"Catfish" or Cod

This week we watched the Documentary “Catfish” following Nev and his pen pal, Abby, relationship.  Nev is a photographer and his photographs are being painted and sent to him.  Abby, an 8 year old is apparently the artist.  Nev begins a pen pal relationship with her and becomes friends with her family.  He finds out that Abby has an older sister Meg and she is very attractive.  Nev and Meg start to talk a lot and they are in a long distance virtual relationship.  Nev starts to have doubts when he finds out that she isn’t actually singing in these videos she is sending to him, so he investigates into the family more.  He is astonished to see that this whole relationship is fake and he assumes the mother Angela is acting as Megan, so he goes to Michigan to confront the family.  There, he see’s the mother doesn’t look like her picture and he eventually learns all about the betrayal and Angela’s deception.

Angela was a pathological liar.  She craved sympathy and tried to make it seem like her actions were okay when she told about her past to Nev.  She says that she just settled for her life and always wanted something more; and with this alter ego, she was able to forget about her tough life and pretend her life is better than it is.  Nev was a very big person for forgiving her so easily.  I think someone is psychotic if they pretend they are someone they aren’t and then lie, not only before they get caught, but after they get caught, to the person’s face.  I do feel a little for Angela, her life is difficult, she has severely mentally ill stepsons, that she has to take care of, but nothing can be an excuse for her wrong ways.  She loves art and it’s her escape from her tough life.  I still think that Angela is wrong in every way, and I don’t think she feels bad for her actions either.  I’m proud of Nev for handling the situation like he did, because if it was me I would have sued or punched her.  Finally, Angela’s lesser-minded husband, Vince, tells of the story of cod being shipped to Japan and how they would be soggy and gross when they got there.  The fishermen would put catfish in the tanks to nip the cod in the tails, so they wouldn’t be lazy and they would be fit.  The world is like this story; the world would be boring if we didn’t have catfish that would nip at our fins.  Angela is like a catfish, which nipped at Nev’s fins.

Catfish Dilemma

During class on Monday and Wednesday we watched the original movie of how the MTV series "Catfish" came to be. The host of the tv series, Nev, was indeed "catfished" himself. To be catfished is to fall in love or fall for someone whom you've met via the internet. Usually when falling for someone online there is no formal meetings--communication is restricted to social media, texting, or speaking over the phone without physically seeing or meeting the other. This obviously poses many problems and room for lies, which is what we saw in the movie.

We see that Nev is betrayed by Angela. Angela pretends to be someone she is not. She used social media as a means to escape her hard life. Angela makes a lot of sacrifices for her husband and his two mentally challenged sons. She doesn't live the life she dreamed of or wanted for herself. I feel sympathy for Angela but I still do not stand by her and what she did to Nev. She told lie after lie to Nev and actually fell for him and made Nev fall for her. Ultimately it is not fair to mess with someone's emotions. If you really want someone to fall in love with you or fall for you the better way to have them do it is for them to fall in love for who you truly are.

This is the problem with social media today. People like to pretend they are who they aren't. People create fake profiles and use images that circulate the internet and make others who don't really know them, believe a personality that the person sitting in front of the computer is not. The internet is very deceiving and full of lies and those being catfished are extremely vulnerable. By knowing what social media can do and knowing what kinds of things can be accomplished through the internet, people should be more aware of what they are doing or who they are talking to. I honestly don't think falling in love through the internet is a means of falling in love--those who say they are in love are desperate. When you really fall in love you fall for that person's touch, voice, presence, and for the things they do for you. Actions speak much louder than words and so often people need to "hear" words of reassurance that they are beautiful or that they are something they strive to be. Everyone just yearns to be WANTED.

I don't think it's a bad thing to want for yourself, but you have to be careful who you get it from or you'll end up like Nev and so many other people: catfished. Yes I sympathize and pity Angela but that does not justify what she did. What she did was wrong; she lied to someone because it made her feel good about herself. It made her feel like for a moment she wasn't living the life she is living, which in turn is a lie to herself! Catfish is based on many lies and those who are catfishing others need to find their purpose in life because it's not fair for them to create a world that invites vulnerable people in, and crushes their ideals of love.

Sartre on Freedom and Choice

This is to make-up the symposium missed on Friday, April 10th for a tennis match.

