Faith & Reason: Part 1

The chapter we read was about the Bible in particular, and the contradictions within it, but not all sects of Christianity subscribe to the Bible. Does acceptance of the Bible or not change the relationship between faith and reason for that individual? Faith and reason are often at odds when it comes to the Bible. The stories within become core ideas and beliefs for many Christians, but a lot of those stories are seemingly impossible. How could Noah build an arc big enough for two of every kind of animal in the world? How could Moses part the Red Sea? Reason strongly militates against these stories, and yet faith often refuses to see this. There are many parts of the Bible that are, at least seemingly, intrinsically contradictory. The relationship between faith and reason in regard to the Bible is a very tricky thing to balance out, and I wonder if removal of the Bible, or any religious text, might make it more or less balanced. Thoughts, anyone? 

Patriotism: Part 4

I found it very interesting when the author brought up the fact that when a lot of people talk about America as their country, and how much they love it, they often don't fully understand what they're talking about. Are they talking about the land, the ideology, they myths, the people, the government? I think you can love any one of these things, maybe all of them, although I haven't heard many people talking about their love of the government. I don't think it's difficult to love the land, the one you were born in or not. You may not be especially fond of every rock or patch of grass you see, but I know that many people, myself included, do love the mountains, lakes, trees, etc. of the place where they grew up. As for the people, you may have a certain love for some of your countrymen, and share a kind of bond with them, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they loved every single American by dint of being American, including rapists, serial killers, animal abusers, thieves, racists, etc. Loving your country, I think, goes beyond all of that. Every country was founded on certain principles, symbols, myths and ideals, many of them overlapping with other countries, and those are the things that seem to have the biggest impacts on the individual of that country. The mythology, ideology, and symbolism behind your country is what you love the most, whether or not those things are unique to your particular country. These things in America are most commonly represented by the ideas of freedom and rugged individualism, the symbol of the American flag and the Bald Eagle, and the myth of the American dream. I believe that these are the things that people most often refer to when talking about their love of America.

Patriotism: Part 3

I really liked the way the author brought up the fact that many Americans, though not all, only show sympathy or empathy to other Americans. Sometimes we, as Americans, act as though or pain, suffering, and grief is more important than others, even when we experience the same things. We can be far more sympathetic to an American parent who lost a child to the war than an Iraqi parent. Americans kill Middle Eastern people, and they kill American people, and everyone loses. In the end war is created by the nation's government, and they are typically not the ones losing family in friends in the horror they create. They can sit back and be almost completely untouched by it. It is the nation's citizens, and their soldiers of course, that know what war truly is. They are the ones who truly know pain, suffering, and grief. And they are the ones who should be the most sympathetic, and empathetic, to other victims of war. When we know the same pain as someone else, we have an obligation to share it with them, across country lines or not. Any parent who loses a child should be sympathized with, anyone who loses anyone should be sympathized with, and I wish more Americans could see that and realize that many of us across the world know the same pain, and we should strive to empathize with them as best we can instead of acting like our pain is the worst. 

Patriotism: Part 2

September 11 was a horrific day, a tragic day, and everybody knows that. Nothing can condone that kind of attack on the American people, or any people for that matter. It was brutal and savage, and brought upon a tidal wave of American vengeance on the Middle East. Over ten years later, we not only continue to morn the great losses of that day, we continue our campaign of hatred and violence in the Middle East. We were so horrified, grieved, furious and filled with so-called American pride that we sought to make everyone else pay. We did not want to stop with punishing a few people who may have been responsible for the crime; we wanted to punish everyone, especially if they wore headdresses or had a Muslim name. There have been instances here in America where one person killed another simply because they "looked" Muslim. I think patriotism in American changed that day. For a long time, patriotism did mean pride in your country, loving your country, whatever you think your country is. However, after that day patriotism became a much more heinous term. It now goes beyond loving your country, it is hating others. Beyond being proud of your country, it is thinking ill of others. Beyond wanting to protect the freedom of the individuals in your country, it is taking away the freedom of the individuals of others. I have heard over and over again the supremacy, the arrogance, and the ignorance spewing out of the mouths of Americans still filled with hatred because of that day, still looking for revenge,  still preaching about America. It's the greatest nation on Earth, they say. So, our citizens and their lives must take priority over everyone else in the world. I think it is more than understandable to be angry, and to be pained, over the loss of loved ones, and to want the ones behind the attacks to be punished, but the men that flew those planes are already dead. I do not think that it means that we need to kill hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern people to avenge the lives of the few thousand American people, especially when so many of those people are soldiers or civilians who had nothing to do with those attacks. Their lives will not bring back the lives we lost that day. I've heard that if you don't support the war(s) then you are un-American, un-patriotic. Well I support justice, not war. If that makes me un-patriotic, then so be it. I will not condone the killing of civilians on either side. I don't believe in it.

