It’s All Too Much

The protagonist of Waking Life floats through various scenarios of dreams and half wakefulness’s, both aware and unaware of the state he’s in. He expresses a feeling that he is being prepared for something big. Through the storyline, it is suggested that he may very well be dead. Or is he yet to become truly awake? While in our own western cultured brains we see this as a sad thing, it is implied in the film that death is in fact no sadder than life. Or rather, life is just as sad as death. We have been taught since very young that life and death are separate occurrences, as is understandable in our linear concept of time. This film entertains the idea that life and death are interconnected, that perhaps this is what our dreams are. In this sense, death is not a sad occurrence, because it is not the end. This is how and why some cultures believe in reincarnation.

The process and the end result are one. You can’t have one without the other, nor can you realise one without the other. In Waking Life, the main character is at once living, dying and being born. He is everywhere at once. In this sense, everything matters. And if everything matters, then everything doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter who he is talking with, or what they are discussing, or when, where or why. He already knows and he has yet to know at once. The film may seem to end in a stagnated endless loop of dream after dream, but when one learns to sit back and enjoy the ride, the more one realises there is to know, to quote George Harrison, “see all without looking”.

As one man said in the film, “to say Yes to one instant is to say yes to all of existence.” In this sense, he is saying that all existence is the yes, and the act of acknowledging so. This is akin to the God concept Spinoza has in which all is God, and God is all, therefore all it holy, i.e. yes. This is what faith is, the act of surrendering to the eternal existence of yes. This is to say that yes is the eternal existence and the acknowledgement of such. This is to say that the eternal existence is subjectively self-evident. This concept throughout history and throughout peoples has been called by numerous different names. Most call it love, Spinoza calls it God, Buddhists call it Nirvana, or perhaps more accurately, the process of achieving Nirvana.

There is a Beatles song that I think more or less perfectly conveys what I am trying to say here, and so I leave you now with “It’s All Too Much” by George Harrison:

“

It's all too much / When I look into your eyes / Your love in there for
me / And the more I go inside / The more there is to see / It's all too much for
me to take / The love that's shining all around you / Everywhere it's like what
you make for us to take / It's all too much / Floating down the stream of time /
From life to life with me / Makes no difference where you are / Or where you'd
like to be / It's all too much for me to take / The love that's shining all
around here / All the world is birthday cake / So take a piece but not too much
/ Sail me on a silver sun / Where I know that I am free / Show me that I'm
everywhere and get me home for tea / It's all too much for me to take / There's
plenty there for everybody / The more you give the more you get / The more it
is, it's too much / It's all too much for me to see / The love that's shining
all around you / The more I learn the less I know / But what I do is all too
much for me to take / The love that's shining all around you / Everywhere it's
what you make for us to take / It's all too much / It's much, it's much / It's
too much / Ah! It's too much / you are too much, ah! / We are dead, ah! / Too
much, too much, too much...”

The Illusory Nature of Linear Time

[I would like to start off this post by congratulating my fellow classmates. I read through these posts searching for what to write about and could only think about how good they were. Each brought about a very important topic and point of view that truly made me think and delight in the connections we can make between other things we learned about in class. If anything, you guys have taught me new ways to think, and I am duly impressed by all of you!]

Ever since I watched Inception, everything seems to connect back to it. The light switch and digital clocks were the protagonist's version of Cobb's top. How many layers of dreams did our little protagonist go through-it must be a record!

To us Westerners, time is linear, which makes it super difficult to understand the indigenous perspective of cyclical time. Through ritual, the aborigines can connect to this transcendent time, this all time and no time, all at the same time. I would like to reference a short story I Stumbled upon on the internet: "The Egg" by Andy Weir. In it a man has died, and confronts God with questions. The man asks if he is being sent back in time, and God answers that time is completely made up, and works very differently to gods. The man is constantly reincarnated as every being on Earth there ever was or will be. The entire universe was made for the human to grow and develop. It is an egg, made for the human to mature until she/he/it can become a god as well.
In Waking Life, there is the same concept that time is illusory and we are only existing in "this instant". Time is, again, a postponing of our "real" life, our invitation to join God. And isn't that the same as Dreamtime, which was not just a notion of the Australian aborigines, but also of many other indigenous people, like the Scandinavian Sámi (my research paper topic)? Dreamtime may be called so, because in our dreams we are also able to connect to that transcendent state.
And that is the point of Waking Life. The protagonist is finding his own philosophy through his dreams, examining the realities of life and time in his own Dreamtime, his effort to connect to God. It is perpetuating because of his lack of readiness to join that world just yet. First he needs to search inside himself, do some organizing of sensory information (one theory of dreaming we've learned in psychology) and prepare himself for what is ahead.

