"What's in a name? That which we call a roseBy any other name would smell as sweet."
– Shakespeare

When considering something as completely, partly, or not at all a subject of human construction it is crucial to incorporate a distinction in naming.

It’s necessary to distinguish that the way humans identify something does not influence its existence. Such a separation needs to be recognized in order to properly evaluate an object or idea’s properties. The connotations that are associated with the subjects in question should be critically disposed in order to reach its intrinsic value - & at that level is it able to be evaluated as completely, partly, or not at all of human construction.

Music as a purposeful expression?

I find that the value of music is dependent on the strenth of the emotions it provokes, seeing as my own subjective requirement of music is the provocation of emotional response. If attempts at music are made without being able to inspire strong feelings, or if I am unable to connect with the intended purpose/response of the sound - then that music to me is bad.

Here we can derive the purpose of music. The emotions that one particular piece of music represents identifies its purpose. Maybe this is where the definition lies - organized sound & language that somehow intrinsically owns, represents & insights undeniable emotions.

Can a chord be known as sad? Maybe through cultural separations or even just opposing perceptions in different minds society could disagree on the "sadness" or "happiness" of a single chord. In my opinion, the individual is capable of valuing the same chord as both sad & happy. Such a perception depends on one's own emotions prior to listening as well as the intentions of what one wants to hear.

"Because a song can take you back instantly to a moment, a place, or even a person. No matter what else has changed in you or the world, that one song stays the same, just like that moment. Which is pretty amazing, when you actually think about it." -Sarah Dessen

Songs, bands & even entire albums of music can trigger distinct and encompassing memories. Since music can be such an emotional experience particular sounds insight complete memories of places, people, smells, seasons, emotions & recollections of how/who I was when such songs existed as the soundtrack to my life.

Everyone can listen to the same songs - exact same melodies, rhythms, and sounds. But the sensations music triggers in the individual is completely subjective & unique.

At least in my life, music is the most powerful incitement of memory, alongside smell. Often times smells excite memories corresponding with music and vice versa - all transcending back to a certain time. Most important & fascinating to recognize is how emotionally charged we are and they way simple senses like sounds and smells can trap the memories of these feelings.

aesthetics - (as defined by dictionary.com)
1.the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments.
2.the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty.


"Beauty is no quality in things themselves: it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." - David Hume

I find aesthetics to be distinctly important in one's life. The pursuit of aesthetics is not vain. For example, I desire environments that are clean, pretty, smell good & in these places I am more comfortable and ultimately this enhances my level of happiness. I don't think it's shameful to actively pursue, make judgements and decisions based on aesthetics.
At the same time, what is aesthetically pleasing to the individual is completely subjective & is much more important to some people than others. It is powerful to recognize how beauty exists in the world.

I Am a Mute Iraqi, With a Voice by Weam Namou

I am an Iraqi
but was never asked,
personally,what was better?
Saddam threatening to destroy me if I crossed him, politically?
Or tons of deleted uranium, napalm,
bullets, explosives
and other unfamiliar concoctions,
besieging me
at some hidden corner of my street?

I am an Iraqi, but was never asked, personally,
what I wanted?
Freedom to vote for men and women I know little about,
who may or may not better my life,
or to safely be able to step out of my house?

I am an Iraqi,
but was never asked, do I want democracy
or the tradition of my ancestry?

I am an Iraqi,
but was never asked, personally,
by those who've come to rescue me,
have we really benefited you, my dear,
since the day we came near?
Or have we simply made a mess
of your little hut?


I don't believe that the US is at war with Iraq in order to spread democracy. But, if that is now the intention, do our efforts have integrity?

Harmony within unity?

Where would a globalized culture come from? Our deep-rooted diversity would eventually produce conflicts in an attempt for unity, unless such variance is embraced.
When the whole world has something to work for/against we may then be able to cooperate through ignoring our differences.
We, however, are not as definitively distinct from one another as we might claim – patriotism tends to instill faulty notions of uniqueness.
Keeping cultural distinctions alive are important – I think it is crucial to acknowledge these distinctions in efforts for unity. Recognize human rights, act accordingly, and do not attempt to infringe on the differences in culture.

