I have often questioned the idea of friendship. I have experienced friendship in many different levels though out my life. I have a few close friends, with who (I believe) I am achieving a deep friendship, or as Aristotle would call it "friendship in the strictest sense."

Aristotle refers to "friendship in the strictest sense" as a friend who actually is "another self" or in other words, a real friend is someone who is our "other self". Now this may sound strangely co-dependant, however once you understand the entire theory it is quite beautiful.

..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

To Aristotle "friendship in it's highest form" is:

1) Reciprocal

            both agents give and receive

            friendship is not just a "feeling"

2) Love

            there are three kinds of love

            i. love each other for utility

(i.e. the relationship between you and your cable guy. He fixes your cable, and you give him money for the service.)

            ii. love each other for pleasure

            iii. love each the other for "their own sake"

-         the truest kind of friendship love (friendship love in the strictest sense), you love the other for just being them.

3) Equal

            both individuals have an (almost) equal level of rationality

4) Similar

            both individuals have an (almost) similar level of virtue

5) Adults

            both individuals are adults

Aristotle didn't believe that children and adults could achieve "friendship in it's strictest sense" however they could have a kind of primitive friendship.

6) Virtue

both individuals must have a sufficient degree of virtue, however their virtue could complement each other to a certain degree. (ie one could have a sufficient level of courage, and the other could have sufficient level of justice…they could share their understanding of the virtues with each other.)

7) Ability to recognize and appreciate the other's virtue

            you need to have virtue to recognize virtue

            if your friend is virtuous then you know that you are in turn virtuous

            your friend is a "self-reflection" of yourself

            your friend shows that they are your friend by showing you, not by telling you

            you treat your friend the same way you know "you ought" to treat yourself

the better your friend becomes the better you become, and the better you become the better your friend becomes.

When you invest in your friend you actually end up investing in yourself, and     when your friend invests in you they end up investing in themselves.

8) friends spend time engaging in "the sharing of ideas"

            friendship is an activity

            if you do not engage in activity the friendship dissolves

"Friendship in the strictest sense"

To love someone is to wish them "the ultimate good" the better friend you are the more good you wish to your friend.

"…[the] distinctive activity of [friendship] is a fuller actualization of the life that each of them has individually, precisely in the respect in which their life was worth choosing for them in the first place. We therefore arrive at the result that it is, so to speak, inherent in the structure of human consciousness that we want to live our lives with others…." (Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics)

&NBSP;< P>

Friendship in it's highest form:

The Dirty Hands of the Clock

When I learned about the affair, I didn't ask him about

the sex, because it was probably good sex. Great Sex.

I can't believe you're so flexible sex. I'm glad we got

rubber sheets, because just think of the cleaning bill

sex. I don't think I'll be able to walk tomorrow sex. Oh

my god the neighbors are going to call the police sex.

I asked him about the spirals of the first fingerprint he

left on her skin. I made him tell me about the times he

thought I knew about his betrayal, about his drives to

meet me after he slept with her, how he would wash

her off his skin like a filthy little stain. He described each

of his lies until his lips turned into the dirty hands of the

clock and ticked "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry."

And in the end of it all I couldn't decipher one minute

from the other, so I picked up all his moments with her

and weighed them against all his moments of fidelity, but

I couldn't see which he desired more, because every time

I looked at the scale I saw the line he so easily crossed.

*Note: This poem didn't quite make it into my book, but I still have a bit of affection for this piece.

I haven't blogged for quite a while, nor have I been on myspace that much for the past few months, but I come to you with good news. My manuscript was picked up by a publisher a while back and my book will be released in a few months. I don't know the exact date yet but as soon as I know more information I will definitely let you know.

Here is the announcement flyer:

And here is a rough idea of what the book cover will look like…(it still may change, but this is what it looks like as of now)

Other news:

I start classes on the 28^th, so I am looking forward to getting my philosophy grove back on, and hopefully I learn about some awesomeness I can blog about.