So much knowledge, so little time

There was literally so much information, inspiration and stimulating ideas in the film Waking Life that we could talk for weeks about the philosophy of each characters notions. But, I have only a few paragraphs to get out all my thoughts on these extraordinary people so I am going to pick two of them to talk about in depth.
The first is the couple that lay in bed talking about dreams. During this scene the woman speaks of how she sometimes feels as though she is watching her life go by as an older woman. There are some many questions that sped through my mind after she said that. How could we be looking into our own lives as though we are detached if we apparently live in the present? Is it better to see the big picture, as this woman stated, than to live in the present? Living "actively" has been a struggle for awhile in this culture. Western society puts great importance on the go-go-go life style, which in some ways lets each one of us be seriously detached because we never think about what we are currently doing, rather what we have to do in ten minutes, and hour or tomorrow. Is that what the woman in bed meant by "my life is a memory being remembered by and old woman"? It just may be so. Also in this scene, the idea of reincarnation is brought up. Reincarnation "is understood to be the transmigration of a soul to another body after death." It comes up in Hinduism and in a different form in Buddhism. This idea is so interesting to the common man because it means there is a before and after to life. Not only for our society but even for societies before us, such as the one Gilgamesh lived in, this idea revolutionizes the meaning of life. If there exists a reincarnation, there much exist a collective unconscious also. Where would we do the transformation from human soul to animal soul and vise versa if there was no collective unconscious? I do think that the couple is right in agreeing that "reincarnation is just a poetic expression of what collective memory really is." If we do in fact has this huge pool of collective thoughts, doesn't it seem as though more poeple would have the same ideas? Not necessarily ideas of science and literature, but more along the lines of world harmony and use of the planet. If only we could tap into the collective memory consciously rather than unintentionally the world would be so different! Again this scene could have lasted an hour and I would have listened to every word they said because the ideas they were throwing around intrigued my every cell.
The other scene that really stuck with me was the man who drove around in the car shouting his ideas loud and clear for others to hear. He spoke somewhat like the Cynics and Nietzsche in that he rejected society and the ways we are currently living. He took a stand on politics, society and everyday life by talking about propaganda that the more powerful figures in society feed us; "we should not let ourselves be put into this rats maze, we cannot submit to dehumanization." His words stuck to me like honey sticks to skin.We need to stand for freedom: turn from hate and insecurity because those things are what we give into now letting the powerful manipulate and enslave us. I couldn't help but be reminded of the sixties during this scene. This man was so vocal and serious about the state of the world because he knew what had to be done to change and how to change it (or so it seemed). He spoke with clear power and a sort of hope that can pick anyone's spirit up out of the gutter. This scene made me wish more people were that passionate about the world, instead of being zombies that just go day to day in a routine as he mentioned. Again, the Beat Generation and the protesting 60's are hugely represented here because of the expression of opinion and the opposition to our everyday life, politics and society. "This is the age of human kind standing up for something that is right. The truth is out there, but it is under a bunch of lies. Get fired up about dynamic human spirit and creativity!"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjiS_LLPhqs&NR=1
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm

Viviception

A dream is defined as "a succession of images, thoughts, or emotions passing through the mind during sleep," but what is sleep? Despite the fact that we have come to know sleep as the "shutting down" of the body for rejuvenation, sleep can be known simply as a state of dormancy. In Waking Life, philosophies and theories on the meaning of life are tossed about and described in detail nearly every scene; it is hard not to watch this film without becoming attached to at least one theory, philosophy, or ideology. Personally, I fell in love with one character's thoughts, the thoughts of the man walking down a bridge with the main character (the bridge guide is indicated as Timothy "Speed" Levitch in the analysis) who stated that "Doubt is an exam for our vitality" and that "Life understood is life lived." Levitch also offers some insight on the human condition and why we are what we are: Levitch says that humans are given eyes so that they can see beyond the physical world around them; humans are made to transcend. These statements bring about a sense of closure for me because thinking about the meaning of life is such a frighteningly fruitless topic when searching for one specific answer. The meaning of life is not simply to procreate, the meaning of life is not to die, and the meaning of life is clearly not to live life while adopting one of these thoughts. Rather, I feel that humans with the ability to transcend thought, sight, understanding, etc... already know that the meaning of life is the search for the meaning of life itself. Without the search for understanding life, what would we know in this world?
Curiosity and discovery are both integral parts of searching for the meaning of life that require genuine human interest. Without curiosity, no man or woman would look in the grass and notice the little green insect hopping about. Without discovery, humans could stare at a grasshopper for hours on end only to reach the conclusion that "that little green thing moved." Humans on the hunt for life could draw conclusions that the grasshopper itself is alive and that it faces the same age-old question about the meaning of life. When humans lack the ability to search for the meaning of life, they lose the ability to live. No curiosity and discovery leads to an unhealthy life of menial repetition, for without curiosity humans could neither focus on nor question every aspect of life. As a result, a human's mind is placed into a state of dormancy, a perpetual state of rest defined earlier as sleep, and it is only through dreams, in which life can be understood, that the sweeping wave of images, emotions, and thoughts can come crashing down onto the human consciousness. Those who can search for the meaning of life are truly alive, and for those who cannot, dreaming allows them to do so in a world more "human" than their own. The idea that the meaning of life is to search for the meaning of life is more than satisfactory to me: having no concrete reason for life allows me to interpret experiences in life as I please, as opposed to through the overly-rational and logical view that life is simply birth, procreation, then death.

On a curious side note, perhaps humans cannot understand life, for the quotation above states that knowing life is to live, and that the human brain effectively discombobulates any information regarding the meaning of life. Dreams are the medium through which people can search for the meaning of life, but how many people can remember dreams in their entirety? The brain wishes us not to understand life, for in doing so we are led to our deaths. Dreams tempt us with visions of the future and understanding life, yet our own selves continually make sure we never truly know the meaning of life.
cannot remember dreams, cannot remember life

Existentialnihilisticexpialadocious!

First thing, I want to say I truly liked the movie "Waking Life". It had all the tiny little bits of different existentialist philosophies that I reveled in throughout the few days after. (Also, for you Doctor Who fans, I could not help but think about what was said in the movie, how "every cell in our body regenerates every seven years". Say the regenerations start at the age of 7, and once you get to age 91, your body will have regenerated 12 times like the Doctor!)

