happen. I like to think that the Disney fairy tail will happen, or that I will become wealthy and famous with solely hard work. But in the back of my mind I know that this won't happen, and I will most likely lead an average life somewhere on the east coast of the United States. See, pretty realistic. But it is that lingering belief that something different will happen that keeps me in that idealist mode. 

I think that everyone has a little bit of idealist in them. Without it life would be too harsh. Idealist, I like to think are dreamers. And without dreams nothing would ever really be accomplished or created. It is the ideas, even in the most realistic people, that make life worth living.

A little bit about me

Hello, I am Rachel Niddrie. I am a freshman at MCLA. I am on the Women's soccer team where I play the defensive position. I am a psychology major thinking about moving in the field of either sports psychology or adolescent counseling. 
I am a big music fan, I enjoy most types of music, I am a big county fan, but I will give anything a listen. I was in the acapella group in my high school as well as an actor in the school's musicals.
I also enjoy reading. I typically like to read stories about people's lives. I have recently been on a memoir kick and have read a few books about drug addicts; they fascinate me.  
I also like to watch a little television. I am a big Grey's Anatomy and Pretty Little Liars fan. I also like to watch Glee (mainly for the music) and Law and Order. Feel free to ask me anything! 
   ~Rachel