Blog 13

He says there are four classes of idols. He says that idols distract us, and that they interfere with the ability to see the truth. This is true because idols make us see them as what we want them to be like. What he says after all this is sort of confusing because he lists four types. I thought an idol could only be of a figure form.
I don't think any just one idol should be perceived as better as another one. Idols of the cave are about individual experience. Idols of marketplace are caused by imprecision of language. Idols of Theater are misinterpretations of philosophies. The idol of tribe is about  human perspective and learning. The one that is more likely to prevent the acquisition of true knowledge is idols of the cave.They are based on experiences that we have and it changes the way we look at them.
Social intercourse is with marketplace, and idols of tribe. The marketplace one is the impression of language. Words can be used in the wrong ways and people can interpret different things and you get wrong information. The idols of the tribe are human misconception. Individual reflection are the ones of cave and theater. The cave is about personal reflection on the experiences we have had in our life. Theater is the minds perspective on what we find on observations and our opinions.
The phrase the survival of the fittest means whoever has the mindset made to survive, and people that are the best fit to live. People either inhabit what they need to live or they die out. The selection is what species need to stay on Earth or die out. For example, if there are green bugs and red bugs and an animal want the red bugs than the green one's will eventually not be needed.
The animals with the better qualities are more likely to be passed down with the offspring of the animals. Only the desirable traits that are good for the animals should stay. Features that aren't as important are dominated by chance. Like for example color of an animal is something genetically related to the parents, and is not chance. Chance is like how big a nose is, how long a tail is. The efficiently of the genetic traits is more than chance.
Cloning will affect natural selection because what if humans don't know the right traits the animals will eventually need to survive. The natural selection replaces things as they are needed in a span of many many years. Cloning is not a good idea for this theory.
The more medicine that is out there the least likely the fittest selection will happen. If we can  keep making medicine to help problems then the fittest don't just survive everyone does. These bad traits will keep getting passed on because there are ways to cope with it. Instead of the natural way of getting rid of people, they will continue to survive.

Blog 11

Women were treated bad. They were beaten. They didn't get to write literature because of the way they were treated. No one in the times seen women as people who could do anything. Today has changed so much.
Talented women could not show of their talent back in these ages. They didn't get to be artists. Some men tried to stand up for women but were quickly shot down. Over the ages women began to get rights because they are just as valuable in society as men. 
She states that all the traits could basically be the same for both sexes. That personality types are not based on just that.Cultures differentiate the sexes in multiple ways, including labor, dress, manners, and social and religious functioning. 
The restriction of opportunities for both sexes make the people frustrated and they feel like they can't conform to society. It can lead to societies that are very narrow.
People get judged in our society if they don't conform to the norms of their sex. We see this first hand everywhere. If you act feminine and you're a male you get called gay. 
We should be concerned about this because we need change in our country. We don't lack any thing that other societies do. We should try to help the primitive places though because they are narrow.

Blog 12

Sensory knowledge is reliable. It is more reliable then Plato thinks. We base a lot of things on our senses. Our sense of smell bases everything we do, what rooms we will go into, what kind of food we'll eat. Our sense of smell even attracts us to certain people. Our sense of seeing makes us weary of our surroundings for protection. The sense of taste makes us know what we are putting into our bodies. They are all important in our life.

We are not materialistic based on smell. I think we are materialistic based on taste maybe sometimes. I think we are materialistic to be better than everyone else, and so people will want what we have. I think it's a mind thing when it comes to wanting material things. A normal human doesn't have to have any nice things, we just want to look like everyone else.

I don't know how you could even imagine the world without sense perception. That is a thought that is hard to process because I have all my senses.

It would be cool if we had the sense of mind reading. I wish we could do that. It takes a long time to think about what senses we could possibly have, because we already have like everything.

My dreams never make any sense with the real world. Lots of things happen in them that has my brain thinking "huh" because in real life I would never do in real life. Nothing about my dreams would probably be significant to my life the way I actually live.

