Hey nice answer, Galen. I chose "Are your social selves created by you or imposed by society?" (my answer's also short :)
I think that the answer is both. Depending on what group you’re with (for instance, people your own age or adults, friends or strangers) you will change your general attitude, sometimes even your personality to suit the situation. Society is the primary cause when you take on different social selves. But then you create those social selves based on what you think is appropriate for different groups within the society. So, your social selves are first imposed by society, but then created by you.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The social me answer
hello, sorry my answers so short, but I couldn't really figure out how to elaborate.
Is there a real me apart from my social selves?
I believe that the real me IS my social selves. Each one of them represents a small part of me that I will reveal to different people, and that combined together, they form who I am.
Somewhat like painting, I start with the base parts of me that all-together, form that I am. I then will combine different parts of these to create my many selves. Piccaso's paintings did not start with that many colors. He mixed a few base colors, and together they work to create a masterpiece, the whole.
That is why for me at least, there is no “real me” apart from my social selves
-bob
Is there a real me apart from my social selves?
I believe that the real me IS my social selves. Each one of them represents a small part of me that I will reveal to different people, and that combined together, they form who I am.
Somewhat like painting, I start with the base parts of me that all-together, form that I am. I then will combine different parts of these to create my many selves. Piccaso's paintings did not start with that many colors. He mixed a few base colors, and together they work to create a masterpiece, the whole.
That is why for me at least, there is no “real me” apart from my social selves
-bob
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Interpretive Questions for The Social Me
1. Can someone have a personal code of honor, according to James?
2. Who is more important in forming the social me: oneself or others?
3. Is there a "real me" apart from my social selves?
4. Does a hermit have a social self?
5. Is good behavior always an attempt to gain recognition from one group or another?
6. Does James believe that there can be a moral code that applies to all people despite their different social selves?
7. When James says we seek "recognition," does he mean acceptance by some group? (39)
8. Why do our different selves justify different standards of conduct? How do we resolve the conflicts imposed by our different social selves?
9. Is recognition by others within our control, according to James?
10. Are your soical selves created byyou or imposed by society?
11. Is James suggesting that the social self depends more on how groups of people see me rather than on how individuals see me?
12. Why does James call a person's social selves a "division of labor"? (40)
2. Who is more important in forming the social me: oneself or others?
3. Is there a "real me" apart from my social selves?
4. Does a hermit have a social self?
5. Is good behavior always an attempt to gain recognition from one group or another?
6. Does James believe that there can be a moral code that applies to all people despite their different social selves?
7. When James says we seek "recognition," does he mean acceptance by some group? (39)
8. Why do our different selves justify different standards of conduct? How do we resolve the conflicts imposed by our different social selves?
9. Is recognition by others within our control, according to James?
10. Are your soical selves created byyou or imposed by society?
11. Is James suggesting that the social self depends more on how groups of people see me rather than on how individuals see me?
12. Why does James call a person's social selves a "division of labor"? (40)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Utopia
Hey, my research about utopia basically discovered the same thing (wikipedia is beautiful).
however, I feel that a utopia might be possible someday in the future.
If we could build machines that could do all of our work for us, then we would be free to pursue whatever our greatest interest, whatever that may be.
because human beings are very scarcely inactive, as it is easy to see. I mean, when you have nothing to do, you don't just sit around and do nothing, you go out and try to accomplish what interests you at that moment.
of course, a PERFECT utopia isn't really possible, because no matter what you do, it is impossible to have everyone completely content at the same time, so there will never be utopias as envisioned in most of history.
but I do believe that we can achieve a level of harmony where the general population of the globe is happy, and free to achieve their goals.
-bob
however, I feel that a utopia might be possible someday in the future.
If we could build machines that could do all of our work for us, then we would be free to pursue whatever our greatest interest, whatever that may be.
because human beings are very scarcely inactive, as it is easy to see. I mean, when you have nothing to do, you don't just sit around and do nothing, you go out and try to accomplish what interests you at that moment.
of course, a PERFECT utopia isn't really possible, because no matter what you do, it is impossible to have everyone completely content at the same time, so there will never be utopias as envisioned in most of history.
but I do believe that we can achieve a level of harmony where the general population of the globe is happy, and free to achieve their goals.
-bob
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Utopia
Hello!
Here's my thing about Utopia and Utopian societies...
