APRIL PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNALS

4/2/12

What is an experience that you could partake in that is out of your "comfort zone" that would nonetheless be valuable?  Discuss.

In both 6th and 7th grade, I went on a mission trip over spring break with the church that I was attending at the time.  Both experiences, I would say, fit the criteria of being out of one's "comfort zone", but the second trip was significantly more difficult.

The first time, the group actually stayed in Texas on the boarder of Mexico and we would just cross the boarder everyday to go do our mission work.  The second time, we were actually inside the boarder and would stay there over night as well.  Interestingly enough, the facility that we stayed at in the states was a bit nicer; more comfortable, I guess you would say.  The dormitories, the bathrooms/showers, and the dining hall were all conveniently located in one building.  The facility in Matamoros, Mexico was less comfortable, as the dormitories, bathrooms/showers, and dining hall were separate buildings.  For some reason, this allowed for a lot more insects to come in, which I personally had an issue with because I did not want bug in my sleeping bag. 

I'm using this example because this was a situation where I was definitely out of my comfort zone, especially considering the cleanliness (or lack there of) of the living facilities of the mission.  But despite the unpleasantness that this provided for me, I still had an amazing experience because I was helping others and learning about the lives of others and being shown that not everyone lives in a bug-free, clean environment with all sorts of luxuries (like coffee, tea, more than the bare minimum amount of clothing) with in their reach.

4/3/12

What is the ideal environment and/or activity for pondering the problems of philosophy?  Why?  Discuss.

My ideal setting for pondering topics of a philosophical nature would probably be outdoors, far away from the city or the suburbs, in an area that has been largely untouched by human hands.

When I say this, the first two images that pop into my head are of the beach (or more specifically the ocean) and the forest (or the mountains).  And my ideal activity would probably be walking, hiking, meandering, ambling, ect…whatever word the mind can generate to describe motions/activities akin to walking.

The reason why I would choose nature over say a coffee shop, or a library, or even my own room, is just due to the general atmosphere.  For me, I feel such strong emotions in nature that I could never feel in the city or in the suburbs, feelings that cause me to ponder my existence, the possibility of a creator, the meaning of life, life's problems, et cetera.  And I think the reason why I feel thusly compelled is simply due to the inner connection I feel when I am in an outdoors setting.  When I look at the ocean or the mountains, I feel small in the most wonderful way.  I realize how complex all of life is, and I realize that my life is an infinitesimally small part of life as a whole compared to all of what it was, everything that it is today, and everything that it will be in the future.  I feel more connected to myself there, and I think part of it is the insignificance that I feel, but also the realization that I am not separate from nature, but a part of nature.  According to evolutionary theory, all organisms descended from a common ancestor, which technically would mean that everything - animals, plants, micro organisms, even nonliving things - is connected.  I think that this connection is what I feel when I am immersed in nature.  I realize that there is something bigger than my self - whether it's god, a higher power of some sort, the ever expanding universe, et cetera - and I feel connected to whatever that thing is.  These feelings of awe that I feel inspire me to feel in awe of my own being and in awe of life in general.

4/10/12

In light of yesterday's "so called" senior skip day, how important will time off/vacation/free time be to you as you go forward in life?  Discuss.

