The Last Blog.

Wow. Here it is everyone, the last blog of the year. Well, my last blog. I have enjoyed reading all of your blogs and answering any questions posed by you. It has been a great year working with you all!! :)

So, I've been thinking. I'm actually going to put my question at the beginning of my blog instead of the end, so here it is: Why did you take this class? Have you gained anything from it?

I know the answer for myself. I took this class because I took another philosophy course my first semester here and loved it. I took Logic and Critical Reasoning with Paul Nnodim. It was my FYE course, so there was no chance of me dropping it. At first I dreaded the class, but from the first day on, I loved it. I loved every minute of it. It was a challenging class, one like I had never taken before. So when I chose courses for this class I came across this one. I remember looking through the catalog and wanting to take it. It filled a requirement, plus I was interested in it.

From this class I have gained more than just the classroom material. I have learned in a true college setting. It was set up seminar style, and although I did not always speak, I would always pay attention, taking down notes. It has made me more comfortable in this kind a setting. Also, it has made me think about how I view the nature of humans. Why I think people act the way they do, behave the way they do.

Response to Bryan

"Do you think it is problematic that the desire for money is so great in today’s world?"

I do not believe that the desire for money being so great in today's world is problematic. In certain situations, I would say that it is. Greed can sometimes get the better of us and make us slaves to money. Gambling is another problematic cause. People gamble all that they have, and sometimes what they don't, desperately trying to gain more money. If the desire for money turns into a desperate hunger, then I would say it is a problem in the world today. Which, does indeed happen.

However, I don't think a desire for money is a problem. It is perfectly reasonable to want money in today's world. You really and truly cannot accomplish much without it. Sure, you can say money can't but me love, but what about happiness? Money itself does not bring that happiness, it is what you buy with it that bring the happiness. Because all the material stuff we have holds importance to us.

Another thing that I don't think is a problem is going to college to get a good job. You would be kidding to yourself to say that you are going to college strictly to further your education. For the most part, you go to college to find the best way for you to make a living. And personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. You still must have a desire to learn in order to be successful. Money is a necessary part of life, we have made it so.

Question: Do you think that the world is just becoming hopelessly starved for money?

Response to Karla

"How strong is your faith?"

First, to answer this question, I must describe what faith is for me. Faith is not believing in a God for me. It is not trusting in him when all else seems to fail. Faith is something that is very difficult to explain. It is not being afraid to believe in what you don't know fully if it exists or what. It is also more than this. Believing in things we simply cannot live without. Love, friendship, humanity, existence. Most of the time faith is just automatically associated with a belief in a God. But people can have faith in other things. For example, I have faith in humanity.

So, how strong is my faith in humanity? Very strong. I believe that there is something deep within us that will allow humans to overcome any kind of violence they may act out in. Right now, it seems that the only focus of humans is to be selfish and violent. However, I believe that someday soon, all differences will be put aside. All actions of violence or greed will cease and the goodness of humans will come out. And from this goodness will come a greatness and power that violence could never fulfill.

Question: Do you think it is possible to ever have no faith of any kind in anything?

"Because I could not stop for Death-"

"He kindly stopped for me-" Have any of you every read that poem by Emily Dickinson? I encountered it last year in my AP English class. In fact, I had to write a paper on that poem.

While reading the chapter, I came across something called the four stages of the proper life. The fourth one was of most interest. It is called sannyasa, which is when one leaves his or her family to prepare for death. It is such a different concept than the poem of Emily Dickinson. In the poem, and from what I gather about life, we do not slow down for death. Yes, we may worry about our death which can happen at any moment, but it doesn't really slow us down. In Hinduism, however, people abandon their families to prepare for death. I guess it might be their way to salvation, which is what they strive for their whole life. But, to actually prepare oneself for their death? It's crazy!!

Question: Why is it that Hindus can just prepare themselves for death? It would seem like a topic you would not want to prepare for, that you would rather just happen.

Response to Miss Yvonne!