Many of the ideas of the characters within the movie are similar to Nietzsche's, and for that, it made my week. The immolated man expresses the idea that chaos is not necessarily evil, but is portrayed as evil. That chaos, that Dionysian aspect of our nature is something we should revel in, with all of its emotions and passions. Another man asks, "How can one be free if God knows what he/she will do?" The definition of a human described through physical laws and God limits our thinking, and the goal of Nietzsche's existentialism, and possibly all existentialism in general, seeks to breaks these descriptive limits and discover what a human actually is. The man shouting from his car decrees that we all want freedom: that we are being conditioned to slavery by bias and corporations. We all wish to be free from this, and it is that dynamic human spirit, the one that transcends the Herd, that will refuse to submit and will continue on its own journey of self-recognition. The connection that Laura made when she said, "While Gilgamesh does not have the blight of technology, he still does not want to become one of the masses, anonymous and conforming until his inevitable death," and the previous sentence all point to Nietzsche's concept of the Overhuman. This Overhuman does not believe in God, nor does he define her/himself by the laws of nature, but instead, becomes a true individual and eschews the moral and social ideas of conventional society.

Now, as to reality, the subject is a bit tricky for me. I've seen enough of Inception to have my mind thoroughly blown. In fact, I had a bit of a "mental meltdown" last year, where I could not tell what reality was for a single night, resulting in a crumpled, crying lump of Danny until sleep forced me to make a reality in my dreams. This episode was what sparked my interest in philosophy, and by extension, my fascination with Nietzsche. The movie presented a few ideas about what reality actually is, but the one scene where one person was speaking out loud struck me the most familiar. He said that the world and the reality as we know it is a fake, that we must confront the familiar. I know the feeling, but I dare not confront the familiar because it serves me like an anchor. I believe in this reality because it is necessary. I do this because I feel I am not ready to make a reality of my own or to take charge of my destiny. Perhaps this is why I like Nietzsche so much. He praises the individual that takes no influence from society, but makes his own decisions. It is fantasy of mine to become like one like his Overhuman, but as yet, my self-concept is still cooking.

Waking Life and Dreaming Death

As we began The Epic of Gilgamesh, it became apparent that perhaps the most defining characteristic of the human experience is not love, beauty, ethics, or sacred space, but the fact that life itself must end. In Waking Life, however, the idea that the expanse of infinite time is filled in a dream state after death is curious, to say the least. If the afterlife does continue in a series of moments without context or familiar characters, why are we as humans desperate to continue the linear lives we lead?

Gilgamesh struggles to find the secret to immortality from Utnapishtim (also known as Noah for those of us playing it Old Testament style). As Horace, and so many other individuals will acknowledge after the oldest written story ever found, the written word is what preserves the memory of men, and sometimes women, who make their mark beyond their own time. With the invention of writing in many ways came the creation of the individual, and thus the isolation of each existence from every other one. I would argue, however, that the only thing that divides human beings into individuals is what they have no control over, such as dreams. In dreaming states, people are more themselves than anywhere else because the mind is unhindered by the constraints of linear time.

While I would like to think that I am different than everyone, and that I am extraordinary, like Raskolnikov, I see that none of us will ever conquer life as Utnapishtim has, and that is what makes the human experience. Utnapishtim might live forever with his wife, but what is the value of existence if it never changes? Whether the afterlife is just a series of REM from the grave or a slow, harmless decaying of the flesh, there must be something we cannot see until we are not humans anymore. Waking Life suggests that we are merely on the precipice of understanding until the eternal descent into whatever is out there. Gilgamesh or not, there must be something extraordinary in being able to extinguish the flame and finally become the smoke.

Is this Lifetime or Dreamtime?

I've always wondered about the differences between the dreamworld and what we call "reality." Have you ever had a dream that continued from night to night where it left off? Sometimes our dreams feel more alive than life itself, and other times we feel as if we're not really awake during "reality." In the movie waking life, a couple has a discussion about the difference between reality and the dream world. The woman felt as if she were looking back at her life every morning when she woke up and felt as if she were an old soul. The man brings up the idea that dream time lasting a few minutes can seem like days in the dream world. The idea that the mind remains active for about ten minutes after bodily death puts the idea of what is "reality" even more into question. What's ten minutes in the dream world? With a REM state occurring after death that long a dream could feel like hours, or even years. What if deja vu meant that you actually were looking back upon a memory you once had though your last moments of life? The idea of reincarnation is similar to "deja vu" other than the fact that people are not born again, they are just spirits living in the memories of the life they once had.
John Keats once said, " "The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were." I agree with Keat's idea that the world cannot be seen in black and white. There is more to reality then what can be seen before our eyes, and it is those who embrace their dreams that learn life's purpose. What is the purpose of the dream world if not to guide us through life? What defines reality is up to us; life is the state in which you feel the most alive, whether it be a dream or "reality."

The Stagnation Sensation Sweeping the Nation

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life..." - From Walden by Henry David Thoreau

In Waking Life the idea of free will is repeatedly emphasized. The film presents the idea that individual expression and motivation are essential to fulfilling our potential as human beings. "If we don't exercise free will to evolve, we end up as passive observers," (Carlo Cavagna, packet on Waking Life) in our own lives. The film suggests that by breaking from the confines of society (an action also advocated by Nietzsche) we can accomplish our goals. In this day and age, I see technology as a restrictive force, creating in us a disconnect from the real world. It puts us in a sort of heedless stupor that prevents us from doing that which we would otherwise be inclined to do. In The Epic of Gigamesh, the protagonist faces a similar problem of losing himself to civilization. While Gilgamesh does not have the blight of technology, he still does not want to become one of the masses, anonymous and conforming until his inevitable death. In order to make something of himself, he resolves to strike out into the wilderness.