Every single one of my dreams are crazy. They are abnormal and things I would never even consider in real life. Lots of my dreams break my morals and I wonder why they even happen.

Weirdly enough my nightmares are about my job. I used to have them every night when I would go to bed after work. I think I had these because I worked so so much. One of them I got stuck in and I had to keep cooking burgers even know it was midnight. they told me I wasn't allowed to leave. I kept crying and they didn't care. It was like I was in jail, but a restaurant jail. Those are the most recent nightmares I have had.

People forget most of their dreams because they're either so short or there were no memorable moments in them. Our brain doesn't remember everything because of a certain thing that happens when we sleep.

Dreaming is a mental activity because it happens in our brain when we sleep. It's in a different part of our brain then our thinking for the daytime. That's why are dreams most of the time don't relate to life.

Blog 10

Pernicious effects are stated as woman and men are not equal and woman are supposed to be mothers and not think for themselves. The more wealth you have though the more you can do because woman can be doctors, political leaders and such. People that aren't wealthy though are expected to be mothers and men are supposed to rule their life. I do believe it is a cause and effect relationship on the way they act because the woman in society that aren't wealthy don't really seem to have a place, but they do. She also is saying if men can treat women right then they can learn to love themselves and give true affection to them. Woman can be seen as property in this essay because they said women were charms to men. It said woman advanced in society by their charms and in my mind that means their body, what they could give. Men were the ones who gained most of the respect.

Diversity in schools according to Kozol is taught as history and it should be presented as a modern day issue as well. Most diversity is taught because school's have little diversity to show for. This person believes that Martin Luther King would still say that we have immoral segregation. Teachers are teaching students a lie. My definition would be that school diversity happens more in college than in high school. But I still believe students are taught that segregation is in the past and now we are non segregated. We definitely are still segregated in some aspects especially in the southern states. College is a place where many different races are so it's easier to learn about new cultures on your own. Schools does tell about segregation but it is sugarcoated. 

Woodson means by mis education is that people believe that African Americans were too poor to learn and that they were told that basically "white is right" and they were told that their people weren't good enough. They were told that their people were either self educated or uneducated. No one talks about how they were once slaves and that's what put lots of them into poverty to where they couldn't learn.They have been told what they could do for centuries and what they should do. The author believes there will be no change because of the way the African Americans have been told to live by white people. 

Blog 9

The basis for the pedagogy for Montessori is that we are restricted in schools by desks and furniture and we don’t get a chance to learn different ways. We also are punished and rewarded with objects and he thinks the reward should be the inner happiness and inner learning then physically getting a prize. He said that is too much based on rewards than on your brain. He also believes that punishment is just for shame and that it doesn’t really teach you anything. You should want to do good in your life. School furniture keeps the kids in desks and not learning in the way they want to. Let’s say a kid wants to sit in the floor or stand, teachers don’t allow students to learn in that way and be different. Furniture is a restriction. Freedom he believes will make you learn more and have different inner feelings. He believes in the knowledge of how you work and learn is from the inside not on prizes and punishments.

Dewey says that thinking is grounded in experience and that teachers can only improve the ability of the mind to think. Thinking should be based on personal experience first, then about the actual subject in school. In classrooms that don’t show real world experiences they only learn what the teacher thinks not what they need to know to face the situation in real life. Teaching should be more based on real world then just school. That’s the problem he sees in teaching is that most teachers are teaching wrong. The conditions for thinking should be to let them experience. The introduction to a subject should be something based on something real world like and not academic. Schools don’t always have a way to show real life experiences in the classroom because they just can’t. To think you have to know something and gain knowledge and use that knowledge to figure out something new. Thinking is creative and this is how you make new ideas. The education system is difficult because they don’t have the needs to teach the experiences they need to. Teachers need to teach students to think using real life experiences and then they can teach the material based on that. Teachers should engage students in things that require thinking and not something that has already been thought out for them. Ability to think for their self in real world situations should be the goal for schools.   