"What do you think life would be like if there was no fear of change?"

Fear of change is a factor that greatly disrupts a smooth lifestyle, or smoother one. People fear change over the silliest things, such as electing a black president to office. Many people refused to vote for Obama not because of his policies but they feared the great change from the typical white official to the new race. Like the color of a person affects their leadership abilities!? Anyways, the same thing was said about Hilary Clinton, instead of race being the topic of dispute, it was gender. The public said she would be too hormonal because she was a woman, the country feared a change of the gender of our leader.

It is silly to fear change, because I believe that change of any kind is better than none. Without change there would be no progress for the human race. Change is necessary for life, and the more people fear it, the less progress our kind can make.

Question: Do you agree, is change a necessary part of life for there to be any progress of any kind?

Atheism.

"While Darwin's theory of evolution did not establish atheism, it made it possible to be a self-respecting atheist." p. 205

When I came across this particular sentence in the chapter, I immediately knew it would be the subject of my blog. Since, I myself am an atheist, it was a very interesting statement to read. Before Darwin's outright theory of evolution, there was very little acceptance on being an atheist. A person had to have a set religion to follow. The very thought of not believing in a God was thwarted. Nowadays, it is more so socially accepted to call oneself an atheist. I have no shame in calling myself an atheist. However, my mother does. I think the problem here is that when somebody claims to not believe in a God, others feel as if that person doesn't believe in anything. This is false. I liked the way a friend of mine back home phrased it. "Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I don't believe in anything. I might not believe in a God but I believe in something else. I believe in humanity." That is how I view it. Just because somebody does not believe in an almighty being does not mean that they believe or feel nothing. Instead, they have a different take on life, one more involved with humanity and less with an almighty power.

Question: What is it that changed the minds of people to become more accepting of atheism?

Response to Karla

"Would you like to know when the last day of your life is going to be or not?"

This question has been asked many times in life. I always find the answers to this question quite complex and torn. Personally, I would not want to know when I was going to die. I feel like once we know this information, it becomes our sole focus. Even if the date is far off into the future, our date of death would always be at the front of our mind. Although we know we are mortal, humans try to find ways to defeat the call of death. If I knew what day was going to be my last, I would try and do everything and anything to keep myself alive. Nobody wants to know when they will die. No matter what it will always be a major worry in our minds if we knew. It is much easier to live life as if it were our last day. Although, we did discuss this phrase in class. I feel like it just means to not live your life in fear, to live you life, to say the least.

What do you make of the phrase "live every day as if it were your last?"

Dream on. A response to Austin.

I was looking through my fellow students' blogs to find one that struck me. I was expecting to find one relating to the existentialist movement but instead I found one relating back to dreams. Austin asked the question: Do you think it would be nice to turn your dreams into reality sometimes? Now I will answer this question.

First of all, who are we to say that we aren't already dreaming this world we live in. Because we personally are experiencing it, it is reality. But, in actuality, the world we think we live in could be just a dream. Now, let's just say that the world we live in is real. Would it be worth it for our dreams to become reality? I feel like that would be the easy way out, in a sense. Dreams can inspire us to do wonders in the real world. Sometimes it would be nice if life were a dream, but that wouldn't be fun all the time. Especially if those dreams became nightmares, but that's a different story. We need dreams to be separate of reality because that is how we live. We can only truly accomplish something if we have our dreams behind us and are not directly living in a dream.

Response to Laura

"Why do humans not have the ability to understand dreams?"

I'm not sure if humans don't have the ability to understand dreams. But, at the same time, I am not saying they do. I personally think that most dream interpretation is a bunch a bologna. I don't feel like it is an art or a real science, dream interpretation. So, in that sense we have the ability to understand what our dreams mean. However, some dreams can be really intense in images, images that might not make a whole lot of sense. In that case I feel like we may not be able to understand what our dreams are telling us. And, maybe we aren't suppose to all the time.