The term Utopia comes from the Greek words “no” and “place”, meaning “place that does not exist”. It can also mean “happy place”. Utopia is an island Thomas More wrote about in his book, Utopia. This fictional island had a perfect social, legal, and political system, and the word Utopia has now come to mean an ideal society.
This ideal society has been attempted many times. The Utopian Socialist movement of the early 1900’s promoted ideas such as people distributing goods, often without any money involved for them, and people only doing work that they enjoyed and that was for the common good. This uprising of Utopian philosophies was mostly due to the harsh economic pressures of that time. But of course, this Utopian structure of society didn’t last long – the movement slowly moved away from Utopianism. Karl Marx in particular became a rather harsh critic of some of the earliest utopian socialist movements.
The Utopian Socialist movement was an example of Economic Utopia, but there are other forms of utopianism, as well. In Religious Utopia, most religions have a utopia in their religious stories. The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic ideas of Heaven and the story of the Garden of Eden all represent a Utopia. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana and the Hindu concept of Moksha also represent a Utopia. However, the usual idea of Utopia is mostly caused by people wishing to create a Heaven-on-Earth aspect to their lives. They want a society that represents the values and beliefs that they believe await them in the afterlife. Not surprisingly, there are many other forms of Utopian societies, but they all carry the same goal: to be an absolutely perfect society, with no flaws whatsoever.
I personally don’t believe that a purely Utopian society is feasible. If a society were perfect, with everything mapped out for us, our lives a piece of cake, then what would be the point of living? There would be no struggles for us to overcome; we would become completely and utterly lazy. I do not believe in any extremes, whether they are good or bad. Utopia is an extreme. A good extreme, but an extreme all the same. You have to retain some degree of moderation.
Of course, I’m not saying that I think this world is good the way it is right now. I’m not saying that it doesn’t need to change, because it does. Everyone should have their rights, their freedoms. Every person should have the same life chances as the next. And I think that it’s up to us, the people who have some rights, to fight for others’. When every human being on this planet can boast that they have freedom – that will be Utopia.
Here's my thing about Utopia and Utopian societies...
The term Utopia comes from the Greek words “no” and “place”, meaning “place that does not exist”. It can also mean “happy place”. Utopia is an island Thomas More wrote about in his book, Utopia. This fictional island had a perfect social, legal, and political system, and the word Utopia has now come to mean an ideal society.
This ideal society has been attempted many times. The Utopian Socialist movement of the early 1900’s promoted ideas such as people distributing goods, often without any money involved for them, and people only doing work that they enjoyed and that was for the common good. This uprising of Utopian philosophies was mostly due to the harsh economic pressures of that time. But of course, this Utopian structure of society didn’t last long – the movement slowly moved away from Utopianism. Karl Marx in particular became a rather harsh critic of some of the earliest utopian socialist movements.
The Utopian Socialist movement was an example of Economic Utopia, but there are other forms of utopianism, as well. In Religious Utopia, most religions have a utopia in their religious stories. The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic ideas of Heaven and the story of the Garden of Eden all represent a Utopia. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana and the Hindu concept of Moksha also represent a Utopia. However, the usual idea of Utopia is mostly caused by people wishing to create a Heaven-on-Earth aspect to their lives. They want a society that represents the values and beliefs that they believe await them in the afterlife. Not surprisingly, there are many other forms of Utopian societies, but they all carry the same goal: to be an absolutely perfect society, with no flaws whatsoever.
I personally don’t believe that a purely Utopian society is feasible. If a society were perfect, with everything mapped out for us, our lives a piece of cake, then what would be the point of living? There would be no struggles for us to overcome; we would become completely and utterly lazy. I do not believe in any extremes, whether they are good or bad. Utopia is an extreme. A good extreme, but an extreme all the same. You have to retain some degree of moderation.
Of course, I’m not saying that I think this world is good the way it is right now. I’m not saying that it doesn’t need to change, because it does. Everyone should have their rights, their freedoms. Every person should have the same life chances as the next. And I think that it’s up to us, the people who have some rights, to fight for others’. When every human being on this planet can boast that they have freedom – that will be Utopia.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
thucydides interpretive answer
Why do the Athenians make it clear from the beginning that they do not want to speak of justice?
