Existence Precedes Essence

Jean Paul Sartre is the leading philosopher on the theory of existentialism. Existentialism is the philosophical theory that every person is essentially a free being in charge of their own life, decisions, and “destiny”. This theory is usually associated with an atheist view of society because it pushes back against the idea that there is a higher power in charge of the decisions and destinies of humans. Sartre does not say that existentialism can only exist as an atheistic idea, but that to fully live by the theory, atheists are able to live by the ideas. While Sartre firmly condemns the use of the term existentialism to define his work, throughout the years, the term has become synonymous with him and his ideas.

I agree with part of Sartre’s theory of existentialism. I am a Christian and I firmly believe in the presence of God within the universe, but I also believe that humans are purely free beings. While God made heaven, Earth and everything around and in between, I believe that we as humans are free to make our own choices based on our own subjective beliefs. Humans were created in God’s image and to worship him, but it is very clear in almost every Christian religion that the choices humans make determine their entrance into heaven. I also believe that our own choices define our destinies and no outside influence can change our courses in life. One main point of Sartre’s existentialism is the “existence precedes essence” idea. Most philosophical theories present the idea that humans are, in the sense that we have some supernatural essence and meaning before our bodies form and we enter the world. Sartre says that we physically exist before we can ever have meaning. This idea of our beings beginning as physical and then our own actions building our essence seems accurate.

Marx

As described by Marx, there is an ongoing class struggle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. This struggle is evident for a few reasons and Marx says that this struggle becomes particularly violent during capitalism. This is very easy to see in life today. One of the main points that Marx brings to attention is that a problem occurs between the classes because while the Bourgeoisie do the least, they get the most (meaning the do the least amount of work but end up with the most benefits/money) and the Proletariat does the most, but gets the least. An example we discussed in class was the iPhone factories in china. While someone is getting paid the absolute minimum to produce this technology, they are not even able to afford the products they are making, while the owners of the company are reaping all the benefits but not putting in the effort that the factory workers do. Marx is saying that this will continue to be a problem and that the poor will become poorer and more numerous and the rich will be come richer and greater in number until finally there is an abolition of all the classes.
Personally, I can very well see his view on all of this. Not that I have a solution to the problem or a better idea than capitalism. I do believe that humans, by nature, are competitive beings and that communism eliminates that competition, making people lazy in a sense. I think that those who truly want something will work hard for it, and that every person has the opportunity to reach their goals.

Alienated Labor

Philosopher Karl Marx utilizes the rhetorical strategy of explicit word usage to convey his message dealing with alienation. In one of his many writings, on "Alienated Labor," there is a clear and to-the-point focus on the situation of the worker. From my point of view, it is an attempt to draw a firm distinction between property owners and workers. In order to effectively view Marx's concept of alienation and how it affects a particular individual, one must understand the seriousness of the conditions in which workers often deal. To do so, we must analyze what Marx means by alienation.

According to Oxford's English Dictionary, alienation is defined as "estranged or to make hostile.” This is only the start of what “alienation” means to Karl Marx. Marx's philosophy, like much of existential thinking, represents a protest against man's alienation, his loss of himself and his transformation into a machine; it is a movement against the dehumanization and automatization of man inherent in the development of industrialism. Marx was a believer in an inevitable revolution between capitalists, and the workers employed in their industries. He believed that the actual cost of any product is simply the price of material and most importantly, the labor employed to create it. However, the owner of the industry does no labor in creating the product, but rather buys a laborer and sells the results of that man's work. This is the definition of the bourgeoisie versus proletariat situation. Marx therefore considered any profit made in the sale of the product to be stolen from the worker.

