The World without Art

In class we discussed the repercussions of child who was to grow up without any forms of art. The child would expected to grow up abnormally and be unable to function properly. But what if all art forms were suddenly taken away from us? How different would the world and its people be?

This may seem childish and a little out there but this is the only thing I can relate this hypothetical situation to:

If art was suddenly taken away, I feel the people would become blank. I can't find the word to describe it. In the Disney movie, Halloween Town II: Calabar's Revenge, Calabar puts this "gray spell" over Halloween Town. Everything is black and white and bland, the citizens lost their original fun and crazy personalities and they become boring people wondering around town with no purpose.

If there art was ever banned from the world, I think it would be very similar to if a "gray spell" was put over the earth.

Art Conforming to Human Nature

At the end of the article Art and Human Nature: Some Thoughts on Steven Pinker's Critique of Contemporary Art by Derek S. Sanderson and Stephen K. Sanderson, the statement "for art merely to conform to human nature, as Pinker is simplistically suggesting, would result in its death." I had a hard time understanding what this statement meant exactly. I had to look at several definitions of conform before having a brief understanding of what the sentence is saying. The definition of conform being - behave according to socially acceptable conventions or standards, kind of makes the sentence make more sense. For art to behave to socially acceptable standards, it would result in it's death. If art had a limit, it wouldn't be art no more. Art can't have a limit. It evolves everyday and changes from artist to artist.

Logical Socialists

The idea of a perfect world sounds so appealing. But let's be realistic here, it's not going to happen. As nice as wishful thinking is, socialists need to take into account the facts. They can disregard them all they want, but they're there. I fail to understand how, not only socialists, but several types of people can formulate these beliefs when they go against so many hard facts. These people can't back up their beliefs, nor can they reach their goals. 

Socialists and Biological Interference

As I was typing up my Q&A on the topic of Socialists View on Human Nature, I found myself using a lot of biological facts to argue against socialists and their goals of becoming "perfect." Apparently, in order for there to be perfect people, there needs to be a perfect environment. Now, I don't know the socialistic definition for perfect, but going off my general meaning, flawless, then there are several issues that run into this process of creating perfect people.
Let's say we have a heritable gene that codes for disease X. In order for a person to have this gene, they must have 2 dominant forms of the allele in the genome, XX. If carries of this gene, Xx, and those who have the disease, were to die out completely without producing offspring first, then eventually the disease will be nonexistent. So why not do this for all diseases like so and bam, there'd be our perfect world? Well an extremely large proportion of the human population would be wiped out. And also, many diseases or disabilities can arise from genetic mutation. Random genetic mutation that is. Due to random assortment of nitrogenous bases, our A's, C's, T's and G's, some unfortunate people suffer from disabilities such as Down Syndrome, caused by an extra gene on chromosome 21.
So, there could never be a "perfect" human population. There will always be genetic mutations.

Altruistic But Not Morally Good?

Altruism, generally defined as "an unselfish concern for the welfare of others," usually goes hand in hand with morally good, which differs from culture and beliefs. It seems likely an act could be morally good without necessarily being altruistic, but can an act be defined as altruistic without being morally good?
I believe the article mentioned that being self interested or altruistic can mean an act for one's own self that does not impact a negative connotation on others. Does this confirm that all altruistic acts are morally good? Suppose a person belongs to this hypothetical religion where they are required to cut them selves in order to sacrifice blood to their higher being. He thinks he is doing a good act, despite hurting himself, and this doesn't have a negative impact on anyone else. Is this morally good? Perhaps in his religion but most of us wouldn't agree. 
I find this to be a challenging concept to debate and understand, along with providing examples. I'm going to conclude that deciding whether an altruistic act is morally good or not, depends a lot on culture and point of view.

Top Priority: Family?

