Food Run

Food Deserts are a huge problem in the United States that effect over 23.5 million people. According to the USDA, “food deserts are defined as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. These communities only have access to fast food and convenience stores that offer few affordable food options."

Food Run is an organization that strives to connect those living in food deserts in the Memphis area with each other to form carpool groups so they can travel outside of the desert to purchase fresh food from high quality grocery stores. Through our website you can sign up and organize a group or select a group to sponsor.

After discussion in class we realize that our service may not be able to reach everyone we intend to help. We would partner with farmers markets, churches in low income areas, schools and stores to be able to put up posters directing people in our target communities to our website.

For more on our revolutionary business model see our links below:

Presentation Link: https://prezi.com/4mwwvqbglpx2/food-run/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
Our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Food-Run-1174148009280236/
Our Website: http://acrisp5.wix.com/foodrun

RecoverAna

Link to the proof-of-concept version of the app: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59516118/RecoverAna.zip

Link to our slideshow: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WOr9Mkaf1atOhFwEO4gsVrNFH9orcY5lXLjQrLJrmZA/edit?usp=sharing

RecoverAna is designed to help people recover from anorexia. It does this by offering automated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which helps a person to replace their negative thoughts with positive ones. Another feature is a meal tracker, which would allow a person to record their thoughts associated with each meal. We also included an article section, which would allow a person to read more about anorexia, and become more educated. We have a forum and a chat room, where users of the app could talk to each other, and comfort each other if they are feeling down. Finally, we put a “Call Hotline” button on the app, that, when pressed, would call a hotline for anorexia.

Since our presentation, we made a few changes to our idea. We decided to make the app only accessible through a psychologist’s prescription, instead of freely available to download, so that people would not attempt to self-medicate, and make their condition worse. We also decided to change the goal behind the meal tracker, so that it is for a psychologist to monitor the user’s progress, instead of for the user to monitor it themselves, because that could potentially cause their condition to worsen. We appreciate all of the questions and feedback, and we hope that you liked our idea.

The Buddy System

url to app; http://snappy.appypie.com/html5/the-buddy-system


Our mission is: The Buddy System was created with the mindset that everyone needs and can have a buddy even when they feel that they have no one else. Through our app, people will be able to find support whether it be when walking home alone or when needing to talk to someone who is going through similar situations.

We greatly appreciated everyone's feedback on Friday. Because of what was said we decided to add a few more features to our phone app. We have decided that it would be a good addition to have moderators and professionals onto our chat room in order to make sure it is a safe environment of support. They would be able to talk directly to someone that said anything alarming, and direct them to someone that could help. We would also have a terms and conditions page that outlined how to use the app safely.

We also know that we would like to add a feature in which there would be different app icons in order to keep the identity and nature of the app as a secret when popularity was gained. All the great features from before would still be available, but the Buddy Up feature would be the main screen.

Justin beiber, rental cars, and 2 years behind without a daddy

Taking moral issues and this semester in general has opened my doors, furthermore it has opened my mind to many more possibilities. I could go on about how I failed my last 2 exams in a course. However, currently Pandora decided to "Play Stuck in the Moment with You" by Justin Beiber and it time traveled me to an earlier day in my development. A time when my biggest worry was if I would be able to catch the Disney premiere of whatever was the newest show or episode. Well, that's an exaggeration; I'm sure you get the point.

A few years later I'm about 2 chronological years older than my graduating year classmates. That's the least of my problems. I'm without a father. 

The reason I share this candid information is not whether I'm testing consequentialism, I'm testing existentialism. I do hold that definite optimism, the belief that we define our future successes, is of utmost importance. So an issue of current, it could be argued, is the loss of the personal touch and community. That's why I decided to share my innermost thought with my moral issues class of 2015: 

Sam

Theresa

 McKenzie

Jenny 

James 

Rachel
Madison

Richard 

Efren

Leslie

Meghan
Caitlen
Ali
Selena
In addition, this great group of people is led by Dr. Johnson, arguably the trendiest and most up-to-date professor I have had.

Since we are "Stuck in the Moment with Each Other" might as well get to know one another and build community. One could argue that it would help lessen moral dilemmas. I hope we continue to have a great semester and I am glad to be able to share a great semester with you. 

Hearts for the Hungry

The Link: 
http://jdavids1.wix.com/heartsforthehungry

The mission of Hearts for the Hungry has three pieces: 

1. To provide for those who are in need

2. To allow restaurants with excess food to redistribute

3. To donate food in a fast, effective, and technologically advanced method. 

First, we researched how hunger and food insecurity plagues Shelby county. A study finds that 204,130 people in Shelby County--including nearly 50,000 children--do not always know where they will find their next meal. According to the Mid-South Food Bank and Feeding America, 22% of the Shelby County population struggles with hunger. This is an increase of 1%, or more than 8,600 people, over the last year. 

Our website is for restaurants, shelters, and those in need. In the website, we have different features to accommodate all viewers. We also have a find us page where you can direct all questions about the food and food safety, volunteering, and the H4H revolution. 

