Self: Sections C & D

• "How does your own culture define women as inferior to men? How do you explain this? Do you find Ortner's argument convincing? Are there ways you would argue that women are superior to men? Or do you think that very idea of a "superior" sex/gender is somehow absurd?"

Our culture here in the United States seems to be more so on the side of anti-feminist. Whether it be lower salaries for women, gender roles that our society continually perpetuates, or even more serious issues like rape, or domestic violence. In our country, I do feel as though women are seen as this completely separate entity of society. Ortner argues that, "Even if women are not equated with nature, they are nonetheless seen as representing a lower order of being, as being less transcendental of nature than men are." I could not agree more with her, in our society their appears to be this social order: a social order in which women are below men. Now, I'm not going to tell you that a women can do everything a man can do, because that is not true, both physically and biologically. But that doesn't mean that they should be paid less, have less job opportunities, be expected to play a certain role, or far worse, be outcast-ed and expected to keep silent about rape/domestic violence. That is exactly what happend at the University of Virginia this year. A girl was brutally attacked a fraternity, and the school told her to keep quit about it. Now, what kind of @#$&! society do we live in when we tell a girl who has suffered that she is to keep quite about what happened to her? I'll tell you, its a society that's pretty damn pathetic and disgusting. It seems like all we are concerned about here is maintaining our reputation, and traditional values (and it doesn't sound like we have many values to speak of today). Overall this idea of which gender is better than the other is stupid, and really serves no place, but I will say this, I know I could never endure half the things that a women has to go through. But regardless off that, the argument or idea of which gender is better is one that just needs to stop!

• "What would it mean to have a pluralistic self or selves? Do you find this view plausible? Have you ever felt as though you were somehow a multiplicity or selves or identities? (We're not talking craziness here.) Describe such an experience."

It is very possible to have multiple personalities, or even polar opposite sides of one personality. Aside from psychological disorders such as MPD, even a normal person could feel as if they have more than one personality. I myself feel this way about the way I act sometimes. On one hand I am very patient, kind, thoughtful, empathetic, funny,lazy, care free person. On another hand I can be incredibly serious, slightly withdrawn, hardworking, focused, philosophical, and not so sociable person, which comes in handy for things like this. And in some circumstances I can just become the complete opposite of the person you normally see.With that said, my personality can be separated into three categories 1) Normal, they way I act everyday when I'm in a good mood. 2) My Philosophical mood, this comes over me when I do assignments and get really hyper focused and shut everyone off, I'm not very sociable at this point. Finally 3) A side that I'd rather not go into a lot of detail about, I have a temper lets just say that. But to conclude this, yes, it is possible to have multiple personalities, and I certainly feel like I have a few of my own. 

Self: Sections A & B

• " How would you describe your- "self"- that which makes you "you" and different from everyone else?"
  
  This is kind of a hard question to answer, not that I don't have my select qualities that make me who I am, but I am not entirely if anyone is truly unique. The qualities each of us have is bound to be shared by multiple people, and as such leads to me believe that no one person is completely an individual. Over the course of my life I have met people that all share similar qualities with each other. Now of course one might argue that appearance plays a fact in how we define ourselves. But I feel like thats not true, the characteristics beneath that of our physical appearance define who we are.  So in conclusion, I may have my qualities, but I don't think they make me that much different than other people. I feel like uniqueness is this narcissistic illusion that people create to make themselves feel special or better than someone. But the truth is many people share similar qualities with each other, so while you may think you're different or perhaps better than someone, understand that we are all not so different. Which is something to think about the next time you decide to judge somebody.

