Tip or Trick?

During the weekend, my family and I decided to go out for dinner at Olive Garden. In that restaurant each part of the restaurant has waiters that are assigned. Our waiter was nice and he did his job right by taking our order and giving us what we needed to have a good dinner. So when we were done eating and we were about to leave my dad gave a tip to the waiter for his services. Once we were out I started to think of why my dad and most of the people give tips to the waiters. I mean why it is that when we go to a “fancy restaurant” we give tips to the workers but when we go to a fast-food place we tend not to give anybody a tip for their service. Think about it both of these places take my order and give me my food. They are basically the same thing as each other and yet we think that a fast-food restaurant worker does not deserve a tip like the worker at Olive Garden.

It has to with ideology. According to Webster Dictionary, ideology is an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation. It is basically an unwritten rule of some sort that we, humans, follow like the one of tipping at a restaurant. There is no written rule that states that when we go to a restaurant you have to tip them for their services. But still we tend to do it because we were taught to do it by our parents and so on. Since we were kids we have seen our parents do it therefore we believe we should do it as well because it is the right thing to do. It is also a way of thanking them for what they did for us.

In my English 155 class we read “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” (1968) by Louis Althusser. In this chapter the author, Althusser states what he thinks about ideology and how it came about. He states that ideology is manmade and that it is imaginary. He also said that ideology is material existence because we depend and live around materials in order to be happy. He thinks that it is material existence because we use “I” but what is I then. Althusser says that ideology is an institution state apparatus. An ISA is an institution that propagates an ideology, like my example of tipping a waiter.

Tipping someone is something that was man-made, we were taught to do it by generation to generation. We believe that if do not tip the waiter then we were ungrateful for their service. Even a waiter believes that if he does not get tip then he did not do a good job. Therefore the waiter always has a smile on their face and an uplifting attitude towards the customer. Now in day we live more in material and money base object then in what really matter. Instead of tipping someone we could just say thank you but we believe that money is more gratifying than a simple thank you. I guess the way society is made has led us to believe that money is more important.

Birth of Venus

I remember being in my English class when I was in 9^th grade. My teacher was Mr. Gam and he was teaching us about Greek Mythology. My teacher was very passionate about the Gods and Goddess that that was mostly what we learned in the class. I remember that he showed us a picture about the Goddess of Beauty, Venus also known as Aphrodite, and of how she was born. This painting is one of the most treasured masterpieces of the Renaissance. For those who do not know the Renaissance is the era of the revival of the Classical nude. According to the sixth edition of my humanities book, The Humanistic Tradition, renaissance is accompanied by a quest to understand the mechanics of the human body.

Since I liked this painting I decided to analyses it to discover and comprehend what the painter, Alessandro Botticelli wanted to get across. In the painting you have Venus in the middle of the painting nude but covering her parts. According to suite 101 the pose that Venus has is traditionally the pose held by Virgin Mary. Also if you look at her face you could see someone shy and vulnerable because she is not looking directly in front but she is looking to the side which gives it a sense of vulnerability. Another thing is that her head is tilted which makes me feel that she is innocent.  Since this painting is the Birth of Venus it makes me think that the painter wanted to give Venus a sense that she was innocent because people believe that babies are innocent when they are born because they do not know anything, making Venus innocent. The setting is on the ocean and she is standing on top of a shell that is being float to shore. It is set to believe that that is how Venus was born. She was floated on the shore of the island of Cythera by that shell.

In the painting you could also see three people set to be gods. On her right there is a man and a woman holding together in a sexual way. These two Gods are flying aside her which gives an illusion of power. You could see wind coming out of the Gods mouth. The wind is being blown towards Venus and it is making her long blonde hair move in the air which makes it sensual.  There are also flowers surrounding them while the wind is being blown. The flowers are pink which to me it means love and beauty. On her left we see another god set to be Pomona. It seems like Pomona is trying to cover her with an orange blanket. This action is considered to be a gesture of welcoming. The color of the blanket is orange which is an element of nature and earthly. Since Pomona is the Goddess of fruit trees and fecundity it makes sense that she gives it to Venus.

The colors of the painting are soft and earthly which gives it an element of warm and love. I think the artist did that to emphasize that Venus is the goddess of love. The sense of the art all together gives it an element of lust because all the objects there are seductive and beautiful. The Birth of Venus truly emphasize that she was born to be the goddess of love. 

Right or Wrong?

       Since I was a child, my parents                                                                                                        taught me right from wrong. They said never to steal for any circumstances whether we need it the money or not it is consider bad to do. My parent's teaching are still engraved in my head until this day like a tattoo. They say that if it is going to harm someone than you should not do it. My parents said that it is part of being an honest and loyal person.

                Last week in class we were discussion the different views of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. The thinking of these men got me thinking of the teachings of my parents. They also got me thinking of what is really considered right or wrong.  On one hand, John Stuart Mill believed in Utilitarianism. This is the belief of the Greatest Happiness. By this Mill, believe that if you do something for the greater good of society than it is okay to do it no matter what it is. He believes that the universal law is within the individual. On the other hand, we have Immanuel Kant view, which is Categorical Imperative. That is if you do something to harm someone even if the person is not an active member of society you are doing a bad. He believes that you need to follow the universal laws. He believes that a wrong no matter what your reasons are.