Patriotism is a loyalty stemming from geographical coincidence. Maybe we just want something to be proud of, something to embrace. Perhaps we desire unity & that is the fundamental reason for why we develop such patriotism - we want to feel united with one another & we use geography of nations in order to do so.

"All words are pegs to hang ideas on."
- Henry Ward Beecher

Words are comprised out of necessity to label and describe legitimate notions. Language is the expression of meanings through words. It would be impossible to dismiss a word unless its connotation has completely disappeared. Even so, it is still necessary to have a word to describe the notion that is no longer entertained.

Although the word "patriotism" fails to exist with clear significance & its proper connotations vary with opinion we would be losing something from disposing of it.

"One of the greatest attractions of patriotism--it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."
- Aldous Huxley

In my opinion, blind loyalty dissolves integrity. Informed support & critique are valuable and therefore, patriotism should not be dismissed.

Our moral right to do and say what we want is often confused with being right. Each person has the right to harbor any ideas that they want, whether or not they are correct. Usually, if someone carries an idea they also believe it to be true, and therefore would conclude that they themselves are right.

As far as Barney is concerned, I do not think his intentions were to create a conceited & pretentious generation. In his quest to enhance children's confidence and individuality, however, Barney inadvertently may have given children an essence of invincibility.

I don't think we can then solely blame a purple dinosaur for the egotistical ways of today's youth. Such notions need to be reinforced consistently in order to be fully developed, and therefore, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children the value of their ideas, but also the worth of others.

Nature does not act with morality in mind. It may be a mistake to look at nature when determining the morality of certain actions. Nature may show us the most effective course of actions, help us find our place in nature, or help us understand why we act the way we do. However, determining what is moral requires introspection because morals are tied to human emotions. Maybe watching Bambi and sympathising with deer is a completely valid reason for not eating venicin simply because our emotions tell us it is wrong. Unfortunately, emotions can also be misguiding and may sometimes interfere with the best course of action, our place in nature, and understanding ourselves.

What I find immoral is the act of using an animal's life for profit. It transcends any natural or necessary need to kill animals for nutritional purposes. But does one have the right to kill an animal they brought to life? Every animal dies & is it even aware of the length of it's life? If not, should it matter at what age they cease to live, or for what purpose?
An animal that has the instinct to survive must be aware of it's own life.

What to do, how to feel, what to support is all dependent on how the individual feels about the situation. Subjective opinions and comforts are what shape the morals of the individual. I don't intend on the meat market changing substantially through any moral movements - so the importance of ethics for this situation lies solely in the comfort of the individual.

You can't know. But you can believe.

No one can prove that when an individual dies their spirit goes to heaven, or that we are alive on this Earth for a reason. Nothing can tell us what we are doing here, no one can prove that it wasn't an accident. In the same respect no one can dictate what is good or bad.

Belief tells some people that when the die their spirit will go to heaven & that we arrived on this planet for a reason. And that it's better to be good than bad.

Whether you search for knowledge & truth, or you live with belief I think it's most important to allow yourself direction, passion, comfort and fulfillment. Either way is fine, and I choose neither.

I still stand by my belief that it honestly does not matter who is right or wrong when it comes to opinions of faith. The enrichment that faith and God bring to peoples' lives overrides any importance in matters of "truth." And any quests for "truth" seem trivial to me - as I find it hard for such a journey to provide any level of fulfillment close to that which religion supplies.

Do you see blue? I see blue.

I think the commonplace ideals of ethics speak for themselves - that people have a notion of how they should treat each other in order to protect feelings, make things easier, happier, lighter, better, more enjoyable.
I hear there are people out in this world who enjoy pain. And I'm sure if I ever meet one of these people I'll be awkward, uncomfortable, and I won't know how to act.

