I'm running out of titles

For anyone that may purposely, begrudgingly, or unfortunately come across my blog...

December 18, 2008:
Coming in second has its advantages; remember, it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.


December 19, 2008:
Anyone can look up and down a street. A leader is someone who can see around the corner.

Just for kicks

An update on the calendar pages of mine:

12/15: Go to a restaurant frequently enough so they know your name. Then you might get seated quicker on a busy saturday night.

12/16: A man should never stay seated when shaking someone's hand.

12/17: Remember, the weather is indifferent to your opinion of it.


Happy Winter Break!

So long, farewell, adieu, and goodbye

I have unfortunately come to that time when my very loyal blogging experience has come to a minor close. Due to the fact that I will no longer be obligated to blog about the intellectual and thought-provoking classes of my first year seminar, I see the amount of time being spent on my blog as being cut drastically. Every now and I then I may find a glimpse of spirited motivation to express myself through the blogging experience. Overall, I found the experience helpful in writing out my thoughts- which is something I have always had trouble with. Hah, yet I am a journalism major. Although, writing out my thoughts helps then to be able to vocalize them in class. Some people from class may not have ever gandered upon my blog which I regret, because I know that I could have done something in return if I wanted them too. This has been my first blogging site, and I feel satisfied with the experience it has brought me. As a farewell note, I will leave you all with my "life's little instruction calendar" page of the day, which I am stumped by:

Should you be praised, pray it be by honest men.

Perhaps I will post the calendar pages until the end of the year for the pleasurable viewing by all my followers. Have a good one!


"And in case I don't see ya...Good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight!"
TTS

Exista-what?

I unfortunately am only 2/3 of my way through the article covering existentialism. I am once again on the verge of slight confusion. I feel as though the philosopher or author is very sophisticated and speaks in several different perspectives. He gives many different versions of the idea I think and speaks about all of them. I do not feel as though I kept up with the writing so far, except for minor exerpts. One piece that I may have understood was covering taking action. I believe it was along the lines of we must take action instead of letting others do if for us. We cannot be a victim of quietism, which is saying the other man will do what I cannot. I agree with this in that we should not take on this model. Whether or not I will comprehend to final third of his work is ambiguous, but I am hopeful; for some reason, I feel that it is compiling several of the topics we have discussed in class up to this point in the semester.

Hoi Polloi!

Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too.


One of the most interesting parts of the reading in "Health of Nations" that I discovered was the Roseto experiment, which took an Italian-American town in the mid 1950s and studied the social health of the people. To the suprise of researchers (or scientists or philosophers, I really don't know) the town had the same prevalence for risk factors such as heart disease, obseity, high blood pressure, etc. as any neighboring towns yet suffered less than half the rate of heart attack. The researchers found that there was a "striking degree of solidarity with their community. Ther ewas a strong tradition of helping one's friends as well as friends of one's friends. The idea of helping eachother out help significantly to increase health benefits. The culture even had a set of checks and balances (figuratively, im guessing) to ensure that neither success no failure got out of hand. The dress and mannerisms were also very similar throughout the town, thus no one could easily tell the difference between the rich and poor. The fantasy did not last long, however, when the community started to become preoccupied with materialistic goods. Ah yes, Merry Christmas! Anyways, this idea of being able to help eachother out and have a genuine concern for one another to increase health benefits is remarkable.

You gotta be kiddin!

I had to stop in middle of my reading of "Health of Nations" to quickly jot down a blog while the thought was fresh in my mind. I am currently on a segment about economic inequalities and how they somehow propel our nation, yet create major social difficulties. One argument that was displayed was that about education and tuition. As a college student myself, I experience the frequent terrors of experiencing (or my parents experiencing) bankruptcy due to the exploding prices of education. The author mentions that part of the reason for the so heavily increasing costs are due to the skyrocketing administrator's salaries. These salaries are then the burden of those paying tuition fees. What used to be a base of about $3000 at an ivy league school in the seventies is now around $30,000. The line that struck me was, "yet if the number of places at elite institutions remains unchanged, everyone is spending more to end up in exactly the same position." If everyone is striving for the most prestigous job, then it the value of it depletes. It all depends what everyone else is doing. We are spending way more than we did thirty years ago to attain all of the same jobs. However, as students become smarter and more skilled, the bar is raised, and I fear the price of tuition increasing even more. Oh, dear.

*As a sidenote, can anyone please explain to me what an arm's race is? It has been mentioned a few times, yet I can seem to decipher its meaning on my own.

