Book Review

I read the book, Rattling the Cage, by Steven M. Wise written in 2000, and published by Perseus Books. Wise began his book by telling a heart-wrenching story about a group of chimpanzees that were used for HIV testing. Wise used the story to grasp the reader’s attention and emotions in an attempt to help make his animal rights argument stronger. The book walked through the history of animal rights and talked about the evolution of legal rights of nonhumans. Wise argues that, “the problem for nonhuman animals is that they can neither fight nor write.” (page 13) Animals will never be able to have rights unless humans are willing to fight and write for them, which is what Wise encourages his readers to do.

Ancient philosophers believed that animals were put on this earth solely for human use. Wise discusses slavery and the evolution of women’s rights throughout the world. He goes on to explain that currently animals are treated much like slaves and women were treated before equal rights and that animals are in need of our help to gain these same legal rights. However because humans as a whole view nonhuman animals as property, they will still be bought, sold, and traded like any other piece of property.

I enjoyed reading about the similarities between chimpanzees and humans. The section that discussed our similarities of DNA was very interesting. I knew that we shared similarities with chimpanzees but I did not realize how many traits we actually shared. I found this book to be an enjoyable read, but I did find a few flaws in Wise’s arguments. I would have liked to have seen more depth on a solution for animals. Wise argues that chimpanzees share the mental capacity as well as consciousness to that of a five year old human. I agree that chimpanzees have a very high consciousness and intelligence, but I do not believe that they should have the same rights as humans. Wise suggested that because chimpanzees are comparable to children, that they should also have the same rights as children. The only difference would have to be that chimpanzee’s rights would not be able to grow like children’s rights do throughout their lives.

This was a very thought provoking book, and I would recommend it to anyone that is looking for an interesting perspective about animals and their rights. The author focused his arguments and attention mostly on chimpanzees since their DNA is closest to humans. I would have liked to have seen more coverage on other animals and species’ rights. Wise wrote about different levels of consciousness in rabbits and how there are two different tests for memory, delay conditioning and trace conditioning. (page 140) He concluded that rabbits have consciousness, but I believe that animal rights should have limits. I think it is difficult to measure a creature’s level of consciousness, and because of this there should also be other requirements that should be met before legal rights are given out to every creature. Wise suggests that we were born with god given rights as well as inalienable rights, and that in history one group gives other groups rights. In order for animals to have a chance, humans as a group must identify an appropriate level of animal rights and then work to help animals obtain these deserving rights.

Human Construction

I believe that humans have created the wording and technical terms for all of these examples in the Final Q. The only terms that I would place in the third category is apples and electrons. Apples and electrons are physical objects that were not at all created by humans. They would exist with or without human’s existence.

In the second category which is: those that are only partly a human construction, I placed the color red, science, time, and music. I originally placed the color red in this category, because I believed that red’s existence is a combination of human perception and the universe. But after discussing this topic in class, I am now more inclined to place red in category three, those that are not at all human construction. I tend to believe that even if humans did not exist, the world would still be full of color. I believe that science is a combination of both humans and nature. It is evident that science is not a completely human creation because nature is science! But, science in nature changed into something greater because of humans. I believe time is another dimension that humans are unable to explain and thus they created a clock to explain and try to make sense of time. I’m not sure if time would exist without human existence, but I tend to believe that it wouldn’t. I believe that music is organized sound, such as nature, and when humans heard it, they tried to re-create it. I think that music exists in its original state in nature, and when humans heard this noise, they tried to re-create it.

In the first category I put market capitalism, patriotism, morality, the number three, war, and god. I believe that all of these terms were strictly created by humans. Market capitalism is strictly a human creation, as it does not exist in nature in the same state. Although many animals may exhibit some of the characteristics of capitalism, it is not the same at human market capitalism. I view patriotism to be a human set of values and that it does not exist in nature. The Loyalty that animals exhibit for their territories, young, and food is not the same loyalty and love for one’s country that is found in human patriotism. Animals are born with internal instincts that make them become territorial, which should not be confused with patriotism. Morality is just like patriotism since it is strictly a human value. Morality would not exist in this world if humans did not exist, thus it falls within the category of human creation. Animals do not have morals or ethics because they do not know the difference between right and wrong. Just because parts of patriotism and morality exist outside of human life, does not mean that it is an existing value.