A few opinions:


"In hours of weariness, sensations sweet,
Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart;
And passing even into my purer mind,
With tranquil restoration--feelings too
Of unremembered pleasure: such, perhaps,
As have no slight or trivial influence
On that best portion of a good man's life,
His little, nameless, unremembered acts
Of kindness and of love." - William Wordsworth


"What is it to practice benevolence? It is to imitate the Deity." - Publius Syrus


"Do the thing you believe in. Do the best you can in the place where you are and be kind."
- Scott Nearing


"Ethics is the activity of a man directed to secure the inner perfection of his own personality...
By its means man is to become capable of acting among men and in the world as a higher and purer force, and thus to do his part towards the actualization of the ideal of general progress."
- Albert Schweitzer


"Ethical life and service are an aid, but they are not an end in themselves. The end is to be one with God." - Swami Prabhavananda


"Ethics judges not only man, but God also." - Nicolas Verdyaev


"Without ethics, everything happens as if we were all five billion passengers on a big machinery and nobody is driving the machinery. And it's going faster and faster, but we don't know where."
- Jacques Cousteau

I believe, in agreement with “Atheism and Agnosticsm,” that most people believe in god because they were told to. In the same respect I would argue that I don’t believe in god because no one told me to. Who is right? It is always wrong to rest content on any belief that someone told you, especially when there is sufficient evidence against such beliefs. It is one’s responsibility to believe according to good reason.

More important than holding beliefs that are evidentially true according to sufficient knowledge, is holding beliefs that provide comfort, happiness, and security. It does not matter who believes the “right” thing, which beliefs are more reasonable and who is being ignorant. I know people whose lives are shaped by the essence of a god and in this faith they find exactly what they need to have security and happiness in their existence. God and faith provide them with a purpose and with this they are able to live happily. Even when things are going wrong in their life they believe through God that there are reasons and in the end all things will be the way they are meant to be. At the end of the day does it matter if such faith is reasonable when the belief in God is enriching peoples’ lives?

I don't believe that there is a meaning to life or that individuals have purposes, but I have recently developed upon these ideas. Since there is nothing beyond existence on earth and everyone's essence is fatal I had established the idea that the only thing I could do is try to make myself happy in my lifetime. I had decided that no one could do anything that could profoundly affect anyone else's life because nothing would ever be capable of changing life's terminal quality. I question why I hadn't already explored this notion, but since this is all we have - my quest for happiness is not nearly as selfish as I had thought. I'm sure that I affect many more people than I realize, and while before I theorized that that didn't matter I now know that it does. Happiness is the only goal that we can reasonably strive for and by spreading such a notion hopefully people will be able to acheive a higher sense of peace within themselves.

"The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition. Such intuitions give the appearace of miraculous flashes, or short-circuits of reasoning. In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visable above the surface of consciousness. The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links." - Arthur Koestler


I have become distinctly comfortable in trusting my 'instincts.'
When I was in elementary school I was told by a classmate that my heart was black. All of my friends were having their First Holy Communion, but I didn't even know what it was. My parents never took me to church or preached any form of religion onto my sister and I, so I was terrified when my friends at school told me that I was going to hell. I expressed this fear to my parents so my father and I went to the bookstore where he bought me the Reader's Digest Bible for Children and a kid's book on world religions. I read the Bible often with honest hope that I would make it to heaven. Eventually I lost interest and began to realize that it doesn't matter, there is no God, no one is going to heaven.
And this I trust.

My thoughts and views are mainly cohesive with what I understand of Clark's "naturalism." I rely on experiences and scientific evidence to shape my understanding of the world and therefore I do not hold in my beliefs any notions of the supernatural.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." (Anonymous)

I tend to live by the sentiment that I need solid and substantial proof in order to commit what I believe as truths. Consequently, I do not posses faith in supernatural entities, such as god or any other high power that transends the physical world. This type of existence cannot be proven and is simply incohesive with the rest of the world as I see it.
I have struggled to understand the logic in devoting oneself to a relationship with something that's existence is fabricated upon blind belief. In the past I have tried & achieved no satisfaction in attempting such a relationship. I contest, however, that whether or not a supernatural entity such as God exists is unimportant. It can be seen that such devotion to faith truly enriches peoples' lives by instilling a sense of purpose and vibrance to the way people live.

