Anger

Stacy brought up the question in class asking if people are more likely to be angry rather than every other emotion. My view is that most situations require a little bit of anger. In almost any situation I am in I see that I have used a little anger in my tone or in my thoughts. This is because anger is the first emotion that we learn. Most babies scream because they are not getting their way or what they want which shows how angry they are.

There are many other emotions people have in use. Another really common one is empathy this is because this allows us to relate to others and make sustainable relationships. This is because if people can relate to one another they are more likely to actually talk about things that matter rather than have pointless one word conversations.

Response to Emily

In Emily's blog she talks about a conversation that arose in class about how animal form packs to survive. This is also true for humans because every human needs to be with people or else they do not adapt right in to society and cannot function. People also flock together in times of hardship. This is because a lot of people experience a lot of the same things to different degrees. It also helps that people listen and show some sort of empathy even if they do not want to it is human nature. Humans even in the early ages have always hunted and stayed together because it was the easiest way to survive.  What sets us apart from animals now though because they flock together and so do we?

LIfe

Every theory of human nature tries to explain the meaning of life. and if it were that easy everyone would be able to figure out the meaning of life. But this is also saying that there is only one "meaning of life". Which also does not make much sense. This is because my meaning of life could be different than everyone else in the worlds because no two people are the same. Which would mean that any theory to the meaning of life is not universal. Which would mean everyone lives the exact same lives.

Response to Meghan

In Meghan's blog she talks about how environment and how it shapes us. This is because penguins and seagulls are both birds but are different in a lot of ways. The major one is appearance. If a seagull were to live in the climate that penguins do they would die instantly from the freezing temperature. But, if penguins lived in the hot climate that seagulls do they would not survive because they are so dark and not made for that temperature. People are also based on the same concepts. Someone who was born and raised in Florida would  have a different reaction to cold than someone who lives in Alaska and is used to the freezing temperatures and vise versa. Now this does not say that everything in nature determines how people will inherent genes and what will make them the way they are. But it does have a significant effect

Response to Meghan

I agree with Meghan's post in her blog that says that nature is not really wild because scientists have gone in to the depths of the wild that most of man kind would not venture to. This is because they think they can find something out there that can help them develop a new treatment for cancer. Or at least they say that because they could have an ulterior motive. This is because they find new animals that are out there and could potentially  strip the forest of a plant that may cure something other than what they want it to. Any where that man can go man will go. This is because most people want to go somewhere that has been untouched and discover something that makes them famous. So, is the wild really wild?

Natural selection is the fittest of the fittest surviving. But what does that even mean? Everything survives for a while, like dinosaurs. But, then they die out. So what could be the fittest of the fit if all things die out? Well, it is also said that they become fit because of their genes. But, the genes that are accounted for are the good ones and not the bad ones. Before I can answer that question, the question that arises is what are bad genes? These are genes that make addiction or a mental illness. These are only diagnosed in humans because they are the only ones that can seek treatment for them. Most other animals just die out because there body is going through too much. But, this also raises the point that when Darwin wrote about natural selection that when an animals would not mate with the one that was not fit and they would just allow those genes to die out.  But if this were true nothing would mate with that and there would not be anymore "bad genes".

True

A question that came to mind during this chapter came to me when Sartre said that our choices are our responsibility, is this true? I think it is, that is because if someone chooses to rob a bank it is their responsibly to decide if that is the right thing to do or not. This is because they know that it is one hundred percent wrong and they have all the means to change it but if they don't then that is their fault and there is nothing anyone else can do for it. This is because every choice that is made has a cause and effect and it is our responsibility to know what is the right one and what effects we do not need.

Emily's blog

In Emily's blog, she writes about how we choose our emotions. I disagree with this statement one hundred percent because of the fact that things in life change how we feel. For example, I could wake up happy and go to my first class of the day and learn that I failed the midterm. It would be irrational for me to stay happy about that because the environmental factor just effected something important to me which are my grades. I believe that the environment chooses effects our emotions and that there is really no way for us to decide how we feel with out environmental factors influencing us. 

