TIME

      I think it is funny how concerned humans can become over matters we have no way to understand or ever know for sure. But does this stop me when I find myself em-pondered by life and its meaning? Absolutely not. Why are we alive? I don't know, but I do love playing my guitar.
     I suppose when it comes down to it, I am in the reincarnation boat. I believe your soul gains energy through knowledge of time as it reincarnates through different tracks of time. Kind of like this.
TRACK 1
1955(Birth)===========1970============================2014 (death)=============
EARTH                                                                                                                   +  <- (soul)
                                                                                                                                +
                                                                                                         + + + + + + + +
                                                                                                           +
TRACK 2                                                                                            +
5000=============5200============================5648 (Birth)++++++++++(death)=
JUPITER                                                                                                                                            +
                                                                                                                                                           +
                                                                                                                                                           +
TRACK 3, (Becomes Track 1 upon reincarnation)                                                                               +
1900==================================1925-======================1955(Birth)
EARTH

          Now this might seem confusing. That is because it is confusing! You see I believe in the existence of parallel universes as well as simultaneous reincarnations. That means that in order for my present self to be existing in the present, I am also existing precisely in the lifetimes I have had in the past.( This is because everything happens in the present moment. Even when the past and the future happen, whenever that may be, always has to happen in a present moment or else they do not happen. That is because the present contains awareness of the highest level).
         You see with regular old reincarnation you have no control, that is not the case in my opinion. What if your soul only incarnated into a certain set of individual beings throughout time and space? I mean why not? I don't think soul belongs to anybody, but rather that soul is life/god. If god is the highest power than it can exist in all times, in all carnations, in all moments presently, since the present is the moment of full awareness. That is what soul does, except we get a piece of time personalize. A limited set of moments to experience for god, or else gods experience would be incomplete. But doesn't it make you think your soul is more powerful if it is also existing in other beings in almost unlimited possible combinations of time and space?
     In my opinion our soul must seek life and wisdom through reincarnation until a tipping point is reached where almost like a lucid dream when one realizes one is dreaming and is overjoyed but has to fight the excitement in order to not wake up. This is the way your soul gains wisdom. It is "heaven," to be all, to be God. There is no alleviation to the stress of the existing world, nothing is going to make it go away, and we have to be okay with that. Like one of my favorite hip-hop artists, Blackaliscious, once said, "The struggle is the blessing."
         

an ethical universe?

     Humans have been civilizing themselves steadily for a few thousand years now. I think most can agree that we are all one species and therefore biologically similar. In this was I am saying that, although physical differences develop, for example height, weight, skin color, etc., the mental and emotional capacity of humans is biologically similar around the world. We all have moms and dads, we all celebrate something, everybody eats, everybody sleeps, and everybody dreams....for the most part.

             Now with that in mind, lets talk about universal ethics. I do not believe this means we live in an ethical universe, or one that "works out for the better." The universe simply is. Ethics is a thing that humans recognize to exist inside this universe. All humans can recognize ethics. Although there are between seven to eight billion perspectives on this subject, all humans are biologically equipped to be mentally capable of handling the responsibility of sensible decisions.

     We all want to be comforted. It is very comforting to think that if we are "good people," then by living a good life through compassion then one can limit the harm to come in ones path, since one does no harm in the first place. It is this way the Buddhist seeks prosperity. But I believe that this mentality is rooted in fear and forces one to limit ones life and stifle urges due to emotional indecision surrounding impulses. Ethics need to be flexible in the situation in order to be practical.

    Christianity and Catholicism exists as more comfort oriented religion than basic Buddhism. This not to say one is better, for judgement is wrong , but that all religion is rooted in fear. The Bible though has more regards for neighbors and extended family. But that could possibly be because Christianity developed out of crowded cities, and Buddhism never needs to micromanage, at least in my opinion. But we are all human. We all have families. We are all biologically similar. It makes sense that similar ethics globally make sense, since only humans make sense of it anyways! 

A Decent Human Being

I believe in universal ethics.  I think that all people should be held to the same standard.  I think that the similarities in the different codes of ethics are proof of this.  I also believe that, possibly contrary to popular belief, that "uncivilized" tribes which are cannibals or perform human sacrifices are wrong and that, generally, humans should be kind to one another, no matter the circumstances.  This, in my mind, is the main purpose of universal ethics -- that humans would be kind to one another.

I think that, universally, people should follow the principles which are similar in the Buddhist and Christian/Judean practices.  Adultery, murder, and unkind or untrue words towards others are wrong and unnecessary.  I definitely haven't always gone by these principles, but I know what I believe is right and I know how I think that I and others should act and this is the standard to which I will hold myself and all people in the future.  These principles, to me, are uncomprimisable and truly universal.