Ok, so now it's your turn, I haven't been around much and I so want to catch up!

What have you been up to?

Has anything new or exciting happened in your life?

When I was in pre-school we would go to a nursing home every Tuesday, and the "old people" were mean to us, they would steal our toys, grab our cheeks, pull on our hair, run over our feet with their wheel chairs, and yell at us. During my pre-school days I hated Tuesday's…I think my early years made me a little weary of nursing homes, hospital type atmospheres, and elderly people in groups. As I got older my fears faded, but I never really was someone who liked hanging out in nursing homes. A few years ago I volunteered at a nursing home for a few weeks in December; I heard an advertisement on the radio asking for volunteers and I had some extra time on my hands so I thought what the hell.

On my first day of volunteer work I met a 87-year-old man named Manual, he asked me if I would like to play chess, and our chess game soon turned into hours of conversation; he told me bits of his life story, we both discovered that one of our favorite books was The Fall, and that we both preferred Jello with chunks of fruit in it. For the rest of my volunteer days I spent the majority of my time hanging out with Manual; during one of our chats we talked about Christmas, it was then that he told me something that changed my outlook on gift giving.

Manual said that when you give someone a gift, be for Christmas, a birthday, an anniversary, etc., you are not just giving something to someone, when you give a gift you are making an investment into the life of another, and also investing in your own life in return. He said that when we give, we shouldn't do it to just make someone happy, because happiness fades; we give a part of ourselves in hopes that they may take a step towards becoming a better version of themselves.

His words really made me think of gifts in a new way, I had always thought about gifts as something you give to people on a special occasion, something you might spend a lot of time thinking about or looking for, something that would bring them a laugh, or some extra joy, but beyond that I never really gave it that much thought. I guess he really allowed me to look at giving at a deeper level.

Over the years I have come to understand just how right he was, I started looking at my gifts to others as investments rather then pieces of merchandise, and marveled at some of my investments pay off. It's fascinating how our interactions with others can mold us in so many different ways, and how so few words can make all the difference in the years to come.

Psychiatrist Robert Sternberg has developed the Triangular Theory of Love, a theory about the components that "true" love entails.

There are three components in the Triangular Theory of Love, commitment, intimacy and passion.

Commitment is the thinking or cognitive aspect of love. It refers to the conscious decision to love another and to maintain a relationship over time in spite of difficulties that may arise.

Intimacy is the emotional component of love that encompasses the sense of being bonded with another person. Jeffrey L. Fine PhD described intimacy as "being totally transparent, emotionally naked in front of another who is equally transparent. You want to see onto the others heart. What people should say when they say intimacy is in-to-me-see"

 Passion is the motivational component that instills a deep desire to be united with the loved one. In a sense, passion is an addiction, because its capacity to provide intense stimulation and can exert a powerful craving in a person.

            There are different combinations of the components:

commitment + intimacy,

commitment + passion,

and

passion+ intimacy.

commitment and intimacy produce companionship love. An example of this can be seen in best friends who have been there for eachother for many years, and who have a deep understanding of eachother.

commitment and passion produce fatuous love. This is where one person admires or worships another from afar. This kind of love is one sided and there is an absence of intimate knowlege and intamate understanding. The lover loves the "idea" of the other. An example of this is a person who has a celebrity crush.

passion and intimacy produce romantic love. Where there is chemistry between two individuals however, this relationship lacks consistency, there is no commitment. An example of this is a "fuck buddy."

When all three components are achieved the result is consummate love. When both partners actively strive to maintain all three components the couple can achieve consumate love, which is the ideal type of love.

*note: This is a repost, but this is my favorite theory regarding love and relationships. I will have a new Psychology blog next Tuesday!

Dagny has just graduated from a local university. She got through her college years by sleeping with professors and copying other students work. Even though Dagny has used questionable tactics in obtaining her degree she now is over all a very moral person, and tries her best to do the right thing. Last week she got a job at a local science lab. She has just found out that her company is creating very destructive biochemical weapons, which will be sold to terrorist. Dagny now must make a very important decision; she must decide between continuing to work at the lab or quit.

