I keep seeing this on the news. It reminds me of our discussions about zoos.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/28/tiger.escapes.ap/index.html
Friday, December 28, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Book Reviews/My Book Review(Summarized)
My reaction to other's book reviews:
To me, the book reviews seemed like a nice way for everyone to pick their favorite topic we discussed in class and read a book about it. It was interesting to see how many people picked animal rights. I was not expecting it, but it was nice to see different views on animal right, especially the responsibly people have with animals. Liz's book seemed pretty interesting about how the authors did not "attack" the readers in a sense with their argument. By the way Liz talked about it, it seemed as though it was a book where the authors presented their views but did not use their power to try and pursue readers to completely change their minds. It seemed like a book that was equally balanced in the way they argued their beliefs.
Also, Emily's book review about animals having no responsibility to take care of animals in the wild seemed interesting. I had not heard about this view before and it opened my eyes to it. It seems to be a very interesting concept but something that would not work out quite well. The theory makes me believe that more animals would become extinct each day and that humans would rule the world even more. This is just an assumption---I have to read the book to see if I still thought this.
Hannah's book also really interested me since we read about the same topic. It interested me to possible read that book to compare the views my book, a more recent book, with the views that her book has, a book from a few decades ago.
My Book Review(Summarized):
Book: Walberg, Herbert J., and Joseph L. Bast. Education and Capitalism: How Overcoming Our Fear of Markets and Economics Can Improve America's Schools. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution P, 2003.
My book, Education and Capitalism: How Overcoming Our Fear of Markets and Economics Can Improve America's Schools, focused on how school reform should be centered around capitalism. This topic sparked by interest since I am an education major and will have to deal with issues such as this when I enter the teaching world. It was interesting to here the myths of capitalism and economics and why people fear them being incorporated into school reform. Also, I really enjoyed learning more about the voucher programs there are today. Voucher programs differ from state to state. Cleveland, Ohio, for example has a pretty "loose" voucher program, allowing vouchers to be used both in private in public schools. However, other states only allow vouchers to be used within public schools.
Voucher programs are also unfair. Families who are in the extreme-poverty levels can only receive vouchers. I believe that all poor families should be able to receive vouchers. It is not the children's fault that their parents are at that economic level. Therefore, the student should not have to face the consequences (i.e. receiving a bad education). Students at all poverty levels should be able to receive vouchers. Isn't there suppose to be equal education?
Also, competition within schools, which the authors mentioned I believe is very important. I believe that is the only way the poverty-level schools can improve. Through competition, it will motivate these schools to improve and help them provide better education to the students in these areas. By doing this, students in these areas will not have to use vouchers anyone to go to better schools since there will be a better school in their neighborhood. Competition helps schools out more than it hinders them. In a sense, it is a "wake-up" call to these schools. It will make them realize that they need to step up the education they provide their students, or they will lose all their students before they know it.
Overall, I liked reading a book related to the class. I liked how we were allowed to explore a topic we were interested in further and share our findings with the class.
To me, the book reviews seemed like a nice way for everyone to pick their favorite topic we discussed in class and read a book about it. It was interesting to see how many people picked animal rights. I was not expecting it, but it was nice to see different views on animal right, especially the responsibly people have with animals. Liz's book seemed pretty interesting about how the authors did not "attack" the readers in a sense with their argument. By the way Liz talked about it, it seemed as though it was a book where the authors presented their views but did not use their power to try and pursue readers to completely change their minds. It seemed like a book that was equally balanced in the way they argued their beliefs.
Also, Emily's book review about animals having no responsibility to take care of animals in the wild seemed interesting. I had not heard about this view before and it opened my eyes to it. It seems to be a very interesting concept but something that would not work out quite well. The theory makes me believe that more animals would become extinct each day and that humans would rule the world even more. This is just an assumption---I have to read the book to see if I still thought this.
