breaking the law!

There are many cases in which I would endorse civil disobedience and most of my examples are similar to those that Ghandi and Martin Luther King used. Any law that targets or harms certain groups of people based on sex, religion, race, economic status, etc. I would believe to be unjust. Slavery is a great example. It targeted blacks and allowed the physical abuse of them. It was/is painfully obvious that legal slavery is unjust.

I would agree with St. Augustine who said "an unjust law is no law at all" because I believe laws should be fair, and hence, "just". So, if a law is not fair, or unjust, it can't exist as a law.

I believe the laws that the US is passing that allows the government to intrude on its citizens' privacy under the veil of "security" can develop into an unjust law. I believe that we are entitled to a certain level of privacy. If the government began to intrude on our privacy and began a witch hunt that targeted Muslims and they began to lose their civil liberties, then i would advocate the use of Civil Disobedience.

Mills and Marx.

With regards to the stances that Mills and Marx take regarding freedom of people under a ruling government, i would tend to agree with a little bit of both.

Ideally, I think Mills concept of freedom is the best because he feels as long as people aren't being coerced by the state, then they are free. I think this is probably the closest definition to absolute freedom because he doesn't take into account economics as Marx does. After reading his passages in the text book, I think his idea of freedom is what most people think of as living free. Generally, I feel that as long as I am not harming myself or anyone else, then i should be able to do what i want.

However, capitalism is the driving force behind the U.S.'s economy so that is why I also believe in Marx's definition of freedom. As we know, money is equated with power, especially in America. It seems that one can almost get away with anything if they have money. Take the OJ Simpson trial for example. Obviously I was not there and didn't witness the murder, but in my opinion, the evidence was enough to convict him of the crime but he was acquitted because he could afford a high price lawyer. Let's also take Magic Johnson. He had acquired HIV and since he is wealthy, he could afford all the high-priced drugs to keep him alive but there are millions of poor people who die everyday from the disease because they cannot afford the medication. 

I definitely would want a government who would protect me if another wealthy individual, or company, tried to force me to do something simply because they had money than me, and therefore more power than me.

the role of a government

I believe that humans are intrinsically selfish beings. We tend to do what's in our best interest and often we can harm others, or do what is not morally right, in order to fulfill our interests.

Therefore, I tend to believe Hobbes argument that government has an authority to secure peace and keep people's natural selfish instinct in check. Otherwise, we'd have a chaotic society. 

I have a hard time imagining a society where everyone coexists peacefully with each other, thus negating a need for a government that Hobbes suggests. I cannot recall a time where humans were not fighting, stealing, or doing harmful things to each other. We do it now, even with a government that is supposed to protect us, so can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have one to keep us in check?

buddhism and desires.

I do believe that it is possible to live a life, in America, according to the ways of Buddhism that teach to let go of our desires. It may be very difficult for us, but it is possible.

There is a clear and definite conflict between what Buddhism teaches and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society. Our society is driven by capitalism and greed. We are taught, from an early age, that we need to buy more, eat more, acquire more "stuff" - more, more, more!!! Even those people who are wealthy often say they need more money to be happy, so clearly, obtaining materialistic wealth does not lead to happiness or satisfaction.

Unfortunately, since money is the driving force  behind almost everything, if everyone in America were to suddenly give up all there desires, our country would collapse financially. But maybe we'd all be a lot happier and satisfied!

Secondly, even holding on to people or believing that a certain job might make you happier can lead to a false sense of satisfaction. If one truly accepted that losing someone to death, or having someone you loved leave you, is a fact of life and is unavoidable, then that person would live a more fulfilling life and not get caught up in their negative emotions. They will certainly feel the negative emotions but they would be able to let them pass, and then move on. I certainly need to practice what I have just said more often in my personal experience.

Understanding of religion.