We are Hearts for the Hungry and we are discovering happiness in thankfulness. 

urBAC

urBAC creates a simple and reliable way to measure your BAC. It is constituted of a bracelet and an app that work together to give your exact BAC by transdermally testing your sweat. Since our society consumes a lot of alcohol, our purpose for this app is to not only reduce drunk driving in our society but keep you aware of their physical and mental capabilities. It uses a color scale which tells you how drunk you are, ensuring that you are conscious and able to make rational decisions. Wanting to develop a community based product, the app, in conjunction with the bracelet, will automatically notify your friends in the group preselected in order to let them know you may need help to find a safe environment. This feature keeps you accountable to both yourself and others. Although urBAC can not stop you from driving under the influence, we wanted to offer an option to alert you and your friends about the state you are in.

Since Monday, we made some adjustments off the ideas discussed in class. The main change is the color system. We agreed with the problem of designating yellow for the illegal limit of 0.08% BAC, so we changed it to red and made the BAC levels after 0.08 into into a purple. Another suggestion we included was the idea of using GPS. We enabled in the setting a feature capable of tracking you that would allow your friends to find you when they're needed. The last piece of advice we incorporated was the situation of having your BAC recorded as a history. In the end, we decided to create an option of turning this off or on in the settings. Allowing people to decide how they want urBAC to assist them became a major focus, and we hope you enjoy our idea.
Link:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1p08Qi943jNmSenxCCHSBAAwa8bWZJWN1mmvYcSeu6eo/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=60000

A Media Commentary

The entire time I was watching White Bear I kept thinking it was a social commentary on media until the very end with the way in which all the characters followed her around with cell phones and were recording. In the end that had to do with the way in which she aided in the torture and murder of a little girl by filming it, so they were punishing in the same manner.

Even though the focus was not on the media aspect, I would like to open that up for discussion in the means of social justice. For example, big tragedies have been recorded and documented with means of cell phones and social media. This has completely changed the way the public views everything because now we can see it with our own eyes instead it just being reported into text or audio. Seeing videos of terrible events such as terriost attacks and police brutality is more of an appeal to the emotion of the public. The question is does it make responses more or less where they should be and does media completely skew situations in order to ignite the public or the other way around?

With that in mind, it does keep people more accurately up to date because they can get the news right as it happens which gets people fired up a lot more quickly then it would if there was no such thing. There is pros and cons to how the media effects our life, but when it comes to social justice it gets pretty sticky. It seems as though it is impossible to have all of the facts about each situation because you can see a video and already form an opinion.

What Punishment Does the Punishers Deserve?

White Bear was not what I expected to come across when entering class on Monday. I honestly was pretty excited when Dr. J said that we were watching a documentary instead of taking notes on a lecture– it is nice to spice things up every now and then. The film was very disturbing but also made me think about something that maybe really had never crossed my mind: the idea of "social justice."

When I was younger, I used to be absolutely fascinated by the news. My favorite to watch was Nancy Grace and I was obsessed with the Natalie Holloway case. I never really thought about what would happen if the people who kidnapped her got caught and what would  happen to them. I guess I assumed they would go to jail and that would be it. I never really understood that those people who made those mistakes, would never have a chance to be forgiven. As a believer in Christ, I know that they could be forgiven by God's love, but the world would forever turn they back on them. That is what happened to the girl in the video.

What had me really thinking was if Victoria had to start over every single day, could God's love ever find her? Or had she missed her chance at salvation? I really am starting to think that maybe her punishment is not reliving her sin day after day, but maybe it is the fact that God's love can never find her. In Danté's Inferno the levels of hell are illustrated along with the punishment each sin "deserves." I am not sure if even Danté would say that Victoria deserves this punishment. What she did was horrible and awful and cruel, but what punishment do the people who are inflicting this upon her deserve? The Devil is the keeper of hell and his punishment is that he has to stay there just as the people in hell do, but what do the watchers and the people who videoed everything and the inflicters have to do?

What punishment does the punishers deserve?

WHITE BEAR IS NOT JUSTICE

The world is falling into pieces; we all know how wars, pollution, illness, etc are making the world to experience hard times. People can do a lot of thing to change this situation. however, they are speeding up the process. How common is to see news about people killing each other, killing animals, killing children, killing innocents. Everyday this kind of crimes increases, and the only thing we can do about it is ask for justice.

By watching the video about the "White Bear" group I lost a little be more of my hope in humanity. This group, which thinks that is being just, is a group of cruel and sick people, which loves to see others suffering. I didn't see justice in the whole video. I know that the woman did a horrible crime becuase she did nothing to save the life of an innocent kid, but she should go to jail. At the beginning of realizing everything that was happening, the punishment, I thought that it was a way to make people change, however, after seeing the rest of the video, I realized how wrong I was. Why "White Bear" doesn't look for another criminal to punish? Why to make this woman suffer for the rest of her life? Why do they erase her memory? the answer is simple: because they love and enjoy other's suffering. I would agree with them if they do this to the woman just once; to make her change; to make her be a good person. Doing it everyday, erasing her memory, is just sick.

