JANUARY PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNALS

1/11/12

Should our 5 senses be the basis for determining our reality? Discuss.

Each person would answer this question differently because no two individuals think in exactly the same format or even to the exact same function/caliber. I feel that because of this, my answer is both yes and no, given that certain individuals may think in this way and certain individuals may think in another. This idea goes well with empiricism, the idea that only experience governs reality and truth. While experience is a valuable tool for determining truth – the example of scientific experiments comes to mind – there are other tools as well, such as rationalism. This seems to stem from feelings, emotions, or innate intuition. This is also valuable because such ideas as Natural Rights and Human Rights, both very important concepts in our society today, come from this school of thought. So in this way, I think the 5 senses are a necessity for determining reality, but I feel that we as humans should not limit ourselves to simply one form of determination.

1/12/12

Is living an ascetic life (by choice) foolish, noble, both, or neither?

Every person is different, so whether or not this form of action is noble seems to be contingent upon each individual’s personal mode of thinking, upbringing, and mental, emotional and spiritual capabilities. Intention plays the largest role in determining the nobility of attempting an ascetic lifestyle. Some may attempt this way of living solely for religious or spiritual purification purposes. While this is a noble reason to attempt living an ascetic life, it may also be a futile one. Because this person is achieving a goal of some form, he/she is still deriving some form of pleasure from reaching said personal goal of spiritual enlightenment. In this way, living an ascetic life is both noble and foolish. Noble because it is a difficult path to choose and typically one solicited in order to approve one’s spiritual conditions/character; foolish because this way of living seems to be a mode of satisfaction in and of itself.

1/13/12

Is "the ends justify the means" a morally sound stance?  Discuss

This thought process may be logical, but it is not necessarily moral.  As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Although the ultimate goal in mind may be for the greater good, the measures taken to achieve this goal may be cruel and unusual.  For example, Adolf Hitler aspired to creating a pure and perfect Arian race.  While perfection is always a fine goal to constantly strive for, what Hitler saw as the only logical approach that would best achieve this goal is considered morally wrong by many others.  Of course, killing innocent people for the sake of killing is never justified.  It is punishable both in society and according to  tenants of many religions.  In order to achieve his noble goal of perfection, Hitler tortured and decimated many people of varying race, ethnicity, religion, and even sexual orientation; not because they did anything worthy of this treatment, but because they did not fit the mold of the "Arian race" and thus were considered base, treated not as humans but as pests and vermin that needed to be exterminated.   Also, the ends are not always necessary.  Is it necessary for the world to be en habited by a pure Arian race at the cost of the extermination of other humans?  Is it necessary to prevent the spread of communism and socialism at the cost of the lives of thousands?  Is it necessary for all of the world to live in complete happiness and bliss at the cost of one person?  Many of the "ends" created by humans are simply that - diversions that people think they need.  A human being needs no more than is necessary for his or her survival, yet many people on Earth today will entertain ideas of what they think they need.

1/18/12

What is the nature of animals?  (As in do they have feelings, are they sentient, et cetera).  Discuss. 

Most animals are smarter than many imagine they are, but they are not on the same level of consciousness as humans.  In fact, some animals (such as whales and dolphins) are presumed by some researchers to be more intelligent than humans due to their enormous brain size.  There are animals that may not be able to process emotions.  These would be those animals with smaller brains such as insects and rodents.  Animals such as dogs are a different story.  They can think and feel, just not in the same way nor to the same capacity as humans.  According to evolutionary though, we are all connected as animals that have evolved from a common ancestor.  The human ability of consciousness did not just magically spring up over night or over a few days or a week or even a few hundred years.  It was an incredibly long and slow process of changes and adaptations that made humans what they are today - and we continue to evolve as we continue to reproduce.  So in that way, many animals posses consciousness in some form, just not the consciousness that many humans imagine it should be.  Humans as the conscious animal likes to presume that they are the only kind to possess knowledge or type of understanding, but to me it seems foolish to think that this gift could only be endowed to one species, especially factoring in the process of evolution.

1/19/12

At your funeral (someday in the distant future) what do you hope those in attendance will say about the life you led?  Discuss.

To me, life seems pointless with out experiences, both good and bad.  I will have lived a full life if I have experienced all that I could.  To travel the world, to experience cultures, religions, ideas, and opinions of every kind - this is my dream.  I would want the people at my funeral to say that I was a well rounded individual based on the fact that I had experienced much and learned much from those experiences.

Popularity is trivial to me.  I prefer the company of a few close companions to the company of many acquaintances.  I, personally, would rather be loved by few than liked by many.  So I guess I would want people at my funeral to see me as a person who was selective in who I chose to share my personal life; who invested who heartedly into a few people versus half heartedly into many people. 

