Final Questionnaire

Age?
24

Sex?
Male

What is your degree subject (both if joint)?
Philosophy and Sociology (Joint)

Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking?
Certain issues of ethics arise that also apply to PH1105 'Introduction to Critical Thinking', not so much for my other modules.

If so, how? And if not, why not?
As mentioned above, certain ethical issues cross between my two Philosophy modules. On the other hand, my politics module and Sociology module seem to have less in common with 'Being Bad'.

Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level?
I would say that I have found it quite easy, and I would prefer some more challenging subject matter, but I do understand that it is a level 1 cross-discipline module.

Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?
Yes, I think so.

Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included?
I think a topic that solely covers alcohol consumption and abuse would be very relevant to the culture of our time.

Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?
Yes, although I sometimes prefer to have a more consistent, lesser number of lecturers than a different one each week. I understand that different lecturers are specialists in different fields, but sometimes I think the overall deliverance lacked cohesion.

What did you think of the module team?
Good.

Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions?
Yes definitely. Small focus groups for an hour each week after the lecture would have made it easier for people to get involved in active debate.

Discussion and debate among the class as a whole?
Yes, as mentioned above, smaller group discussion would have aided this.

Information and talk from lecturers?
This seem an appropriate level.

The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?
Yes and no. Yes, because different specialists are brought in from different areas. No, because sometimes topics that required far deeper analysis were not covered in enough detail.

Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea?
Not really for me

Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module?
Not particularly.

Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter?
If they are more specialist, then yes.

Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn't Be Allowed’ at level 2?
I am, but this is more because I am routed in such a way due to the nature of the module selection framework for my studies in level 2. If there was a more specialist Philosophy option that I could take as part of my joint degree I would probably choose that one instead.

Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend?
It would depend on who that friend was and what their interests were. If they were heavily interested in Philosophy, like myself, then perhaps I wouldn't recommend it. On the other hand, if they were studying another discipline and wanted a fairly light introduction to Philosophy, especially ethics, then I would recommend this module to them.

Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea?
I do think that the web logs were a original, interesting and enjoyable assignment.

What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?
I enjoyed writing both the essay and the creative writing piece, but in hindsight perhaps it would have been better to do just one longer essay. Maybe.

What have you learned from the module?
That there is always talk of 'where is the line' between good and bad when discussing these topics! It is very hard to find that line though. Personally I think it is because it is entirely subjective and moves with each individual.

What parts of the module have you found most useful and why?
The web logs were fun and interesting, and good for interaction with fellow students that may not have happened otherwise. I also particularly enjoyed reading and subsequently writing the book review concerning 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being'.

What parts do you think were a waste of time and why?
I don't think any parts of the module were a waste of time. I don't look at life in that way really, so it is hard for me to label anything a 'waste of time'. If your mind is open and critical and you look at any experience from a suitably abstract viewpoint then there is always something to be gained from any experience.

Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?
I think that I have fairly represented my opinions of concerning this module by answering the above questions.

Being Annoying

I apologise for the last few days sabbatical with regards to posting, but it seems that I am spending more and more time battling my computer and it's unpredictable ways!

I tried to follow up on my promise of a recent post by experimenting with saying whatever I wanted, regardless of if I didn't believe others would find it funny. I spent a night out with friends not so long ago determined to see how this theory worked when put to the test! I discovered that despite the fact that it seemed, within reason, that my friends didn't take any particular offence or even notice that much of a difference (slightly worrying!), the only major problem I encountered was my own sense of guilt when I woke up the next morning and considered that if I had been out with ME, I would have been rather irritated by ME! My sense of conscience, how I saw myself in the eyes of the world, had been altered slightly.

I had been as outspoken as I possibly could have been within the circumstances, I had said things I shouldn't have said within the parameters of the company I was keeping and I had told jokes that were very close to the personal comfort zone even within my close group of friends. And the only person I seemed to have really offended was me! This seems to draw at the very least myself to the opinion that 'being bad' is ultimately a way of seeing ourselves. When we judge others and their actions, for right or for wrong, are we not simply actually trying to tell our fellow social participants what we expect of ourselves, not themselves? Can we ever truly be bad? Or is it more realistic to suppose that we are only simply being bad in the eyes of others because they would expect better of themselves, even if they are not capable of attaining such heady standards?