The people in "White Bear" is worst than the criminals because they are not being just; they are punishing without a purpose; they think they are doing the right thing, but they are not. Even though the justice system in America is not designed to make criminals change, jail is the place were the woman in the video belongs. If we take justice by our own hands, then the world  will fall into chaos. And humanity will end with everything in a short peiod of time.

"White Bear" is really just a social commentary...

Jay Sebring, Lisa Wick, Julia L. Conner. Does anyone know the names of these people? How about Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, or HH Holmes? I guess unless you are directly affected by one of the murders, it is easier to focus more on the murderer rather than remembering the victim. I know I am also guilty of this: only focusing on the murderer and his or her heinous crimes. We live in a culture fascinated by death and murderers, but never fascinated by the victims. This is something that I fixated on during the “White Bear” video. While ideas of justice and morality did come to mind, I mostly kept thinking about how this is a reflection of our own society and “obsession” with murder. 

In “White Bear”, a Black Mirror series, the little girl (the victim) was not being remembered at all; however, people, that are seemingly just as bad as the murderer, focus all of their attention and efforts on the murderer and how to “punish” her. What I find so interesting is that society idolizes her in a way. They are all fighting to get the best picture or video of the murderer as she is tortured day after day. I believe that this is an accurate representation of our own society. A picture of a kid getting beat up at school can travel faster on social media than a picture of a missing child. To me, this is pretty messed up and I believe that a motive of the video “White Bear” could be to make this social commentary to anyone that watches it. I think it can serve as a wake up call to society about who we should idolize and who we should ostracize. 

An Eye for an Eye

I have done a lot of thinking about what happened in the episode “Whitebear” of the series Black Mirror that we watched. A short overview of the episode is that a woman who aided in the torture and murder of a six year old girl is sentenced to a punishment were everyday she is forced to forget her crimes and is tortured in a similar way that she treated the little girl. She is hunted by seemingly deranged killers while bystanders do nothing but film everything that happens. I had never seen an episode of Black Mirror before this episode but I have a friend who watches it. To him what is so disturbing about this show is that although it is not present day, it takes place in a very near future. We’re talking about 20 years or so. That to me is a terrifying concept. 

On the debate whether or not the punishment this woman endures is either just or moral, I am pretty conflicted. I think that this episode walks a fine line between what is right and what is wrong. Nobody can say that what the woman did was right by any means, but is her punishment any better? When she begins a new day she doesn't remember anything that happened previously. Is it fair to punish someone, to this degree, who has no memory of what they have done? Of course I believe this woman should be punished for committing such a heinous crime, but at the same time I don’t think that I agree with her punishment. This punishment takes the idea of an eye for and eye to an entirely new extreme. They don’t just administer a punishment that is in accordance with the crime she committed, they go above and beyond what would constitute a reasonable punishment. To me the most disturbing aspect of this episode is not the original crime or even the punishment, as much as it is the joy the actors of the punishment take in getting to be a part of it and to film it. 

Justice or Hypocrisy?

While the entire "White Bear" film was mentally unsettling, I think what stood out the most for me was the fact that, by visiting the "Justice Park" and playing the role of the spectators, the people became the woman they're supposed to be punishing. The woman is being punished through this justice park for filming her fiance torturing and killing a little girl. The punishment is supposed to be fair and just because they're only doing to her what she did to the girl. Whether it is actually just or fair aside, the visitors really got to me because they are actively participating in the torture of the woman. Sure, they aren't actually physically harming her as the main actors are, but the fact that they stand by and take pictures instead of helping the woman is very obviously emotionally distressing to her. Additionally, they can be seen laughing and enjoying their actions behind the scenes, such as when they're shown taking selfies with the actors after the man in the convenience store "dies." In this, they aren't any better off than the woman they are torturing, especially since the woman has no idea that she even committed a crime until the end of the session. The park also normalizes the crime that the woman committed to its visitors by having them act out the same role, and as I mentioned, they can be seen laughing and celebrating doing so. They want to see this woman punished for her crime so badly, but they never stop to think about the fact that committing the same act - even if it is in the name of some twisted version of "justice" - makes them no more morally correct than her.

What is Justice?

