i (heart) my philosophy professor
"Most people like to see ourselves as two people: our inner self- our thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. and our outer self- what we do and how we act with other people. Sartre would call that the French equivalent of 'bullshit'."
"Yesterday you can't do a damn thing about. Tomorrow may never come. All you can live for in any given moment is the moment itself. At the moment you die, you don't want to say 'I BLEW IT'- do you want that feeling when you die? At least you will be able to say 'I was honest. I acknowledged who I was, I lived my life, and I DID NOT WASTE IT.' Otherwise, we might as well have murdered you at birth just to save the space and air."
Dr. Wiedmann: "An 'authentic person' is someone who is honest with him or herself, and then because of that honesty he or she is also honest with everyone else. If you're authentic, it is your intention to be authentic."
Smart ass sitting in the front: "What if I am an authentic person who authentically does not care?"
Wiedmann: "Then you are a fraud."
This was all in my class today. It was a great hour and 15 minutes. Some quotes from past class periods:
(Sneeze) "God bless you. If there is one."
"The Bible is a real book- like Gone with the Wind or Chronicles of Riddick, so it should be capitalized." (In response to dumb people and their reflective essays. Also in response to people who apparently cannot fathom basic grammar: "'Accept' and 'except' and two very different words. Learn which is which or continue to appear ignorant."
and my absolute favorite reason for liking my philosophy professor right now is that she gave me a 99% on my paper on Col. Cammermeyer's visit (silly arrogant me chose not to proofread my own paper and left out a couple commas and there was a typo) and at the part in the paper where i was talking about how sexuality is NOT a choice, it's an aspect of one's identity, she wrote to the side "Excellent point! Personally, I have NO MEMORY of choosing my orientation."
that topic actually came up in my ethics class today as well- there was an article Mr. Barker handed out that was talking about how before Interscope(?) released "The Marshall Mathers LP" they had lyrics about the Columbine shootings taken out, but still left in the anti-gay slurs, women bashing, as well as many other insults to a multitude of groups. The question was posed in our small group, why censor that one aspect and not the rest? One girl in the class said that the Columbine students were innocent victims and that "THOSE gay people CHOOSE to have that lifestyle that most of us don't agree with." I responded that first of all, no one CHOOSES their sexual orientation, it is simply a part of who they are. the only CHOICE to make is whether or not to accept it about oneself, and then how to deal with it in the face of people who don't accept it. Furthermore, just looking at the other groups besides homosexuals who are targeted in eminem's lyrics, there isn't a choice involved in the women bashing- they are innocent victims of abuse, sexism, etc.
the topic was opened to the entire class again, so the girl from my class stated her opinion once more. Barker replied "Good point." So i stated my objections to that justification again. Barker responded "Another consideration." Another girl across the room piped up "Well, the lyrics about Columbine were after the fact, and they were unnecessarily exploiting the pain of the students, who are just minors so they must be protected." Unfortunately, Barker did not let me respond to that, even though the girl was speaking directly at me, and not to the class. So i make my response here: HELLO! is she trying to say that women (as well as MINOR girls) have never been abused, and that gay and lesbian MINORS as well as adults have never heard slurs or experienced violence because of who they are? Of course they have! A song about beating up a woman exploits the pain of an abuse victim JUST AS MUCH as a song about shooting up a school exploits the pain of students who have experienced it first hand.
Now, i'm not saying that all of eminem's lyrics should have been censored, or the record company shouldn't have allowed to album at all. I personally don't take his lyrics seriously, and also believe that no matter what might be in people's genetics, upbringing, or current situation, each person is still responsible for his or her decisions. Fact is, the album sold. a lot. I AM saying, however, that if one thing is going to be censored because it is harmful/hurtful to a group of people, then the same standards should be applied across the board- all the other things should be censored too- equality. YET, the entire argument of which should/should not be censored/modified kinda seems pointless anyways because it is a BUSINESS that made that decision, and to pick and choose is their right. You can campaign/protest/ask for the business to change their policy, but you cannot MAKE them. The population still had the choice to buy the album or not (which did have an advisory label, of course). It was not forced upon anyone.
It's hard to be in that class and still state my opinions and get targeted for having them by everyone else (more often now because we've gotten into APPLIED ethics rather than just going over different ethical theories). I still do it, but i get frustrated by their ignorance (Bush is an ethical role model MY ASS). But then i just leave the class after 50 minutes of bullshit and chill out... then go to philosophy after a couple of hours. the day gets better. usually.
