February Response (4-2) -- Why We Like What We Like

Article: Why We Like What We Like
By Alva Noë

Central Argument: The author compares food to sex in a metaphorical sense. As a blind test would prove that food tastes the same but we interpret the taste depending on what it seems physically. This is related to sexual partner by the physical attributes in that person, rather than the sex itself.

                   In her talk regarding science and culture on the National Public Radio, Alva Noë addresses the topic of discrimination. Not to sound too extreme, but she argues that we, as humans, are the ones that make change things from their physical appearance; we tend to react according to what we see. Her two examples are food and sexual partners; they both hold a similar idea that things will taste different only after you’ve seen their physical appearance. As Noë states as well, food is a perfect example to describe this fact. I agree with the author because of two major reasons: Authors Ken Kesey and Markus Zusak in their novels One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Book Thief, respectively, would explain why judging someone or something from physical appearances could possibly be good or bad, depending on their situations.

                   Ken Kesey explains in his novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, that the patients are required to be “fixed” based on the perspective that society looks at them from. Society considers them as outcasts based upon their actions, the way society view them. It’s a bad way of looking at someone who is mentally disabled and pointing out that we’re the correct form. After all, who are we to judge?

Similarly, Markus Zusak, author of The Book Thief, narrates the story of a young girl who trusted her foster parents from the very beginning, but her trust led to apathy of the fact that they would support her completely. This book is narrated from a reaper, or even death as if it were a person. In this book, one of the morals is not to judge a book by its cover; The setting is set in Nazi Germany. Liesel Meminger, a young Jewish girl whose parents were taken into concentration camps, assumes that her foster parents that took her in are trust-worthy. They later choose to turn her in as a method to avoid getting into trouble. This supports Alva Noë’s argument that we shouldn’t judge people or things based on their appearances.

                   The author provides the example regarding the experiment carried out with the blind test between paté and dog food. This experiment proved that both dishes will taste familiar, if not almost the same, showing that it’s upon the human’s views that change their actions. When I, or should apply to anyone, go to a restaurant, the setting and theme of the place definitely affects how good the food will turn out. My mouth waters easily when I go to an expensive and well known restaurant. This affects the way I look at the food, and quite often it’s changes my perspective on the quality of the food as well.

                   Markus Zasak, and Australian author, and Ken Kesey to support her argument, I agree with  Alva Noë’s article upon the fact that judging from physical appearances is bad, but yet – as humans – we continue to do so. She provides simple day to day example like the food we eat or from sexual partners (day-to-day may still apply).  

February Response (4-1) -- Please Read This Story, Thank You

Article: “Please Read This Story, ThankYou”
by Linton Weeks

Thesis: the idea of etiquette these days has been transformed into something completely different. Weeks argues that society has become ruder when compared to what it was in the past.

                Linton Weeks argues in her article “Please Read this Story, Thank you” that etiquette nowadays has been modified into a much ruder form, rather than being lost. With evolution and adaptation, nothing seems to be permanent in today’s world. Due to this, I agree with Weeks’ argument that society seems to be becoming a lot ruder than before. 

February Response (3-2) -- Surveillance = Morality?

Article: Does surveillance make us morally better?
By Emrys Westacott

Thesis: Surveillance – although it could help us become a better person – is morally a bad thing because it inflicts our personal space and our conscience.

                From hidden cameras to noting everything you do, surveillance is a disturbance of our personal privacy. Emrys Westacott would agree in her article that surveillance makes us a better person, but besides that fact, it is ultimately bad as it affects our moral conscience. In her article, “Does surveillance make us morally better?” for the Philosophy Now magazine, she explains how surveillance won’t help make people a better person for long-term happenings; she uses her example of how the decision of what type of college you go to can help. I agree with Westacott because of two main reasons: The first being the outcome from Louis Lowry’s book, The Giver, and the second is George Orwell’s book, 1984.

                 Westacott explains what she believes an “ideal college” would be. She asks whether you’d choose to go to a college that monitors your every move, or rather to a college that trust in you and hopes that you can’t cheat. I believe that it is important to make this moral decision by yourself. Of course, in the first situation, the students won’t cheat because they’re afraid of getting caught; but learning that cheating is immoral, is something that needs to learned by yourself, thus cannot be taught.

                George Orwell, an English writer, wrote his book titled 1984, which is based on a society where everyone is monitored constantly to make sure that they follow the rules posed by the government. Along with most of their rights taken away from them, they are unable to do anything without the government knowing of it. This is an invasion of personal privacy and plays into the role of immorality directly. Over time, all the people of this society forget what right and wrong; the government affects their ability to think for themselves, and rather, makes the decision they feel is right. These people unknowingly became slaves to the government. Their morality was stolen from them and they were unable to decide what moral or not, what’s right or wrong.