                Take for example murder in our heads we know that it is wrong to kill someone. So what makes some people kill others? Maybe they do it because they follow the thinking of John Stuart Mill, which is if it is for the better of society than its okay to do. So who decides if the death of someone in a society is for the greater good of a community? Well it all depends on the person who was murder. If the person was an active member of society than the person, who committed the act should be punish because he or she is not doing it for the community but for selfish reasons. However, if the person was just causing problems in the community than it is okay for him to die and the person who killed such person should not be punish. Now look at the examples I gave you above but in the view of Immanuel Kant. He believes that no matter if the person you killed was or was not an active member of society you should be punished for killing that person.

      I guess it all depends on what you as an individual thinks. If you believe as Mill, you should not go kill someone because you think that that person is no good for society because our government is not form with the thinking of Mill but with Kant's. Therefore, there is a chance that the court will find you guilty if you use Mill thinking as a defense. As for me, I follow Kant just because I was taught that since I was little and our government follows the same thinking. The point is that Kant and Mill are both great philosophers in their own way.

                 

Misconceptions..

                For the pass few day in my English class we have been learning about stem cell research and if it is ethical or not.  We learn that there are three types of stem cells: adult or Somatic, embryonic, and cord-blood embryonic stem cells. However, let us focus on the most controversial type of stem cell, which is the embryonic stem cell. There are only about 36 is our body. The good thing about that is that our body is able reproduce more in case we run out. Another thing is that the embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated pluripotent cells, which means that they could do anything, function. For that reason, they are the most controversial because they could produce to anything kind of cell that you please. These cells come from the womb before abortion.

                Now the embryonic are the most commonly use on research. Do you think it is ethical to use the cells to find cure?

                Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion about the topic but some philosophers' believe that one's personal beliefs should have nothing to do with what we believe about stem cell research.  After reading my course reader pg 103-110 by Ronald M. Green, I saw a new point of view about stem cell research. Green argued throughout the article that stem cells research should be able to be conduct. He states that unwanted or unclaimed stem cells are being thrown after awhile, so why not put them in scientist hand to conduct research. He states that instead of putting them to reset we could conduct research in order to find cure for diseases such as cancer and diabetes.

                I have to say that I agree with that. Even though we are manipulating cells for our benefit, those cells are still going to be throw away so might as well use them for some "good." That way we could help people in need and save future people that may get that disease.

                Another thing that got me thinking is the political cartoon that Professor Morse gave my group. The cartoon was about a stem cell that was in heaven, so to speak, and he or she was asked if he was a partial-birth abortion and the stem cell said "no stem cell research."  People believe that when you conduct stem cell research it is the same thing as conducting an abortion but the truth is that it not. They are different because an abortion is when the stem is planted on the egg but the cell is just a cell therefore it has not developed any form of living creature. Yes, the cell could have potentially become a human being but the point is that it was not therefore no abortion was committed.

                There are two ways to look upon stem cell research. Whatever way you look at it, you see the good and the bad. If you think, it is unethical to conduct stem cell research you are stopping research that could be done to save living people that have incurable diseases and you are wasting cell that could be use for good.  Now if you believe it is ethical then you are "killing potential humans" and messing with the cells, which eventually could led to cloning.

Pathos Ethos Logos

For the pass few day, in my English 155 class, we have been focusing on Aristotle's Appeal which are ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos has to do with the credibility. Logos is the logical of the text while Pathos is the emotional appeal of it all. These three forms of rhetoric are what make an essay "grab" the reader's attention. It is what makes the cupcake of Delta Dave have all the ingredients that it needs in order to make a perfect, tasteful cupcake. However, what makes one less important than the other one? I belief that there is not one that is more important because you need all of them to have a "perfect essay" because in a way they are all tight in together. However, I do belief that depending on your essay one has a bigger effect than the other two.

After reading "Introduction: Framing the Controversy," in my course reader, I concluded that the most effected Aristotle Appeals for me is Pathos. Pathos is Greek for suffering or experience and it means the emotional or motivational appeals; vivid language, emotional language and numerous sensory details (www.u.arizona.edu). I believe it is the most important because if you relate to the writer and to the story he or she is presenting then you tend to feel more connected to the text and the writer.

I also feel that when the text has to do mostly with Pathos, I tend to pay more attention to it and understand it. I also have a lesser change of zooming out while I am reading. Take for example the story in our course reader about a rainy day. In here, they give us two sketches about the same rainy day. In the first one, it explains the rainy day with a more emotional appeal and it uses words that describe the situation with warmth and care making it Pathos. It makes you see the bright side in a rainy day. Unlike the second one that it has no emotion for you to relate with because it describes everything in a technical way that it makes you sometimes zoom out. I guess the way that it was put in makes all the difference for me.  In addition, I think that the first one is easy to read and understand while the second one you have to put all your focus and attention to it.