But I believe that outside forces are not the only things preventing us from exercising free will and fully living. That would be, in terms of psychology, perceiving everything as beyond our control (or in technical jargon, having an external locus of control). This is both unrealistic and supremely limiting. We have the ability - and the implied responsibility - to choose our actions. But the fear, laziness, or passivity that so many of us seem to possess prevents us from making important decisions. We seem to feel as though inaction is easier and less dangerous than taking risks. What we fail to realize is that if we don't do things out of laziness, or out of fear of the pain they will cause us, we end up with more work or in more pain than if we did the thing. I don't want to reach old age and realize I have done nothing. Yet I find myself lazing around, or worrying and procrastinating needlessly, wasting hours that could be spent doing worthwhile things. As Buddhism teaches, I (and many others) need to learn to live mindfully, focusing on the present and actively engaging in life. For why should we stagnate? We have the potential to do whatever we want to do (as I believe Melanie mentioned in class and the film emphasized). What sets us apart as human beings is our creativity and our ability to consciously choose our actions. If we fail to use these abilities, we are not fulfilling our potential and might as well not be human.

Ethilosopherics

To start with I would like to say that I think that Raskolnikov is like Hume. Miss Levin stated that, "Reason can show us how to meet our ends, but only passions and sentiment can determine our ultimate goals." Raskolnikov didn't fallow reason when he went to kill the pawnbroker. He thought of himself as achieving the ultimate goal of surpassing normal people. He fallowed what he thought was right. His passion was to be one of those people that surpassed everyone, who were better than everyone else. His ultimate goal was done. He killed the "evil" pawnbroker.
I am going to leave Raskolnikov there and move on to Marmeladov. I think that he most resembles (out of our list) the philosopher Nietzsche. Marmeladov isn't letting social conformity hold him back, and the interests of others aren't restraining him, then are pretty much what is fueling him. Deep down he is a passionate being, but he is so depressed and so thoroughly messed up that he just keeps drinking. If we went along with the Dionysian and Apollonian aspects, he definitely is only Dionysian. There is nothing Mechanical or structured about him.
I was said to be like Kant. He believes in the golden rule essentially. Act as if you were setting moral law. That is how I try to act. I try to be a good person and I hope that by doing so it will rub off on others. I also agree with Kant, that we act out of a sense of duty to be moral. I feel that it is everyone's duty to act morally.

Black and White Ethics

How can one define morals? As said many times in this blog already, things are wishy washy. Ethics depend on situations. And in today's society, how do we define our own personal morals? We grew up with our parents' and churches' ethics. It begins with understanding punishment. Once a child understands they will get in trouble, they will begin to understand what is "right" and "wrong". As children, we simply want to please our parents. As we grow older we begin to understand religion (however, still in the brainwashed phase- doing whatever you are told is right). Our morals begin to be shaped with that of our parents and religion. And as we grow older still, we obtain free-thinking. We create our own ideas and opinions. However, even those are influenced (whether consciously or unconsciously) by friends, teachers, media, and those principle teachings from childhood. So after all of this infiltration, are our ideas still considered our own?

I hold strong to what I believe in. I believe my ideas are my own, even if influenced by others. If someone inspires my painting, could I say that the painting is not my own? Maybe what we say or do around others does not accurately express our true thoughts and ideas, but the original ideas are ours. And because I am still developing my ideas on ethics, I cannot concretely say what I morally believe yet. (I hope this is making sense).

And so I am having difficulty writing up my ethics, for as I said, it is situational. I was going to say that murder is wrong. Then I thought, well what about Bin Laden or others of the like. I believe that was the right thing to do. Then I was going to say, it has to do with the amount of happiness versus grief. If the majority is happy or feels right about it, it must be right. I say this in the case of Bin Laden. Sure his family and followers will be grief-stricken, but the majority of humanity will benefit. But even then I thought, what about african-american slavery. Can I say, sure they had grief, but the majority of America was happy with it, so its right? No. And so I go back to my point. Ethics are hard to describe. Give me a situation and I will firmly give you my stance on whether it is ethical or not. But to write it out as though it is black and white? That is something I cannot do. Because in my opinion, it is not.

Three Basic Ideas

Ethics –plural noun

1. (used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

Ahhh, that feels nice to see the official definition of the term. But now, the real question is what I think ethics are. The definition says it is a system of moral principles, which is very true. I think that ethics depend on each society, culture and personal prefernces, though. There are few ethics that are universal such as,
_ Do not kill
_ Do not steal
_ Do not lie

Those ones are pretty obvious to most people. There may be a time or two when for the betterment of humanity on of those laws must be broken but overall they are the three that always stand strong. When we took the ethics quiz, my top man was John Stuart Mill. After reading his thoughts in his essay about Utilitarianism I have to agree, for the most part, with him. He says that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse. I agree with that in some ways because most people just want to be happy, but I think that our actions can hurt others while still making us happy, so what Mill says is not always true. I am going to go for this ethics idea in three parts; personal ethics, social ethics, and our actual actions. The first to just have to do with our thoughts and thinking about ethics, while the third is about our actual ethical actions upon which we act.

Personal ethics come from the inside. These are the thoughts, notions and inclinations that begin inside of us from the day we are born. What is covered in this category, also is the ethics of our thoughts. Not every thought each person thinks is a good thought, or "ethical". Although our thoughts matter a lot, what is more important is if we act upon them. So my opinion is that everyone has some sort of unethical notion inside of them, because that is the human condition. We must teach ourselves the kinder reaction to situations rather than yielding to our impulsive side.