Workers Rise Up

Karl Marx had a belief of the existence of classes is bound up with particular historical phases in the development production. However, he also believes the struggle between these two classes will potentially lead to a working class revolution. The two classes are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, with the bourgeoisie being the rich class and proletariat’s being the poor working class. Marx believes on a three point view of why the class becomes violent. It begins with everyone actually being separated. I believe this causes people to feel as though they have been judged. They have been decided why they are placed in society and the lifestyle they should follow. Next, the relationship between the two is based on a fundamental contradiction. In my words, I believe the fundamental contradiction can be explained as follows: the bourgeoisie are the owners while the proletariat are the workers. The owners look over and watch while the workers do all the work. When the item is released, the owners get more than the workers. Those who did the least work, get the most. This, again, makes the proletariat class more upset because of how hard they worked and how much work they get but received much less than they deserved. Last, conditions will increase in a negative way in which the poor become more poor and numerous while the rich become richer and less numerous. From this three point view, each point digs deeper into the patience and minds of the proletariat class making them more and more upset. As time goes on, the struggle and violence increases greatly. Once it reaches a certain point, the working class will rise up and start a revolution if conditions continue as they are. The revolution may also be a success due to the decrease amount of rich people and increase amount of poor people. When one, numerous group stands up for something they have worked towards for a long time, I believe the ambition will grow along with their strength. This can go back to the idea of the weak using their weakness as strength.

Capitalism versus Communism

As Marx Points out, there are many problems with capitalism, for example, the struggle between classes. He states that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, which is true. However, a basic part of the human being is competition and this cannot be found in the communist system. Many people just settle in communism and do not try to work as hard. By doing this, the advancement of society and the world would be slower and less impressive. There would also be less of a sense of accomplishment due to the settling attitude. After a while of this system, I believe that people would start to become bored and want change yet again.

On the other hand, communism does offer some desirable aspects to society. For instance, there would be a lot less worry about money due to the fact that if you do your part then you will be able to have what you need. There would also be much more equality in the society because the society would need to work together in order to survive and thrive. No one person would be better than the next person; everyone would have their respective task in order to keep the society moving forward.

All in all, I believe that a capitalistic society is the best option right now because there is the incentive of the possibility of change and moving up in life by working hard in the hopes of obtaining material goods. I also believe it is the best option because we have seen in recent history the failure of communist countries at the hands of a supreme leader or ruler. The power in a communist society in my opinion is not distributed to the right hands and what can the people do except revolt or leave. Maybe in the years to come my opinion will change, but as of now, capitalism is the way to go, for me at least. 

Marx and Capitalism

Capitalism is defined as "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Karl Marx, a widely known German philosopher, criticizes the idea of capitalism due to his prominent belief that it is basically a social, economic relationship between people and not based on the needs, good, nor political conduciveness of all people of a society. Capitalism happens to be the society in which we live today which, according to Marx, will be followed by the existence of a communism society to his delight. Marx feels that the class struggle of capitalism becomes violent for three reasons: society is separated into only two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the mode of the distribution of goods does not correspond to the contributions of each class, and the conditions of the workers will only get worse and poorer as the wealthy get richer and fewer in number. Marx would rather prefer a revolutionary take over resulting in communism. Communism is a political theory advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Though capitalism has its flaws, it is greatly favored over communism.  Personally, I would prefer capitalism over communism as well because there is room for advancement if you are creative and work hard enough to overcome the barriers, struggles, and feuds presented by it. Communism seems to be very cut and dry and doesn't allow one to have much surplus for the people who'd live in such a society. I understand the concept of Marx's thinking and idea of material order; however, I disagree because there would be no room for growth nor advancement in my opinion.

Marx

In class we talked about Karl Marx and his theory about communism and the way he perceives life. We started by talking about how he said the existence of classes is bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production. Also, the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, the rule of the working class. We then went on to discuss how the dictatorship of the proletariat is only a transition to the abolition of all classes.

Marx broke the historical phases down into five stages and he called them the Development of Production. The first stage was the primitive stage. The second stage was the feudal stage. The third was the slave. The fourth stage is the capitalist stage, which he says is the stage we are currently in. He also says that the fifth stage is basically is prediction of the future and he says it is the socialist/communist stage.