I believe that religion can be a form of Philosophy in, and of, itself. In the early stages of humanity, before science was able to explain most of life's mysteries, people thought it was the workings of God that created or caused things that man could not explain. I believe philosophy was also a catalyst to the understanding of religion because it caused man to think about those things he could not explain, which led to religion.

I certainly believe some of the philosophical arguments can change someone's religious convictions. Take Fred Hoyle and Freeman Dyson, for instance. They both had their religious views altered after witnessing some philosophical truths to Intelligent Design in their experiments and observations.

I think the whole concept of Miracles is left out of the philosophical arguments. Such things and immaculate conception and stigmata are difficult to explain and so far, no scientific explanation has been made, except for some instances of stigmata which were proved to be fake.

Artificial Intelligence

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.

What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

I think we need to re-evaluate what we think of as intelligence just as we did about life. We learned that life can exist in places that we never thought they could and in forms that we never thought of, so what would be the difference with Intelligence? Does the fact that computers are inorganic and made up of man-made parts automatically mean that they could not posses some form of intelligence? I would think not.

I don't think there is much difference between computer programming and societal programming. They are generally the same. Microsoft created the Windows Operating System which is like saying Microsoft is the country, and the Windows is the culture and beliefs of Microsoft. You could install Windows on a various pieces of hardware but some tweaking would be necessary for it to run smoothly. This would be similar to a British person coming to live in America. The British culture is compatible with American culture, but it's not exactly the same. Some tweaking, or learning, of the American culture by the Brit would be necessary for the Brit to "operate" smoothly in America.

Dualism vs. Physicalism

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?

If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).

I have thought about this topic many times, even before I took this Philosophy course. I often flip back and forth, depending on what I have learned about the mind, or what movie I have just seen that's related to these questions.

That being said, I most often agree with Descartes stance that we are made from 2 different substances: the mind and the physical body.

Yes, science has come along way to show that our thought processes can be seen as physical events that are taking place in our brain. However, people who are in comas have brain activity, yet they are not conscious. I personally know someone who was in a coma and was on life support and was clinically dead for a few minutes, yet he recalls having visions, or dreams, during this "state".

To touch upon the Gage example, I equate the mind like software on a computer and the brain the hard drive. The software is not something you can feel or touch, you simply use it. When everything is perfect, your computer runs smoothly. However, you can physically damage the hard drive but not render it inoperable. It may run slower, and there may be glitches, but that is because the physical components of the hard drive have been damaged similar to Gage's brain. I believe his mind was still in tact, but because the pole was driven through his face, the "components" re-routed the connections and thus changed his personality.

On the contrary, Artificial Intelligence is getting so advanced that scientists predict that it's only a matter of time before a program will become self-aware and make decisions on its own.

So, I think I contradicted myself here. Sorry about that. I guess I believe in both theories. I do believe that we are made up of physical components but at the same time, I believe the mind, or soul, is our essence, and that is not something physical like software on a computer.

Going back to someone in a coma: their brain is alive and has activity, but the personality is gone and so is the person's essence.

Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology

I believe that Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology are correct in saying knowledge is not a "detached, intellectual activity".

Personally, I believe knowledge is subjective. What knowledge I have acquired will most likely be different than what someone else has acquired. I also believe culture and experience play important roles in how someone acquires knowledge and in what knowledge they acquire. I also believe that there is a consensus among most people today in terms of general knowledge. For instance, I think everyone on earth practically knows the sun will rise tomorrow. However, based on one's academic experience, one person may know what the composition of the sun is comprised of, versus someone who has no scientific education will not.

I believe we should think about knowledge as the sum total of one's experience, which can also be influenced by cultural and social influences that that person has been subjected to. Knowledge is also not concrete -  it can be challenged and manipulated, based on experience. So, experience plays a vital role in what knowledge we acquire and how we acquire it.

Knowledge and the Senses

What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses? What areas of knowledge do you think support this theory? Are there any types of knowledge (mathematical knowledge, for example?) that you think are a problem for this theory?

