March Blog Assignment: Week 4

Please Read This Story, Thank You

Central Argument: The central argument is that people are losing their manners through generation to generation as people are starting to be rude, impolite, and overuse of casual language.

                Basic manners is something that each person is expected to have and follow. Certain phrases or words like “Please” and “Thank You” are expected to be said because these are basic manners that one is expected to posses. In Lincoln Weeks’s article Please Read This Story, Thank You, the author claims that people are losing their manners through generation to generation as people are starting to be rude, impolite, and overuse causal language. When you look through each generation, you can see how many things have changed during the gaps between generations. The fashion, fads, general interest and basically culture has changed from generation to generation. I strongly do not believe that people are losing their manners through generation to generation. I believe that people are rude, impolite or lack basic manners because they are brought up in a way where they lack discipline. Another factor I believe that determines the manners of a person is where they live, and what type of environment they are brought up in.  I feel that these two factors determine how mannered a person is, because I believe manners come from discipline and influences.

                Discipline is an element which helps keep people focused and maintained. Having discipline ensures that one does not have dynamic changes in them. Discipline is usually considered the key element to success. Since manners are something that can change, discipline is required to ensure that people do not intend to follow bad manners. Since I am in a boarding school, I have to go to bed in a certain time, get up on time to make sure I am not late for school, and I have to be nice to my dorm parents, so that they don’t make my life miserable here. I have to follow all this, and I have to have discipline in me to follow such a pattern. My cousin brother back in Nepal does not go to a boarding school. He doesn’t get enough sleep, eats junk food all the time and doesn’t listen to his parents. These are considered bad manners and this is due to lack of discipline. The amount of discipline one has is enough to see how much manners one has.

                Manners also come from the environment of where one is living and where they are brought up from. There are many ways to illustrate this factor. A student in USA can call an older grade student by their first name, but a student in Nepal would have to call an older grade student a “big brother” or “big sister”. This is due to culture, as different cultures expect different manners. The use of casual language also depends on where one lives. If you lived in Harlem in New York, you would use “gangsta” language, where large amount of swear words are placed. If you lived in Beverly Hills in Los Angeles, such “gangsta talk” would not be tolerated. The environment and culture play a key role in what kind of manners a person has.

               

                Overall, manners are not derailing through generations, as manners are valued in different ways. A person’s manners are determined by how much discipline they have, as discipline teaches one not to change their attitude to certain heights. Another factor that must be taken into consideration is that a person’s manners can be determined by the culture they are brought up in, and the environment they live in. Manners are something people should have, but that varies on which perspective you look at it from.

 Why We Like What We Like

Central Argument: The central argument is that we like what we like because what we perceive things through a certain perspective that gets the better of our five senses.

                Have you ever wondered why your Rip Curl t-shirt is your best t-shirt? Why is pizza your favorite food? Why are you sexually attracted to tall, blonde girls? According to Alva Noë in his article, Why We Like What We Like, people tend to like something because they perceive things through a certain perspective that gets the better of our senses. His argument would mean that you like Rip Curl your t-shirt because it is made by Rip Curl, not because it is made from cotton and possibly because of the color. I disagree with what Noë’s perspective as I believe that the five senses do have a part to play in what we like because one would not just choose what they like because they see it as beneficial. I feel that at least one of the following; appearance, sound, taste, smell or touch at least has some part to play in what we like and what we don’t. Would one just like something because they feel they should like it? Would one choose consider something without looking or tasting etc? There has to be one of the five senses taken to consideration by a person, as no one would like something if they have no feelings or attribute of appreciation for it

                If one of the senses is not considered by a person, then they are most probably numb all around their body. I can confirm that each thing I like has to do with the five senses. I like Momos because the meat and the wanton taste absolutely delicious. I like to wear cut sleeve t-shirts because they look cool to wear around the beach. I like Indian food because I can smell the spices when it is being cooked. I like my blanket because it feels so fuzzy. I like to hot girls because I can see how hot they look. Everything I like has to be related with one of the five senses, and I believe that is the case with everyone. Why would one be married to their wife? If they didn’t find her attractive or find their voice very annoying, why not just marry a fat, ugly, old lady. Why even marry a woman actually? Why not just marry and make love to a man? See a man wouldn’t marry any random woman because he sees some quality in her that makes her attractive. He certainly would not marry a man because he sees that men have a quality that just doesn’t make them the right partner. There has to be a reason, and usually that reason is aided by one of the five senses in some way or the other.

