Disparity

According to Marx, there are reasons why the class struggle under capitalism is violent, for example the underling reason for the current violence in Mexico was essentially over the disparity between the classes, the rich and the poor. The 43 college students that were murdered in while protesting over this very subject matter, which in turn has incited protest and violence from the other citizens of Mexico, demanding the resignation of their current president, Piña Nieto. As a historical recurrence, nation’s leaders become greedy, complacent, and separate their selves from the needs of the poor, the people they’re supposed to lead. We see that over and over again in history, but we are seeing the people rise up to their leaders with more frequency lately. It is as if the people are starting to realize that the power is in the masses. The leaders fail to recognize that their source of power and wealth is derived from the Proletariat, the poor, the working class. Without us to generate an economy and society in which government leaders are necessary and rich people can amass wealth their status in life would not be possible.

“What one generation learns, the next one forgets” a truer statement has yet to be made. Look to our past to see our future.

Following pictures are from the protest held in Mexico on Nov 1^st. 

Our Generation

Commonly we all have hear that our generation has lost of its values. If you think about it is true. Respect has almost come to extinction and most people do not act according to their age.  Depending to the high school you attended you would have noticed some of the most rudest people you have ever met. There are people that will not respect their elderly, parents, women or their classmates. In addition, those people were not going in the right path. What could be the reasons that this is happening? Media, parents or school?

My idea is that this is happening because we, as individuals, are letting it happen. As Sarte said we are free to do wha ever we want that we don't do it is another thing.  An example is when a person is abusing mentally or physically of another person. If we see it happening why don't we put a stop to it. Most of us we rather continue with our life. All it takes is to in a well rhetorical and moral manner tell the person that what he is doing is bad. For example, when that student that who always backed talk to the teacher. If one could just tell the person that what he is doing is immoral in front of the whole class he will change his mind. Because if you tell him what he is actually doing of being disrespect full and he does not have any manners, he will feel ashamed. He will ignore you but it will have affect later on. I know it because tried it and have been successful. If you don't believe me; try it.

Will you be the change or let the change happen for you?

                       So I was thinking about what could I possibly write this week to stimulate my commenters mind. Today's focus will be on domestic violence in Memphis. As of last year in 2013 the domestic violence rates have decreased since last summer. Domestic violence involves the behavior which involves violence or sexual abuse by one person against another in a domestic context like cohabitation or marriage. Domestic violence can happen in heterosexual  as well as homosexual relationships. This type of violence can happen  as verbal, emotional, physical, economic and sexual. Most of the time these cases happen when the perpetrator believes that abuse is okay and right to perform. Victims of Domestic violence could be escalate in to tragic situations from isolation, the perpetrator believes in power and control, financial issues, fear, insecurities and in some cases a way to protect their families. Domestic violence can lead to mental, physically, chronic health problems  and decreases to have healthy relationships in the future. Some things  that we do  to prevent domestic violence is to limit alcoholism in homes, seek help medically or even seek law enforcement to help prevent the worst effect which is death. Another way to prevent domestic violence is to be aware of the your surroundings and events that happen in your community. So my question for you guys is in a Marx, Sartre, Nietzsche philosophy way, What are your suggestions on how to decrease domestic violence in the Memphis area??

Ferguson Protests headed to Memphis.