"Yesterday you can't do a damn thing about. Tomorrow may never come. All you can live for in any given moment is the moment itself. At the moment you die, you don't want to say 'I BLEW IT'- do you want that feeling when you die? At least you will be able to say 'I was honest. I acknowledged who I was, I lived my life, and I DID NOT WASTE IT.' Otherwise, we might as well have murdered you at birth just to save the space and air."
Dr. Wiedmann: "An 'authentic person' is someone who is honest with him or herself, and then because of that honesty he or she is also honest with everyone else. If you're authentic, it is your intention to be authentic."
Smart ass sitting in the front: "What if I am an authentic person who authentically does not care?"
Wiedmann: "Then you are a fraud."
This was all in my class today. It was a great hour and 15 minutes. Some quotes from past class periods:
(Sneeze) "God bless you. If there is one."
"The Bible is a real book- like Gone with the Wind or Chronicles of Riddick, so it should be capitalized." (In response to dumb people and their reflective essays. Also in response to people who apparently cannot fathom basic grammar: "'Accept' and 'except' and two very different words. Learn which is which or continue to appear ignorant."
and my absolute favorite reason for liking my philosophy professor right now is that she gave me a 99% on my paper on Col. Cammermeyer's visit (silly arrogant me chose not to proofread my own paper and left out a couple commas and there was a typo) and at the part in the paper where i was talking about how sexuality is NOT a choice, it's an aspect of one's identity, she wrote to the side "Excellent point! Personally, I have NO MEMORY of choosing my orientation."
that topic actually came up in my ethics class today as well- there was an article Mr. Barker handed out that was talking about how before Interscope(?) released "The Marshall Mathers LP" they had lyrics about the Columbine shootings taken out, but still left in the anti-gay slurs, women bashing, as well as many other insults to a multitude of groups. The question was posed in our small group, why censor that one aspect and not the rest? One girl in the class said that the Columbine students were innocent victims and that "THOSE gay people CHOOSE to have that lifestyle that most of us don't agree with." I responded that first of all, no one CHOOSES their sexual orientation, it is simply a part of who they are. the only CHOICE to make is whether or not to accept it about oneself, and then how to deal with it in the face of people who don't accept it. Furthermore, just looking at the other groups besides homosexuals who are targeted in eminem's lyrics, there isn't a choice involved in the women bashing- they are innocent victims of abuse, sexism, etc.
the topic was opened to the entire class again, so the girl from my class stated her opinion once more. Barker replied "Good point." So i stated my objections to that justification again. Barker responded "Another consideration." Another girl across the room piped up "Well, the lyrics about Columbine were after the fact, and they were unnecessarily exploiting the pain of the students, who are just minors so they must be protected." Unfortunately, Barker did not let me respond to that, even though the girl was speaking directly at me, and not to the class. So i make my response here: HELLO! is she trying to say that women (as well as MINOR girls) have never been abused, and that gay and lesbian MINORS as well as adults have never heard slurs or experienced violence because of who they are? Of course they have! A song about beating up a woman exploits the pain of an abuse victim JUST AS MUCH as a song about shooting up a school exploits the pain of students who have experienced it first hand.
Now, i'm not saying that all of eminem's lyrics should have been censored, or the record company shouldn't have allowed to album at all. I personally don't take his lyrics seriously, and also believe that no matter what might be in people's genetics, upbringing, or current situation, each person is still responsible for his or her decisions. Fact is, the album sold. a lot. I AM saying, however, that if one thing is going to be censored because it is harmful/hurtful to a group of people, then the same standards should be applied across the board- all the other things should be censored too- equality. YET, the entire argument of which should/should not be censored/modified kinda seems pointless anyways because it is a BUSINESS that made that decision, and to pick and choose is their right. You can campaign/protest/ask for the business to change their policy, but you cannot MAKE them. The population still had the choice to buy the album or not (which did have an advisory label, of course). It was not forced upon anyone.
It's hard to be in that class and still state my opinions and get targeted for having them by everyone else (more often now because we've gotten into APPLIED ethics rather than just going over different ethical theories). I still do it, but i get frustrated by their ignorance (Bush is an ethical role model MY ASS). But then i just leave the class after 50 minutes of bullshit and chill out... then go to philosophy after a couple of hours. the day gets better. usually.