Query: How contrive not to waste one's time?
Answer: By being fully aware of it all the while.
Albert Camus

To be aware of time it's important to understand your own subjective definition of what time is. I agree strongly with the concept of a physical time and psychological time. I see physical time as an organizational method to standardize our subjective psychological times. There are some personal instincts and patterns that all individuals have, but they may not necessarily coinside directly with everyone elses. I see physical time as a way to understand the relationship of your actions and perception of time with those of society around you. Everyone has an internal biological clock that knows when the body needs to do things like eat and sleep and these needs turn into patterns distinct to every individual. Physical time allows people to recognize the moments that they fufill these needs as well as how the people around them are functioning. With this universal map of time people are then able to correspond their actions.

In my opinion, there is no greater investment than time. Anything else that you use or invest can be relinquished. Time is the only thing that you cannot get back once you have spent it. You can't stop or slow the spending but you are in control of how you spend it. Whether or not time is 'real' I believe that it's important to recognize that our lives are moving forward, towards their end and once a moment has passed it is over.


The theif to be most wary of is the one who steals your time.

I waste a substantial amount of my time whether it's doing things I don't like to do, or allowing other people to control or use my time. I've really only recently begun to realize the severity of time, but I don't want to regret because lingering only further decreases the amount that I have.

During today's discussion in class I was intrigued by the notion of "trivial constructivism." I certaintly do not see myself as a radical constructivist because I cannot logically agree with the idea that there is no reality beyond an individual's personal perception. I do, however, find myself in agreeance with other constructivist characteristics. As I mentioned in a previous blog, I feel that individuals are responsible for their own point of view and are in control of defining and creating the world in which they live.

As far as apples are concerned, they exist whether or not we perceive them, at least in the dynamics of my reality. Someone asked today, "What caused the apple to get into the mind?" I see the apple as proof that there is a world independent of human perception. Otherwise, how would there be anything for us to perceive and experience for our personal realities?

According to radical constructivism reality is a product of experience. When individuals have the same experiences a shared reality is formed for society. The possibility of an object having properties that humans cannot perceive is enough for Von Glaserfeld to say that we cannot understand what constitutes "real" objects. I feel that the possibility for objects to have more properties than we can potentially imagine does not hinder humans to fully understand them. Since all humans are incapable of perceiving such characteristics then no one has an advantage over anyone else and our shared reality is not threatened. If everyone as a society is faced with the same limits of knowledge then why can't we view our realities and the objects that construct them as "real." After all, they are as "real" as we will ever understand them to be.

"We have no one but ourselves to thank for the world in which we appear to be living."

This quote is a part of a sentence from Ernst Von Glaserfeld's "Priliminary Remarks" for An Introduction to Radical Constructivism. He continues on to describe this notion as "precisely what constructivism intends to say." Although I may not interpret it in the same respect as Glaserfeld, I find validity in this statement.
I believe that we, as humans, are capable of deciding what type of world in which we exist. I don't necessarily mean that we are able to decide how we construct our realities, but instead what kind of reality we construct. I feel that we hold the power to control the world we live in as either a positive or negative place. Even though there are elements to life that humans are incapable of controlling, I find it important to utilize the power one has over their own attitute to project it into their surroundings. There are pleasant and unfavorable aspects to every experience & object. Depending on which aspects one directs their focus, one can create the nature of their world.

I aspire to be happy - not necessarily to 'find happiness', but to simply go to sleep at night content. I think that most things are a lot simpler than people choose to perceive them. Nothing is profound. Time is our most valuable investment and I don't care to spend it pondering the ways of the world. I do not mean to portray myself with ignorance towards philosophy, but I have a hard time finding importance in most things when I know that in 70 years my life and whatever I've done with it won't matter to anyone or anything. Why do I need to define my point of view toward the world? I don't enjoy justifying the way that I live if it makes me happy. I am confident in the way that I want to live, how I spend my time, who I surround myself with, and why I am who I am.