As I began the assignment I started to think of “wild real men” and “real wild women” characteristics. Movies did not naturally pop in my head until I read the readings and then I began to think of movies that had these characteristics. The movie I choose to use is the movie “Enough”, starring Jennifer Lopez. In this movie is a woman who tries to flee her marriage with her daughter and does it successful by living a life under a new identity. After many years of turmoil and threats from her husband she realized it would never end unless she really did something about it, so she finally fights back.
The movie features Jennifer Lopez, Tessa Allen, Bill Campbell, Dan Futterman, Juliette Lewis, and Noah Wyle. The movie is about a working-class waitress named slim (Jennifer Lopez) who meets the man of her dreams named Mitch (Billy Campbell) one day at the dinner where she worked. Slim and Mitch ended up getting married and after the arrival of their first child Gracie (Tessa Allen), her picture perfect life shatters when she discovers Mitch’s hidden possessive dark side, controlling and abusive ego. Terrified for her daughter’s safety, Slim flees with her daughter trying to live a life under a new identity and look. Mitch continues to stalk Slim and harassing and threatening her, she realizes that it will never end unless she does something. She seeks a lawyer in the attempt to get him arrested and out of her life but the lawyer insist that she has waited too long to report it and there is nothing that can be done. The lawyer notifies her that self-defense is the only thing that can save her. Finally, Slim is forced to fight back so she seeks a personal trainer to help her learn good techniques in fighting and protection. In the end slim engages Mitch with a physical and psychological battle, showing him that she has had ENOUGH!
In the article “Seduction and Betrayal in the Heartland: Thelma and Louise”, the author mentions how this article is related to revenge and how it is viewed when women act this behavioral trait. The author goes on to describe the Thelma and Louise movie as avoiding “the trap of superficial gender – war movies, typified by female-abuse –and –knee –jerk revenge plots” (Boozer 212). I believe the character Slim played by Jennifer Lopez exemplifies a good “real wild women” because Slim is so pissed off about the abusive she is receiving from her husband that she wants revenge but instead of killing him she takes a different approach and fights back in self-defense. Mitch the husband of Slim, played by Billy Campbell also exemplifies a good “wild real men” in my opinion because behind closed doors he is this abusive, controlling and mean individual but to others he is known as a clean cut, loving man who loves his wife and family very much. The only trouble that I noticed about this film if your comparing to societal ideals is that the ending of the movie is not quite the same to real-life abusive situations. Not many women fight back, nor take classes to learn how to protect themselves. Instead most women go with the flow of life and do nothing, when in fact they should! No person deserves to be treated that way, regardless of the excuses.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Week 4 Blog Reviews
Melissa Burton- 9/15 & 9/17 post are unavailable ( no most submitted).
Melissa Paulo - 9/15 & 9/17 post are unavailable (no most submitted).
Mesann Huynh- I agree with you the more that I looked at Frida Kahlo's painting the more it became difficult to choose just one image when there was several outstanding ones to choose from. I really enjoyed the picture that you choose; it expresses a lot of emotion. You did a good job at detailing the picture; you describe the objects in the picture very well. I could understand were you got the idea of her being one with the Earth that could be very much so but they way that I interpret it is as a way of expressing sadness and being stuck in a position where she is unable to get away because she has feelings within her heart, which is why you see the roots coming out of the chest (heart) to indicate that particular feeling. Overall, you did very well, the only thing I could critique is to make sure you re-read before you submit the posting because I saw a few missed inputted words that did not make sense in certain places. :) To answer your question on my Frida Kahlo painting I do believe that if it wasn't for Rivera, Frida would have love to stay in Mexico where she felt happier to be.
The wright summary was well written. It touched on most of the key points. I agree, machines do not have common sense are incapable of expressing or even feeling emotions. I believe machines should never be programmed to have such power, they should only be used for the basic needs of what they're used for now. They should not be programmed to be human like! You mentioned this is your posting and I have to say I completely agree.
Melissa Paulo - 9/15 & 9/17 post are unavailable (no most submitted).