Blog 8

I agree with Smith's natural progress of opulence, it still makes sense to today's society too. People where I live are farmers mostly. Farmers and people who work in factories make good money. But some people prefer the farming life over working at a factory. It did become the way he says it did. Everything he says about how the country got rich is correct. The raw goods had to come from the country, then the city made the products and it was a exchange between products. Things still work like that in today's society. 

In today's time what we would see as riches is big houses, nice cars, better electronics. An investment for them would be these things. If I was rich I'd want a mansion, maybe a Tesla, and I'd have the newest iPhone and accessories. Celebrities and wealthy people nowadays use social media to show off all their nice things. Even there are TV shows dedicated to the already famous. 

I believe that Smith is still correct about the way the economy works. Manufacturing is bigger in other countries than the United States, Basically everything we see in stores has a Made in China sticker on it. We can get things from there for cheaper than what we can make it in the United States for. We as a country are still big on agriculture we see fields of corn, tobacco and beans everywhere. Now the new thing is Hemp and that will bring big income to the U.S. I think farming is still bigger than manufacturing even know there are lots of factories too. But in another way I could see foreign commerce being bigger than anything because of the products we get imported in. That is a whole lot of our economy. 

Blog 7

He believes that American is affluent in the society after World War 2. He believes poverty shouldn't be an issue. I think American is affluent because we have plenty of resources and lots of the society is in the middle class. It could be more affluent. There could be less people in poverty based on what we have as a country. More programs could be made in order to give back to people in need. The signs of affluence are the people in the high end of America that could give back to the people. They could end poverty in America if they chose to share their riches that way. The results of the affluence in America is people still in poverty because they can't afford to get out and we don't give them the opportunity to live better. If we gave parents a better life, then the children could also have a better life.

I don't think it is the government's place to find people jobs. I think if you're not lazy you can go out and find a job. It might not be amazing but you can get a job. The government does help finding jobs because of unemployment offices and such, which is good for the community. But the whole purpose of government is not to find people jobs. that's what has made out society lazy is thinking someone else is going to do something for them. For the second question I do think yes. If for some reason your job just doesn't need you anymore and your a good worker I do think it is a good idea to help you get placed somewhere else.if your job lays you off because they can't afford to pay you, you have a advantage over the lazy people who don't get up and find a job. Reich didn't say anything about governments giving out jobs but about the conditions of the workforce and how jobs are declining in some areas and increasing in some areas.

Blog 6

The economic condition of the proletariat is better than the economic condition of the Bourgeoise. Everything runs off the people from the proletariat. The people from bourgeoise market over produce stuff so that leaves to chaos and ruin. The more you produce and not sell the worse your market gets. The people from proletariat Buourgeoise need help from proletariat because they are slaved into working for the bourgeoise. The economic conditions for both fluctuate.The proletarians have nothing of their own, they want to destroy the other systems of production.

It affects national identity because of trade and how much is produced. Bourgeoise produce lots of things at once and proletariat is trying to keep up. Everything in a nation revolves around each other. Supply and demand is a big thing also.

Communism is trying to bring the two back together and have one over the other. They want the proletariat to have more power.The proletariat are trying to overthrow the Bourgeoise becasue they are unfit to rule. Communism is going to help this.

I don't think Bill Gates activity will change much because some poor people don't even have access to the internet so how would they even find his source. If it is also not well known it won't be easy to find. If he gives away money freely to people, people then become greedy. His solution sounds good but in reality the poor will be poor, and the rich will be rich. It all goes to show how you spend and save money.

Aristotle

Aristotle was all about government so I think he would have liked seeing the Declaration of Independence being signed. He wasn't about democracy but he liked where people came together to make sets of rules to make common people happy. He liked the thought of structure.

The elements of society in the painting are people coming together in a group to create a government. People were in agreement and people signed the paper. There was a leader over them all, and that's how government works today. There is a President still over everyone and everyone in the government is common people elected.