As an introvert, I am a person who very much values any time that I have to myself.  Some people may feel that they have to be surrounded by others in order to have meaning in their lives or to not feel lonely all the time, but there are lots of times when I honestly prefer to be by myself.  I realize that, as the future progresses and I go to college, get a job, et cetera, I will find myself with significantly less time alone than I have now.  I know that "free time" doesn't necessarily have to be in solitude in order to count as a "vacation" or "time off".  Some people might even make arrangements to constantly have some sort of activity to do or people to see during their vacation.  But for me, I find the times when I can be alone the most valuable because it is often hard to get away from people.  Sometimes when I go on vacation with my family or with friends, I find that when I come back I need a vacation from my vacation.  Being constantly surrounded by people can often be overwhelming and uncomfortable for me, so I personally usually need a place to go where I can just be alone.  In college, it will probably be a lot harder to find places to be alone, especially considering the fact that in my freshman year I will have to be a part of the dorm life.  I imagine that it would be hard to get personal time during college because there are always people everywhere, and even in my room I would never really alone because I would have a room mate.  And even when I get a job, or especially when I have a family, it's going to be increasingly harder to get that alone time that I need to not be so stressed that I can't even function.  At the same time though, I understand that I can't just have free time all the time; there has to be a balance between work and alone time/free time.  So I feel like I would find free time really important, but not so important that it interferes with my potential education, job, family, et cetera.  I would like to be able to have an hour or so in the morning or at night to myself; that would be ideal.  Just to have that little bit of time to myself to rejuvenate would be fine; that would help me to be less stressed and less overwhelmed when I would have to wake up in the morning and go back to the daily grind.

4/11/12

Can the two opposing view points on the issue of abortion ever be reconciled?  Discuss.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this topic.  It's one thing to talk about reconciling religion with science, but this is a completely different situation all together.  This is an issue where it stops being just an opinion or a belief and starts to dabble with the meaning and the value of life.  Some people are strongly opposed to abortion, saying that it is murder regardless of the fetus's stage of development, and some are strongly for, arguing for the woman's rights to make her own decisions about her body and her life.  Undoubtedly, this would be a life changing experience for the mother too, probably one with severe repercussions, especially considering any possible guilt that she might experience.  My personal opinions in regards to this topic are really quite murky.  I feel like in some situations there are alternatives to abortion (for example, if the mother is unable to support the child but still wants it to have a normal, happy life, the baby can be adopted).  I feel like there are also some situations where abortion is the only option (for example, there are some situations in which if the baby is born both the mother and the baby will die but if the baby is aborted the mother can be saved; both are unpleasant but the best alternative is to save the mothers life instead of letting both die).  I know I personally would never ever get an abortion if I got pregnant and didn't want the baby or was fiscally unable to support the baby.  But there are definitely situations when an abortion is the best alternative, as sad as that may sound.  Vivienne used the example of Tay Sach's disease; a baby born with tay sach's would have a life filled with excruciating pain and would have a very, very early death; in fact, few ever make it past their 5th birthdays.  I feel like that is something that no child should be forced to live with.  But I also feel like getting an abortion because you were too stupid or to drunk to use measures of birth control is completely unacceptable.  No baby should have to pay with their life for their mother or father's stupid mistakes.  So this is definitely an issue that I have some really mixed feelings about.

4/12/12

What is the single biggest problem in education in the U.S. today?  Discuss.

I feel like THE biggest problem with American education is the low standards.  I feel like American students are capable of so much more, but no body pushes them to try hard or to do the best that they can.  Sure, there are some that are willing to go above and beyond, put many will fall for complacency with simply meeting the goal, even if they know they can do better.  I think it was Michael Jordan that said "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take"; I completely agree with this.  I feel like in the US, we are training our children to avoid taking risks; to aim low instead of trying hard.  Kids will rise to the occasion and succeed if that is the expectation.  If kids are expected to fail or to not do as well, that is what will happen.  Lots of people are really lazy and will only do what is expected or what is necessary.  I know that American students are capable of so much more, but for whatever reason, many are expected to fail so the bar is purposefully set low to "help" these kids out.  If anything, this mentality is even more damaging to these kids who are supposedly incapable of achievement because they see that people expect so little of them and then they get it in their heads that they can never amount to much more than flipping burgers and doing drugs.  If kids know that the bar is set high but that everyone is there for them and encouraging them to try, it is likely that the kids will work hard and make an effort to succeed in what they do.  Poor standards only ever produce poor results, and I think that is the problem with education today.

4/16/12

If it were possible to allow all of humanity to life in eternal bliss and happiness at the expense of one baby being tortured for eternity, would this be justified?  Discuss.