                Senses do play a part in what we like and what we don’t. It contributes through some way or the other as it plays an important factor to what we decide on what we like and what we don’t. We like something because we find something good in it, and that is caused by the help of at least one of the senses. Senses do play an important role to what we like and what we don’t.

                

March Blog Assignment: Week 3

Limits of Science

Central  Argument- The central argument is that even if it seems science can explain everything, it does not because there are limits to some questions that cannot be answered.

                Science is often looked upon for answers because people feel science has the answer to it. People always use the term “scientifically proven” to either strengthen their argument or to persuade someone. They do this because they believe that science has proven the right answer. Science has “proven” many answers, and it has the capability of making people believe in science. It’s influence on people is so strong that it has sparked debate against religion and god. Though it may seem science has all the answers, it does not because there are some questions that cannot be answered and it never will. How can science prove that whether god is true or not? Do they have hardcore evidence to back up that statement? Often, scientists claim to make people feel that science does have answers to everything by adding two phrases- “research” or “scientifically proven”. These two phrases are continously used by  scientists to make people believe in science because it makes scientist look like they have done there homework, and they have resolved the question. I strongly disagree when the term “scientifically  proven” is used because that is trying to say that what they (the scientist) says is the only right answer, and there is no way that you can argue with it. It’s like having an arrogant,overconfident kid in your classroom who thinks he knows it all.

               

                Science may feel it knows it all, but that’s just there perspective. Just because they have many loyal, avid supporters doesn’t mean they can just say there is just one answer to it. It doesn’t mean science can claim to know it all. I personally disagree with many scientific examples, such as evolution. It is really hard for me to see how Charles Darwin came up with the theory that humans evolved from monkeys. Just because we look like monkeys, doesn’t mean we just transformed from that phase to this phase. If that was the case, isn’t there a possibility of another phrase of evolution? I also feel science cannot answers based on emotions. It cannot “scientifically prove” why someone is crying or why someone is sad.  When science claims to answer, I feel that the ones that are right are based on knowledge, but when it comes to complex answers, there is a bit of opinions and hypothesis added to it. The Big Bang Theory is a good example, as it is logical to know that the world did start some way, but since none of us were there to observe it, scientistn “claim” that a “big bang” created Earth. This just shows that science  “assumed” how today’s world came to be.

                Though  there are many explanations science can give to findinf its answers, there are some that are assumed or based on opinion factors. There are some questions science should just leave it unanswered because science itself cannot answer it. Science should not act like it knows it all, and feel that it has the capability to answer everything.

Surveillance

Central Argument-  Though surveillance has its positive factors, it can stil be bad to have them because they are moraly wrong.

                These days, many places, particularly big cities, have installed many surveillance cameras. The reason? To protect the civilians and take security measures to make the city a safer place. Though this seems to be done from good intentions, it  is also morally wrong. It is morally as it does not give people privacy and it seems they (public service providers) are sneaking into others businesses. Yes, I do understand  that they are taking it as a security measure, to protect their citizens, but is putiing up surveillance the only solution? People can hesitate and panic because they cannot freely express themselves in public because they know that somewhere, someone is looking at every move,every step and generally, everything they are doing. It makes people conscious and uncomfortable, and that is the last thing the city council and the police should do because their job is to serve the citizens well.

                Crime is increasing day by day, and the government,police are entrusted by citizens to not let criminal activites take place. The government and the police therefore with good intentions tend to feel that surveillance is the only option. That is not the only method that they can carry out. A good example is Santa Maijos, Argentina  where crime was increasing dramatically during late 90’s. Instead of putting surveillance cameras, the city council constructed more police stations, and employed more polices as well. This helped significantly as crime decrease during the last decade. If San Maijos could do it without surveillance, I see no reasons why major cities like London,New York,Sydney,Tokyo cannot do it. They surely have bigger budgets and  has greated population to employ from.