Alone without her memory, a woman is sentenced to a Hell for something she can’t remember until the finale. Before this, she was sentenced for the murder of a child. The story outraged many, causing her to end up in the White Bear Justice Park. At first, they thought it was a just punishment for what she did to that little girl. After a while they probably still did think it was just but her torture quickly became entertainment for others. Excited and ready to participate, crowds of people came to witness the reenactment of this woman’s suffering. Forced to participate, we see the cruel punishment that she must live through over and over again. Attacking a child, people have a right to be upset but the woman becomes a source of entertainment that they would bring their own children to view. This dehumanization of the woman becomes something to laugh at as the voyeurs video her. The darker sides of humanity is awakened as the crowds hope to catch a glimpse at the monster, not realizing they are just as bad as she is. The need to deal out fair justice to the criminal becomes lost to a blind pursuit for retribution. This exaggerated tale of justice in an alternate time brings to light how anger could blind people from the pain they cause to others. Hiding behind their phones, they play a part in terrorizing the woman as well. What is reality for the woman becomes another show to watch for the guests. Everyone there plays their parts following the models of those around them as they take pleasure in the act. The perverted view of justice in White Bear makes us reconsider the effects of our own justice system. It is not focused on rehabilitating criminals but instead on punishing them. As we saw in White Bear, a case as highly publicized as hers was becomes entertainment for the media and its audience. We watch in morbid fascination just like those who go to the park, especially when it is a gruesome case. Looking to dole out a twisted form of justice, people are capable of allowing acts to occur that would not be considered fair. So can we be impartial when applying justice or does justice become what the people want?

Morality and Justice

“Does the punishment fit the crime?” The answer to that is true.  In the Black Mirror episode “White Bear”, the punishment does fit the crime.

That doesn’t make it moral or just. And, I don’t think it is on either count. The woman did help murder a child, but it seemed that the community was choosing to punish her this way, since they couldn’t punish the true killer. Her fiancée who had committed suicide.

It’s Groundhog Day. She wakes up to the same thing, not knowing that she is part of a script. This is her eternal punishment for her crime. Except, she isn’t made aware of her crime until the end of the day. During the day she’s even convinced the girl she’s killed is her daughter. This punishment doesn’t fit into western ideals of how we punish crimes. We throw people in prison or if you’re from Texas you stick them with a needle.

The treatment of her is psychological torture, which is not moral. Their also making a profit off of her waking nightmare. It educates people on the dangers of being a criminal. And, this isn’t justice. This little girl was not murdered by her. And, if she had been. This is not rehabilitative punishment. All it is pain. The end. A justice system that works like this is not just and it’s moral seem to be in question as well.

An Examination of Conscience

Meet Liliana, this is her home away from her weekend job. She is a champion fight dog. She has successfully defeated 5 other dogs over the course of 7 months, this is considered very successful. Her home is safely tucked away from curious eyes, she has no way to tell the torments of her mind or how her training has made her susceptible to view small humans as nothing but a target for her practice. Through the instigation of her owner, she has harmed a small child.

Does this make her a bad dog?

In my opinion, the real question is:

Is she truly a bad dog or does she have a bad owner? Is her environment conducive to this behaviour?

Likewise, after watching White Bear by Black Mirror Productions, it left me with demented images of human pleasure and enjoyment at the expense of another, is the protagonist any different from this dog? One can argue, she was fully capable of intervening in the death of the child. However we do not know the circumstances of her "engagement" with the perpetrator. Was she coerced to behave in the manner she did?

To analyze the movie as it was presented: we were introduced to the protagonist first scene. A young girl/woman sitting in her apartment who looks like she has overdosed and is completely delirious, maybe psychotic. However, as the movie progresses, you want to cheer for her, she is the underdog. For unknown reasons, at the time, people are trying to kill her and make it a sport with spectators. These sick monsters are incubating the future generations of monsters by encouraging active participation vaguely similar to The Hunger Games.

Before we proceed... ( I will continue later on) 

Waiting for Godot and Existentialism

 
 Source

 When we were discussing existentialism in class, I immediately thought of the play Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. We read this play in high school because it was a play designed to discuss and show the value of existentialism. However, before we can think about existentialism and Waiting for Godot we must give some explanation on both.

Existentialism is a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. Basically, existentialism is the belief that individuals must give meaning to their own life.

The main characters of Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon, spend the entire play by a tree and walk waiting for Godot who is either a man or deity depending on your interpretation. They don't know if they've already met Godot, they don't know what he looks like, they don't know if they are in the right location and they don't know if it is the right day to meet him. Quite literally, they don't know anything and neither does the audience. They spend the entire play waiting for someone who may not ever show up. If you want to know more, Shmoop has a good summary as always.




Source

 The most common interpretation of the play is the Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for God to show up and meet them. Whether or not they are in purgatory or represent the normal man who waits for God to give his life meaning is up to debate. This play is a visual representation of existentialism.

 Although Vladimir and Estragon spend time walking around the stage/tree they do not actually go anywhere. They talk about leaving, but they never leave because if they leave Godot won't find them. They aren't sure that Godot will come anyways, but if they leave then they definitely won't meet him.

 Time is also meaningless in the play. There is no concept of time or  the passing of time. Pozzo's (a secondary character) watch is broken so even thought he checks it he cannot tell what time it is. The  characters are literally wasting away waiting for Godot who may never come.

 The underlying idea of the play is that you cannot wait for God to do something in your life. If you do you will waste away. You have to make your own meaning in life, otherwise it is meaningless.



 
 Source

Paris and Existentialism

" Existentialism is a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives"

-a yahoo answer

     Based on my limited knowledge and understanding of the Paris attacks and what we talked about in class it is my opinion that existentialism would provide the best answer as to how the average person should proceed with their response.