I think that the Athenians were reluctant to speak of justice to the Melians because they were aware, on a conscious or sub-conscious level, that what they were commanding the Melians to do was not just. Every human being, whether they are considered good or bad, has a conscience, an inner knowledge of what is good and, likewise, what is bad. Even if the Athenians were not consciously aware that what they were doing was wrong, their consciences were. Because of this, the Athenians were very uncomfortable discussing justice with the Melians, and made it well known.
I also think that the Athenians might have sensed that the Melians were more inclined to justice than they were. They felt that if they started speaking of justice, the Melians would have the advantage. All of these feelings, I feel, contributed greatly to the Athenian’s avoidance of the topic of justice.
I think that the Athenians were reluctant to speak of justice to the Melians because they were aware, on a conscious or sub-conscious level, that what they were commanding the Melians to do was not just. Every human being, whether they are considered good or bad, has a conscience, an inner knowledge of what is good and, likewise, what is bad. Even if the Athenians were not consciously aware that what they were doing was wrong, their consciences were. Because of this, the Athenians were very uncomfortable discussing justice with the Melians, and made it well known.
I also think that the Athenians might have sensed that the Melians were more inclined to justice than they were. They felt that if they started speaking of justice, the Melians would have the advantage. All of these feelings, I feel, contributed greatly to the Athenian’s avoidance of the topic of justice.
Interpretive question
Hey, here is my question and answer to the interpretive question:
Why do the Athenians make it clear from the beginning that they do not want to speak of justice?
If you were a master writer, would you treat an illiterate as an equal or an inferior?
Maybe in normal life you would treat them as an equal, but in writing you would treat them as inferior.
The Athenians define justice as being applicable only when two entities are of equal power.
The Athenians see Melos as inferior, and according to their definition of justice, believe that it should not be used in their situation.
The Athenians feel that they are a super-power, and should not be bothered with what they consider to be a nothing more than a nuisance. They have great confidence that the Lacedaemonian's will not come to Melos aid, and as such, they consider the island as so insignificant, that it is not even worth trying to make an ally.
Their view of the island as ridiculously weak is not entirely true, as when the Melians refuse to become the Athenian’s slaves, and Athens retaliates by holding a siege on Melos, the Melians manage to inflict unexpected damage upon the Athenian troops. It is only when there was internal treachery that they were defeated, and if not for the internal treachery, they may have survived.
However, since the Athenians did not know this in advance, and after, if they did not wipe out the Melians they believed that the world would consider them weak, they decided not to speak of justice when dealing with the Melians.
-bob
Why do the Athenians make it clear from the beginning that they do not want to speak of justice?
If you were a master writer, would you treat an illiterate as an equal or an inferior?
Maybe in normal life you would treat them as an equal, but in writing you would treat them as inferior.
The Athenians define justice as being applicable only when two entities are of equal power.
The Athenians see Melos as inferior, and according to their definition of justice, believe that it should not be used in their situation.
The Athenians feel that they are a super-power, and should not be bothered with what they consider to be a nothing more than a nuisance. They have great confidence that the Lacedaemonian's will not come to Melos aid, and as such, they consider the island as so insignificant, that it is not even worth trying to make an ally.
Their view of the island as ridiculously weak is not entirely true, as when the Melians refuse to become the Athenian’s slaves, and Athens retaliates by holding a siege on Melos, the Melians manage to inflict unexpected damage upon the Athenian troops. It is only when there was internal treachery that they were defeated, and if not for the internal treachery, they may have survived.
However, since the Athenians did not know this in advance, and after, if they did not wipe out the Melians they believed that the world would consider them weak, they decided not to speak of justice when dealing with the Melians.
-bob
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
This might be a problem
Hey, I chose also chose "Why do the Athenians make it clear from the beginning that they do not want to speak of justice?" before I saw that Ellie had, and was wondering if I need to chose a different question.
I'm about halfway done with my answer and don't really have any idea what to write for any other question.
Sorry about this,
-bob :(
I'm about halfway done with my answer and don't really have any idea what to write for any other question.
Sorry about this,
-bob :(
Interpretive Question
Hey, I chose "Why do the Athenians make it clear from the beginning that they do not want to speak of justice?" See you guys later...
Interpretive Q's
i chose the question
Why do the Melians put so much trust in the Lacedaemonian "sense of honor"?
thoght i'd let you know.
Why do the Melians put so much trust in the Lacedaemonian "sense of honor"?
thoght i'd let you know.