Hannah's book also really interested me since we read about the same topic. It interested me to possible read that book to compare the views my book, a more recent book, with the views that her book has, a book from a few decades ago.
My Book Review(Summarized):
Book: Walberg, Herbert J., and Joseph L. Bast. Education and Capitalism: How Overcoming Our Fear of Markets and Economics Can Improve America's Schools. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution P, 2003.
My book, Education and Capitalism: How Overcoming Our Fear of Markets and Economics Can Improve America's Schools, focused on how school reform should be centered around capitalism. This topic sparked by interest since I am an education major and will have to deal with issues such as this when I enter the teaching world. It was interesting to here the myths of capitalism and economics and why people fear them being incorporated into school reform. Also, I really enjoyed learning more about the voucher programs there are today. Voucher programs differ from state to state. Cleveland, Ohio, for example has a pretty "loose" voucher program, allowing vouchers to be used both in private in public schools. However, other states only allow vouchers to be used within public schools.
Voucher programs are also unfair. Families who are in the extreme-poverty levels can only receive vouchers. I believe that all poor families should be able to receive vouchers. It is not the children's fault that their parents are at that economic level. Therefore, the student should not have to face the consequences (i.e. receiving a bad education). Students at all poverty levels should be able to receive vouchers. Isn't there suppose to be equal education?
Also, competition within schools, which the authors mentioned I believe is very important. I believe that is the only way the poverty-level schools can improve. Through competition, it will motivate these schools to improve and help them provide better education to the students in these areas. By doing this, students in these areas will not have to use vouchers anyone to go to better schools since there will be a better school in their neighborhood. Competition helps schools out more than it hinders them. In a sense, it is a "wake-up" call to these schools. It will make them realize that they need to step up the education they provide their students, or they will lose all their students before they know it.
Overall, I liked reading a book related to the class. I liked how we were allowed to explore a topic we were interested in further and share our findings with the class.
Discussion on Freud's Dream Theory
The one-day class discussion we had on Freud's Dream Theory was very interesting. The reason why it interested me was that I was able to hear the reasoning why people though Hobson's argument was more convincing. It opened my eyes up to the failures in Soames argument that I did not realize before. Soame's argument about disproving Hobson's theory was the biggest mistake Soames made in his argument. Instead of arguing against Hobson's theory, he proves Hobson's theory. Soames does this by agreeing with Hobson that REM sleep and dreams do not have to coexist with one another in order to occur. By doing this, he makes his own argument for Freud's Dream Theory invalid in a sense.
I did not realize this mistake in the debate until discussing it in class. After hearing that though, I still agree with Soames. I feel that the other points about the purpose of our dreams and how they are not falsifiable are valid enough for me to belief his argument. I am upset that we did not have enough time to discuss this further because it would be an interesting topic to have more discussions about. I believe that the topic needed more time to be discussed, but I understand the time constraint we had.
I did not realize this mistake in the debate until discussing it in class. After hearing that though, I still agree with Soames. I feel that the other points about the purpose of our dreams and how they are not falsifiable are valid enough for me to belief his argument. I am upset that we did not have enough time to discuss this further because it would be an interesting topic to have more discussions about. I believe that the topic needed more time to be discussed, but I understand the time constraint we had.
Freud's Dream Theory
Freud's Dream Theory: is it correct or not? After reading the transcript called, "The dream debate", I thought that Freud's theroy was correct. One reason I believe that his theory is correct is by Soames defending it through saying that dreams protect us in our sleep. I believe that dreams protect us because they allow our wishes to come true in our sleep without them actually occuring. It allows us to secretly explore something that we are too afraid to explore in real life. Soames states this by saying that dreams are, “imagined acting…” happens“…instead of acting in reality, so that we don’t have to wake up” (“The dream debate” 5).