     For people who are struggling comprehending existentialism, Google defines it as:

a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

My interpretation of existentialism is very inspiring for me. Raised as a Christian I was taught the slave mode of valuation, since I am slave of God, he is the one who has assigned me my self-worth. However Nietzche comes to rescue me out of the dark hole that can be and divulges a huge brainshock. You know you can define your own destiny and there is nothing wrong with it. The more I think about it, why would I want to be trapped into doing something what invisible entity suggests I do?

   According to this philosophy, I would continue that is the individual who should decide how they should respond instead of waiting on their government to tell them what the country's course of action should be. For someone who believes that every individual is capable of making fully informed decisions once given the education, I uphold the above mentioned statement. Existentialism says that we are responsible for our destiny, we are the creators of it. That is empowering.

   To continue with what Richard said in class that this country is the one who created the political landscape in the middle east is very logical. I use the analogy if i were a dog and my master or another dog kept abusing me. I would have two options: to fight back and show that I am a person as well or flee the responsibility of proving my worth. In my opinion, it would be useful to show that I am a dog who is capable of being treated as an equal and for us to get along there has to be give and take. This goes back to Sartre's idea if 2 freedoms met. However, if compromise happens, then both freedoms can exist as long as the recognize each other. Likewise, I think a lot of conflict can be prevented if we are willing to compromise and genuinely examine what is it that the other side wants.

    In this case, the members of this group have probably grown in a war-torn land. They are just seeking closure through revenge. They want the rest of the world to know their story in the quickest way possible.

  An interesting line in the video I have shared below is the line that the bombers were shouting you killed our brothers in syria. Whether that is true or only a way to create terror in the minds of citizens, thats for you to decide.

   As we continue in our encounters, a word of caution: Please be respectful to any being you meet. As hard as it may be, please do not go with preconceived ideas. Talking with my mom and some other people, I heard the remark along the lines, they didnt know how to distinguish between a "terrorist" and "those kinf of immigrants". It took me by surprise that some people would treat people of a different skin complexion based on stereotypes. And its sad to say that most of us, myself included, have fallen victim to this flawed way of thinking.

    Now a word of advice according to existentialism: Since we are in control of our destinies, it is up to us to create the best possible version of ourselves and to be accepting to all people.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080930004512AASsrT8

Heads or Tails? Heads.

All of the work that I have done based on existentialism is rooted in post-modern literature, and not theoretical texts. The first extreme dip into existentialist texts was reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard, and to this day it remains to be my favorite book. Both characters taken from Shakespeare's Hamlet are characters that never seem to have a particular identity. They are characters that never choose. They are never even defined by facts; in fact, in this play their world transcends facticity and the rules of probability. In particular, the opening scene is the two main characters are playing a coin toss game. The facts that regard a coin is that it has two sides and there is an equal chance that it will land on either of these sides. When they play it always lands on heads. In the same token, their lives in the play follow suit, there is no fact of who either of them are with a problem on their identity and the rules of how the word usually works.

“There must have been a moment, at the beginning, were we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it. ” 

R and G are perfect examples of people who have no freedom and responsibility. They never say "yes" and they never say "no." They just let the course of action follow through and do not ever disturb the flow of the world. This way of living ultimately leads to their death (cue the title) like they were ever "living" in the first place is a good question though. There is a difference between living and existing; the way in which they act upon the world seems as though they are only "existing." Existentialism is a scary thing to go by, because do we ever really want to feel responsible for terrible things happening?

TROLLS AND THE INTERNET

Once upon a time, there was a college student called Andres. Andres was a good kid; everyone around him knew that. However, he had a secret. Andres was a troll. Every afternoon after school, he went to his house's basement to post and comment on the social media. Posting and commenting is a normal action of humanity in actual life, however, Andres' comments were not normal. On internet, Andres was not the same. He liked to argue a lot about whatever topic, but his comments didn't have any support. His only purpose was to discuss with others. Andres was an ignorant and stupid troll that enjoyed so much arguing with smart people; he feed from it. One day, Andres was in business, but no one wanted to argue with him. He commented and commented all over again but didn't get response. Every day happened the same, After two months Andres stop being a troll. THE END

I know what you are thinking right now. I am not good at creating stories, but I wanted to express my opinion through it. I am sure that everyone has been in a discussion with a troll, ignorant person, over whatever topic on the internet. I personally fall into that a lot of times. For example, two months ago I saw a picture on facebook. It was a comparision between watching the "2012" movie, which was released on 2009 and was about the end of the world, before 2012 and after 2012. It showed a scared person watching it before 2012, and another enjoying the movie after 2012. I commented on the picture, "I watched this movie in 2010, but I wasn't scared." Then a troll came and commented, "How could you watch the movie in 2010 if it was released in 2012? You stupid." I expalin to him that the movie is called 2012, but it was released in 2009. This troll was trying to argue with me because after I explain him, he still didn't accept he was wrong. The only solution I found was to stop replying back. This is the solution, don't feed the troll. Andres changed because peope didn't feed his desire to argue. Help to eliminate trolls by not replying back. And also, don't be a troll.

