Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Ethics and Values

Ethics are an important mental device. They are a form for people to self-govern their thoughts and actions. I guess that, in some forms, governments try to set up a general system of ethics, but it is really up to people to form their own ideals for their personal situations. People, in their early stages of life, begin to form ideas on what the think is right and wrong. This can be seen in respect to Erik Erikson's analysis of the developemental stages of of humans. From the ages four- six, a person deals with initiative vs. guilt. Guilt makes one feel that they have done something unethical, and this action finds its way into a "no-zone" of wrong actions. People soon begin to value their choices and try to better themselves for the sake of their own well-being or society on a whole.

Ethical values can be set by traditions passed down from generation to generation. Parenting can play a key role in the ethics of the next generation. If a parent is protective of their child, this child will most likely develop strong ethics. However, overprotective parents can lead to anxiety issues in the children. Contrarily, lax and irresponsible care of youngsters can lead to a complete lack of ethics. These unethical individuals will not value anything and eventually accomplish nothing meaningful in their life.

Even more contrarily, some children may learn their ethics from the things that their parents do wrong. For example, someone's parent may use harsh language very much in everyday speech. The child may see their parent as a monster and a fool and try with all their might to be the exact opposite of this aspect of their parent's life. However, this sort of teaching needs a foil. One of the parents must retain the "right" way of doing things as an example of how to be. One parent or other individual as an example of the "wrong" way is just enough to show the child exactly how not to act. I know that being told how not to do things is always a helpful device that teachers can offer me.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Working in Groups

I like groups sometimes but at other times they just seem really pointless and even hurt the project being worked on. Groups should only be assembled when the work being done actually needs multiple minds working together. Also, if there is one weak link in the group, a lot of the work will suffer due to there lack of effort, talent, or any other countless detriments that an individual may have.

I have been in some really good groups. I think the best group work I have aver been involved with was last year in POE class. I was in a group with Matthew Tomaw and Matthias Wellington Hughes in an effort to build an accurate ping pong ball launcher. Basically, Matthias built a prototype on his own and it worked. Then we tested it together. Our tests are where our teamwork shined. We all had our own job, and each of us did it efficiently. Matthias launched the ball, Matthew measured the distance, and I recorded data. The data was recorded digitally, and then our results were put on a graph. It was very efficient and we ended up getting a good grade on the project. In fact, we were the ONLY group that got an A. I really believe that we deserved that A. We worked very well.

Another favorite form of group work for me is Scholastic Team. I love being captain because I can decide who has the right answer, and I still get input from everyone.

However, I have been in some bad groups. Last year I was a part of the team quest competition. It was the first year that we had a sophomore team, and we felt that we had a lot to prove. We, sadly, ended up getting last place. I don't know what it was. I guess that, individually, we were all very productive, but when we were thrown together into a group, we froze up. The team consisted of 4 members: Matthew Tomaw, Samantha Anderson, Tareyn Powel, and myself. When it came down to it, we really failed ourselves, our coaches, and our school.


Monday, September 21, 2009

Organized Religion

Organized religion in society is a form of quellment for the citizens of that society. It keeps the people happy and in line and helps to stop revolts. People are naturally inquisitive. This is a fact. And these naturally inquisitive individuals want things to be explained. Religion fulfills these requirements in all rights and aspects. Religion should not, however, be forced upon people. Choices in such matters give the individuals a feeling of freedom. A feeling of repression leads to revolts, the very thing that religion is employed for. People who embrace atheism are also inquisitive, but in different ways. They wonder why religion is necessary. They don't believe in a higher being who created the universe, and they search for more scientific reasons for this event. Their form of non-religion, as unorganized as it may seem, has structure. This structure is just very different from religious structures around the world.