Another reason why I believe in Freud's Dream Theory is due to Soames stating that his theory cannot be falsified which means it is not science and cannot be tested. By stating this, it gives reasoning to why Freud did not test his theory with other people's dreams. Even though most people seem to feel that Soames argument is somewhat hypocritcal, I still believe that Freud's Dream Theory is correct.
Another reason why I believe in Freud's Dream Theory is due to Soames stating that his theory cannot be falsified which means it is not science and cannot be tested. By stating this, it gives reasoning to why Freud did not test his theory with other people's dreams. Even though most people seem to feel that Soames argument is somewhat hypocritcal, I still believe that Freud's Dream Theory is correct.
Are Zoos Educational?/Are Circuses Educational?
One of the major defense s of zoos not being pornographic is that they are educational. However, are they really educational? It was very interesting discussing this question. I believe that they are meant to be educational; although, most people visits zoos for an noneducational purpose.
I believe that zoos are meant to be educational due to the information zoos have about each of the animals at their exhibits. The plaques describe the animals, where the live, what the eat, etc. Although, people do not read them very often. Rather, they just stare at the animals as their entertainment and make their visits to the zoos have no educational value. However, when I went to zoos when I was younger, my dad insisted that I would read the plaques. Therefore, zoo visits had educational value for me.
I believe that zoos can have an educational value if people are willing to put the extra time to read the plaques instead of going from one exhibit to another. Personally, when I was a child, I learned a lot from the plaques I read. They helped me understand the animals more and made me realize what their lifestyles are outside the zoos. It depends on the person whether a zoo can be educational or not. If people take the zoos at face-value as a just a source of entertainment, they are not educational. However, if people are willing to search deeper for a more meaningful purpose when they go to the zoos, I believe the zoos do have a purpose.
On the other hand, are circuses educational? I believe they are not. Their main purpose is for entertainment. People cannot learn anything about the animals and their lifestyle at the circus. It is a place where animals are abused and used for purposes they should not be used for.
Overall, I believe that zoos are educational, but circuses are not. Zoos are meant for educational purposes while circuses are meant for entertainment purposes.
I believe that zoos are meant to be educational due to the information zoos have about each of the animals at their exhibits. The plaques describe the animals, where the live, what the eat, etc. Although, people do not read them very often. Rather, they just stare at the animals as their entertainment and make their visits to the zoos have no educational value. However, when I went to zoos when I was younger, my dad insisted that I would read the plaques. Therefore, zoo visits had educational value for me.
I believe that zoos can have an educational value if people are willing to put the extra time to read the plaques instead of going from one exhibit to another. Personally, when I was a child, I learned a lot from the plaques I read. They helped me understand the animals more and made me realize what their lifestyles are outside the zoos. It depends on the person whether a zoo can be educational or not. If people take the zoos at face-value as a just a source of entertainment, they are not educational. However, if people are willing to search deeper for a more meaningful purpose when they go to the zoos, I believe the zoos do have a purpose.
On the other hand, are circuses educational? I believe they are not. Their main purpose is for entertainment. People cannot learn anything about the animals and their lifestyle at the circus. It is a place where animals are abused and used for purposes they should not be used for.
Overall, I believe that zoos are educational, but circuses are not. Zoos are meant for educational purposes while circuses are meant for entertainment purposes.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Got Rights?
The talk show we watched in class, "No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed"- Got Rights? was very interesting. One thing that especially interested me was the difference between legal and moral rights. Legal rights are obvious. They are rights such as being able to vote. Then there are moral rights that sometimes conflict with legal rights. An example of that is slavery. Slavery has been morally wrong although it was a legal right at one point in time. What should hold more weight--legal rights or moral rights. Personally, I believe that moral rights hold more weight for me than legal rights. For example, abortion. Abortion is legal in Massachusetts but some people are morally opposed to it. I believe that it depends on the person to whether they will follow a legal right or a moral right.