Dagny is well aware of her intellectual short comings and knows that she is not doing a good job at work, in fact her presence at the lab has lowered the company's productivity. Dagny has thought about going to the authorities, but she knows that the science lab has a lot of high ranking officials in their pockets and if she tries to expose them, they will easily cover up their dirty dealings. Dagny also knows that if she quits, Jamie will be given her position. Jamie has no problem making biochemical weapons and is a lot smarter then Dagny. If Jamie takes the position he will not only help the lab create a lot more weapons, he will be able to create nastier bio-weapons that will kill more people in horrible ways.

Should Dagny quit working at the lab?

Things to consider:

If Dagny quits Jamie will take her place and will contribute to the lab's productivity.

If Dagny stays at the lab she will continue to lower the lab's productivity however she will also be helping them create biochemical weapons.

The Lab is very powerful and there is very little (actually no) hope of exposing their dirty dealings.

There are many other technicians at the lab, and many checks and quality controls, so if Dagny tries to sabotage the Lab her actions will be caught immediately and fixed.

Does Dagny have a moral obligation to continue to work at the lab?  (Note: the question is not asking if she has an obligation to the lab. It is asking what would be the moral thing for Dagny to do?)

My View:

I have often encountered a problem when questioning moral judgments; the problem is that of moral responsibility. Are we responsible for other people's (people who are independent adults) actions? In Dagny's case I would say that she is not morally obligated to continue to work at the lab. Yes it is true that if she quits her job, Jamie will get the job and do a lot of really evil things, however Dagny cannot and should not be held responsible for Jamie's actions. Jamie is an independent adult and he is responsible for his own actions. If Dagny quit her job, and Jamie started working for the Lab he would be responsible for his actions there, not Dagny. Dagny must first worry about her own moral judgments, and then be concerned with others. It would be abserd to command that Dangy must do immoral actions, so that others cannot do worse immoral actions. Dagny is not the other people, so why should she be blamed for their actions? I do think that Dagny can and should try and expose the lab, report them to individuals who might be able to stop the lab, but I don't believe she has responsibility beyond the attempts for exposure.

What do you think?

Do you think Dagny is morally obligated to keep her job? Why? Or Why not?

Maybe the old saying, "the eyes are the windows to the soul" has more than just a poetic use. When we are attracted to someone, our body chemistry changes, our brain produces "attraction/passion" chemicals, our senses become sharper, and our heart rate increases. Now these are all internal cues, but there is a way to tell if, the woman/man you are interested is attracted to you. Just take a look into their soul; it might be easier than you think.

 When we are attracted so someone our pupils dilate. Pupil dilation can also be caused by drugs or low lighting. In average situations if you are interacting with someone in normal lighting, and they are drug free, the dilation of their pupils are probably a sign that they are attracted to you! In a study psychologist found that pupil dilation also takes place when participants are shown pictures of models. The pictures of those beautiful people caused their brain to release chemicals linked to attraction that caused their pupils to dilate.  

Stan recently has been given custody of his five-year-old nephew Billy. Billy's parents died in a horrible car accident and have left Billy with over 5 million dollars. If Billy dies Stan is next in line to inherit the money. Stan hates little kids and loves money more then anything; he has been trying to find a way to kill Billy so that he can get the money. One evening while Billy is getting into the tub he slips and hit's his head, falls into the water and begins to drown. Stan hears the loud noise and rushes into the bathroom to see what is happening. Stan rushes over to Billy to help him but right before he grabs him, Stan stops. He watches Billy drown and smiles, thinking about all the money he will get. Stan holds his hands above the water. If Billy somehow manages to pop out of the water Stan knows he will be ready and willing to push him back down. Luckily for Stan, Billy stays under the water and dies. Billy's death is considered accidental, and Stan is now a happy millionaire.

Did Stan Kill Billy?

