Osvaldo Cisneros 6/1/19 Osvaldo Cisneros 6/1/19

What Love Entails

Love is an intense feeling of deep affection. At least in some definitions. In others, love is a strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties. Whichever definition you choose to follow, it is a pretty difficult thing to define, and it is especially difficult to cope with. According to Psychology Today, love is a learned behavior, and it is developed from infancy, and from the interactions we garner with our caregivers dictates how we are to develop future relationships. However, current times, with the introduction of apps such as Tinder, and ease of long-distance communication, it is not too surprising to see the change in how love and relationships are made.

I am always conflicted with the idea of long-distance relationships, however, it seems as though it is now commonplace. The reason I have always had an issue with long-distance relationships almost always comes down to my fear of infidelity. Now, while this may be an irrational fear of mine, it still holds merit in regards to long-distance relationships. I am under the impression that a successful relationship requires strong communication, and while recent technologies has allowed for communication abroad to be easy, it should be noted that there lacks a physical presence. I am fully aware of technologies such as face-time among others, but it is not the same as physically being with another person. And with this, there lacks an intimate connection, and without a connection, there is more of a reason to go off and be with others who are actually present. While there are people who are less susceptible to such temptation, it feels as though it is really only a matter of time. The longer stretch of time there is between physical presence, the more the inclination to be with someone who will actually be present.

Moving onto dating apps, such as Tinder, it is also unsurprising to see yet another change in how relationships are changed. For starters, there is less of an actual connection with the person on the other end. What is meant by this is that the environment surrounding such dating apps has gone from looking for a real connection, to merely looking for a quick fling. And, because there is no real fear of rejection associated with this form of "dating" due to the game-like aspect of it, there is no real "quest" that goes along with looking for a partner. While this may seem to be following an archaic form of partner-seeking, it has been quite fundamental to the development of human-kind. That is not to say that apps such as Tinder are bad, it is merely that they are altering how we as a species go about looking for partners, and whether it is for the better or worse is yet to be determined as it is still quite novel.

So, while love is still very much an aspect of human development, there is no doubt that it is changing with current technologies. With long-distance relationships now being feasible and somewhat more common, I still caution those who are in long-distance relationships and advise them to ensure there is sufficient communication and physical presence. And for those on Tinder, try to go out with someone you have met in person, and make solid partners with those around you and stray away from the easy gratification of a quick fling.

Osvaldo Cisneros 5/11/19 Osvaldo Cisneros 5/11/19

A Facade

Made by a paranoid schizophrenic patient. Cuenca, Spain, 1961

We as humans need social interactions, it is part of the reason why we still exist today. Society now is faced with the problem of social media, a platform that blurs social interactions with a facade of our true selves. Many have praised social media for bringing people of all corners of the world together, spreading information quickly, and bringing attention to things that were once neglected. However, there is also the ongoing problem of a false perception of perfection, and an ongoing disbelief of the truth.

The false perception of perfection stems from what we are exposed to while using social media. There is this need to solely post the positive things in life, and this is what others are seeing "[and] we find ourselves comparing the best of our friend’s lives to the worst of our own." Since we are only exposing ourselves to the best of other people's lives, neglecting the negative of real-life problems "we can easily become depressed when we see others accomplishing more than us." So, while others are out posting the best of their lives, the pressure to only post the positives of our lives is present, and we therefore create an online persona that can be far from our true selves. This behavior is then reinforced by the use of "likes" which acts as a rewards system and pushes people to continue this spiral of one-upping their followers. "The number of likes our posts receive serve to define our self-worth. We realize we can’t be other people, but we agonize over not being a better version of ourselves." Currently, we see social media companies testing the removal of "likes" to remove this reward system, as it is increasingly obvious that it is detrimental to the well-being of society.

Speaking on the well-being of society, the use of social media has "unleash[ed] a myriad of complex psychological issues that have altered our collective sense of reality." Because we are slowly indoctrinating ourselves with a false reality, the truth of the world is no longer clear. Since information is now at our fingertips, there is an increasing decline in fact-checking the information we receive. This, coupled with the tendency to seek information that confirms our opinions, we are plagued with the so called "fake news". In reality, "fake news" is just the propagation of opinions without sufficient evidence to back it up, or a questionable source of information.