The number three was also entirely created by humans. I do not see how the number three would exist without human existence, since humans created the number system. I also believe that humans created war, since war has never existed without humans. Unless, someone considers nature’s attacks on the world to be war, such as hurricanes and tornadoes. God was a term I struggled to place in any of the categories. I agree with what someone had suggested in class, that if you believe in God, then you believe that he created humans. Thus, if you believe in god, then humans could not have created the god. On the other hand, if you do not believe in god, you could believe that humans created the concept of god. Perhaps the idea of god was created to help with human suffering and to give people something to believe in and look forward to. Either way, I don’t know.


I found this final Q to be very interesting and I wish we had more time to discuss it in class.

Music is...?

Music is a collection of noise that seems to be difficult to define. Perhaps it is so difficult to define because there are so many different types of “music.” People label and don’t label all different types of noises as music, which makes it difficult to define what it really is. Some people consider nature noises to be music while other people don’t consider it to be music but rather bird noises recorded on a CD. So it is diffucult to define what music really is because there are so many different forms. According to www.dictionary.com music is defined as, an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color. Therefore, it seems as though all noise could be defined as music. Because there are so many different forms music cannot be defined into one solid definition.

Individual's Language

I believe that music is a type of language. However, it is evident that you do not have to understand the language that is being sung to enjoy the music. Music is a way of communication and can help people express their thoughts and feelings. As a language, music has been able to influence people all over the world and sometimes music becomes a huge part of who someone is. Music allows people to communicate their emotions, impressions, and thoughts about the world. It also plays a huge role in many different cultures around the world. Music is a way of life for many people that sometimes defines who they are and how they dress, act, and think. Music is not only a means of communication but also a place for individuality as well as creativity. Because there are so many different types of music in the world people are able to choose music that best fits their life style and beliefs.

Noise

Music can be defined in many different ways, but usually it is thought of as poetic and subjective. These combinations of different sounds can be defined by philosophers as a language, a subjective experience, as well as a social construct. To many people music is a way of life, which could be a new experience or as a way to escape reality for a brief amount of time. Music can be a way to display feelings, emotions, and thoughts. It can be a motivation tool, a way to relax, or even used to enhance a movie scene. Music is a part of everyone’s day, whether it is playing on the radio on the way to work, in commercials on TV, movies, background music in stores and businesses, or even elevator music. Music is a creative poetic art that has made its way into our daily lives and has influenced many people.

Revenge?

There are many different reasons and theories of why the United States invaded Iraq. The three main reasons that the Bush Administration had for invading, whether they admit to them or not, were the attacks of 9/11, oil, and weapons of mass destruction. It is clear that President Bush first invaded Iraq out of anger resulting from the attacks on 9/11 and he claimed to be searching for weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was hiding. It has also been suggested that Bush invaded Iraq to try to finish the job that his father couldn’t complete in Baghdad in 1991.

It is evident that the reasons for invading Iraq as well as what we are fighting for is not cut and dry. Sadly, it seems as though our government is trying to fight a war for a reason that they are not willing to share with the rest of the Country. In the beginning George Bush jumped to conclusions and said that we needed to invade Iraq because they were harboring weapons of mass destruction. It is evident that no one really knows the real reasons why we are in Iraq, only the Bush Administration truly knows. Thus, we do not know what success will look like. Perhaps success will be when Iraq and surrounding countries are stable enough to function on their own without threats of terror. Unfortunately, with the way that things are going overseas now, success is not within our reach for a long time.

A loose-loose situation

At Sacred Heart Univ. I took a couple Arab History classes and my professor actually spent quite a long time over in Afghanistan and Iraq when she was younger. Her parents opened a hospital and school in Afghanistan and my professor had her mother come in and talk to our class one day. The first question she asked the class was, “How many of you had honestly heard of Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11?” and most of the class did not raise their hands. I found this interesting because prior to 9/11 most people did not know much about the Middle East. She brought in many different things that she collected while she lived over there and shared many stories with us.