Character Clarification

To all my oh so loyal followers out there, I apologize for the last post in which I expressed the idea that Doris did not support situationism. I had misread the email sent about the issue and it makes much more sense now. Doris agrees with the idea that situations can heavily influence one's character, if not fully. Due to all of the studies that were presented, it was shown that this is true (Milgram, Standford Prison, phonebooth, etc.) It is not so ambiguous to me anymore, and the chapters now seem to correlate better with the argument. Sorry to the hundreds of you that must have been confused after reading :)

Character Counts

After reading the email sent by JMc, I became slightly more confused. I understand situationism to be interpreting one's character by certain circumstances and situations that he or she may be involved in. What I did not understand is if he is supporting this claim or not. Throughout the chapters, he quite frequently mentions several psychological experiments which alter a person's behavior. From the email, it said he did not support situationism, however the studies clearly show that a person can change due to a situation. Although, perhaps he is stating that situationism can be deceptive for everyone is likely to deviate from natural habits in extreme situations. We can discuss my concerns in class.

Getting into the "nitty gritty" of the piece, I personally enjoy researching the Milgram experiment. I distinctly remember studying this experiment in high school and it really sparked my interest. However, my first inclination from the lecture given in my high school psych class was that this had to do with obeying those who serve as authority to you. Although this may be a factor, the author made it clear that this was not the issue being portrayed; it dealt more with situationism. I can agree with this as well, but it still intrigues me how so many people would be obedient under such drastic measures. It is difficult to place my self in their situation because knowing the circumstances, I would plead disobedient, but there is no way of knowing for sure. Does this mean that situations do affect my behavior/character? I would take that as a yes, for I know that I do not display the same traits in every situation. Perhaps, this is what he is trying to express.

Just a thought...

I have realized that I can use this blog in ways other than what would would be discussed in class. Acknowledging the fact that a very minimal amount of people even encounter my blog, I can speak of any true concern I have perhaps for a venting process.

It is Saturday night at about 11:30 and in the past 3 hours, I have watched half a football game, read a chapter for Tuesday's FYS assignment on character, did laundry, had some dinner, and talked to some friends over the internet. To me, it has been what should be a relaxing night, which is what I intended it to be. However, about every 20 minutes the idea that I am a lonely college student runs through my head. I can't help but think that I am being patronized by the vast amount of my peers at the local bars, house parties, and arbitrary adventures. Why is it that college seems to revolve around social factors? I dont think my tuition pays for that. I find no problem with staying in for a few weekends to catch up on homework and some alone time. But who is right to deem this lifestyle as lonesome? I know a few people that swear by going out every weekend and somehow find just reasons to patronize those who don't. Patronization is one of the very few things that really light my fire. I can only write so much about how I feel, so I suppose this is it for my venting session. Until next time!

Accepting you, me, her, him, and it.

I am glad to say that I understand the concepts that Mill was describing. It still upsets me that I cannot comprehend them on my own, but I am working on it. In terms of the actual content, it not only scares me but intrigues me as well. It scares me because it was written about 150 years ago, yet is still just as prevalent today. It intrigues me because he wrote this during times that were probably much different that they are today and probably caused much controversy. He speaks about not necessarily deviating from the norm, but that its okay if you do. One aspect of class today that really sparked my interest was something that I had never thought of before. Several times I have said something along the lines of "they're just like you and me" regarding people of different genders, sexualities, races, cultures, etc. I realized today that this may be true, but the more appropriate way to accept others would be to simply (although, maybe not so simple) accept their differences rather than trying to acknowledge them as just the same. It is how I have accepted people from the moment I realized that others were different. I really do feel that I changed from hearing that today. This can also influence my presence in my anthropology class this year. We learn about numerous different cultures and practices that strongly differ from our own. It is hard to compare with some for the extreme differences they acquire, but it is important to note that we don't need to compare and just need to accept their existence and appreciate it. I may not have made a complete revelation in my life, but it is refreshening to know.

Forever frustrated.

Lying is a sin, thus I cannot say I read the entire portion of John Stuart's piece on liberty and indivdualism. I found it difficult to understand and hard to apply to our modern day lifestyles. At the beggining, I felt as if he was developing a perspective related to feminism. However, when he speaks of "man", I suppose that could mean all human kind. He also talks about individualism, and that we must individualize ourselves to comply with societal needs. Maybe. I'm still not sure. As I reflect upon this piece, I do not intend to criticize Stuart for his writing style or views, but am just more curious. Most of the work that I have not understood in this class has inevitably become of great value and appreciation to me. I suppose this piece is no different, although I recognize this is no excuse for not comprehending.

I certainly doubt it...

In Shanley's "Doubt: a parable", I have only encountered more difficulty on evaluating and analyzing my lifestyle. Although I try to be as unselfish as possible (which I greatly want to work on!), I still find myself attributing the messages and theories of all the pieces our class has read to my own habits rather than the nature of others. Consciously averting that habit of mine, I found "Doubt" to be relatable to many. It was said in the dialogue, by Father Flynn I believe (could be mistaken), that it takes much more courage to be doubtful than to be certain, for certainty is definite, while doubt is infinite.

