Why do we find a flower beautiful? There are so many avenues in which we could explore for the answer to this question.

The Sociologist might say that a flower has been culturally associated with beauty. For example, the image of Venus has always been represented with being surrounded with flowers. It is a representation of the nature of cycles. Birth, death and rebirth all at once. Therefore, because society has always accepted the beauty of flowers, so would the individual.

The Psychologist might say that the flower has been conditioned to represent beauty. A flower as a gift has brought the reward of perhaps positive verbal reinforcement, and therefore we process the idea that perhaps there is something beautiful or right about the flower to warrant a positive response from its presentation.

The Philosopher might say that the answer is simple. The flower is beautiful because it engages and participates in the principle and idea of beauty. Just as how numbers participate in the idea of logic. This underlying principle is manifested in such forms, abstract or emperical.

The Biologist might say that a flower is beautiful because the presence of a flowers elicits the secretion of hormones which induce a certain state in the individual. Perhaps through sight, or smell, the chemical responses create a postive biological experience.

The Mathematician might say that the flower is beautiful because only a beautiful and meaningful object would be presented as a gift between lovers. Therefore, it would only be logical that since a friendship or romantic relationship produces the exchange of such gifts as a flower, that the flower must be beautiful.

The Renaissance Artist might state the the flower is by nature itself a beautiful object. It has a natural symmetry that runs through the center, it's structure is in complete and harmonious proportions to its different components, and the colors are represented in such a way that evokes the deepest of emotions.

In light of the recent criticism of the Judeo-Christian religion and it's influence on the notion that humans are superior to animals and all of God's creation, I would just like to point out that critics who in fact state this are less than capable of assuming such a position due to their only sole alternative of argument. That is, evolution.

Despite conflicts regarding evolution, I stand strong in belief of evolution. I also strongly believe in the Bible and the Christian religion. However when it becomes an issue of environmentalism, I oppose those who are quick to judge the story of Creation. We all know this story well, where God creates Man in His image and give him responsibility of all creatures in the sea and on land. In fact, in Genesis 1:26, it states that God says:

"Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over te wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth".

Many critics would point out that Christians are quick to jump on the word dominion in assuming that God intended the land to serve Man's purpose here on Earth and nothing else.
I believe the Bible, being written by man, contains many flaws. However, I believe even more persistently that true error lies within Man's intepretation of Word, and not the Word itself. Without diving into detail on this point too much, I would like to turn the attention of the reader onto the critics alternatve solution to "humble humankind".

Evolution would state that there is no end goal, that beings would constantly evolve through constant adaptations from generation to generation. Everyone should already be familiar with the theory of evolution, so I should just be able to dive straight to the point. A belief in the truth of evolution would also mean a belief that all organisms are no better than each other. In fact, one could argue that humans are on the lowest of the scales of evolution, being that humans would most likely be easily forgotten by the rest of the animal kingdom if we were to suddenly go extinct.

However, for everyone who criticizes the mindset of the Judeo-Christian religion as encouraging a hierarchy of humans over animals, let us explore what evolution encourages. Evolution is basically and most essentially stating that every living organism only lives so that it may procreate. Keeping this in mind, would it not seem that it is actually evolution that encourages the exploitation of the land by humans in order for humans to survive. Humans do not adapt by growing claws or by developing feathers, they adapt through technology. If technology were what would be keeping humans alive and thriving, then even at the expense of the environment, technology would not be forsaken. This would carry on to the point of the entire destruction of the environment if need be.

This is not about humans lack of foresight for the future in that they cannot seem to gauge that they NEED the salvation of the environment to survive. This is about environmentalists blaming Christians for humans' lack of respect for nature. They claim that, with the evolution as their proof, humans are no higher on the ladder than ants. They do not see, however, that by supporting evolution, they are supporting everything they are opposed to.

Stop blaming Christianity for the world's problems.

Every night for the past four nights I have been having very strange dreams. The ones where you lose something or run away from something. I dont particularly care for them and I feel that I would start my day off much better if I didnt have them. I ran to class today. It was because I was 5 minutes late; but I really wonder, am I just telling myself that its because I'm late for class, am I really just still trying to run away from that dream?

Humans, at least in the Western Tradition, spend an amazing amount of time trying to prove their superiority over other species. Part of this effort has been devoted to finding some uniquely human characteristic, some quality that sets our species apart from lower organisms. We used to say, for example, that homo sapiens was the only animal that reasoned, but studies of animal learning raised serious doubts about that. We said that we were the only creature to make and use tools, but then we discovered that chimpanzees make and use tools all the time. We said that humans were the only animals capable of learning language, but then we taught apes and porpoises to communicate.

One by one, the characteristics that we have held to be uniquely human have been found in other species. The ultimate futility of this endeavor was pointed out by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell:

"Organic life, we are told, has developed gradually from the protozoan to the philosopher; and this development, we are assured, is indubitably an advance. Unfortunately, it is the philosopher, not the protozoan, who gives us assurance."

Perhaps the only uniquely human characteristic is this: So far as we know, we are the only creature that spends time trying to prove its superiority over other creatures. The rest of the animal kingdom seems to treat this matter with indifference.