It was interesting to hear about the different culture that is over there and how suppressed the people are. She told us that the Afghanistan people were actually relieved to have the American soldiers there because now they are not being suppressed by the Shiites, since they were driven out of the cities. It was interesting to hear the other side of the story, since we only hear about America's side.

She did however; say that America is in a very tough situation because if we leave, there is great fear that something bad like 9/11 will happen again. There is also the threat that the oppressive groups will move back into the cities and take over again. It is evident that we are in a tough position because either way we are hindering Afghanistan and Iraq’s ability to grow. By staying there we are not allowing the Countries to have their own individuality and instead we are oppressing them even more with our democratic ways. Something needs to change, but it is tough to find a solution that will benefit everyone.

Alas, a new reason!

Since the beginning of the war it seems as though the Bush Administration keeps creating new ideas for invading Iraq and surrounding areas. We originally invaded Iraq to try to find weapons of mass destruction and when we couldn’t find any, the government came up with a new reason for being in Iraq. It seems as though we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons and now somehow we are trying to justify our purpose there.

Clearly, democracy works for America, but this doesn’t mean that it will work for other country’s governments. It seems as though the common consensus in class was that enough is enough. I hadn’t looked up how many soldiers had died in this war in awhile, and I was shocked by the numbers that were said in class. Sadly, people are dying for all the wrong reasons, and I believe that something needs to change soon.

Public Transportation

In class we discussed the use of public transportation. I have never been to Europe, but it is evident that their transportation systems are much more advanced and readily available. Here in the United States the only high speed transportation we have available in the northeast is a high speed train that travels from Boston to New York City and to Washington DC. It is evident that transportation in the United States only focuses around large cities because of higher population. If we were able to have public transportation that was more available, people would not have to rely on automobiles as much.

As a resident of Berkshire County, I have always relied on my car since I first began driving. I have always said that I wouldn’t be able to survive without my car because I use it to go everywhere. I have never used the B-bus, nor do I even know where it goes or how much it costs. I have never used the bus system because it is more convenient to use my car and arrive at my destination at the time I want. I know that by not using public transportation I am only contributing to global warming and the constant rise in gasoline costs. But I believe that if public transportation was more available, people would find it more socially acceptable and more convenient.

Patriotism

I agree with Jenson’s claim that patriotism today is not what it should be. Patriotism has morphed into nationalism that has become crude and ugly. When I think of patriotism I think of loyalty and love for your Country and standing up for what you believe in. It seems as though patriotism has turned into something much more than that, and many people are labeled “un-American” if they do not agree with every political move. It seems as though many politicians have used the word patriotism to try to encourage people to support their decisions, especially after 9/11. They encourage people by saying, if you love your country and want to embrace what we stand for, you will support this war. Now patriotism has turned into hatred and racism combined together with a “love for our Country.” By using patriotism in a negative way to gain support, it is losing its meaning.

I do not however believe that patriotism should be thrown out; because I believe it is an important part of our human experience. It is not to say that our Country is better than any other Countries, but that we love where we come from and that we only want the best for our Country and its people. I do not believe that freedom should be labeled as an American characteristic, but as a human characteristic and that because we have patriotism for our Country we will strive for freedom for our Country.

We Must Support

I found the article by Robert Jensen, “Goodbye to Patriotism” to be very informative and appealing. The article voices many concerns and thoughts that many Americans have, especially since 9/11. I feel as though we are pushed to be Patriotic and supportive of our Country, but many times I don’t agree with what is happening. I feel as though many people are stuck with these feelings, as they want to be supportive of our troops but do not agree with the war.

I often find myself in this position. I genuinely hate this war, but I completely support our troops. I respect and admire the passion, diligence, and courage that our troops have to fight for our Country. But at the same time I feel as though there has to be another solution to this war situation. I found Jensen’s quote moving, “…the only real way to defend ourselves is by military force. If you want to be patriotic, you should -- you must -- support the war.” I find it difficult to support the war, but I know I must support our troops. These men and women sacrifice their lives every day so that I can live a safe life here in America. I would feel guilty and selfish if I didn’t support the war, but yet I feel that this war is un-necessary and that it is not going to end any time soon.