Freedom

In class the conversation of freedom came up, I formed the question what is freedom? This is difficult to answer because of the fact that we are a "free country" yet, we have laws for everything. We also have people who are above us and rule over us. Does this actually make us free? No, because complete freedom is having no one above us and it would allow us to be able to make all our own choices with no consequences because we would be free.

Also, believing in a religion does not make you free either. That is because there is still someone above them who decides what happens and what they should or should not do. This is because if they were completely free they would not worry about what would happen to them in the after life. This is not practical what so ever. But the word freedom has a  different connotation then the way it is used in government and religion now. 

Sin

Why do people sin? Basically, because everything that is not the "perfect" life is a sin. For example, everyone most, if not all, of the seven deadly sins. Those are all things that happen in everyday life. For example, being lazy, I do not know a single person that has not had a lazy moment. Every student puts off homework for things that seem more important at that moment. People sin because its impossible not to. Then, they are expected to say that they were wrong for doing something that everyone does and that most people do not apologize for. The Bible sets up unnatural standards for people to try to meet.

Run to Church?

Why when something does not go right do people run straight to religion? I do not understand this for the simple fact that when bad things happen people should blame the gods for punishing them. Not pamper them more by sending them praise and putting them on a higher stool. This is because the people that run straight to their religion are people who already let their religion control their every move. This should, by theory, make people question why their God is torturing them and making their life more difficult. This could potentially make them question if there is a God and if he loved them so much why he would do this to them.

Spark

As I was reading the section on the Bible this past week, the question kept popping up that if we are a little bit of god and that we are perfect in his eyes why is homosexuality frown upon? This just does not make sense to be because in the Bible it never says anything wrong with two men loving each other. It just says that there is with something wrong with intercourse between two men because that is used to reproduce. So then why is it frowned upon because it is defying a social norm. It must just be easier to say "Oh yeah, about that yeah, God would not like that" rather than just accepting everyone for who they are. Also, God should not have a problem with it for the simple fact that he makes us the way we are and we are "perfect" in his eyes.

The Best

What does being the best even mean anymore? Every country says that they are the best. How can all of us be the best? Shouldn't there just be one since it is being the "best:"? We can thank the media for this misconception because no matter where you are the media will always say that they are the best. It is scattered all over from the internet, the paper, even the word of mouth. There is being the best in the Olympics, scientifically, medically, psychologically, artistically, and many other ways that many people don't think about. But to be the best wouldn't you have to be the best in every single field imaginable and no one could do that because there are too many to even think about. So why say that a country is the best when they clearly cannot be?

Patriotism

Every class session the question of patriotism comes up. I don't think patriotism is a terrible thing. I think it is good to be proud of where you come from. Even as children in America we are taught to be proud of where we come from by celebrating our Independence Day. Everyone should be proud of what they come from because every person, although are born in the same place, has a different story and a different future set up for them. If they hate their country then what is going to want to make them work harder for what they want?

 The only time patriotism is bad is when it crosses the line to becoming extreme. This is bad because this is when things go down hill for all parties involved. This is when mass murders from other countries occur and even things as small as putting down another country. Wars can start because another country sees the other as a threat and wants to weaken them. They only time that patriotism should be seen as a horrible thing is when people use it in all the wrong ways, which is to harm people around them.

Ism's

We got in to the discussion in class today about all sorts of -ism's. For example, there is racism, feminism, abolitionism and so many more. It seems that lately every word can be completely correct and have an -ism attached. What extent will this go to? Everything that has an -ism is associated with being bad. For example, racism. This everyone knows is a horrible thing. No one wants to be accused of having racism. But, when will words stop having the word -ism be put at the end to associate terrible things. -Ism's have been around for a while, a long while, but will there ever be an end or will there become more of them?

Defining the Scientists

Psychology is a heard science to identify. Of course, it is obviously a social science. But, social sciences aren't high in the "science" field. This is because it may be classified as a science in some places , in others it is a history. But where do you draw the line of what is a science? Anything can use the scientific process. Psychology doesn't use that process so much because every case is different. Yes, a few things can be universal but other things depend on the patient. Should psychology be classified as a science? I think so just based on the fact that there is so much anatomy and chemistry involved. It is the simple fact that everything that has to do with depression or any other mental illness deals with a chemical imbalance. So, trying to figure out where to draw the line between the sciences is a very difficult task. But one day I don't think it will matter and that all the sciences will all be applied in the same circumstances.