So I saw some interesting photos online today. I'm going to mention 2, and they have an interesting sort of contrast about them.
One was about people in Memphis (not necessarily from Memphis, but definitely an "event" that is taking place here) going out and protesting about the things happening in Ferguson MO right after the Grand Jury decision that is being made on the case (I won't bother going into a great deal of detail here; just look up Ferguson and Michael Brown and you'll be able to read plenty of articles on it). It was spreading information about when and where, and had the twitter campaign bit (#shutitdownmemphis) at the end. It strongly evoked imagery of revolution and trying to spread awareness about social injustice.
The other had the exact same information for the most part. It had the other picture in it, but the substantial difference was an excerpt from a local lawyer urging people to have food, water, gas in their car, and "a gun with lots of ammunition."
I certainly agree with the food water and gas, of course. But there is a HIGHLY politically charged message here. Why bother saying the gun part, except if one is expecting violence of some kind? These are, after all, supposed to be peaceful protests: That's the whole point of the Ferguson debacle. That these people would cause violence would go against the entire message. What I'm NOT saying is that there is no need for people to defend themselves, and that violence isn't, in fact, a distinct possibility- humans are fallible, and some people are crazy. Likely, there are some who don't look at this the same way I do, in that violence is the thing they're trying to stop, so violence is the worst route to getting that goal accomplished.
People's words say a lot more than they often intend- our bias shows when we speak. I'm sure this person doesn't want there to be a great deal of violence against anyone- that would make them despicable beyond words. Peace is what everyone wants, though it certainly accomplished little, in my opinion. I may not be one of the people out there, but I think that what these people are trying to do is right- stand up for what you believe in, because if you think everything is just fine the way it is, then don't bother changing what you do. On the flip-side, if you want change, you have to act on it by actively changing your own life.
What d'you think: Is it right to protest in the streets? At what point is peaceful protest no longer an option, and so other measures have to be taken? Or is that even a line that CAN be crossed, meaning that the only right and good protest is peaceful? Are people right for packing weapons and expecting violence? Would you / have you feel / felt threatened by protesters? Where is the line drawn for arming oneself?

On peace and revolution

To add a bit of background here, I'm pretty much a pacifist and a Buddhist, so the idea of using violence to resolve things is never something that appeals very much to me. On the other hand, I hold revolutionary ideals close to my heart, since current systems need to change to get better (things should keep moving, because as long as they keep moving, they have the potential of getting better; though that only holds true in an imperfect system, which is what we have, definitely, in my opinion). So this is, again, going to be a bit of me arguing with myself to some degree.
Regardless.
The first time I read Marx's book, The Communist Manifesto, I sincerely didn't like it. It seemed to me like his ideals were about rising up and taking down a sect of people that reinforce oppression, which is outright attacking people who don't agree with you, or who you hold responsible for your current situation. This is of course a very surface-level understanding of Marx's book, since there are a lot of complex circumstances to understand surrounding this situation, and a lot more to it than simply attacking the wealthy and forcing them out of power.
But that initial read does hold some truth to it. Is violence really the only means to establishing a new system? Because a new system is necessary: People are starving and dying homeless on the streets in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. That's a problem, plain and simple. Social reform makes changes, sure enough, but it cannot be enough. The system itself is a problem, since the wealthy can buy power and manipulate politics to their favor. In a system where power is allowed to enforce one's ability to keep it, those with it try to increase it or hold it until they can't possibly do so anymore. I am, ultimately, not an optimist; human nature is going to gravitate toward corrupt behavior. I don't believe that we can allow people to have power for longer than their due, let alone not be held accountable for their actions to society at large for the duration of their having it.
So what d'you think? Does the democratic process as it stands in our country today work? Or is the system itself a problem that needs fixing?
I'm of the belief that the whole system could use reevaluation regardless- change is necessary, and maybe the whole thing needs to go for that to work. But Marx see's violence as the sort of inevitable end to this long problem, and that isn't something I can abide by.

How will you live your life?

                           As a person in life we have the free will or choice to decide on how we want to live our lives. When we decide to make these choices we would hope the choices that we make are responsible and good. This example can be referred to as the term existentialism.  According to the philosopher John Paul Satre', we have two choices on how we should live our lives: The in-itself and for-itself. The in-itelf is being something that is not subjected to change which also avoids the idea of responsibility. The for-itself are the human beings that are defined by facility which leads to negation. This can also be defined as being what it is in the mode of not being it. We as humans can change at any moment when the in-itself can not change at al because its more definite like a chair or table. The for-itself can be referred to the transcendence where you do have the freedom to be something other what it really is. So if we're a mime one day and want to be lawyer, doctor, teacher, etc. then we have the free will to do so. However by being the in-itself you are accepting responsibilities that comes with it. so tell me, how will you live your life? Will you choose to be someone that wants to remain the same without facing life responsibilities or will you accept life as it is expecting to change for the better and take the responsibilities as it comes?

Freedom

Even though some people are not physically free.  We are all free mentally,  according to Sarte we as beings can never be not free.  We spoke in class about mental freedom in different ways,  the one that caught my attention the most is brain functions.  If someone is on life support and is unresponsive with brain activity,  then the only thing about him that is still laying there is his or her body.  As long as you are able to use your brain,  and are able to have that mental freedom,  then you are truly a free being.