Throughout the play, Sister Aloysius seems to be certain of Flynn's intentions. Although provided with no evidence, she remains confident in her convictions. However, in the final scene, she makes a remark to Sister James that she has doubts. I was able to relate this final scene, as well as my whole analysis of the play, to our class. Often times, one of us is certain we know the answer or have a valid response to an inquiry. We are almost always asked to show evidence. Without any evidence of our proclamations, they are only certain to us on an intermediate level, yet doubtful to others.

The questions of who I sympathize with most and who I admire most intrigue me. I sympathize with Sister James most, for she seems to be most like me, yet is criticized. If I were to uphold a teaching position, I would want my students to enjoy the class and be able to come to me with any concerns. I also want to please others to whom I work for and with. However, I admire Sister Aloysius most, for she is strong and intelligent. She sticks to her convictions without true evidence because it is what she believes and what she thinks to be right. If I could have the courage to model her behavior I would. However, all the others (Sister James, Mrs. Muller, Father Flynn) seem to either despise her or be frightened of her. So the question I ask myself is would I rather be able to have confident convictions and beliefs that can aid in pivotal situations, or would I rather be innocent in a cruel world to avoid all difficulties and wicked looks? Oh, I have doubts, I have such doubts.

Lon Larson

After just an hour with Lon Larson, a cancer patient survivor, I realized that maybe blogging everyday and a few homework assignments don't exactly lead up to a very stressful lifestyle that I thought I had. What I thought would be a typical speech about living life to the fullest turned into an emotional story about how one man with circumstances far worse than those that I seem to suffer forms every minute of his life with the best possible attitude he can create. One note that he mentioned was that he was "the luckiest man alive". I second guessed myself when I heard him speak about this. How could a man given 3-6 months to live consider himself to be so lucky? As Lon gave me chills with his story and attitude and optimistic lifestyle, I realized that I can wake up every day and not only be thankful for those whom I grace and grace me. It is imperative to realize that someone can make a meaningful impression on your life, as well as you on them. It is difficult to put into words what Lon Larson's story did for me, for it is mostly emotionally inspiring. Although he said that he does not consider himself a motivational speaker, I feel that he is nothing short of one. I wish the best for Lon Larson, and hope he continues to live the greatest lifestyle for however long it may be for him.

The long awaited one...

Considering my blog postings have gathered a month's long dust, I presume it to be necessary that I reflect upon the past month, as succinct as possible.

As half of the class adventured on the concept/meaning of "The Sparrow" with me, we decided to conclude upon the idea of faith. However, this only led us to a struggle in grasping the concept of faith. In broad terms, faith is to believe or to have trust in an uncertain entity. Some would say that faith can dictate a sufficient and meaningful life because you can give all your trust and hope into it, which is fufilling in itself. In "The Sparrow", Emilio had faith in the crew that was sent to space with him. He also had a faith in God that would aid his trip. After coming home with his faith shattered at the death of his friends, Emilio was forced to reconstruct his beliefs again to same strength they were at pre-trip. This idea of losing trust due to unfortunate events is evident in modern day among all christians, catholics, jews, muslims, athiests, agnostics, etc. Everyone has moments that tests their true beliefs. It seems to be, however, it is about how you can put things in perspective after a moment of betrayl even if the situation does not change.

In the "Grand Inquisitor", I found the ideas between Ivan and Zossima to not be completely similar but radically different. Ivan spoke of the Grand Inquistor's ideas on freedom and happiness; the two do not come together. Zossima then contrasts freedom and isolation. These men speak in terms of religion, but a perspective beyond religion can be formed. Human nature is described in the book. It is human nature to desire and cherish the freedom we are given, but in its simplest terms, it is not what we want. To be free, we are independent from others, we are independent from forced decisions, and independent from happiness. Although we may search and plead for freedom, we would rather want decisions to be made for us and someone to follow. However, when Ivan approaches the prisoner, Jesus, he condemns him for manipulating the people into thinking they were free, when really they were following him only because it is what their natural needs inclined for. However, I feel that if people are truly content with following another and feel free, then why detest it? Sometimes I want someone to follow, it shows me there is a path for me. Although there are also times of indepence that strike in me and I want to be a nonconformist. To really evaluate the way I have lived in this sense in the past 18 years is difficult, even frustrating. I do not want to be happy yet be known as a follower at the same time. I want to be a leader, is this what Ivan is suggesting? Hard to tell.