I feel like there is something really ethically wrong with this.  I think it has to do with the fact that one person is suffering for eternity versus everyone suffering for a day, a month, a year, their entire life…et cetera.  It does sound terrible for a multitude of people to suffer for their entire lives, but even that amount of time is shorter than eternity.  And it seems to me that, as paradoxical as it may seem, happiness and suffering go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other.  If you do not have suffering in your life, you can never appreciate, or even truly understand happiness, and vice versa.  The "many" will never be truly happy until they know suffering, and the "one" will never truly suffer until he/she understands happiness.

I feel like everyone should have an equal shot at the pursuit happiness.  The fact that everyone in the world suffers to some extent at some point in their life, while at the same time still has the same opportunity or option to try to strive for happiness suggests equity and balance to me, whereas the other situation seems to be very unbalanced.  Many philosophers thought that striving for balance in ones life was the key to happiness, or at least the key to a good, wholesome life.  I think that the stoics are among some of these, and I think Plato might have been one of those philosophers as well.  In fact, I believe it was he who came up with the idea of the "golden mean" - the idea of balance.  Balance is what keeps the Earth alive.  Just a little too close or too far from the sun, and the Earth could be in fatal peril. 

4/17/12

Since the days of Athenian democracy, there has been a debate about who should be able to vote (ranging from education, land holders, gender, age, color, and even those with ID today).  Who should be able to vote?  Discuss.

I think that all citizens should be able to vote, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, creed, et cetera.  If a human being is living within the boarders of a state, country, ect, he/she should be able to vote in that state, country, ect because the laws that go into effect will have an affect on everyone, not just certain people or groups of people. 

People who do not live within the boarders of a state/country/ect have absolutely no business voting on behalf of that country.  The laws will not affect them, therefore the outcome of the election is hardly any of their concern.

A couple of problems that come up are age and immigration. 

I think that the voting age should be kept the way it is - only legal adults can vote.  Children will not have as much experience with the law as an adult would, even an adult who is only 18.  It is unlikely that children would understand the government, the laws, and more importantly the underlying reasons for said laws and government; it is unlikely that children will have as firm of a grasp on the issues of today and the reason why said issues are controversial.

I personally believe that immigration should not be an issue, especially immigration.  Like I said, only citizens should be allowed to vote in America, but I also think that the process by which people become American citizens is extensive and parts of it are unnecessary.  In away, I feel that the citizenship process is unfair and requires too much.  In government at the beginning of the year our class took a test that people applying for citizenship would have to take.  The really interesting thing is that hardly any of us were able to answer some of the questions right or even answer some of the questions at all, and we were all born American citizens.  I feel like there's a disconnect there between what is expected of natural born citizens and what is expected of immigrants, and to me it seems unfair.

4/19/2012

Fools, who know nothing about philosophy, think that "what doesn't kill me, makes me stronger" is a song by Kelly Clarkson.  However, the wise know that it is Friedrich Nietzsche.  Is this statement valid of not?  Discuss.

I'm not really sure what to think about this statement.  I think it might depend on the situation/circumstances.  I suppose it could be true.  If you have come out of a difficult situation relatively intact, be it emotionally or physically or what have you, you are likely to gain experience from that situation and will probably be able to understand how to avoid it in the future, or if it's unavoidable, to at least figure out a way to deal with it.  For example, drug addicts and alcoholics are some times seen in this light because they have been able to come out of a bad situation, clean up, and get on the road to getting their lives back together.  They've probably "learned from their mistakes"; they've learned about themselves, and possibly how to deal with the issue in the future because they have that much more knowledge. 

On the other hand, other people have personalities that are not as strong as that of others to begin with.  All though an experience might not kill them, it might not necessarily make them stronger either.  Some people can come out of a difficult situation but not be able to get the closure they need or might not be able to put the situation in perspective; they're almost permanently slaves to their experiences.