Question: Why do you think we remember certain dreams, and not others? I for instance, have not remembered a dream for many years.

Dreaming Dreams.

So, how about you say we try a little dream analysis of our own? Might as well give it a go, eh?

When I was younger I had a dream, actually a nightmare, that created my biggest fear. Cement trucks. I am sure some of you are laughing right now. Who could be scared of something like cement trucks? Well, I am. When I was younger I had a blanket I was very attached to. In my dream, my blanket got stuck in a cement truck and I begged the man to give it back. He refused and instead I had to watch my precious blanket "die" in a sense. Well, "die" to me. Every time I see a cement truck now, I scream and have to go the opposite direction. Dreams come from our experiences in real life. It is a collection of events in a day or thoughts in our mind. Nightmares, would most likely come from already developed fears right? I was never scared of cement trucks prior to this nightmare.

So, is it possibly that our brain is just being creative when we sleep? That these nightmares and dreams, although sometimes recollections of our days are like creative writing in a way?

Response to Nicole's Question.

"Has the media gone too far with the sexual motivation?"

I think the media has gone too far with sexual motivation. Actually I think the media has gone too far with most things it reports. Especially with body image. I actually just went to an exhibit at Gallery 51 called Sexpectations. The gallery was covered with art that showed how the media portrays both genders. Males should be buff and in race cars and sports. Females should be thin and covered in make-up. People come convinced that they have to look a certain way. Now, the media in sexual motivation? It actually might be a little different. Americans shy away from nudity in advertisements while foreign countries are used to it. Some, especially European nations, do have nudist beaches. The body is respected more. In America, bodies sell sex. There may be no nudity, but the set up of the models tries to promote sex. I mean, look at music. Years ago if any singer sang Akon's lyrics "I Wanna Love You," which we all know the true word rhymes with truck, would not sell anything. The music would be too risky, too improper. Madonna was looked down for her song "Like a Virgin." But really, she was not as blunt as today's artists are.

Question: Is it the media's intention to sell sex that allows artists to use such profane descriptions in their songs today?

OEDIPUS!!! OEDIPUS!!!!!!!!

When I saw that our next chapter would focus on Sigmund Freud, I became really excited!! Of course I only really knew his name from Madonna's song Die Another Day, but I did know a little bit about him. Mainly that he was obsessed with sex. When I found out that he coined the term "Oedipus complex," I became more interested in the man. I had previously encountered this term in my junior year of high school when my AP English teacher made us read Oedipus Rex. He then proceeded to make us watch the film, which involved horrible, HORRIBLE acting. I will post a link now for your enjoyment of this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDndS5N9tes The clip is fabulous and I highly suggest you all check it out, even if you don't respond to my blog.

Anyways, back to philosophy. I find any talk of the Oedipus complex extremely fascinating, maybe it is because of my prior experience with it...the play, not as if I have experienced this personally. Anyways, so my high school teacher made a good point during learning about this. He stated that we subconsciously look for characteristics of our mother (if you are male) or father (if you are female) in our significant others. These characteristics go unrecognized at first, but later on down the road, the similarities in behavior pop up. However, if we are determined to avoid the characteristics of our parents in our partner, we can do so. If you are truly aware, you can avoid this situation.

Question: Do you agree with my former high school teacher? That we subconsciously look for traits of our parents in our future spouses, or possible spouses? Basically the person you are dating at the time...

This is a response to Courtney's Question (which is a response to my blog!!)

"Question...that jealous anger that we sometimes feel toward the wealthy is a vile thing. What does that example say about humans? Can/does jealousy control us?"

I believe that in certain situations, jealousy does control us. This is not to say that a feeling of jealousy rules our lives. Sometimes, the feeling can lead to wonders, to self-improvement. Other times, the envy over another can destroy us. Since we are beings with emotions, a far more complex range of emotions than anything else in this world, our emotions are bound to rule our lives sometimes. But, just because we are sometimes ruled by an emotion of jealousy does not say too much about humans. Sometimes emotions get the best of us.