I look forward to tomorrow’s class discussion because I am curious to see how other people feel about the war situation at hand.

Inspire me to be vegetarian?

I found Pamela Rice’s article, “101 Reasons Why I'm a Vegetarian" to be interesting and informative. Although it was full of significant information, it did not inspire me to become a vegetarian. Rice had some good thoughts and ideas that mostly focused on the mistreatment of animals, but they were not convincing enough. I’m sure this article is more motivating for vegans and vegetarians as they already have these ideas in place.

I think that it is your choice to eat meat or not, and that your individual choice is moral. Some people may view eating meat as unethical, but you are entitled to your own opinion. If the entire world were vegetarians and vegans, would we exhaust our plant resources? It seems as though our world is too far advanced into the meat eating tradition to change it now. Although many cultures and traditions are based around eating meat, it is clear that there are moral ways to get meat.

Views on eating meat, so far:

Since the beginning of human evolution two million years ago, humans have always been omnivorous hunters and gathers. Humans have just as much of a right to eat meat as other carnivores do. Some other meat eating animals eat their prey when it is still alive; at least humans have more decency. It is evident that traditions around the world, including some places in the United States, do not treat animals with respect. I believe to be a moral meat eater, one should be aware of where their meat is coming from. An average American would be able to afford meat and should choose organically or healthily raised animals, opposed to factory meat. Therefore, I believe that it is moral and ethical for an average American to eat meat, because it is natural to our human nature. It is important however, to be conscious of where the meat comes from to ensure that animals are treated in a humane manner.

I found the article, “Eating meat is natural” by Jim Powlesland, http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/meat.txt. In this article, the author explains what the USDA Dietary Guidelines are for Americans. It is recommended that Americans should eat grain products, vegetables, fruits, low fat milk products, lean meats, fish, poultry, and dry beans to have a healthy diet. Animal meat is the only source of B12, so by cutting this out of your diet, you will be unnatural, according to Powlesland. It is also evident that children need a complete diet including meat to be healthy when developing. According to Powlesland, children that have been raised on a vegan diet have slowed growth and development.

Although this is not a complete defense for eating meat, as it does have flaws. I again suggest that we should be moral meat eaters, and know where our meat comes from.

Glass Walls

A quote was mentioned in class, “if slaughter houses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian” – Paul McCartney. I found this quote interesting because this could be true for many other ethical activities that go on that we do not see every day. If everyone could see war and see the pain and suffering that the soldiers go through, they would be against war. I believe it all comes back to choices, and that humans have many different choices, but sometimes our ignorance clouds our decisions.

This quote is important to us because we should watch what goes on in slaughter houses. If people had a better idea of what goes on in slaughter houses they would be more willing to help with animal rights. People will be more supportive of factory produced meat rather than the extreme slaughtering of animals. I do believe that eating meat is ethical, but that it is important to know where your meat is coming from. By informing and showing people where their meat comes from, more people will be supportive and interested in how animals are treated.

Lack of Pro Meat Eating Support!

I found that it was really hard to find web sites that supported eating meat. Most of the pages that I did find supported eating meat for nutritional reasons, and that it is natural for humans to eat meat. I found it interesting that there are not many web sites that are pro meat eating, since so many people that eat meat. Perhaps it is because meat eating is a part of everyday life so meat eaters do not feel the need to defend their habits. But because choosing to not eat meat is not the norm, people feel the need to inform others. I could be wrong, but this has just sparked my interest.

Itching to doubt

“There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt.”-Mignon McLaughlin, The Second Neurotic's Notebook, 1966

I found this quote online, and thought it was relevant to our class discussion. It is clear that believers, whether they are agnostic or fully practicing religious people, will always have a doubt in the back of their mind about the existence of god. Was religion created to help stop human suffering in an attempt to make life more enjoyable? And if god is real, which religion is the right one? These are only a few questions that many religious people struggle with. It is clear that people have been struggling with questions about the existence of god since the beginning of history, and that we will probably continue to remain answerless. But as long as there are no answers, people will continue to have questions. Perhaps the moral of the story is to stop worrying about the afterlife and concentrate on living right now.