These questions, analysed within the confines of this particular mode of assessment, often simply birth yet more questions, rather than solutions.

Here is a link to a 'guide to being annoying', as if we humans need one! http://www.jayssite.com/jokes/annoying/guide_to_being_annoying.html

Telling lies with integrity

I am due to hand this in for my 2nd assignment, as my creative writing piece, but I thought it was also relevant to post on here and I think it is quite 'tongue in cheek humorous', so I have decided to post it here aswell.





The Times Online


2nd May 2008

What has the devil ever done for us?

By Oliver Kendall

The devil has received some bad press over the years. That is probably the biggest understatement you will see printed in this publication this year! He has been held responsible by his accusers for everything from the death of Christ to the 9/11 World Trade Centre bombings. He isn’t without his fan base though. My contacts at http://www.lucifer.com/ tell me the story of how the devil, or Lucifer as he is known between friends, was thrown out of heaven by God because he began to question his demand for blind dogma. As he left heaven, he was christened ‘the king of lies’, his ‘lies’ being his questioning of the blind faith in God that he saw all around him.

I was lucky enough recently, on my latest visit to Lucifer’s dark realm, to be granted an interview with the demon himself. He was on form and out to set the record straight. “I’m fed up of all the negative press I’ve been getting. I am simply trying to promote critical thinking among the people of earth. They are being led blindly by God and they deserve to know the truth. I only want the best for mankind. That is why I have sent them the most creative music, the best drugs, the temptation to experiment, even the ability to lie.” He continued; “My gift of the lie is very personal, as I have been named the king of lies myself. Humans display their most creative tendencies when engaging in the way of the lie. They are testing each other, critically interacting with their environment and adapting the best way to gain what they need from their given situation. It was imperative that they received the gift of the lie, without it, they would never have survived a day on earth. They are mistaken in thinking God will save them. Without the lie, they are defenceless to the dangers of random circumstance, over which God has no control.”

It seems that we may need to re-evaluate who we can rely on to look after our best interests!

More on religion, and the controversy that inevitably follows.

Since I first began posting on this site, and with good reason, I have logged in every few days or so with caution and nervousness. Why? Because inevitably the topics that are investigated as part of this module are always going to enrage some and motivate others. Today, however, I logged in with an even higher level of alert and wariness. Again, why? Because my last post, this one and a few that will follow are investigating the possibility of 'being too religious'. If there is a topic of debate that has caused more bloodshed, war and atrocity than religion in the history of mankind, it would be kind if someone would point it out to me, for I see it as the biggest instigator myself. I am not expecting this blog to cause bloodshed or start any wars, but at some point I will not be surprised if it creates a stir. If my posts of a month or so ago, concerned with infidelity, created the commotion that they did, then I will not be surprised if my posts concerned with religion do not create an even stronger reaction.

But why does religious debate create such fervent reaction? This is because, for those who believe, religion is the fundamental beginning and end of their being. It is the reason for the moral code they apply to their lives. For some to question ones fundamental belief of their reason for being, this can often evoke heated response, hence the historical bloodshed.

Well here I am, only recently, when discussing bad comedy, declaring myself an advocate of those who challenge pre-conceived ideas and beliefs and challenge the status-quo, so I had better stay true to form... I have always said that you can put your finger on the three fundamental problems of human existence; 1. Sex, 2. Money, 3. Religion.

Hit me...

* Also, just to mention I actually have a link of real relevance and interest here, with a lot of leading thinker's views on religion today, published in the Guardian. It can be found here at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1980978,00.html.

Being Too Religious

I didn't manage to attend this lecture, so if for some reason what I am about to write has since been surpassed by some enlightening realisation that was presented during the lecture then I apologise!







OK, so can you be too religious? As I sit down to write something that gains relevant headway here, I find it surprisingly difficult. I am not a religious person, as such. I am from a Church of England background, my mother is still a weekly churchgoer and also regularly involved with church activities. She is very understanding with me and the fact that I could not accept what I was taught when I was younger, and that I have found my own 'faith' if we shall call it that (which I don't like to) by other means. I simply can't prescribe to the Christian narrative, and the dualism that necessarily accompanies this narrative. Likewise, however, I am equally understanding of my mother's Christian faith, as she is of my non-Christian faith. Call it reciprocal understanding! My stance is 'one-light, but many fires'. If you are unsure of what I mean by that, try reading some Dan Millman or Paolo Coelho.