For the most part, I believe the empiricists' claim that all of our knowledge is based on our senses. I say this because, when you are born, the only tools you have to exist and function in this world is entirely based on your senses. I cannot imagine an existence where someone is born with no senses at all: no sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. how can you know anything if you have no senses? You may be aware of yourself but how could you "know" anything at all? Even when we observe animals, we can see that their knowledge is based on senses as well. However, I think animals are possibly born with innate ideas which I would relate to "instinct". I think some areas of knowledge that would support the idea of knowledge based on experience would be Biology, some areas of Psychology, or even Anthropology. The areas of study that relate to the human race and its evolution.

I think most of the scientific areas of study would have a problem with the empiricists' view of knowledge, especially in the present time. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific instruments that allow us to "see" or "hear" experiences that we cannot experience based on our natural senses. We would never have been able to see most of the galaxies and stars without Infrared Imaging or Ultraviolet telescopes. We would not have been able to see microscopic worlds without the use of microscopes. This opened up worlds of knowledge that we wouldn't have been able to experience without those tools.

Descartes

According to Descartes, we are more certain of our thoughts, the content of our minds, than we are of the world around us, and even of mathematical or logical truths. He uses 'methodological skepticism' to reach this conclusion.

What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methological skepticism is not a good strategy?

I think methodological skepticism is an interesting way to come to conclusions about reality, but I don't necessarily have an opinion about it. I think that many of us do follow the procedure but it all depends on who you ask.

I don't believe movies like "The Matrix" would have ever been made if we did not practice some form of Methodological Skepticism. However, there are many who accept what they experience at face value and never question them. In general terms, I think most of us are people who want proof that something exists. The textbook gave an example of evidence in court - how we cannot convict someone without physical evidence. Therefore, I would say we tend NOT to believe something until it becomes possible to believe them.

I do not feel that believing something until it is impossible to believe it is a good strategy because, as the book and Descartes even suggests, we can be easily deceived. Therefore, not believing something until there is proof seems like a "safer" way to approach the truth in the subject matter. I hope that made sense.

The Allegory of the Cave.

In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates suggests that, without philosophical education, we are all like the prisoners in the cave. What are your thoughts on this? How is philosophy supposed to be liberating? Do you think Socrates is right to be so pessimistic about life without philosophy?

I would agree with Socrate's suggestion that we are like the prisoners in the cave without Philosophical education. I agree because if you take a look at the human race as a whole, and the beliefs and thoughts that were thought to be true about our sun, the universe, our existence and so much more (thousands of years ago) we would have never advanced or progressed in our wisdom. We would also have never been challenged our beliefs and what we thought as "real" which would probably have prevented us from comparing our thoughts and ideas with people from other parts of the world. I think the ability to reason and to question reality and what we accept as "normal" is what separates us from animals and allows us to continue to grow and evolve.

Philosophy liberates us because it forces us to think without the "shackles" that are trapping our minds into thinking in specific ways. It's also like living with blinders on - the kind horses wear - they force you to see in one direction. Philosophy takes those shackles and blinders of the mind off and therefore liberates us.

I don't necessarily think you can say Socrates is "right" or "wrong" in his opinion about life without philosophy. One could argue that ignorance is bliss and therefore is a better way to live life. However, I can definitely see his point of view. Personally, I can't imagine a life where one just accepts things the way they are without questioning the why's and how's of them. The answers will lead to more questions and therefore more knowledge, just like the Socratic method does.

Intro (sorry it's late)

I just realized this was supposed to be done last week. I got confused because I thought that's what I did in the Discussion Board post.

Anyway, I am taking Philosophy to challenge my current way of thinking and perceiving things in life. I want to learn new ways of analyzing certain situations, people, thoughts, etc. I also want to learn more about the great Philosophers of the past. Hopefully this course will also touch upon the different schools of Philosophy.

test

test post.