Mesann Huynh- I agree with you the more that I looked at Frida Kahlo's painting the more it became difficult to choose just one image when there was several outstanding ones to choose from. I really enjoyed the picture that you choose; it expresses a lot of emotion. You did a good job at detailing the picture; you describe the objects in the picture very well. I could understand were you got the idea of her being one with the Earth that could be very much so but they way that I interpret it is as a way of expressing sadness and being stuck in a position where she is unable to get away because she has feelings within her heart, which is why you see the roots coming out of the chest (heart) to indicate that particular feeling. Overall, you did very well, the only thing I could critique is to make sure you re-read before you submit the posting because I saw a few missed inputted words that did not make sense in certain places. :) To answer your question on my Frida Kahlo painting I do believe that if it wasn't for Rivera, Frida would have love to stay in Mexico where she felt happier to be.
The wright summary was well written. It touched on most of the key points. I agree, machines do not have common sense are incapable of expressing or even feeling emotions. I believe machines should never be programmed to have such power, they should only be used for the basic needs of what they're used for now. They should not be programmed to be human like! You mentioned this is your posting and I have to say I completely agree.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Frida Kahlo and Artictic Identity: Self Image of her between Mexico and the U.S.
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/davis/davis8-28-08.aspSelf Image of Frida Kahlo on the border between Mexico and the United States,1932:
Like several of her other paintings the painting that I choose is a self image of herself being pulled in two different directions. The Self Portrait on the Border Between Mexico and the United States, shows that she see’s both places in different ways and to her they could never be irreconcilable. The first thing that grabs my attention is the pink dress and elbow-length white gloves she is wearing. It is if she is going to attend a dinner party. On the left side of the picture is everything that represents Mexico to her. Coming out of the ground are flowers. The skulls and artifacts on the ground represent her Mexican heritage El Dia de los Muertos (the Day of the Dead). This ceremony honors the dead and assures the continuity of life. The sky is clear showing the sun and moon vividly. The building in the picture is an old hand made building showing creativity and hardworking. Everything on the Mexico side is imaged as environmental.
On the right side of the picture is everything that represents the United States to her. You can see the American flag but it is being covered by pollution from huge industrial corporate company’s. An example of one that she names in the picture is Ford. There are pictures of several huge sky buildings on the U.S. side. The picture also shows how American’s use electricity, on the bottom of the picture is a fan, satellite, and a light bulb to indicate the use of electricity. The cords of these objects are implanted in the ground like roots, so instead of seeing flowers and trees you see a mechanized world. Everything on the United States side is imaged as not environmentally friendly to the world, instead we focus more on machinery equipment.
It is clear through the image that she would rather live in Mexico then the United States because in the picture it shows her holding the Mexico Flag. It is where she was born so it makes sense that she would feel comfortable representing Mexico. Reading on her history she had moved to the United States because of Diego Rivera acceptance to work in industrialized company’s. If is wasn’t for her deep commitment to Rivera, Kahlo would have preferred to stay in Mexico were she was comfortable. Frida Kahlo had profound feelings of nationalism for her country and her people, thus this is why I choose this picture because I too have great pride in my country even though we have our flaws.
“High society here turns me off and I feel a bit of rage against all these rich guys here. I have seen thousands in the most terrible misery without anything to eat and with no place to sleep. It is terrible to see the rich having parties day and night while thousands and thousands of people are dying of hunger” - Frida Kahlo
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Robert Wright "Can Machines Think?"
As Robert Wright wrote in his article, the main question he continuously asked was “Can machines think?” Wright focused mainly on technological advances and the way it could affect our society and viewpoint. He used an example of a chess game played by Kasparov, a man and the Deep Blue, a computer to exemplify that Kasparov was trying to help defend human dignity from computers. The Deep Blue had won the chess match, thus making human dignity less meaningful. “It isn’t just that as these machines get more powerful they do more jobs once done by people” (Beedles 140). This quote from the article is a good example of explaining that computers are not naturally learning new tasks, human are programming them to do so.
Wright says, “The better these seemingly soulless machines get at doing things people do, the more plausible it seems that we could be soulless machines too” (Beedles 140). Human beings began to feel less unique as computer technology expands. Robert Wright states that “the point is simply that as the information age advanced and computers get brainier, philosophers are taking the ethereal existence of mind, of consciousness, more seriously, not less” (Beedles 140). Thus, many researches are bringing up consciousness as a prominent question throughout this article to find an agreeable meaning. The researchers in artificial intelligence state that the hardest thing for computers to do is the simple stuff. Computer cannot make small talk, recognize faces, or even tell jokes. Computers may be faster and smarter but there incapable of showing or expressing emotion, they lack real human qualities. As Wright says, “the lights are on, but is anyone home?”
