Response to Abby

Abby stated that she believes human life happened randomly by chance and we serve no purpose.  I'm not going to say that I believe God put us here for a purpose, but I don't believe our existence is an accident.  Abby says "genes happened to mutate in such a way that ultimately lead to the evolution of a human being".  Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you can't also believe in creationism.  I agree that we could have started out as simple one-celled organisms and evolved into the complex beings we are today.  But where did those one celled organisms come from?  Evolution is an amazing thing but it can't create something out of nothing.  Even the most basic elements of the world had to have come from somewhere.  We can only break things down to a certain point before you can't go any further.  This is why I don't think our existence is an accident.  In my mind, the world is too harmonic and balanced for it to be a mere coincidence.  Whether you believe in the traditional idea of "God" or just some higher form of power is irrelevant; but I find it hard to deny that there is something greater than us.  However, my knowledge about both science and religion is pretty limited, so if anyone has any insight on the subject, I would like to hear it.

The Temperaments of Instruments

This post was inspired by "The Musical Temperament" by Anthony E. Kemp, which is what I read for my book review.  Today in class I mentioned that people tend to judge musicians based on their instrument.  For example, string players were described by their fellow musicians as serious and introverted.  Woodwind players were described as introverted, radical and imaginative and brass players were describes as social but having low levels of intelligence and discipline.  When I first read this, I thought it was ridiculous; however, I must admit that I have, at times,  made similar judgements about musicians I know.  Why do we associate certain qualities with certain instruments?

For one thing, the actual sound of the instrument has it's own temperament.  Drums are loud and disruptive; flutes are soft and delicate.  These are just two examples of the many assumptions people make about musicians based on their instruments.  But the more interesting question here is, does the musician take on certain qualities because of their instrument?  Does a drummer start acting louder and more disruptive simply because of his or her instrument?  Perhaps we inherit the temperament of our instrument.  I feel that this could justify the use of music in psychological therapy.  If someone is trying to learn to be more assertive in social situations, then maybe they can learn to express their emotions in a dominating way through a more dominating instrument such as the drums, trumpet, or saxophone.  These three instruments are all assumed to be typically male instruments.  I believe that this also implies that an instrument belongs to a sepcific gender category.

It is clear that our society differentiates instruments by gender; males typically play the  drums, saxophone or trumpet and females typically play the flute, clarinet, or violin.  Firstly, the fact that something as trivial as instruments are placed in gender categories is absurd (not that I think instruments are trivial.  I clearly think they are very important, but in relation to gender they have no significant value).  Secondly, I find it interesting that all of the female instruments are, for the most part, softer and meeker, while the male instruments are louder and stronger.  This mirrors our society's views on gender.  The idea that females play certain instruments and males play others is not an innocent coincidence.  It is just another aspect of our world that reinforces the dominate patriarchal society.  

Instruments say more about their owner and their owner's place in society than we give them credit for.  They are not simply the objects musicians use to make music.  After reading The Musical Temperament, and drawing my own conclusions from it, I have to agree with Davies that an instrument is an extension of the person playing it.  Our society's views on individual instruments strengthens stereotypes and the categorization of certain people.

Question:  Can other inanimate objects have their own temperament?  If not, than why can instruments?

 

Response to Amy (Murder)

This is a response to Amy Rosvally's blog.  She asked, "If a government official were to kill someone during a torture session, would it be considered murder?".  My answer is yes.  I am disregarding what the law states in my answer because the law is not always right and I believe the law ought to be challenged at times.  

All intentional killing is immoral.  This includes killing during torture, war, the death penalty or abortion.  Our laws make exceptions for a handful of situations, which just makes the issue more unclear.  You can't individually judge specific situations when it comes to killing another person- you either allow it or you don't.  

I stated that all intentional killing is immoral, but how can we determine what is intentional and what is unintentional?  This also makes the issue very unclear when it should be black and white.  If a drunk driver kills someone in a car accident, they weren't intending to kill anyone, but many people treat this situation as if it were just as bad as intended murder, because the drunk driver was irresponsible.  So, our society demands that people take precaution against accidentally killing people.  

