Nationalism all too often leads to major problems, such as war, prejudice, and economic exploitation. What, then, is the purpose of nations? Should the world eliminate borders and coalesce into one vast country?
This might well be the best path to follow eventually, but currently I think that nations still have uses. Primarily, dividing the world into nations allows it to progress. A relatively small, isolated society can often move forward socially and technologically with far greater ease than can a large, melting-pot-type society (like America), simply due to the fact that smaller societies typically have smaller numbers of differing opinions. Rather than the entire world having to remain stagnant due to a few dissenters, it is best for at least parts of the world to move forward. If they do so, they can then help the rest of the world move forward by following their (societal) example, and by taking advantage of the technological advancements they have made.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Response: Supporting People
In response to Justine Cozza's post on 3/29/2012:
The problem is that the troops are not actually dying to keep American civilians safe, or dying in the name of freedom. They are dying because the American military leaders sent them to do so in order to further an agenda that has far less to do with freedom than it does with fossil fuels. This is not to say that individual soldiers are aware of this; in fact, I suspect that most soldiers are either in the military because it was the best career path available to them, or because they honestly believe that by joining the military they can defend America. In the latter case, their intentions (although not the actuality of what they are doing) is highly admirable; in the former, their intentions may not be admirable, but nor are they reprehensible.
As such, I do not believe that anyone should send cards or food or love to the soldiers overseas as a thank-you for what they are doing - but I do think that they should send those things because they care about the troops as people, separate from their unfortunate choice of career. A card can really help someone in a bad situation feel better, and helping the troops to feel better is a nice (if not necessarily patriotic) thing to do. In general, I think that soldiers are neither exceptionally good people nor exceptionally bad people. Thus, they deserve the same consideration that any person in a dangerous situation would. The best way to support the people working as troops, of course, is to attempt to get the government to bring them home.
The problem is that the troops are not actually dying to keep American civilians safe, or dying in the name of freedom. They are dying because the American military leaders sent them to do so in order to further an agenda that has far less to do with freedom than it does with fossil fuels. This is not to say that individual soldiers are aware of this; in fact, I suspect that most soldiers are either in the military because it was the best career path available to them, or because they honestly believe that by joining the military they can defend America. In the latter case, their intentions (although not the actuality of what they are doing) is highly admirable; in the former, their intentions may not be admirable, but nor are they reprehensible.
As such, I do not believe that anyone should send cards or food or love to the soldiers overseas as a thank-you for what they are doing - but I do think that they should send those things because they care about the troops as people, separate from their unfortunate choice of career. A card can really help someone in a bad situation feel better, and helping the troops to feel better is a nice (if not necessarily patriotic) thing to do. In general, I think that soldiers are neither exceptionally good people nor exceptionally bad people. Thus, they deserve the same consideration that any person in a dangerous situation would. The best way to support the people working as troops, of course, is to attempt to get the government to bring them home.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Repressed Desires
The Freudian idea that dreams represent repressed infantile wishes seems as if, with some revision, it could apply to many (although not all) dreams. The most important revision, I think, is to remove the 'infantile,' either replacing it with 'childhood' or nothing at all.
With this revision in place, I find myself wondering about the nature of these repressed desires. What could be so terrible that it requires the many layers of chaos and confusion often found in dreams, while being commonplace enough that everyone feels it? There are a few obvious candidates which, although they are not common to everyone (or in some cases, even the majority of people), are common enough that in combination they could conceivably account for the dreams of virtually everyone. The most obvious seem likely to be sadistic, masochistic, or otherwise violent feelings (not universal, but present in a fair number of people), unusual - or in some cases, even commonplace - sexual desires (common to everyone but a few people with disorders, and a few more who are asexual), and possibly desires to do something the dreamer considers to be morally wrong (most people have at least a few things they feel this way about, whether they be stealing, doing drugs, or overeating).