"Doubt: A parable" is very thought provoking and leads to uncertainty, hence the "doubt". First, 'a parable' means a short story or an analogy. The play is concise, thus leads to a vast amount of uncertainty and questions. I like that the play brings several characters into the scenes, yet all of them seem to have doubt in some way. My evidence for this is Father Flynn temporarily has doubt in Sister James. Sister James doubts Father Flynn. Sister Aloysius doubts Father Flynn as well as Sister James. Mrs. Muller doubts the situation Sister Aloysius is presenting to her. Yet with this entity of doubt, no one seems to inevitably change. Although Father Flynn moves to another parish, he never confesses anything, leaving us and the rest to further doubt. I certainly have uncertainties in my life, but always seem to overlook them, as I find them a waste of time. I consider doubt to be a confusing topic for it is inevitable, yet never ending!

I feel as if I am becoming flustered and irritated by the fact that I have just embarked on more than my share of confusing intellectual topics for one hour. Perhaps I will start to blog more frequently to avoid this circumstance again.

Ray Kroc

The segment in Leading Lives That Matter about three biological sketches is very interesting because it gives insight on three very different lives and journies. The first one I read was about Ray Kroc, founder of the fast food restaurant McDonalds. Now the actual story about his life is just what the main title suggests, a biography. It details the span of his life, how he came up with the idea, what McDonalds is like today, and so on. The interesting part however comes with the introduction to the three stories.

It says that Kroc was a typical "rags to riches" guy and asks the question if you would admire him more because of this. Do people admire these lives more than those who have been healthy their entire lives? Kroc did work his way up and became very successful. The story talks about his multiple jobs, many having nothing to do with his business, and how he finally got his break. I have never thought about this, but I do suppose that people admire the ones who fought for something rather than had it come naturally. However, don't the ones that have it come naturally also have to work hard at one point? In America, we love the underdog. We always want a story to fight for and come together about. Ray Kroc is your typical American story that has the nation cheering for him and not for someone like Paris Hilton.

Another story mentioned is about a young woman, Iris Chang, who was a Chinese-American writer and became interested in China's "Nanking Incident" after hearing about it. She wrote a vivid book on the mutilations and grieving stories that occured in Nanking in order to inform the public. Her work was considered to controversial and not credible, which caused Chang to be upset. Chang eventually killed herself perhaps feeling as though she had done too little. The question here after this story, is posed as asking is a life that is short-lived, yet self-sacrificial, more worthy than one that is long and 'comparatively undistinguished'?

In both cases for Kroc and Chang, there were qualities and benefits of their lives that made them better. It was fast food restaurants for Kroc and history for Chang. I believe that this has much to do with one's quality of living. If you can have a splendid life with the qualities that you work for or on then life will only be satisfying by the conclusions you find.

Endearing Devotions

I had to look up devotion, for I only knew the meaning in which someone is deeply committed to something. I found out that it can also mean a short religious service, which made more sense for the exercise.

If I were called upon to create a week-long devotion, I would likely use the theories and thoughts from Epictetus. For one, I found his work easier to comprehend than that of Aurelius. I happen to only look over the first two books of Aurelius and found myself relating more to Epictetus. This may be because Aurelius often speaks of what he has learned in a personal standpoint, which makes it harder to associate with a general lifestyle. The listing of Epictetus was easier to follow from the organization.

With that said, I thought that most of the points Epictetus made were valid to living a worthy lifestyle, but one really stood out to me. Number 13 which starts off by stating "if you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to external things." First, for a little background- this has always been one of my favorite quotes, and I feel like it defines parts of the way I live. I never knew that it was a renowned philosopher who said it because I picked it up from my favorite movie. Now that I know it was Epictetus who created the quote, it makes my decision easier to use this piece of The Enchiridion in my devotion.

Getting back to the concentration of the theme he presents, I think that it is not only important to accept eternal views, but it is also important to release some of your grasp on your natural conformed values. This is also among some of the topics that we have been discussing in class: Open your mind, go outside of your comfort zone, be curious, etc. And sometimes, it is important to understand that acting in these ways will not always be a societal status quo. People will stare and sometimes criticize, but like Epictetus said, you must be okay with that.

This would clearly be a modern version of the this theme that Epictetus presents, thus it may divert from his original perspective. On the issue of giving a title to the devotion, I don't know that I would have a specific name, but I would definitely attribute it to point 13. Not only am I content with his views on living happily, but I am ecstatic to finally know who said my favorite quote!

Friend or Foe?

Aristotle's view on friendship is detailed and consists of many more layers than I would ever attribute to the quality. According to him, friendship can be separated in three categories. To the simplest interpretation of these categories, I came upon the first as being friends of usefulness. These are the friendships that we acquire only because another one is useful to our own fufillment or success. For example, businessmen often have these types of relationships because it is their main priority to excel in the business world, thus need to have friends that can aid in their path.

The next relationship Aristotle describes is one of pleasure. Sometimes, we form friendships that fufill a pleasurable instinct in us. For example, we often have friends that are witty and make us laugh or ones that like to talk about the same things we do. These friends and ones of usefulness are temporary, according to Aristotle. Because our pleasures and needs tend to change over time, any friend of ours that falls under these categories will no longer be necessary in our lives.