He goes on to say that the class struggle under capitalism becomes particularly violent because of three reasons. The first reason is because capitalism forces everyone into only one of two classes. Those classes are the bourgeoise and the proletariat. The second reason is the relationship based upon a fundamental contradiction. The fundamental contradiction says that although both classes participate in the act of the production, the mode of distribution of the goods does not correspond to the contribution of each class. This basically is saying that the people who do more, gets less and the people that do less, gets more. The last reason is because the conditions for the workers will only get worse and worse. That means that the poor will become poorer and more numerous while the rich become richer and less numerous. Marx believes that in the end, a workers'  revolution will begin.

Capitalism: No One is Equal

I see no problem with capitalism. People work hard for what they have. Most people aren’t just given their success, although some are. People that built America: Rockefeller, Edison, Ford, and J.P. Morgan. These men are just a few but of their time they were the wealthiest the world had ever seen. They worked hard for their success and money followed. Most of these mean are widely disliked, blamed by the poor for being poor but really the only thing keeping you poor are your own life decisions. If you are saying, “I cannot do x because of y”, you really mean, “I do not have enough determination to do x”.

You may say, “But Gio I have 2 kids and work two jobs that pay below minimum wage and I still cannot support myself and my kids, capitalism is keeping me from making more money at my job because they are being given to the more qualified”. This is clearly a blame game, it was your life decisions to have kids while you clearly could not support them.

Capitalism increases competition in jobs and in life, to be the best someone must come up with better technology of the previous. If we were all given the same amount of money there would be no incentive to progress society. Those that work harder and are smarter than someone else deserve to be paid more, deserve more and are reward as such. 

Can Class Struggle Lead to the Abuse of the Poor?

Marx, who was a great thinker, began to wonder if the existence of social classes could lead to the dictatorship of proletariat. For example, if we look back at the system in which we currently live in, Capitalism, we can see that equality is not given to every member of society as it supposed to.  In a job setting we have the workers who fabricate the products that will be sold by the company. Then, we have the managers and bosses that are in charge of supervising the job of the workers. When the products finally get to the market, the profit made from the sells goes directly to those people who put less effort such as managers and bosses. The lower payments go to the workers, who put more effort by fabricating a product that created profits for the company. There is no equality in this scenario and any person that works for someone else would agree. However, if we look at this scenario closely, we can see that if equality is created, that means that both employees and employers have to earn the same money despite the effort been applied to the work. This would not be equal either, because what about those employers that made an effort to go to college and study hard to achieve a higher salary than others. Society would simply become a place where people did not have to work hard, because the same rewards would be given to everyone. When we look at things from another prospective or when we put ourselves in the shoes of others we begin  to realize that things are the way they are for a reason and if we try to move a piece everything falls apart and chaos is created.

Overcoming Class Struggle Under Capitalism

This week in class we learned about Karl Marx's viewpoints of the Capitalist system. He explained the class struggle under capitalism with three explanations. First, Marx states that Capitalism divides everyone into one or two classes. Either the Bourgeoisie or the Proletariat. With the Bourgeoisie being the owners of the means of production, and the Proletariat being the workers/producers of the means of production. Next, Marx states in the Capitalistic system the relationship between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat is based upon a fundamental contradiction. Marx's explains in this explanation that although the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat both act in the mood of distribution, the distribution of goods doesn't correspond to the contributions of each class. And Marx's last thought of class struggle in the capitalist system is the conditions of the workers of this system will only get worse. It's inevitable that the poor will get more numerous and the wealthy will get fewer and increase their wealth. Based upon Marx's interpretation of the Capitalist system and how it effects class struggles, I concur with Marx and his opinion. The way we could eliminate the Capitalist system would be if everyone made somewhere near the same amount of total income per year. If we had a system like this we would stop one another from trying to out do one another and we would create a single working class working together.