Sartre speaks the truth

While researching Sartre, I came across an article about how he refused a Nobel Prize for literature fifty years ago. He was offended by not being notified of the award, and consequently, he ended up rejecting it. He did not want his words to transform from their original intent to an “institution” of someone else’s design. One of the main points in his work, Bad Faith, emphasizes the roles we conform to even when we do not have to act in them. The paradoxical characteristics of humans strike him as absurd as he stands firm taking responsibility for his words.

Within Sartre’s work, a major point is the distinction between a “being-in-itself” and a “being-for-itself.” While the “being-in-itself” is about facticity of an object, the “being-for itself” is defined by a human’s freedom of choice. Understanding the weight of your decisions and that you are not stuck in one place creates much anxiety among people. To lie to themselves offers a foolish feeling of comfort, causing many to remain blinded by their lies. This altered state of reality allows them to deny responsibility of their actions.

While he realized the Nobel Prize was important, Sartre did not want his book to represent another's concept of what it was. As a human with freedom, he did not want to put himself into a position like the waiter in the cafe and sink to the level of a "being-in-itself." He decided the best course of action for himself and chose his path.

To not automatically accept this prestigious award seemed unimaginable from my perspective. However, learning what I now know about Sartre, I know he would not accept his work to become "institutionalized" and mutate the meaning of his work. Sartre did not want to choose the easy path of ignoring the responsibility of humans, but instead, understood what he needed to do.


http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/22/jean-paul-sartre-refuses-nobel-prize-literature-50-years-books

Is This the Real Life?

Strangely enough, as we were discussing existentialism in class, I was reminded of Albert Camus' The Stranger. Thinking of Th Stranger made me think initially of how much I disliked that book, but then of something my AP Lit teacher told us in high school: Queen's famous rock opera "Bohemian Rhapsody" is rumored to be loosely based on The Stranger and existentialist themes. While no official source can or will confirm this information, if you look examine some of the lyrics it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch. For example, the well-known opening lines "Is this the real life, or is this just fantasy?...no escape from reality" can be viewed as the narrator questioning the absurdity, and more obviously the reality, of existence in the context of his (spoiler alert) impending execution. His repeated statement of "Nothing really matters," also rings true in an existentialist context. Most importantly though, in my opinion, is that he seems to be taking possession of his mistakes by insisting he "needs no sympathy," which, as we discussed in class today, can be seen as an existentialist view, as a main key to existentialism is to take ownership of your actions no matter the consequences.

"I could ____."

In class on Wednesday during our discussion of freedom, Dr. Johnson gave the example of vertigo. She explained that Sartre would say that we are not feeling those symptoms because we are afraid to fall but rather that we are afraid of jumping. In a moment like standing on top of a tall building or near the edge of a large drop we experience the weight of our own freedom. We recognize that we have the option to exercise our absolute freedom by negating any other choice, and for some reason we are drawn to do so.

This sounded very familiar to a concept I remembered seeing mentioned in a video, but during class I couldn't remember the name. After class was over I looked up the video and went to Dr. Johnson's office to show her. The concept turned out to be "L'appel du vide". It is French term that translates to "the call of the void", which sounds pretty creepy if you ask me.

It can be applied to more that just the urge to jump off of a high place. You can watch the humorous explanation in the video I have been referring to HERE (the relevant part is from 2:00-3:51).

What is disturbing to us when we have a thought like "I could drive my car off the road" is that, well, we easily could. The fact that we "could" do anything but we choose not to is very powerful when thinking in terms of our freedom. We should apply this to positive things any time we want to say "I can't" do something we know we have to do.

l'appel du vide

What has struck me most about or discussions over Sartre has been the phrase "l'appel du vide" which literally translates from French to English as "the call of the void." I'm sure that I am not alone in my thoughts in relation to the void. When I'm driving and I think about the fact that I could simply drive my car into oncoming traffic, or experience the vertigo of being up too high I become overwhelmed with the void's call but I do not succumb. I'm not one to be afraid of heights so I have to agree with Sartre that vertigo is not the fear of falling, it's the fear of jumping. We as human beings have so much freedom and at times we can become crippled by the weight of that freedom. Everyday that we live we are doing more than just living, we are deciding not to die. I think that Shakespeare's Hamlet understood "the call" best when he stated his famous line "to be or not to be." To me this statement really is the overarching question. Hamlet had to decide whether to live or to die, and on some level so must we. I go through life day by day and I never stop to think that I survived this day based on sheer will alone.

Although everyday the void may call, I will not answer it.————————————————————————————————————————

On a completely unrelated note, I found this while searching for an image for “To be or not to be.”