Post Death

    Of course I believe in a life after death. I would absolutely find life intolerable if there was nothing after death. No matter how much proof there is that there is nothing after death, I refuse to believe that. I would prefer there to be an afterlife in which you go into your own version of paradise, or heaven. I also believe that, if you really wanted to, you can choose to be reincarnated or become a spectral, but I would never want to do either of those things. I believe, when you die, it is your time to go into paradise. Why someone would choose to come back to this world is beyond me. When you are reincarnated, however, you could be anything. This could range from being a puny insect to a mighty lion, or a poor person in India to the King of Spain. It doesn't matter what you do in your current life, you are just going to be randomly assigned a life. This also could be in anytime period, whether it is prehistoric, medieval, current day, or a million years in the future. There is no telling what your next life could be like. If you choose to be a ghost, your spirit basically stays on earth, yet you can go in and out of heaven whenever you may please. People who choose to go to heaven also have this choice of going into the world. In anyway, your life stays permanent, so your actions could have lasting effects on peoples memories.
     Anyways, if someone chooses heaven, they design how it should be like. Heaven is pretty much your ideal life; one without stress, worry, or woes but purely how you want it to be. In my own distinct version, I would like to be a part of a bountiful universe in which (showing my history nerd side) all civilizations of the world could be present at once (i.e. Assyrians, Romans, medieval France, Aztecs, Prussia, Iroquois, Indian culture in 1800's, etc.). I would like them to interact with one another and be able to befriend one another as well. I would like to live in a city of that universe with the buildings having the unique architectural styles the world has experienced. I would like there to be some conflict, stress, and worry though. I feel as though without it, life would be plain and boring. Though the world is anything you want it to be, there is a price. No one you once knew will be there, causing a feeling of emptiness. In order to meet with other dead people, you must meet each other as ghosts on earth.
     Though as complex and unique my ideal life after death may be, I cant say that these were completely mine.  To me, they seem to bear traces of Christian beliefs due to being raised by parents who "drugged" me into going to church everyday. Because of being forced to participate in church, I have rejected the idea of a higher power yet still held the idea of a life after death. Now, my beliefs shape my life in a dramatic way. I don't be good because some other power tells me to be good, but rather because I feel like being good. I don't really determine my actions due to what some other power think is right, but because I have decided that it is right. Due to my rejection of god, I have not only become a more untamable and care-free person, but I also became more independent and ethical because I choose to be and no higher power is threatening me to be by trying to take away my ideal afterlife. That is how I view my afterlife and how I am affected by my idea.
    

Remembrance After Death

       I may not believe that there's life after death, but I guess I hope there is. I know that after we die, most of us have relatives or friends who remember us, but as time passes, and those who remembered us die, our memory fades. Unless of course you stand out; you're famous. Being remember, I believe, is the only afterlife we get after we die. A persona's memory is the only way we can live on. If someone was to be reincarnated, that would be like rediscovering someone after they have been forgotten.
       The source of my beliefs could be that i'm a realist, a skeptic, or maybe just lack of proof, and the lack of any kind of faith. My beliefs make me who I am and shape my life greatly. Same with anyone's life. What they believe makes them choose what kind of person to be, what to eat, wear, who they should be friends with, whether or not they robs banks or feed the hungry. What we believe is very like our personality, just a history of experiences that shape us and make us look at the world and ourselves in a unique way.

The Weight of a Soul

       My view of life after death stems from various, and often seen as opposing sources. Science tells is that all energy cannot be destroyed, it must go somewhere. So then by this law, the energy within us must be used elsewhere when we cease to be able to utilize it. In the 19th century a scientist tried seeing if one could measure the weight of a soul. His expirement had a man on in death bed, all on a huge and extremly precise scale. At the moment of death, the scientist watched the scale's needle drawing without any physical disturbance or change to the man or the bed. He then concluded this to be fact that souls so exist and have weight. Although, we hold this expirement as absolute fact but it is interesting to think about potentially having evidence of our sould transcending our physical bodies and going somewhere elese.
      With this kind of concept in mind, I also tie my beliefs in with the idea of reincarnation. If our energy cannot cease to exist like our physical bodies it must go somewhere, and that somewhere I believe is another living creature that comes to life at the moment of my physical death. I personally indentify myself as an old soul and feel with my whole being that I have had expirences that my physical body has not gone through. It's the kind of certainty that I don't need absolute fact to tell me if it is right, because I know that "souls" carry human expirence in them. This is how I feel we live on after death. In the memories of the ones who loved us, and in the next living creatures that end up with a piece of me.

What A Surprise

Most of my posts on this blog have been something like this: "I'm Catholic so this is what we Catholics think about this."  The basic idea of this one isn't very different.  I believe that there is a Heaven and a Hell and that all will someday be judged based on how we chose to live our lives.  This isn't just something I have always believed, but it took me a while to get to this point.

I'm not one of those teenagers you hear older people talk about.  There are days, sure, when I feel like life is just a game and that, if you lose, you can just re-spawn and start again at a checkpoint.  The rest of the time, though, I'm painfully aware of my mortality.  This started when I was little - I didn't know what I wanted to be when I grew up, so I thought I was destined to die young.  My biggest fear isn't heights or spiders, but dying from some freak accident and not getting a chance to tie up loose ends.  Most of the time, my existential crises come from thinking about the inevitable mortality of myself and everyone I love.

As I've grown in faith, some of these worries have lessened.  I'm now aware that worrying about when I die, is useless.  More important, however, is making sure that, whenever it happens, I'll be ready both spiritually but also that my earthly relationships will be in a place where those with whom I have interacted regularly will know that I love and care about them.  I think it's important, while on Earth, to be as kind as possible to as many people as possible.  This way, if you leave nothing else when you die, your smile or laugh will resonate in the lives of those whose days you've brightened.

The Heaven thing is a bit more complicated.  Earthly death is inevitable, Heaven is doubted by many.  I believe in Heaven because Earth is painful.  There has to be something better than this.  So many things are unfair and unexplainable in this world and I think of Heaven as somewhere where nothing hurts and everything makes sense.  It's a place in which there is no loneliness and everyone gets what they deserve, none will go without.