4/24/12

"Against boredom even gods struggle in vain." - Friedrich Nietzsche in Der Antichrist (1888)  Discuss

I completely disagree.  There is always something that needs work; always something in the world that needs fixing; always someone who needs help.  There are so many issues in the world that people just ignore that it is impossible for people to be bored.  If you are truly looking for something to do, you will always find it.  What I mean by this is that there is so much poverty, so much political unrest; there are so many complex world issues that need attention and that people need to pay attention to that often just get pushed to the wayside by those who are consumer driven.  I think the real problem is that people are just lazy or they don't care about other people's problems.  If people would just look around them and really open their eyes and their hearts to all the pain and suffering there is in the world, they would really see that there is always something to be done.  As citizens of the world, it is our job to band together as a community to work together in solving the worlds problems.  As far as I'm concerned, the world's problems are infinite; there will always be issues.  This may be discouraging to some.  Many people may say that the world can never ever be perfect, but to me that seems like a stupid reason to avoid trying to improve it at all.  Those who complain of being bored, especially American consumers, have no right to ignore avoid the world's problems.  Boredom cannot possibly exist in the state that the world is in.

4/26/12

The concept of "moral hazard" states that one should be suspicious/careful of helping someone (or something) out in a time of need because they may come to count on it over and over in the future after the initial support.  Is this valid or not?  Discuss.

I'm not sure.  Obviously, you should want people to be able to be independent and to be able to help themselves, and to not have to rely on other people to do things for them, but on the other hand I don't think it's right to ignore and apparent need either.  I think there's kind of a way to reconcile both though.

There's a saying that goes "give a man fish and he will eat for a day but teach a man to fish and he will have food for a life time".  I feel like the solution to the problem lies within this idea.  If all you ever do is give a person exactly what they need, of course all they're going to do is come back for more because they don't have the means to get it for themselves.  People might know what they want, but they don't always know what to do in order to get that thing.  You can help a person out and still avoid this

"moral hazard" by providing ways for them to find what they need, versus just giving it to them.  And to me, that is even more  of a good thing to do because it shows that you care about what happens to a person in the long run instead of just giving them what they ask for so they will leave you alone for the time being.

MARCH PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNALS

3/1/12

Is killing ever justified?  If so, when and why?  If not, why?  Discuss. 

I feel like in some senses it is justified to kill, but in others not.

Killing in self-defense or the defense of others is completely justifiable.  Killing animals is sometimes justifiable, depending on the situation.  Killing in the sense of war is sometimes justifiable.

If a person is about to take your life, it is your duty to protect your life.  If you see someone attempting to forcefully take an innocent person's life, then (like wise with the previous situation) not only would it be justifiable for you to kill in that situation, but it is your duty to attempt to save the innocent person.

There are some wars that are justifiable in certain respects.  I think we all pretty much agree that Hitler was a "bad guy" who had gained far more power than he ought to, and needed to be removed, even if that involved his death at the hands of others.  (His acts of genocide, of course, can never be justified.)  But I feel that some wars, such as many of the American wars in the Middle East.  (Actually, it is my personal opinion that George W. Bush used the concept of "weapons of mass destruction" as a scare tactic in order to engender enough fear and hatred towards the middle east.  This way, Americans would personalize the war; the war that was essentially W's personal vendetta to avenge his father's failed mission.  But I digress.)  Such wars as these, in my eyes, are not justifiable.  I feel a little iffy as to the war on Communism - sure, Americans have the right to protect their democracy and freedom if they feel it is being challenged or threatened in any way.  But on the flip side of the coin, Americans today are attempting to spread their Democracy to other countries, just as the Communist regimes did with their form of government.  So, I suppose aspects of it were justified - the defense of freedom as a human right is always justified.  I feel that hypocrisy is not though.