Anyway, after slightly dodging the issue, can we be too religious? Many would point to religious fanatics and their sometimes terrorist actions that follow extreme faith and say a categorical 'yes'. Likewise, religious cults, particularly in the US, show equally fanatical and extreme religious views and again draw us to say 'yes'. I propose that the (wait for it... drum role...) LINE (yes folks, it's being bad and there's another line appeared!) depends upon what we are now willing to define as and subsequently accept in the 21st century as religious faith, religious behaviour and practice. I know that, through the advent of relatively new faiths of the past 100 years or so, and their continued evolution, organisations such as the Jehovah's witnesses and the church of Scientology have pushed the line higher. I think it is fair to say that Islamic terrorists and their behaviour most probably take themselves above the line, because as fair as my limited knowledge of Islam understands, there is nothing in the Muslim doctrine that states that infidels should be committed to death simply because of their lack of Islamic faith. So in conclusion to that, the terrorist's actions breach Muslim faith and therefore do not constitute extreme religious behaviour and thus take their action above the line and out of the context of what we are trying to draw out here. There is a lot more thinking for me to do on this topic, it is quite complex to try and ascertain where this 'line' is, so I will go away and meditate and try to come back with more insight.



While I'm away, here is a link to the Church of Scientology website so that you can have a look at their beliefs and draw some conclusion that could be posted on here...'nudge nudge, wink wink'!



http://www.scientology.org/

Introducing more humour to the world!

After reading Emma's comment on my last post concerning 'bad comedians', I have to agree with her final idea that we should "make a stranger laugh once a day", so I say that for a little voluntary experiment anyone who reads this should also do so and then we can report our findings. Whoever this stranger may be, wherever they may be, I don't care! Just make them laugh and report back. I will first of all see how difficult it is to make a stranger laugh, and secondly it could be quite useful in ascertaining where exactly this forever talked about 'line' is that keeps cropping up with almost every topping that is mentioned on this being bad module. I am a huge fan of the Jackass TV series, simply because the skits planned out for the show often completely took strangers unaware, quite often offended them but never harmed them. At the same time, the cast would put themselves very much in harms way, all for the sake of offending the viewer, but more often than not also reducing them (myself included) to tears of laughter! Now that, in my mind, is the most effective type of humour. Improvised, practical and reactionary humour!

Here is a clip from the Jackass 2 movie from youtube.com - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxhF9QH-2Bg&feature=related

COMMENT 5

Posted at http://songbird-beingbad.blogspot.com/2008/04/body-modification-more-than-just.html on Friday 25th April, 2008.

I agree that the only point at which body modification concerns me is when it is inflicted upon non-consenting individuals. The most diturbing thing about non-consenting individuals having their body modified by others is that, due to the uniquely physical nature of the modification, the process often has to be carried out on the individual when they are not even aware of it's happening (such as when they are still a child and cannot critically analyse the situations they are presented with). This, therefore, takes the act of force-unconsented modification of another individuals body one step further. It has to be considered, in my mind, an invasion of another's being without their consent and seems to fall into the same ethical territory as rape.

Bad Comedians

I'm jumping in head first with this post because it lets me talk about Bill Hicks again, as in my last blog, which is always a joy to me! First of all, and controversially so, I am a huge advocate of bad comedians, even if I don't find them funny. We live in such a sterilised social environment these days. Everything is becoming so ultra-politically-correct that I really do admire people who will stand up and voice their opinions, through the most necessary vehicle of humour, and upset a few people. We take our existence so seriously, without ever generally accepted the at times ridiculousness of it, that, even if the outcome is one being offended, I still admire bad comedians. One man's joke is an others insult. For some self appointed decider of all good to stand there and comedian x can't say that, because they might offend audience y, well then they deserve to be the object of the joke themselves.