The Woman on the Date is a LIAR

Dr. J is correct when she said in class that the most uncomfortable thing is when you go to hug someone and they do not (or choose) not to hug back. This is almost too awkward for me to even think about, but this may be because I am a very touchy person. The more I thought about this awkward situation, the more I thought about the woman on the date. She is honestly the biggest liar to herself. She pretends that if she just lays her hand by her side without making a choice, then she does not have to face the reality. Newsflash: all she is doing is giving away her freedoms. In my opinion, just because she delays having to make a choice, she is actually taking away her own freedoms. She is allowing someone else to assume what she wants instead of her having the opportunity to decide what she truly wants. This is absolutely ridiculous. Why would you take away your freedoms just so that you do not have to make a choice? I believe that the woman is not at total freedom because she is taking away her own freedoms. If she were able to make a choice about holding the man’s hand, then she would be exercising her freedoms rather than throwing them away. The woman on the date is an incredibly frustrating story for me because the woman is not being what she is even though she is in the mode of being it. However, this story is so relatable to what many people do everyday. Maybe we are all even guilty of this: college students have a talent of pretending that choices do not exist in an effort to escape reality. As depressing as it sounds, we all can act like the woman on the date; therefore taking away our own freedoms. 

I'M JUST SO PRETTY

In class on Monday, Dr. Johnson discussed how making someone apologize to you is not the same thing as them apologizing of their own free will. She said it was similar to having someone tell you that you “look good”.

I looked at Rachel. This is something I do. All the time. Whenever, I see her, I ask her if I look good and more importantly make her reassure me. I thought it was interesting to look at it as a forced recognition. I’m using our friendship as leverage to make her say that I look good. 

By doing this I’m not getting the recognition I want. It’s not the same thing as having a stranger tell me I look good. That was given freely to me. They have no reason to go out of their way to tell me that. That gives me more of the reassurance.

I also thought about if from who I ask this question. I ask Rachel, because we’re friends. But, I never in my life asked a male friend to tell me I look good. There’s a different power differential there. I’m thankful if they notice that I color coordinated.

I suppose I don’t need to ask anyone. My beauty is a constant. Especially, considering all the moisturizer and sunscreen I use. It’s a non-transcendental fact.

Resources for the Aspiring Communist

If you liked Marx's theories and want to learn more about communism, this post is for you.

Our reading assignment was "Alienated Labour" by Karl Marx. While this is an excellent text, it is by no means all one must read to understand communism. If I could only recommend one introductory text to someone about communism, I would recommend "Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein. Many people think socialists are unintelligent, so they would be surprised to learn that Einstein, someone whom many consider to be the smartest person who ever lived, was a socialist. Einstein's essay is relatively short, and he summarizes many socialist arguments and beliefs.

Next, I would recommend you read the Communist FAQ: "The Principles of Communism" by Friedrich Engels. He answers many common questions people had about communism. While a couple of them are outdated, since it was written in 1847, most are still relevant. I recommend reading this before the Manifesto, because it is a lot more relevant today, and it is a better introductory text for communism.

Then, I would recommend that you read the books on the Basic Marxism-Leninism Study Plan. This is a long list, so reading all of the books on it would probably take you several months, not factoring in other college assignments. However, it's well worth it. A strong understanding of Marxist theory is essential for any communist, and I think it should be taught to everyone (which is why I'm so thankful to Dr. Johnson for including Karl Marx in the curriculum).

If you need help understanding anything, ask your question on reddit's Communism101 board, or RevLeft's learning board. Be sure to read all of the above texts slowly and carefully, so that you don't miss anything.

Of course, learning is only part of being a communist. Activism is also essential for any good communist. If you want to join a communist party, I would recommend that you not join the Communist Party of the USA, because they are a reformist party, which means that they want to fix the problems with capitalism by voting the right people into office, instead of overthrowing the system. My favourite 2 communist parties in the US are Fight Imperialism, Stand Together and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I would recommend learning about communism before joining a party, since there are different "factions" of communism, and you will not know which one you agree with the most until you have read quite a bit about each one.

Joining a party is not all there is to activism. One of the biggest problems for communists right now is misinformation, and because of that, lack of interest. If everyone knew what communists really want, I think far more people would be communist. But, as it is, many people only hate communism because they think that Stalin killed 4 times as many people as Hitler, or that socialism is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. If you think this is true, refer to the Debunking Anti-Communism Masterpost. It is important for communists to debunk these lies and educate people about what communism really is, so that those who would otherwise support us aren't turned away.

When the material conditions of the proletariat become bad enough, a revolution will happen. Until that day comes, it is our job to reach out to others, spread class-consciousness, and increase our numbers. So, learn about communism, and get active! The liberation of the human race depends on it.

War of the Worlds: Aliens in our own Homes

As a business major and someone who is interested in economics, I am no stranger to Karl Marx. I have studied him from both an economical perspective and from a historical one (looking at the communist revolutions that have occurred in the world and whether or not they have fit into his doctrine. Most have not.) However, I have never really had the opportunity to look at Marx from a philosophical standpoint. All I can say is I never thought that I would agree so much with a commie.