Religion, when overly ruly, is not successful. Anger is created through forced thoughts. This is like a machine or experiment. The more variables present, the less likely a system is to work. Variables, in this case, would be rules imposed by churches. However, if religious figures just sit back and only impose the most necessary of rules, the system will work. This can be seen in the Puritans. The Puritans were very disciplined. They had rules for just about everything. When these religious peoples came to the New World, their rules were still THERE, yet they were no enforced. Thus, they ignored and attacked these rules. This eventually led to rationalism. Rationalists did not have many rules. In fact, they were open to any religion that they may so choose to listen to. All of this was brought on by overimposed rules in their religious society.

Organization in Religion is somewhat necessary, though. Rationalism was the other extreme counterpart to Puritanism. With less , guidelines, we'll say, they lost all sight of religion. Losing their sight was not good for morale, and these people may not have known WHAT to believe.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Let's Play the Blame Game!

People blame me for things a lot. Maybe just a little bit too much. I don't like it when this happens. I feel like I've become somewhat of a scapegoat for my peers. It really isn't a good feeling, in my opinion. People say things to me, and I'm not exaggerating at all, like, "Blake, the Great Depression was all your fault." This may seem humorous at the time when the person is saying it, and I may laugh too, but I'm really hurt deep down on some subconscious level. Some very, very deep down layer of my mind absorbs all of this mental torture. I'm sensitive about this, but not sensitive enough to actually get directly mad at these people or stay indirectly mad at them for an extended period of time. Only now, thinking back on all of the things that I have been blamed for, do I really feel hurt. Sometimes I'll, I don't know, just sit down at lunch and an anonymous friend of mine will just randomly shout out, "GO HOME BLAKE!!!!!" I haven't gone home yet, but how much longer can I just sit and take this abuse? Often, if I am working in a study group, whenever I mention anything, my ideas are shot down with a, "NEVER SPEAK AGAIN, BLAKE!" I don't know what I've ever done to these people to make them react so strongly.

I don't really think that I blame people for things much, maybe just cause I can't fit in any accusatory remarks between others' abuse in the form of words. I guess I really only blame people of things in my mind, and only if I'm absolutely sure that they are at fault for whatever problem I may have. I guess I just kinda believe in giving people as many chances as they need to get something right, and this involves forgiving them instantly and moving on with life. Life goes on.

Deal with it.

Friday, September 11, 2009

True Colors(?)

I took the true colors test. It says that I'm a Green, which I agree with wholeheartedly. This indicates that I am analytical in my approach to problems. I am inquisitive about things around me. I think that it was really just a given that I would be Green.

Some of the other categories surprised me, however. My second highest score was in the Gold category. I have no idea where that came from, because golds are very organized and punctual. I am not either of these things on any level. I am, however, very gold on two levels: I like to follow the rules in any situation, and I don't like harsh language. I still don't know how this qualifies me to be a Green-Gold.

My third highest score was in the Orange category. I guess that this fits pretty well. I like to have fun, but it's not really my main priority. Contrastingly, it is not my lowest priority. I can be spontaneous at times, but I am usually more comfortable planning everything in advance.

Blue was my lowest color score, and from the questions asked, I feel that this is accurate. However, from my own view of what a Blue person is, I feel that I am VERY Blue. From the questions asked, almost all dealing with Blue were about intimacy in relationships. I don't know anything about this, but from what I have seen others doing, I doubt I would like it or hold it as something important. I just see kissing as disease transfer. It's pretty gross when you think about it. The true definition of Blues place them as emotional. I'm not usually that emotional in my opinion, but other people may see me this way.

From my perspective, Blues are nice and caring. I feel that I can be both of these things. However, I do think that I'm only nice and caring to people that I know well. Blues, for the most part, can be nice to ANYONE.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Categorization of People on Personal and Societal Levels

Everyone categorizes people naturally; this sort of thought is just automatic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can lead to prejudices and other negative thoughts. Categorizing can be as simple as "People I Like" vs. "People I Don't Like". I categorize these two groups based on how my own peers treat me. If people are nice to me, I will generally put them into the "People I Like" category unless I've seen them do really stupid things. If people are just flat out disrespectful to me and they have absolutely no reason to do so, I lose all respect for them and stick them in the group of "People I Don't Like". Luckily, there are more people in the "People I Like" group.