Dreams

Do blind people dream? I would say yes because of the fact that they do have things in their life that impact them. I don't think that the fact that they cant see would hinder their dreaming ability. They make not be able to make out small details but I believe that would be one of the ways that their bodies express events that have happened to them. It could also put faces and bodies to the voices and other things that they hear, feel, or taste through out the day. It could also help  them express certain feeling and other things that they cant. I believe that blind people do indeed dream.

A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes

I am slowly learning that that is a lie. That is because Freud says that dreaming is repressed memories and wants from an infant state. This makes sense. This is because of the simple fact that nightmare are usually traumatic events that have happened to a person. They come out when a person is in a safe enough environment to have these thoughts occur. Now, I am not specifically saying that all nightmares are true but usually they are life events but they happen to different people or small facts can be jumbled. This is typical because the brain is trying to make sense of it all.

Response to Meghan

In Meghan's blog she talks about standing alone. This is a very huge topic in my mind because I think everyone at some point will have to stand alone for what they believe in. For example, a teenager all through their life was brought up to not do drugs or drink or party but as soon as they come to college all their friends are doing is that and they either have to stand alone and stay to their morals or give up and give in. This is a usual situation for most students because they can stand alone and seem like an outcast or just give in then feel guilty about that later. The people that stand alone and stand up for what they believe in are remembered most in history. This is because they did what they thought was right and they will always be remembered for that.

Culture wars

Another item from the reading that struck me was culture wars. By definition is a struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This seems so weird to actually think about because it seems like everything could be a culture war. What causes them though? What causes someone to come to the conclusion that the unpopular opinion? Society basically says what all the norms should be and what is wrong. This causes conflict among countries and states.

One big example of this a culture war in America, is Gay Marriage. This is because society, heterosexuals also known as the majority, see the unpopular opinion, homosexuals, as being wrong. This is because it goes against  what they believe is right and wrong and societies morals. This has caused so much tension in America and has divided so many people. It can divide families and even friends. It is sad but this is caused by mostly fear. Fear that one thing can change everything. Fear that because a select minority is homosexual that everyone will "turn out to be homosexuals". This is all irrational. If everyone were to look at it with a more rational view they would see that that is a life style and a choice. Not something that is forced because other people are. Culture wars end up changing perception of an idea of something in to complete chaos.

Discrimination

Discrimination is huge in today's society. We all know how it is caused. But what I don't fully understand is why?. Why do people need to put other people down? Especially about religion, when nothing is set in stone about it. It is all just what people have written about and may not have actually happened.  The biggest discriminatory act that has happened in 2011 was the Koran burning. This offended Islamic people everywhere. The priest in charge of this was trying to invoke fear because of 9/11 but instead he anger everyone, except for extremists.

Why would he do this? It was most likely to show that because our country got hurt at one point, that he could hurt them by burning their most sacred texts. It could also be to show power and to show that we are a lot stronger than they are. It could also be that he was afraid of something of the same sort happening. People do strange things when they are afraid and sometimes these go to extreme measures. This reminds me of the shooter in the bank who takes a hostage. For all of us to live happily, people need to stop trying to show that they are stronger and more powerful than everyone around them. They need to be happy for what they have. If we didn't discriminate people would be so much happier and the world would be a perfect place. Yet, that is a dream world.

Response to Meghan's Blog

In response to Meghan's blog on Responsibility, I agree that everyone should be held responsible for all of their actions. For example, if a guy cheated on his girlfriend and he said the excuse was "because it was predetermined that I would do it, so its okay." I think he would get broken up with then be laughed at. This is because if people aren't punished for their actions, what defines what right and wrong is. If the excuse is that it is predetermined then anyone could run around killing anyone else and then we would just have a million criminals out on the lose. The logic behind things being predetermined makes a lot of sense but using as an excuse is never right because it couldn't be proven in a court room and it just makes someone sound foolish and not want to admit that they made a mistake.