Agnostic, just in case.

Someone in class on Monday suggested that agnosticism is a temporary position and that many people move to different positions throughout their lives. I agree that as humans our ideologies continuously change throughout our lives when we learn new ideas and theories. When I think of someone who is agnostic, I think of someone who is unsure what to believe; if they should believe what they are told or what they think they know. Many children are brought up to believe in God and have faith in his existence, even though they do not understand. When children mature and learn more about science and the natural world, so to speak, they begin to question what they have been told. Many people start to question God’s existence because there is no proof that he does exist. It is difficult for people to have faith in a god that they cannot see or hear, while they can see and understand how science continuously works to disprove god’s existence.

While people go through different stages of their lives, it is evident that most people are agnostic during the middle of their lives. When people come to the end of their lives (70’s and 80’s, on average) they begin to think more of the afterlife, and this is when most people become reacquainted with their religion. On any given Sunday or other day of worship, if you were to walk into a temple, church, or any other place of worship, the majority are of an older generation and young children who are brought by their parents and grandparents.

Perhaps people that question god’s existence choose to be agnostic so that if they die, and god does exist, they can say that they have believed all along, and be saved. Because no one knows if there is an afterlife when we die, people continuously struggle to do the right things to help themselves. It appears as though some people find agnosticism as a way to play both worlds, just in case.

A Limited Middle Ground

I found Clark’s pragmatic empiricism interesting and a good middle ground between supernaturalism and naturalism. Pragmatic empiricism is the idea to use what is useful and what works. The idea is that naturalism and supernaturalism have too many unrealistic ideas, and that pragmatic empiricism is a medium ground between both worlds. This allows society and humans to agree on what they see and hear which is easier to believe and understand rather than unrealistic ideas. Pragmatic empiricism doesn’t get into explanations of unexplained events and ideas. This is a limited version of a naturalistic view, in comparison of the supernatural world views. Instead of trying to answer everything, pragmatic empiricism answers questions with sensibility.

Pragmatic empiricism is supposed to be a middle ground between naturalism and supernaturalism, but it seems as though this theory supports naturalism more than it does supernaturalism. Clark’s pragmatic empiricism does not give supernaturalism a fair share in his theory. All arguments must relate to this world, according to pragmatic empiricism, which immediately removes the supernatural argument. It is clear that this “middle ground” does not take a fair combination of both naturalism and supernaturalism.

I found it interesting how Clark removed supernaturalism from his pragmatic empiricism theory. I wonder if humans will still have the same morals and ethics as they do now, if supernaturalism was eliminated. It is clear that supernaturalism supplies our society with many morals that we have. Will our government alone be able to provide us with the same moral and ethics that we receive from the supernatural world? But, where do people that do not believe in the supernatural world learn about morals and ethics, from government alone? One could argue that supernaturalism is not the only way that someone can learn about morals because atheists and agnostic people have morals just like people who believe in a supernatural world. But religion has been around since the beginning of history and its fundamental ideas have seeped into governments all over the world. Our government is the perfect example, although some people deny that religion plays a role in our government, this could be where our government gets its foundations for morals and ethics. So because the supernatural world does provide our society with a positive influence, I believe that it should not be completely eliminated in the search for a common ground between supernaturalism and naturalism.

A common ground?

A common ground will never be found between supernaturalism and naturalism, at least not any time soon. It is evident that the science and religious worlds are completely different. Perhaps there can be a common ground drawn between the two opposites, to draw conclusions and answers about things that we do not understand. Both science and religions were created to help humans understand elements of the world that are difficult to explain.

But as I am explaining the differences between science and religions, there is one major thing that stands out. We do not refer to the science world as many different sciences, but rather one science and many different religions. It is clear that there all of the different religions claim to be the right one, and that all the others are wrong. All throughout history the religious world has always been at war. Perhaps not physical war the entire time, but they are always arguing about which religion is most accurate. Thus, it is evident that if the religious world is constantly at war, they will not find a middle ground amongst the religions. Therefore, the religious world is hindering its ability to find a middle ground with the natural world.