So, while social media may be a way to connect with people from all over the world, we must take into account the social and psychological problems that accompany it. "Whether your inner nature tends toward paranoia, narcissism, manic, depressive, or even melodramatic behaviors...these things unconsciously manifest themselves, rather publicly, in an online setting." We are no longer displaying our true selves and are instead projecting the person we want others to see. And while this may be a good ego-boost, in the long run, it is an unhealthy way to take on the reality of life.

Osvaldo Cisneros 4/11/19 Osvaldo Cisneros 4/11/19

A Good Friend

Friends. Everyone needs them. Some more than others. Being social animals, we as humans have friends and establish relationships with people for a variety of reasons. Regardless of the reasons for choosing to become friends with someone, for the most part, you can tell when there is a good friendship.

So what exactly makes a good friend. Well, according to Aristotle, a good friendship is one that is "based on a mutual appreciation of the virtues the other person holds dear.... [and] the people themselves and the qualities they represent provide the incentive of the two parties to be in each other's lives". Aristotle argues this is the best kind of relationship while also noting there is one of utility and one of pleasure, of which he deems to be "accidental friendships". The friendship of utility is one common in business, in which the relationship is established through a mutual agreement of using the other person's abilities. The friendship of pleasure is just that, a friendship in which there is a pleasure of the others company during a set of circumstances. And while I personally agree with Aristotle's idea of the best kind of friendship, I think there is more to add to it.

To most, it appears that a friend is one that stays with you when times are hard, loyal, and honest. And while these are great qualities, I feel like it is very superficial. Obviously you would want someone who stays with you when times are rough and is not afraid to let you know when you have done wrong. But what should be more important is the company they provide. No one ever wants to be with someone that brings constant negativity and makes nothing of themselves. There has to be a sort of mutual competition where both parties are constantly trying to improve the other instead of being an echo-chamber for each other. Psychology Today put it well when they say that a true friend is committed to your happiness (it should be assumed that it goes both ways) and does not pressure you to throw away your principles (a mutual appreciation of virtues as Aristotle says) and is a good influence.

Friends are an integral part of our development and for that reason, it is important that the friends we choose are not only good influence, but also good company. There should be no fear to bring up issues with the friend, and if there is issue, then that is a sign that they are not working to the mutual benefit of the friendship and are instead out for their own regard.

Osvaldo Cisneros 3/12/19 Osvaldo Cisneros 3/12/19

A Real Man

Chivalry is not dead! At least, that is what is sought after when looking for a "real man". I have a post on here that relates to the idea of gender and my interpretation of how it relates now in society. This blog post relates more to the societal "requirements" of what it means to be a man. After reading the Hind Swaraj by Gandhi, I was presented with Gandhi's vision on what it means to be a real man and compared it to what I have formulated for my definition of masculinity.

While Gandhi's main purpose in writing the Hind Swaraj is to offer a solution to India's colonization undertaken by the British. He does this through dialogue in which he has a back and forth with someone who has differing views on the liberation of India. In this text, Gandhi talks about what it means to be courageous and how that is attributed to man. He is not much of an advocate for those who go through extensive work to get bodily strength. Instead, he sees courage in the ability to be nonviolent and benevolent in the face of violence and malevolence of which he calls soul-force. He also argues that man must be celibate (both in acts and in thinking) and must be religious and adhere to Truth. While this also outlines the way to free India, it essentially is attributed to men to do this job as they are the ones who must hold courage and be willing to die for their convictions.

Then, there is toxic masculinity. As noted in the New York Times toxic masculinity includes the "suppressing of emotions or masking distress, maintaining an appearance of hardness, and violence as an indicator of power." And I would say this is very much true in that men are taught to be tough; however, this has had its toll. For instance, according to the AFSP, men are more than 3 times as likely to commit suicide than women, and this could easily be due to mental health issues caused by this masking of emotions. It should also be noted there are more men in prison than women, and again, this is all tied into toxic masculinity.