Should moral rights influence legal rights? I believe that they should not. Everyone's moral rights are different. Therefore, there would not be a common ground to make a moral right become a legal right. That is why there is conflict between these two rights. I believe that if someone is morally opposed to something that is legally allowed, they should not participate in the law. Also, I thought it was interesting about the discussion of whether animals can suffer or not.
I believe that animals can suffer, but they cannot voice their suffering as much as humans can. I believe that animals suffer whether they act if they are suffering or not. Animals are more sensitive than humans realize. In fact, I believe that animals are suffering while they are in zoos. They are suffering because they are living in an environment that is unnatural to them. They are being forced to live a lifestyle they choose not to.
Overall, I thought this talk show segment was very informative, and I enjoyed it.
Should moral rights influence legal rights? I believe that they should not. Everyone's moral rights are different. Therefore, there would not be a common ground to make a moral right become a legal right. That is why there is conflict between these two rights. I believe that if someone is morally opposed to something that is legally allowed, they should not participate in the law. Also, I thought it was interesting about the discussion of whether animals can suffer or not.
I believe that animals can suffer, but they cannot voice their suffering as much as humans can. I believe that animals suffer whether they act if they are suffering or not. Animals are more sensitive than humans realize. In fact, I believe that animals are suffering while they are in zoos. They are suffering because they are living in an environment that is unnatural to them. They are being forced to live a lifestyle they choose not to.
Overall, I thought this talk show segment was very informative, and I enjoyed it.
Are Zoos Pornographic?
Before reading Ralph Acampora's, "Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices," I thought that zoos were not pornographic. By comparing zoos to the pornography industry, I came to the conclusion that zoos are in no way shape or form pornographic. Although after reading the Acampora's writing, I realized that I believe that zoos are indeed pornographic.
One reason I believe that zoos are pornographic is because of how Ralph Acampora defines pornography. By defining the zoo pornography as visive violence, which is "overexposure that degrades their real nature", I changed my opinion on zoos being pornographic (Acampora 71). I agree that the definition of visive violence makes zoos pornographic because by being in a zoo, zoo animals are not acting in their true nature by being forced to live in cages and not being able to roam freely. Zoo animals are forced to live in unnatural conditions in order to please the people that come to see them at the zoos.
Another reason why I believe zoos are pornographic is because of how zoos are perversions of how animals live. One way zoos do this is through not showing the interaction between different animals. Through putting animals in cages and not allowing different animals to interact with one another, it shows how zoos are perverted. Also, zoos are a perversion of how animals actually live in the wild by having "fake" living environments for them. Through trying to make a similar living environment than the animal's one in the wild, zoos are a perversion. Even though the environment appears to look like one in the wild, it is not. Nothing can compare to an animals natural environment.
Overall, I strongly believe zoos are pornographic.
One reason I believe that zoos are pornographic is because of how Ralph Acampora defines pornography. By defining the zoo pornography as visive violence, which is "overexposure that degrades their real nature", I changed my opinion on zoos being pornographic (Acampora 71). I agree that the definition of visive violence makes zoos pornographic because by being in a zoo, zoo animals are not acting in their true nature by being forced to live in cages and not being able to roam freely. Zoo animals are forced to live in unnatural conditions in order to please the people that come to see them at the zoos.
Another reason why I believe zoos are pornographic is because of how zoos are perversions of how animals live. One way zoos do this is through not showing the interaction between different animals. Through putting animals in cages and not allowing different animals to interact with one another, it shows how zoos are perverted. Also, zoos are a perversion of how animals actually live in the wild by having "fake" living environments for them. Through trying to make a similar living environment than the animal's one in the wild, zoos are a perversion. Even though the environment appears to look like one in the wild, it is not. Nothing can compare to an animals natural environment.
Overall, I strongly believe zoos are pornographic.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
What work should humans do?
