SIPS Log #2
After studying monastic buddhism, Greed has become more evident to me. The buddhist monks live lives without greed, spending their days with the four necessities-food, shelter, clothing, and medicine. In addition, they can also dispense these necessities to the community, and all the while, they are enlightened.
This overturns Maslow. Maslow believed it was through fulfilling all the levels that we achieved self actualization. The monks seem to have already achieved self actualization without expanding much past the first level. I would say that greed isn't the need to conform to the levels, but instead comes with the other levels. Once we begin to be concerned of other's perceptions of us, and expand beyond what we actually need, we become greedy. In that sense, the monastic lifestyle, which isolates the initiates from a larger sphere of the outside world, allows them to remain without greed.
I plan to look into an application of this lifestyle that doesn't involve remaining cloistered.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Thursday, April 10, 2014
SIPS Log #1
When researching why humans have greed, it is vital to look at the issue from more than a philosophical viewpoint. As a human, the researcher can already be aware of the fact that people need things to survive. Humans are not plants. We need more than water, sun, and soil to survive. SO the view turns to psychology, and Maslows heirarchy of needs. According to Maslows origional theory, humans have different levels of needs, some of which we fulfill every day and some of which we spend all our lives trying to fulfill. By this theory, once we accmplish our basic needs, then we strive towards other needs- needs that focus on us becoming a person, of self-actualizing ourselves to be the best of the human race.
After discovering this, I am curious as to what qualities make us not greedy. The next step in my reaserch will be to study Bhuddist monks, and find what it is that makes them not greedy, and from there derive what makes us greedy.
After discovering this, I am curious as to what qualities make us not greedy. The next step in my reaserch will be to study Bhuddist monks, and find what it is that makes them not greedy, and from there derive what makes us greedy.
Monday, September 30, 2013
To Much of A Good Thing-THIS IS MY AP LANG BLOG
Utilitarianism is the philosophical belief that a morally good act produces the best results, always. As simple as this might sound, this has been the subject of numerous debates. For example, if there is good in the world, and we focus on that, is hedonism or Utilitarianism? For example, crack cocaine produces a "good" feeling, but is it really a good feeling if its slowly killing you? Or if the feeling has been entirely manufactured by a chemical formula? So putting it bluntly, no, pleasure by itself cannot be utilitarianism, their needs to be a little more than that. But neither can it just be doing what you feel is right, because intuition can mislead you. So basically, to be a Utilitarianist, you need to be creating goodness that is not the result of anything more than a good, decent act; and the act has to be one that not just you but everyone else agrees is the right thing to do. So by now the simplicity of Utilitarianism is lost, and is looking about as hopeless as a lapsed Calvinists prospects of Salvation. This is my problem with all philosophies-from YOLO to to much of a good thing is to much of a good thing. Eventually, problems are going to be caused by it. Firm believers in YOLO might find themselves arrested for partaking in pleasure via dealing and using heroin. And too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing is proven true by the fact that you can never have too much non-polluted breathable air. Yeah that last ones a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean. So the problem with utilitarianism isn't that it's not good, its just that it's goodness is incalculable, because, honestly, who's to say what is right and wrong? This is why I confirm to the only philosophy I've found works most of the time-just do your best and try not to screw up. And it works. To some degree. Mostly.
Utilitarianism is the philosophical belief that a morally good act produces the best results, always. As simple as this might sound, this has been the subject of numerous debates. For example, if there is good in the world, and we focus on that, is hedonism or Utilitarianism? For example, crack cocaine produces a "good" feeling, but is it really a good feeling if its slowly killing you? Or if the feeling has been entirely manufactured by a chemical formula? So putting it bluntly, no, pleasure by itself cannot be utilitarianism, their needs to be a little more than that. But neither can it just be doing what you feel is right, because intuition can mislead you. So basically, to be a Utilitarianist, you need to be creating goodness that is not the result of anything more than a good, decent act; and the act has to be one that not just you but everyone else agrees is the right thing to do. So by now the simplicity of Utilitarianism is lost, and is looking about as hopeless as a lapsed Calvinists prospects of Salvation. This is my problem with all philosophies-from YOLO to to much of a good thing is to much of a good thing. Eventually, problems are going to be caused by it. Firm believers in YOLO might find themselves arrested for partaking in pleasure via dealing and using heroin. And too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing is proven true by the fact that you can never have too much non-polluted breathable air. Yeah that last ones a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean. So the problem with utilitarianism isn't that it's not good, its just that it's goodness is incalculable, because, honestly, who's to say what is right and wrong? This is why I confirm to the only philosophy I've found works most of the time-just do your best and try not to screw up. And it works. To some degree. Mostly.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
To Much of A Good Thing-THIS IS MY AP LANG BLOG
Utilitarianism is the philosophical belief that a morally good act produces the best results, always. As simple as this might sound, this has been the subject of numerous debates. For example, if there is good in the world, and we focus on that, is hedonism or Utilitarianism? For example, crack cocaine produces a "good" feeling, but is it really a good feeling if its slowly killing you? Or if the feeling has been entirely manufactured by a chemical formula? So putting it bluntly, no, pleasure by itself cannot be utilitarianism, their needs to be a little more than that. But neither can it just be doing what you feel is right, because intuition can mislead you. So basically, to be a Utilitarianist, you need to be creating goodness that is not the result of anything more than a good, decent act; and the act has to be one that not just you but everyone else agrees is the right thing to do. So by now the simplicity of Utilitarianism is lost, and is looking about as hopeless as a lapsed Calvinists prospects of Salvation. This is my problem with all philosophies-from YOLO to to much of a good thing is to much of a good thing. Eventually, problems are going to be caused by it. Firm believers in YOLO might find themselves arrested for partaking in pleasure via dealing and using heroin. And too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing is proven true by the fact that you can never have too much non-polluted breathable air. Yeah that last ones a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean. So the problem with utilitarianism isn't that it's not good, its just that it's goodness is incalculable, because, honestly, who's to say what is right and wrong? This is why I confirm to the only philosophy I've found works most of the time-just do your best and try not to screw up. And it works. To some degree. Mostly.