And while it may be easy to claim that this toxic masculinity has placed us in the hierarchical patriarch that we are currently in, it is not that simple. I touch more on hierarchy in this post. So while toxic masculinity is to be blamed for the bad side of manhood, the question still stands: what is a man supposed to be? For me at least, a man should be protective in nature. Men tend to be more aggressive than women; however, this aggression should by no means be applied to only negative context as aggression can be used positively in the presence of danger. Similar to how Gandhi views courageousness as being a marker of masculinity, I would extend it to include rationality as Gandhi includes passive resistance to his definition of courageousness, but sometimes, passive resistance leads to the detriment of the man and those he cares for.

Works Cited

Gandhi, and Anthony Parel. Hind Swaraj and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Osvaldo Cisneros 2/18/19 Osvaldo Cisneros 2/18/19

The Art of Self-Reflection

Self-reflection doodle courtesy of Google

Self-reflection is something that is sometimes taken for granted. While humans are social animals and thrive on social interaction (for the most part), some alone time to think to yourself is beneficial and can help you better yourself as a person. In my case, I have a lot of alone time in the morning on my walk back from the gym and when I eat breakfast. During this hour or so, I reflect on my interactions with people or simply think of my position on certain topics. The reason I reflect on my interactions with people is due to the fact that I want to make myself a better person to be interacted with as I see social interaction as an integral part of my character. During this self-reflection, I think to myself "What did I do correctly in this interaction?", "Is there anything I regret doing in this interaction?", and "Is there anything to improve on?" This, in turn, can help lead you to a better social life and can improve on your ability to interact with others in a way that brings reciprocal goodness to anyone involved.

Now, while it may seem that I am building myself to look better in the eyes of others, which is something that Rousseau argues as problematic in his discourse, I am actually building myself as a better version of myself. The way that I do this through self-reflection includes the fact that in the interaction I take what is liked by the majority (which creates an ideal) and try to shift my behavior and action that best fits the ideal that everyone holds as valuable. This does not mean that I am trying to make myself look good for others, on the contrary, I am essentially retrofitting myself into the ideal person that others would like to interact with. While it can be argued as Stuart Mill does, that the majority thought is not always correct (which is very much true), this does put in the risk of retrofitting yourself into an ideal that is not necessarily moral or virtuous, even if the majority perceives it as so. In these such cases, self-reflection on where you stand on the matters will guide you in the correct path. And while you may ask "How do I know what is morally good?", it should be noted that thinking things out thoroughly and deeply, will usually help clear things up.

Another thing that self-reflection allows for is the ability to become more self-aware of what you do. There is nothing worse than a person who does harm to others and is not aware that they are causing harm to others. The reason lies in the fact that they are oblivious to how their actions and words affect other people. Hence, when a person self-reflects, they are able to diagnose any harm they have caused to others, and are less likely to continue the harm once they become aware of it.

Osvaldo Cisneros 1/18/19 Osvaldo Cisneros 1/18/19

Is Being Rich Being Evil?

There was a recent suggestion from Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to tax the first $10 million by 70 percent, a suggestion that received favorable polls as broken down by the New York Post. Now, while she makes the argument that the taxes were much higher in the 1950s and '60s, I was still taken aback by such an idea. I used to think that the rich were full of greedy people that hoard their wealth, and would also think "What could you possibly do with all that money?" But after some pondering and listening to arguments for both sides, I realized that the rich are not the enemy.

Every time there is talk about the rich, there also seems to be the talk of the dispossessed people that come as a result of capitalism and an unfair power hierarchy of which only benefits those at the top. And while this may be superficially correct, looking deeper into the situation proves this not to be the case. While many see those at the top as those privileged by unfair advantages, in truth, it is the majority of the people that have placed them there. As Jordan Peterson (of which I have mentioned in previous blogs) points out, there is no such thing as a hierarchy based on power distributions and instead, the hierarchy is based on competence. He then goes to mention why hierarchies are established, to which he attributes value being the foundational reason. As people, we value certain things above others, and this creates a hierarchy of priority. And when someone is able to produce that value efficiently, we reward them by placing them higher in the said hierarchy because they are competent enough to give us the things we prioritize. Once I opened my eyes to this idea, I no longer saw the ultra-rich people as an enemy of the people, but instead as a competent benefactor of our values.