                Similar to 1984, Louis Lowry sets up a utopian society in the book The Giver. Everyone is expected to follow a set of rules required to abide by the people living there. Everyone is looked after carefully until a point where they’re manipulated and changed in such a manner, and following the rules become part of their daily life. With rules such as not being allowed to have your own child, people became accustomed to what society expects of them. This society has a similar impact on its people; they are unable to think for themselves. With the government deciding what should be done for the best of the society, it allows for the creation of a several immoral ideas to rise.

                Gaining support from Louis Lowry’s The Giver and George Orwell’s 1984, I chose to agree with Emrys Westcott’s argument that surveillance impacts our ability to make moral decisions. In the future, it is up to us to decide what’s right and whether it’s necessarily moral or not. Surveillance does nothing more than take this ability away from us.

February Response (3-1) -- Limits of Science

Article: The Limits of Science by: Anthony Gottlieb

Thesis: Although quite often it may seem as if science can answer all your questions, it has its limits to resolving issues; when that happens, it is best to be non-judgmental about things.

                Anthony Gottlieb, an author of the Intelligent Life magazine, argues that people’s beliefs are greatly influenced my science. They believe that science is the answer to every posed problem in the universe; and when science seems to reach a stump, people believe the idea theory proposed to them. I agree with Gottlieb’s argument when it comes to people’s response to this stump. He supports his argument by talking about the fact that science hasn’t reached its peak of development, and cannot answer all our questions. Although people such as Einstein may have a fixed position in science due to their discoveries, there is still a possibility for error in their findings, as Anthony Gottlieb would further explain. Religion, being an opposing idea to science, raises questions on whether it’s could be a possibility when science loses its hold on humanity. Similar to this topic, Ken Kesey’s novel One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest explains how not everything can be healed by science, and this is when the option of elimination was taken into consideration.

                Being brought up a Christian, I am often confused on which side to take. Science seems to have a plausible explanation, but the bible shows no evidence whatsoever. My mind gets into a state of chaos when science isn’t able to prove something to me; I think back and wonder whether Christianity is ultimately the answer, just without the evidence for the time being. My parents always wanted me to believe that religion is the answer, that God is the one that makes the decisions. As a child, it wasn’t hard to convince me, but growing up I started to realize the difference. I still believe in God, but not as the answer to everything. In my opinion, there’s shouldn’t be only one particular theory being an issue. This will only allow for judgmental opinions when you reach that stump, as Anthony Gottlieb would further explain.

                In Ken Kesey’s book One Flew over The Cuckoo’s Nest, the patients are said to be the outcasts, the damaged ones of society. Kesey explains how it’s the Combine’s role to fix these people. They do this using several different methods, one of them being ECT (Electroshock Therapy). This is a good example showing how as science advances, the patients have a better chance of being restored to the person that can get accepted into society. When the patients cannot be fixed, the combine gets rid of them, one way or the other. This is related to Gottlieb’s idea since when science doesn’t solve something, people refer to other methods; similar to how the Combine eliminated the patients when they get out of control.

               In simpler words, Anthony Gottlieb explains how it’s in human natural to seek an explanation to everything in life. When it seems impossible to gain one, we act irrationally without thinking. People lose all hope when experts can’t solve an issue, or whether scientific beliefs can be proven right or wrong.
 

                Religion plays an important role when it comes to contradicting science’s ideas. This conflict on whether religion or science is right, have been leading more towards the side of science. When it comes to Anthony Gottlieb’s opinion that science can’t solve everything, Ken Kesey’s book supports this argument by talking about the patients and the consequences they have to suffer because science can’t solve anything. Gottlieb finally concludes with his opinion that today’s scientific beliefs are most likely wrong, but only the future generations can figure that out. 

February Response (2-2) -- Of Studies

Article: Essay of Studies
by Sir Francis Bacon

Central Argument: Bacon persuades us to study by laying out the benefits of studying and how we can make the best out of it; According to him, reading is the best method to learn from your studies.

                In his essay “Of studies”, Sir Francis Bacon spreads out the pros of studying. He puts it out in an orderly fashion to convince us that studying will lead to a positive place. The writer’s main argument is that reading a lot of pieces of writing, such as novels or articles, is the best way to learn. I, and so would Mr. P (our English teacher), agree on the fact that reading boosts your knowledge. Bacon states that studying aides in three core aspects: “delight, ornament and ability”, or in other words, he says that studying will help to communicate, to debate, and to be better than others.