Social ethics are pretty self explainitory. The ethics that we live by that our culture and society instill in us would be social ethics. My belief is that things such as, "drive on the correct side of the road", "hold the door for others", "do not steal" and " do not cheat" are ethics made by society. There is such a fine line between theses things though. I do sometimes wonder what makes an ethic external or internal. But, for the most part it can be figured out which is which.

And the real information that makes ethics interesting is the actions. We can think and wonder as much as we want but we cannot really ruin our own morals or ethics unless we ACT upon something unethical. We can think, " that girl is so annoying, I want to yell at her" without getting in trouble. Where the real juice is lies is if we act on our unethical, or ethical ideas. I think ethics has to do a lot with free will and the courage each of us has inside us. Each day, there are plenty of things I wish I had done, and plenty of things I wish I had not done. It is odd because for the most part, humans regret our actions rather than our thoughts. Actions are experienced one way or another by another living creature even if we don't think so.

So there are basics to ethics, but the cross cultural and personal ethics are just plain HARD to pin point. We all live by a combination of internal ethics and social ethics, that officially come into play as we act upon them.

Musings-Schmusings on Ethics-Schmethics

Ethics is something almost innate, something about us being human, the sociable creatures that we are, that set us up to have some sort of code. Of course, that is it, the bare skeleton of a code, which we come equipped with. The rest comes from life, from outside influences. Our ethics is something that we, as humans, are finding out all the time. Whenever we have to make a decision about some moral dilemma, the choice we choose tells ourselves our ethics. One’s ethics are their personal line between altruism and selfishness. We’ve all been taught, by our culture, or beliefs, what our ethics should be, and we consider it our mission to live up to them. But I think that what our true ethics, are what we decide to do when we must make split second decisions, following our most primal code. Of course, this reaction does change, especially with practice.

One’s ethics are constantly changing. The esteemed psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg came up with a series of moral stages, stages of morality one goes through as they grow up, mentally. Kohlberg’s theory states that to achieve higher morality one needs first to achieve higher cognitive ability. A child thinks selfishly, because he has not yet gained the capacity for empathy. I think this is true, to an extent. In the book Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes, a mentally retarded man is given a medicine that makes him highly intelligent, for a time. When he returns to his original intelligence, the one thing he gains from his experience as a genius is a high morality. This story proves Kohlberg’s hypothesis.

My ethics are based on how, where, and when I was brought up. My parents taught me right from wrong, good from bad, before I could remember. They guided me in making right decisions. Their actions were based on their own parents’ morals, as well as those that they picked up from the culture around them.

I believe in forgiveness. When I first heard that Osama Bin Laden was dead, my immediate reaction was one of sombreness. My sister on the other hand, was full of revengeful jubilance. I think that everyone, at the end of the line, or rather, at the beginning of it, are equal, and thus all deserve equal amount of love. It’s what happens in between that botches it all up for them.

I believe in selflessness. I think that when given a choice of sacrificing you or someone else, the right thing to do is always to give of yourself. This doesn’t matter who the other person is, whether a best friend or a worst enemy. I don’t believe that being good is easy. Rather, it is very hard. This is the reason why.

Being good is very hard to define. This is because we, as humans, have a very difficult time with being good. We’re quite blind about it, always arguing about what is good and what is bad. I believe that the answer is right above us, if we all just stop for a moment and look up.

An Ode to Fairy Tales

Many people take their ethics from the ways they were raised, be it what mumsy and popsy said or from a religious text. This is something that can only last for so long, however, before people branch out and their interests take hold to reform their ethical values. Before I get into my own ethics, I have to state a simple fact: I don’t believe religion should be how we decided what is “good” and what is “bad”. These terms have too many shades of gray, and all instances of “good” or “bad” actions have a back story that must be told. Not only that, but there are many cases where religion is used as a crutch. "I cannot do that because the bible says it's bad."

Who are we as humans to judge the actions of another? There is a reason behind everything a person does- nothing can ever be 1oo% thoughtless. Why should a man feel guilty due to something he felt he did righteously, just because society frowns upon it? Who has the right to judge another’s doings? Laws keep us alive and it keep us in order, but why is the validity of the laws, rules, and regulations never questioned? Please do not misunderstand me; I am not looking for anarchy. That’s far from what I would want for any society. I just believe questions must be asked.

Now, before I begin to examine my own morals, I should give a bit of background. Many of my personal ethics come from fairy tales. Please don’t think me insane, just hear me out if you will. There was a purpose behind such old stories, after all, and yet no one seems to listen to them. I do not mean Disney stories, however, but the stories in their original forms.

Murder: This is a topic with shades of gray, in my mind. Have you ever heard the original story of the “Little Mermaid”? In the end, the Prince has fallen in love with another woman, leaving the mermaid to turn to sea form when the sun rises. During her time of mourning, her sisters come to her with a dagger, pleading that she kill the prince so that she may return to the sea and live on. In the end, she realizes that she loves the Prince and cannot kill him, but this brings me to my ethics on murder. I find that murder is acceptable if it is for self-preservation. It was not with a dark heart that her sisters wanted the mermaid to kill the Prince, but because they wanted their sister to live and love again. How is there anything wrong with such a desire? Killing someone in cold blood is another matter entirely, though, and that is something I do not condone.

Stealing: Has Robin Hood taught us nothing? If it is stealing for the common good, I can see no reason why that is a bad thing. If someone has been stolen from and they’ve worked for ever penny they’ve made, then stealing from them is wrong. If, however, they have cheated people out of everything, I feel they deserve to have it taken from them. Some may say “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, but in this instance I cannot agree. Some people abuse their power and they need to be stopped. If taking back what is not rightfully their’s is the way to do that, I see nothing wrong with that.