Good vs. Bad

Today's post is going to be about Nietszche version of what is moral goodness. "What is the values of value, saying something is morally good or morally right". Doc J gave us the definition that "good" promotes health and beauty. To be good is to be noble and powerful and happy. Then the opposing is bad which is sickness, weakness and ugliness.  A person can define good in really way. I define good something being morally right. What do you consider good and bad and taking into the account of being moral or unmoral.

inner racism?

We were talking about racism today in class and how prevalent it is and how to respond to it and something that caught me was the fact that black people had adopted the word niger and was using it. Well that leads me to think about how a race can be racist to themselves. If you set yourself apart from people different from you and start to act like the stereo types they have given you because some people think its the only way you can be, isn't that in a way being racist towards yourself? Sometimes I think its not really all white people anymore being racist but black people are stereo typing themselves and making racial slurs to other blacks. I just don't see why they would want us to stop saying things and then turn right around and start saying it about themselves. I just don't get it.

The Freedom of Choice

On Wednesday, we talked about how humans are subjects that can transcend their facticity. I find it interesting because the idea is a paradox that says we are who we are in the mode of not being who we are. And the idea of bad faith, which is a lie to oneself, came to be from the paradox when we act in a way that is not true to ourselves. We can choose to act a certain way and your choice would negate every other choices that you could have made. Based on this philosophy, anyone who doesn't have mental or physical limitations would have equal freedom because we can all choose to act a certain way.


The things that make it seem like some people have more freedom than others are the legal consequences for choosing to act a certain way. Here in America, we are more likely to follow our own religion and look up information online because these choices doesn't have legal consequences so they are favorable choices. However, if you live in North Korea, you are less likely to choose to follow your beliefs or look up information because these choices have legal consequences, which would make them unfavorable choices. You can still choose to follow your beliefs, but you wouldn't because of the consequences. The same applies to waiters; they don't have less freedom by being a waiter because they can choose not to act like a waiter anytime.


Everyone have the freedom of choice. And I don't think anyone can take that away because even if someone is to tie you up and lock you in a room,  you still have the freedom to choose a response/action.

Are We Really Free?

When we think of freedom we see it as the liberty to speak without any restraint, we can also see it as not having our actions limited. Our country fights for the freedom to have our own thoughts and actions. We have a military dedicated just to make sure that we are allowed to walk the streets past a certain time or are free to choose where we go to school or work.  On a day to day basis there are people that commute to work and to school. These are things that without a doubt are necessary and needed for life’s sustainability. Without a doubt we are free to choose where we go and what we do. Like Dr. Johnson was saying in class, she could be in Brazil helping starving children but instead she commutes to CBU to teach her wonderful philosophy class.  Just like she can choose to go to Brazil people can choose to go to their own utopia. Instead we choose to be responsible and perform our duties as civil people of the world. We take part in this system and even though we are free to choose we are still prisoners to our duties in life. What do you guys think, are we free in this world or are we only limited to believe that we are but we cannot help but to be prisoners to our duties of life.

Vertigo has me tripping

On Wednesday, Dr J mentioned vertigo by citing an example of standing on a ledge and being dizzy(vertigo) knowing that you're not afraid of falling but you are afraid because you are aware of your own freedom to induce yourself to jump. And the thing is it doesn't only apply to this situation. There are a multitude of ways this can happen. For example not going to class as a college student, not doing homework, not obeying traffic laws, not respecting people's humanity, so on and so forth. If you think about how we actually refrain ourselves from doing so many things, it's crazy. What actually keeps us from crossing the line, so to speak, when we have the freedom to act otherwise?

Speaking of, I once read a work that compared the freedom of both a waiter and a prisoner.(I'm  not sure how if it's the same as the example from class). In any case, it pointed out how the prisoner was more free than the waiter because as Sartre points out, the waiter is too much like a waiter and loses his individuality in the midst of being a waiter. In other words he is being a waiter in the mode of not being a waiter. The prisoner is free because he does not have bad faith. He refuses to to let his captors "break" him and he holds on to his freedom, something that they cannot get a hold of. By this very means, he is therefore more free than the waiter who surrenders his ability to be transcendent of his facticity to remain just that, a facticity.

Edit: I was able to find the work on jstor. Here is the link if you wish to view it: http://www.jstor.org/stable/810349

It's only a few pages and worth reading if you get the chance.