The third relationship that is mentioned is the purest form of friendship. It is one of "reciprocated good". This type of friendship has both parties seeking good from the other and thus returning it as well. It is said that this will always be a long lasting relationship.

From a personal view, I can agree with Aristotle, but I would have to slightly mend his points to equal mine. I believe that a true friend needs to fufill all three qualities that he mentioned. Of course this would be in a perfect world, but I find that when my personal needs or likes change, those of my best friends do too. In order to be friends, I do not think that it is necessary to know every aspect of someone's life, but it usually happens that way anyways. The best of friends are made over long periods of time.

Enemy is a harsh word, but I do believe they exist. I do not believe, however, that one should condemn another just because his or her friend has. But as I said before, it may just happen that way with the best of friends. A good reason to have an enemy, or someone you respect less that a good friend, would be if they have disrespected you in a way that demoralizes or patronizes you. If a true characteristic of someone makes you feel uncomfortable or upset, there is no reason to give full respect.

The last piece that I want to talk about is the issue of friendships with authority. Is it possible to be friends with your boss? Your teacher? Your coach? Your mom? I think that friendship is not the appropriate term for relationships such as these. According to Aristotle, he believes that the "loving should itself be proportionate." The better person, or person of more authority, or more useful one should recieve more respect from the other. I agree with this, but I still feel that there can always be a very strong relationship between these two parties. Authoritative family members especially deserve the upmost respect and a child should be the one who is disciplined. I do not think that friends can occur within authority, only shifts in respect. However, I am open to the views of others as well.

If 'Virtuity' was a word, I would use it here.

Instead of getting right into emphasizing one of Aristotle's virtues, I would rather list them out first for my own sake to make sure I have comprehended them to the best of my ability...please assist me if there are other aspects to his virtues that I have missed or misrepresented.

Aristotle says we much act on that which our soul desires. The soul, thus, has five aspects in which it "has truth through affirmation and denial".

I. Technical Expertise: "productive disposition accompanied by true rational prescription"- One must produce something or bring it about by practce and theory. We must intially focus on the production of a project rather than the final outcome, and we must use reasonable processes otherwise it will be a false representation of the soul's desire.

II. Systematic Knowledge: "It is eternal and without qualification. It is teachable an capable of being learned." This is the knowledge that is by demonstration- knowledge that is already known.

III. Wisdom: "a disposition accompanied by rational prescription, true, in the sphere of human goods, relating to action." Wisdom is a kind of excellence. It cannot be touched or forgotten. It is not action or deliberation, but pure action relating to human good.

IV. Intellectual Accomplishment: "It is a combination of systematic knowledge and intelligence." :I need more time with this one:

V. Intelligence: I believe that intelligence is simply the object of all the other's starting points.


I cannot declare which one of Aristotle's virtues are most valid or even relatable, for I do not know if I can describe them well enough at this point. With more discussion and review, I believe I may be able to contribute more to the virtues.

Aristotle, afterward

Aristotle focuses on excellence, and how we can and should strive for it. I will try my best to analyze his work, for it was difficult for me to figure out his exact meanings behind each section. First, I believe that Aristotle makes the connection of being excellent (virtuous) to having a happy (fufilled) life. He delves into the idea that happiness of the soul is equivalent to excellence. I suppose that he would mean that if can activate what the desires of our soul entail, we will become virtuous.

In order to achieve this fufillment, we must become excellent not by natural dispositions but by habituation. In other words, we must first "engage ourselves in an activity" rather than let the activity force an engagement upon us. For example, we must force ourselves to read a novel out of interest rather than wait upon a teacher to tell us to.

Aristotle also writes multiple times about contrasting ideas such as pleasure and pain, deficiency and excess, and rashness and cowardice. I do not think that he speaks about one characteristic over the other symbolizing excellence, but rather than finding a just and moderate in between. However, he also believes that the excessive state is more contrary to moderation because it is these that we are more drawn to- thus create a natur-istic (?) habit. When we should create a habitual habit.

I do agree with Aristotle in that the closer we come to finding the characteristics of our soul, we will find fufillment. This is because I believe to act on intuition is greatest. Aristotle mentions that we must first engage on an activity to become excellent and virtuous. I agree with this, but we also must listen to ourselves and what can bring our soul to life.

I feel like there are a lot of contrasting ideas that Aristotle mentions, many of which were slightly confusing and will be much more effectful if discussed in class!

A final judgement call

So, after yesterday, I still haven't come to a conclusion on whether seeking the truth is more fufilling than living in stagnant happiness. However, I have thought more about the negative and positive effects of both situations.
In the case of living a routine life, with complete satisfaction, there will never be any challenge or something to thrive for. However, one will forever be happy. Why change that?