I guess I believe in Heaven because it's gotten me through a lot.  Whenever something is challenging or painful, it's comforting to know that there is a place where sickness and death are no more.  Films such as Johnny and several years of pondering, pain, and reflection have gotten me to this point.  Sometimes, it's hard to believe in the idea of Hell and think that your own father thinks that you're headed there, but the way I see it, as long as I believe in something and try to live the best I can, God and I can talk about the 'why' part when I get there.  After all, that's what it's all about anyway - it's just me and God.  If I lead others to him along the way, then I've done what I'm meant to do.  Besides, if we're all destined for decomposition, there will be no one around to say they told me so.


(For those questioning the Heaven vs. Hell debate, I suggest the book Heaven Is For Real by Todd Burpo.  If nothing else, it's an interesting story and makes a lot of great points on this debate.)

So... What Comes Next?

      From the time I was a child, I have given a lot of thought to what happens once we die. I was not raised in a very religious household. However, I have been to a few Catholic services (my mother was raised Catholic, but she never really tried to bring me into the religion). I used to believe that maybe there was something after life-- some sort of heaven or maybe even an after-life. In retrospect, I think maybe the latter part is a result of my affinity for Ancient Egyptian mythology and culture. My father teaches 6th grade social studies, so he got me into the topic from a very young age. However, my views have changed a lot over the years. Reincarnation has never been something I've believed in or even wanted to believe in. I read once that the idea of reincarnation or any type of life post-death is a reflection of man's desire to keep himself in the world; he cannot bear to think of existence without himself. While I believe that's maybe a tad dramatic, my views are not very far off. I believe that when you die, you're dead and there's not really much to it. Life does not continue (for you). It is eternal blackness that you are not conscious to experience because you're... no longer living. Bodies decay or remain in the form of ash and are maybe rejoined with the earth. So in that sense, I guess I can sort of say I agree with reincarnation... once you become part of the earth again, little remnants of your body will help further the ecosystem.
    But how do people achieve immortality since they cannot actually live forever? Well, they do drastic things or accomplish great things in the short time they have. While a person could live on in someone's memory, eventually those people will die, too. And oral recollections of people can only live for so long before they become irrelevant or morphed in a game of telephone. Books and written stories may last longer, but it is easier for them to be physically destroyed (especially if the world ever reaches some sort of dystopian future; books are often the first things burned... not to say that doesn't happen in real life. During World War II, books were burned in Nazi Germany as a form of control). Others try to preserve themselves in a more biological sense. They reproduce to keep their gene pool going. All fair things to do, but I also have a hard time believing that immortality in general can be met. Perhaps it's a little dark, but maybe that's the best thing for the world. I don't think people are meant to last forever.

Life after death? Or just simply death?

The question of life after death has always been of interest to me. When I was younger and could not read, I would list the name of dinosaurs in tune with the hymns and tune everyone else out. Even though I could not read, I very much did not believe in the idea of heaven and thought that science was the only true measure of what was real and what was not. However, as I grew older and began to confort more of life's realities (death, love, the proper choice of sweater) I came to realize that I may have been remiss in rejecting the idea of faith or life after death. To be honest, I have no idea what happens after death, although I do have a theory. I see how nature in time recycles and repurpose everything and when we die, even if there is no such things as a soul,  our earthly bodies recompose and then become assimilated in other organism. I believe in life after death in that death allows for the creation and sustaining of new life, which is kind of a pseudo-reincarnation.

Separate from our own bodies, I believe that we live on through others in the memories we create and the impact we have on the lives of others. I feel that people such as my grandparents, all of whom have died, have influenced me in some way or another, in a way that goes beyond simple genetics. I have seen their mistakes and successes and understand that I will likely pass these experiences on to my children, should I chose to have any. As such, I chose to try and live my life not just that I can be remembered fondly or held in high regard, but so that I can have a more lasting impact that just the one known body and experience I am given as an individual. I, also, want to try and look at what other people have done and try to learn from their mistakes rather than make them myself.

Life After Death

I believe that if a person is saved by Christ and has asked Jesus into their heart, then their soul will go to heaven after they die, having an eternal life with God in heaven. If the person is not saved, then they will suffer an eternal life in hell. It seems harsh, but it is what I personally believe. I do not believe that our bodies are reincarnated, but I do believe that we get a new body when we enter heaven. I hope that someday I will see the people who have died in my life in heaven, and I hope that someday I can join them up there. It brings me peace and comfort, especially after a loved one has died. The source of my belief comes from the Bible, specifically in the book of Revelations.

Because of this belief, I live my life for God. It gives my life purpose and meaning. I try to obey God's ten commandments and remember that he died on the cross for my sins. I think it is only fair to offer up an hour out of my Sunday for him. It is very hard to keep all this in mind, but I grow closer to God everyday when I do. I know that many, many, people disagree with everything I said, but it is what I truly believe. This isn't just what my parents have taught me to believe, but it is what I believe through experiences in my life. I know that someday I will join Jesus in heaven after I die. It brings me peace instead of being afraid of death and it brings my life meaning.