Not enough funding

Yesterday in class, we discussed how the Bourgeoisie do the least work while reaping the most rewards, while the Proletariat reaps the least amount of rewards even though they do the  most work. The argument from the Capitalist perspective goes something like, "Because the Bourgeoisie own the means of production and the materials that the Proletariat use to produce products, the products produced by the Proletariat are actually owned by the Bourgeoisie as well." However, if I were to go out into the world and mine some gold and make a ring out of it, it would be considered "my," ring because I put effort into shaping a unique product. If you want to get technical about it, and say that nobody owned the gold to begin with, let's say that I am a summer camp counselor who works at the craft hut.
Here, it is my job to teach campers how to create different crafts, such as fuse-beads and lanyards. Let's say that a camper wants to make a lanyard for the first time, and I have to show them how. As part of my instructions, I also create a lanyard in order to give the child a visual example. Now, since the camper has bought the plastic chords to create their lanyard, we would call it his or her lanyard. But what about the lanyard that I created as a part of my example? Technically, the materials were bought with camp funds, but wouldn't it still be considered my lanyard even though I didn't pay for it? You can't say that it still belongs to the camp, because now there is a part of myself- the time that I put into making the lanyard- in it, and it is recognized as something different than it was before (the word, "lanyard," versus the word, "chord.").
So why are the Bourgeoisie allowed to dominate the ownership of things that they do not make? I would think it is because they have the financial *cough cough* legal power to do so. They are the ones who have enough money to bribe politicians into doing what they want to do through "campaign donations," that have strings attached. So what should the Proletariat do about their lack of ownership? "Write your Governor, of course!" would be the common answer. But what good will that do when they already have obligations to the Bourgeoisie? Should the Proletariat pool all their spare change together to combat the Bourgeoisie? I mean, strength in numbers, right? But you have to remember that the Bourgeoisie have that power too- where they are lacking in bodies, they make up for that with dollars in seven-fold (if not more).
Now I'm not bashing Capitalism, or anything, but what I'm saying is that in order to be an effective system without the threat of collapse or revolution, we need to pass laws that support the ownership and wage rights of the Proletariat, while also recognizing that the Bourgeoisie play an important role in supplying raw materials. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that this is going to happen any time soon, due to the Proletariat's lack of funding.
What types of laws or regulations do you think would be effective for equalizing the importance of the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie in a Capitalist society?

Moral Values:Do They Come From The Weak?

              In class this week we learned about the genealogy of moral values. Nietzsche says that there are two types of a morality:"Noble mode of valuation" and the "Slavish mode of valuation." The noble mode says that values come from inside and the slavish mode says that values come from external stimuli or "the world". Nietzsche also states that moral values were created only to benefit the weak. All our lives we are are taught these "moral values" which proves that we barely make any for ourselves. When Nietzsche mentions the "strong and the weak" he does not mean just physical strength. The strong are able to have no regrets ,they are able to look back upon their lives and not want to change anything, they are able to forgive. On the other hand, the weak basically make excuses for why the strong should make the world easier for them. So are the weak wrong for taking advantage of their weakness? We must remember that we have also been taught that the weak can grow to become strong. For example , in school if you are not smart in a certain subject you are put in torturing which guides and gives you extra practice until you are close to being or just as smart as the person teaching you. Another example is when people are sick , we only hospitalize them and treat them with medication because we have hope that they will soon become strong. So, is this why we as humans are ok with the slavish mode of valuation, because we believe that even the weak can become strong?

Are You Weak or Strong?

Nietzsche says that humans are “Value Creating Creatures”. Meaning that humans create meaningful values, however he believes that human beings are “ill”, spiritually that is. He explains the Pre-moral mode of value and the “Slave” Revolt in morality. The Pre-moral mode of value being that if you are powerful, noble, beautiful, and healthy, you are beloved by God, while the “Slave” revolt in morality is going against the Strong (Noble mode of value).

            Nietzsche also discusses the differences between the “Slavish” Mode of Valuation and the Noble Mode of Valuation. In the “Slavish Mode of Valuation evil is determined first and good is its opposite, values come from external stimuli, it is no-saying, and enemies are always seen as evil.   On the other hand, in the Noble Mode of Valuation, good is identifies first and bad is just an afterthought, values come from the inside, it is yes-saying, and enemies are seen as good.