Aristotle would have said that our government was more of an oligarchy because in the time the wealthy people were the ones who got to be rulers. Still today people with more money get more power. Poor people don't usually get into government because people tend to think that poor people have less education and that they cannot rule our country. We still get a say in the government and that is why he would classify us as an oligarchy.

They were all people who demonstrated great leadership for their colonies. People from all the colonies got to agree or disagree with the conference. They all got to sign the Declaration of Independence because they showed their characteristics as great in society. They were probably all wealthy people too.

Tocqueville believes Democracy is a good way to run our country. He thinks France failed at it because the aspects they focused on were not right. He says that we "arise from a very general idea men have conceived of God, of his relations with the human race, of the nature of their souls, and of their duties towards those like them". That's why our government works for the people here.

Martin Luther King v. Thoreau

These two pieces and people are similar in many ways. Martin Luther King was all about civil rights and defying the laws that he didn't think was right. He fought for what he thought was right even when the people in the mid-1900s thought he was crazy. Martin Luther King died fighting for what he believed. His thoughts changed the World. I don't know if Martin Luther King could have read Thoreau's writing or not. Thoreau was for this type of fighting. He told what he thought was right or wrong. Thoreau believed in a government that was better and people that would actually run it and not be foolish. He believed you should do what you deemed right instead of what the government saw as right. He knew exactly what he was talking about. Martin Luther King knew what he was talking about too. 

Blog 3

The values that Thoreau describes is that the government should not be too powerful. The government should be for the people and with the people. He also states that the majority overrides in government and some people don't get their choice. This is overall correct because even if you have a say, if everyone else doesn't agree with it than it is said for nothing.  He says government rules by majority and not justice. If it was ruled by Justice than it wouldn't be based on certain people's decisions. Thoreau was talking about how if you don't follow what the government says to do your wrong. But he says men should stand up against their government. If they deem something as wrong stand up for it no matter what. In his time there was slavery. Now slavery is abolished but we still have instances of sex trade and bad things happening around the world. His time and our time is not much different at all, because majority still overrides singles and the government is still "powerful."

I think the reason Thoreau thought all this is because America thought they were powerful enough to just take whatever they wanted. The Mexican War was fought between the US and Mexico because we wanted to expand west and take over Texas. The whigs and the Democrats were against each other. The Democrats favored conflict and the whigs didn't. Polk had a lot of control in this time and after the War they accused him of illegally starting  a war. Thoreau was right about how much power the government had over the people in this time period. Polk was all about war because he wanted what he thought was ours.

Blog 2

The type of government Rousseau would have wanted is unbelievable. I believe this because he thinks government is corrupt. He says that naturally men are good and the laws and things make men bad. We were corrupted by the acts of civilization. If we lived by nature we would be independent and there would be less crime. Rousseau believed in complete power of nature and nothing else. He wanted compassion on everyone and that everyone be treated equal. The government of the type he would want exists in our times. Everyone is evil because of the laws.

The end of independence does mean rebellion and terrible acts. End of independence would be breaking the people apart. Independence is what we have in America and yes without it there would be many deaths and we would have limited freedoms. If we as a country wasn't independent someone else would be a ruler of the country, we would be connected with somewhere else. I don't think Jefferson thought of it this way,he thought of it as a way to solve the problems we had. Machiavelli's advice was bad and would have caused more problems than anything. He was cunning. Machiavelli's way of thinking would have been bad for the United States.

Lao tzu vs. Machievelli

The difference between Machiovelli and Lao tzu was that Machiovelli was more for philosophy and science and that’s how he ran his nation. He made a book “The Art of War” and it was all the science on military. To keep all control he was very dishonest. I disagree with this type of leadership. I feel like you need to be nice and not decieving to your people. Lao Tzu may not have actually been real and that is something cool I learned from my research. He came up with Chinese Taoism meaning that  he believed in the simple way of living. He knew the difference between good and evil. If I had to choose one of them to be my leader I would have to pick Lao Tzu. He is all about nature and Machievilli is about doing evil to get what he wants.