REFLECTION Nov. 5 - Unamuno

"There you have me, a man who affirms opposites."

THIS is the set of words that stuck out to me most from Wednesday's class.

I have always maintained that most people, whether conscious of it or not, embody both ends or a spectrum. 

However, until this weeks reading, I have never heard an argument to support this. 

I thoroughly enjoyed dissecting Unamuno's topics and how he presented them plainly but intellectually.

Also, I would like to give complement to Group 15 for thinking of an ingenious way to get the class mixed up and discussing with people that we likely would not have otherwise.

I will admit that prior to Wednesday's class, there were a few people in my "Almond Joy" group that I hadn't seen before.

And yet the discussion with them was effortless and intriguing, providing viewpoints that I may not have given thought to previously.

Back to Unamuno, I very much like how he pitted logic with passion/desire as if having them co-exist is impossible.

In class, we discussed "head and heart" and if logic and desires could be separately operated. 

Personally I believe that although there are instances where one influence can overpower the other, that both are employed when making a conscious decision.

Sometimes, the logical answer is not necessarily what will bring you happiness, so you defy logic and go with what you believe is best for you.

Other times, what you desire can be foolish and harmful, so you ignore your wants and do what you know is the safest.

But you are always aware of both sides and can asses from there which option is most self-serving.

I appreciate how he brings this argument into theocratic light, highlighting that faith and reason never come to a compromise.

Reason is always competing with faith, and faith that is weak seeks reason to empower it.

It was an eye-opening few pages, as my whole struggle with religion is that these two concepts cannot support each other.

I also gained a lot from the discussion we had about ethics. It was refreshing to take a break from the "Is God Real" discussion and give thought to other concepts for a change.

The question was posed, "Does an individual create its own ethics?" 

I went back and forth with this, always leaning heavily on the side of yes, a person creates its own set of ethics and abides by them.

I do believe that society heavily influences the baseline of how ethics are created, and therefore seemingly ethics are created regionally.

But, as stated very convincingly by a classmate, life and experience are the biggest creating factors in an individuals ethics.

In stating this, I'm using ethics as a stand in for the rules of behavior a person adheres to based on what they believe to be fundamentally good and bad.

In this definition, you will always have conflict as "good and bad" are not black and white concepts.

There is a lot of grey area to consider, which would lead to a person's necessity to internally devise a "code of conduct" based on what they perceive to be moral. 

This can be easily illustrated with a concept such as the death penalty.

It's a concept that has been debated since biblical times, with opinions spanning the spectrum of wrong or right.

I think that on this and many other topics, it can be argued that ethics are an internal concept of an individual, and not a given one.