Unsolvable Mystery: Life After Death

             I do not know what to believe when it comes to life after death. There is no way people will ever know so it is useless to wonder. Of course I wonder anyway, but I do not see how there will ever be proof of anything after death and until there is I do not believe in any of it. I would like to think we are reincarnated because that seems the most likely situation, but I do not believe people are. Recycling lives is an interesting thought, and that what you did in a past life somehow influences interests in this life. An afterlife, like heaven or hell, I do not believe in. Again, it is just as possible as reincarnation given what we know, which is nothing, but it seems pretty impossible and silly. There have been too many people to be in one place forever.
             Because of my lack of faith in an afterlife I believe it is very important to take advantage of the life we have now and be remembered for what we accomplished in it. It is sad to think that once we die, we disappear and only live on in people's memories and the lasting impact of our actions but we know that as much is true. When a person dies, their memory is not wiped from the earth and they are never thought of again. People "live on" that way, but that is not living. The actual person has no part in that once they die, and if that is all that death is, I'll be a little disappointed. But also dead, so I guess not.
             I believe ( or lack belief) in these things because I am not religious and life after death generally revolves around religion. Even though I am Jewish, I do not believe in God. I believe in science and proof and life after death has not shown me any. I am open to ideas though because nobody knows and possibly never will, making is cruelly interesting. Apparently though, not believing in any life after death due to lack of evidence is very Jewish. Odd.
              I do not think that not believing in an after life has shaped my life in any way. If anything, it has put me more in charge of my life. I figure, I do not know what happens after I die and if this is the only life I get I should live it how I want to, have fun, and not live according to other people's standards. Also, I act because I want to, not because it will get me into heaven or a higher caste in my next life. I try and be a good person for my own reasons.

Universally Applicable Ethics

There are many statements that can be made about the nature human beings on the whole. As a species, we human beings share a myriad of complex character traits. Although we are creatures with the capability to think critically, there are certain characteristics that human beings inherit at birth. For the most part, we humans sympathize with one another. All human beings are inclined to do good by their own nature, not by what they are taught by society. Evil is only born when a man or woman repeatedly rejects that inclination, for it is time that consumes all things.

The belief that human beings are good by nature is a widely held opinion, and it is not hard to see why. If one were to look to the many religions and faiths of the peoples of this world, that person should be able to easily recognize the similarities. The fact that religious practices and philosophies developed across the world, thousands of miles away from one another, each containing the same theories of social justice and personal adequacy only supports a belief in human benevolence.

Crime, Misdemeanors and Punishment

    For my prompt I chose #9 where Judah's family discusses how if religion is false would you chose it over truth. Why someone would chose this I believe is because if they lose the one thing that has given them truth throughout there entire lives then their life will have no meaning. They will look back on all of the wasted time that they spent learning the religions that they believed in and their parents believed in. To find out that they have been following a lie for generations. That would completely crush them.Humans in general need something to believe in. They need an outlet to look at life and be able to accept the things that happen to them and justify the world and all of its good and evil. In the words of Jack Nicholson "They can't handle the truth."
      Crime and Misdemeanors has many contrasts the biggest of these would probably have to be the motivation behind the murders and the way that they are carried out. Raskolnikov kills the tewo women that he does because he is completely sick of being in a rut and being poor. Judah kills his woman because he wanted things to stay safe and happy and secure for him. They were both on opposite ends of the spectrum. They both killed but to move in opposite directions. Raskolnikov wants to go forward and Judah wants to go back.

Human Ethics

Human Ethics are completely taught. Our ethics are passed down through our parents and most people that come before us. Universal Ethics I believe are formed this way. All humans have a universal form of ethics. The reasoning for this is because many people all over the world can agree on events that are happening in the world. Many of us in the world can agree that the wars going on in the world today are pretty awful and without a cause anymore. How could any of us agree on this unless there was some universal guideline on ethics for us. Throughout history have believed in a universal way to teach people and there is a minority in the world that still have not agreed to these beliefs. Most people believe in compassion. Cultures and religions all have similar ethics compared to each other, many teach kindness and forgiveness and a life after death for the righteous and horrors for the damned.

Faith or Truth?

       I chose to respond to question nine when the imaginary Passover scene is taking place. Judah's father is asked, "And if all your faith is wrong, Saul, I mean just what if?" and he answers "then I'll still have a better life than all those that doubt". They go on to talk about how he would always choose God over the truth. I think that people would choose religious faith over truth because they want something to believe in. People need a positive outlet to put their faith in in order to feel secure.
       Personally, I believe that universal truth isn't something that we have binding us. Although, I would understand why someone would want to believe that. The thought or idea of a world completely free of ethics is somewhat nerve racking because who knows what it can lead to. This is why I think that people like Saul give themselves a set of morals and rules and set of consequences for when they are broken. If there is something better and more comforting to believe in, why not view that over truth?

Crimes and Misdemeanors Question & Compare and Contrast

        Question 12: Cliff's suggestion would make Judah's story a tragedy because his story began happy and would end with something sad. Judah's version of the story gives his character a prosperous life and everything working out in the beginning, then the character faces an obstacle which he resolves. The resolution causes him some remorse but in the end he gets over it and everything is nearly back to normal. There's nothing tragic for the main character in Judah's story. Cliff's idea creates tragedy when the man decides to turn himself in, because then, since the absence of a higher power to do so for him, he pays for his crimes and loses everything.
        Crimes and Misdemeanors is definitely less dark and gruesome of a story than is Crime and Punishment. Besides the fact that more people were murdered in the latter of the two, the murder in Crimes and Misdemeanors is at least  somewhat justified. Judah was practically being blackmailed by the woman he was having an affair with and was backed into a corner ready to lose everything, while Raskolnikov killed because he saw an opportunity and was to lazy to earn his money honestly. Raskolnikov's killing wasn't an act of desperation since just before Razumihin had offered him a decent paying job.