Greed: “The Tinderbox” puts an interesting spin on human greed, if nothing else. In fact, it basically pushes you to become greedy so that you can succeed and live on. In the story, a man takes all the money he can possibly carry, but also takes a witch’s tinderbox, which he promised to return to her. Instead of the original agreement, he beheads her. By the end of the story, stealing the Tinderbox proves to save him from execution and he eventually gets to marry the princess. Obviously this is unrealistic, but what does it have to say about greed? It says that in being greedy, you can succeed. You must be greedy to get along.

Obviously these are only three examples of my morals, and whereas much of it may be seen as amoral, how can I help it? Some people are raised on the bible. I was raised on princesses, magic, and what seems like amorality. If someone can use their religion as a crutch, I see it only right that I can use fairy tales as my own.

Darn those Socially-Ethical Fetters!

Ever since I first stepped into a science classroom, ethics have hindered me. I understand that some practices are deemed illegal to perform on humans, but whenever I think of those, I can only imagine what knowledge we could gain by not adhering to those ethics. I have dreamed up so many experiments, and yet, they go unperformed. For now, I shall have to submit to these ethics in order to gain the knowledge I need good career, but I believe, like Raskolnikov, that one day I shall be able to step over these boundaries for the betterment (or not) of the human race. As of now, what I wish to have as my morals and what morals I have been taught to follow are creating some cognitive dissonance. Oh how many times have I thought of just running away to a new world where I could do what I wish without being judged or made to feel guilty! Then, I could do what I please in peace. Although ethics allows me to choose what is right and wrong, I have many overlapping ideals and many ethical thoughts that are situation-based. Here are a few of my basic morals:

• Killing should be frowned upon unless it is established that the person's death will be beneficial to everyone.
• To lie is a neutral concept to me. I believe that lying may not benefit those who receive the lies, but those who create the lies will also be burdened and punished in their minds for deceiving another person.
• The only situation that I can think of when stealing is morally appropriate is when someone steals from another who is exercising control or power over him/her using various resources.
• The paid use of another person's body for sexual satisfaction, or prostitution, is considered rape by me. I believe that no woman (or man) in his/her right mind would ever allow others to perform these actions onto them.

Gabriel's views on Ethical Ethics.

Gabe believes in the simple things along with the larger things. Sometimes the small, simple things can make all the differnce in the world and influence th bigger things, or the things that are more important.
Why dont we start with the smaller things. I think that common courtesies can fall under the lable of ethics. I think it is the small things like saying please and thank you, or holding the door for someone that can make a big difference. Sometimes that smile you shared with the person walking down the road may have given them just enough hope to keep on living. Just enough hope too keep them from commiting suicide. Also, it is just the right thing to do. Someone is coming in the door behind you, hold the door for them. Someone older is walking up to a door you are going to use too, open it and let them in. Please and thank you can take someone far, and that extra smile you share can mean the world to someone.
Moving on to a little bigger things. I believe that certain action are viewed in different ways. Some actions it really only matters about the ending effect where as others need a back story. If you are telling a joke and it wasnt ment to be hurtful to someone, but it ended up being that way, all that really matters to the person you hurt is that you hurt them. But if someone steals something small like an apple or something like that, a back story can shed some light on the situation and whether they REALLY needed it. Sure, it is still wrong to steal, but the back story can shed light on the situation and give sympathy to the robber. But if this robber was, say, stealing a tv from a house, they really dont need to do that, but they might need the money for a family. Yes, it is STILL wrong, but hearing the story helps one sympathize with the robber. My father says "If they stole it, they probably needed it more than we did." I like that philosophy.

Now something like murder, the big no no. I think that in most cases murder isn't the answer. But I do believe that sometimes it is what is needed. If someone wants revenge, they are mad, it isnt ok. Bad Boy! Or if someone needs to, say, get rid of a witness at a robbery so they kill someone, still a bad thing. But if you are a soldier in the army, that is what you are there to do. I couldnt do it, I don't think I could live with myself if I ever killed someone. But that is why those people are there. There is the question of capital punishment. And I think that if someone killed someone else on purpose, like a serial killer or a strait up murder, that it is wrong for them. Let them rot in jail, let them suffer. But someone like Osama Binladen (I think I spelt that wrong), I that he deserved to die. But not just die, suffer, suffer a painful, drawnout death for the people he killed. I think he should suffer so he can feel the thousands of peoples pains. He didn't deserve what happened to him. He deserved worse.

Pay with Punishment

To be honest, I like to believe my morals are relatively simplistic and that these morals are a relatively good example for other to live by. When I say this, I do not mean that I wish to press my ideas and concerns onto others, I simply believe that my own morals have led me along a relatively virtuous path that has benefited me as well as the others around me. Once, when I was younger, I believed logic was the answer to everything and that cold, rigid morals were to be imposed on everything and everyone I interacted with, but this is not the case now that I have grown older and wiser. Now, many morals I have have shifted from a left-brained approach to a right-brained approach as I myself have become less dependent on logic. I believe everyone should act in accordance to helping others and themselves at the same time, however, if this cannot be accomplished, one must simply act for the benefit of others, disregarding one's own needs entirely. If everyone followed such an ideal, humans could take care of one another, rather than strive against one another for the meager self-gratification that only serving one's self provides.