Now, the other side of the discussion- searching for truth seems to bring more argument. In my view, most of the time when a person goes seeking for the truth or seeking for something better, the person gets hurt. Take, for example, Michael Jackson and Ana Carolina Reston. Jackson is someone who continually believes that he can look better and there is always something he can fix to make his life better. Look at him now, he looks like an emaciated animal. He may think that he looks healthy, but his body definately is not. Ana Carolina Reston is another example who has taken seeking the truth to an extreme. Reston was a Brazilian model who suffered from anorexia. I use the past tense because she literally starved herself to death. She is not the only example of a person who believes his or her life can be better if they were only a bit skinnier. She continually thought that she could be thinner and more beautiful, even at the point of sheer skin and bones. Again, she may have thought she was healthy, but she evidently was not.

Of course these are some extreme examples, but more and more people everyday fall victim to these types of situations. The phrase "you can never be too rich or too thin" symbolizes a part of this longing for something better. If we are always searching for something that is not there, that we think might be just a little bit better, we can really hurt ourselves- physically and emotionally.

I Dream of Gorgias

The title just seemed to roll off the tongue well and I suppose with all of the thought on the play and life inquiries, the title is sufficient. Anyways, after looking over my post about a week or so ago, I know that whatever I believe to be indicative of time and money well spent has not greatly changed. In a broad perspective, that is. In specifics, I think that my views are a bit different.

I am tempted to believe that a self-fufilled lifestyle would be most indicative of time and money well spent. By this, I mean that by the end of one's college career, he or she is living a life that makes him or her happy. Well what makes them happy? We discussed this in class quite a bit, and I think that it comes down to something you do that feel good about. And when this occurs, there is no denying it. People can ask, "why do you feel so content?" And I believe that sometimes you just know- there is that sentimental feeling/emotion that one can acquire. It is rare, but it is there.

A few weeks ago, I would have thougt that more hands-on aspects of life would be indicative of time and money well spent- things like a well-paying, successful job perhaps. However, I did believe that one must be content with what he or she is doing, which is what I believe now as well.

In order to be wise, I think that one needs to accept all possibilities of life. I cannot narrow my focus on only one thing. Even though I mentioned before that I need to do only what makes me happy, I think that in order to be wise, we can still do these things but experience others as well. For instance, if eating peanut butter and jelly sandwhices make me happy (which of course they do), I could broaden my perspective on the sandwhich and use a different kind of bread. Now, I am more knowledgeable about what else can make the sandwhich. Of course this may be an odd way to approach wisdom, but who ever said there was only one meaning to wisdom? In order for us to be wise, we must acknowledge all aspects of life.

The truth hurts..

After today's discussion in class, I couldn't help but think about the idea of whether or not I should seek truth or dwell in a stagnant happiness and contentment. For the rest of the day, I have been back and forth several times on this strong topic of concern. The first aspect of this query that hits me is why should I change something that already makes me happy? Why fix what's not broke, right? Well then I start to think if there could be something better, or even more truthful and valuable, out there.

For instance, I have a very strong belief that a book I once read titled, "A Child Called It" by Dave Pelzer, is a true story and all the stories are based directly on his experiences with child abuse, with maybe a few minor tweaks here and there. One day when word got out that the book was fabricated, I refused to believe it because I had empathized with this child from the moment I started to read it and had put my heart into the book's two sequels. I felt so much emotion while reading this book that knowing the truth would in someway lessen the passion that I once felt. After class today, I realized that maybe it is not right to believe or have faith in something that makes you feel emotion if it's untrue; I feel like I would be deceiving myself. However, this also brings me to another very controversial, yet important topic.

Religion is ubiquitous in our society today, in so many different ways. There are so many different Gods, Deities, and faiths that people believe in or bow down to daily. But what if someone told a true believer of God that he wasn't real? And that there is a much better God or even there is no God? If someone with a rhetoric as powerful as Gorgias's could convince someone to believe the latter, it just seems to be wrong. Religion has such a strong influence on so many people that it just seems wrong to make oneself look for a better way of life if he or she is already content with a faith or God. Of course there are more minor matters of life which can change a person's view, like being told "The Hills" is staged. But in the end, I think it is still the same idea.

I have always believed in karma. If I do good, good things will happen to me. If I do wrong, bad things will happen to me. But again, after today, we've realized that even those who lie, cheat, and steal can have good things happen to them if they can get away with their criminal acts. So what is the point of always being moral? I suppose to have an intrinsic fufillment- But does that bring success? This is a very concerning topic to me, and I feel that it will take more than a few days to realize what the right answer is..or if there is one.

A Varied Vocation

In Will Campbell's "Vocation as Grace", he accounts on a time in which he asked a circus man why he did what he did. Aside from him saying that it was a rush of adrenaline and good pay, the man said he did it because his family was up there with him. So Campbell asks, "But why do they stay up there?" The man replies by saying, "Because I drink too much!"