Good Intentions and the Meaning of Life

I decided to explore prompt #9 because it's something I've pondered before.  I was once asked a multiple choice question which read "Imagine that you receive a document that absolutely proves whether or not God exists. Upon reading the document and finding the truth, you must decide whether or not to share the proof with the world. Which would you do?"  After reading the answers possible, I was surprised to find that my answer was "share the truth only if it proves God exists."  This answer likely isn't the most popular answer and it may not even be the morally right answer, but it's the one which feels right to me.  For some, the only hope they have is that there is a God who created the universe who would rather die than spend an eternity without them.  To take that away from these people, simply because I (in this scenario) know it isn't true, would be cruel.  It also stands to reason that, without the idea of God, some people may believe that they can do whatever they want because there is no such thing as eternal accountability.  I think that, if I knew there was no God, I would go on acting as I do.  I would keep working in youth ministry, keep going to Mass, keep going to Confession.  For me, Religion is a way to be a better person.  It has taught me discipline and gives a set of guidelines by which to live my life.  Without religion, I would be a different person entirely, and I'm not sure that the change would be favorable.

I think the most interesting contrast between Crimes and Misdemeanors and Crime and Punishment is the motive behind the crime.  Both crimes were, essentially the same.  Raskolnikov kills two women, Judah wears Dolores down mentally and makes her feel like she is worth very little, then hires someone else to do the dirty work.  The major difference between these is that Raskolnikov believes he is bettering society by killing the pawnbroker.  He has heard a lot about the woman and how she deals with others and decides that it would be better if she weren't around.  Judah kills Dolores to protect himself.  He's afraid of his name being soiled.  This is clear both in his dealings with Dolores and in his anger at Cliff for how he was portrayed in Cliff's film.  His motive behind killing Dolores is selfish and his unhealthy self-obsession will likely lead to his eventual ruin.  While both murders are unjustifiable, when one analyzes the two cases, s/he is more likely to sympathize with Raskolnikov than with Judah because of the intent behind the act.

Crime, MIsdemeanors, and Punishments

I chose to respond to the second question on the list, asking if there is an in between view of life. The rabbi thinks there is a "Moral structure with meaning, and forgiveness, and a higher power," and that it is the basis of life. Judah thinks that the world is harsh without pity or any values. I think there is definitely an in between and that I am in that balance. Turn on the news and you will find that the world is extremely harsh, often on those that do no deserve it. I do not know if I believe in destiny or fate, or that these tragedies happen because there is a higher power or great plan. But I also do not think that the world has no values or pity. I think even the darkest and most twisted humans have some sort of values, and that there are good people everywhere in the world. I believe in the goodness of humans more than I do in a higher power, but I also know that terrible things happen every day.
To be completely honest I have not finished Crime and Punishment yet, but I have actually enjoyed it so far. I found Crimes and Misdemeanors to be much more strange and actually did not like it as much. Raskolnikov commits his crime because he thinks he is doing the world a favor for the world by getting rid of such a mean woman. Judah claimed to have loved his victim and had her murdered for his benefit only. Both have a lot of trouble after their deeds are done, but Judah contemplates turning himself in more than Raskolnikov. The men also tease people with a confession, in Judah's case telling a story of a perfect plot for a movie and Raskolnikov telling the cop he knows what happened and then taking it back. Judah is not driven to the level of madness that Crime and Punishment's murderer is, which is why I do not sympathize with him. I almost like Raskolnikov and want him to get away with it, because I think he is actually crazy and believes what he did was right. Judah was stupid enough to have an affair while he was married and then ended a life because he could not deal with the consequences. He walks away happily with his like nothing is wrong. If I had to chose, Raskolnikov should get the misdemeanor and Judah should receive the punishment.

Crimes, Misdemeanors, and lots and lots of Punishment

For my prompt I chose #9, which referenced the scene in Judah's childhood home at Passover, specifically the debate about God versus Truth. My prompt asks "Why would someone knowingly choose religious faith over truth?" While I personally would not (and perhaps could not) do this, I can certainly see its appeal. First of all, truth is based on perspective and is often biased -- in essence it is flawed while the gods are perfect beings. Also, even should the truth be appealing, conditions are subject to change and what the "truth" is may change, but God is a constant, if you devoutly believe. Not only is God a constant, but one that is given to you at a very young age (typically), making him a comfort or a way of grounding yourself. So based on these notions God is perfect, constant, and comforting, while the truth is waning and frightful. Who would not want to live in the fantasy, no matter how "wrong" it is? We all watch TV shows, movies, or involve ourselves in activities that remove us from the agony of even simply being. I feel it is an impulse of ours, as humans, to seek out diversion, even in forms as potentially as harmful as substance use/abuse, and faith is often viewed as magnanimous or at least benign. So why not give in? After all, as Dorian Gray reminds us, "the only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it."