Pre-Reading Question And Answer
Why is it sometimes hard to remain neutral in an argument or fight? Do you respect people who try not to take sides in a dispute?
How strong are your opinions? Can you easily change your mind about something or someone?
In some cases people feel so strongly about their opinions that they can never be convinced to change. So when someone else confronts your way of looking at things and has a completely opposite view, you tend to erupt in their faces.
Because our opinions are so important to us we sometimes don't want to hear another point of view, and unfortunately this can lead to pre-judgment and hard headedness. We also don't get to see the good side to a person or situation.
But fortunately we can be convinced to see the opposite opinion of our own and could end up changing it.
So because of our strong beliefs, we don't want people telling us otherwise, but changing our opinions can come out to be a very good thing.
As for the second part of this question, I personally do respect people who try not to take sides in an argument. This is because I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but should also be able to see both sides of a conversation and not be judgmental.
So do you hear other people's opinions and thoughts, or are you hard headed and block out the voices of the rest of the world? I think that this is something that all of us can try to perfect a little bit more.
How strong are your opinions? Can you easily change your mind about something or someone?
In some cases people feel so strongly about their opinions that they can never be convinced to change. So when someone else confronts your way of looking at things and has a completely opposite view, you tend to erupt in their faces.
Because our opinions are so important to us we sometimes don't want to hear another point of view, and unfortunately this can lead to pre-judgment and hard headedness. We also don't get to see the good side to a person or situation.
But fortunately we can be convinced to see the opposite opinion of our own and could end up changing it.
So because of our strong beliefs, we don't want people telling us otherwise, but changing our opinions can come out to be a very good thing.
As for the second part of this question, I personally do respect people who try not to take sides in an argument. This is because I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but should also be able to see both sides of a conversation and not be judgmental.
So do you hear other people's opinions and thoughts, or are you hard headed and block out the voices of the rest of the world? I think that this is something that all of us can try to perfect a little bit more.
Life of Gardening Gloves
just wanted to post this on here.
This glove used to be a spotless piece of cowhide. It is now severed in various parts and caked with the dry remnants of the earth from endless days of toil. What once was a velvety soft outside is now tough, brittle and prickly; hardly protecting your hand from the harsh thorns of various weeds.
These hard working gloves envy the ones that keep our ten digits warm in the freezing cold of winter, the ones that are continuously soft and used year after year.
Nobody knows the agony that our beloved garden gloves go through, what they sacrifice so that our hands are kept in tact.
Pondering all these things makes me think that we should buy a new pair of gloves
This glove used to be a spotless piece of cowhide. It is now severed in various parts and caked with the dry remnants of the earth from endless days of toil. What once was a velvety soft outside is now tough, brittle and prickly; hardly protecting your hand from the harsh thorns of various weeds.
These hard working gloves envy the ones that keep our ten digits warm in the freezing cold of winter, the ones that are continuously soft and used year after year.
Nobody knows the agony that our beloved garden gloves go through, what they sacrifice so that our hands are kept in tact.
Pondering all these things makes me think that we should buy a new pair of gloves
Saturday, November 3, 2007
interpretive questions
Hey, I haven't gotten the interpretive questions yet, and just wanted to make sure that the "Teacher in the most high" hadn't sent them out yet.
That's all,
-bob
That's all,
-bob
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Pre-reading answer
Wow Galen, very impressive! Good job, you get another sticker. :)
Here's my pre-reading answer for "Can a slave live a dignified and honorable life?"
Yes, I believe that a slave can live a dignified and honorable life. But I believe the bigger and more important question to be, “Can the master live a dignified and honorable life?” Yes, I am sure that the master is considered to be dignified, in some cases, but honorable? How can anyone live an honorable life when they are smothering another’s? The slave has no rights, no freedom whatsoever. It lives to serve the master.
With that last line in mind, you would assume that the slave does not live a very dignified and honorable life; rather, you would think that it leads quite a wretched and meaningless one. But I disagree. Compared to the master, a master who is so obsessed with wealth that he is willing to diminish another’s life in the process, the slave’s life is far more dignified and honorable. The slave will have to overcome so many more hurtles and hardships in his/her lifetime. Hurtles that the master, sitting in his too-big house, surrounded by luxuries, cannot even begin to contemplate. The master’s spirit, from a lack of hardships, will grow weak. But the slave’s spirit, having been confronted with those hurtles, and then having to overcome them, will grow strong.