One of my all time heroes is Bill Hicks, sadly no longer with us, who enjoyed great notoriety for standing up and saying exactly what he thought, both positive and negative, even at times repulsive.







If we cannot laugh even at ourselves when we are the butt of a joke, or at least hold our hands up and say 'hey, well that's his opinion' then where does that leave us? Walking around, like characterless clones, afraid of anywhere we tread in case we stand on someones toes? I say that we trample on as many toes as possible, and incite as many reactions as we can.



The problem is that we have engineered such an environment that it is increasingly difficult to say what we want to say. I am not a racist or anti any particular religion. I would like to put that for the record and I would successfully defend that statement in any debate. But if instead of the weak replacement aimed at slightly hinting at my stance on the 'more holier than though' attitude that often surfaces, I had, for instance, voiced my true thoughts on the scandal that followed the publication of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, I am sure I would attract much scathing criticism for posting politically incorrect material on my blog.

I think it is time for some more Bill Hicks footage to lighten the mood...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QiMw1Q65d4

Drugs

This, I must say, was an excellent lecture. Suitable amounts of humour, interesting facts and academic background and provoking critical analysis to boot. It was refreshing and thought provoking.

'We are all on drugs...' Its a line from a Weezer song and it really is indisputable, as the lecturer mentioned right at the end. In some way or another, at most times in our lives, we have some kind of drug in our system. Be it nicotine, caffeine or even good old plain e-numbers! It kind of pisses me off when people get really self righteous about drugs. I pointed out in the lecture that there indeed is a very strong argument for the fact that the drugs that are illegal in our western societies happen to be the ones that aren't taxed. I personally don't do drugs anymore, well at least i don't do illegal ones anymore. I've stopped smoking as well, but I do drink. My reasons for stopping taking drugs were because they affected MY ability to function to my potential, but that doesn't mean that others can't function to THEIR potential whilst under the influence of drugs. It's purely subjective and everyone reacts differently to drugs in their system. I am heavily influenced by Bill Hicks when it comes to constructing my ideas about the place of drugs in our society. It's just another topic that resolves itself with me in this way - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF, SO MAKE CHOICES, LIVE BY THE DAY, SEIZE THE MOMENT, AND LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE. I just hate it when people get so self righteous about such topics. I think the controversy surrounding drugs is over-elaborate. We should have a more liberal system to deal with the issue. The stigma that surrounds drug use creates as many problems as it solves.

Here is a link to some classic Bill Hicks stand up concerning drugs -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA

Tattoos

I must admit that the first 20 minutes or so of the 'Tattoos' lecture i was very unconvinced. I couldn't quite ascertain what the lecture intended to achieve. I still remain unconvinced that it broke any particular philosophical ground really, but as the lecture ran on I found it most interesting and educational. I would not call myself a tattoo enthusiast, I don't think it would be fair to say that, even though I do have a large number of tattoos including what is the best part of a full right sleeve. I have only ever really had a tattoo because I wanted one, plain and simple. I have never ventured 'into the chair' and 'under the needle' intent on 'adding to my collection'. I would go as far to say, also, that my tattoos don't really mean that much to me really. Sure, I have certain things that are relevant to my life. I have something written on my back from when I was 16 that is very much still relevant now, I have artistic designs that have certain symbolic meaning and I also have tattoos that mean absolutely diddly squat. I cant take them too seriously. Its just my skin, its not my soul, and I don't rely upon them to influence my identity. Equally, I am asked so many times 'What will you do when you get older?' and 'What will happen when you decide you don't want them anymore?'. Well, I suppose that the first response to that is that I certainly won't be able to remove them, in the quantity I have them, so thats not an option! Secondly, it just wouldn't be 'me' to really worry about that anyway. In my view, I have them now, and now is forever, until the next moment, so I am happy with them. Do I ever regret any of them? Well to venture slightly further into my beliefs, that would non-sensical to me as that would require the benefit of hindsight, which as far as I understand we only have access to AFTER we have carried out an act. I CANT regret them, because at the very moment that I sat own to have any of them I thought it was the best thing to do at that very moment, so I will stand by it. We have no re-runs of life. There is no dress rehearsal. We simply do the best we can in any given situation and live with the consequences. And I'm content with that. I have a few tattoos where, given the same situation again, I may not sit in the chair and take the needle, but that chance will never be afforded to me so I am not interested in that debate.