When comparing Crime and Punishment to Crimes and Misdemeanors, an element that immediately jumped out at me is under current of suffering among many of the prominent characters. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov suffers from madness and delirium which he feels so deeply that they drive him to commit murder and again are so great that he is over come by illness. Also, Sonya is forced into prostitution by her family's financial circumstances and is tormented by the idea that her younger siblings may one day suffer her own fated or something far worse. In Crimes and Misdemeanors, Judah suffers from the distress his mistress Dolores causes in his family/professional life and later her murder gnaws at him for the rest of his life. Clifford suffers in that he feels that his genius is never appreciated and his love is never return (and in the end stolen my his jerk brother-in-law). Another aspect of the two works that was a common thread was the nature of love and both keyed on affairs and marital unhappiness.  In Crimes and Misdemeanors, Judah is not content with his wife and cheats on her with Dolores, and Clifford kisses Hallie and loves her despite the fact that he is married. In Crime and Punishment, there is the whole issue of Dunya and Svidrigailov and his desire to be with her despite his marriage to Marfa Petrovna, which leads Svidrigailov to kill himself after Dunya can not. To me, the main things that made the works seem more distant from one another is very different setting and how Crime and Punishment seems to follow a clear more united path where Crimes and Misdemeanors seems more disjointed until further into the film.

From Misdemeanors to Punishment

      I think that Levy made a very accurate point on why people give up in life and seek to find a means to an end. He says that people are born into life with love and we need love to ultimatly keep us interested to stay in life. So under this theory if one feels completly unloved that someone will eventually find themselves unneeded in the world and will see to it's end. I think that this is an explanation of suidicide that is easy to understand, but also holds a lot of truth. Love and Hate are our strongest emotions are often out of balance in a person's life and the more negative energy and hate one hold the harder it is to enjoy being on the Earth.
       In comparing Crime and Punishment to Crimes and Misdemeanors, I can see the connections, but to be honest if Crimes and Misdemeanors had a different title, I would have had a hard time drawing a connection between the two. Yes, there is obviously a murder of a woman( or women), that has no living family to worry for her (or them), and there is a tormented killer who has dillusions, but for the rest of the plot in Crimes and Misdemeanors, it is broken and jumbled in comparison to the book Crime in Punishment. In Crime and Punishment, there are two sets of foil characters, Raskilnokov with Razmuhin, and Raskolnikov with Sonya. In this comparison the Walter, in Crimes and Misdemeanors reflects Raskolnikov where Walter is foils with his wife and her brother. What made it hard to connect the movie and the book was that there was essentially two Raskilnikov characters in the movie, as opposed to the only one in the book. The murder side being portrayed by Dr, Rosenthal, and the personal side being portrayed by Walter.

Universal vs Individual Ethics

It probably will not come as a surprise that I do not believe in universal ethics. I believe that human kind is too widespread and diverse for there to be cookie-cutter rules that everyone needs to follow. There are exceptions to every case, if you ask me. In order for universal ethics to be truly applicable, people would need to be similar—and that ruins the beauty of humanity. Individuals are individuals. People have different mindsets and opinions, views and ways of living life… One cannot just implement a set of umbrella rules that are supposed to encompass and apply to everyone. True, there are many rules that have found their way into different cultures. However, cultures share more than just ethics. Societies of people separated by thousands of miles and oceans have shared similar explanations toward divine beings and deities. They have unknowingly created stories that are eerily similar to other stories that take place in faraway places. I think that perhaps there are inherent ideas that are very common in humans because, even though we are very different, we still have core similarities. The idea of not murdering has been mentioned quite a bit. While it seems to have a strong stance in many cultures, I don’t think it’s a universal ethic. Many groups of people across the globe have featured ceremonies where sacrifices are key components to identifying their culture. In our own modern society, we still permit the murder of human beings who have committed heinous crimes. So while one could say that we have this “thou shalt not kill ethic,” what is the point of ethics if they’re not actively doing anything? Were they just rules created to remind us what we probably should do even though we won’t heed to it?

"Universal" Is Not the Preferred Term

       I do not believe in Universal Ethics. For something to be universal, in my mind, that means there must be no exceptions. "One shall not kill" is not a unviversal ethic, because in self-defense one may potentially need to kill an attacker attempting to do the same to oneself. I see that there are common morals and ethics from culture to culture which point to more common and "universally accepted" ethics, but my problem is with the word "universal" as stated earlier I feel as though it is too absolute. I believe in common guidlines that humans are naturally driven by. Although not all humans are naturally driven by these ethics that seem to appear across the board, but they could not come to be if the ethics themselves did not originate some where within humans. I deffinitly feel as though things such as refraining from murdering for sport or unnessecary gain, stealing, and sexual misconduct are concepts that a large majority of people would agree on.

Life After Death & Legacy

My view on life after death is that there is something. I'm not sure what, possibly some sort of heaven. I'm not very religious so I've been left to my own devices to figure out this important question. I think there are too many odd scenarios and coincidences after people die for life to be truly like a light switch-- on, then off. I think reincarnation is a cool concept. I have a friend whose mother is convinced that her younger brother is a reincarnation of her dead father. According to her, he knows things that he had never been told and even at a young age showed signs of being a similar person. Maybe there's a reason we are all strongly connected to certain subjects. I have no proof, but I don't really need any. I think that what you believe will be your fate. I saw a picture once of a gravestone that said (presumably it was not real) "Here lies an atheist all dressed up with nowhere to go". It was humorous to me and interesting to think about.
As for a legacy, I believe that the best legacy is left by leaving a touch on the lives of those after you (cliche, I know). People are remembered for what they did, bad or not, so I try to do things that I would be proud to be remembered for. I don't think it's a good idea to leave your legacy solely with money. It should be used to build a building or structure, fund an important program, or help the disadvantaged. I want to leave a legacy of helping others and making them laugh.