In Wrights article defining what is and what is not consider consciousness is unrealistic because not one philosopher can agree to the same. Wright provides viewpoints from other philosophers like David Chalmers and Daniel Dennett. Daniel Dennett believes consciousness is no longer a mystery, consciousness is simply the brain, and clearly we’re all machines if we think. David Chalmers believes that with technology expanding so does the mystery of consciousness. Wrights states that some people feel that it would be going against God, because some people believe that he was the one who created it and if so the one that could take it away. This article definitely makes you think about the following questions. What will humans do, if technology and computers can do it all? Will there be a place on this Earth for us anymore? Would are existence even be necessary? Overall, in Wrights article the one thing AI and the philosophers know how to do, is disagree to agree.
Wright says, “The better these seemingly soulless machines get at doing things people do, the more plausible it seems that we could be soulless machines too” (Beedles 140). Human beings began to feel less unique as computer technology expands. Robert Wright states that “the point is simply that as the information age advanced and computers get brainier, philosophers are taking the ethereal existence of mind, of consciousness, more seriously, not less” (Beedles 140). Thus, many researches are bringing up consciousness as a prominent question throughout this article to find an agreeable meaning. The researchers in artificial intelligence state that the hardest thing for computers to do is the simple stuff. Computer cannot make small talk, recognize faces, or even tell jokes. Computers may be faster and smarter but there incapable of showing or expressing emotion, they lack real human qualities. As Wright says, “the lights are on, but is anyone home?”
In Wrights article defining what is and what is not consider consciousness is unrealistic because not one philosopher can agree to the same. Wright provides viewpoints from other philosophers like David Chalmers and Daniel Dennett. Daniel Dennett believes consciousness is no longer a mystery, consciousness is simply the brain, and clearly we’re all machines if we think. David Chalmers believes that with technology expanding so does the mystery of consciousness. Wrights states that some people feel that it would be going against God, because some people believe that he was the one who created it and if so the one that could take it away. This article definitely makes you think about the following questions. What will humans do, if technology and computers can do it all? Will there be a place on this Earth for us anymore? Would are existence even be necessary? Overall, in Wrights article the one thing AI and the philosophers know how to do, is disagree to agree.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Week 3 blog reviews
Melissa Burton- In you’re posting about thoughts and ideas you explained the definition of both words very well. I would have liked to hear you explain in your words how you think these words are connected, or if you think there not. You briefly discussed it but0 should would of I would have liked to see more of your thoughts on that subject. Overall, I think you explained both very well and used them as good examples.
On the posting about machines surpassing the human brain, I would have to agree that machinery would not be able to replace the human touch. Feelings are important, its human nature, one thing it’s not is taught. I do not believe you can teach computerize machinery to feel, at least I hope not at this point or ever in the future.
Melissa Paulo- Could not review did not do postings 9/8 and 9/10.
Mesann Huynh- I like your approach to the use of robots. It’s funny because we both referred to the movie “I, Robot”, in two different ways. You looked at it in a positive way and then turned it around to a negative way. I on the other hand took the movie and used it as a negative approach. Yes, computers and robot are and could be smarter than the human brain. There is no doubt that there faster at solving problems but is that all they can do? I like how you mentioned robots as a machine that can do it all, but most importantly help us. Like you said humans have a lot more complex issues that robots would never be able to experience nor understand.
I would definitely have to say that I agree as well to your statement that life lessons are learned through mistakes. It may not be the case for everyone but I would say the majority learns through experiences. The mind works in weird ways. I’m not good with names unless I’ve known you a long time but the one way that helps me remember someone is through the face. It seems that is the only way that I could remember.
On the posting about machines surpassing the human brain, I would have to agree that machinery would not be able to replace the human touch. Feelings are important, its human nature, one thing it’s not is taught. I do not believe you can teach computerize machinery to feel, at least I hope not at this point or ever in the future.
Melissa Paulo- Could not review did not do postings 9/8 and 9/10.