                Due to surveillance cameras, people feel  uncomfrotable and conscious because they know someone is looking at them through a lense. People feel that their freedom to be themselves is limited, and they also do not want to do something embarrasing. I clearly feel that surveillances sneak into peoples privacy and it tends to create a akward relationship between public service providers and the citizens. Though criminal acts are caught, there can be embarassing, privacy related acts be going on, and this also makes it akward for people who monitor the camera. It is just morally wrong because citizens feel like there is this hawk that watching them all the time, and they just cannot express themselve to be who they are.

                As stated before, the government and the police are adding surveillance to its respective cities, because they want to protect the citizens. They are catching criminal acts through their surveillance, but is it the only possible way to catch them? People are not feeling comfortable by being monitored thorugh a lense, and every action they do being caught on camera.They are feeling uncomfortable and to some extent, injustice because they do have any privacy. People just do not feel comfortable with surveillance and this is morally wrong.

March Blog Assignment: Week 2

March Blog Assignment: Week 2

8. Of Marriage and Single Life

Central Argument: The central argument is that if you are single, you should enjoy and be productive in your life because once you are married, you will have responsibilities, and you must take accountability for your family.

            All men in the world look at women with different perspectives. Some see them as companions, while others see them (and in some cases, use them) as objects. Some people decide they want to get married, settle down, and raise kids. Others want to live a playboy lifestyle. With most people, it is a case of being single until you meet the “woman of your dreams”. They then decide to get married to that woman. If this is the case with you, Sir Francis Bacon gives a warning that if you are single, you should enjoy and be productive in your life because once you are married, you will have responsibilities, and you must take accountability for your family. Being the man of the house, you must make sure that your family is in good financial health, therefore whatever income you earn, you must share with your family. Another thing about getting married is that you will never have time to do things you want to, and this will not let you reach your potential. Bacon also talks about how having a family will teach you to become discipline, because you have this responsibility of taking care of your family. He tells you that married men have a lot more responsibility than single men, that’s why single men should enjoy and be productive with their lives.

            Bacon claims that once men are married, they are responsible for keeping the family’s financial health in good shape. To some extent, I do agree with this statement, but Bacon is given a western perspective, where men know their role in their family. In developing countries like India, Nepal and Myanmar, I have heard stories, particularly from rural areas, where men spend all their money on alcohol and gambling, and this leaves women to not only take care of their children and maintain the house, but they need to get a job to pay for their children’s education, and for basic necessities. Also, people should consider Bacon wrote this during the 17^th century. Since then, women have gained many rights such as right to vote, run for office and start businesses. Women have become more powerful, and many families have both husband and wife working, so men don’t have to be completely responsible for the financial health of a family. I do agree with Bacon that being single will not make you worry about your family’s financial health because you do not have to financially look after kids or any females. They have more freedom of spending their money the way they want to.

            Bacon also claims that married men cannot fulfill their potential in different fields because they have the responsibility to look after their family. I disagree with this perspective because men can always share their hobbies and interests with their family. My dad used to play for India U-19 national team, but he then got married and got me. He then used to play for a club in Nepal and my mum and I always used to go to the games. He didn’t really reach the maximum potential he could, but he still did what he loved, and he shared this with me. That’s why I have so much interest in football, and I love to play the sport. When you are single you can reach that potential, but you cannot really cherish that moment with a family.

Sure you could cherish it with your parents and friends, but the family experience is still missing.

            Bacon may have put the perspective that life as a single lets you enjoy and unleash your potential, and that married men have to carry out responsibilities, but actually both have its benefits and its flaws. Single men have the freedom and time to live the way they want to be, but they also have to carry out some responsibilities. Married men have more responsibilities, but they have that family atmosphere with them, where share trust and interests with each other. Both have benefits and let downs, but it is the decision of how you want to live your life.  