Things to consider…

Stan knows that by not pulling Billy from the water Billy will die.

If Billy would have come above the water, Stan would have pushed him back under.

Stan did not have anything to do with Billy's fall into the water.

If Stan had not been there Billy would have died anyway.

Stan wanted Billy to die, and is happy that he did die.

Would it make a difference if Billy was an adult? If Billy was 25 would you say that Stan killed Billy?

Do you believe that letting die is the same as killing? Why or why not?

Would it make a difference if Billy was an Adult? If Billy was 25 would you say that Stan killed Billy?

It's 3a.m. in the morning; a woman is being attacked outside your window. You hear her screams. You look outside and see a man stabbing her. You notice many of your neighbors lights are on, and there are some people outside watching the attack. What do you do?

It's 3a.m. in the morning; a woman is being attacked outside your window. You hear her screams. You look outside and see a man stabbing her. What do you do?

Catherine Genovese was stabbed to death on March 13^th, 1964. Her attack lasted for approximately 35 minutes, over 38 people had watched the entire attack and none of them lifted a finger to help her.

How could such a horrible thing happen?

Bibb Latane and John Darley (two social psychologists) asked this very same question. After a lot of research and close examination they hypothesized that none the 38 witnesses helped them because there were 38 witnesses. Latane and Darley theorized that the 38 individuals waited for someone "more qualified" to do something, and each witness felt less responsible for helping since there were so many individuals present.   

Lantane and Darley did a series of experiments to test their hypothesis

Experiment 1

The sounds of a person having an epileptic seizure were projected over an intercom system. The subjects (or bystander) were placed into three groups. Group one believed that they were the only one to hear the seizing person. Group two believed that one other person could also hear the seizing person. Group three believed that at lest four other people could hear the seizing person.

85% of the bystanders who believed they alone could hear the seizing person attempted to help.

62% of the bystanders who believed another person could also hear the seizing person attempted to help.

31% of the bystanders who believed that at least four other people could also hear the seizing person attempted to help

The bystander felt more responsibility to help when they were alone, as more people were added; the bystander felt less personal responsibility. Lantane and Darley called this behavior Diffusion of Responsibility

Sometimes change is good, but changing behaviors, thoughts, feelings, actions, and desires is ever so difficult. For the past few weeks I've been trying to change certain things in my life.

One thing that helps me to get on the change wagon is changing my surroundings…so I decided to redecorate my room a little, go through all my drawers, and clean out my closet. As some of you know I currently live with my parents while I'm taking grad classes at a local university. Well when I moved in my room, I didn't really move in, my closet was full of clear binds full of notes from past classes, cardboard boxes that I had when I lived in the dorms during my undergraduate days, and random things that words cannot explain….so my room has kind of been an ongoing project since I moved in.

For the past few weeks I've been rearranging my furniture and organizing everything!!!! I got rid of things I didn't need, put some stuff in storage, and changed a few things up a bit.

Here are some pictures of the final product. =) I don't have before pictures…but just think of the before picture as an empty room, because all of the old room items are no longer in there.

I got rid of my closet doors and put up curtains…the doors were sliding doors that would always fall off the tracks and it was ever so annoying to get things out of my closet. Oh, and there is my DVR which I love, but now it is absolutely painful to watch live TV.

So now you've gotten a change to come in my room. Hope it was as good for you as it was for me.




Whenever you want to change things in your life what things do you find helpful?

What is a good motivator for you?

Yesterday, I posted a short quiz about Attachment styles, if you haven't checked out the quiz and would like to click here. Today I will explain the different attachment styles.

Results of Quiz:

If you answered number 1, you most likely have a secure attachment style. About 55% of the population share this attachment style.

If you answered number 2, you most likely have an avoidant attachment style. About 25% of the population share this attachment style.

If you answered number 3, you most likely have an anxious ambivalent attachment style. About 20% of the populations share this attachment style.