In this segment Campbell is challenging the 'conventional Christian notion' that a vocation relies purely on oneself. In this case, he believes that we depend on others and others depend on us for strong impulses and callings. For the circus man, he was dependent and reliant on his family every night due to his frequent intoxicated self. If it weren't for them, he could be dead.

I concur with Campbell in the sense that others have a major influence on how we are inspired to act or live. If it was just a world with ourselves, we would have nothing to relate to or model after. Also, it is much more enjoyable to interact with others than to be limited to a monotonous lifestlye.

Plato and justice

In the final half of "Gorgias", the topic of justice and virtue is discussed between Socrates and Callicles. Callicles believes that the most powerful and better ones of a community can acquire control over inferiors. Socrates believes in a natural justice is which everyone deserves equal opportunities.

One of Callicle's strongest arguments is that which regards to the pleasure/pain argument. He thinks that it is most pleasurable to realease oneself of all pain and restraints. This will inevitably allow one's desires to grow without a limitation.

Socrates strongest argument consists of his analysis on how to live the fullest life. He concurs that one must act in the name of purity and wellness (or good) in all situations. One must by strong, healthy and promote justice in his or her life to fufull a lifetime.

Although this was written over 2000 years ago, I believe that Plato's work is still relevant today. With a ubiquitous topic such as this one, many will indefinately keep analyzing their lives. I believe that Socrates contributes the best arguments and ideals on the discussion, for he is most confident and less likely to concur with the opposition. I found "Gorgias" to be slightly confusing in certain areas merely for the style of speech. With a deep analysis, however, I was able to sometimes find a valuable virtue to look up to.

The Great Ganders of Gorgias

Initally, I find myself on Socrate's side of the conversation. I find him to be much more reasonable in the conversation than Gorgias. He is constantly asking Gorgias about his expertise, but Gorgias refuses to give a complete, fufilling answer. It is frustrating to read for it lingers on for quite some time.

Polus differs from Gorgias because he simply complies to whatever Socrates says. He never truly gives his opinion unless he is bickering or contrasting what Socrates states. However, in the most simple of terms, Socrates says that to do wrong is much worse that a wrongdoing. Polus says that a wrongdoing is much worse than to do wrong.

Socrates believes this because he thinks that a mental state is more important than a physical one. If one can be psychologically sound, then he or she will be healthy. Polus believes that a wrongdoing can harm or possibly kill you, thus is much worse than to do wrong.

I find this specific argument to be most interesting, because both provide sufficient reasoning for their conclusions. I also find the conversation about rhetoric to be intriguing. Gorgias mentions that if one is familiar with a rhetoric, he or she need not know any other expertise.

An argument I think Gorgias could have made would have been to actually expand on his expertise. He never actually stated what is was that he professed in. It leaves Socrates to a state of confusion and misunderstanding.

Work to live vs. Live to work

Abigail Zuger wrote a piece called "Defining a Doctor" in which she focuses on two young doctors and their ways of working in the field. There is a man who never works a minute later than his hours declare, only performs his specified duties, and has no emotional attachments to any patients. The woman often works overtime to complete a job or fufil a patient's needs, uses her free time at home to check up on patients, and usually does work outside of what is asked of her.

The question here is does the medical field need more of the "male doctor" type or the "woman doctor". Although there may be no difference in the chances of the different patients getting well, what doctor would one reccommend if he or she was becoming ill? The man completes his job to an end and is well rested while the woman finds no ends in her responsibilities and is constantly sleep deprived.

In my opinion, the medical field is seeing a large decrease in the type of the woman doctor. Many people focus so much on their text books and studies, that there is no time for external work these days. Not only does the woman clearly work harder than the man, but she has an emotional attachment to her job as well. As much as I think that the woman would make a better doctor, I think this world can only accept the man. He still knows what he is doing and has a healthier mental mind than the woman.

College for thought

To observe the different reasons why people invest so much time and money in college is managable for me at this point in my life because it has been 90 percent of what I have been thinking about throughout the day (the other 10 being strict schoolwork). However, by observing others surrounding me, I have realized that my own motives for a college education differs greatly from that of many others. I see this college experience as strictly to further my career and encourage independent living, which are both equally essential for a successful future.

Many other reasons some go to college can range from a new social experience to an excuse to move away from home to the mere fact that someone made you. Although some of these reasons may be preassumed, I do know friends and acquaintances who model after these reasons. I would also assume that for those who find a college experience to be more social than academic re-evaluate their college lives hopefully by their sophomore or junior year, right when they realize this stuff is serious.

The time and money spent here can either develop a career or waste one. I am fortunate enough to have parents willing to pay the costs of college and give me a hefty role of taking responsibility for my own actions. For this matter, I realize that my parents have let me go with a head start and left me to fend for myself now. There is no safety net at the end of my college education. After junior high, one had high school to catch up. In high school, one had the option of a college education. Now, the options are limited and I feel I must make the most of this experience now in order to feel secure at the end of four years.