Utilitarianism is the philosophical belief that a morally good act produces the best results, always. As simple as this might sound, this has been the subject of numerous debates. For example, if there is good in the world, and we focus on that, is hedonism or Utilitarianism? For example, crack cocaine produces a "good" feeling, but is it really a good feeling if its slowly killing you? Or if the feeling has been entirely manufactured by a chemical formula? So putting it bluntly, no, pleasure by itself cannot be utilitarianism, their needs to be a little more than that. But neither can it just be doing what you feel is right, because intuition can mislead you. So basically, to be a Utilitarianist, you need to be creating goodness that is not the result of anything more than a good, decent act; and the act has to be one that not just you but everyone else agrees is the right thing to do. So by now the simplicity of Utilitarianism is lost, and is looking about as hopeless as a lapsed Calvinists prospects of Salvation. This is my problem with all philosophies-from YOLO to to much of a good thing is to much of a good thing. Eventually, problems are going to be caused by it. Firm believers in YOLO might find themselves arrested for partaking in pleasure via dealing and using heroin. And too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing is proven true by the fact that you can never have too much non-polluted breathable air. Yeah that last ones a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean. So the problem with utilitarianism isn't that it's not good, its just that it's goodness is incalculable, because, honestly, who's to say what is right and wrong? This is why I confirm to the only philosophy I've found works most of the time-just do your best and try not to screw up. And it works. To some degree. Mostly.
THE CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT
When we think of horror, we think of dripping, bloody gore or maniacal serial killers. But for me, true horror has always been literary. And there is no greater work of modern horror, than Bram Stoker's novel, Dracula. Set in the Victorian age, the story begins when young Jonathan Harker travels from England to Transylvania to handle a real estate brokerage for Carfax Abbey, a property being bought by a certain Count Dracula. As uninteresting as this first seems to be, it corresponds to the now cliched college students driving along a back road when something horrible happens. After meeting some locals who react with mild concern (i.e. blind panic) when he explains that he is going to Castle Dracula, he arrives at the castle and the whole nightmare unfolds. From a near fatal encounter with three whore-iffic undead brides, to witnessing a woman ripped to pieces by wolves, Mr. Harker's stay at Castle Dracula is hardly a pleasant weekend trip. And once Dracula moves into his new estate in England, the fun (terror) really starts! With an unusual cast of characters for a British 1800's novel ( a woman, an American, a psychiatrist, and a Dutchman, along with Mr. Harker) this novel not only tells the story of the now world renowned Count, but does so in such a way as to make it seem real. Through the use of epistolary writing (telling the story through diary entries, phonograph recordings, letters, and other such mediums)Bram stoker created what can be called the true, first horror novel.
When we think of horror, we think of dripping, bloody gore or maniacal serial killers. But for me, true horror has always been literary. And there is no greater work of modern horror, than Bram Stoker's novel, Dracula. Set in the Victorian age, the story begins when young Jonathan Harker travels from England to Transylvania to handle a real estate brokerage for Carfax Abbey, a property being bought by a certain Count Dracula. As uninteresting as this first seems to be, it corresponds to the now cliched college students driving along a back road when something horrible happens. After meeting some locals who react with mild concern (i.e. blind panic) when he explains that he is going to Castle Dracula, he arrives at the castle and the whole nightmare unfolds. From a near fatal encounter with three whore-iffic undead brides, to witnessing a woman ripped to pieces by wolves, Mr. Harker's stay at Castle Dracula is hardly a pleasant weekend trip. And once Dracula moves into his new estate in England, the fun (terror) really starts! With an unusual cast of characters for a British 1800's novel ( a woman, an American, a psychiatrist, and a Dutchman, along with Mr. Harker) this novel not only tells the story of the now world renowned Count, but does so in such a way as to make it seem real. Through the use of epistolary writing (telling the story through diary entries, phonograph recordings, letters, and other such mediums)Bram stoker created what can be called the true, first horror novel.