The general trend in my line of thinking (usually) is that unnecessary killings - violence for the sake of violence; needless death for the sake of entertainment, money, power, and whatever else - is never reconcilable.  And part of the reason why I think that I feel this way is (and I know I reference this a lot) my biological make up as a human being.  Survival is the most basic instinct that is engrained into every species, from the most complex being to the most simple single-celled organism.  Everything we do is centered around one theme, and that is living.  In some circumstances, that involves the death of another (e.g. gaining nutrients - some animals have to kill and eat other animals in order to get what they need to survive).  So in this way, it think it makes sense that I would view unnecessary death as unethical and unjustifiable.  The vast majority of animals kills (typically) on two specific occasions: 1) for sustenance and 2) for defense (this can be self defense or the defense of others such as offspring or even members of a clan/pack/et cetera).  Due to the fact that the idea of survival is so rudimentary, yet so essential as to be the basis of animal instinct, it seems that the ability to survive and even thrive should be almost sacred to animals in a sense.  Less intelligent species may feel this sort of power/reverence in a very basic and unsophisticated sense, while more complex and more intelligent beings may feel it in a more sophisticated sense - possibly even elevating this basic instinct to live to the point of designing laws, covenants, social contracts, forming familial bonds and friendships, forming truces with enemies, designing intricate constitutions and declarations of human rights, et cetera.  There are few instances in nature in which unnecessary violence/killing is exhibited, leading me to believe that, do to our basic instincts of survival, this idea is (for the most part) considered unnatural (possibly even perverse); maybe this is the common ancestor of the Social Contract.

3/2/12

Does the soul exist?  Discuss.

I think that the soul exists.  There is a definite difference between when a person is alive and when a person is dead.  You can even make a distinction between when a person is sleeping and when a person is dead.  It's almost as if the soul emanates an aura of sorts.  There have been incidents where you can distinctly tell when a person's soul leaves their body.  A patient in the hospital could be asleep or in a coma but the moment that their heart stops beating or they stop breathing, there is almost a visible difference.  You know that person is no longer just sleeping or in a comatose state; something has left; something is gone.  There must be a reason why we can know that a person is dead and when a person is sleeping.  The two states are very, very similar in appearance, so what could possibly differentiate between them?  We know that the heart, lungs, brain, et cetera stop working after a person begins dying; their organs simply begin to shut off.  But how can this effect our knowing whether a person is this "with us" (alive) or "gone" (dead)?   Like I said before - there is no difference in appearance between  death and sleeping - they look exactly the same.  It seems to me that the only difference between living and nonliving is the soul - life and physical aspects of life are simply attached to the soul.

I disagree with Adam's point of view completely.  Animals most definitely have souls.  Adam claims that humans are the only beings in possession of a soul because 1) they have personalities.  His second point was an example he used of his dog loving his(Adam's) mother being but willing to leave her side whenever anyone else has food defining this as an instinct, and thus claiming that 2) because animals act based on instinct, they do not have souls. His third point is that 3) because humans are able to  distinguish between right and wrong, ect, they have souls based on that virtue alone.

To these points I say

1.       Animals as well as humans have personalities.  They may not be as well defined, but they are definitely present.  For example, dogs may vary in disposition.  One of my dogs is more mean, the other is more playful and friendly.  This is so with other dogs; they have intrinsic personal characteristics that separate them from each other and even other animals.  According to Adam Petrillo's definition of a soul (as having a personality), animals too have souls based on this virtue.

2.       To address Adam's example with his dog, I say that people also have the same instincts.  People have their families and close knit circles of friends, but as soon as you pull out a snack that looks particularly yummy (for example, a Reeses  peanut butter cup), everyone suddenly becomes your best friend, even if they don't know you that well.  This goes back to biology and the way the brain works.  There are chemicals in the brain that stimulate the reward pathway in the brain that are released and trigger a certain result (a reward - a good feeling).  This reaction is triggered whenever organisms do something that benefits them and aids in their survival - eating, drinking, mating, ect.  Animals as well as people have these basic instincts.  Therefore, the fact that animals have instincts (just as humans do) does not govern whether or not they have a soul.