Patriotism: Part 1

This was a very unexpected topic, but one that I am very pleased to discuss. Compared to my family I have always felt somewhat unpatriotic, without even really ever understanding what it means to be patriotic in the first place. For some reason I always assumed that being patriotic had to do with more than simply being proud of the country you were born in, but I wasn't completely sure of the implications behind it all. Whenever I speak to self-proclaimed patriots about America, they often act or outright say that America is the greatest country in the world and that we can basically do no wrong. They are typically huge supporters of the war(s), and often use derogatory remarks when referring to foreigners, particularly anyone from the Middle East. I have heard on several occasions people talking about the lives of foreigners as less important than the lives of Americans, and even talk of these foreigners deserving to die -because of the country they were born in-. These are all issues Jensen addressed in his essay, and they are very dangerous beliefs for anyone to have. Jensen, in my opinion, correctly identifies these and many more disturbing aspects of patriotism. These aspects either are or lead to feelings of arrogance, ignorance, superiority, and a general lack of respect for other human life. I too believe that patriotism can have dangerous consequences when taken too far, and I think it normally is. I don't think there is anything wrong with being proud of your country, but I think patriotism goes beyond that. Patriotism has become ethnocentrism, and that is an idea no country can afford to keep.

Claims 2 & 3 in Dream Theory

Here are the second two claims again; 

2.) "that these infantile wishes welled up from the unconscious in sleep, and needed to be disguised and censored" 

3.) "that dreams can be interpreted and they can only be interpreted correctly by the use of free association to the dream material in the transference relationship with the psychoanalyst" 

As for the second claim, I agree completely that many of our wishes are unconscious, and that these unconscious wishes make their way into our dreams. I will even grant that there may be some wishes that are so dangerous our mind tries to disguise and censor them. However, I must again protest the "infantile" part. What wishes could an infant have that are so dangerous they must disguise them from themselves? In childhood, adolescence, and adulthood dreams grow increasingly complex, with many hidden symbols and meanings. A part of this change may have something to do with wishes that need to be disguised, but I think that change would happen anyways. I don't think dreams are so complex just because we are trying to hide something from ourselves. On the contrary, I have always thought that your mind was trying to make you more aware of something, then to try to hide anything. The third claim is a little trickier. I do believe that all dreams are meaningful and can and should be interpreted, but can't you do that yourself? I don't think you need a psychoanalyst to correctly interpret the madness of your own mind. You should know yourself better than anyone else would know you, so why wouldn't you be the perfect person to interpret your own dreams? Sure, it might help to look up certain dreams in books or online, it might even help you gain better insight into certain reoccurring symbols or situations in your dreams. However, I still think that in the end you can correctly interpret your dreams without the help of a psychoanalyst. 

Claim 1 in Dream Theory

As I mentioned before, Hobson pointed out three important factors of Freud's Dream Theory. Here is the first one again; 

1.) "that wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes" 

If anyone doesn't know, I am a huge fan of Freud's. However, so far I have not been able to completely agree or disagree with any one of his theories, I always end up with agreeing with this part, and disagreeing with that part, and so on. I have the same problem here. For example, I agree that our secret wishes, our hidden thoughts and desires, etc. which are usually repressed, are strong instigators of dreams. On the other hand, to suggest that they are repressed infantile wishes seems to me to be completely absurd. People dream of such extraordinarily complex things and situations, and things that in our infancy we couldn't even possibly know about. In our infancy we seem to only wish for very simple things, things to eat and drink, a warm soft place to sleep, room to play, and loving arms to hold us. I don't see how dreams about going to school in your underwear or falling down a flight of stairs or having sex, or being chased goes relate to infantile wishes. Now, I think many dreams do go back to childhood, even early childhood, but I think it would be quite a stretch to try to relate most common dreams all the way back to infancy.