Our laws regarding murder are flawed because we allow too much leeway.  Plenty of people literally get away with murder due to supposed lack of intent, self defense, or insanity.  I'm not arguing that these are never legitimate justifications, but I feel that they are overused.  Also, our society doesn't view some intentional killing as murder, such as killing during war.  I think people need to start looking at these situations objectively to determine whether or not it is moral to kill innocent people simply because we are at war with their country.

Question:  Is killing an animal murder?

Response t o Sarah

Children can have a huge impact on their parents, which in turn, often impacts them.  It is called bidirectionally.  Child-parent relationships are actually a lot more complicated than they are commonly believed to be.  Many people think that the parent influences the development of the child and it is as simple as that.  However, the child, the way the child interacts with his or her siblings, and the way the child interacts with his or her parents affects the way the  parent raises the child.

For example, if a parent's child is difficult and hard to take care of, the parent may be worn down, but be able to endure more.  If the child is easy to take care of, than the parent may be easy going and happier, but unable to handle more difficult situations with the child because they are not used to it.  Also, if a parent's first born child was difficult to care for, than their attitudes towards their second or third born child will be affected by his or her relationship with his/her first child.  The parent may be more strict simply because he/she had to be with the first child.

Question:  Is it possible for a parent to remain unaffected by their children?  Is it possible for children to remain unaffected by their parents- or overcome the effect their parents have had on them?

Response to Betsy

I don't believe that it is ethical to seek to eliminate a species because they have the potential to harm us.  It's ethical to kill a mosquito that is biting you, because they are causing you harm.  It is a sort of self defense.  Eliminating a whole species is a bit drastic and harmful to the natural environment.  Our natural instinct when another living thing is harming us is to harm it back.  Animals do this to other animals, and we naturally do it as well.  But does the fact that something is natural justify it?  Or can it still be considered unethical?

It is natural to favor aesthetically pleasing animals over less attractive animals, but that doesn't mean it's ethical.  Perhaps it is a part of human nature to prefer "cute" things over "ugly" things.  Some people argue that babies make cute sounds so that they're parents will be more inclined to take care of them.  Does this suggest that we wouldn't want to take care of our own offspring if they weren't cute?  Is there possibly an evolutionary purpose for our preference to cute things?

(There are a few different questions in this post; you can just answer one if you'd like to)

Pleasure in Pain

In class, we talked about how people listen to sad music, not just because they "have to" in order to fully appreciate music, but because they want to.  People seek out sad songs.  People also love to watch "tearjerker" movies. Why is it that people want to be saddened by a song or other work of art, but not by real life experiences?  After all, we tend to avoid most negative situations.  Davies briefly mentioned the theory that people use negative art as a way to purge their own negative feelings.  I agree with this.  This reminds me of what Freud said about art.  He said that it's easier to view something painful or sad or disturbing in a work of art and appreciate it as something separate from yourself, than to admit that you have those negative feelings too.  Negative art allows people to feel pain without admitting their own pain.  It serves as a distraction from their own problems.

People voluntarily engage in all sorts of painful activities such as body piercing, tattoos, sadomasochism, or other forms of self harm.  One reason people may do this is simply for the thrill.  It could be exciting and adventurous to hurt yourself.  It could also be used as an escape from reality, the way people listen to sad music as an escape from reality.  

Music as Language (Response to Amy Rosvally)

I believe that music is capable of being used as a language.  If the definition of a language is the use of voice or symbols to intellectually and linguistically communicate, than why can't this include music?  Sound can be a symbol.  I agree with you that usually, music is only used to express general emotions, not specific messages.  But that doesn't mean it can't express specific emotions.  For example, the sound of a bell signals the end of a class period in high school.  A firm alarm signals danger.  The sound of crying represents sadness.  We have learned to associate certain sounds with specific meanings.  This is how language works too.  And, if we are defining music as organized sound, then music can be used to communicate specific messages.  

Question:  What if human beings were born with out the ability to speak verbally?  How would we communicate?