Change in thought

In an effort to try and change my mind and believe that we MIGHT have free will. I tried to think of situations where it might exist. The only situation that I could think of is when you do something spur of the moment. This is because it isn't planned out by you and one might think that you decided what to do. I don't mean a situation where someone would change their outfit randomly but where someone just randomly picks up and goes to Vegas to get married. Now, someone might argue that it was planned for you to think of that idea, but I don't think that it could be determined because one choice that is extreme as getting married can change their entire life. This is because it opens and closes so many doors for that individual.

If it was predetermined it would be all thought out and there would be no randomness about packing up and getting married in a casino/wedding chapel combo. This is because I think that more things would hint toward it. This is because I usually have a feeling how a situation will end before it happens. But no one would honestly have a feeling that they will end up marring someone in Vegas. Therefore, I think that life changing spontaneous events are completely of that persons free will. 

Everything Happens for a Reason

Reading through the article I continued to ask myself, Does free will exist or is everything predetermined? I honestly do not think that free will exists. Which would , in turn, make me a determinist this is because how would someone know if they were making a choice because of free will or that it was predetermined? I grew up with the saying that stated "everything happens for a reason" this relies on the thinking that everything is predetermined by someone else, something higher than ourselves. If a person were to have free will how would they make their choices. Without knowing that everything happens for a reason I think that a person would get really upset with ever decision that they make. For example, if a woman broke up with her boyfriend but didn't realize that everything happened for a reason and there was someone else out there for her she could become very unstable. I am not saying that I go in to every situation thinking the worst but I do come out of every situation saying that it must have happened for a reason, it may not be a clear reason but there must be a reason. 

To be moral or not to be moral

In  Justine's blog, she writes about moral questions and this reminds me of when me and my roommate sit around and ask each other theses sort of questions. We typically do this before we go to bed because we feel like we can think about it easier. But in most situations I feel like I am being selfish because most of the time i way out the pro's and the cons. most of the time Carrisa, my roommate, puts my life on the line. In some situations a life would be at stake. Like running in to a burning building to save a baby and either the baby lives and i die or the other way around. These questions honestly get me thinking about what I should do in a moral situation. I mean, i could die a hero, or live as a coward. But dying also means that my family would be hurt too. But if the baby died and he or she were the scientist that found the cure to cancer that would be the worst tragedy. I think in moral dilemmas there is no right decision, I think that the actions should just be on a boost of adrenaline and one should just go for it.

Hero?

A conversation that got started in class that really sparked my interest was is a true altruist a hero? Is this true in every situation that we encounter? Well lets start with basic facts, like, what is a hero? A hero is someone who either saves the day, like a super hero, or someone who puts themselves in danger to save someone else, like running across a busy interstate to save an infant.Both of these two descriptions show that ONE person is doing something for another PERSON. Both of these situations put the potential "hero" at risk of being hurt or even worse, death. But could a "hero" also just be a normal person walking down the street and helps an old lady cross the street? This is a valid question because he isn't actually gaining something from the situation but he is potentially saving that old women's day. He could also be putting himself at rick because the street could be a busy interstate. In this situation, I would think that this person would be a hero to that little old women but the whole world may not think that because it wasn't this daring act. Once again, I think that it all depends on who is perceiving the situation at hand.

What is "Selfless"?

One of the questions that this reading sparked in my head was is there such a thing as being completely “Selfless”? and if there is how can I get there? Well, first being selfless is doing everything for everyone and not gaining or losing anything by it. So I would have to stay completely neutral. In that I would have to help only the  person involved. Therefore, I couldn't get anything out of the situation like advice to put in my own life. In every situation that a person encounters I think that they always gain something, even if it is just as minuscule as advice. 
 Now how to get to selflessness, I think after reading all of this over a few times that no one can ever get there. This is because talking to a selfless person would be kind of dull because they would be afraid to actually get something out of the situation so they may not offer advice to listen to their fullest. I think that being self-interested would be a good goal for anyone to try to achieve. This is because you can still gain from any giving situation and be a good friend. 