Question: What is it that makes our emotions get the best of us?

Gotta Get that Doe!!

In Wednesday's class, we discussed the issue of salaries. Of course this was all triggered by our week's discussion devoted to Karl Marx. Karl Marx described a communist state to be the fate of human nature. In a communist state, all are equal, supposedly. As we have seen in history, communism can be quite a failure if used as a governing tool. But, ideally, it is the perfect way to live. Everyone is equal, everyone is deserving of equality, which is what most, if not all people want. Equality.

However, in America and many other countries, there is a division of class. This leads to the higher and lower paying type jobs. The topic of the pay of teachers versus the athletes arose. I personally believe that teachers, of any grade level, should be given a salary much larger than it is. The only way a teacher can get a bigger salary is to work in the cities, or problem areas. But, all educators should have an increased pay. After all, it is the teachers who mold the future children. If paid better, education would increase. The teachers would feel important and not insignificant.

Meanwhile, while teachers can sometimes suffer from a pay good enough to just get by, athletes and actors, the ones on top, are paid in the millions. This is quite ridiculous, and I have always thought so. There work is recreation, and though they do do work, it is a different kind of work. Yes, athletes train hard, but should they really be paid in the millions, sometimes billions of dollars? And for actors and actresses, the ones on top have gotten so sloppy in appearance. Why are they also paid in the millions? Is it because they are considered famous? As Alex said, we idolize actors and athletes and make them better than us. It is like we feel that they have more talent, are superior to us because of some rare or unique talent, but meanwhile there jobs are no more important than say the job of a teacher.

Question: We idolize actors and athletes, but we search so hard for a scandal to bring them down. By doing so, are we just trying to bring down the people we have idolized so high?

This is a Response to Megan's Question (and not me Megan!)

"Do you think that true happiness comes solely from within, or does it have some outside factors affecting it as well?"

I think we would typically like to think that happiness comes from deep inside us. That it is a feeling that we have that is not affected by the outside world. However, I believe our happiness is affected by the outside world. Yes, there are times when we are just happy, when we just feel happy for no reason but that is not always the case. Usually our happiness comes from an external factor, something not within us. These factors could be anything from getting a good grade on a test to eating ice cream. Outside factors have a great effect on our happiness because we constantly live with those factors and they greatly affect our mood.

Do you think any of our emotions truly are rooted within us or that it is our surroundings which lead us to constant changes in mood?

Dirty, Spoiled, Rotten.

"Spoiling the child is the worst thing they can do to him. Parents must not overprotect the child. He must be allowed to face hardships and make mistakes, even if that leads to his death." (Pojman 116).

The above excerpt from Who Are We?: Theories of Human Nature by Louis P. Pojman, is in his Chapter about Hobbes and Rousseau. Rousseau wrote a work called Emile that incorporated what the above quote says. I think that Rousseau is making a great point here, but, it might be a little extreme. His thoughts are correct. Children should not be spoiled. I have seen too many children spoiled to such a point that the parent is almost a slave to the child. That child will grow up in life not particularly caring and always expecting to get what they want. This is not a good attitude to assume in life. On the opposite end, parents cannot overprotect their children, sheltering them from ever learning anything on their own. There must be a balance between these two things, spoiling and overprotecting. In this medium, the child will be able to make mistakes and learn for themselves. However, if there is a life and death situation, I believe the parents should stop the child from making a mistake that could cost a life. This might have just been an extreme interpretation on Pojman's behalf. I don't believe that Rousseau would have wanted a child to pursue information if it meant that child would die.

Why, do you think, parents will sometimes go to the extremes of either overprotecting their child and giving into every demand of their child?

This is a Response to Karla's Question.

"Is it easier to follow our hearts even when we know it may not have logic?"