Sartre is the most interesting philosopher to me that we have read about so far this semester. While I disagree with his beliefs of atheism, I rather like some of the things that he says about freedom and choice. Sartre says that we ARE the choices that we make. He says we can’t not choose, in a sense. That if we decide in a situation not to choose then that in actuality is our choice! He says that if we are faced with a problem that has inevitable circumstances that we will still choose how we act in said situation. This is a very interesting thought to me as I think about decisions that I make. We are free human beings and we can make whatever choices we want in any given situation. Life in itself is really just a long catalog of all the choices that we make. 

Another concept that Sartre brings forward is that just as we are free, we are continually changing. For instance a ‘coward’ is simply a person that is acting cowardly at a given time. Each choice or action that we take defines who we are so we are all subject to change. If we commit a brave action, then suddenly we are ‘brave’. This is true freedom in my opinion. Everyone is free; everyone can make choices and decide who they want to be in any given situation. “We have the power of transforming ourselves indefinitely.”

Nietzsche and Individualism

This is to make-up the symposium on Wednesday, April 8th for a tennis match.

Nietzsche liked to refer to people who shared a mass psychology as “the rabble”. He favored the idea of individualism instead. Nietzsche believed that society would be unhappy if they followed one moral system and instead believes that people should decide for themselves what is right or wrong, being their own moral compass.
My argument is that some people are inherently leaders or followers. By Nietzsche’s philosophy, if everyone chose their own moral beliefs, then it would fail because leaders would gain followers and ultimately society would be divided. The people’s will to gain power would cause them to take control of others lives once again as with many other failed societies in the past. This is how we end up with regimes like the one that Adolf Hitler undertook.
There is too much drive for power if everyone has his or her own morals. Eventually someone would rise up. Instead, society should be based on equality. If it were based on equality then people would be numbed to the will for power and would focus on making other people happy, thus making themselves happy in the process.

Symposia Make-Up: Sarte

This is a blog to make up missing Wednesday, April 8 Symposia for a softball game-

In class we learned that Sarte believed in numerous things but two things have stood out to me the most: One, is that human beings are free; two, is that we fall into patterns that tell us we are not free or free unconditionally. I totally agree with the fact that humans are free beings. We are free to do whatever we want and whenever we want (except crime of course). I also agree that we fall into patterns that tell us we have no choice but it doesn't apply to every situation. During the symposia on Friday, April 10 Dr. J brought up the situation of a bad relationship. What if you absolutely positively cannot get out of this relationship without suffering the consequences you are trying to avoid? This is something I've experienced in my own life. I was in a relationship that was absolutely toxic to me. I was trying to find a way out for months and months and I went to numerous people asking for their advice. I went to my best friends and they told me that I couldn't get out of this relationship for fear of ruining my softball teams' "chemistry". And they were right. I couldn't break up with this person without ruining the rest of the season for this person because they had such a stronghold over the rest of my teammates. I wasn't free in this situation. I had no choice that would make me feel better about what I needed to do to better myself. I had no choice that would avoid the consequences that I didn't want to face. Long story short I did end the relationship but to this day I am facing criticism and people talking behind my back for what I did. That was what I was trying to avoid but I am a better person today.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there was no choice that was going to allow me to avoid the consequences/discrimination that I felt and am feeling now from certain people. I did express my free will as a human being and exercised it. But during the situation I felt like I had no choice and that I was in a sense "trapped". I mean another example where Sarte's philosophy could not apply would be the Holocaust. The Jewish people really didn't have a choice in escaping what they were about to face or they would be killed. Sarte is still a great philosopher and I believe that his ideas that humans are free beings and that we always have a choice means he has hope in the human race. Of course I can't really say what kind of man Sarte was but according to my optimistic personality I feel like that was the kind of man he was. Why else would he say that we always have a choice and that we are free human beings?

Sartre

Sartre believes in a lie to oneself.  Human beings are some of the only beings that freely choose what we do with our lives.  If someone says something that is mean to you, you are the only person that can make you feel badly about it, you could shake it off and continue with your day.  I play a sport, my role is to be a student athlete, because I want to, I could easily quit it because it is interfering with my school work, but I play it because I love the sport.  Because I am a student athlete, I put myself into situations that include: lack of sleep, stress, and injury.  Obviously being a student you are prone to these situations as well, but being an athlete as well as a student is harder than others think.  Sartre believes everyone has roles, that allow us to be who we want to be; without that free will, we are seen as objects.  Sartre goes so far to explain his view point on free will, with his thought on vertigo.  He thinks that you are scared of heights because you really have a fear of jumping.  You have a decision to either step off or not step off and you feel the magnitude of our life and how easy it will be to end it.  Nothing is stopping you except your own freedom.  Sartre also says that we choose not to know things.  We can have a problem and deal with it later.  If you have a conflict, you can label it as a project and deal with it later.  Sartre has interesting view points.  I do believe that we have the free will in some of the situations that happen in our life, but if there is a problem that occurs, you can’t sweep issues under the rug.  You need to deal with them head on.