            Now, knowing all of this, how would you describe yourself, or better question, as of now and how you have carried yourself in life, would you lean more towards the Noble or Slavish mode of valuation?. Like we discusses in class, morals were created by the enslaved or weak in order to turn their weakness into strength and the Strong’s’ strength into weakness. Do you guys think that by doing this, the weak become strong and the strong become weak? Also, would this thought of reversing things, change the two modes of valuation, not literally but make a person think twice about what his or her values are? Or would it lead people to become an Ubermensh, and getting away from this “illness”, and finally saying yes to life and accepting their life as it is. After all…being strong does not necessarily mean being physically strong but maybe also spiritually strong, and that is what an Ubermensh is, an over man.

Morality of us all

One of the topics in class today sparked my attention. We were discussing how ads, people, and other social media things affect what we are really wanting or liking. In a sense, it makes you want to step back and think "is this really me thinking this way or is it what I've been told. I do believe that we make up our own decisions and can create our own opinions. But I also feel that we are ignorant to the fact on how much outside sources affect our judgement and perception. If something is constantly being embedded into our brains, how are we to know if the thoughts we later acquire are really our own.
Now don't get me wrong. I still believe we are capable human beings and we still have a sense of logic and understanding, but honestly, how easy is it to persuade us? And is the persuasion good or bad? Maybe even both. Does this mean if we do not pay attention close enough, can our morals become twisted. Can we become so persuaded that our morals are not even at the same level they are now? Food for thought.
I am really enjoying this section of class. It really makes the gears inside your head to churn and think about life.

NO HABLA INGLES!!!!

It has come to my attention that there is so much philosophy that goes into telling the difference between humans and animals. My differences in the past always had to do with things like size ranges, eyesight, speed, hearing, and lifespan. Some people, like myself, actually care about animals and their well being, where some see animals as merely a source of game (hunting term). Animals have a lot of things in common with humans as far as basic needs and wants. We share the expression of our independence, dominance, strength, understanding, and our emotions. When animals are abandoned, beaten, or mistreated, they tend to become cold hearted and mean. That is a characteristic that even humans have because of the challenges that you have endured in your life. Our similarities are what makes having pets so interesting.  

The main difference between animals and humans is not communication necessarily, but that we do not share a common, clear language. When you command an animal to do a task, they obviously comprehend because they respond with action. As well as understanding, they show emotion and requests to us as well. The only difference is they request with gestures, noises, or they can only reply if you ask the right question. Although they can understand English, they still can not speak it because they do not think of the purpose for their actions. They simply do what humans command because they look at us as superior. By humans not being able to understand what animals are saying, makes us having authority so much easier.

Reading material for next week: Karl Marx's "Alienated Labor"

You can click here to view/download the essay "Alienated Labor" by Karl Marx.

A need for Morals.

Friedrich Nietzsche talks about values in his “Genealogy of Morals”. Nietzsche says that we as humans are value-creating beings. He says that the values we value the most are moral values. Morality is the distinction between good and evil, with good actions being morally right actions. Nietzsche talks about the weak, or slavish, saying that these are the people who value morality the most because it protects them from the strong. He believes that we will eventually move away from this and that the “Ubermeusch”, or over man, will come along and have his or her own set of values. However, I believe that these moral values should be held the highest because of the sense of order they give us. Society is able to function properly because of rules and laws, rules and laws that state what is morally right and wrong. Said laws are absolutely necessary in order to have a functioning society. Without this there would be chaos from a lack of order.

                What would moving away from morality look like? Upholding and making other values the standard for everyday life, how much would change. If the over man did come along and everyone followed his ways, would the world really be a better place? Take Hitler for example, many people did adopt his ways and values, and look what became of Germany. If someone like Kanye West were to do the same, would it really be a good thing? Would this person become a dictator like Hitler, or adopt more of a Superman type persona. In any circumstance, moral values should continue to be the values we uphold the most. They do not make us weak, but rather they continue to provide order and keep a system of justice, rather than a world of total chaos.