For an economist, Marx is very interested in aliens, no not the aliens that Tom Cruise goes head to head with. Marx believes that capitalism alienates workers from themselves, making us aliens in our own homes. Why is this the case? No matter whether you love your job or not, if you are living within a capitalist system your work is damaging because it is imposed on you. We are slaves to money. Our work is a commodity. Because of this we do not become our "true self" till we get of work. Only then do we loosen up. We have fun. We do what we want to do.This is called the TGIF effect (obviously not a term Marx used). The irony is that due to our unwilling expenditure of our energy a work, when of the clock the proletariat (or working class) only functions on an animalistic level. We eat, sleep, watch Netflix and chill (and yes I do mean have sex) all basic functions of life. We become aliens to ourselves in our homes. This happens to me all the time. I always talk about how I would love to spend more time reading, playing or writing music or working out, but I often end up doing few if any of these things because at the end of the day I have given all of my energy to things I am coerced to do. According to Marx, if we allow people to do what they want to do and what they are best at doing we will have a better society. I can at least say that it would defiantly be a more interesting society.

Karl Marx; More Than Just a Revolutionary Theorist

While searching through the vast archives of stuff online for an interesting topic to write about, I actually paid attention to what I was reading and saw that Karl Marx is listed as a poet on various sites online. A poet? Karl Marx was a poet? I thought he just wrote philosophical works that would eventually change the course of human history.


Source

So like all curious beings I Googled it. Karl Marx was, in fact, a poet. Unfortunately he did not write poetry about how great communism is, so I am vastly disappointed. I think a sonnet on communism would be a wonderful addition to any discussion. Instead I just found love poems. Which, I mean, is still pretty entertaining. An example is below.

                        EARLY LITERARY EXPERIMENTS 
 
 
                    FROM THE ALBUMS OF POEMS DEDICATED 
                        TO JENNY VON WESTPHALEN [1] 
 
 
                                    * 
 
                    From the BOOK OF LOVE (Part I) [2] 
 
 
                       CONCLUDING SONNETS TO JENNY 
 
                                   I 
 
           Take all, take all these songs from me 
                   That Love at your feet humbly lays, 
           Where, in the Lyre's full melody, 
                   Soul freely nears in shining rays. 
           Oh! if Song's echo potent be 
                   To stir to longing with sweet lays, 
           To make the pulse throb passionately 
                   That your proud heart sublimely sways, 
           Then shall I witness from afar 
                   How Victory bears you light along, 
           Then shall I fight, more bold by far, 
           Then shall my music soar the higher; 
                   Transformed, more free shall ring my song, 
           And in sweet woe shall weep my Lyre. 

 Source

 For any of those curious, Jenny was Karl Marx's wife. Who, having read the poem above, he was very much in love with. They had seven children together, but only three of them reached adulthood.

I wasn't sure what I was expecting, but this definitely was not it. I am no poetry expert, but this seems to be pretty well done.  Any greet card could benefit from a passage such as this. But I was not prepared for his poetry book to be Book of Love. I actually have to admit that the idea that Karl Marx felt love surprised me when in reality it should not have. Just because he was a famous philosopher does not mean that he was incapable of love. While looking at his works I forgot that he was very human and did, in fact,  feel human emotions. He was not a stone man. I feel like finding his poetry made me consider him as a human being and it shows me how all semester I have been considering the works and not the people behind them.

To believe or not to believe

I'm sure Shakespeare has come to a conclusion about the overhead statement by now. In general, to choose a topic for this post was very difficult, Alienated Labor had many interesting topics from the physical theoretical science of economics to the spiritual search for truth. For me, both of these topics are equally engaging.
However I choose to tackle the spiritual issue. For someone who has grown up in a primarily "Christian" home, I find Marx quite exhilarating. From this quote, "the more man attributes to God, the less he retains of himself" which is demonstrating how workers alienate themselves from their products is mind blowing and, to me, it makes sense. He goes on to say "In religion the spontaneity of human imagination...acts independently of the individual as an alien, divine or devilish."
For someone who might be searching for an answer to the soul-searching task of believing or not believing, Marx's philosophy might lead them to think that maybe not believing is the best option.
For someone who values autonomy and creating their own self-worth rather than deriving it from a divine being, this would be a very good reference guide.
The goal of this paper, however, is not to answer our fears of death or create an internal war as what our decision should be. It is to show how much a worker can put himself into his occupation that he loses himself only to be seen as labor.
In economics, there is the law of supply and demand.
It is shown in the graph to the right:
A brief economic lesson according to Marx, the greater the quantity, shown here in the x axis, a worker produces, the less he gets from the additional products.
Now this graph is based on economic theory which might not prove itself to much use in the real world. Theoretically, if more of something is produced than what the consumer will pay for, the price will drop. Likewise, in competitive labor markets the wage of workers is drastically low. This is because of the great number of people vying for the same job that they are willing to accept low pay for the job.
Additionally, the wage of a worker should be based on the revenue they generate. Practically, this is not always the case, a minimum wage worker is going to get paid the same, no matter how superior/inferior they do the job.

In short, two main themes of this writing are economics and religious theory.
What are your thoughts?
Shall we believe in Marx or ought we not?