Of course it is easier to follow our hearts, well sometimes. When in deep doubt about something, someone might just respond with "Follow your heart." Of course, we think "what does that really mean?" "How am I suppose to know what my heart is saying?" Sometimes, what our heart, what we feel is right, tells us to do may not make logical sense. A conflict may occur with whether the choice of our hear is logical or not. But, we must decide in the end what we feel the better choice is. So, it make to be easier to follow our heart, but we must consider which is better to follow at the right moment.

Why do we have phrases like "follow your heart," "gut instinct," etc? Why is it not like listen to what your mind tells you?

Vanilla Sky.

In class on Wednesday a discussion was started on the topic of a "happiness machine." Immediately, I though of the movie Vanilla Sky, starring Tom Cruise. I had watched this film last semester in my psychology class. I will first give a brief description, or as brief of a description that I can make, about the movie.

In the movie, the character Tom Cruise plays seems to be golden, he has everything going for him. When this girl he has been involved with for awhile wants more, he says no. She picks him up in the car and then speeds off a bridge, instantly killing herself. He, however is lucky and survives the crash. Unfortunately, his face is completely distorted. He goes through life now, feeling like an outcast. Then, one night after his pursuit of this new girl fails, he falls onto the street drunk. After that, life picks up for him again, everything is going swell until disaster disturbs the happiness he has. Near the end of the movie, the viewer finds out that after that drunk night, he placed himself into a happiness machine. This is all I can remember about the movie, and I think it is a well enough description.

At the end of the movie, Tom Cruise had the choice to stay in the happiness machine, he chose to "wake up" from this everlasting dream. I feel that people would not want to remain in a happiness. Although we complain about life and think how much easier things would be if we were happy forever, we would never choose to be. Maybe for a little bit of time, but not for long. If things go perfectly for too long, everything becomes boring. I think that we like the challenges life throws at us, because if we can overcome our obstacles, we feel better about ourselves. If put into a "happiness machine" I believe that people would most likely prefer real life in the end.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

This is a response to Sarah's Question.

"Do you think that athletes are more likely to rebel than people who don't play sports? Do sports bring out more competition in athletes in every day life?"

I do not think that athletes are more likely to rebel than those who no not play sports. I think that anybody has an equal chance of rebellion. If somebody feel strongly enough on a issue, of course they would stand up for their beliefs. I feel as if the more likely to rebel are those who are facing injustices time and time again.

And to answer your second question Sarah, I think there might be a little more competitive spirit in athletes. I think it is because when you play a sport, it is naturally competitive. So, of course athletes will have that competitive edge. But, people who don't play sports can also be competitive, if they are really devoted to whatever it is they are competing in. I know I can be a little bit competitive myself, and most wouldn't expect that from me!

Do you think that too much of a competitive edge can be a bad thing?

Oh, Look!! It's a Tree.

So, I wasn't sure if we had to blog this week or not since we were just going over Plato some more, but I decided it was better to be safe, than sorry!! I think somebody brought up the question today of why we only have the knowledge of forms when we come into this life; why don't we have any other knowledge? At least that is what I think I heard. Maybe not. Either way, I am going to say a few things on that.

First, let me say that I am not sure if I buy into Plato's theory on the Forms. I don't know, it just doesn't really make much sense to me. To come into this life full of knowledge but we are unable to unlock that knowledge at first until we come across a similar form? For example, we know a tree is a tree. No matter what type of tree it is, even if we have never seen the tree before, we recognize is as such. But, for the sake of Plato, I will argue for the forms. So, maybe we are born with this sense of forms. I think the purpose to only having this knowledge of the forms is so we can discover truth and other knowledge for ourselves. I mean, isn't that what true knowledge is, learning?

Do you agree that these forms are just the building blocks of knowledge, so we can discover true knowledge on our own?

This is a Response to Nicole's Question.

"Should we listen to our consciences all the time?"

