Cleverly Planned Meals

As Americans, our culture dictates that we eat three meals a day: breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Of course there are those who stray from that, and miss meals or have extra meals; however, that mentality overall is most common in the States. When we learn about other cultures who may have four meals a day, or only two, we begin to wonder why. We judge them based on their meal habits or see them as an "odd" or strange. How we as a society have constructed everything down to meals and food just shows how strictly we build our society, feel the need to follow it, and see any deviations from it as an odd or strange practice. If that culture eats four meals a day because of the economics or supply available in the culture, it has a legitimate structural reason for doing so. In turn, they may see our culture of three meals a day as strange and perhaps not enough. Lastly, that culture of two meals a day could see our culture and the culture of four meals as a waste and unnecessary when it comes to the consumption of products. Again, this whole idea is constructed because of the way our society builds and sees things.

Aesthetic Subjectivity

I would imagine that many of us walk down the street and wonder what the people we pass think of us. Perhaps we wonder if, to them, our clothes look good, or if our outside appearance is pleasing to them. However, whether or not they approve of our appearance is completely subjective. Everyone's aesthetic tastes and values are different. Not everyone can agree on something that has the potential to be aesthetically pleasing. However, lately I have been talking about the subjectivity of aesthetics in general. This is also interesting when it comes to someone's views on themselves. What I consider aesthetically pleasing may be the complete opposite of myself. Or it may be the same exact thing. It's interesting to evaluate aesthetics on this level when looking at it from the point of view of oneself. The whole idea of subjectivity can be taken to a new level. What is or is not aesthetically pleasing about ourselves can be the complete opposite of what we find aesthetically pleasing in other people or other things. Although, I do think that most of us wonder how others see us aesthetically, or we evaluate how we see people and things. The whole idea of aesthetic subjectivity is still very interesting to me and I find myself thinking on it a lot.

Redefining Patriotism without Merica

          Is there a way to redefine patriotism without involving war or simply limiting it to “America”?

   With the article in mind, it is hard to say whether we can really talk about patriotism without mentioning war. Patriotism seems to bring a sense of war with it; those who are patriotic are those who support the war and believe in it. However, that is not always the case. There are those who are patriotic or believe in America who absolutely reject the ideas of war or violence. Yet because of the standing connotation behind patriotism, or the word patriotic, it is hard to include those individuals. So, can we define patriotism and make it a term less about war? If we were to do so it would have to be something like "a strong support for where one resides." For anything more extreme we could wander into more of a nationalistic perspective, which could end up being very dangerous. Also, what about just simply opening it up to more than America? It would seem the word patriot almost always refers to just one nation and it would be hard to sneak away from that. However, as I said before, we could make the term more encompassing and allow it to be more than war and violence. There is nothing wrong with pride in one's residency - however, it is wrong when there are people left out of that definition because of their world-views. So yes, I do believe there is a way to redefine patriotism while leaving out war and nationalism. Defining it as "a strong support for where one resides," where support entails things like buying products made in the nation (or other area) where one resides, but not saying that area is better than any other area would probably allow people to feel proud of an area without slipping toward nationalism.

It's not unusual to be natural

 Is it okay or “natural” for one to be partial about government and congress in an impartial setting?

This question is rather simple. I believe that it is more or less human nature for someone to be partial or biased, especially in situations dealing with politics and government. When the setting itself is neutral it seems to open up more possibilities of being one sided. I think it is natural for someone to find themselves leaning towards one side or one party. With government being so based on sides and choosing one it is natural for someone to find themselves choosing a side.

I do believe it is an interesting concept, though, in relation to patriotism. When we talk about patriotism we often mention government and sides, like people who are left-winged and right-winged. It just seems to come naturally to people, and it is often expected of them. When it comes to impartial government and congress settings I do believe it is natural for someone to be partial.

Education

     In a classroom setting, is it appropriate for the teacher to mention their own religious views? If so, how and where should they draw the line?

  
This concept is something that has been up for debate for quite some time now. Even today educators are debating the concept of religion in a classroom. In my opinion, as a student going to school to be a teacher, I believe these are issues that should be discussed. If and when religion is brought up in a classroom (secular schools aside), in my opinion, is something that should be brought up in a wide manner. For example, if a student asks the teacher a question about "God" or "Jesus" the teacher should do their best to leave their own religious affiliations out of the discussion.

 If a student brings up the matter of the teacher's religion, there is a fine line between when the educator should share their "faith" and where they begin "preaching" or forcing their views onto their students. This is where the line should be drawn; the teacher should take into consideration the diversity of their classrooms and respect the faiths (or non-faiths) of their students. This is also so the teacher themselves will not lose respect or cause a sense of disgust in their students because of religious views.

I believe that educators have the right to their religious or non-religious views, but I do believe there is a time and place for religion and the classroom may not be appropriate, unless the conversation can remain neutral and be fundamental and educational. With regards to a religion class, I believe that it should remain a theology course where ALL religions are mentioned and expressed and, once again, not one religion is put above another.

Accepting New-World Empericism

 Is it possible to study supernaturalism without accepting at least some aspects of this-world empiricism?

    From further class discussions and re-thinking the concept it would seem as though if someone were to study pure supernaturalism it would be very difficult to not accept aspects of real-world empiricism. However, there are some of those who do purely rely on supernaturalism and deny all aspects of real-world  empiricism. By doing so, there are severely limiting their ability to see something from all angles. The idea of leaving the answers to a spiritual or higher being without considering the stable constructs around one is very difficult to consider legitimate. I believe that you cannot properly study supernaturalism without seriously considering the logical aspects of empiricism. Without the this-world empiricism considered it would be difficult to say that "a higher being created this beautiful ocean," as you cannot consider the fact that this ocean does or does not exist without considering the this-world empiricist aspect. To say that a higher being exists and only a higher being, that there is nothing else, is illogical.

The ability to see ghosts or god

My Question: How can one justify or make sense of an experiential world wherein some people believe they have seen spirits or ghosts?


 During this week's lesson, I kept wondering about the idea of radical constructivism in the context of people who believe they have seen ghosts or spirits. If there is someone who says that they saw a ghost upstairs or thought they saw an apparition walk by, does that ghost actually exist ? If we are using the radical constructivist theory, the idea that this is something they have experienced means it is, in some sense, real. It now is something they have experienced, for it is a part of their world. However, is that truly applicable? In all logical thinking does that really mean the ghost exists ?


     Although I do not think I came to a solid conclusion, it would seem as though, despite the fact that these individuals have experienced these apparitions, there is no real way to construct the ghosts as something real. However, it is interesting because this entire theory excludes metaphysics, which might contain a logical reason for dismissing the idea of "experiencing ghosts" Despite that possible loopole in the theory, I do not believe that radical constructivist thinking includes the idea of seeing spirits and ghosts. It would seem as though it dismisses those concepts and does not really evaluate them.