With this revision in place, I find myself wondering about the nature of these repressed desires. What could be so terrible that it requires the many layers of chaos and confusion often found in dreams, while being commonplace enough that everyone feels it? There are a few obvious candidates which, although they are not common to everyone (or in some cases, even the majority of people), are common enough that in combination they could conceivably account for the dreams of virtually everyone. The most obvious seem likely to be sadistic, masochistic, or otherwise violent feelings (not universal, but present in a fair number of people), unusual - or in some cases, even commonplace - sexual desires (common to everyone but a few people with disorders, and a few more who are asexual), and possibly desires to do something the dreamer considers to be morally wrong (most people have at least a few things they feel this way about, whether they be stealing, doing drugs, or overeating).
Response: Future Fears
In response to Lyndsey Johnson's post "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" (March 25, 2012):
In addition to nightmares being disguised versions of traumatic events in one's past, I think it is likely that they can be manifestations of fears. For example, if one is afraid of the dark (even if one has had no traumatic experiences involving darkness) one might have a nightmare about being in the dark, with no access to light. These fears might also be disguised, either in order to prevent the nightmare from becoming so bad that one wakes up (thus preserving sleep), or as a result of the (probably) partially hallucinoid nature of dreams. This would explain nightmares containing such seemingly ridiculous elements as being, let us say, chased by a giant stapler. The dreamer most likely does not have an actual fear of staplers; it is more likely that they are simply afraid of being chased by something dangerous - as a giant, sentient, angry stapler would probably be.
In addition to nightmares being disguised versions of traumatic events in one's past, I think it is likely that they can be manifestations of fears. For example, if one is afraid of the dark (even if one has had no traumatic experiences involving darkness) one might have a nightmare about being in the dark, with no access to light. These fears might also be disguised, either in order to prevent the nightmare from becoming so bad that one wakes up (thus preserving sleep), or as a result of the (probably) partially hallucinoid nature of dreams. This would explain nightmares containing such seemingly ridiculous elements as being, let us say, chased by a giant stapler. The dreamer most likely does not have an actual fear of staplers; it is more likely that they are simply afraid of being chased by something dangerous - as a giant, sentient, angry stapler would probably be.
Response: Lack of Information
In response to Katie Emerson's post "Dreams and Determinism" (March 25, 2012):
I think the idea that dreams use our subconscious minds to guess at future events is very interesting, and there may indeed be a grain of truth in it. However, I do not think that dreams can predict everything, because human beings do not have access to all possible knowledge. The Universe is incredibly huge, if not infinite in size, so all the variables contained within (which determine future events) are too many in number for the human mind to comprehend. Even if our mental capacities are much greater than they may seem to our conscious minds (and there is evidence that this is true), it is virtually impossible that they are great enough to comprehend the nature of the entire universe.
That said, we can predict some events with relative certainty, even by using only our conscious minds. For example, if I drop my pen from three feet up over my bed, I can predict with virtual certainty that it will fall through the air and land upon the bed. The primary variables involved are relatively few in number, and thus predicting the event is simple. Thus, it is possible that our subconscious minds can take even more variables into account than our conscious minds, and as a result can predict more complex events. However, as it is currently impossible to know which dreams may be indicative of future happenings and which are random brain firings, repressed memories or desires, or simple reruns of things that have happened to us recently, it is not practical to base future activities off what we witness in dreams.
I think the idea that dreams use our subconscious minds to guess at future events is very interesting, and there may indeed be a grain of truth in it. However, I do not think that dreams can predict everything, because human beings do not have access to all possible knowledge. The Universe is incredibly huge, if not infinite in size, so all the variables contained within (which determine future events) are too many in number for the human mind to comprehend. Even if our mental capacities are much greater than they may seem to our conscious minds (and there is evidence that this is true), it is virtually impossible that they are great enough to comprehend the nature of the entire universe.
That said, we can predict some events with relative certainty, even by using only our conscious minds. For example, if I drop my pen from three feet up over my bed, I can predict with virtual certainty that it will fall through the air and land upon the bed. The primary variables involved are relatively few in number, and thus predicting the event is simple. Thus, it is possible that our subconscious minds can take even more variables into account than our conscious minds, and as a result can predict more complex events. However, as it is currently impossible to know which dreams may be indicative of future happenings and which are random brain firings, repressed memories or desires, or simple reruns of things that have happened to us recently, it is not practical to base future activities off what we witness in dreams.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)