                As children that are brought up in a well-to-do family, our parents would encourage us to study; After all, it’s the only possible way to be successful in life. Parents –mine at least – set out our goals for us from the very beginning. Study hard, get past high school and university, get a good job, get married and then settle down peacefully. The base of this entire plan was to study hard, but what does studying hard mean exactly? Sir Bacon explains how studying for long periods of time won’t necessarily help if you’re not studying correctly and efficiently. There are some methods that will prove be more useful than others.

                A well-known motivational quote goes a little something like this: “Practice makes perfection.” My basketball coach refused to agree with that; he’d always tell us, “Practice makes permanent, perfect practice makes perfection.” If you learn the wrong thing and continue to practice that, your ability to accomplish that task won’t necessarily escalate. This applies for studying as well. If you don’t use an efficient method when it comes to learning, you won’t take in knowledge.

                Sir Bacon explains studying to be just another method of exercising the body. Through reading, one can improve in several paths of knowledge. I chose to agree with Sir Francis Bacon’s opinion because of what I have learned through experience. As a young reading, I could speak a lot better English than almost all the people in my class. While the other kids chose to go outside and play cricket, I’d stay back and read another one of Enid Blyton’s books; from The Famous Five to The Secret Seven, I would definitely agree with the fact that reading improves you skills and is a far more superior method than others.

                Interesting enough, Sir Bacon includes that “histories make men wise.”  With the self-explanatory phrase, he explains the values that people learn from the past, and since the past can mostly be found through written sources, the author combines both ideas into one. He specifies his argument that reading is the more efficient method to get educated successfully. Using this argument, Sir Francis Bacon, in his essay “Of studying” he attempts to persuade people that reading is the best method of studying and can help you distinctly. 

February Response (2-1) -- Of Marriage and Single Life

To marry, or not to marry. That's the question.

Article: Essay of Marriage and Single life.
By Sir Francis Bacon.

Central argument: Being married causes a burden in life and deteriorates opportunity like getting rich and achieving merits in life. In other words, being single has a lot more advantages than being married, but this doesn’t mean having a married life is bad; it can have its perks.

                Sir Frances Bacon, in his opinion essay towards marriage and single life, he chooses to stick towards the side of the bachelors and bachelorettes.  In an argument regarding which sort of life is easier and better, I would choose to disagree with the author. The author explains how being married and having children is only a stump in the road and you won’t go places in life if you were to choose this decision. Sir Bacon argues that having a wife and children is the reason man cannot get rich or achieve merit in life, or become popular, whereas single life can offer all the above in addition with freedom. I chose to disagree with Bacon because a family can offer a lot of positive aspects along with the drawbacks; there are certain feelings and pieces of the puzzle that only a family can complete.

                Having no one in your life full-time makes it a lot lonelier when compared to waking up and seeing your wife and children’s smile every morning. The feeling you get from family is something that wealth and popularity cannot get for you. Although both married and single people contribute to society in their own ways, I would choose a married life over being a single businessman who has to look after everything by himself.

                When I was young – and even these days, as a matter of fact – my parents would always debate jokingly whether I should get a beautiful wife and settle down peacefully or spend no time with family matters and grow to become a successful person in life. My parents told me that you can generally choose one or the other. If you choose to sacrifice wealth for family, then so it shall be. As my mom would argue that I should make the decision to avoid marriage, and complete my education without being distracted, my dad’s contradicting ideas were very tempting. My parents being married for 18 years now, it fills me with content and gives me hope that I could possibly do the same.

                  Bacon argues that taking charge of children isn’t an easy task and does require sacrifice. Although he may state that single people are more generous and charitable than married people, he goes out of his way to agree that married people take a lot more precautions when it comes to their family. To future prove that Bacon may not have a biased opinion on this matter, he says that married people have a lot more discipline and can be reliable in times of need than when compared to single people. 

                Sir Francis Bacon, who chooses to support single men rather than married, uses realistic and logical examples. Being a writer in the developing era, it is highly likely that he might have noticed a trend among the rich, moderate and poor. People that were rich and had obtained high positions in companies would have highly likely been single if they were to have earned that position with their sweat and hard work. Although he makes a point that wealth is necessary in life, he chooses not to address the fact that “money cannot buy you happiness.”

February Response (1-2) -- Thinking vs. Feeling

Thinking vs. Feeling: The Psychology of Advertising
by Derek Thompson

Central Argument: There are two types of advertisements – rational and emotions.

               

From watching television to going to the supermarket, we are influenced by the media on a daily basis. The media will do whatever it takes to convince us to buy their products, whether their method is rational or not. In today’s world, being successful is what it’s all about. Without success, there’s not honor, nor wealth. That’s the only thing people think of when it comes to making a living. Quite often, advertisements can leave an emotional impact on us. This is, quite obviously, the advertisement using pathos.

