Okay, the more I learn about life and people, the more it’s hard to think that anything is constant. In fact, the more I explore and listen to life around me, the more everything seems to be completely interpretive.
Alright, as I have gotten older, I have considered myself to be a very logical person. I like to make decisions based on logic (unless emotions are required. But logically emotional.).
One thing about logic is that it is the basis of Science. So, both logic and Science are supposed to be emotionless and untainted by bias or perspective.
The other day I was at a church event with my sister. I do not believe in it anymore, but I go with her because she asks me to.
I would like to think I am a nice person/sister.
Anyways, they were talking about some of their beliefs and how it logically made sense that their beliefs were the only true ones.
And the things that they were stating as logical proof did make sense. I remembered believing in it and how it was logical in my mind as well back then.
But then I started to think about my beliefs, they would sound very logical as well.
We are all familiar with the phrase “faulty logic” or even “flawed logic”. I think that faulty logic is more common than just pure logic in.
But here is something that I was wondering after that night: Who defines what logic is?
What is the deciding factor of what is logical and what is faulty?
I always thought that logic was what made the most sense and what was the most consistent on all accounts.
But there are many things that can make sense and be consistent, but could still be considered faulty logic.
I looked it up and to paraphrase it said that it was a governing principle of what is correct and reliable. But again there are many things that could fall under the category of reliable and who defines what is correct?
Which goes back to logic being interpretive?
But perception and interpretation are the opposite of reliability and logic in it’s self.
Can you spell conundrum?
Then I wonder if logic is constant, but the application through human beings is what makes it seem like it is interpretive.
Humans cannot turn off their perspective on things. We can’t suddenly stop viewing things with bias, we can try and almost get there, but it doesn’t always happen that way.
Our perspectives and interpretation on all events are deeply embedded in our psyche. I can’t suddenly stop being me to apply pure logic.
But then I wonder if this entire post even makes sense.
Okay, this week in my Philosophy 305: Ethics in the Liberal Arts class we are discussing the ethics and code of Human Study Subjects. So for my essay I have to write a report on Humphrey’s tea room Sex Study and why it was ethically wrong.
Basically in the 60s the police would arrest any man found having sex with another man in a restroom or “tea room” was assumed to be a homosexual and was arrested.
So what Humphrey decided he was going to do is PhD dissertation by conducting a study to disperse these stereotypes. He went to a “tea room” and posed as the look out for these men and then “observed”. Then he followed these men to get their license plate number and a year later came to their house posing as a member of the Health Department to get their age, sex, marital status etc.
Since I am writing an academic essay it means that I have to be eloquent and professional in my writing. Basically I can’t say what I really think about this.
So I would like to really quickly just reply to Laud Humphreys what I think about this whole thing:
Dude, you can’t just go around Washington watching people have sex in bathrooms. That’s really weird.
And then to follow them home and pose as a Health Department specialist to ask them personal questions? When would that ever seem like a good idea?
I’m sure at this point he would say something like “It was for academic purposes. For science. It dispelled a lot of stereotypes and prevented a lot of unnecessary arrests.”
This is what brings up what I really want to talk about ethics-wise: Does the end justify the means?
I think this is something that has been debated for a long time, but is still a valid debate to have.
So why does “Ethics in the Liberal Arts” have us writing about Plagiarism and Human Studies Laws, but not something worthwhile to write about like that? Could someone define what “liberal arts” means to them?
I guess Plagiarism could fall under Ethics in the Liberal arts, but that is the most boring part we could talk about.
Ugh, I just don’t like Philosophy.
Okay, first off I am a super mature college student. I am smart and cultured.
I just felt the need to state that before writing out this post.
I really am not a fan of Philosophy.
Maybe it’s because I have strong opinions and I don’t really like when people contradict those.
Maybe it’s because I am really not interested in hearing other people’s opinions.
Or Maybe I just don’t feel like going around and around discussing the same moral issues without ever truly coming to a conclusion.
But college doesn’t care about my personal preferences toward Philosophy. College states that I have to take two Philosophy classes. I took the first class which was called “Philosophy 101: Critical Thinking”.
My first essay in that class was titled “What is thinking?”. Yeah….
But now I am in “Philosophy 305: Ethical thinking in the Liberal Arts”.
First off, there is no art in this class. I know that is probably a given, but I was kinda hoping we would be discussing how to be ethical with artistic expression. Stupid idea. Stupid idea. Just forget it.
No, this is the class where we get to talk about Plato and Socrates. (Morons?) Mostly Plato though.
Here are a little of my thoughts on Plato.
First off, every time I hear the name Plato all I can think if is Play-do. Not a bad thing to be associated with, although I have a feeling he would be offended.
Second, Plato has this allegory that he uses to describe the media’s manipulation on the way we communicate where he talks about shadows on the wall of a cave.
So every time the teacher makes a reference to this allegory he calls it “Plato and the Shadow Cave.”
It sounds like a freaking Indiana Jones movie!
Coming Soon: Indiana Jones and the Shadow Cave!
Dude, let’s go opening night!
The point is it sounds like it would be something that is super exciting, but really it’s a rather demeaning allegory. And all jokes aside, I really am not a fan of Plato’s actual theories of society and ethics. It seems to be a mild communist theory that happened before Karl Marx and I am not about that. I like free will.
That’s not really interesting to post about on a blog, but I just didn’t want it to seem like all I do is make fun of lessons that I am learning in school. Like I am so much better than “college” and “professors” and “Play-do”.
To start off, I am very angry at the moment. So please take this post in the context that it was written. Which would be me wanting to rip someone’s head off. Someone in particular though. Also this could mean that my ideas won’t be half as eloquent as usual and there will probably be a rant in here somewhere.
I have heard some people who have really bashed on karma and the idea that what goes around comes around. It is hard to believe that there is some grand rhythm in the universe that connects us all, that we are synchronized and what one thing someone does will cause something else of the same energy to take place to them again.
Okay, that’s just sounds crazy. Either that or I don’t explain it well. But I understand the concept and I personally believe in it.
Why? Well take my current situation, here comes the rant.
You come across a pathetic, whiny, douche bag who pretends to be your friend and uses you when they have a problem and the drops you like yesterdays trash. No matter what you say it won’t affect this person because they have no soul.
So karma is comforting in the fact that you can’t do something horrible in retaliation to the person, but one day they will “get theirs’.
The only problem with this philosophy though is that when these things are happening to you, it implies that you have done something in the past to deserve this amount of treatment.
If so, I’m curious as to what I have done.
The philosophy is flawed. Basically what I’m getting at is someone out there is a horrible person. In a nice way.