Mesann Huynh- I like your approach to the use of robots. It’s funny because we both referred to the movie “I, Robot”, in two different ways. You looked at it in a positive way and then turned it around to a negative way. I on the other hand took the movie and used it as a negative approach. Yes, computers and robot are and could be smarter than the human brain. There is no doubt that there faster at solving problems but is that all they can do? I like how you mentioned robots as a machine that can do it all, but most importantly help us. Like you said humans have a lot more complex issues that robots would never be able to experience nor understand.
I would definitely have to say that I agree as well to your statement that life lessons are learned through mistakes. It may not be the case for everyone but I would say the majority learns through experiences. The mind works in weird ways. I’m not good with names unless I’ve known you a long time but the one way that helps me remember someone is through the face. It seems that is the only way that I could remember.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Can Computers think?
According to Minsky, sophisticated computer programs equals to and even surpasses the human consciousness. Minsky is passionate with creating programs that mimic the characteristics of human intelligence. Minsky is developing a program called Magnus and once completed it will exhibit characteristics, such as learning, language, and knowledge representation which are normally connected with consciousness. Minsky says that “memory of inner states is the key attribute of consciousness” (Beedles 120). The human brain has limited records and hardly can remember their recent experiences, let a lone a lifetime. However, a computer can be programmed to uphold records of its internal states and then trace back through them if needed. Minsky goals from my understanding are to one day have computers know and understand common sense, be able to interpret language and sentences but to overall look like the human brain with several neural nets.
Minsky views speculate that he believes computers are smarter than human’s. I think he feels that the human brain is limited to certain activity and capabilities then computers. I believe computers can process things faster than human beings can. In some sense, they can be smarter than a human can, but is that the way life should be lived? I do not think so. Technology is without a doubt expanding rapidly and is used on a daily basis by millions of people. I am not saying that technology is bad, its definitely useful and necessary but to a certain extent. What technology should not be is put into a human form. Why do we need robots? Are people that lazy and not capable of providing things for themselves. With that type of technology why do human’s need to exist?
There can be many reasons to this subject but the most important is that human’s produce feelings, whereas computers and electronic devices do not. A good movie that I can use to apply my example is the “I, Robot” featuring Will Smith. This movie was based on technology, robots, and high advanced computer software. In the movie, the computer software began to over run the robots internally, having them create illegal actions but the main purpose to what they wanted was to over rule human existence and the way of life. The computer software wanted to control everything, which is ridicules; I do not think technology should be that highly advanced. Technology is a necessity but what scares me is that one day it will be the only way of life. Computer’s in my opinion should not be smarter or highly advanced then human’s, they last thing this country needs is to be overruled by human like robots or computers.
Minsky views speculate that he believes computers are smarter than human’s. I think he feels that the human brain is limited to certain activity and capabilities then computers. I believe computers can process things faster than human beings can. In some sense, they can be smarter than a human can, but is that the way life should be lived? I do not think so. Technology is without a doubt expanding rapidly and is used on a daily basis by millions of people. I am not saying that technology is bad, its definitely useful and necessary but to a certain extent. What technology should not be is put into a human form. Why do we need robots? Are people that lazy and not capable of providing things for themselves. With that type of technology why do human’s need to exist?
There can be many reasons to this subject but the most important is that human’s produce feelings, whereas computers and electronic devices do not. A good movie that I can use to apply my example is the “I, Robot” featuring Will Smith. This movie was based on technology, robots, and high advanced computer software. In the movie, the computer software began to over run the robots internally, having them create illegal actions but the main purpose to what they wanted was to over rule human existence and the way of life. The computer software wanted to control everything, which is ridicules; I do not think technology should be that highly advanced. Technology is a necessity but what scares me is that one day it will be the only way of life. Computer’s in my opinion should not be smarter or highly advanced then human’s, they last thing this country needs is to be overruled by human like robots or computers.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Consciousness,Thoughts, & ideas? pg96(Directed Freewrite)
What is consciousness? Frankly, it’s the most unanswered question containing to the brain. Consciousness is defined as a state of awareness of ourselves and of the world around us. A persons consciousness can consist of whatever their aware of at that particular point of time. It can be thoughts, feelings, sensations, and/or perceptions of the world. Better yet consciousness is described as a stream of thoughts. To William James, or better known as the father of American psychology, consciousness is not a fixed state or a collection of disconnected thoughts and experiences but rather it is a continuous process of thinking in which one thought flows into another (Nevid, J.S. (2009). Essentials of psychology concepts and applications (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin). What is a thought? A thought is the process of thinking, or the power to imagine. Thought and consciousness are very compatible, the mean quite the same thing. To think or to have a thought is the same as being in a state of consciousness.