"Well, what is your conscience trying to tell you?" Whenever placed in a difficult or sticky situation, this is the question that family and friends will ask. It is aimed at trying to get us to stop and think before we take any action. So should we listen to what our conscience says? Basically, a conscience is just a feeling that we get deep within, the thoughts we refuse to let affect our decision, at first look. I feel as if we should listen to our conscience for the most part. It is that gut feeling that tells us when something is not quite right. But, I'm sure there are times when listening to our consciences can lead to trouble.

Question: Do you think we actually have a conscience, or are we just giving a name to stopping and thinking over a situation?

The Cast List is Up.

In class today, Prof. J posed a question. "How do we know who we are or if we are just playing a role?" I immediately wanted to answer, but due to not having a voice, I decided to make this question the topic of my blog.

Are the two really so different? Who we are and the role we play in society, in life? I believe that the two might actually be the same. We try and define who we are by what we do, our actions reflect our beliefs, otherwise we would not carry out those actions. For the most part.

In theatre, actors and actresses portray certain roles. They are given a character and must give the character life to an audience. I heard something once. When an actor is performing for the time they act on stage, they become their character. Not just to the audience, something in the brain makes you for that time to be the character you are trying to portray. So, that is a more literal way of looking at it, but are roles define us. And by roles, I am not just talking about in a play.

Question: Is trying to define who we are just a ceaseless task that we will never solve? Can we not just settle for who we, ourselves think we are?

Oh, to Live a Life of Crime!!

Today in class, Yvonne started us off with a question relating to a quote. I went back into the book (yes, on a snow day!!) to find the quote and read it over. Here is the quote: "...once people know the possibility of evil they will be tempted to use it to the destruction of others and, inevitably themselves."

We talked about the quote a little bit in class and I agree with what it says. The key word is tempted. It says that when people know that there is evil, they are tempted by it, whether to harm others or themselves. It just got me thinking, for all the good that there is in human nature, there is so much more evil. Or maybe, it is just that the evil is much more prominent. When watching the news, a good portion of it is devoted to the crimes that were committed that day. Then, at the very end, they will have a short segment of some "good" news. Most likely it will be how some little boy saved an old woman's cat from a tree. Something like that. Which is more entertaining? A cat saved from a tree, or a bank robbery chase. Of course, I am exaggerating the good news to a simple cat saved from the tree of death, but this is pretty much what it appears like to people. The bad news, the news of criminals and betrayals is what grabs our attention, while any rescues or the likes are given a short hip-hip-hooray! Crime sells, and I think that is what it comes down to in our world today. It just is so much more...appealing to our nature.

Why is it that violence and crime have such a seductive effect on the human mind?

This is a Response to Yvonne's Question.

"Why do you think people dwell on the past?"

This is a very interesting question. Extremely interesting as a matter of fact. All I can do is try to formulate an answer to this question. I feel as if people dwell, or live in the past for this reason. New found knowledge. After a problem or situation, people gain knowledge of what the "answer," or the right thing to do should have been. They obsess over the matter of the past because they wish that they had known what they know now. So, they constantly refer back to the past, almost to assure themselves that they have learned something. It is a minor way to try and prove that yes, you could have known what to do, if only you had time.

People also live in the past because of another reason. Glory. If life looks rough all one has to do is look back to past times, when times were better. It is a way to remember that things are not always bad, that they can become good again. Sometimes dwelling on the past can provide a sense of hope.

I find the quote the Yvonne provided with her question very interesting. "One reason God created time was so that there would be a place to bury the failures of the past." Which leads me to my question: If we bury our failures in the past, how can we ever learn from them? Should we not just keep them at bay and look back on them so we can readily learn from our mistakes?

This is a Response to Nicole's Question.

Nicole asked the question of whether humans would be able to differ between right and wrong if they did not have it laid out for them by society. My answer to this is yes. I believe that humans have a conscious built into them that tells them when something just isn't quite right. You know how sometimes you just get a feeling deep in your gut that makes your stomach turn? Like, when you skip a class or look at your Christmas presents under the tree before you are suppose to (both trivial tasks)? That is because deep down, you know what you are doing is wrong. I feel as if right and wrong are built right into us from the start. Knowing the difference between the two comes as naturally as breathing. However, it is the functioning of our surroundings that can sometimes distort our views on right and wrong. That is why society has come up with laws and regulations of what is to be considered right and wrong. With too much going on, humans can lose sight of right and wrong, can even confuse them.