Friday, June 7, 2013
COLLEGE
My name is John Nolastname. I am eighteen years old, athletic,,with a great attitude and a knack for really weird facts. For example,did you know that its illegal to tie giraffesto telephone poles in NYC? Considering IONA is near the city,this could,potentialy,be an issue someday. I graduted from high school with few regrets or issues,and I'mreally looking forward to college life and learning.
I would like to know if you college offerspre-med courses,or even full on med,as II would liketo practice medicine for a living after graduation. I want to do this because I hate seeing people in pain and I want to be able to help them as best I can. Also,I would like toknow more about your athletics and student life.
My name is John Nolastname. I am eighteen years old, athletic,,with a great attitude and a knack for really weird facts. For example,did you know that its illegal to tie giraffesto telephone poles in NYC? Considering IONA is near the city,this could,potentialy,be an issue someday. I graduted from high school with few regrets or issues,and I'mreally looking forward to college life and learning.
I would like to know if you college offerspre-med courses,or even full on med,as II would liketo practice medicine for a living after graduation. I want to do this because I hate seeing people in pain and I want to be able to help them as best I can. Also,I would like toknow more about your athletics and student life.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
The Future of John's Literacy
Sometime last week, I realized that I'd stopped reading. I don't mean that I couldn't read, or didn't want to, but that I'd stopped. I hadn't read a new book in weeks, months even. It bothered me alot. I remembered fond afternoons and mornings spent in peaceful contemplation of a James Patterson novel, or car trips where I'd soar on the back of a Paolinian dragon across Alagaesia. But now I spent mornings and evenings longing to fall asleep and on car trips I'd tune out the world with Fallout Boy (but lets be honest they're awesome).
Anyways, back to the issue at hand- I wasn't reading, and I felt normal to me. It felt ordinary. And I hated it. So faster than a bolt of lightning from Mount Olympus, I rushed to the nearest bookshelf, and from it I extracted a likely loking volume- The Call of the Wild. I settled down, cracked the cover, and at once was lost in the hard, brutal world of the Alaskan wilderness. I growled at cruel masters and gripped tightly to the ice when the team broke through. I dug into the snow and hid from the cold wind, and I howled as a wolf as the pack chased a snowshoe hare through the woods.
I had found it again- the world of words and papers and ink, which combine in the charmed pot of the human mind to open a magic portal into the human soul. Because I didn't go to Alaska with Buck, I was Buck, and I was in the part of my soul that is that dominant primordial beast, the one that howls with the wolves and fights for survival-beautiful, strong, harsh.
After finding this world again, I will not lose it again. I will read White Fang, and Chasing redbird, and the Color Purple, and Black beauty and a Farewell to Arms and the Lord of the rings and An interview with a vampire and the Hunrting of the Snark and Antigone and Julis Ceasar and To Kill a Mockingbird. And as I read them, my soul will grow to find all the places the words will tske me, and I shall never, ever feel ordinary again. I can't start on this soon enough.
Sometime last week, I realized that I'd stopped reading. I don't mean that I couldn't read, or didn't want to, but that I'd stopped. I hadn't read a new book in weeks, months even. It bothered me alot. I remembered fond afternoons and mornings spent in peaceful contemplation of a James Patterson novel, or car trips where I'd soar on the back of a Paolinian dragon across Alagaesia. But now I spent mornings and evenings longing to fall asleep and on car trips I'd tune out the world with Fallout Boy (but lets be honest they're awesome).
Anyways, back to the issue at hand- I wasn't reading, and I felt normal to me. It felt ordinary. And I hated it. So faster than a bolt of lightning from Mount Olympus, I rushed to the nearest bookshelf, and from it I extracted a likely loking volume- The Call of the Wild. I settled down, cracked the cover, and at once was lost in the hard, brutal world of the Alaskan wilderness. I growled at cruel masters and gripped tightly to the ice when the team broke through. I dug into the snow and hid from the cold wind, and I howled as a wolf as the pack chased a snowshoe hare through the woods.
I had found it again- the world of words and papers and ink, which combine in the charmed pot of the human mind to open a magic portal into the human soul. Because I didn't go to Alaska with Buck, I was Buck, and I was in the part of my soul that is that dominant primordial beast, the one that howls with the wolves and fights for survival-beautiful, strong, harsh.
After finding this world again, I will not lose it again. I will read White Fang, and Chasing redbird, and the Color Purple, and Black beauty and a Farewell to Arms and the Lord of the rings and An interview with a vampire and the Hunrting of the Snark and Antigone and Julis Ceasar and To Kill a Mockingbird. And as I read them, my soul will grow to find all the places the words will tske me, and I shall never, ever feel ordinary again. I can't start on this soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)