Fredrich Nietzsche

This is a make up blog for missing Wednesday, April 8th Symposium because of a softball game. 

        Nietzsche believes that "God is dead" and that our idea of God and the function he serves is gone.  One of his main points in his philosophy is the Genealogy of morals.  He says that we are value creating animals and we make out own morals and we add value to things.  Nietzsche claimed that a human being must create their own identity through self realization and do so without relying on anything else such as God or a soul. Nietzsche stresses the differences between good and bad.  Good would include those who we see as strong, beautiful, etc. and are the ones who are happy.  Bad would be weak.  The Noble mode of valuation is yes saying, and good is always identified first and bad is an after thought.  The Slavish mode of valuation is no saying, and evil is always determined first and God comes second.  He uses a story of lambs and birds of prey to represent the good and bad.  The lambs think the birds who keep eating them are evil- and vice versa.  The lambs cannot physically prey on the birds of prey because they cannot express the strength.  Lastly, Nietzsche pushes the point that those Christians waiting for eternal life are cheating themselves because they are not living life fully and they cultivate weakness. 

Freedom

For our symposium this week we discussed three philosophers: Sartre, Nietzsche and Marx. One philosopher that I enjoyed reading about the most was Sarte. I enjoyed reading his take on freedom and the idea that despite how an individual may feel there is no way their freedom can be taken from them. He states that even when we feel like we do not have a choice in a particular decision there is still a choice. We are just choosing not to do anything.  I feel that this particular stance while interesting is also conflicting depending on certain scenarios. For instance, say you are a instructor and you dislike your job because you are no longer happy with it. You would like to quit and move on but you can not because this is your means of surviving. So because you can not just quit you feel stuck and hopeless because you are “trapped”. Sartre argues that you are lying to yourself. (Sartre refers to as “bad faith”) By lying to yourself Sartre says you are making the choice to remain where you are rather than bettering your situation. However, I do not feel that this theory can be applied to all scenarios and would disagree with Sartre. I do not feel that we are always able to make a choice in certain situations because some may be impossible. For example, what if you get laid off from your job and as much as you try to find another job you can not. The idea that Sartre says that there is no aspect in your life where you are not free to make a choice seems almost unfair. It is not like you are responsible for being laid off. You aren’t just sitting around for a job to come to you. You have exhausted all the means to better your situation and have come up with nothing. So, I would say that it seems unfair to say that there is never a time in our lives when we are unfree.

Free Will

I think Sartre's idea that no one can ever take away another's freedom is an interesting idea. The only thing that is keeping us from doing anything or trying something, is our own free will.  While we may feel like we have to go to school, or work, or take a test, etc, nothing is forcing us to actually do it. We have the free will to, at any point, decide to quit. While we may have rules we feel we should live by, or moral codes we follow, the only thing that keeps us following them is ourselves. This is a similar idea to how God set up the world. While He gave us the Bible as a guide to how we should live in order to please Him and follow His will, He ultimately gave us free will to live our lives as we choose. He does not force us to live a certain way, to go to church, to pray, or even to follow Him. Instead He gives us the choice of how we want to live our lives. While He knows the decisions we will make before we make them, we still make the choices we want. Just as Sartre believed, the only thing that determines our actions is our own decisions. If we do not like our job, then we can quit at any point and get a new job. If we want to go to college, then we can choose to work hard enough to go. If we cannot afford it, then we can apply for scholarships so we afford it. While we may not succeed in something, or be good at something, the only thing stopping us from doing something is ourselves.

Sartre and Nietzsche V Marx

Our discussion between Sartre, Nietzsche and Marx made it very clear to me that Marx is the oddball. While Sartre was in favor of the subjects having the freedom to choose where to work, the point supported Nietzsche more than Marx's theory. Nietzsche believed the weakness of the poor was the very reason they couldn't do anything about their situation. Marx's theory can only prove so much. In the end, communism has failed and is not a good example of what the people want. Nietzsche's theory captures the essence of what society is today. One can also argue that capitalism is the core reason this country has flourished. Although Marx might disagree, poor people have the ability to pursue upward mobility and that is what is so great about capitalism. The rags to riches stories exemplify the strength required to surpass other people in status. All of our great innovations have been a result of strong, authoritative leaders who made these innovations come to fruition. If these leaders were weak, iphones, cars, Microsoft, couldn't have been built or created. The end justifies the means. People have the will to change their present and future. Nietzsche and Sartre would agree.