What work should humans do? Are we supposed to have the stereotypical office jobs? On Wednesday, we answered this question. We came to the realization that in fact the jobs that most people have are jobs that we are not "supposed to" do. We are supposed to have jobs that have a meaningful purpose rather than jobs that we do just for money. We are in fact supposed to have jobs such as reading poetry and listening to music. Jobs should be meaningful and something we enjoy rather than just tedious work that needs to get done.
Jobs are supposed to satisfy our urge to be creative. Is it possible though to be creative in the standard work fields that there are today? I sometimes wonder if that is possible. Jobs such as office jobs have certain "cookie-cutter standards" that must be followed which allows no room for freedom or creativity. Can those job fields change? I believe that they could if these job fields were started from scratch. Jobs today are all about making the most money and reaching the highest position of your company. There is no room to be creative because people are so concerned with making it to the top.
I believe that if there were no such things as a hierachy at work this could happen but that won't ever change. What's done is done and it affects the rest of the work field forever. Some jobs won't ever be enjoyable due to the pressure of making it to the top. It's sad to realize that to some people that's all that matters.
Jobs are supposed to satisfy our urge to be creative. Is it possible though to be creative in the standard work fields that there are today? I sometimes wonder if that is possible. Jobs such as office jobs have certain "cookie-cutter standards" that must be followed which allows no room for freedom or creativity. Can those job fields change? I believe that they could if these job fields were started from scratch. Jobs today are all about making the most money and reaching the highest position of your company. There is no room to be creative because people are so concerned with making it to the top.
I believe that if there were no such things as a hierachy at work this could happen but that won't ever change. What's done is done and it affects the rest of the work field forever. Some jobs won't ever be enjoyable due to the pressure of making it to the top. It's sad to realize that to some people that's all that matters.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Capitalism
Capitalism--why on earth would it be related to why people work. Well, they are related becaues capitalists own of the production just like the ends justify the means of work. It was interesting to rediscuss our other Marxist reading and incorporate it with Sayer's reading. It was interesting to talk about communal living and how capitalists own that property and it is distributed to each member of the family. Like communal living, workers have a communal working place, an office building, which is split up into different individual cubicles for each worker. Learning about Marxism became more interesting than I thought it would be. It has opened my eyes to see how things really are in the "work world."
Why Do People Work?
Why do people work? In Sean Sayer's article, "Why Work? Marx and Human Nature", he explains why people work. During our first discussion this topic, we discussed how work has simply become a mean to ends. People work in order to have money, to provide for themselves, and to provide for their family. The purpose of work is not enjoyment. Rather, people work in order to obtain money.
This is specifically shown in today's society by the jobs people choose. Most people choose their jobs because of the high salary they receive. Money is the only goal for people working. It's sad to see that work has become a chore to obtain money rather than something people love to do. It shows how our brain works and makes us believe that money and success are the only things that matters. Also through discussing why people work, the question of people alientating themsevles through work was asked.
Typical office jobs do alientate people. Sitting in a cubicle all day causes people to alienate themselves from the world. They are in their own "world" and are cut off from everyone else in their work place. The same goes for those teachers. Teacher isolate themselves from other teachers and students by staying in their classrooms for a period of time. I did not every see work as alienating us from society. It makes me wonder if work has to be this way. Is it possible to do a job correctly without alienating ourselves from soicety?
This is specifically shown in today's society by the jobs people choose. Most people choose their jobs because of the high salary they receive. Money is the only goal for people working. It's sad to see that work has become a chore to obtain money rather than something people love to do. It shows how our brain works and makes us believe that money and success are the only things that matters. Also through discussing why people work, the question of people alientating themsevles through work was asked.
Typical office jobs do alientate people. Sitting in a cubicle all day causes people to alienate themselves from the world. They are in their own "world" and are cut off from everyone else in their work place. The same goes for those teachers. Teacher isolate themselves from other teachers and students by staying in their classrooms for a period of time. I did not every see work as alienating us from society. It makes me wonder if work has to be this way. Is it possible to do a job correctly without alienating ourselves from soicety?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)