The Male-Chauvinist

-Hey dear.

-Hey Honey, thanks for coming.

-I'm glad to be here, but tell me, what's the purpose of our meeting?

-Well, Michael, I wanted to talk to you about whats going on in our lives. I wanted to talk about how your relationship with the kids and me is doing. And to tell you the truth, its not going well.

-What? Come on Stacy, we already talked about this. You know I have other responsibilities to take care of. I have a work to go to and a family to sustain.

-I know, its just that your family should be your greatest responsibility, I mean, you've been acting in a way in which we simply cannot stand. And of what I have understood of my readings is that the actions you are performing...

-Oh come on Stacy, don't bring that book up again. You know I read it already, and I know that what I'm doing is perfectly logical.

-No Michael, its not. Dawkin's says you have to decide on what you are going to do, and there are various paths you can choose from. Your kids say you don't spend enough time with them, they complain that you are too entertained by your work and your physical conditioning. And even though the book claims that what you are doing might be an advantage because of what you have or are able to do, its not working at all to keep your family happy.

-Well, if you are going to use the book against me, then I might as well do the same.

-It's not about the book Michael, its about what you are going to do about it.

-Cause you know, I am trying to sustain a family. If I wasn't helping you at all, as your book well states it, I would be considered a "philanderer" instead of a "faithful". I am doing what I can Stacy. You know the stories of all the men who abandon their wives and families and go out with other women. I mean...

-Stop it Michael, I'm not talking about that. Its just that even though you are a loyal husband, you simply aren't spending enough time with your kids, or even with me. You are too interested in doing other things than helping me raise the kids. And yes Michael, it is something in the book as well. Since you already gave your part to make the kids, now you want me to do the rest of the job so that you don't waste your precious time.

-Oh, so now you think I'm a male-chauvinist! Stacy I love you, and I really appreciate what you're doing, but its just that I have some responsibilities to take care of in order for my family to live as comfortable as possible.

-I understand you Michael, its just that you have to make some choices on what your priorities are. The children and I don't care to not live as comfortable as we now do if you are willing to spend more time with us.

-I'm... sorry, Stacy. I really should have thought about the benefits of being with my family instead of looking around for other things I thought would make your lives much better.

-Its ok Michael, that's what talks are for. Now lets go home, the kids are waiting for us to go out for the camp trip.

-Ok, give me a second while I finish this coffee. Would you mind asking for the check?

Is He Apt?

"For instance, suppose her dilemma is whether to give a particular morsel of food to a little child or a big one. The big one is likely to be more capable of finding his own food unaided. Therefore if she stopped feeding him he would not necessarily die." pg 125. This small passage in Dawkins The Selfish Gene reminds me of my family. My family is composed of my parents, my two sisters, and I. Since we have arrived at an age in which we like going out with friends to do absolutely everything, we therefore are constantly asking for permission from our parents to go out. They at first don't let us go out, but are rather precautious because they think at times we aren't able to take care of ourselves. After a while they loosen up a bit, and give us more freedom. In my house I am granted permission to do things almost always, after coming from a line of refuses to let me go out. On the other hand is my sister, who my parents don't allow to go out as much as they do with me.
.
What's clear about this example is how in my case my parents might now consider me to be more apt to be out on my own than my sister. They may know from previous experiences that I may know more than my sister because of our age difference. Since I have lived more, I may be more likely to survive alone than my sister would. Therefore my parents might feel they don’t need to take care of me anymore in some aspects, and so I get to go out. My parents’ feel of my sister may still be uneasy, since they might think that she is still not able to be on here own. Even though at times we may think we are being denied things because of dumb reasons, in co-relation to Dawkins statement they do it to prepare us much better for the future in which we may not be relying on them.

The Limits We May Or May Not Be Imposed With

"As a result a naturalist is able to describe a dominance hierarchy or peck order-a rank-ordering society, in which everybody knows his place, and does not get ideas above his station." pg 114. Do we limit ourselves to live we what we have and not look out into the world to get more? This idea is one that is debated a lot and which we usually agree with in all its meanings at different times. Sometimes we think and are told about how we should be happy with what we have. We should appreciate the things we have and moments we are living, therefore leaving our greed of acquiring more out. Why do you want more? Aren't you happy with what you have? Do you know there are people who are less fotunate than you? All these questions are brought to your mind at some point, and usually we agree with them. Happiness is something we create, not something we are born with. But then theres the other way around to the statement. Shouldn't we think about our future and want to improve in every way possible? We consistently want to become better people and look ahead to all the possibilities life brings. Why should we accept misery as something to live with, and why should we accept something we know could be better off in some other direction? These questions force us to think about improving our way of life, and want more in every way.

.