• "To what extent is self identity a matter of choice"
  
  It's almost unavoidable to escape the opinions of others, so in many respects how we define ourselves is defined by others. Whether it be our physical characteristics or our personality. Sometimes there are situations when someone else knows you better than you know yourself. I remember on one occasion when I was on church retreat, when someone brought to be my attention that I was very egotistical. I had never associated myself with this term before, and it was only after being exposed to the opinion of someone else that I realized that this quality was very present, and that it was definitely something I had to work on. Self identity is limited especially when I consider an old saying that goes something a long the lines, "Its not a matter of how you define yourself, but how others define you". I feel like its more important, and more honest of an opinion that someone else has of you, than you have of yourself. Self identity is tricky because, while you might be able to identify yourself as something, someone else might disagree, and how you define yourself might not be true. This is simply due to the egotistical, and self centered nature that people can have. So I guess self identity is a choice to the extent of how many lies you are willing to tell yourself before you open yourself up to how other people view you.

Reality: Section E

• What does Kant mean that we "Constitute" our world? Are there other ways to "Constitute" the world according to Kant?

"We constitute our  own experience in the sense that we provide the rules and structures according to which we experience objects, as objects in space and time, as governed by the laws of nature and relations of cause and effect. Kant writes, 'the understanding does not derive its laws from, but prescribes then to,nature.'" (Solomon et al, 231) This is Kant's understanding of how we constitute our world, or in other words, how we make it a whole. Kant suggests that we make sense of everything by imposing rules upon it, in a sense we are constructing our own reality, "reality has no existence that we can understand except as we constitute it through our basic concepts." (Solomon et al 231) Philosopher before Kant had a differently philosophy asking, "How can we know that our ideas correspond with the way the world really is?" , or in other words, how can we know if our vision of the world/ reality are true? Kant rejects this way of thinking, instead asking, "How do our ideas constitute the world?" (Solomon et al, 231) As such, it can be suggested that Kant's main philosophy was that our reality is merely a perception of what we believe to be reality. 

Reality: Sections C & D

• "What does Locke mean by 'primary qualities'? give an example."
• "What does Locke mean by 'secondary qualities'? give an example."

"The ideas of primary qualities of bodies are resemblances of them, and their patterns do really exist in the bodies themselves, but the ideas produced in us by these secondary qualities have no resemblance of them at all." (Solomon et al, 205) According to Locke, primary qualities are those that others can see in someone or something, ones that you are identified with. While in contrast, secondary qualities are ones that are not attributed to someone or something. The book uses fire as an example, saying the heat one feels from the fire is a primary quality of the fire itself. Fire produces heat, this is a natural part, and an embodiment of the fire. In order to explain secondary qualities, they use the pain caused by the heat of the fire as move closer to it. The pain caused from the fire is not a result of an embodiment or natural cause of the fire itself. It is a reaction that takes place with in us. So from what I understand from that, a primary quality is directly from some sort of entity, while a secondary is a mere result of a primary quality. 

Reality: Sections A & B

• "It must be that what can be spoken and thought is: for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for what is nothing to be."- Parmenides 

This idea of reality as explained through the words of Parmenides, a pre-Socratic philosopher, seems to be the ideal definition of what reality is. Reality is what exists, what we can see, what we can touch, what is actually there. But one must wonder, is this all that reality is? Does there have to be some sort of conscious awareness by man for something to necessarily exist or be a part of our idea of what reality is? Man kind has come a long way in terms of what we know about the universe around us, but we have our limitations. And there are certainly, especially in terms of the universe itself, many things yet to be discovered. So since we have yet to discover something, does that it mean it doesn't exist yet. Say for instance your new born baby that has never seen the color red before. We of course know that red is color, but does the fact that this baby has never seen this color mean it is not a part of their reality. And if this is the case where does this exist before coming into reality. Is there some sort of alternate dimension/ space/ universe where things yet to be discovered by man exist, completely separate from reality. And if this is the case, does this mean that reality is a place, a physical dimension of the universe where we exist, leaving the existence of other dimensions of our universe open for the possibility of existence. Questions, questions, questions, possibly the closest thing we have to true answers.

• "To what extent must you reject "common sense" when trying to explain reality? What are the limitations to such speculation and theorizing?"
  