I recommend anyone to watch 'Miami Ink', which is an American TV show that portrays the business, lives and art of a group of tattooists. Here is a link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nz_-CNz4pA

COMMENT 4

Posted at http://emmasbadblog.blogspot.com/ on 15th April 2008.

Hello Em,

I thought I'd drop you a comment here. I was so surprised at myself after reading 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' by Milan Kundera, in order to complete the first essay for this module. What I initially thought was a cut and dried issue in my mind, resolved by a relatively simple arrangement of mutually agreed ethics within a relationship, turned out to be nothing of my sort. The book in question scrambled my views on infidelity so much that not only have I abandoned all my previous thoughts on the topic, but in many ways my views on many aspects of it have made an about turn! In short, I previously considered Infidelity to be wrong and that was that. It was a 'lack of self control' and 'ultimate betrayal' in my eyes and I was resolute. However, after 'The Unbearable Lightness...', I now believe that there can be many circumstances where infidelity can be condoned ethically.Like all things in Philosophy (least of all logic!) 'Its just SOOO complicated!!!...

The Unbearable Lightness Of Being

I have recently read Milan Kundera's 'The Unbearable Lightness Of Being', and subsequently written a review of it for the assessment 2 part of our 'Being Bad' module. The book is an incredible journey concerning infidelity, companionship, love and personal struggle, and thoroughly recommended by myself, but for all the poingnant philosophy it contains i maintain one question which struck me hard when I finished the novel. I was emotionally exhausted when I finished reading it, partly due to the speed at which I read it due to the impending deadline for the assignment, and it left many issues raging in my mind. I don't want to betray the narrative for anyone who may decide to read it after looking at this post, but i will cautiously continue.

The existentialist themes portrayed by the author are very agreeable to me, but one must approach such philosophy with caution. I myself have fallen head over heels in love with the discipline since I enrolled at the university last summer, but you sometimes remember how wet behind the ears you are as a budding philosopher when you encounter themes such as that contained within 'the unbearable lightness of being'. I found myself screaming to the book (metaphorically speaking, of course!) 'what gives a pursuit (the act of philosophy) such a right to invite such interest into areas of thought where i am unable and unprepared to achieve resolution!'. I sometimes feel betrayed myself by philosophical pursuit, given that it can often open such a can of worms within my mind that i am not prepared for, and then offer not the slightest hope of helping me deal with the issues it has raised and leave me marooned and helpless in a sea of emotional uncertainty.

If you want to read the book, it is available for free, electronically, at http://www.truly-free.org/.

COMMENT 3

Posted at http://danni-being-bad-blog.blogspot.com/ on 27th March, 2008.

That is a very good point that able-bodiedness is indeed subjective. We can look to the work of Stephen Hawking to point out that a man who is deemed disabled in terms of the majority has indeed proven himself considerably gifted and incredibly able in other areas. Likewise, you are correct in saying paralympic athletes are very much able in their particular pursuits. Unfortunately, however, we do live in a world where there is constant need for generalisation and our debates would become never ending pursuits of 'chasing our own tail' if we do not draw a line somewhere. For that reason, although Stephen Hawking is indeed a brilliant mind and his work deserves commendation, it is correct in my mind to state that if you left him without assistance and 3 miles from civilisation in the Sahara desert for a length of time, he would have far less a chance of surviving than someone who is deemed able bodied in the general eyes of society. It is a shame, but true.

Bandits

What struck me most about the cult of the bandit, and what can make them so apealing, is that essentailly these are people breaking rules and challenging the limits of social boundaries and freedoms. In terms of 'breaking the law', the laws we have in place in our societies around the world are there fundamentally because the societies that implement them have reached a collective decision that certain moral paths are the correct way to conduct one's self and others are not. Many of us agree that murder is wrong, although some do not. It would be hard to find examples of convicted mass murderers who have gained notoriety who recieve plaudits from groups in society, such as Charles Manson.

Although Manson is a notorious criminal, and has in many circles gained himself a cult following, it would be hard for even his biggest so called 'fans' to commend his crimes, when they actually examine the acts of Charles Manson and not the created celebrity image that preceeds him.

