America beware! Is technology becoming a cause for concern? Are our youth become dysfunctional computer addicts; Is our country headed to computer assisted annihilation? Read this essay for answers. click link “”space odyssey.”
The Beach Boys are hot again! What do they have in common with Marvin Gaye? Read article below https://spain90.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/166/.
According to Peter Chepya, (Caps prof.) the Beach Boys are rebelling from an overbearing dad and creative management situation. They abandon their incredibly successful “Beach boy” sound to express their creativity and versatility.
As I reminisce while listening, Marvin Gaye on “What’s Goin On” makes a political stand while simultaneously expressing his conscience. “Pet Sounds and “What’s Goin On” are distinctly contrasting in style, yet share a similar theme: “Pet sounds” expresses the innocence of young love; Gaye’s “what’s Goin On” reveals his experience in culture, the political views of that time, and his faith.
One of the Beach Boy songs that is different from “What’s Goin On” is “Wouldn’t It Be Nice.” This song is a rebellion from the popular beach songs as well as Gaye’s songs. It is also a rebellion against society’s repression of young love, similarly, Gaye’s song rebels against society by encouraging love towards one another; it expresses the longings of and an apparent inability to positively affect their situation from 1) their dad and the record company’s creative control, 2) to a young lover’s patient waiting in “Wouldn’t it be nice.” Gaye’s “What’s Goin On” expresses war, lower and middle class issues and also sheds light on his faith views.
The Beach Boys “You still believe in me” and Gaye’s “What’s happening brother” both discuss leaving and returning home to people or situations that are important to them; Gaye discusses outer situations, while “you still believe in me” discusses inner desires and reconciliation.
The song “I’m waiting for the day” by the Beach Boys justifies the writer’s role in a relationship he says, “I came along when he broke your heart…” His passion drives him to point out reasons that she should view him as her knight in shining armor, “I gave you love…with a brand new start… that’s what you needed the most to set your broken heart free.” As strong as he feels, his love gives him patience, he says, “I’m waiting for the day you can love again.”
Similarly, Gaye says in “Right On,” …some of us are aware that it is good for us to care; some of us feel the icy wind of poverty blowing in the air. But those of us who like to socialize, those of us who tend the sick or heed the peoples cries…Right On!”
Love is king in both of these songs, one for self (emotions) the other for society. One is motivated by compassion towards a dejected lover, the other for those dejected by life in hard economic times or by social injustice. Both reveal love’s role in entirely different cultures and identities.
These songs reveal the hope that is encapsulated within love and they express conformity of for example a hopeful suitor’s pursuit of a dejected lover who is hopefully vulnerable or needy enough to grasp the newer and “truer” love that he is offering. The majority of “What’s Goin On” lyrics of love rebel against society’s disregard for its citizen’s needs by encouraging them to “love sweet love, wonderful love, true love, for your brother and one another.”
My emotional reaction is expressed in pure joy! These songs (Pet Sounds) exhort hope in our ability to endure our yearnings for companionship and to look forward to where our dreams for one another will come together. Intellectually my reaction confirms love’s ability to carry us through situations that can break a person’s will and emasculate the human spirit by causing stress and fear of poverty and isolation. “What’s Goin On” reminds us that addictions “flyin high in the friendly skies” and poverty and loneliness can only be truly dealt with by “God’s Love.”
Lastly, both of these soundtracks express similarities in theme while they are very different in style. Their affect is both emotional and intellectual; they see life through God’s eyes, loves eyes and urge all of us to do the same.
Thank you God for a dignified presentation of how loving people express their grief in spite of the media sensationalizing everything! Whitney’s home going service was beautiful.
I’m watching this comedian “Patrice O’Neal; he is funny …!!!
he is on COMHD channel 50 (TV14) 6PM-7PM. FUNNY DUDE!
My name is Steven, Steve ,Stevie to close family. My Christian name carries with it a noble meaning in hebrew it alludes to a Prince! Okay so its spelled with a PH (Stephen), close enough!
Kant hit on something in his rejection of utilitarianism. He says that just because something is pleasurable to many people does not mean that it is right. Alcoholism is a prime example of why his argument against utilitarianism is true.
Many people enjoy drinking socially, and the majorities partake in it safely, but in the long run even those who partake safely will become victims to its effects biologically. Its legal, it brings happiness to a majority of people either socially, in the free market, or even psychologically by fostering a sense of wellbeing to the individual.
Does it leave ones rights vulnerable? I will argue yes to that question. It may take a while but the rights of co-dependents are vulnerable compared to the rights of the liquor distributor and store owner. Is the law that supports it a moral or just law; only in the sense that anyone can participate in the licensing procedure to become a business owner and benefit financially in the sale of alcoholic beverages. This stance leaves the proprietor morally insufficient because of the potential damage to family and the health of those who use alcohol for pleasure. Furthermore, dignity is lost through addictions and therefore pure practical reasoning is also sacrificed.
Kant troubles me though. It seems as though he goes to extremes to reject his Christian foundations to intellectualize all of his philosophical views. Pure practical reasoning works for me but, human capability in itself has to in my view be attributed to a higher more thoughtful and capable entity (to God).
Reason on the other hand is humanity’s final substantive drive towards action in my view; but it relies on knowledge that often times cannot be easily explained; but to call it sovereign is a mistake that is equal to equating man with the creator of the earth and the cosmos.
I can appreciate Kant’s breakdown of topics such as ‘freedom’ because it clarifies what is actually involved in our thought processes. Even though I see value in the process I am still a little put off by his views; for example, biologically determined behavior; is freedom really an issue when we are driven to a decision biologically? If I have cancer and I am in pain why is it not freedom to make use of what is available in an unfettered market? Autonomy according to Kant still affords me the ‘freedom’ to act or not on the “law that I give myself” to survive free of pain or discomfort.
I believe that I have functional understanding of his view of heteronomy and how heteronomous influences are not akin to freedom. I believe that an individual’s choice of what an end should be is moral and free if the end sustains my life in a manner that promotes reasoning and a selfless conclusion. What I’m saying is that I believe in motives as a final influence to action.
Doing the right thing because its right is correct in my view, it just depends upon the individual’s ability to disseminate and categorize facts. And also, the individual must be willing to set his/her will on doing, not on being right in the first place.
Kant’s ‘groundworks’ perspectives work more effectively only as principles. His positions are laboriously explainable, but are in my view not always practical; nevertheless, l am learning to see one’s life and circumstances according to a “categorical imperative” which can be a major asset to making sense in morally controversial issues. He says to learn to “act in a way that always treats humanity as an end will avoid many of society’s ills. This point brings me back to my earlier statement of Kant’s efforts to dispel his religious upbringing.
Kant says that his view is unlike love, sympathy, solidarity or fellow feeling; I believe it is a product of Christian teaching put in other words.
Christianity teaches its followers to love God, not because of or for what He does for us but because of who He is. Kant says “justice requires us to uphold human rights of all persons, regardless… simply because they are human beings, capable of reason, and worthy of respect. The Holy bible teaches that people should give honor where honor is due and respect where respect is due (reasoning is implied and also viewing people as rational beings and worthy of respect).
Hypothetical versus categorical imperatives are easier to distinguish for me. Acting according to some nonbiological interest that Kant views as the prime motivator to my actions makes sense, in that sense I am not truly free (maybe, I’m thinking of my prior argument).
Finally, Kant’s view on truth, morals, and categorical imperatives and so on are right. But they are also products of his religious upbringing.