             

42. Of Youth and Age

Central Argument: The central argument is that age doesn’t really matter when it comes to who you are and what you do with your life because those are characteristics that come within your experience, perspective and vision in life.

            People tend to judge people by their age as people feel age defines many characteristics in a person. They tend to judge their experience, maturity and decisions. It is often felt in many parts of the world, particularly countries with strong ethics, that the older you are, the wiser you are. The central argument in Bacon’s chapter is that age doesn’t really matter when it comes to how experienced, mature you are, or what decisions you make. Whether who you are or what you do, age should not take accountability for this because those are characteristics that come from your experiences, and your perspective and vision in life. I agree with Bacon that age does not define one’s characteristics. I believe that their characteristics are defined by what they have gone through their life and what all they have done. I also agree that how they value their life plays an important role, because it gives them a certain perspective and vision of how a life should be led. Experiences also come into play because one can experience life changing incidents, and this could make one change the way they act. Age does not really play into how one behaves and leads their lives.

            I feel that one should not be looked upon for what age they are, but what they have done with their lives. Though age should not be looked upon, it does prove that older people have lived longer, and have done more things than us. For example, my grandmother has achieved a lot in her life, she attended Boston University and Harvard, has changed the lives of thousands of women in Nepal by emphasizing on women development, and also has given a speech in the UN general assembly in Geneva. Now what have I done? Studied in a leading boarding school in Asia, played for football academies in Nepal, and went on an exchange trip to Australia. When you compare what I have achieved and what my grandma has achieved, she has achieved way more than I have done so far, but I still have a long future ahead of me. I might have the potential to achieve or even leap to better achievements (except going to Harvard). Yes, she has done more than me but does that mean she is a better human being than me? Does that mean people should listen to everything she says and ignore what I say? Well, if she it is about politics, women development and Harvard, then yes, because she has experienced those. If people want to know about Australia, football or Woodstock, then they should come to me and not her because I am the one who experienced those! Why would you go talk about student life in Woodstock to my grandmother instead of me? I have seen this happen when my family friends enquire about Woodstock all the time. It’s in my culture, that the older you are, the more you know.

            What my grandmother always says is age is just a number, how you live your life is what matters. I completely agree with her because, just like in my culture, people are so narrow minded because they think the older people are wiser just because they have lived longer. It isn’t just in my culture, if you look at industries, CEO’s are usually 50 years old or above. In sports industry, coaches are old. In the entertainment industry, directors are old. Is that always the case? No, because look at Mark Zuckenberg, a billionaire because he came up with Facebook. He shook the world, because he felt that the way of socializing should be mixed with technology. New directors are venturing into movies. In sports, Andre Villas Boas, a Portuguese coach, who is 33 years old, has already won three trophies in 3 years of management. These people achieve because they are talented, they look at their mission in a certain perspective, and they accomplish it. It’s not because of their age, it’s because of their characteristics.

March Blog Assignment: Week 1

Thinking vs. Feeling: The Psychology of Advertising

Central Argument:  The central argument is that an advertisement is successful, when you use either facts or when you appeal to emotions, because these two are key elements to psychologically affect consumers.

            When a company advertises its product, they hope that consumers will fall for their promotion style, and end up buying the product. Advertisement industry is an ever growing industry as figures in USA show that companies spend up to $70 billion to advertise. Advertisements are deemed successful when you either appeal to emotion or give you facts. These two psychologically play key roles because they make people want to buy the product. Suppose an advertisement is appealing to emotion, it is trying to manipulate and persuade the consumer to buy the product by portraying an image in the consumer’s head, claiming that the product would help them in a positive way. If the advertisement is based on facts, it shows that the company is trying to be honest, but at the same time bragging about what the product can achieve, therefore making the consumer think the product has some sort of value or effect to it. Both ways of advertising would psychologically affect the consumers, but the advertisement has to be made with creativity, uniqueness, and has to be effective.