However, the question of what someone could possibly do with so much money (take for instance Jeff Bezos who had a net worth of $150 billion) is still unanswered. It is obvious that a lot of that money comes from investments and not actual cash, but regardless, there is still a lot of money at hand, which could be used for better purposes. For instance, Bill Gates has funneled a lot of money for research and education and promises to give a lot of it away after death, and this is the kind of thing that I believe is necessary. This idea is best articulated in Andrew Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth" where he argues that the rich should use their money in philanthropic endeavors and those who are stingy with their money should be taxed heavily and have a lot of their estates reduced after death. Now, while he may have had some rather harsh views on why certain people were poor, the philanthropic idea is something that should not be overlooked. I am very much of the mindset that the wealthy should use their large mass of wealth for the greater good, and I now see why Ocasio-Cortez would like to tax them at such a high rate because then the government could use the added money for public goods. The only problem that I see with this is the fact that the people are not necessarily doing something out of the goodness of their heart, plus there needs to be cautious as economics shows that having a high enough tax rate results in more loss than gain.

Osvaldo Cisneros 12/7/18 Osvaldo Cisneros 12/7/18

Religion: Blessing or Plague?

Born and raised in a somewhat Catholic household, I am a byproduct of religion. By "somewhat" I mean that I was baptized, went through my First Communion and my Confirmation, and went to church every so often. But besides this, it seemed as though that religion was something that we did outside of our home and not necessarily something that defined us. Nonetheless, as I grew older, I began to form my own opinions, and while I went through my Confirmation class, I saw myself questioning a lot of things from my religion such as the fact that someone can live a sinful life only to be forgiven when they repent as they die. However, it would be wrong for me to say that the bible teachings that I went through did not affect me, in fact, some of my core principles are founded upon these teachings. And while this is a positive good that comes from religion, I am under the impression that some of the things wrong with the world also come from religion.

While religion can be a source of good, there are times where it can also be a source of conflict and ignorance. Most of this ignorance comes from the fact that "All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question [which] can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs." When people are inflexible and unable to see the perspective of others, there is a lack of understanding from this ignorance that then leads to conflict amongst people. And these articles of belief that must be followed can then lead to an inability for social progress and acceptance of other people who do not share the belief, or even worse if they disagree with it. Religion in this sense is yet another way to bring people apart when it should instead be bringing people together, and this is where I have the biggest of problems with religion. When there are people who claim to be religious and all-loving only to do morally questionable things is something that has always bothered me. In essence, people's hypocrisy is what bothers me. These are the people who are constantly going to church and put on a veil of religious good, but at home, they are alcoholics, wife-beaters, etc. And I don't want to paint with a broad brush here, obviously, the majority of people are not like this, the amount of people who are is still alarming and bothersome.

Furthermore, there have been many atrocities in the name of religion. And while "only 123 [wars] have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all the wars" there have been other atrocities such as genocide against the Indigenous Americans, and the present conflict in the Middle East between Israel (a Jewish country) and Muslim countries that have taken the lives of many. Then there are extremists, who use violent means in order to grow their followership and push forward their interpretation of the religion.

As I mentioned in "The Attack on Discourse" there is no real communication between people of different ideas and there is instead a polarization amongst them. This also applies to how people look at those with a different religion. Instead of trying to understand and learn their religion, they would rather ostracize or avoid interaction with people of other religions which only adds to hostility and conflict amongst people. For me, religion is just another method of dividing people alongside race and ethnicity and just adds to the ever compounding reasons to stay within a bubble. And while religion can also be unifying to those who are within the religion, it does so at the expense of those who are not.