So how can we decide which one to follow? If we were to hear one of them independently from the other, we would agree with it no matter what, even if they are the complete opposite. The truth of the matter is that there is no way to really decide on one, for both of them are programmed on the human body. We always want to achieve more and look at all the possibilities, but at the same time we think about what we have and about how we should be happy for it. But is there a difference between wanting to improve and greed? And is there a difference between accepting what we have and mediocracy? There is. Both mediocracy and greed are the extreme levels of the two. If we were to hear these two as something we are able to do at the same time, we would counter them with greed and mediocracy. Therefore the perfect balance between the two involve having both of these at a controlled level, where the extremes are what causes us to consider two good things to become the complete opposite in a negative way. We are able to be happy with what we have, but at the same time look into our future and want the opportunities which come up, helping us go for the better.

The Trigger Of Trust

"In a world where other individuals are constantly on the alert for opportunities to exploit kin-selected altruism, and use it for their own ends, a survival machine has to consider who it can trust, who it can really be sure of." pg 105. When we decide to trust someone, we usually gather a number of characteristics of that being that make us have some security on whether to trust them or not. It is explained here that some people might take advantage of another person who is willing to give something up, so the person who is having someone else taking advantage of him usually has to decide to trust him or not. Sometimes people deceive us into believing they are worth trusting, and end up taking advantage over us. This is a clear example of what is known as altruism vs selfish intentions, since we do not care about the benefit of the group but rather our own personal benefit. An example of this could be the case of Attila the Hun, who is known worldwide as someone who was almost unbeatable in battle. Feared in battle, no one was ever able to inflict him a wound. He was a man that took safety measures in trusting other people, but by trusting someone who he considered to not represent any danger (his wife) it was she who would end up killing him. For him his wife may have not presented a danger, since one usually gives trust to close family members, but the wife took complete control over the situation by simulating to be someone he could trust only to get the best out of him.

.

This is how trust is manipulated, and it is why trusting someone has become so hard. By trusting someone we are becoming vulnerable to that person in some aspect, so when trusting we see all the circumstances that help us decide whether to do it or not. We become scared that if we give too much trust, it can come to hurt us in the future. This might be a trigger to making us become the same as what we are scared of. When we are scared that maybe the trust we give people might be used against us, we sometimes take the measure to assure ourselves that if that person violates the trust pact, we will do the same to them. So by actually doing the thing we fear will be done to us, we are actually keeping ourselves safe from that same thing we decided to give in the first place, and whose purpose is to give us some tranquility on who we can count on. Trusting someone has become a matter of deceiving, an act of calculated actions between the trusted and the trusting, and a game in which our tranquility relies in our ability plan ahead before taking action.

A Crickets Losing Streak

"Each cricket can be thought of as constantly updating his own estimate of his fighting ability, relative to that of an average individual in his population." pg 81. Dawkin introduces his point of view on what he thinks might be the competition between individuals and how some might alter their behavior based on past events. He talks about how species might go into a fight of some sort, and if they lose under the circumstances of that fight, it might take them to doubt their fighting abilities with those same circumstances in the future. He makes a point in explaining how its different between crickets and say, chimpanzees, where crickets remember not an individual but rather every member of the specie as the cause of his win or loss, while a chimpanzee remembers that individual. In other words, once crickets win or lose a fight, they will remember they lost to a specie, rather than remembering exactly which individual it was. This is very similar in human beings, since we also tend to moralize or demoralize depending on how we do on a certain occasion.

.

"All that happens is that individuals who are accustomed to winning become even more likely to win, while individuals who are accustomed to losing become steadily more likely to lose." pg 82. Once we make a mistake, one of two things happen. We either take action based on it or ignore it. If we take action we tend to either prevent that moment or provoke it, depending on whether it was good for us or not. This sometimes prevents us from making things we normally can do, but are afraid of because of a bad result in the past (as mentioned in "Sink-or-Swim?"). In our case as humans, it happens both in the way of the cricket and of the chimpanzee. Since we have culture, we follow a set of rules on acting with other human beings, and therefore tend to direct some actions not to an individual but to the human race as a whole. We think we cannot perform an action because it will have an effect we know of, since we understand how culture tends to function. This may limit us in what to do and what not to in terms of thinking on what could happen generally with any human being, but then we also tend to understand consequences based on a specific human being. We also get to know people and measure how our acts are to be done with that human being in order for us to know if we'll lose or win. Therefore our actions are being oppressed by individuals as well as by the general population. Many things we can do become something in our mind which we consider impossible to achieve, end therefore don't carry them along. If only we were able to really understand what we are able to do and what not to by not thinking on past incidents but rather on Will and a positive attitude, the extent to which our abilities could grow would become indescribable.