The one part of the description of this first year seminar that intrigued me the most was the idea that we could be, or have the bold option to be, successful beyond the four years we spend here at Drake. The class should inspire us how to make the most of the education being offered. I am still yet to find the golden answer on how to do this, but i believe it is a growing process. Maybe I respond to this blog again in 4 plus years :)

Invisible Intellectuality

The three pieces by Dweck, Perkins, and Ritchhart are very thought provoking. All the theories have valid points and can apply to all of us. We can now begin to think and act differently in all situations with Dweck's different types of knowledge, Perkins's theories on intelligence and goals, and Ritchhart's view on intellectual character. I believe that Dweck and Perkins most easily coincide together to support Ritchhart's theories. Proactive knowlege and learning goals will most likely lead to being an the best intellectual character you can be. Although, these are also the most difficult to achieve.

Intellectuality cannot be taught. It is not sufficiently explained in textbooks, professors, or even philosophers. Someone's own intellectual charcter is just that- their own. It must come through experience and learning all different aspects of the world.

From a personal standpoint, I believe that the education that I have had thus far in my life has encouraged this type of character as best as it can. I have studied topics from freshman literature to argumentation and debate to advanced calculus. It is clear that many of us have studied a broad spectrum of ideas and topics. However, I am almost certain that no one has ever seen a class on the basis of how to be a better person or a class dedicated in intellectual personalities. This is because I believe it is all a package deal.

In any class you take, the mind is always processing information. In many cases, the information is new and hard to comprehend, and the mind forces you to cope and find a way to understand. This builds character- whether it be intellectual character or not, thats for the future to decide. I learned at one point in my education how to implicitly differentiate a quadratic formula. I can't say that I could easily do that again within a few seconds as I could before or that I will ever need to after four years, but I can say that my mind is now trainied to do complicated work and stretch itself. Sure, intellectuality isn't all about mental capacity, it is about being curious as well. And I think that if we have already be trained in school to stretch our minds, then our brain is figuratively bigger and open for new information.

So, no, intellectual character is not and can not be directly taught in a classroom, or anywhere. It simply creeeps up on you without making a sound, hoping for you to take advantage of it.

Excerpts from Dweck

The material presented by Dweck was very interesting and concerning to me. After reading, I made several inferences about my learning styles. The one theory on intelligence that struck me the most was the malleable intelligence. As much as I want to say that I have acquired this learning style, I find some aspects of my intelligence in an "entity theory". I feel successful after completing anything, whether it be a one hundred page story in fine print or a page of addition and subtraction. However, I do appreciate a challenge and feel much more rewarded if it entails a vast amount of thinking.

I believe that teachers encourage more of a malleable intelligence. Education is a constant upgrade. The material gets harder, forcing you to step outside a comfort zone, thus think intellectually. At points in earlier education, however, "busy work" was assigned much more often encouraging a fixed intelligence.

As I have (hopefully) matured, I know that I am more atttracted to learning goals rather than performance goals. In an ever-changing society, there is so much to keep up with and no time to be static with information. We must constantly be acquiring intelligence just to keep up. For the mere fact that I will also be completely on my own soon, I need to be forming learning goals to suceed in a business corporated world.

Overall, I find Dweck's viewpoints to be all well researched. Her theories of intelligence are very reinforcing with various studies. However, it is difficult to pick one theory of intelligence for yourself because of the way she disregards the entity theory. In my opinion, everyone will be drawn to take the route of saying they are a product of the incremental theory, when in reality too many are the latter.

Understanding how to understand

As an overall perspective on David Perkins's "Beyond Understanding", I felt that the article was very intellectual and thought provoking. I am unsure whether I will ever fully be able to grasp what Perkins is trying to explain, for the article is extremely in depth and acquires a very mature tone that calls for several reviews of various paragraphs. However, once several peers and I were able to take on a broad perspective of his article, we were able to then apply it to our lives.

One intriguing part that Perkins mentions is how we are being educated today in the world and how it is affecting our knowledge for the present and future. As a student, I agree with his thought that we are only reaching the second stage of knowledge because few teachers tend to go deeper into the most important topics in life. However, I don't understand how he imagines the world of education ever being able to reach the proactive stage, for it is extremely difficult to teach in a classroom.

A final opinion that I want to share on this topic is that I feel society may be prematurely judged by those such as Perkins. It is possible that people still going through their education do not have the physical ability to think and act on such a high level. Like in every theory of psychological development, as people get older, their thought processes and perceptions become more intellectual and detailed. This is not to say, however, that we all have excuses for incompetence and immaturity, but some may not be as developed as the world would like. Maybe give our generation a few more years and re-evaluate.