While all three are important in their own special way separately, they work better when you unite them. They each attracted each other in a way that they work together to bring one point out.  When you put them together, it has a better and bigger affect on the reader because you give them all the qualities to make the essay stand out. Each one supports each other because if the reader gets the idea that the writer is not a reliable source than the whole text falls apart. If you do not have an emotional appeal then you essay does not relate to the reader making the reader thought the ethos and logos. But Logos is also very important because you need to support your ideas and arguments and if you do not then your ethos fall apart.

Regardless, all of Aristotle claims are important but Pathos to me is number one. Pathos is what tights everything together for it and me is what I relate to the most.

The Making of a Mohawk Indian

In my humanity 105 class, we learned about creations myths and that there are many of them. Each of them has its own scenario of how humans came about. One myth that caught my eyes was the one from the tribe named Mohawk. It is from, A Native American Creation Tale, "How Man Was Created." In that tribe they believe that Sat-kon-se-ri-io, the Good Spirit, created the animals, plants, birds and other creatures first. However, after placing them on earth he saw that something was missing. Using pieces of clay that he found on the river, he made a little clay man that resembled himself. After he modeled it, he built a fire and waited until it baked. However, the bird's song made him fall asleep causing the little man to burn. They believe that that was how the first African American came about. Nevertheless, the Good Spirit was not satisfied with the little man so he decided to make another one. This time he was determined not to fall asleep but it did not happen. This time when he woke up the little man was half-baked, therefore making him the first white man. The Good Spirit was not satisfied yet so this time he decided to use red clay that he found and baked it. He took great care of it so we he removed it out of the fire it was just right. That little red man became the first Mohawk Indian.

After reading the Mohawk myth, I concluded that everyone uses his or her consciousness for everything even if we do not realize it. The Good Spirit used his consciousness when he realizes that his first man was burn, hence he made the second one, which was half-baked and finally made the third one, which in his eyes it was perfect. This shows that people see things differently from one another. This myth goes with what Adam Zeman said which was that consciousness is mind awareness and awake. I believe that the Good Spirit uses all of the three definitions. For the reason being that, the Good Spirit was aware that the little man was either burn or half burn, which made him make another one that was perfect. He also used mind because he knew how to shape the little man and he uses his knowledge to fix the first two in order to make his perfect Mohawk Indian. Lastly awake, he was unconscious when he fell asleep therefore; it cost his little man to be imperfect.

Consciousness also reflects on the experience that we have and on what we knows. The Good Spirit only knew about Mohawk Indian, which made him think that anything other than that was no good or imperfect. Unlike us that we know, that everyone comes in different color, sizes, and that does not make us less than what we are. Our consciousness could play little mind trick which could enable us to see things in a certain way. Even if it is the complete opposite, in what someone else sees. I believe that our consciousness is base on what our families (parent) thought us ever since we were little until now with our surrounding as well. I believe that is the foundation of our consciousness.

Conscious Experience

Today while reading my course reader I can across three intuitions of experience. The first intuition is that experience is rich and real. The second one is that every distinction drawn in experience will be reflected in a distinctive pattern of neural activity. The third and final intuition is that experience is an evolved capacity which governs our behavior.  In “The nature of consciousness” it says that each intuition works well by itself but that when you put them together you may come across some problems. These intuitions may work well separate because they have their own duty and they know what they are looking for but when you put them together you mix all of the sense which you get a different reaction.

 I think consciousness works like that too. Everyone sees things differently depending on what they experience in their life. People may go through the same thing, the same way but they may get a different outcome.

For example in the first season of “The Secret Life of An American Teenager,” Amy, the main character, had sex for the first time with an experience guy that she barely met. The consequence of their actions was that she got pregnant. But on the other hand Adrian has had sex many of times and she has not gotten pregnant or gotten an STD’s. So why it is that one got pregnant and the other didn’t? Who knows. Those two girls had the same experience and yet they had different outcomes. For that reason they see their experience different from each other. Amy sees sex as the down fall of her life because through that action she had to give up some dreams of her and sees that being irresponsible may cost you your teenage years as you know it. On the other hand Adrian sees sex as a way to have fun with guy and that in a relationship its okay to have sex if you are careful. These two girls see sex completely different from each other that is because they are not the same person and because they had different outcome to their experience with having sex. One had a good one that didn’t affect her life and the other one had a bad one that changes her life completely.  

Everyone has different ideas on what is right or wrong. Most criminals believe that when they commit a crime they are doing nothing wrong but in reality they are doing a wrongful act. Just like the death penalty, people believe that the death penalty is not wrong. They say that someone who kills deserves to die, basically an eye for an eye. But what makes it moral to kill someone that kills another human being? I believe it is an ongoing cycle because what makes you better than the other person who killed. You are doing the same thing as the criminal.

I guess every experience you have is the way you see thing because the family of the victim may want the criminal to die just like their loved one did. But a person who was not hit emotional with the tragedy may say why kill the person? Just make them pay.

Ones experience can change our perception of something whether it is good or bad but what we came it is what matter the most.