I Chess-bot

"He(the programmer) tells the computer the basic moves of the game, not separately for every possible starting position, but in terms of more economically expressed rules." pg 52. In this part Dawkins talks about consciousness and about how even though we can try and recreate it on machines, there is only a certain limit to what we can get them to do. He explains in this case how the programmer can teach a machine basic moves that will set the standard of the things he can do, since they are rules to follow which wont change according to the meaning they are given. A similar case to this one comes from the movie I Robot, starring Will Smith. In the movie robots are given a code to the way in which they can act, and it is pretended for that code to be perfect. But in the movie robots gain a sort of consciousness when they begin to interpret the code, and therefore start to take over. Dawkins expresses this fear in the following discussions, and talks about how someday robots might end up having a conscience, which is very different to simply having a standard set of rules to follow.

By having a conscience we are receiving more than a given way in which to do things. We are able to make connections and therefore understand things better, as well as want those things that are better. As in the case of the movie, once we begin to understand how some things could become better by implementing some changes, we go ahead and do them. In the movie the robots are the ones that see that changes could be better even against our will, but in real life we as humans do the same thing, since we decide that some things are better off in some ways and so we do them not caring of what other species think or want.

Who Should We Choose?

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins explains the process of why some genes are chosen on top of others. The case he directly uses is that of the eyes, explaining how it is that the "architect" that we have in our self's decides which eye color to choose for us. If we were to have a gene for blue colored eyes and a gene for brown colored eyes, only one of them would be chosen. Since brown is dominant over blue because blue can only become dominant if it has 2 alleles, then it is certain that a person with a brown and a blue allele will have brown eyes. The other gene is not lost though, it is kept inside the body, and could be passed on to future generations making it possible at some point for the 2 alleles to meet each other and therefore create blue eyes.

It is very similar to how we always choose what we believe is better. When we have the choice to get something we believe has a greater value, we take it, and we also keep that of less value for if in the future it becomes necessary. Once we don't have something valuable, we stick to the next most valuable thing we can find, or in this case, the blue eyes. The blue eyes become a matter of keeping them for later on in the trip, and using them in case we need them, since we know they may come in handy when the other choice we have is also blue eyes. Many times we have the choice of getting something we want, and usually will get the best we can, but in those cases in which we don't, we stick with what we have, and are proud to pass them on around.

We, The Self Sacrifing

"To put it in a slightly more respectable way, a group, such as a species or a population within a species, whose individual members are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the group, may be less likely to go extinct than a rival group whose individual members are place their own selfish interests first. Therefore the world becomes populated mainly by groups consisting of self sacrificing individuals." pg 7. So making sacrifices for others is what at the end will give out prosperous results. Not thinking in our personal benefit but rather thinking in what is better for a lot of people would hypothetically end up helping us overcome other species on earth. The different species, like bee's, seem to give up their own lives in order for the rest o the hive to be able to survive. When individual species seem to think in only their personal benefit, only those few individuals live while the rest die out. And then we come into the game. But did we really follow this method for overcoming other species on earth?
.
We as humans rarely think in giving something up for the benefit of others if it's not for a reason that will give back results for something that benefit us. Now we believe that in order for us to give something, it must be for a good reason, and many times hesitate if its just for the well being of others with no sort of pay. But in the past it was that unity which lead us to develop. While coming together in groups and relying on each other for protection, we developed together to watch each others backs. Now a days though, we now have overpassed the limit in which other species begin to evolve, and therefore that unity we had might be lost. With modern technology and the security we have taken, we now "rarely" have to go out and fight in packs against a bear in order for us to eat and survive. Our abilities have taken to relly less on others and more on the things we have, taking us to think more on our welfare than on the welfare of others.

Epictetus: Unstuck in Time?

"You are foolish if you want your children and your wife and your friends to live forever, since you are wanting things to be up to you that are not up to you, and things to be yours that are not yours." sec. 4. This is a perfect example of Epictetus's way of thinking compared to that of the Tralfamadorians in Slaughter House 5 by Kurt Vonnegut. Both of them agree in the fact that things are the way they are because thats how it's supposed to be and that they were always meant to be like that. No one will ever change something that is supposed to be, even while attempting to try and change something thinking that that way the outcome may change, since even that is something that was meant to happen. So this man has the idea of things being something because they simply are a lot before Vonnegut wrote Slaughter House 5. In reality, this way of thinking was actually the normal way of thinking before modern times.

.

Since ancient times people had the idea that fate existed, and that everyone was revolving around it. There were no ideas of making your own reality until people like Jean Paul Sartre appeared and introduced them to the public. The idea of religions such as Catholicism spread word that people suffered certain things because they were destined to do that. Epictetus, living during Roman times lived with a Catholic surrounding, which maybe influenced him to think in that matter. But then why does Vonnegut refer back to a way of thinking that comes from way back? After living such horrible things as the ones he lived during the war, it is very possible for him to have some sort of trauma with it. What we as humans usually do when we have a trauma is that we set our minds to an idea which may free us from it. Vonnegut may have used this old excuse for calming himself down about the trauma he had experienced, since thoughts such as this one that are used in the past are usually used to split reality into things people like. Even when Epictetus uses it, it seems to fill that purpose, for it takes pain away from whoever is reading the handbook about the loss of a lost one by telling them that it's fate.