            When an advertisement is appealing to emotion, it tries to play with the consumers mind. If an advertisement does its homework before, then it will successfully appeal to emotions of people. If a company targets a certain group (age, gender, profession,), then it should make sure there is some sort of element to it, where the advertisement would make those type of people buy the product. Suppose Nike makes an advertisement that shows a famous basketball player wearing a Nike shoe and going crazy in the court, then it is trying to appeal to appeal to young, aspiring basketball players that wearing that Nike shoe would make them go crazy in the court, just like the famous basketball player. If they add a creative and unique element to their advertising and marketing strategy, then it would appeal to people’s emotion, and then the emotions would get the best out of them to buy the product.

            If an advertisement is based upon facts, then it is trying to brag about the product rather than being honest. It would mean that the advertisement is emphasizing a lot about its good attributes in the product, and psychologically make the viewer think all about the good attributes in the product. Suppose you see a McDonald’s advertisement on television, it talks about how delicious the burger is, how cheap it is, how the meat is so authentic, and how you get a toy with each happy meal. They are bragging about things that you will definitely get when you choose that product. What they don’t tell you is that eating that burger is unhealthy, fattening, and the toy is a cheap, discarded piece of plastic made in China. These types of advertisements shows you facts that make the product look good, so that you will think that there is good value to it.

            Advertisements clearly rely on either of these elements to persuade you to buy the product. They either tell you facts to make you impressed with their product or they will try to play with your emotions to make you thing that the product will help you in some sort of way. Either way, these two styles of advertising seems to be working, considering that companies are spending large sums of money to advertise.

TV Is Good for You

Central Argument: The central argument is that television is good for women in rural India because it inspires and arouses them to stand up for what they believe in.

            In many parts of the world, more notably in western countries, watching television is considered to be a bad habit. Critics say they either have negative influence on you, or it makes one stuck in front of the set all the time. The article TV is good for you, shows that is not the case in India, especially in the rural parts of the country, as it has inspired many women to make bold statements, as well as make them courageous. With many sitcoms entering the Indian television industry, women are getting influenced and learning with how these women use courage, particularly towards men. Women in rural India are forced to do what men tell them to do and disobeying or dissatisfying them could get them beaten up. They are given responsibilities clean up, cook and look after household by their husbands. Though they are mistreated, they do not fight back, but these television sitcoms have inspired to have a go at their husbands.

            The article has given a lot of credit to the television sitcoms for inspiring women to stand up for their rights, but there is no concrete evidence showing that. Considering this article has been written by foreigners, the article doesn’t really emphasize on what women have gone through in their marriages. Men in rural areas often love to gamble and get drunk, making financial stability in the families very insecure. Gambling and drinking often makes them angry and stressed, and they put their stress and anger on their wives, by beating them up. They also don’t have much interest in their children, and the wife will have to make sure they are healthy and productive. The wives are put in so much pressure that they cannot take the way they are treated anymore. They cannot take such beatings and mistreatment forever. Women are looked upon as a tool rather than people by men in rural India. They feel superior to women, and they feel that they can show this superiority by dominating them. When women cannot handle such dominance and mistreatment, they start to get fed up, and they look for inspiration to make them bold enough to fight back to the men. For some, it just rages out, others look for advice from elders and wise people. This article though, focuses on the most unusual of the lot, as they claim that television sitcoms are the ones that influence the women to stand up. It is hard for me to believe that considering those women are financially superior and live in an urban environment. They do not get beaten up, and they certainly don’t have a whole lot of burden, considering they have servants, and other services that are offered in cities. Women may get inspired by these urban, fiction characters but they are living in an illusion if they believe that the men will react the same way as they do in the sitcoms.

            Women have to live in a difficult way in rural India. They are looked down upon in society, and they aren’t taken seriously. They get frustrated and to me they will either unleash it when their frustration comes to a boiling point, or they will get advice from elderly and wise people. To me, it would be absurd to handle situations by getting inspired from a television sitcom because the show is fiction, the environment is different, and the aftermath will not always end the same way it does in a sitcom.

50 Greatest Songs of All Time

Living On A Prayer-Bon Jovi