This is why it is easier to identify with other figures who fit more into the bandit stereotype than Manson. The classic example being Robin Hood. Fact or fiction aside, the character of Robin Hood was breaking laws imposed by society, just as Manson was, but Robin Hood's acts were much more ethically acceptable. Robbing the rich to give to the poor is more palatable and honourable for most than murdering. This brings me again, as many topics within the being bad module have done, to the philosophical area of ethics. It is very interesting and yet incredibly difficult to understand where and why these collectively agreed ethics actually do come from. Why is it heroic for someone to rob from the rich and give to the poor, yet disgusting and condemnable to kill another human being, and furthermore, what if one were to kill another human being whilst robbing the rich to feed the poor. It can very much be argued that this happens frequently in warfare around the world. Although many oppose such actions, we often collectively agree that killing to serve a greater cause is acceptable. There seems to be something of Kantian utilitarianism in this idea. 'The ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility.' (Source - wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)

This seems to suggest to me that the guideline for human ethics is not what laws dictated by societies tell us, but that which is the most fundamentally 'human' way to act. Indeed, it derives from the question - 'Can we condone what we have done, or others have done, and ask that we would expect the same treatment upon ourselves and our circumstances?' Further, 'Was it right, not that someone killed, but why someone killed?' and 'Was this killing ethically justifiable given the circumstances?'

COMMENT 2

posted at http://sm4eva-insidemymind.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-many-people-will-come-to-your.html on 18th March 2008.

In terms of how many people come to your funeral, it is probably an innacurate way to measure if you have lived a good or bad life, as in the instance of Mr Kray, I am sure most of the people there where only interested in his life because it was interesting and not virtuous. It's the same when people 'rubber neck' at a car crash on the motorway, it's not because they know what they will see is going to be pleasant and beautiful, but that regardless of how disturbing it may be it is still entertaining and attention grabbing in a voyeuristic way.

COMMENT 1

posted at http://danni-being-bad-blog.blogspot.com/ on 12th March 2008

to stoke the fire a little more, but there is indeed an argument about self sufficiency that i feel needs to be put to the debate here.initially, i am simply putting forward an abstract perspective here, so please dont chastise me for it if i cause anone any offense, it isn't intended!anyway, if we look at the issue of being 'disabled' in the eyes of society, then surely we have to take into account the element of self sufficiency with which someone can maintain as having an advantage with if they are 'able bodied'. indeed, in the animal kingdom, if, lets say, a wolf had a broken leg, it would be far more likely that it would struggle to survive against the other wolves in the forest as it would not be able to hunt as effectively as the other more able bodied wolves there. this is an argument that puts weight behind the argument that 'disabled' people are not merely so because the status quo of society deems them so because they are different in some way, but they have been deemed so because whatever condition they have simply means they are 'less able' to carry out certain actions than others.*we all have our disadvantages and disabilities, just some are more physically manifest and others less so. it matters not. we all all have our part to play and our role to fulfill. *

COMMENTS ... aarrgghh!

I have just noticed in the module guide that I have to keep a record of all the comments I have posted here on MY blog, or I wont get graded for them. Therefore, what follows is my attempt to trawl through the comments I have made in the last month or so and post them here! Here goes...

Kids

Having recently viewed the movie 'Kids' for one of the 'Being Bad' lectures, i thought it appropriate to write a brief post on about my opinions of it.

It seems that Kids offended many people, both on a broader social scale and also people within the class. I think this is because it is so 'close to home', It indeed made me cringe many times while I was watching it, probably because I have come across this type of behaviour in my adolescence, as i'm sure many of us have. The film dealt with such a tabbo subject, the promiscuity of underage children, and think it owes much to this when it creates shock amongst viewers.

I must say, from a personal level, that despite all the underage sex and alcohol and drug use, i was most disturbed by the violent beating scene in the park. I have always been more disturbed by violence that any other 'bad' human behaviour, and as such that part of the film really got to me. I think that, although it is not the type of film that I would choose to watch of my own choice, it is very relevant, offers a certain worth and is often harshly treated and misunderstood - simply because it touches too close to home with many viewers.