Back at the S(t)artre

            Of the three philosophers that we studied for the symposium this week, I agreed most with Sartre. Sartre believed that humans were subjective and objects were objective. Objects have facticity only, but subjects have facticity and they are transcendable. This means, subjects not only are what they are, but they have the freedom to change what they are too. Sartre uses a waiter to be an example. This specific waiter dislikes their job very much. They do not want to quit because they need the money from the job to keep them alive. This waiter feels as if they are trapped in this situation. Sartre says that they are not trapped though. They are basically lying to themselves because they could quit and find another job if they wanted. Sartre says they are free to choose.

            Sartre also says that humans have no aspect in their life that they are un-free. For example, there are millions of starving people in the world. Sartre basically says that you are responsible for this. Yes you didn’t cause this, but you are choosing not to do something about it. Sartre says that even though it may be hard to do, we are choosing to let them starve. I do not really agree with this because it is a bit over exaggerated to say this. According to this philosophy, Sartre would also feel that it was up to Americans to have stopped 9/11 from happening. When in reality, there was no way we could have known this terrible terrorist attack was going to happen. Therefore, there is no possible way we could have stopped it from happening if we had information. We were not free to choose whether or not 9/11 would have happened. Yes, we are free to change almost any aspect of our day-to-day lives, but we cannot necessarily change anything in the world from happening.

Who got it right?

Nietzche, Marx, and Sarte.

Today I started wondering to what extent I can actually control my own destiny. Are some people just born " better" as Nietzche describes? I suppose you could say that we all have strengths and as long as we are not playing the victim. Sarte seems to describe this same kind of strength in the language of freedom. That as people we all have a freedom to get out of bad situations. Your life is what you make it as they say. On the other hand, Marx describes the uncontrollable situation we are put in as a result of capitalism. As college students maybe you can all relate to a minimum wage lifestyle or maybe not. Sometimes the government tries to make you feel better by offering loans. This isn't free money however, they expect and what will probably happen, is later you will end up paying off the interest not the principle. This is how they make their money. Using a different example, people with money tend to have a lot more options in a world where paper is valued more than life, happiness, and quality. I truly don't like to believe that there is nothing I can do about the capitalist society in which we live. For instance, everyone is required to go to high school. Assuming you make good grades you will get money to go to college. Yes you will probably have loans but some employers will pay them for you. Going to a good school although more expensive pays off in the long run because of the connections you make. While I do believe, to some extent people have "bad luck" such as getting or having a family member terminally ill, I believe we can turn them into strengths. There are days when I wish I did not have to work so hard. I wish my family had more money so I could just study instead of working to pay rent, but it has taught me responsibility, accountability, and other life skills. Hopefully I can even make six figures one day as a nurse. I will never be as rich as Bill Gates, Oprah, or Steve Jobs, but it turns out I do not need much.

Is Marx's idea of capitalism accurate?

This week in class we had our symposium on Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Jean Paul Sartre.  All three of these philosophers have very opposing views on how society works and interacts with each other.  Nietzsche expects strong people to express their strength in every way, however this promotes a society that doesn't get along with each other very well.  Sartre is very unsympathetic in that he believes even if people think that they are stuck in a bad situation that they can't do anything about, they ultimately have the freedom to leave.  If they don't leave, then it is their responsibility for keeping themselves in the bad situation.  Marx believes that capitalism results in only two classes: the super rich and the super poor.  He also thinks that the poor class (the proletariat) cannot ever get out of their situation unless their is a revolution of the entire class.  

According to Google, the United States is in the top 5 most capitalistic countries in the world.  However, what marks says about capitalistic societies is not true here.  First of all, there are more than just 2 classes.  An extremely small percent of the population is extremely rich such as celebrities, famous athletes, CEO's of large companies (Google, Microsoft, Facebook), etc.  A larger portion of the population is very well off such as doctors, lawyers, etc.  Then there is the percent of the population that are teachers, social workers, etc. that make enough money to have a good life, but still might live paycheck to paycheck depending on their family size.  And lastly, there is a large percent of the population that survives on minimum wage jobs, not being able to afford the same type of lifestyle as the other classes.  Marx makes it seem like capitalistic countries are very extreme, but in America it is clear that this is not the case.