Everyone always says family comes first. And I certainly agree with that claim. But in my Q&A I proposed an example of person X who was working out of his home town in a weekend charity event. He received a call saying his sister was in a car accident and in ICU at the hospital. The doctor says she will recover. X is left with the decision to head home to help his family with emotional support, or stay at the shorthanded charity event where he could be helping hundreds of unfortunate people. I know if I was in this situation, I would rush home, no thought about it. I'd be choosing my sister over hundreds of strangers. Seems logical. But then again, I'm letting down the other staff, who now have to pick up my slack as well which could cause a backup in the event and possibly resulting in some people not being aided. Which act leads to the morally good and altruistic consequence? I feel like I should be saying the option to stay at the event but I still would choose my sister.

"Good Grounds" of God's Existence

Martin, I believe, argued there are no "good grounds" of God's existence but theists say otherwise. Which leads to, what are those grounds? According to Wikipedia's Existence of God article, there's several reasons supporting God's existence. First mentioned is the Aquina's Five Ways (Thomas Aquina) of which I simply summarize. First is the motion in the universe meaning we transitioned from potentiality to actuality, so there must be an initial mover because whatever is put in motion has to be done by another thing. Second, it's impossible for a being to cause itself, therefore there must be a first cause, uncaused by itself (which makes little sense to me). Third, Aquina's argument asserts that all beings are contingent, it's possible for them to not exist. At a time, nothing existed but with everything existing now, there must have been a necessary existence who is known as God. Fourth, all things that are good are called into a relation of a standard maximum of goodness, which then causes all goodness. Fifth and lastly, Aquina's argue that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless done by an intelligent being, God. 

There are many other arguments and examples for believing in a higher power such as God, much more than disbelieving in Him. I find this to be due to human history and the strong focus on the religion that once was.

Atheist Argument Against God's Existence

In the reading, it said atheists argue that the statement, "God exists" has been discomfirmed. I was really interested in how they can disprove His existence but not prove His existence. After googling "atheists disprove God," I came across a website called patheos.com. In a certain article (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/12/atheists-disprove-gods-existence-again.html), there's a video of a scientist who managed to replicate religious experience with a "God Helmet" that applied electromagnetic waves to different parts of the brain. This disproves God because if the participant was very religious, she would have similar experiences in her place of worship that she did while wearing the helmet. She experienced figures around her, stepping out of her body, and warmth as if a fire was around her.
On the site, asktheatheists.com, one guy argues that one cannot disprove God then one cannot prove God either. Another even says that the fact that this question is still prevalent today is depressing.
Despite these two examples, it was difficult to find examples how the statement has been disconfirmed. Their main argument seems to be, since one cannot prove God, He does not exist. I was really disappointed in this research because I was really excited to read about how atheists have "disproven" God.

Naturalists VS Supernationalists

We had almost a full class long discussion whether one can believe in both naturalism and super naturalism. I mentioned  how I was in between, like several others in the class. I studied Advanced Biology last year and learned of evolution and all the scientific facts that support it. Within the last few years, my mother, my sister and her family began going to church, but we were never raised around church, my dad is atheist. I found it hard to believe in God and such a higher power because of the classes I took in school and my way of growing up. I even had a discussion with a lady who thought it was funny that she learned of how the earth is over 4 billion years old throughout school but it's really on several thousand years old. I wasn't going to argue with her but how can she simply disregard the facts? There are no facts leading to the existence of God. But does that mean He's not there?
I proposed the question, " could it be more beneficial to a society to be fully naturalists or super naturalists, or a combination of both?" I would say a majority of the class felt both were more beneficial because that way one can choose what to believe in and not be forced into one or another. Unless children are raised in a church going environment, they don't learn about until they become older and choose to or not to. But by going to school, they're forced to learn about the scientific facts, so they tend to lean away from religion and super naturalism.

Freedom of Religion

During the reading, I began thinking that a section of the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, might have been designed to keep peace between citizens. We can have different outlooks on religions and perhaps even disapprove but everyone has the right to believe in what they choose. A student brought up that a person could sin with their hand, and they would have to remove their hand because it has sinned. Similar to the "An Eye For An Eye" principle. The student said that someone should tell them that this isn't right or "moral." But if someone went up to them and said that, they might not listen because their following their religion or belief. It could even cause potential conflict. So, could this act been created to keep peace? Or does the United States really accept such a wide variety of religions?