What is it that tempts people to commit wrongs against one another?

This is a Response to Karla's Question.

Karla, you asked the question by which force are we dominated by. Free will, or fate? I believe that our lives are more so ruled by fate than the other factor. Fate, as defined by the Webster's Dictionary (or my pocket one), is an "inescapable future; destiny." I feel as if our lives have been planned out for us in some respect, not all though. And when I say this, I am not saying by a God or whatever. I feel as if it is nature's path laid out for each and everyone of us. It just is. I feel that free will is what helps us alter our fate when we fear it is going in the wrong direction. We humans like to think we have free will, but we are really influenced by so many things in life that nothing seems to come of free will. Nothing and no one has complete rule of the life they live out. So this is why I feel as if fate dominates our lives. I just don't agree that fate is "inescapable." I think we have an opportunity to rewrite our destinies, to change our directions.

Fate is supposedly "inescapable." Do you believe that we have a chance to change our destiny, our fate?

This is a Response to Misty's Question.

So, I know we kind of touched base on this topic in class today, but I feel as if there is so much more to say on the matter. If only we didn't get off topic and onto the State of the Union Address that is happening tonight. Anyways, Misty asked two questions. I'm not so sure I understand what you were asking in your first question, so I will answer the second. I don't think the world would be better if everyone told the truth. Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean. If people just told the truth more so in general or if people told the truth all the time. If people were to speak the truth all the time sure there would a few benefits, but the negative effects would be more apparent. A world with only truth would be a terrifying place. Imagine the chaos that would break out over the simple truth. The way I see it is that most people like to be lied to. If they are told the truth, if might not be something they want to hear. So, with the simple truth, the world they have constructed for themselves will be destroyed. How many times has someone told you, "Be honest!! Come on, I can take the truth." And then you tell them what you think, the honest truth...and they don't take it well? This tends to be the case. I think that people might really want to hear the truth, but at the same time they don't. So they want your lie to become the truth, a false truth (oxymoron much!?), that they have cornered you into telling. You see, the world cannot function with one extreme. The truth comes with lies, just as good comes with evil. They coexist.The truth cannot exist without lies, because then there would be not truth. It would just be.

Correspondence or Coherence of Truth?

When I started the original assignment to basically define the two popular different theories on truth I though the correspondence theory was the obvious "right" version. However, after the class discussion I realized that the coherence of truth theory is actually more, well true, for lack of a better word. At least in my opinion. Although it is much easier to understand the correspondence truth, your statement either matches the surrounding environment or it does not, the other one makes more sense. Even if the coherence truth is more difficult to understand. It just takes awhile, at least in my case, to fully understand what that theory states. It seems to be more from a logical standpoint, which I understand. I think there was an example used whether or not there was a tree outside of the classroom. I think that example was used for the coherent truth. Anyways, it was stated that what if the object outside was not a tree? What if it was a hallucination, a hologram, a dream? If we were to go outside and further observe this supposed "tree," we would try and confirm that it truly is a tree. And we could only draw the conclusion that it is a tree because that is the name we have for this object. And, the object outside of classroom matches up to this description. Whether the tree outside is imaginary or not is not particularly important, but from the knowledge we have, it is a tree. Even if this were to be a dream, the object in our dream would still be considered to be a tree since that is what we know it as. So, can we really go by the correspondence of truth theory? All that theory does is really say that things are true or false. But, how do we know what is true? We can't, not really, can we? It's almost as if we as humans make our own truths up, don't we? And doing that can make anything a dream, can't it? Because then there is no truth. Only a truth that we have made up. I guess this is the question I am proposing to you, my fellow classmates.