Feb 12

Today in Existentialism a lot of topics came up that interested me. For starters the ethical vs aesthete topic confused me when I read it alone. It seemed to be almost the same thing for me. Now after the class discussion I can see that an ethical person is someone who ends up failing to either make his goals, or live up to the ideal image so therefore they are always anxious. I also see that an aesthete person is one who lacks commitment, therefore finds himself in despair. My problem however is i have the qualities of both therefore I cannot determine which type of person I am. I’m a person who lacks commitment severely however I’m always finding myself anxious to get a certain idealistic goal done . Therefore I’m really  not sure which category I would fall under. The second thing I found interesting was the statement “ lack of proof causes religion to be based on inward faith and subjectivity which is absurd”. To me, I for the life of me cannot see how people can believe in God, Christianity, or any religion for that matter without any hard concrete evidence.  It would have to be absurd to read the contradicting bible, hear of all the wondrous miracles and performances that Jesus and just believe without evidence. Also I feel like if a person has faith in their religion is it really faith if that religion is telling you to have faith and believe in it OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL. As for the truth vs the amplification of truth debate, I believe that everybody has their own truths no matter if they heard it from someone else or if its not ever true. As long as that person truly believes to themselves its the truth then it’s their truth. Lastly when their group did the last skit on “What's of Christianity vs The how of Christianity” that it really hit home with me. For the period of time i did believe in Christianity I still felt like going to church, and dressing up nicely wasn’t the essence of Christianity. I had always felt like a true Christian is someone who believes in God, and has a personal relationship with God.

Feb 5 - Judgement

After a rather interesting debate from class on February 5th I look at judgement completely different.  In my eyes I always considered judging someone to be perceived in a negative way. I know understand that judgment of someone can be both positively , and negatively done. It was very interesting to me when the one lone guy in class claimed he never judges anyone though. I believe he contradicted himself by saying he simply takes in all the details, then he evaluates. To me an evaluation of someone, or someones actions is pretty much the same thing as making a judgement about the person , or person actions. As far as me I judge people often without realizing it until after. I have a habit of looking at how someone dresses, or talks and make bold judgements about that person. Too me I think its become second nature to people, like most people will form general judgements about people because its what we humans do. I However feel as in terms of judging somebody as far as good and evil nobody has the real right to do so. I believe that everybody has their own faults, and impurities so therefore no individual can judge another individual . You would have to be pure of all sin , and all bad things and the only one who qualifies is the so called “God”. I also want to bring up the point that was made by the TA Carson about if someone was to jump on a grenade and kill themselves to save others that it could be selfless. I disagree entirely with the majority of the class who claims that whether a person jumps on a grenade to protect his loved ones, or whether they do it to be remembered that either way its a selfish act. I think that if a person truly did it for the sake of others than it was not a selfish act and that person truly just was a hero.