Selfless or Selfish

How can someone who is described by everyone around as selfless then describe themselves as selfish? Of course there are so many differences between these two words. One thing I don't understand is how someone can be both. I guess,I think it all depends on perception of the situation at hand. For example, I know that if I were to do things for someone and I don't directly benefit from it, it would seem selfless. But, on the other hand if I thought that I was gaining something, that I like helping people, I could see my self as selfish. I do like to help people but I never see it as a selfish act. I mean, this is making me think of the quote that one of my friends used to say, "50% of the people don't care about your problems, and the other 50% just listen so they feel better about their own lives." I mean, I have never directly said that it makes me feel better about my life, but, I guess in a weird way it would but it's not a direct reaction. So I think that I don't try to help people for selfish act, but, it could appear to someone to be that way depending on how the perceive the entire situation. 

Happiness

During the Aristotle chapter the conversations in class basically revolved around happiness and how to achieve it. I think that happiness can only be grabbed by someone who strives to meet self-actualization. This is because Maslaw's Hierarchy of needs. It says that all the needs add up to one another and with out the one below you cant have the one above. For example, if you don't have biological needs then you cant possibly have the safety needs. I think that self actualization is the only possible way to get happiness.

Differences

One question that I thought about while reading the chapter on Aristotle was what is the difference between Plato's forms and Aristotle's categories? Plato's forms refer to how the brain classifies and organizes what we perceive. He then breaks these up in to four sub groups: Classification of general terms, ultimately real, to do with what we know, and to do with how we should live life.

Aristotle's categories rejects Plato's view of forms because he states that it is singular in a plural situations. He writes mostly about the same characteristics being applied to animals. For example, a dog being dog like. The main reason he rejects Plato's theory because he doesn't believe that the characteristics are in a separate world. He believes that they are right there with it. 

They share similar beliefs of characteristics being important to a person remembering what something is and how the mind organizes it. Aristotle writes more about the stereotypical parts and Plato writes more about the  biological aspects. 

Causation

Aristotle brings up a point about the unmoved mover. He says that there is a God that determines everything that happens. He also claimed that they start the whole chain of events things that happen. Then the conversation got started in class about what starts the chain. This got me thinking that what could start the chain. Then I had the image in my head of a bottle of coke and Mentos. This is because everything has a cause before it starts. Usually its a chemical reaction. But for example, there are many theories about how the world cam into existence. Those are typically really controversial. Some people believe in science, religion, and some just dont really question it. But finding the cause that started the whole chain of reactions, could be the hardest part. There is nothing completly definite about how anything started. This is because the world was started way before people could actually write everything down that happened. It was all passed by oral tradition and could have been changed and some details left out. As awesome as it would be to figure out what started everything it  would ruin the actual thought of trying to figure it out for myself.

Responce to Meghan

In Meghans blog she talks about Plato's ideal society and how he excludes artists, poets, and musicians. I don't think he necessarily didn't include them because anyone can be an artist of any sort. I think that even in Plato's time, that making it as any kind of artist would have been hard. So they would have had to do their art on the side while they were a police officer, doctor, or whatever their main source of income is. I don't think he intentionally excluded them but just meant that they couldn't make it with out having another profession.

Education

Plato believed that only the educated people should run the government. This is because he thought that the people who wanted to be educated should be educated. Therefore, they would get power easier and they wouldn't abuse it. This is because they would know the pros and cons to it all. I do not agree with this because of the fact that in our history alone, the people who abuse power the most are the highly educated. This is because they know how to manipulate people. For example, Hitler manipulated a whole country in to liking him right after World War One. The highly educated are, usually, the ones who abuse the power the most.

Self-Sufficient

Plato viewed humans as social beings and didnt think that we could really be "self-sufficient." I dont agree with this because socially, we are social beings, but, we can be self-sufficient.There are so many single people who not only live by themselves but do take care of their families. Granted, they probably do have support from their friends. Then when it comes down to it all, they are the ones who are making the money, paying the bills, putting their kids through school, and still having a social life. The only time it becomes so they arent self-sufficient is when they become married then the income is increased and it proves Plato correct. But until then no one else helps that single mother or father. All they can do is work and hope that they are doing everything right and everything in their power, by them selves, to support their family. Plato is right that without the social aspect no one can live or grow but people can be both self-sufficient and but still be social.