Here is a montage of clips from the movie - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XHixmjxr5k&feature=related

The link is back...

After what i initially thought was a very serious threat of legal action heading my way, i am now pleased to re-post this link to the lazy philosopher's site, after he has kindly given me permission to do so.

http://lazy-philosopher.blogspot.com/

His page, 'philosophy of infidelity', is very relevant to the PH1000 module 'Being Bad'. There are some interesting, lively debates regularly occuring there, many of which can offer great insight into many different poeple's views on the subject of infidelity. Sources such as this electronic one are incredibly useful for our studies. Even though the lazy philosopher has stated to me that his blog is not meant to be 'serious philosophy', i believe there is philosophy in almost every situation and circumstance and one does not have to confess to 'being a philosopher' to offer genuine philosophical insight into a topic.



What is philosophy? Well apparently it's this...

A debate furthers... Disability

following on with the 'helping others' discussion, which seems to have taken a slight twist, i would like to add this thought for those who have been paying attention. there is indeed an argument about self sufficiency that i feel needs to be put to the debate here.

initially, i am simply putting forward an abstract perspective here, so please don't chastise me for it if i cause anyone any offense, it isn't intended!

anyway, if we look at the issue of being 'disabled' in the eyes of society, then surely we have to take into account the element of self sufficiency with which someone can maintain as having an advantage with if they are 'able bodied'. indeed, in the animal kingdom, if, lets say, a wolf had a broken leg, it would be far more likely that it would struggle to survive against the other wolves in the forest as it would not be able to hunt as effectively as the other more able bodied wolves there. this is an argument that puts weight behind the argument that 'disabled' people are not merely so because the status quo of society deems them so because they are different in some way, but they have been deemed so because whatever condition they have simply means they are 'less able' to carry out certain actions than others.

*we all have our disadvantages and disabilities, just some are more physically manifest and others less so. it matters not. we all all have our part to play and our role to fulfill. *

there is a blog on bioethics that covers some aspects of this here - http://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2007/10/disability-rights-groups-sacrificing.html

More on infidelity

I cannot accept excuses such as 'i'm so sorry i was drunk when i did it!', as we have to be responsible for the chain of events that lead to an act. If we know, for example, that we are more likely to be tempted to commit the act of infidelity when intoxicated, and we understand that by drinking too much alcohol we will become intoxicated, then we have to be responsible for the repurcussions that follow this chain of events. Every action leads to a response, even if that response is nothing, it is simply a neutral response to an action, and we still must accept responsibility for this neutral response, just as we should for a positive response. I believe that this quite simple theory can be applied universally, sort of following the way paved for us by Kant's categorical imperative.

There was a link here but i removed it until i can find something more suitably inoffensive, sorry for any harm caused.



******Equally, I have recently been informed that i have infringed someone's copyright by posting a picture that they apparently own the copyright to on here, and that seems inconvenient seen as i am required to post an image and a link on each post, so here is a blank picture from a network that truly can sue me to fulfill those requirents:

Finally, i am obligated to post a link somewhere on this post, and again in order to avoid litigation i have posted my apology to the offended party via my myspace page.

www.myspace.com/ojk_killed_jfk

Peace out, i hope to raise no more copyright issues with this assignment in the future.

Infidelity

I am going to try to write a blog that is more directly relevant to the lectures we have recieved, and the 'infidelity' lecture seems to be the one that evokes the most theory within me.

I found it interesting to note how much reaction, response and emotion the questions and ideas raised in the lectures achieved. I am personally not an avid romantic and not one to place too much importance on coplulation, either with one's partner or indeed with someone other than one's partner, thus resulting in an act of infidelity. Interesting points are raised by Sartre on the nature of sexual desire and I am not ashamed to admit that his work is beginning to be a big influence on my thought, particularly as I make headway into 'Being and Nothingness'. I am finding it easier to digest this work than when i attempted to previously, although it is by no means anywhere near a stroll in the park to me. I am sure Simone de Beauvoir would have objections to many of Sartre's thoughts on infidelity, and I am assured she indeed voices such objection in 'She came to stay', but Sartre's thoughts on this topic do seem to take me into interesting new ground and I am willing to entertain what he may offer. I will keep this blog updated as I venture further into his work...