Osvaldo Cisneros 11/23/18 Osvaldo Cisneros 11/23/18

The Attack on Discourse

As the United States continues to divide itself based on political affiliation, there is one thing that is becoming less and less important: free speech. When the President of the United States condemns certain news outlets for disagreeing with him, and this idea of "fake news", we progressively regress. Nowadays, simply mentioning party affiliation, or an opinion on something could mean losing friends and family as well as ostracization. Political discourse or any discourse for that matter is under attack.

One of the main things that come into question is hate speech and free speech and what should be protected. In my opinion, it all should be protected. Obviously, threats to another person yield legal trouble which is totally understandable. However, more and more it seems as though that free speech is being confused with hate speech due to the simple fact that a person gets offended. And it is this fact that is troubling to me because this then prevents people from engaging in any real discourse, as they fear to say anything remotely controversial that would offend the other person. For instance, in the "Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman Debate," Newman asks Peterson "why should your freedom of speech trump a . . . person's right not to be offended" to which Peterson replies "in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive" to which I agree. For there to be any progress in a discourse, people must risk offending the other person in order to present their full ideas instead of sugar-coating it to ensure that the other person does not get offended. The main purpose of discourse is not necessarily to get another person to agree with you but rather to understand your point of view, but that will not be possible if you can not express yourself completely out of fear of offending them.

This was prevalent especially during the first year of President Trump's term where universities had student clashes with guest speakers that did not fit within their opinions. While some of these speakers were known to have rather extreme views (as seen with UC Berkely and Yiannopolous), shutting them down usually results in no progress and in fact might make them feel stronger about the opinions they had. In these instances, many saw the solution to shut down speech they found offensive through protests-turned-riots.

Osvaldo Cisneros 11/4/18 Osvaldo Cisneros 11/4/18

Gender: Is it Black and White?

The Gender Spectrum courtesy of shameproofparenting

There is a growing discussion on gender and sexual identity, and for me, this was always perplexing. I had always seen the world through the gender binary lens that perhaps a lot of us have, and grew up thinking there were standards as to how it is a man and woman are supposed to behave. For me personally, growing up in a Mexican household, we are taught this "machismo" idea which calls for the man to hold their ground no matter the circumstances. It was seen as effeminate for us to cry or show vulnerability, and many of the things we went through had to be endured. But, as I grew older and began thinking for myself, I saw this as a detrimental way of thinking. As a human being, I am supposed to feel emotions and there are going to be things that elicit an emotional response. This newfound way of thinking has pushed me away from this toxic idea of masculinity, of which I believe is a growing concern that society faces now.

There is also a growing consensus that gender no longer includes only male and female, or at least how they are to be perceived. But, society does not seem to know the words that should be involved in the discussion, and much rather make their own assumptions and definitions. Gender, as it is defined here, is divided into three parts: body, identity, and expression. The explanation for "body" describes it as how society identifies what is male and female, so essentially the definition of sex. Sex is biological and includes the genitalia and hormones associated with either male or female. This then brings into question people who are intersex, where a person is born with both reproductive organs or has a shared anatomy between the sexes. In these cases, gender identity, or how people view themselves, plays a big role.

Gender identity seems to be the great divider in many of the discussions that society has. People can choose to view themselves as the typical male and female counterparts, or can choose to be non-binary or agender (not associated with any gender). I find difficult to come to terms with the last two because it does not add to the conversation. It seems as though people choose not to pick any gender for the sake of not picking a gender, considering that a person is going to behave in certain ways that, although stereotypical, are still in line with the male or female roles. This is the gender schema theory which is society's definition of the roles of both genders in society. This notion of not being associated with either gender is a little misleading because although some people can possess attributes from both sides (like a spectrum) there are things that are going to define what is typical of a male and what is typical of a female, and simply not wanting to give it a name adds little to the conversation.