Utilitarianism Vs Deontological Ethics

Imagine you were a parent of a child, or a sunday school teacher, or just a form of authority and knowledge for a little child. It comes a time when the child starts to grow aware of the moral ethics that govern human lifestyle.
Upon learning of the different moral codes, the child comes upon the issue of truth and lies. If this child were to approach you about this, how then would you respond?

Two forms of thought can be derived from a situation such as this. One approach would be to tell the young child that lying is absolutely wrong, and that it is a sin. Of course this would be the most direct approach and after all, religion does teach us to be truthful in our deeds.
This path of thinking is what we know is deontological thought. In that, consequences don't matter, but what does matter is morality. Therefore, what the lie achieves does not matter, but the fact that a lie was said.

Another way you may address the issue is to state that lying is predominantly wrong, unless it is used for some greater purpose. If one was to lie in order to save many, then this would in turn be ok.
This form of utilitarianism creates the notion that the only thing that matters is the consequences, and if it took any means to achieve a greater purpose, then it should be sought after.

Although there is neither right nor wrong approach to this situation, both approaches must be observed even deeper.
Suppose one were to be a strong believer of deontological thought. This individual would be willing to turn in his own father if his father had stolen money to feed his starving family. To some this may be the right thing to do, to others, maybe not. But this would lead us to a discussion about what is law and what is universally right or wrong. I dont wish to get into that at the moment.

If an individual were to align his or herself with deontological thought, this person would be, simply put, a vigilante. This would be the type of person who would kill, steal, lie and cheat if he or she felt it would gain a greater consequence. For example, a leader who would start a war to prevent a war.

Which of these approaches we choose to govern our decisions about morality will affect the way we lead our lives. It is definitely something we should all consider before pouring onto others our own views of morality.

Many paradoxical questions pertain to the issue of ethics, and to be honest there really is no answer to these questions. Perhaps this is the beauty of it, perhaps it is a curse.

In the beginning, God created Man. Man was diverse, some with strength some without. Those with strength began to take from the weak what the weak could not defend for themselves. Such an interesting creature, though, is man. For you see, the weak physically are not the weak intellectually. So the weak slowly group together finding more and more of each other.
What then do the weak do? What can they do to recover all that they have lost and how do they then, deal with this oppression that has been burderned upon them by the strong?

Simple, they recreate god. A god that pours favor upon the weak, and punishes the strong. This god is the weapon in which the weak reclaim their losses.
The weak proclaim their leaders as pastors, priests and popes. They condemn the strong for their worldly ways and create a law code in which everything that matters is what the weak have and everything that brings evil and suffering is what they weak do not have. The poor become saved, and the rich now need to work for their salvation. For everything that the strong and rich indulge in, now become worldly evils and must be repented of. The weak teach that the rich must now give up everything to be accepted into the kingdom of their god.
Then the tables turn, the weak now become the religious, and they find themselves the strong again. They call the strong the weak, and they see this as good. Once again, the world has order.

Ok so I've decided this blog needs direction. Sure its cool to post about things I hate, but is it really worthwhile? All it does is make me seem obnoxious and the like. I've decided that there's enough of that on other websites, and if you would like some links please feel free to ask me personally.

Psychology's focus on protection from damage is harmful. It has contributed to a culture of victimology and may be responsible for the widespread epidemic of depression in our young people

I just needed to get this in writing before i lose my train of thought on it.
I was talking to a friend of mine earlier today and a brief comment was made about how intro to psychology students (psyc students who only took one class in psychology) seem to think they can read behavior so well. So to all people who feel that way, here's a statement directed towards you noobies:

Suppose you applied for a position in university if you have not already, or rather, suppose you were an admissions officer for a university. Now, suppose you were looking at a candidate who applied for this university and you ask him to come in for an interview. Would you determine this candidates acceptence or rejection based solely on that 15-30 minute interview? Probably not. In fact, if you do, i hope you eat shit and die. If youre gonna tell me that the 15-30 minutes you spent "analyzing" this person outweighs the 4 to 5 years of collected data in the form of GPA, exam results, extra curricular activities and SAT scores, then you should never ever go into psychology... ever.
Just like intro to psyc students who think that their propsychologists just because they took that one class, and now they can read anyones behavior after 10 minutes of interaction. Not only that, but that they think their analysis overlooks decades of behavioral conditioning from an infinite amount of sources, and centuries of genetic molding and modification of the evolutionary process to determine your personality.

I'm not really hating anything at the moment so i dont know why i logged on to post, but for some reason, i just felt like i had to put this on something "tangible". Yeah, i know, the internet isnt exactly the most tangible medium to write on, but fuck, its the bloody point that matters.

Over the past few days, i've kinda realized something: Good guys dont always win. Yea we all know it, but i actually sat down to contemplate over this. I'd encourage people to do this too. I wouldnt rest assured that you would prevail because you did everything morally and in the right intentions.

Oh, and i've also realized something. Is it just me or did everyone single shitty driver decide to drive a taxi?