What is an idea? An idea is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, as “a plan for action; something imagined or pictured in the mind; a central meaning or purpose, concept, conception, notion, impression”. When one thinks of an idea and thoughts, you don’t think of it meaning the same, you think of them as two different words meaning completely different things. However, they may have differences but more importantly they are very well-matched. The definition of idea mentions that it’s an imagine or picture in the mind, which is quite similar to the definition of a thought. When I put these two concepts together I think of the thought being the initial result and then the idea. The idea to me is taking on the action of the thought, so a thought would need to occur before action could take place (idea).
Thoughts, ideas, feelings, sensations, and/or perceptions are feed through electric signals through the brain. Those electric signals let humans know what emotions, thoughts, or sensations there having at that particular time. We all experience this on a daily basis, it’s just no one realizes it. I think its human nature to be questionable, let alone to process ideas and thoughts. If humans did not do that then people wouldn’t experience anything or have knowledge on anything. Humans are inquisitive and creative, besides electric signals it is just the way humans were created, it’s a superior gift.
What is an idea? An idea is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, as “a plan for action; something imagined or pictured in the mind; a central meaning or purpose, concept, conception, notion, impression”. When one thinks of an idea and thoughts, you don’t think of it meaning the same, you think of them as two different words meaning completely different things. However, they may have differences but more importantly they are very well-matched. The definition of idea mentions that it’s an imagine or picture in the mind, which is quite similar to the definition of a thought. When I put these two concepts together I think of the thought being the initial result and then the idea. The idea to me is taking on the action of the thought, so a thought would need to occur before action could take place (idea).
Thoughts, ideas, feelings, sensations, and/or perceptions are feed through electric signals through the brain. Those electric signals let humans know what emotions, thoughts, or sensations there having at that particular time. We all experience this on a daily basis, it’s just no one realizes it. I think its human nature to be questionable, let alone to process ideas and thoughts. If humans did not do that then people wouldn’t experience anything or have knowledge on anything. Humans are inquisitive and creative, besides electric signals it is just the way humans were created, it’s a superior gift.
Week 2 Blog Reviews
Melissa Burton - Hello Melissa, I enjoyed reading your "online impression blog". I find it very interesting that you have taken an online class out of the country. I bet it was fun. If you don't mind me asking what school did you take that course from? How was it? Do you mostly take online classes? I would have to agree with you when you say that people get to know one another more in an online courses then in face-to-face interactions. Although, it is safe to say that both have there positives and negatives.
For your "can we be good without god?" posting, I agree with you because I think its a personal opinion if someone wants to believe in God or not. Everybody can do day to day actions and involve God or not, again it's there choice. Now do I believed its makes you mad which ever way you choose, no. Can it make you good, well I thinks that is defined by everyone a little differently. Like you said all religions are different and all believe in different things, so it will never be right to say whats good or wrong because it is looked at differently by each religion. So one thing good for one religion, may not be good for others, so its hard to say.
Melissa Paulo- Could not critique 09/01 and 09/03 postings.
Mesann Huynh- In your online/lecture course posting, I can relate to you because blogging is the first for me as well. I agree, it is definitely easier to express things online than in front of the class. I know for myself I hate giving speeches and/or presentations. Although, I will do them when required but even though I am not horrible at giving them, its just the fear that I have towards them. I believe its common, and a lot of people experience the same thing. Large lecture halls are not the place to have good face-to-face interactions, because there are so many people, it would be impossible to remember or get to know everyone, except those that sit next to you. Like you said, every relationship needs time, that is why it is good to compromise your time according to all of your relationships. Technology is on the rise, I do see it as a good thing its just our responsible to keep up with it and learns its areas.
For your "life without god" posting, I found it interesting to know that you are Buddhism. I am taking REL 101 as an elective and as a class we are learning about different religions and their aspect and beliefs. I am learning about Hinduism right now and inside of that is Buddhism. When you began to talk about your beliefs I knew exactly what you were talking about. I think everyone at some point looses connection with their religion but I think all in time a person can reconnect with their religion. I think people can be good without God, they do not necessarily need a religion to make them good. At the end of the day, its about the strong morals and commonsense that makes an act good.