Faith in Divided Worlds

We cannot be certain if there is a definite supernatural world, but it is clear that naturalism and supernaturalism will never be able to coexist peacefully. Although we cannot be certain, it is evident that the idea of the supernatural world forces us to challenge ourselves and try to go beyond what we are capable. This incredible world helps people place faith in something important and encourages them in most cases to be a better person. So even though the natural and supernatural world will never be able to coexist peacefully, it is evident that both worlds are necessary and required by the human race in order to remain flourishing and successful. Religion and the supernatural world provide people with a stable philosophy, guidelines of how their lives should be lived, personal support, and happiness. The natural world, such as our governments also provides us with key qualities that influence and enhance our lives. It guides us to success by providing us with rules and laws, protects us from our enemies, and grants us with everything we need to enhance our lives. It is evident that both religion and government help shape our lives in unique ways and that we cannot live without one or the other.

Interestingly, in class we tried to decide if there are two distinct meanings in the word faith. I believe that faith related to religion or faith in your work, other beliefs, or other people is the same idea. Faith is believing in something that you cannot see or completely understand. For religious people, faith is having the courage to believe in something you cannot see or feel, such as a god. It is difficult to believe and defend something that is not tangible. Much like it is difficult for scientists to have faith in their experiments and science in general. They also have to trust and have faith in what they discover. Ironically, both scientists and religious people find separate faith and belief in their divided worlds.

Can two opposites coexist peacefully?

I do not believe that naturalism and supernaturalism cannot coexist peacefully. In our world and society today, we are encouraged to voice our opinions and demonstrate our beliefs. It is evident that both supernaturalism and naturalism do not have any direct parallels and thus as a result conflict drastically. Science and religion do not have the same common ground and thus their followers and advocators have conflicting beliefs and views. But because science is more hands on and the proof of science can be seen, more people are eager to trust and support naturalism. Clearly, there are too many differences between the natural and supernatural world for it to coexist peacefully. Nationally, we try to separate church and state, but we still struggle everyday with keeping religion out of our government. Even worldwide there are problems with religion and different governments. I don’t know how these two worlds can exist peaceful together when the religious world cannot come to terms. There has been and seems like there will always be continual religious wars. It is clear that if the supernatural world is at war, then it will not be able to make peace with another enemy. Moreover, how can we be certain that there is a supernatural world? There is no scientific or hard evidence that there is a supernatural world. Perhaps the supernatural world was created to give hope and security in many things that we do not completely understand, while the natural world continues to make sense of the unexplainable.

Sense of Time

I wonder if humans can have a sense of real time or if it is just the idea of time that we have mathematically created with a clock. Is our internal clock our sense of time or is it just our body’s reaction to routine? I believe that we have a good sense of time because whether I have to wake up at five in the morning or nine in the morning, I always wake up right before my alarm goes off. I believe that somehow our body’s can sense real time even when we are not awake. Although I believe that humans can sense time, I don’t believe that animals have the same abilities. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t believe that all animals have the capacity to know what time it is. It seems as though domestic animals that appear to have a sense of time, such as dogs and cats, are only reacting to their owners. When it appears that animals always know that dinner is at five o’clock every night, this is not their sense of time, but rather a learned behavior. Animals, especially domestic animals, thrive when they have a strict schedule that they can depend on. Perhaps humans have also developed a dependency upon routine and have been able to “sense” time like animals do. But I tend to believe that humans have more ability to understand and comprehend the idea of time than animals do.

Tenth Dimension

I recently watched the tenth dimension video, http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php, and I found it very interesting. I liked the way that it displayed the different dimensions in a way that I could understand. I personally liked the fourth and fifth dimension, and how the dimension of time makes us feel like we are going in a straight line, but we are really moving from the past to the future in a snake like motion. There are actually different paths that we can take which is determined by different factors in our lives. I found this proposition of different dimensions very interesting, because I have always wondered if this is true. Perhaps we do not realize the different dimensions around us, and how they affect our lives. Is it possible that there is more to this world that we have not discovered yet? I believe that if we discovered the different possible dimensions around us it would change the way we live our lives. This video was stimulating as it mapped out the different dimensions and thoughts of something that we know nothing about. I found this interesting because I don’t ever think of something such as different dimensions in great detail, like this video.