Becoming Internationalists

I have this belief that we cannot move from nationalists to internationalists without creating some form of a dictatorship. I don't think all or most of the countries in the world could come together and compromise on the same agreements. It doesn't seem realistic to me. Different countries have their own beliefs and cultures, they're couldn't be a way to merge everyone. Unless it's by a superior force. We could reach a level of world peace where each country is accepting of others and their ways of life, but I think that's about as far as that will go. Until something directly affects each citizen in the world, then will things positively change. Until then, people will think things are okay, they're unaware like I was, and things will get worse.

American Patriotism

After reading the articles for class, I was left asking myself, how does the patriotism of our country affect the world? We're one country out of almost 200 on this planet. After some research, it seems to be that patriotism keeps nations separate because it promotes bitterness between them. It was said patriotism worked for the 19th and 20th century, but for the 21st,  we need to move on to humanism. I didn't think there was anything wrong with patriotism until last week. I thought it was a good thing, to be proud of where you come from. It turns out that patriotism has lead to increased military status,     promoting defense and war. Some "patriotic" citizens say our lives are more important than third world country's citizens. Now that I see this side of patriotism, I agree we need to move on to humanism and internationalism. It's time to respect humanity, human dignity, and human rights, and focus less on our "love" for the United States.

Manipulative Society

Society definitely manipulates the ways humans look out at different parts of the world. For example, the media makes the impression that stick skinny girls are attractive. Teen girls strive for this look through unhealthy habits when a full, athletic, healthy body shape is much more attractive. I feel society is trying to manipulate us into turning away meat because of the "treatment" they receive. The savage beatings of animals and brutal killings surely happen in some places of the world, but not all. These places have to pass a certain regulation, I'm sure. I don't think humans will ever fully turn away from meat for several reasons. Besides dairy products, what else is a cow used for? By using the meat, we're using it for more purposes where we would be wasting the rest of the animal. Same with chickens, we could solely use them for eggs but then we're wasting the body.  Instead of pushing us away from meat, regulations for butcher shops should be more strict and animal "friendly."

Meat consumption natural for humans?

With having a vegetarian in my family, I know how difficult it is for them and vegans to receive adequate amounts of protein, which is typically consumed through meat. I believe since humans for thousands of years have ate meat, it's natural for us now to consume it as well. Whoever began this meat eating trend must have had some natural desire and instinct to think of digesting another animal. Whether it was due to starvation and crazed drive to kill something or the "I can, so I will" stand of humans, something lead us to where we are now.

Is there a limit on knowledge?

Before asking this question in class, I was rather confused on how this could be answered. One student proposed the idea since time is limited for an individual, then knowledge is as well because we can only learn so much in our life time. With endless subjects of knowledge, it does not seem possible for a limit. Also, as one begins to learn more, he/she also tends to realize how much there is to the subject than anticipated, along with seeing through different perspectives. 

I personally don't believe there's a limit on the capacity of knowledge for the human race, however an individual is limited by time and themselves. 

How does one recognize their limit? (Fallibism)

Some students answered my question about a limit on knowledge in favor to this question. Some said since technology is limited a the moment, it holds up the ability to learn past what we can now. Another also mentioned about limits on language and words. In a way I understood what he meant, but not fully. Are there no appropriate words to describe the newly findings? Professor Johnson brought up the idea that humans prematurely place limits, such as history. What they thought was certain hundreds of years ago, are now false or more complex. I definitely believe our knowledge has a limit for certain subjects, such as life after death. No one can say for sure what happens to our souls. Reason can be limited based on evidence as well but some people base their beliefs on faith despite evidence. For all we know, valid statements we believe to be true could certainly be proved false some time in the future.
I believe, depending on the subject of knowledge, limits are possible.