My View of Human Nature

I believe that we as humans are divine sparks, as the Eastern religions taught. I believe that the bible cannot be trusted, nor used as a center for the basis of life, it is cynical, and often goes what we as humans consider right or wrong. I think we as humans were taught to believe that there is a “God,” however, by nature, we are not forced into believing this riteous lie. I do and do not believe that humans are by nature altruistic, a thought in which should be considered and diagnosed further. On the topic of free will, and determinism, I believe that everything happens for a reason, I like to toy with the idea that things are aligned somewhere in the universe for something to happen at a certain time, kind of like the butterfly effect, however, I have no way of proving this, and I have no idea if it is true, all I know is that it is fun to toy with different conspiracy theories. 

Response to Aly's Post: Conception

I agree with you on your statement. I don't really understand how that could be true (that, meaning people only exist when you think they exist). I do however think that this is very interesting to think about.
What does it mean to exist? How do I know other minds exist if i am eternally trapped inside of only my mind?

You can find the post here: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/2013/05/conception.html?showComment=1367975914547#c1069699385698073564

Relativity of Intentions

The topic of relativity of intentions popped up while we were talking about Kant during our class lectures, and it peaked my interest. 

Take Hitler for example. He believed whole-heartedly that he was going to save the world during World War II. As another example, heroes. Heroes intentionally set out to do good- such as the firefighters and police officers rescuing people from the buildings during 9/11, yet the consequences were bad (death). 

This causes me to think that we as humans always think that we have good intentions when setting out to do something. 

This leads me to question do all good intentions lead to horrific consequences? 

Response to Siearra's "The Importance of Science."

I agree with your statement, "I believe religious theories of  human nature fail to take into consideration these crucial scientific factors and therefore are missing key points in their analyses." 

Like i said in my previous post, when people are in need of something, they create it. The same thing goes for religion. When things got confusing, or too hard for people, they started making up stories (and yet still believed them.) The religion theories of human nature fail to take in crucial scientific factors because it contradicts everything they've been writing for thousands of years.

The article can be found here: http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-importance-of-science.html?showComment=1367172582403#c6308197678595682334

Darwinian Evolution

Darwinian Evolution, as explained in the book, has four very important parts:
1. The Ancient Earth Thesis (stating that the universe is about 15 billion years old, and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.)
2. The Common Ancestry Thesis (life originated from nonliving matter over 3 billion years ago in a single place.)
3. The Progression Thesis (life, once originated, has progressed from relatively simply to relatively complex forms, unicellular to multicellular.)
4. The Naturalistic Selection Thesis (natural selection took place by a chance progress of genetic replication of species striving to survive by adapting to their environment and in the process developing mutations which favored some members over others.)

It comes as a shock to people that because science has identified most of this, their religion is no longer a credible source. I think that's why people are so timid to talk about evolution. People have a tendency to create things that they need, and religion is no different. Religion was created as a source of hope for people when things started happening that they didn't understand, and more and more people jumped on the bandwagon. However, when Darwin came along proving that all wrong, it became extremely controversial, and basically a game of denial.

Response to Corbin's "No Equal Worth?"

I agree 100% with your post. I believe that people who believe in a religion can sometimes come off as if they are better than you, when in reality, we are all equal. I definitely think that if their beliefs were altered, or taken away they would start to think that they really are just like everyone else.

Article can be found here: http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/04/no-equal-worth.html?showComment=1367171763677#c764268990327599247

Existentialism

Sartre, in his passion for freedom, goes so far as to reject the reality of the unconscious. According to him, even our dreams are freely chosen, only subconsciously. The emphasis on subjectivity and freedom easily slides into an overemphasis on individualism, tending toward solipsism where the self becomes a world entirely itself, cut off from other selves. Sartre’s theory of freedom is at the heart of his ethics. One must choose what one will become, but the ethical choice is one of universalization of one’s actions. Like the quote Sartre quoted, if god doesn’t exist, everything is possible. Sartre also connects the notion of freedom with the idea that existence precedes essence. 

Response to Aly's Freud and Religion

I think this is a very interesting concept!

After reading the subsection about religion in the text, I feel as though Freud would stand by his statement that religion is an illusion, and that it is still a projection of the father image, just made to fit in the other religions.

Here's something to think about, though. Why is it that Freud thought that little children to grow up thinking that only the father is a god-like image? What if a child grows up without a father? What then? Surely, mothers are more admirable in some cases as well.

Article can be found here: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/2013/04/freud-and-religion.html?showComment=1367171241618#c4843918488929856233

The Trinity of Personality, Sexuality, and Freud.

The Trinity of Personality is composed of three separate sections.
1. The Id- the function of this is to provide for the release of energy in the system.
2. The Ego- or the "executive" of the personality system, which aims at controlling and ruling the id and maintaining communication with the external world.
3. The Superego- or the "legislative- judicial" branch of the personality, which represents the ideal patterns and principles of behavior. 

Freud believed that a human being was made up of these three components, which disagreed with traditional christianity that a person is made up of a "mind, body, and soul." 

Other strong points in Freud’s view of human nature include his assertiveness in pansexuality, meaning that everything in life is caused by our sexual instincts, and that sexuality defines our being. 

Karl Marx.

I believe that acting a certain way has noticeable effects on the way you think and your thought process. Marx ten theses (historical materialist determinism, organicism, class struggle, the pivotal role of capitalism, value theory, alienation, oppression, revolution, dictatorship, and communism) are very important to his statement, "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." 

The way that a person thinks about themselves, their social standing, and how other people perceive them is more important than anyone thinks.