These aren't really the only two categories that I break people down into. I would be lying if I said that I don't see people as jocks, brains, and other such stereotypes. However, I don't judge if I like them based on what their category or categories may be. In fact, I like to start conversation using what their interests may be, or what they are categorized as in my mind. It's interesting to have a variety of different kinds of people to talk to. Information and ideas from different people vary a lot. You can see such differences as a good thing.

I also associate people based on their friends. I don't see cliques as people who happen to fall into the same category. I know people who mix categories a lot when choosing friends, and this breaks them down further into smaller categories. I like this aspect of social life. Eclectic experiences bring on eclectic discussion topics and eclectic thought processes. People can gain new ideas from what their friends have to say, and they can influence their friends as well.

All people really break down people into groups, maybe even just as a means of mind organization. This can be bad, but also just a different way to see things.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

On Loss

Losing everything would be completely demoralizing. Just the fact that you will never have any of those things that you have grown to love again is bad enough, but this is paired with a feeling of hopelessness and despair that you will not have any chance of ever regaining your normal flow of life. After losing everything, you would not naturally have any drive to regain your things. It would most likely take counseling of some sort for a person to even begin to cope with the stresses of losing all of their possessions.

Loss seems to be a recurring theme in American literature thus far. In John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, the Joads lose everything that they can't fit onto their truck. They then must cope with the stresses of losing not only their material possessions, but also their memories of home. In J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, Holden has lost his innocence. He focuses his efforts on making sure that children do not lose their innocence as he did. In Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea Santiago strives day and night to catch the giant Marlin, only to lose it to sharks on his return. And, most obviously, in Upon the Burning of Our House, Ann Bradstreet tells of how she loses everything in a house fire. Her faith gets her through this, and she actually manages to find a bright side of her unfortunate situation.

I feel that this theme is common because it is very interesting to read about hypothetical situations that would be very disappointing if they happened to the reader. It is naturally appealing to humans to see how other people would act in dire situations, fictional or nonfictional. Also, as with reality TV shows, people enjoy watching other people struggling or in their lowest form of humanity. I honestly don't know why, but I can be easily entertained watching normal people running an impossible obstacle course. The more normal they are, the better. I grow to love these people, and if they cross the obstacle safely, I feel very happy for them. I get the same way about literature. I like to be able to relate to characters' struggles. When dealing with loss, I root for the characters and hope that they can overcome their obstacles.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

The Importance of Documented Rules in Society

As much as we may think that life would be great without rules, we all know deep down that these guidelines are completely necessary for a well functioning society. Anarchy only results in total destruction of society and anti-productivity. Rules need to be written and well enforced to keep people in line. However, rules must not be over imposed or overwritten, for this would lead to a lack of freedom. This would also lead to destruction of society and anti-productivity but for different reasons from anarchy.

It feels to me like there are a lot of people that claim to be are anarchists. I honestly don't believe that anyone who claims this really knows what they are talking about. Anarchy is a one way ticket to explosion town. Looting, pillaging, and other such acts would ensue all around the world. This can be seen even when there are rules, but without that fear that accompanies rules, people would do it without a thought. This kind of thing would become second nature to these people of the anarchy. Without any rules at all no one would even try to follow an "honor system"; this system would no longer exist at all. After most society would become wiped out, people would naturally make rules again.

Now, I'm not saying that governments need to have rules that are super-strict. Life would be like a prison if this happened. But some rules need to be applied to keep a system running smoothly. There would need to be laws to prevent robbery, murder, rape, etc. As I have said, I feel that a fear of laws, or of consequences stemming from those laws, is almost as good of an enforcer as the actual enforcers of the law. People would have to be deranged to ignore some of the consequences just to do some sort of crime.

Over imposed laws would make this whole idea come full circle. People would feel need for a revolution. This would lead back to Anarchy, thus destroying everything. And so, rules are completely necessary in society.