Crimes & Misdemeanors *Contains C&P Spoilers*

The question I am choosing to respond to:
2. Speaking to Judah, Rabbi Ben states the two key moral positions of the movie: "It's a fundamental difference in the way we view the world. You see it as harsh and empty of values and pitiless. And I couldn't go on living if I didn't feel it with all my heart a moral structure, with real meaning and forgiveness, and a higher power, otherwise there's no basis to live." Is there an in between position?

There is definitely an in between position on world view. Those characters were the two absolute extremes. I don't think anyone thinks the world is either a soulless place with no redeeming qualities or a perfect fairyland with no flaws. I'm definitely in between. Sometimes I have great faith in other humans (like if someone picks up and gives me the five-dollar bill I dropped in the hallway), but other times I feel much less sure. Violent events make me think that the world is more bad than good, if only for a little while-- but the outreach that quickly comes to the aide of the affected greatly outweighs the damage. Sure, some things in the news are absolutely horrible and awful to think of. But the goodness outweighs the bad. To be a healthy individual, you must have an in between view of the world's morality.
Crimes and Misdemeanors is similar to Crime and Punishment in many ways, but different in a few key ways. In C&M, the killer (Judah, technically) kills because he feels he absolutely has to. He doesn't have another choice, because Dolores knows too much. This, of course, is not a justification but is much different from Raskilnikov's reasoning. He killed the pawnbroker because he had a sever compulsion to do so and she was the easiest subject. He only killed Lizaveta because she was there-- he had no plan, where Judah's murder was planned extensively with a hit man. Judah's brother made every effort to cover up his tracks, while Raskilnikov's insanity led him to make choices that would eventually reveal him. As far as we know, Judah is never arrested or even questioned for the murder. Raskilnikov is harassed consistently by Pyotr Petrovitch and at his trial eventually confesses. Both give the air of a happy ending (as happy as the situations could be, I suppose). Lastly, C&P ends with true, successful love while C&M ends with love strewn all around and ripped apart.

The In Between

          I chose to answer the second question which asks whether there can be an in between position with viewing the world as "harsh and empty of values and pitiless" or "a moral structure, with real meaning, and forgiveness, and a higher power." I believe that the highest percentage of people believe in the in between. Some are people are bad and some are good and we all hope the good out weigh the bad. We wish everyone had morals and could forgive but we know not everyone does. Some believe in a higher power and some do not. The in between is being a realist. Wishing it was all good and we aren't responsible and those that do bad will be punished later but knowing that isn't true. Or, just an example, you could see the world as harsh and pitiless because of a higher power and see this as a meaning. I think there is more of an in between than not.
           The only similarities between Crime and Punishment and Crimes and Misdemeanors was the murder. Both men were responsible for the death of one (or more) people. Judah felt terrible guilt in the beginning but recovered and moved on without ever being discovered. Raskolnikov on the other hand, was so plagued by guilt he was physically affected and eventually confessed. They also committed the murders for completely different reasons which may be how Judah managed to justify his. Judah indirectly murdered his mistress because she was a threat while Raskolnikov personally, brutally, murdered two woman for reasons he has trouble finding; pride, the good of humanity, and money, being some.

Basic Human Ethics

I believe there are universal ethics because of understanding. We all share the human experience and  Murdering is universally recognized as something wrong because everyone has experienced death in some way and the sadness it brings. Every person knows what it is like to live, so everyone also knows what is lost when someone dies. Killing another human is too personal for another sane person to handle. Not stealing is another universal ethic because of understanding and trust. People value their reputations and the support of those around them. If a person is a known thief, people would not want to associate with them for fear of being stolen from. Everyone has been stolen from whether its just your last pencil or a wallet. Everyone has felt the injustice and anger and hopefully do not want to give those feelings to someone else. Cultures have similar ethics because usually most only require basic human compassion and we are all human. By now people have figured out the ethics that are worth being recognized universally and those that are not or can not be followed.

Ethics?

      Truthfully,  I believe that there are no such things as universal ethics. I am someone who
thinks that there are no rules in life, just consequences. If we wanted to steal something, nothing is holding us back, therefore we can steal as much as we please. However, if someone wanted us to be stopped and become arrested, nothing is holding them back either. I guess, in a way, there are certain taboos all cultures share. Usually this could include crimes like murder, theft, adultery, and lying. Yet, though there are many similar ethics shared throughout cultures, it is hard for me to call them universal ethics. For example, whereas we look at suicide as a terrible act, the Norse see it as a straightaway passage into Asgard, or their version of heaven. Also, whereas we see eating another person's flesh is seen as vile and unholy, the Maori tribes in New Zealand believed that eating a fallen enemy's flesh helps build manna, or spiritual power and prestige. Furthermore, as we view murder as sinful, the Aztecs frequently murdered people because they believe that human sacrifice pleases their gods.  As one can easily tell, there are plenty of examples that prove that ethics are not really universal. If anything, they are national for it is very uncommon for two different cultures to posses the same exact moral principles. A civilization would primarily base their ethics on what they view as bad and unholy acts and what are good, just, and enlightening acts. Religion, too, can have its own ethical code that can be copied from other, newly created religions (i.e. Christian motifs in Islam).
     Now I ask myself, should there be universal ethics? I honestly think that it is best to say no. Sure it would be quite beneficial in everyone's favor if everyone believed that killing is wrong, doing good acts is a necessity, it is best to see the good in people, everything must be fair, treat others the way you want to be treated, stealing is bad, cheating is bad, lying is bad, and eating meat is appalling. Though that is what my ideal world would be like, it actually sounds dull and boring to me. Where would be the conflict in everyday life? Where's all the excitement that life today holds? Where would be the balance between good and evil? Life would be bland for all we taste is goodness, not one hint of pleasure satisfying sins. That is not how life should be. Though sinful acts are bad, it makes us unique and best defines our inner wants. Also, civilizations would lose all of their unique individuality. Just imagine if the cannibals were vegetarian, the Romans didn't expand their empire, or the Aztecs didn't preform human sacrifice. Would they promote the same awe and wonder we give to them now? Would the world be the same? I think the world should remain in its non ethical, sinful ways in order for our world to retain its distinct balance between good and evil and to keep the ancient  cultural mindsets intact by remembering what it is that made them different from us.