3.       To address Adam's third point, I would like to reference biology again.  I believe that humans are the way that they are due to evolutionary changes.  I know that Adam feels similarly.  In evolution, a certain characteristic does not just "show up" in an animal's genome; it manifests after eons of minute changes with in a specie's DNA.  Animals have common ancestors based on characteristics that they have with other species.  I would like to know at what point this personality or soul evolved, how it evolved.  This "soul" had to come from somewhere; there most be evidences of souls in other animals, even if that soul is more rudimentary.  I am stating that animals do indeed have souls because Homo sapiens has a soul, and according to evolution, this characteristic had to evolve from some sort of more simplified template-characteristic.

3/5/12

In 2012 is it possible to totally withdraw from society (e.i. be a hermit)?  Discuss.

I think in some ways it is but in others it's not.  It's going to be different from person to person depending on their personalities, they way they were brought up, and even their culture. 

Some people may be more introverted and more independent, like me, and might find it easier to withdraw than people with more extroverted and co-dependent personalities.  Introverts are already more withdrawn in a sense, so it probably wouldn't be as hard for them to withdraw even further.  Typically, introverts are more reserved with their feelings and more choosy about how they spend their time and with whom.  Extroverts and those that are co-dependents would probably find themselves needing the company and affirmation of others and might, after a short time in solitude, find themselves craving that attention and maybe even going a little crazy from the depravation  of a social life.

It might be different depending on the way one is brought up and culture.  In certain cultures, independence and self-reliance is a huge deal and not only do they encourage it, but they also teach it, both with in the boundaries of home and school.  Some religions espouse the idea of withdrawal from society - monks (catholic, Buddhist, ect) and nuns leave a life of societal norms for one of constant depravation in the form of conventional niceties like the way they dress, the things they eat, when they eat, where and when they spend their time, and especially celibacy.  For nuns, this with drawl from society seems to be more of a withdrawal from the ways of the world and the society's way of living; for monks, it seems to merge more closely with hermitage.

So, in this way, withdrawal from society is entirely possible for some people given their strengths and will power; some just choose not to because they fear there is too much to lose in giving up their material wealth in exchange for deeper meaning.  It is much harder to strive for the life of the hermit than to go with the flow of society's standards of living.  Society has made life so easy for humans in relatively recent years.  Various technological advances have made it easier to connect and interact with people, especially those in far away places.  Some people may have the ability to be a hermit based on their personality, their personal standards, their culture, et cetera, but choose not to for whatever reason, be it that they find their comfortable lives hard to leave because they are lazy or because they are afraid of failure.

3/6/12

Regarding the future, what gives you the greatest anxiety and what gives you the greatest comfort?  Discuss.

There are so, so many things about the future that I find terrifying, but I feel that all of them can be categorized as fear of the unknown.  This almost seems to be an innate fear that man possesses, for at some point in their lives, everyone is afraid of something; and it does not follow that a person would be afraid of that which they understand.  For me, this is the reason why the future gives me anxiety, because I have no idea what lies ahead and likewise no idea how to prepare myself for whatever my be in my future.  One personal yet somewhat superficial example is my current feelings in regards to college acceptance.  It is about that time of year when acceptance (or rejection) letters should be arriving in my mailbox.  According to the majority of the college websites, letters are to be mailed out by April 1st at the latest.  Now April 1st isn't even very far a way; in fact, April 1st is less than a month away.  Yet these 20 something days that I need to wait feel like an eternity to me because I have no idea what to expect.  If I didn’t have to wait so anxiously; If I knew by which colleges I would get rejected, by which I would be accepted, and from which I would receive scholarships, I would be able to be more prepared emotionally, mentally, ect.  Thus by knowing what would happen and being able to prepare myself I wouldn't want to worry so much.