More Von Glasersfeld thoughts...

Von Glasersfeld states that perception and conception is the only way we can receive and know knowledge. Thus he says that we cannot have “real” knowledge of apples because no one really knows what real apples are. They only have their own perceptions and conceptions of what an apple is. Furthermore, our perceptions and conceptions are usually developed from other people’s ideas and knowledge, thus hindering our ability of real knowledge of apples. Von Glasersfeld problematizes the notion of a “reality” external to the cognitive apparatus of the individual knower or learner.

So are our perceptions of apples original or completely our own? Or are they an amalgam of other people's perceptions and conceptions of how they view the world?

Time=Sun?

When I think about the existence of time, I don’t see how time cannot exist. As humans we are completely dependent upon time. Time determines when we go to work, our age, the day of the week, as well as many other important aspects of our lives. I believe that time is completely dependent upon the sun. The days of the week, seasons, hours, and minutes are all mathematically calculated by the sunlight. It is evident that this is true because there are various time zones around the world that reflect the amount of sunlight received. Time zones were created so that 12:00pm has the same consistent amount of light throughout the world. Perhaps we use the sun’s light as a way to describe and measure our day, which has been mathematically divided into minutes and seconds so that we can better describe our day, thus creating something that we call “time.”

But how could an event exist without time? I suppose I do not have a full answer to the question about the existence of time yet. I do however believe that we could have the idea of time completely wrong, and that we are interpreting this possible “4th” dimension wrong. If this was the case, then many physics and other mathematical problems that include “t” or time would be incorrect, thus misinterpreting more aspects of our world.

Who or what creates our limitations?

I found the Monday’s class discussion to be very interesting. I have often wondered if we are born with limitations or if we create limits naturally for ourselves? If you tell yourself enough times that you cannot do something, you begin creating limitations for yourself. I believe that we should live our lives as if we do not have limits until we try, because otherwise we are hindering our ability to expand.

But where do our limits come from, do we create them ourselves? Or perhaps society and other people create limitations for us. Many times society forces ideas into our heads, such as the notion that you need a college degree to be successful. By giving someone this idea, society has created a limitation. If someone does not have a college degree they could believe that they will not be successful. This limitation could discourage people from working harder and trying to be successful. But why do we need a college degree to be successful? This statement only creates a false limitation for someone that could work hard and be just as successful, if not more, than someone with a degree.

Or again, maybe we are born with limitations. Perhaps we are all born with different limitations that will not allow us to understand philosophy, business, ways to repair a car, or the ability to play soccer.

The Right Key

I found Von Glasersfeld’s analogy of the lock and key especially interesting. He explains our knowledge of the world through the idea of a lock and key. Traditional epistemologists explain our knowledge through matching. Von Glasersfeld uses the example of re-painting a room to explain epistemologists’ explanation of knowledge. It is evident that when re-painting a room it is extremely hard to find paint that will exactly match the paint already on the walls. Von Glasersfeld argues that instead of matching our knowledge to the world, or reality, we should find the right fit much like the way that a key fits in a lock. The fit of the key explains the capacity of the key, not the lock. Thus many keys, or knowledge of different people, can fit many different locks, and allow people to experience the reality of the world in different ways. I believe that Von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism allows people to develop knowledge of their reality at their own pace that is best suited for them. Perhaps this is why many educators embrace Von Glasersfeld’s idea of finding a fit rather than a match for knowledge.

Radical Constructivism

Radical Constructivism is the idea that knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the cognizing subject and that the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality. Von Glasersfled argues that our knowledge cannot be interpreted as a picture or representation of that real world, but only as a key that unlocks possible paths for us. He claims, that a metaphysical realist is someone who insists that we may call something true only if it corresponds to an independent, objective reality. Radical Constructivism is the theory of knowledge in which knowledge does not reflect an objective ontological reality, but rather an ordering and organization of a world constituted by our experience.