This is why I believe a slave can live a dignified and honorable life. In comparison with the master’s, the slave’s life I certainly view as superior.
Here's my pre-reading answer for "Can a slave live a dignified and honorable life?"
Yes, I believe that a slave can live a dignified and honorable life. But I believe the bigger and more important question to be, “Can the master live a dignified and honorable life?” Yes, I am sure that the master is considered to be dignified, in some cases, but honorable? How can anyone live an honorable life when they are smothering another’s? The slave has no rights, no freedom whatsoever. It lives to serve the master.
With that last line in mind, you would assume that the slave does not live a very dignified and honorable life; rather, you would think that it leads quite a wretched and meaningless one. But I disagree. Compared to the master, a master who is so obsessed with wealth that he is willing to diminish another’s life in the process, the slave’s life is far more dignified and honorable. The slave will have to overcome so many more hurtles and hardships in his/her lifetime. Hurtles that the master, sitting in his too-big house, surrounded by luxuries, cannot even begin to contemplate. The master’s spirit, from a lack of hardships, will grow weak. But the slave’s spirit, having been confronted with those hurtles, and then having to overcome them, will grow strong.
This is why I believe a slave can live a dignified and honorable life. In comparison with the master’s, the slave’s life I certainly view as superior.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Thucydides pre-reading question answered
Hey I chose "Is it honorable or stupid to carry on a fight against overwhelming odds?
Is honor more important than life itself?" as my pre-reading question, and here is my answer:
Hypothetical situation: you’re the people of the original 13 American colonies, and the revolutionary war is just starting, you are hopelessly outnumbered, and everyone says that it is crazy to fight the British.
You are faced with a decision of whether to fight, and probably lose, or surrender, and give up on your hopes for America.
You decide to fight.
Is your decision honorable, or stupid?
I believe that it was honorable, because you are fighting for what you believe in, and what you think is right.
However, there is an underlying web of stupidity, because any fighting is stupid, and many may die because of your decision, maybe even yourself.
Back to the present, we are fighting a battle against overwhelming odds, no not the fight in Iraq, or the war on terror, but the battle to stop the genocide in Darfur.
Honorable or stupid? I would say, very definitely honorable.
Is honor more important than life itself? Because everyone is different, and has different values, you must decide that for yourself.
Is honor more important than life itself?" as my pre-reading question, and here is my answer:
Hypothetical situation: you’re the people of the original 13 American colonies, and the revolutionary war is just starting, you are hopelessly outnumbered, and everyone says that it is crazy to fight the British.
You are faced with a decision of whether to fight, and probably lose, or surrender, and give up on your hopes for America.
You decide to fight.
Is your decision honorable, or stupid?
I believe that it was honorable, because you are fighting for what you believe in, and what you think is right.
However, there is an underlying web of stupidity, because any fighting is stupid, and many may die because of your decision, maybe even yourself.
Back to the present, we are fighting a battle against overwhelming odds, no not the fight in Iraq, or the war on terror, but the battle to stop the genocide in Darfur.
Honorable or stupid? I would say, very definitely honorable.
Is honor more important than life itself? Because everyone is different, and has different values, you must decide that for yourself.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
thucydides pre-reading question
Hey guys, I've chosen "Can a slave live a dignified and honorable life?" for my pre-reading question for the Melian Dialogue. Just though I'd let y'all know...
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Ode To A Tissue
Hey all, here is my amazing, beautiful, exquisite, seemingly trivial Ode To A Tissue, enjoy. Haha.
Ode To A Tissue
Tissues are devoid of any embellishments, and, at first glance, are seemingly lacking in appearance. I sometimes think that they are suffering from a severe case of nostalgia, in which they are longing for the days when they were pretty, quaint, little handkerchiefs, with peoples’ names lovingly hand-stitched into their corners. Alas, over the years, tissues have become reduced to rather plain, white, paper products.