Responce

I was reading through blogs to see what else to blog about this week and Katie Emerson's blog in titled "Just a thought" made me think a lot. She asks some really thought provoking questions. For example, Why do we act in certain ways?  And why do we do what we do? I constantly catch myself thinking about these topics all the time. I am a psychology major so it is my goal to figure these out. I have come to a conclusion that we act the way we do depending on different situations. For example, if we are with our friends we will be a little bit more loud and talk quite a bit more than we would at a social with the governor. These are typically learned behaviors that our parents pound in to our heads at a very young age. It is called "learning to act in public". Or the one I am more familiar with, "there's a time and place for everything". Our parents try to teach us to do certain thing and act a specific way that way we don't get badly judged. Now, what our parents kind of set us up for are new situations like moving in to college. The only hint my family gave me was "to just be myself". As people get older their parents advice on social situations becomes more vague because they expect us to be able to make good judgments. I think we act the way we do because it is a learned behavior from when we are young. This entire blog just got me thinking.

Freud

As I stated in my introduction, I love Freud. In almost every class his name is brought up at least once. So I thought that I would actually research what his theory on human nature is and discuss it. Freud believed in the unconscious and that everything is driven by that. He believed that conscious part is what you are aware of at any given moment. For example, thoughts, feelings, memories, and perceptions. He believed that the preconscious which today is known as anything that can be called in to the conscious easily. Freud thought that the largest part is the unconscious. The things that reside here are drives, instincts, and morals. Things that just come without actually thinking about. This also ties in with the chapter on Confucianism because Freud believed that all our morals are located in the unconscious. 

Individuals

Something else that stood out to me was the part where Confucius says "all human beings are fundamentally the same"(11). This stood because in our media people are always talking about having individuality and being unique. Now, according to Confucius this is won't happen. He says that we are shaped by our environment and that defines who we are. He also says that we are "in need of constant modeling to achieve our ultimate end of moral perfection"(11). This all goes against what I believe because I always thought that everyone was completely different from one another and that we are shaped by society to be the same. The people that didn't want to abide by society's norms were the people were seen as different. I just think it's interesting that Confucius thinks that we are one in the same when we are born then get changed and molded.

Destiny

One thing that sparked my interest was the part about destiny. Confucius says that we have no control over our destiny and that it is predetermined before we are born. The one part that  I do agree with is that we have no control over the social status that we will be born in to. Everything after we are born I believe that we control the rest of it. For example, if we become good or evil. I believe this because it is human nature to do better than the persons parents did. Which leads to a person being able to change their social status after they are born. A person can change their social status by attending college and getting more than one degree. This is because the more degrees a person has the more money they will potentially make. A person can also change how long they live. For example, if they don't smoke, eat right, and exercise the chances that they will live longer are increased exponentially. Destiny as Confucius says does not exist. Nothing about the future is set in stone before a person is born, except for what they are born in to.

Tool Kit

In the tool kit, the section about ambiguity and vagueness stood out to me. I always thought that they were the same thing. But ambiguity has to do with and unclear meaning of words and those words are used in everyday language which is also something that i\I didn't realize. Vagueness is more just word without a fixed meaning. I also realized that most of my vocabulary either uses ambiguity or vagueness. Which makes me want to choose new words to use. But, then I think that doesn't every word use a little ambiguity or have a little vagueness to it. This is because big to me and to someone else has a million different meanings. I found this section interesting because it give me another way to look at everyday English.

Introduction

Hi, I'm Lyndsey. I'm a freshmen this year at MCLA. I am a Psychology major. I graduated from Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont. I have lived in Bennington for almost four years now. My favorite color is bright green. I'm very extroverted once you get to know me. I usually always have something to say and it is very odd if I am speechless. I am very opinionated and will always speak my opinion. I love Sigmund Freud. In my personal opinion he is the best psychologist that has ever lived. I can relate almost any of his theories to anything in my life. I love photography, writing, reading, and music. I am a vegetarian, more for personal reasons than anything else. My mom was a vegetarian so at a young age I started to dislike meat. I am a very stubborn person, but, I have been told that it is one of my best qualities. I know what I want in my life and I don't accept anything less. I strive to be the best. I am the third and last child so I try to do better than my two older brothers. I also am trying to not live in their shadows and to make a name for myself. I have one of the best families who has always believed in me and I really wouldn't be where I am right now without them. They have always pushed me when I needed it and been the support when I don't need to be pushed.