For your "can we be good without god?" posting, I agree with you because I think its a personal opinion if someone wants to believe in God or not. Everybody can do day to day actions and involve God or not, again it's there choice. Now do I believed its makes you mad which ever way you choose, no. Can it make you good, well I thinks that is defined by everyone a little differently. Like you said all religions are different and all believe in different things, so it will never be right to say whats good or wrong because it is looked at differently by each religion. So one thing good for one religion, may not be good for others, so its hard to say.
Melissa Paulo- Could not critique 09/01 and 09/03 postings.
Mesann Huynh- In your online/lecture course posting, I can relate to you because blogging is the first for me as well. I agree, it is definitely easier to express things online than in front of the class. I know for myself I hate giving speeches and/or presentations. Although, I will do them when required but even though I am not horrible at giving them, its just the fear that I have towards them. I believe its common, and a lot of people experience the same thing. Large lecture halls are not the place to have good face-to-face interactions, because there are so many people, it would be impossible to remember or get to know everyone, except those that sit next to you. Like you said, every relationship needs time, that is why it is good to compromise your time according to all of your relationships. Technology is on the rise, I do see it as a good thing its just our responsible to keep up with it and learns its areas.
For your "life without god" posting, I found it interesting to know that you are Buddhism. I am taking REL 101 as an elective and as a class we are learning about different religions and their aspect and beliefs. I am learning about Hinduism right now and inside of that is Buddhism. When you began to talk about your beliefs I knew exactly what you were talking about. I think everyone at some point looses connection with their religion but I think all in time a person can reconnect with their religion. I think people can be good without God, they do not necessarily need a religion to make them good. At the end of the day, its about the strong morals and commonsense that makes an act good.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Is there good without God?
The question here to be answered is, can we be good without god? I would like to think so because I believe it’s how the person lives their life and acts out their morals and beliefs to the everyday lifestyle. I was raised in traditional Catholic beliefs and my family would constantly stress the importance of continuing the practice by attending mass and finishing sacraments. I wouldn’t change anything I’ve learned because I truly believe those teachings, beliefs and morals have shaped who I am today. Everyone learns right from wrong in their own way, and if there wasn’t a “god” or religion to believe in people would still find a way to make their life’s as positive as they can. This is why religions exist; people need something higher to believe in to make them feel excepted in some sense reassurance of life now and after death. When people commit sin they need to be assured that they will be forgiven and rebirth through the beliefs of the religion.
Lisa Conyers and Phillip Harvey said in the book that, “a religious person is more likely to commit a crime than a non-religious person (Beedles pg 63).” It goes on to say that the more religious society is the higher in crime rates. Lisa Conyers and Phillip Harvey also said that, “studies indicate that a believer in a religion is less likely to do a good deed than is a nonbeliever (Beedles pg 63).” This is easy to believe because when a person commits a crime and they do prison time, all of a sudden they claim they were touched by god and religion. They began to preach on how changed they are and began residing biblical readings and prayers. Regardless of how committed they are to the religion now, most if not all re-offend. There are a small percentage of those individuals who use religion as an actual savor to change their lifestyle.
Every one commits sin one way or another, were not all perfect, we will never be. If I wasn’t brought up Catholic I wouldn’t think of myself as bad, I would just have learned positive morals in a different way. Faith, religion, and beliefs are simply a personal option and opinion. The only person that controls you is yourself, no one else. I do not always seek “god” for my questions in hope of an answer, instead I seek guidance and use my own knowledge and common sense to get me through my life struggles. At the end I believe a person can be good without god, it’s definitely a personal belief.
Lisa Conyers and Phillip Harvey said in the book that, “a religious person is more likely to commit a crime than a non-religious person (Beedles pg 63).” It goes on to say that the more religious society is the higher in crime rates. Lisa Conyers and Phillip Harvey also said that, “studies indicate that a believer in a religion is less likely to do a good deed than is a nonbeliever (Beedles pg 63).” This is easy to believe because when a person commits a crime and they do prison time, all of a sudden they claim they were touched by god and religion. They began to preach on how changed they are and began residing biblical readings and prayers. Regardless of how committed they are to the religion now, most if not all re-offend. There are a small percentage of those individuals who use religion as an actual savor to change their lifestyle.