My morals and ideals are truly amalgams of the morals I have seen on the television or from other people I have encountered, whose advice has stuck with me to this day. Frankly though, most of my morals come directly from my grandparents, and it is because of this that I am often labeled as "old-fashioned" or "out of the times." I know not to steal, kill, hurt, or threaten others, for I see these as universal examples of evil, and that evil in any form should be avoided. Put simply: crime is bad, kindness is good, no matter which way you slice it.

Most of my morals and ideals come to light when speaking about law and justice, however, for there are many gray areas and blurred lines within the law that I have gone to great lengths in order to establish my own, personal interpretation of whether criminal acts are evil. Many ask themselves "What if a person stole in order to feed their family?" and my response is that such a person ought to be punished. Any criminal, regardless of criminals whose situation cannot be conjured by my mind, ought to be punished for his or her crimes no matter what the intensity may be. For example, Raskolnikov should clearly be punished for his killing of both Ivanovna sisters, and it is not enough that he suffers psychological damage as a result. Mental illness, especially recently developed symptoms are not punishment enough. For one's morals to be recognized, they must be placed before others to see their reactions.

Muddled Morals of a "Middle-Aged" Miss

I like to think I follow my ethics the majority of the time, and that those ethics lead me to do what is right. But I am the first to admit that I am an egocentric teenager and that I make plenty of mistakes (then again, my dad says I'm a "fifty-year-old in an eighteen-year-old's body", so perhaps I sometimes have a more mature view of the world and can more readily put others first. It is difficult to define myself because, as Allie said "[y]ou can't make a general statement like that" as how a person thinks or acts varies from situation to situation and over time. And I am quite certain this parenthetical aside has you completely confused and off track. I apologize - please refer back to the previous statement). Fortunately, I am usually a fast learner and am quick to realize when I am in error. Then it is just a matter of altering my mindset or behavior to avoid making the same thoughtless errors again. This often takes time - I am reminded of Julia who stated: "I am certainly ready to formulate my own philosophy. If I had the time, that is." This resonates with me, as in our hectic, goal-oriented culture we seldom have time to stop and think, to just enjoy life. In his book Sabbath, Wayne Muller eloquently articulates this problem, describing how "a "successful" life has become a violent enterprise. We make war on our own bodies, pushing them beyond their limits; war on our children, because we cannot find enough time to be with them when they are hurt and afraid, and need our company; war on our spirit, because we are too preoccupied to listen to the quiet voices that seek to nourish and refresh us [...]" (2). With all that we push ourselves to do, we cannot put our "all" into what we truly care about. We get confused, turned around, and lost along the way. Even the most idealistic people can, when busy and distracted, solve problems "frantically, desperately, reactively, and badly" (Muller 3). So I believe that although the goal is to help others, we must also take care of ourselves. Otherwise there is no joy in life, no sense of purpose or energy that motivates us to help others enjoy the world.

While my belief in ethical behavior as enhancing the living experience (human and other) is not original, it is still my own. My parents, books, and many other members of society have influenced my morals in the sense that everyone needs to be given knowledge about the world and exposed to different views in order to form an opinion (for how else would we come to believe anything?). But as Kant held, each person must freely develop his or her own principles of morality. I choose what I agree with and believe in - if I was forced into thinking or behavior, it would not be ethical because it would be done for the wrong reasons.

As both Sarah and Allie expressed, intent matters. I would take it one step further and say that both the intent, or the "end", and the methodology, or the "means" matter. The intent alone does not justify the means. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov's desire to save the world from a human parasite did not justify his killing of Alyona Ivanovna. Intending to give someone a gift, but stealing from another to be able to do so, is also immoral. But neither does the means forgive a selfish goal. Simply coming to a favorable result, however good that result may be, is not moral if it is done for all the wrong reasons. But again, as mistakes are inevitable and help us to learn, this situation is not necessarily evil or detestable. And I strive not to judge others whose circumstances and upbringing (a key component in cognitive and moral development, as I learned in psychology) are unknown to me. What gives me the right to feel morally superior when I have had an essentially idyllic childhood free of trauma and hardship? Nevertheless, I believe an individual should strive for good as it is generally understood.

For me, some of the most important concepts involved in moral behavior are compassion, honor, and respect (as formal as that sounds, permit me to explain). Compassion allows us to see others' points of view and understand how our actions will affect them. From this should come a desire to act in ways that will help, and not harm our fellows. Honor involves not only acting honorably (for example, not cheating to get ahead of our peers) but also honoring what we say we will do. If I commit to something, I am determined to accomplish it, and in the way I say that I will do it. It is not only common courtesy but it is also a matter of trust - I want people to be able to rely on me. And by respect, I essentially mean treating others as I would like to be treated (yes, those elementary school teachers knew exactly what they were talking about when they reinforced the "golden rule"). What right do I to ruin someone else's day at my own whim? I tend to view unfavorably those that unthinkingly ruin mine.

Morality is rooted in rationality as opposed to emotion, another belief I share with Kant. Those people who hurt others must not take the time to reason through to the impact their actions will have. Emotions such as anger and fear tend to distort reason and, it follows, concepts of good. But as I said before, feelings such as compassion have their place in morality, as they give us a reason to do good. The object is to maintain a rational understanding of basic right and wrong that can overrule emotion when emotion is unreasonable and threatens goodness or others' happiness. In essence, we should use emotion as it encourages us to do good - such as when I am motivated to give back to the world by my gratitude to all those who have made my own dreams possible - and disregard it when it seeks to lead us astray. I will end as I began: a young and still very much inexperienced girl trying to make sense of the world.

Ethical or Environmental?