A relevant article from the Australian newspaper The Herald can be accessed via this link http://theherald.yourguide.com.au/articles/1160040.html?src=topstories

Demolition work, and rebuilding...

Is it really a case of being bad, or being good, or is it simply just being? Do we really have a duty to others to be good to them? Many would argue that without acts of good will that are advantageous to the status quo then society would collapse, and this is most probably true, but fundamentally is this the initial building block for a virtuous existence? I believe this fundamental building block can be found far before we reach this area, if we dismantle all preconceptions and attempt to paint a rational and valid ethical picture from the blank canvass that we are left with. I'm still searching through the rubble of the crumbled blocks i've dismantled to find that convass though...

Somewhere to start... http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Morality-Ethics.htm

Are we really being good?

This is bound to be controversial, but i'm not shy of that, so here goes. Whilst at work last night (I work in a pub and restaurant) I was waiting on a table of six or so people, two of which happened to be disabled and reliant on wheelchairs for mobility. During the course of this interaction I began to consider the origin of what we call genuine good deeds, or helpfull and good behaviour. When someone helps and assists someone who is, such as in this instance, less able bodied than ourselves, who are we actually really trying to help? Are we genuinely trying to help the other person, so that their situation is assisted or improved, or really are we simply satisfying our own need to feel that we are living a virtuous and good life, and thus massaging our ego? This leads to the question, much debated, of 'are there really any selfless actions?'. We are vicarious beings, such is our nature, and when this subject is examined in my mind I find it difficult ot reason otherwise. When can we say that we ever engage in completely selfless and good behaviour, for are we not merely feeding our personal desire to feel virtuous and good? We crave this justification for our existence, that we are justifying our lives, presence and being in this world. This is the reason we feel guilt and dissapointment when we have 'been bad'.

The content of this question can be narrowed down to this;

Are good deeds really selfless and altruistic?

There is a debate on this open at http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/122573.

My thoughts on this subject are not a closed book, but open and ever evolving, so please, any elaboration is most welcome.

More on Kant

Just to add a little more on Kant, I found a quote of his that really does sum up the idea of the categorical imperative, for those of you that aren't familiar with it.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.. Hackett, p30.

Have a look what wikipedia has to say about his categorical imperative theory at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

The 'line' between good and bad, and learning to swim.

It has dawned on me, after a few weeks spent attending the 'being bad' lectures, that it is striking how different many people's views are on the actually proximity of the so called 'borderline' or 'boundary' between good and bad behaviour. I heard that word mentioned several times in yesterdays lecture alone - "it's when you cross that line that you have gone too far". Everyone seems to keep mentioning this invisible line, but where does it lie, and does it even exist?

In truth, the only barometer with which to measure whether one has crossed the line is that of our own personal ethics. What does it take to live a virtuous life? Socrates is a role model for us all, and he certainly displayed a staggering loyalty to what he believed to be the good and right way to live by being prepared to die rather than live what he considered a morally bad existence. Maybe we are not prepared to follow our ethical code so fundamentally, but I believe following the theory of Kant's 'categorical imperative' is a very interesting way to move forward to define the place where this line between good and bad exists, if indeed it does. Ask yourself the question "If I act in this way, in this situation presented before me, could I universally apply this action and condone that every other human being should act this way in this very situation presented before me? If the answer is 'yes', then I am swimming above the line, but if the answer is 'no', then i am sinking beneath it."

Thank you Immanuel Kant for this swimming lesson.

For more of his ideas, visit http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm

A possible field trip to a 'bad' place!

As a suggestion for a field trip to a 'bad place', relevant to one of the module lectures, i suggest a trip to 'Spike's tattoos' in Broad Street Wolverhampton. This is mainly because tattoos are a great passion of mine, yet are still seen as something of a social tabboo. It is true that many more people have tattoos today than, say, 20 years ago, but as someone who has a large amount of tattoos that are quite visible i still recieve social reactions that can sometimes be negative. It is fair to say that i also recieve many positive comments and reactions about my body art, but i think that if people who have negative preconceptions about tattoos and the people who have them went to Spike's and saw the artistic element and professionalism involved, they may change their views slightly.