Faith Over Truth

To answer question number nine, a person would knowingly choose religious faith over truth because it gives a person hope. It gives someone a purpose for life and comfort when times get hard. Otherwise, I would wonder what is the purpose of life. Just to live for the point of living doesn't seem fulfilling. For a lot of people, religion and faith gives their life fulfillment. The truth sometimes is devastating, and it is sometimes better to not know the truth. People can become burdened with the horrible truths, so religion can lift the spirits of people. When one can cast all their cares and worries to God, then I would pick religion over truth any day. For most people, it is more comforting to be involved with religion rather than the truth.

The movie Crimes and Misdemeanors is very similar to the novel Crime and Punishment. Both plots include murders where the murderer gets away with the deed. Both also have characters struggling with self-hatred for not being successful and a loser. However, the difference is that Raskolnikov is incredibly guilty for his crime and he can't escape it. In fact, he nearly goes mad about it. At the end, he turns himself because he can no longer handle feeling guilty any longer. Judah in the film, gets away with the crime. He only feels guilt at first, but then his guilt flies away as his normal life returns. Judah already had a successful life and money, while Raskolnikov did not. The two characters had different reasons for their murder. Judah killed his mistress so that his secret wouldn't get out, while Raskolnikov killed because he felt that the old woman deserved to die and that he had the right to kill her. Both stories are similar, but definitely not the same.

Universal Ethics

I think there are definitely universal ethics, but they have absolutely nothing to do with religion, because of course everyone has different views and ideas. "Don't kill" is probably the most definite 'human law' in the world. Even though somewhere there could be a small tribe of people that believe in human sacrifice, it is probable that even they believe killing another human for no reason is wrong. I do not think that always telling the truth could be considered an universal ethic. Although I personally believe that telling the truth is an important thing to do, it would be near impossible to never lie, and sometimes it is even the right thing to do by lying because you are protecting someone else's feelings. Cheating cannot exactly be considered universal either, because there are cultures where it is okay to have more than one partner.
The important thing about universal ethics is even though they apply to everyone, we only learn them from others and from society. If a person is isolated from birth all alone and then suddenly thrown into society, I do not think they would necessarily know that it is bad to kill a person. Humans have animalistic instincts but we change or suppress a good deal of them by teaching children wrong from right.

Universal Ethics

The idea of universal ethics is definitely a very loaded one. My first thoughts were “of course” and “how could humans function without them?”. However, once I tried to tease out an individual rule or idea I reached an impasse. In class, we looked at religion, both western and eastern, as a starting point for his discussion, but I found that these did not satisfy the task of “being universal”. For example, a recurring ethic among many group secular and non-secular is the idea that one should not steal, but this idea is based that of possessions. The laptop I wrote this on is mine or my house and land surrounding it belongs to my family, specifically my mother and father. This is an idea that I respect and believe in, to a certain extent, but this is not true in cross cultural sense. Some groups, such as Native Americans and extreme communist, do not believe that one physical object belongs to a single individual, but rather to the earth or universe as a whole. Similarly, the idea that adultery is unethical seems to appear frequently; however, there is no universal idea of marriage. Even within the United States, politicians squabble over the idea of same-sex marriage and various marital laws. Being that there is no universal definition to marriage, how can one describe adultery as universally unethical.

This process lead me to two ideas. Firstly, it is nearly impossible (at least for me) to pinpoint exact, clear-cut rules that apply to all. Secondly, while one can not exactly nail down what is ethical on a universal level, one can say that these laws or codes that rule over millions (if not billions) are based on maximizing pleasure (happiness) and minimizing pain (sad/anger). Since ethics are meant to guide larger groups they not only take into consider the pain/pleasure of the individual, but also that other the masses. The cause of this underlying principle is simple human desire -- no one wants to be in pain and even if they cause pain in some way it generally meant to cause some form pleasure. On a personal level, I would like to create universal ethics, but I don’t think that would go well in that cultures vary so widely that imposing my personal ethics may have a converse effect on a certain cultures and do damage that I could not foresee. I, also, do not think I have enough knowledge or life experience to create a perfect ethical system for my own culture.

Uni Ethics

Yes, I do believe in universal ethics. For example, everyone believes in laws and morals, such as no murdering, no lying, and no stealing. All cultures believe those are universal ethics. I also believe that sleeping with another man's wife should be a 'no no' for all cultures. I believe that it is a universal ethic, but some people disagree. It definitely was a universal ethic back in the old ages, but now times has changed. Men sleeping with multiple women in public seems to be more acceptable now. Before, in the olden times, it was done more in secret and frowned upon. Back then, adultery was definitely a universal ethic. I believe it should still be one now. Other ethics vary between countries and cultures. The USA has very different ethics then let's say, India. But definitely we have a few ethics in common such as murder, stealing, and lying.