What calls us to our code of ethics in life? It is both the environmental influences in life and the influences of the dreams we've held since childhood that make us who we are. In the early years of life children begin to create the dreams and ideals that they will live by for the rest of their lives; it is only after these dreams are set that the world around them molds their ideas of moral behavior and the journey to achieving those dreams into what they will become. The environmental influences thrust upon us in life influence our decisions and judgments that will be used to achieve our dreams. In the beginning we're all born with a vision; a direction in which we desire to sail forward to in our lives. Influences of the places we've been act as the wind pushing our sail, our passions and ideals in which we were born to act as the wheel. Sometimes the wind pulls us the wrong way to reaching our dreams; This is unethical behavior.

What is ideal behavior in life? If an a man robs a bank to achieve his dreams, is this unethical? By popular theories of Ethics, any action without a positive influence to affect our lives, and the lives of others is unethical. Anything against our own original ideals will automatically become unethical in our own minds. In the biblical story of Cain and Abel, Cain was marked for his sin by slaying able. Cain's jealousy was driven by his feelings of rejection from god, which eventually led to his act of murder. Cain let the gilded wind pull him the wrong way and chose an unethical action to follow his dream of god's acceptance. I agree with Tamar in the fact that we as humans are, "always searching for a way to be immortal,"and it's through our dreams that we can find this ideal state of being. Immortality isn't a life without death, it's a life that continues to live on in the spirit of achieving true greatness.

Allie's Supreme Rule for Moral Living

There are caveats to everything. There will always be some situation in which the "wrong behavior" is deemed acceptable due to circumstances. That is why it is difficult to exact a supreme rule for moral living. That is also why I had difficulty with the MMPI personality test in Psychology (You can't make a general statement like that, because sometimes I am messy, but others times I am neat to the point of OCD!)
I can make a few general statements. It is not ethical to hurt or put someone else at risk, emotionally of physically. Raskolnikov killed innocents, and Marmeledov let his children and wife starve and contract diseases. The former was desperately poor, and the latter had a disease, alcoholism, but the point is that they hurt others. Neither intended to, but that does a fat lot of good to Lizabeta now.
I had difficulty during the most to least evil activity. I stick to my group's overall decision, but I do agree with Sarah that intent matters...to a point. One can intend to kill to distribute money to the needy, but if nothing good comes of the money, then that is doubly bad. Pure accidents can be forgiven, and so can things necessary for the greater good. It is a tricky concept "for the greater good", but an essential one. It is like the story I mentioned in class: if a whole city could live in harmony and happiness all for the suffering of one child, would that be acceptable? Take away the argument that it is necessary to suffer in order to be completely human, and you have a difficult moral decision. I am also reminded of the plot of Watchmen (No, I haven't read it. I watched the movie and looked it up. Spoilers here.) Part of what happens at the end is that the entirety of humanity can be saved from a world-ending atomic war, or have millions of people die. One always wishes to have lesser amounts of casualties, but if one orchestrates and is responsible for innocent human losses, a different spin is put on the dilemma.
Raskolnikov intended to help people, but he had other options. Taking a life in order to help many is not excusable. This was not his only choice.

Ethics of a Contemptuous Idealist

It would be fair to say I have spent the majority of my high school career daydreaming about not being there at all. I know I should be grateful that in the old days people cared enough to grant the masses public education so we would not be ignorant, but in my tenure as a student I have grown resentful of the confines placed upon me by some government that obviously didn't know how extraordinary I could be if I was not wasting my time taking P.E. not once, but twice. In my daydreams I usually end up at the conclusion that while I may not be ready to drive, I am certainly ready to formulate my own philosophy. If I had the time, that is. When I think of Kant, Ficino, the Greeks, and Nietzsche, I become almost overwhelmingly jealous of how they sat around being brilliant and writing down these philosophies they supposedly lived.

The truth is, I do not believe I have my own ethics because in essence I have done very little in my life. As Solomon Ibn Gabirol, a Spanish poet, once said, "There is no better measure of intelligence than good behavior." In many ways, ethics are the building blocks of action, which I inherently avoid. However, I am inclined to believe my absence of ethics correlates to my disconnect between action and thought, and Mr. Gabirol would find me a fool because of it. For example, I learned of Gabirol's quotation in the context of teaching ten-year-olds the ways of the one God. While I retain my Jewish identity, I am firmly opposed to actually believing what the Torah says. Half of the time I am amused at hearing my own voice explaining how God works to children who still cannot grasp the concept of an "inside voice", but the other half I am dreadfully conflicted. Who am I to glorify a God I don't believe in to children who purportedly believed an eighth ocean had been discovered?

Despite my lack of action, I do hold ideals that coincide with the ten commandments in assorted ways. While I am all for "Thou shalt not kill," I think every woman should have the innate right to terminate pregnancy. Adultery perpetuates sexually transmitted diseases, and idol worship has been raised to new levels of baseness with the introduction of 'American Idol." Perhaps what distinguishes my ethics from any others is that I would like to believe in universal love and kindness, but I am happy being the judgmental Scorpio I am. That being said, I take it to be an active duty to criticize what I see, because in turn it is my own action. Everything I actually do is quite trivial, but thought is the thread between ethics and action.

In a way, my ethical theories free myself from ethical actions. As I find it completely reasonable to judge even those closest to me, I can live with not speaking up when I think he or she has done wrong, because it does not reflect upon my own character. This may seem selfish, but as Kant thinks everyone should agree on what is beautiful because it should be self-explanatory, I think everyone should know what is right and what is wrong, and if they don't then it is obviously a character flaw. I am not free from this judgment, and as a consequence I daydream about the day when my life will actually begin, and I will act as ethically as I think.