Childhood
Children who have developed and avoidant attachment often have had caregivers who repeatedly reject the child when the child is trying to enjoy reassurance or contact with the caregiver. The child's caregivers have a tendency to dislike hugs or any form of bodily contact with the child.

Behavior in New Situations
When the child is placed in a strange situation (left with a new caregiver) the child will not show visual signs of stress, however in experiments an abnormally high heart rate was observed, which is often an indication of high stress. When the mother returned to her child, the child would basically ignore her. When the child enters a school setting they are usually very hostile towards other students, defiant to teachers, and are very successful at alienating others.

Adulthood
Avoidant adults tend to
*develop a hostile self-reliance
*develop a cold and distant attitude toward others
*possess an overall uninterest in romantic relationships
*have low levels of grievance when relationships end
*like to be alone, yet admit to being lonely
*use work as an excuse to detach themselves from others
*when under stress they withdraw from their romantic partners
*cope with stress by ignoring it, or denying it exists
*rarely share person information with others
*dislike when others share personal information in general

Adulthood
Anxious-ambivalent adults tend to become
*excessively obsessed with their romantic partner
*are very jealous of individuals who interact with their partner
*have difficulty allowing their partner to live their own life
*get extremely upset when they are not the center of their partners attention
*have a high rate of relationship failures
*have low and unstable self-esteem
*are highly emotional under stress
*and have difficulty controlling their emotions

Overview of attachment styles
These attachment styles are learned early in life, and reinforced through behavioral patterns that the individual displays. If someone has learned an avoidant or anxious ambivalent attachment style there is a possibility of changing it. Changing an attachment style is difficult but it can be done by understanding the origin of the attachment style, understanding the behavior involved in the attachment style, and understanding why those behaviors have the outcomes they do.

This is part one of a two part blog. In this blog you will be able to take a very short test regarding attachment styles.

Have you ever wondered why you feel the way you do in relationships with others? Do you ever feel like you always love people who cannot return your affection? Do you feel like you need space in relationships and that others are too clingy? There's a reason why you might feel like this, it might come down to something as simple as your attachment style.

Psychoanalyst John Bowlby, believed that humans developed a strong basic fear of being alone, due to thousands of years evolving in uncertain environments. Humans who had relationships with others were more likely to survive famine, sickness, and accidents if they developed relationships to with others. Bowlby refers to this desire as attachment.

We form our attachment styles very early in life as a result of our relationships with our caregivers. We learn how to form attachments through our relationships with our caregivers.

Psychologist Mary Ainsworth developed an experiment where children were separated from their mothers for a short period of time; she observed the child's behavior during the separation and the reuniting of the child and mother. After many years of research Ainsworth classified the behavior into three different types of attachment. Further research indicted that the attachment style you develop as a child greatly effects the way you attach yourself to others as an adult.

Before I describe the attachment styles take the time to answer this little quiz:

Thinking of your current and past romantic relationships, see which statement best fits you.

1. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close.

2. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close. I find it difficult to trust partners completely or to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when any one gets close, and love partners often want me to be more intimate than is comfortable for me.

3. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner does not really love me or want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.

* Here is the reference information for the above questions:

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987), Romantic Love conceptualized as an attachment process, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Tomorrow I will explain the three different types of attachment in depth, show how the attachment style that you adopt effects your relationships with individuals in everyday life, and show how attachment styles effect romantic relationships.

In our society selflessness is seen as a praiseworthy attribute, and many receive praise for selfless or altruistic actions, however can are such actions even possible? If they are possible, are they praiseworthy?

What is Altruism?

Altruism can be defined as the "unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness." Source


So the requirement of an altruistic action is that we perform an unselfish act.

Why do we act? We act to satisfy our desires.

If my desire to obtain water is preferred above all other desires I will act to obtain water.
For example:
I am sitting in the shade on a very hot day. I am very thirsty. (I have a desire to obtain water.) There is water half a mile away from me. Therefore, I start walking to the water in order to obtain the water.

