We are currently experiencing a water shortage in North Adams, and the entire town is without water. This leads to no showers, drinking water, laundry, flushing toilets, clean dishes, etc. I'm trying to figure out, however, whether this is a blessing or a curse. Sure, we are down and out of many "necessities" of life, and the sanitation levels are quickly dropping campus wide. However, compared to a third-world country, say, in central Africa, this is no detrimental issue. They've been living for months, even years, with those shortages, as well as shortages in food, shelter, and protection from diseases. If we step back and look at the luxuries we have in life, we can realize that the things we've temporarily lost are technically privileges, not rights. Therefore, in order to properly assess the situation, we should consider how necessary that of which we have lost is compared to that of which the third-world-country inhabitants have never had.
Do you view this as a blessing or a curse?
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Response to Jacob Wheeler
I have been considering how Walton's theories tie into Aesthetics for a while, and I finally concluded much of what you all concluded; Walton presumes that art is fictional, and aesthetic responses cannot contain true emotional content. I would certainly argue that Walton's theory depreciates the value of art (if true of course), attempting to drive a wedge in aesthetic theory. Much of aesthetics relates to the communicated emotions or aesthetic responses between the artist and the observer, using the art as the medium. However, in Walton's theory, since the art is only as real as the materials it is made of (and not it's representational of perceptual content), then the art is fictional, and little to nothing is communicated.
Accepting the principle that we must play "make-believe" during a movie is arguably not deliberate. Sure, plenty of people will subconsciously allow themselves to be absorbed by the material, somewhere down the line forgetting that the content is superficial, allowing them to have true emotional reactions. This is deliberate. But in the case we argued that a little child views a scary movie, they do not deliberately make the decision to "make-believe" (and therefore experience true emotional responses) because they themselves cannot distinguish that the movie's content is false from the beginning. Childhood naivete allows them to have true emotional responses without deliberately playing into Walton's game.
Do you think that Walton's theory holds true when adolescence is considered?
Accepting the principle that we must play "make-believe" during a movie is arguably not deliberate. Sure, plenty of people will subconsciously allow themselves to be absorbed by the material, somewhere down the line forgetting that the content is superficial, allowing them to have true emotional reactions. This is deliberate. But in the case we argued that a little child views a scary movie, they do not deliberately make the decision to "make-believe" (and therefore experience true emotional responses) because they themselves cannot distinguish that the movie's content is false from the beginning. Childhood naivete allows them to have true emotional responses without deliberately playing into Walton's game.
Do you think that Walton's theory holds true when adolescence is considered?
Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Philosophy of Guns
In light of the recent news of the Student and Faculty Firearm referendum results and the recent events on the Virginia Tech Campus, I would like to elucidate my position on guns.
Guns, are corrupt because of this reason: They are used simultaneously for good and evil.
Why is this? Two reasons I can compile.
1: Guns are used by humans, and humans can be either evil or good with their intentions.
2: Human intentions can change very quickly, and the original intention of using the gun upon the medium of receiving it may not correlate with the intentions when used.
Should the campus police be armed, since we know their original intentions are good?
Guns, are corrupt because of this reason: They are used simultaneously for good and evil.
Why is this? Two reasons I can compile.
1: Guns are used by humans, and humans can be either evil or good with their intentions.
2: Human intentions can change very quickly, and the original intention of using the gun upon the medium of receiving it may not correlate with the intentions when used.
Should the campus police be armed, since we know their original intentions are good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)