Although, upon examining this square piece of interlocking fibers more precisely, you will come to find that a tissue is anything but ordinary. In fact, I find the modern-day tissue to be quite extraordinary, in its own right. The tissue has equal length and width, but hardly any depth. It has a very shallow and narrow crevice running down its middle, but never in the exact center. After usage, many other creases run across its surface, forming a complex assemble of crisscrossing lines and dashes. It has come to my attention that tissues crumple quite easily, and tear, as well. The fibers lose their grip on each other extremely quickly if you apply water to the tissue. Therefore, it makes sense that when you blow a large amount of snot into the tissue, or cry into them, the tissue will react accordingly. This leads me to an issue that concerns me greatly: tissues are very sensitive and delicate objects, and people need to be aware of that fact.
Therefore, I applaud the ingenious individual, who, when faced with the troubling and annoying situation of a nose full of snot, smartly chooses to dispose of that gross substance, not into wimpy tissue, but into a hefty handkerchief.
Ode To A Tissue
Tissues are devoid of any embellishments, and, at first glance, are seemingly lacking in appearance. I sometimes think that they are suffering from a severe case of nostalgia, in which they are longing for the days when they were pretty, quaint, little handkerchiefs, with peoples’ names lovingly hand-stitched into their corners. Alas, over the years, tissues have become reduced to rather plain, white, paper products.
Although, upon examining this square piece of interlocking fibers more precisely, you will come to find that a tissue is anything but ordinary. In fact, I find the modern-day tissue to be quite extraordinary, in its own right. The tissue has equal length and width, but hardly any depth. It has a very shallow and narrow crevice running down its middle, but never in the exact center. After usage, many other creases run across its surface, forming a complex assemble of crisscrossing lines and dashes. It has come to my attention that tissues crumple quite easily, and tear, as well. The fibers lose their grip on each other extremely quickly if you apply water to the tissue. Therefore, it makes sense that when you blow a large amount of snot into the tissue, or cry into them, the tissue will react accordingly. This leads me to an issue that concerns me greatly: tissues are very sensitive and delicate objects, and people need to be aware of that fact.
Therefore, I applaud the ingenious individual, who, when faced with the troubling and annoying situation of a nose full of snot, smartly chooses to dispose of that gross substance, not into wimpy tissue, but into a hefty handkerchief.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Frued pre-reading question
Is War or Peace the more natural human state?
When someone hurts you, what is your first reaction, before conscious thought occurs, before any thing else happens, what is your first instinct?
For the majority of us, it's to strike back, and try to hurt the person who has hurt us. This is the first thought, and is made by that dark side of us, that part of us that has many names, but is just one thing: evil.
Conversely, there is the other side of us, the peaceful side, the side that comes in when we stop following our primal instincts, and start thinking about what we are about to do.
This side of us will instead of returning the hurt, this side of us will seek to know why the person hurt us, and to help them.
So I believe that the question, "Is War or Peace the more natural human state?" is much to simple a question to answer simply by saying "war" or "peace". I think that you must first define the human being as either being the dark side of us, the good side of us, or a mixture of them both. For the dark side, war is the more natural state, for the thinking side of us, peace is the more natural state, and for a mixture, which we are, the answer is both.
This is because every human being is different, and has a different mixture inside them of dark and light, good and evil, yin and yang, and both are necessary.
Without the evil, we would not be able to take risks, and would be back millennia developmentally. And without good, we would have no compassion, and would be at eternal war.
And that is why I believe that neither is the more natural state.
When someone hurts you, what is your first reaction, before conscious thought occurs, before any thing else happens, what is your first instinct?
For the majority of us, it's to strike back, and try to hurt the person who has hurt us. This is the first thought, and is made by that dark side of us, that part of us that has many names, but is just one thing: evil.
Conversely, there is the other side of us, the peaceful side, the side that comes in when we stop following our primal instincts, and start thinking about what we are about to do.
This side of us will instead of returning the hurt, this side of us will seek to know why the person hurt us, and to help them.
So I believe that the question, "Is War or Peace the more natural human state?" is much to simple a question to answer simply by saying "war" or "peace". I think that you must first define the human being as either being the dark side of us, the good side of us, or a mixture of them both. For the dark side, war is the more natural state, for the thinking side of us, peace is the more natural state, and for a mixture, which we are, the answer is both.
This is because every human being is different, and has a different mixture inside them of dark and light, good and evil, yin and yang, and both are necessary.
Without the evil, we would not be able to take risks, and would be back millennia developmentally. And without good, we would have no compassion, and would be at eternal war.
And that is why I believe that neither is the more natural state.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Hello world.. or is that too simple?...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)