If my desire to obtain water is not preferred above all other desires, I might act to obtain water.
For example:
I am sitting in the shade on a very hot day. I am very thirsty. (I have a desire to obtain water.) There is water half a mile away from me. My hair is bothering me and I want to put it up in a ponytail. (I have a desire to put my hair in a ponytail.) Therefore, I might move from the shade to obtain water, or I might put my hair in a ponytail. Or I might do both.


If my desire to obtain water is not preferred above all other desires, and I prefer a desire which thwarts my desire to obtain water, then I will not act to obtain water.
For example:
I am sitting in the shade on a very hot day. I am very thirsty. (I have a desire to obtain water.) There is water half a mile away from me. I am very hot and cannot bring myself to move from the shade. (I have a stronger desire to stay in the shade.) Therefore, I do not move from the shade, thus I do not obtain water.

Now how does this relate to Altruism?

When a person acts to satisfy their desires, they are attempting to satisfy their own desires. Whenever a person acts, they act to satisfy their strongest desire(s).
If Sally acts to help Bob, then Sally's desire to help Bob must be stronger then all of her other desires. If Sally had desires that were stronger (preferred above) than helping Bob, then she would not be helping Bob, and would be acting to satisfy her preferred desire. Sally acts to satisfy her desire first, and then her action may help Bob, therefore Sally first acts to satisfy herself thus it isn't a selfless act.

Rising Above Own Desires
The only way it could be a selfless act is if she rose above her desires. If she rose above her desires, then she wouldn't be acting to satisfy herself. However, if Sally rose above her desires then she would be facing a whole new problem.

Sally is riding her bike. Sally has risen above all of her desires. Sally has two options that she must choose from:

1. Run into the pole
2. Do not run into the pole

Since Sally doesn't have desires anymore, both options are equally valuable to her. If both action has equal value to her should she be praised for choosing one over the other? No, why should she be praised for arbitrarily choosing one over the other?

Since we act to satisfy our own desires, our actions cannot be selfless because we act to satisfy ourselves. Benefits that others receive from our actions are only a result of our action of satisfying our own desires. Whether we are acting to help another person, or acting to drink water we are first and foremost acting to fulfill our own desire(s), thus altruism doesn't exist.

          When faced with ethical dilemmas many people in my previous blogs have used God or "God's Morality" as a way of determining the morality of an act. I believe that the majority of individuals depend on God for their morality. Some might even be shocked that people can live a moral life without the belief in God. In today's blog I will be discussing the idea of ethics without God, and how even God must follow ethical rules to be good.

How can there be ethics without God?

Well let's look at this statement.

God or no God, dipping live innocent babies into vats of hydrochloric acid is morally wrong.

          If you were looking at babies in the nursery at the local hospital and God's voice rang down from the heavens and commanded that you take five babies down to the basement and dip each of them in a vat of hydrochloric acid. When you ask God why he commands such a thing, he responds, "Because I say so, and it is good because I say it."





 Can God make something morally right by commanding that it is so?

Now there are logical contradictions that even an all powerful God cannot get around. For example, God cannot make a colorless blue frog, nor can he make a square with three sides. Do the limitations stop there?

In the Euthyphro God and morality is addressed. The following question is raised:

"Does God command it because it is good, or is it good because God Commands it?"

Some people have a firm belief that things are good because God Commands them. However such a claim has the following consequences-

1) God doesn't have reasons for what he commands.
If things are merely good because God commands them, then God doesn't have any reasons for commanding them.

2) God is arbitrary.
If God doesn't have any reasons for commanding things, then he has just as much motivation to either of the following:
Dipping live innocent babies into a vat of acid is morally right.
Dipping live innocent babies into a vat of acid is morally wrong.

3) God is not praiseworthy.
If God can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, why should we think that his actions are worthy of praise?

Now if you were to believe that God commands things because they are good....the following is not contradictory to that belief:
1) God does have reasons for what he commands.
2) God is not arbitrary.
3) God is praiseworthy.