Who's Beautiful?

"If the horse were to say joyfully, "I am beautiful," one could put up with it. But certainly you, when you say joyfully, "I have a beautiful horse", are joyful about the good of the horse." sec 6. In other words, are we beautiful because of the horse of because of who we are? Many times we judge ourselves and others by the material things they have. People that have more become someone who we consider better than another person. Some material things we may have identify factors for which we may be considered. If we have something new, we are looked upon as someone who has something new and therefore receive more attention, and not as a person like anyone else, but rather someone who simply has some sort of difference from a normal person. Therefore we like different, and prefer to look upon something different, but that at the same time is something which brings us pleasure.

.

When we are looked upon for what we have and not by who we are, we are missing out on the true meaning of life. Anyone can get an object such as the one that takes our attention in many cases, but few times is that "object" within ourselves, which is truly special. When you give qualities you think are yours to an object, you are only qualifying the object, and does not show who you really are. In order for us to be named after a quality we consider we have, the only thing we can really do is be ourselves, and that way we will be known by what we really are, not by what we name things we believe represent us.

Handbook of Epictetus: Our Judgement

"What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgements about the things." sec. 4. This is a very true statement in a lot of ways. We know we have to face some situations in life which we would either rather do, rather not do, or would stay indifferent to it. Many times when we don't want to do something because we think that some aspect of it is not of our best interest, we become upset at the idea. When we become upset at the idea, it takes us to spend our time with a bad attitude, and we live everything as if you wanted that moment to pass quickly instead of trying to take advantage of it living it as an enjoyable moment.

.

But what if we took the best out of every moment? If we were able to live every moment we lived not by what good or bad things it could bring, but by always considering it something positive, our entire way of living would change. If we set our minds to enjoy that moment in some way, no matter how harsh it seems at the moment, we would eventually end up having a good time at that situation. Our judgement of that moment could be changed by setting our minds to judging them in a different way, so that it becomes something positive for us, and therefore making it attractive and worth the while.

Unstuck in Time: Horses

"When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn't cried about anything else in the war." pg 197. Billy doesn't cry for one reason: he knows that everything is as it is supposed to be and will always be that way. Then why does he cry for the horses? It is a question that really makes you think on the reason for this, since even horses are supposed to act in a certain way and will always act in that way according to Tralfamadorians. There is really just one difference between the horses and every other event which he lives.

.

After he sees all the deaths in the war, he doesn't cry. After the death of the people in the airplane, he doesn't cry. Even when his wife dies or even in the moments before his death, he doesn't cry. What all these moments have in common is that they are something that he had traveled to at some point, and so he knew what was going to happen to them. The part on the horses on the other hand were something which he had let pass completely, and so not being prepared to confront this by knowing of it earlier, causes him to react in the way people are normally supposed to react. This may have been the first time he landed in this particular space in time seeing the horses, and so landing for the first time in one of his unstuck in time moments may bring him some impacts, as is the example of him at his part with Trout when he sees the quartet.

The Barbershop Quartet

During the "storyline" there is a moment when Billy is making a party at his house with Valencia and Trout. There is a quartet of singers who sing along different songs, and when Billy sees them, he comes into a state of sickness and unsteadiness. "Billy was emotionally racked again. The experience was definitely associated with those four men and not with what they sang." pg 176. He doesn't know why it is that these men bring this feeling to him, but later on there is something he lives as he is unstuck in time back in Dresden that relates to why he may be experiencing that at the party. "He told Montana about the four guards who, in their astonishment and grief, resembled a barbershop quartet." pg 179. What the survivors, including Billy, the other Americans and the guards, were seeing was a catastrophe that would be hard to imagine. A whole city being consumed in a short lapse of time leaving nothing but a trail of what it used to be. It is very hard to imagine such an occurrence, the elimination of an entire city, and even more if you are the only thing left of it.

.

What this might have meant to Billy as he saw the quartet sing along was a memory of that tragic moment. The mix of feelings one could have experienced at such and event is something that in the case of Billy took him to lock himself in his house to try and calm down. After such an event the feeling of suffering, of chaos, and finally of tranquility would be present all around. You know the chaos and the destruction it took to perform it, but at the same time you feel the sudden peace and unsteadiness of what is happening. This may have lead Billy to become completely engulfed in what was going on as the quartet sang, and then have the reaction he had as he unconsciously related that event with an event that marked him so deeply as that when he walked out of the slaughter house that day in Dresden.