Is Morality Active in Our School Systems

In the mist of everything we've discussed this week, there was one thing in particular that I could directly relate to, that being public education. Morality exists in many aspects of our day to day life; however, it is there to only benefit the weak because the strong have no need for it. I never thought to assess our public system by means of morality until recently. By looking at our school systems we can see that the ones on top are the strong ones. They are the ones who get the best grades and the most successful. Those who are seen as weak, have the most problems and tend to not do as well. When it comes to helping weaker students programs are implemented to benefit them, such as No Child Left Behind. This is an example of how morality works. If students are given a test to assess how well they know what they are being taught, and the majority scores below proficient, the students who scored above that are being held accountable as well, even if not directly. When I was in high school I stayed on top of my studies and challenged myself by taking AP and honors courses. I succeeded in all of them and held an A average all throughout high school. Since I'm interested in the sciences, as well as math, my AP Calculus AB teacher recommended that I take AP Calculus BC my senior year of high school, "if" they offered it. They didn't offer it my senior year so I had to take an elective class instead. However, my school decided to replace all the remedial English courses with Honors English courses, which were required of all students. This change only benefited the weak not the strong, because the strong students were already taking the higher level courses. Why can't they help make the strong students stronger too? Is it because our public school system is based on a strong foundation of morality? I think the answer is simple; they want all students to have an equal opportunity, so the weak could become stronger.

A different side

In The Bible, Free will given by God is one of the few things that separate animals and humans, free will allows humans to ignore their instincts and instead follow moral guidelines that have been set out for us. Taking care of the weak, sickly, and all-around stupid is seen as the right thing to do, and though it goes against animal instincts and we are animals, thanks to free will, we choose to do the right thing and take care of those who wouldn’t survive on their own not including babies of course.

In class, Professor Johnson asked what the difference between humans and animals is, and someone answered free will as in humans can choose to ignore their instincts. Because free will is usually used to justify all the humans do wrong, the answer was waved off. What if the reason we act what we assume is morally is actually in fact because of free will? My point is that God is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipotent, and a whole bunch of other omnis, and owing to that, God may have a blue and orange scale of morality whereas we have a black and white, as in what God thinks is moral may not be the same as what we feel is moral. We’ve always been told that we can’t understand what God, an all powerful and ancient being, intends or means. Following what Nietzsche thinks, because God is strong, he may not even think about things like right and wrong. Though that last thought seems a little farfetched. Think about it, the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, was written by prophets of God that could possibly have had absolutely no idea what this all-powerful and all-knowing being was talking about, it would be a similar circumstance to a middle-schooler sitting in a college calculus class as the professor wrote down theorems and then that an average middle-schooler tried to explain it to everyone else. Then Jesus came and simplified calculus to the point that even a middle-schooler could understand what steps to take, but something so complex could easily lose things in the simplified version and remain incomplete. The point is that God is very difficult to understand and the Bible might not be the best source. This could be all off base, but it doesn’t hurt to take into consideration.

Nietzsche

Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Noble Mode of Valuation' and 'slavish mode of valuation'. Slave morality values things like kindness, humility and sympathy, while noble morality values pride, strength, and nobility. Noble morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions.
 In my opinion I agree with the slavish mode of valuation when states that the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. With these, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery are evil. Like we saw in class, be stronger than somebody doesn't make you better or count with the power to treat him in a bad manner. Before all, in a society those that have kindness, humility and sympathy should be reward. With these, one would encourage that types of acts and would make a better society. Also, we would eliminate the ressentiment (the sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy) on these people and the thought that enemies are always evil. All these would contribute to a better world and leave aside that only those that are powerful, beautiful, healthy and strong are beloved by God.

Moral Values

Friedrich Nigtzche defines humans as value creating beings. These values are things we add to the world. He explains the genealogy of morals, split into two time periods. Nigtzche explains these moral values as being created by the weak.