Every one commits sin one way or another, were not all perfect, we will never be. If I wasn’t brought up Catholic I wouldn’t think of myself as bad, I would just have learned positive morals in a different way. Faith, religion, and beliefs are simply a personal option and opinion. The only person that controls you is yourself, no one else. I do not always seek “god” for my questions in hope of an answer, instead I seek guidance and use my own knowledge and common sense to get me through my life struggles. At the end I believe a person can be good without god, it’s definitely a personal belief.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Individual Sel "SELF"
Well the obvious between an online class and a traditional class is the face-to-face interaction. Being in an online class you do not get that face-to-face interaction with classmates as you would with traditional classes, but I ask myself, is that true? I tend to believe that a person can go a whole semester in a classroom and physically not say a word to anyone, maybe to the professor, but typically not to a classmate, unless it is required. I have seen it, and I am sure many others have as well. Does it make that person, bad? NO, some people are just not capable of expressing themselves through talking. It could be fright, anxiety, just a list of numerous reasons. I think first impressions with traditional classes focus more on appearance and then on course work. My first impression with making a blog for this course was fun. I have taken many online courses and this is honestly the first online class that has required a blog site and has required us to introduce ourselves. I really enjoyed it because it lets the person individualize themselves. Lets the individual show their creativity and oppose their opinions, without being judge or frown upon. You can really understand, relate, and comprehend all of the bloggers entries.
Orson Scott Card tries to find the core of “true self”. He states that every person has multiple versions of themselves in different settings. He questions, “Is there some core of “true self” underneath the various masks we put on for different people and different situations?” (Beedles pg 32). Card suggests that these masks are not indeed masks but rather different facets of our “true self”. I could relate to that because the way I speak to my parents and grandparents (family in general) is a lot different than they way I would speak to my co-workers or friends. Card questions are we in fact our “self” if this is taking place and I feel like I am being myself at all times no matter who I am around but I obviously feel more comfortable sharing information with certain people than I do others, so I guess in some sense I am not being my “true self”.
Erving Goffman presentation of self presents the more obvious, because he states that we manage our selves in face-to-face interactions. Erving Goffman says, “When an individual appears in the presence of others, there will usually be some reason for him to mobilize his activity so that it will convey an impression to others which it is in his interest to convey (Beedles pg. 44).”Meaning we define people as we meet them, to get a sense of whom they are, to understand their individuality and we use it in a social setting. I could relate to this because as Goffman says a person does this to learn what is expected from me will in return be expected from them, which will then be the best way to call their desired response (respect).
I agree with Gergen when he says, “the technologies of social saturation expose us to an enormous range of persons, new forms of relationships, unique circumstances and opportunities, and special intensities of feeling (Beedles pg 53).” I think you can definitely get a sense of who someone is through this blog site. They only difference is you do not have a physical face to image the talking to but that is what pictures are for.
Orson Scott Card tries to find the core of “true self”. He states that every person has multiple versions of themselves in different settings. He questions, “Is there some core of “true self” underneath the various masks we put on for different people and different situations?” (Beedles pg 32). Card suggests that these masks are not indeed masks but rather different facets of our “true self”. I could relate to that because the way I speak to my parents and grandparents (family in general) is a lot different than they way I would speak to my co-workers or friends. Card questions are we in fact our “self” if this is taking place and I feel like I am being myself at all times no matter who I am around but I obviously feel more comfortable sharing information with certain people than I do others, so I guess in some sense I am not being my “true self”.
Erving Goffman presentation of self presents the more obvious, because he states that we manage our selves in face-to-face interactions. Erving Goffman says, “When an individual appears in the presence of others, there will usually be some reason for him to mobilize his activity so that it will convey an impression to others which it is in his interest to convey (Beedles pg. 44).”Meaning we define people as we meet them, to get a sense of whom they are, to understand their individuality and we use it in a social setting. I could relate to this because as Goffman says a person does this to learn what is expected from me will in return be expected from them, which will then be the best way to call their desired response (respect).
I agree with Gergen when he says, “the technologies of social saturation expose us to an enormous range of persons, new forms of relationships, unique circumstances and opportunities, and special intensities of feeling (Beedles pg 53).” I think you can definitely get a sense of who someone is through this blog site. They only difference is you do not have a physical face to image the talking to but that is what pictures are for.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