I would want to be seen as a person who didn't waste my time with trivial matters, trivial people, or trivial friendships.

1/20/12

If your parents had not "made" you, would you still exist?  Discuss.

No, I would not exist.  Science (specifically genetics) teaches us that one specific egg and one specific sperm cell out of millions combine to make an individual with a specific set of characteristics derived from both parents.  Had I been "made" by a different father or a different mother, I would not be the same person based on the virtue of both nature and nurture.  For "nature", I would have a completely different combination of genes, or even a completely different set of genes all together, providing me with different characteristics.  As for "nurture", if I had been born to different parents, I would have been brought up completely differently and so I might exhibit different behaviors than I do currently.  Also if I had not been born at all, I would not exist.  I would not have been given a chance to physically and mentally come to life and thus come into existence.

1/23/11

What is the nature of dreams?  Discuss

Dreams are a result of REM or rapid eye motion.  This happens when you sleep and essentially it is the process during you dream.  Many believe dreams to be derived from information stored in the brain.  The brain is almost like a container or a bin.  There isn't really a filter that stops certain information from flowing though but permits others - the brain essentially indiscriminately ingests information.  Dreaming might be a process by which the brain works to recall vital information.  It might function as a sorting system, evaluating and choosing between information that is pertinent and information that is useless.  In dreams, scenes depicted are often concerned with things familiar to us, things we are concerned about, things we are happy about.  Some speculate that certain people or objects within a dream may symbolize certain things - for example, a bird flying might represent freedom.  In this way, dreams could be the brain's way of communication between the rational and conscious self, the subconscious self, and the unconscious self.

1/24/12

Is "an eye for an eye" a morally sound basis for justice? Discuss.

The rule of "an eye for an eye", which originated along time ago under Hammurabi I believe, is not morally sound.  Though this solution may be logical and follows the golden rule (do unto others as you would have done unto you), to me it seems like an immature way of going about solving problems.  The first thing I think of when I hear this is the great arms race of the 1950's between America and Russia.  Any time one country would increase their armory, the other would do the same in order to ensure that the other was not able to destroy it.  This form of revenge is immoral because when you repay some one in this way, you are sinking to their level and doing exactly what they did to you.  According to the Bible, the prophet, Jesus, told his followers to "turn the other cheek" when they had been wronged.  This is the more morally sound way of the two to handle situations like these.  By taking revenge, you are just as petty and just as at fault as the other person.  Any eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

1/27/12

Can the conflicts between religion and science be reconciled?  If so, how?  If not, why?  Discuss.

No, this conflict can not be resolved.  The main problem I see is the issue of the comparison.  People speak of religion and science in the same context as if they were related.  The only thing they seem to have in common is the fact that both have methods of explaining how the world came to be.  Other than that, comparing science to religion very much seems to be like comparing apples to oranges.  They are two completely different entities.  One looks at the world in an empirical sense and attempts to explain "what is" and why.  The other is based more off of the idea of  faith; it can neither be proven or disproven through evidence or experience.  Religion explains what should be - how people should act, what will happen in the future - versus what is currently happening here and now and is clearly evident.  Science attempts to solve issues of physical every day life - gravity, how the body works, the chemistry of medicine, et cetera.  Religion is more to solve moral, ethical, and emotional issues - how to treat others, how to live one's life, what happens when one dies, et cetera.  So because comparing science to religion is similar to comparing "apples to oranges", the two can never completely be "reconciled" in the sense that every one thinks they should be.  They can only be reconciled when they are recognized as separate and distinguished entities.  People will be having a very one-sided discussion if they are trying to explain why one is more "right" than the other because religion and science have very different purposes in life.  Both sides are essentially right when they argue like this, and that is the problem in "reconciling" the two.

1/30/12

If you were able to see into your future (and not a future that you had the power to alter), would you want to see it or not? If so, what are would you want to see?  Discuss

No, I would not want to see into my future regardless of whether or not I could alter it. 

According to the yoga philosophy, peace and joy is derived from living in the present versus concerning one's self with the past or the future.  The present is a strange concept; it is something that you are always experiencing, yet it can also become the past, which you can never truly experience again.  It is because of this virtue that I would not want to see into my future, even if I could change it.  Wanting to look into the future would result in a loss of appreciation for the present.  This would be bad because once the moment is gone, it's gone forever.  One who is constantly preoccupied with what will happen is forever blind to what is happening here and now.  If I saw this "future", there would almost be no purpose to living if I knew exactly what was coming.  The value of the experiences of the present would be lost.