During the Noble mode of valuation, or pre-moral time period, good was defined as life affirming. A person had to first understand themselves as good, this would be a noble. Being good meant being beautiful, noble, powerful, happy, healthy and strong. For the nobles, God loves things because they are good. For these nobles good is determined first and bad is just an afterthought .Their enemies are therefore good, because they cause no harm to them. They do not really take bad into consideration because they have everything they need. Their values come from the inside as they consider who they are and what makes them be the way they are. They have a yes-saying mindset, focusing on their own beings and all of their positives.

After a certain time the "Resentiment" or the slave revolt in morality changed view on moral values. The slavish morality was created by the weak for their own benefit. They first identified themselves as loved by God which entitled them to be noble, strong and beautiful. Being loved by God and possessing these qualities made them good. They considered anything opposite of them evil. Therefore evil was always determined first and the opposite was defined as good. This mean their values came from an external stimuli. Their enemies are always evil. Their beliefs were based on a no-saying mindset, stating what they should not do.

This change in moral valuation came about to benefit the weak. It was their way of rebelling against what they believed the unfair distribution of traits towards the more powerful or noble. They meant for this way of thinking to showcase a noble's strength as a weakness.

Slavish Revolt of Morality

Prior to the Slavish Revolt in Morality, the Noble Mode of Valuation claimed that God only loved things because they were good, powerful, beautiful, or other similar adjectives. The Slavish revolt also makes the distinction between good and evil. The Slavish Revolt in Morality made the claim that God loved people because they were good, strong, and noble. In my opinion, I agree with the Slavish Revolt in Morality. I believe that God would not single out some of his creations in order to choose which he favored over all his other creations. It would not make much sense to have a favorite group, since he created them all. If it were true that God only loved something because he made them good, then what would the point be for the rest of humanity? Also, if it were true, then it would cause something similar to the ressentement’. Why would a God want to cause his creation to feel depression and self hatred? If it is a merciful God, then he would not.

I also believe the Slavish Revolt is a good idea because it makes the distinction between good and evil. The distinction that the revolt makes towards between good and evil allows the people of the ressentement’ to no longer feel “spiritually sick” as Nietzche claimed. When the Noble Mode of Valuation was in effect, it distinguished people as good if God loved them, and bad if he did not. After the distinction was made, I imagine it made most people feel better to know that the God they cherish did not look down on them for being less powerful or less strong then other people are. People like to feel that God is more just a judgement giver or a controller but someone or s power there to guide use and make us try to become a better person or live a better life.

Lemon or Strawberry Star-burst...Which one will you pick?

Hey Guys, I hope everyone is having a wonderful spring break. It saddens me to think that we have school next week. So I am hoping I get some of you guys’ opinions on a dilemma I’ve been having recently, So I have been keeping on mind Plato’s three parts of the city and soul. As you guys know the appetites cannot rule the soul because it only satisfies animalistic(I'm not sure its an actual word) needs and that reason, well is the one that looks out for the whole. I’ve been thinking about how a person actually balances these needs into three parts. Sometimes it is difficult to let reason govern one’s decisions, I speak from experience, us humans, well we tend to let our appetites get the best of us and we just don’t know when to let reason take the rains. So my question is… How exactly do we find balance within us? I mean we have all these voices around us telling us what to do and what not to do. In today’s society, everyone, somewhere, has someone telling them who they should be and what they should do, and so it can be difficult. When will the day come where we can make decisions for OUR happiness and inner balance? We aren’t looking for everyone else’s happiness, so why do we let somebody else get into our heads and then make us do things we don’t want to. Obviously, we pick and choose what we want to hear and it’s up to us to accept what others think and say but in the end society and other people do have an impact on us and sometimes it could lead to picking and choosing between the lemon star-burst and the strawberry star burst. You guys know how it goes, you are sharing your star-bursts with someone and then you only have two left…and the person you are sharing with..says you can pick first..and you end up getting the lemon one because you don’t want to be mean…or you do like my sister…and take both star-bursts. My point being, that sometimes you pick what you think is best for everyone else instead of what is best for you…in order to find balance and in the end……HAPPINESS. Is sacrifice..always necessary or is it selfish to look and stay with our own happiness?