  As one can probably tell by read the first half of this post, reality is a very confusing concept, that begs many questions. Questions that cannot really be answered with common sense. When it comes to reality there is no real logic, rather their only exists what we perceive to be logical. After all, how does any of this really make sense. How does it make sense that I exist here typing this post for this class. Truthfully it doesn't, rather it just is what it is. So it is important to neglect all ideas of logic, because we live in a world were logic isn't really a thing, we just think it is, because this place where in, wherever that is, is all we know. And in this sense, if one were to use logic or "common sense" to explain reality, our theories would be limited to that which we know. Leaving no room for possibilities yet to exist. 

Religion: Sections F & G

• "Do you think that having an experience that is ineffable (i.e., it cannot be described or communicated to others) is a form of knowledge?"

There have been occasions where individuals have experienced certain thing that could not be explained, but rather they were matters of faith. Take for instance Joseph Smith, the found of Mormonism. The visions he had could not be explained with any rational though. But even despite this, his visions, even though they lacked no credibility, perpetuated the largest religious movement in the history of the United States. Now, perhaps in order for something to be considered knowledge there would have to be some sort of credibility or evidence behind it, supporting what happened. However, whether something quantifies as knowledge does not necessarily the people won't believe it. Visions, or unexplained communication with a higher being is a touchy subject, and it is difficult to say whether or not what is learned through events like this can be considered knowledge. Knowledge I'd have to say is backed by facts, while most of these un-explainable occurrences are back by hope or simply a belief. So, I guess, no, an ineffable experience is not a form of knowledge but rather a testament to faith.

Religion: Sections D & E

• "Do you think one must believe in either God or in evolution? Can one consistently believe in both?"

Coming from someone who can easily see both sides to every argument, I don't think one has to believe in either, and perhaps could form a hypothesis which involves both theories uniformly.  Quite simply these beliefs are just that beliefs, there is no real proof for the existence or lack their of, of a higher power. And there is no way too prove or disprove that this higher power did not cause this evolutionary chain to occur. So because of this, I like to think of it like this, somehow a power greater than us, be it a physical manifestation or a force, threw into motion all of these events that eventually led to our existence and everything we know to exist. I feel like thats the best way to look at it, and some may say thats not ideal because I'm choosing to take both sides on the matter. But the truth is, what you believe is what you believe. One doesn't have to believe in God, one doesn't have to believe in evolution. One can believe in anything they want, even if their theory is that some mystical unicorn created the known universe. People might look at you funny, but it's no different than a belief in God or evolution. Creation myths can be a tricky subject because of the lack of evidence supporting, and as such, it only makes to remain open to different possibilities. So believe what you want, whether it be God, evolution, a mix of the two, or anything in between!

• "Can you will yourself to believe something? Is will sufficient to counter religious doubt?"

Free will is a much stronger force on the human experience than I think we really understand. I've seen on occasions where will has made the absolute difference. Sports is a good way to think about will. For instance, I used to wrestle in high school, and I can't tell you how many times my coach told us, "will what you want". When you're on a wrestling mat, and you're looking at that one kid who wants to win just as bad, if not more than you do, believe me when I say that will is everything. If you don't want something bad enough, if you don't believe you can do something, you won't. And I guarantee, you're hand won't be the one raised in the air. In terms of believing in something as doubtful as religion can be, I'm not sure will is strong enough to cause some sort of spiritual enlightenment. A belief like that cannot really be had simply by mere assertion to yourself or someone else. In order for belief to be there in this sense, I think hope really needs to become a factor. Because thats really all that religion is, hope. Hope is all you really have in this sense because its not something thats there physically, but something you just have to believe. And thats where hope comes into play. Will is only useful when what you want to believe is something you can actually see or touch, like beating your opponent that stands across from you on a wrestling mat. But a belief in something you can't touch or see, its not as simple as willing this belief, you must have hope.