As Derek Thompson, author of The Atlantic’s article: “Thinking vs. Feeling: The Psychology of Advertising”, explains using the two commercials for light beer how advertisement can take different paths. The two different paths, although neither is better or worse than the other, can lead to a popular advertisement and possibly a product that sells. Once this goal is accomplished, the company will continue doing what they’re doing. Thomson explains the two types of advertisements are rational and emotional; in simpler terms, pathos and logos. Either one of these are a necessity for a good advertisement, according to Thompson.

                This prompt reminded me of the Apple Ipad 3 release talk. Although it may have seemed mostly the CEO talking about how “cool” their new product is, don’t forget that it’s all a gimmick to get you to buy the ‘new and improved’ Ipad 3. This sort of advertisement would come under the rational (according to the seller) types of advertisements. The company, apple in this case, provides you with logical explanations of why and how this product is a lot better than all the other competitors. Talking about how techy it is makes the audience think less and act more; in the shops that is. Most of these sorts of advertisements are really convincible – after all that’s their goal – but I am able to control myself to resist purchasing these absolutely useless products.

                Often times, you’ll see advertisements using famous actors and actresses. These people will have nothing to do with the product itself, yet they’ll be in the product to convince you to buy it; admit it, it works on you most of the time. That’s the job, the role that these actors are paid for. Now days when I look at such products, I realize how shallow my thought processes were when it came to deciding whether I want a product or not. Don’t forget I’m not very old and it’s only through experience that I’ll be able to develop this process.

                Advertisements, which can be of two basic types, are generally very manipulative to mankind. With their role of convincing us to buy their products, no matter what it takes to get us there, advertisements can go from making you feel guilty about something that doesn’t affect you at all, to convincing you through logic that the item being sold, is the you that you need.
                 

February Response (1-1) -- Rick Santorum, Meet My Son

Article: Rick Santorum, Meet My Son
Author: Emily Rapp

Central Argument: Emily Rapp argues that abortions should be legalized based on information from prenatal tests and on the fact that women should have rights over their body and the pain they suffer through it.

                Abortion and prenatal tests, which are considered immoral and thus illegal in several countries, seize the rights that woman should have over their own bodies. Since this method is seen to be a way of taking the life of a child, it is frowned upon by society. Although it may seem as if it should be an obvious choice, it is still a large ethical issue that is being debated upon. Even though some have good reasons to argue why abortion can be a terrible act, it’s quite often leads to a much better life for the parents.

                In my opinion, woman should be allowed to make the decision for their unborn child. Emily Rapp, the writer of “Rick Santorum, Meet my son”, would agree on this situation. Rapp was born with a lot of problems, and as a child, growing up wasn’t easy for her. After her birth, the doctors had predicted that it was highly likely that Emily would turn out to be mentally incapable and probably her walking was out of the option. With advancements in technology, all these facts can be figured out before the birth and the child, and can be terminated through a less painful way – abortion. Yes, this does kill the child, but it also avoids all suffering for child and parents. Rapp explains her son’s situation – who is blind, paralyzed and almost non-responsive – and compared it to her own. Rapp went through a lot of suffering over a period of her life time, whereas this kid has only started his life and it all seems useless.

                Emily Rapp argues, or rather sends a message toward Rick Santorum, who, from my point of view, sounds like a politician of some sort. Rapp attempts to change his views by arguing otherwise. With her use of pathos, she conveys her opinion on why a woman should be giving rights to her own body. With a complicated issue as such, there isn’t much one can do to resolve it when morality is at hand.

                An ethical issue such as abortion comes with several factors that can contradict one’s opinion on this situation. We can never have a Utopian society where everyone is perfect and there’s no reason for problems as such as health related. For example, as Louis Lowry explain in his book, “The Giver”, a perfect society cannot exist due to all the contradicting ideas. The book describes how everyone is perfect, ideally at least. To maintain this perfect society, people are tested genetically before they have children to avoid defects completely. Children are tested before birth and aren’t allowed to live if similar defects are found in them. That, however, may not be possible in a world today, but there is still hope. This small step can lead to a future where parents like Emily Rapp may not have to suffer and live a hopeless life.

                When it comes to an issue as such as abortion, changes cannot simply be made. Emily Rapp chooses to argue about the fact that if she had the choice, she wouldn’t have allowed the birth of her child, to a pain-free life for both, Ronan and herself. This topic later leads to morality based questions and soon to deciding whether this change will be drastic or not. Legalization of abortion, as Emily Rapp would argue, would create a radical change; a positive one.