This then leads us to gender expression, which is how people choose to show their gender. Although gender schema theory denotes how male and female are supposed to behave and look based on society, people may choose to express themselves however they would like, which includes wearing things generally associated with the other gender. Gender expression does not necessarily define gender identity, and this is the part that many seem to confuse. A person's gender identity is separate from their gender expression and it is mostly here where I think the spectrum is a lot more clear to see. How a person wants others to see them should not be scrutinized or discriminated against, as it is an expression. Here in the United States, this is protected under the First Amendment, and how a person chooses to present themselves should not be a defining aspect of there gender identity. How they express their gender is how they feel comfortable, and it should not be grounded in how they view themselves internally. A biological male who identifies as a male can express effeminate qualities, but this does not mean that they are female and vice versa.

So, while many argue that gender is a spectrum, I would argue that it is really the expression of gender that is more like a spectrum. Nonetheless, such grounds should not be the basis to judge someone, and instead of judging people on how they express their gender, it should be their character that ultimately defines who they are.

Osvaldo Cisneros 10/12/18 Osvaldo Cisneros 10/12/18

Immigration and How to Solve It

Melting Pot stirred by Liberty courtesy of American wikki

Immigration has always been an integral part of the United States. Throughout my years in school, I can always recall some iteration of the United States being referred to as the "melting pot of the world", and it is this fact that has caused me to question the amount of hostility that has recently enveloped this country towards immigrants. However, to think that this hostility towards immigrants is newfound would be a very misinformed thought to have. Hostility towards immigrants can be seen with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Mexican Repatriation early 20th century, and the Internment of Japanse Americans during WWII. While it seems that hostility towards immigrants comes and goes depending on circumstances, the reasons for immigrating are constant. While GlobalCitizen and Witness for Peace list multiple reasons for immigrating, I think it all comes down to one thing: the search for a better life.

Now, a better life has a multitude of meanings since it can mean different things for different people. But for the most part, a better life constitutes better opportunities, and when a person's native country is plagued with political turmoil, poverty, war, and crime, it makes sense as to why they would want to migrate elsewhere. It is a basic survival instinct to get away from an environment that is detrimental to one's personal well being, so why be hostile towards someone who only wants the best for themselves? Let us take Latin America and the Middle East as an example. Latin America has been plagued with the drug wars for decades, and living there is a nightmare. Cartels have reigning control over the corrupt governments of many Latin American countries and are "deeply rooted inside communities... [such that] governments get frustrated confronting an enemy they can't see and unleash soldiers to torture and murder civilians" (Grillo). To be in constant fear for your life is no way of living and leaving, to me, seems like the only option. Same can be said with the ongoing conflicts within the Middle East such as the Syrian Civil War, terrorist groups that have taken over land the size of small countries, and historical conflict linked to religion with the fight for Jerusalem (Shah), all of which lead to difficulties living there.

With these things in mind, it is heartbreaking to think that in the midst of all these problems, you have things such as President Trump's travel ban and the "No Tolerance" approach that led to the prevention of entrance to certain people and the removal of children from their parents. Now, I am not here to drag the President's name, that is not what I set out to do. I see the President's actions as his method to solve this "immigration crisis" that he had promised to fix as he campaigned. However, this is far too simple of a solution to such a complex problem, and it is for this reason that immigration is still a problem. This can also be seen with the way that the United States handles the drug cartels in Latin America. This scorch-earth policy towards drug farms only leads to the drugs being made elsewhere. Instead of going for the producers, go for the corruption in the government and reestablish rule of law (Grillo).

While it may not be the most helpful suggestion, I think the best way to solve this immigration crisis would be to remove this need to look for a better life. Obviously, immigration will always be something that occurs, but in order to reduce its volume, countries that are war-torn, drug-torn, etc. would need to be helped out of their situation in order for people to no longer feel the need to immigrate.

Osvaldo Cisneros 10/7/18 Osvaldo Cisneros 10/7/18

Welcome

Welcome to Socratic Speech.

Spend your time here to expand your perspective and share your ideas on the issues and topics discussed here, all while maintaining composure and respect for others. In a time where ideas are rarely discussed due to fear of being ostracized, here, we believe that everyone has a voice and that problems, for the most part, can be solved through discussion and understanding.

Information regarding the purpose and direction of this website can be found at the About Me page.