Yet in the same breath, the unknown can also be comforting.  To a person who is born into a caste system, their future is set; they know what lies a head of them and, depending on where you are, this could be good or bad.  But how horrible would it be to know what is going to happen to you (or at least have a very good idea of what is going to happen to you) for the rest of your life.  So I guess in that way the unknown is also very comforting because although you don't know what's coming and can't always prepare yourself as well as you might like, there's always the hope that things will change and that you won't be stuck where  you are.  The future, although unknown to people, has the potential to bring hope for a "better tomorrow" and motivation to "try again", to "keep moving" and to keep changing and improving.

3/20/12

Can money buy happiness?  Discuss.

I suppose it depends on how one defines happiness, and possibly even how happiness is differentiated from other words that are rather similar - for example, joy.

I personally would define happiness as good feelings experienced based on whatever is happening in a given situation.  A person's happiness depends on whatever is happening at that specific moment in time. 

I would describe joy as an over all good feeling; it does not necessarily need to have anything to do with what is happening at that moment.

I reference yoga philosophy a lot, and I feel that it is very applicable here as well.  To me it seems that joy comes from a sense of inner peace and acceptance.  The current circumstances (or current happenings) may not be what you anticipated for them to be, but by accepting the situation and just letting it be what it is, one can experience a form of joy despite the unpleasantness that a situation may present.

Coming back to the original question, if happiness is defined as a feeling of joy that is based upon a certain situation, then yes, money can buy happiness.  At that specific moment in time, because you bought something you really wanted - or essentially got something you wanted; received some sort of gratitude from getting your way - you experience a good feeling at that specific point in time.  Money has bought your happiness.  But money cannot buy your internal peace, and therefore cannot buy you joy - a very different feeling from happiness.

3/22/12

Can the problems of economic activities and environmental protection ever by reconciled?  Discuss.

No, they can never be reconciled.  Economic theory revolves around individual self interest, while environmental preservation generally has to do with a degree of self-sacrifice.  For example, the heated debate of whether or not our country should consider off shore drilling was affected by the fairly recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  This is a classic example of economy versus environment.  In order to obtain oil to be used as fuel for motor vehicles, homes, ect, the environment is harmed by chemicals in the fossil fuels.  In this way, environmental harm is inescapable.  In Silent Spring, the chemical DDT and it's harmful (and even deadly) effects on the environment and all its inhabitants are brought to light in order to show that our commercial efforts in creating "better" cleaning products (an economic endeavor that attempts to get households to spend more on the latest in "cleaning technology") does not mix well with environmental factors.

One could argue that newer forms of energy are currently underway (electric cars for example) that supposedly are better for the environment.  But electric cars aren't exactly environmentally friendly if you have to charge an electric car by plugging it in to your house (which uses fossil fuels) to charge it, you're still using fossil fuels, and essentially no change to the environment has been made.  So even this attempt to reconcile our capitalist economy with "saving" the environment falls short.

3/23/12

While most of the world's religions offer some notion of eternal life, is the idea of living/existing forever at all frightening?

For me, it's just a crazy concept to imagine the possibility of forever, it's just strange to think about because of the way things are in this world.

From the time we're born to the time we die, we are constantly on a schedule.  A fetus goes through a nine month development period that begins at fertilization and ends with the exiting of the fully grown baby from the uterus.  We wake up when the sun rises or is already in the sky; we go to sleep when the sun goes down or it's already dark outside.  Plants and animals alike experienced an introduction into the world and will eventually be given an escape route.  Needless to say, the concept of finite time is engrained in us constantly, from the day we're born to the day we die.

As creatures of habit, humans take comfort in the idea of the familiar - an trusted friend, a family member, a dear possession…a repetitive schedule of set times and places.  Humans typically like to be prepared - they like to know what's going on, and that may possibly be an evolutionary defense  mechanism - the more aware you are of what's going on around you, the more able you are to protect yourself.

Because of this intrinsic nature to gravitate more towards the familiar, anything unknown is scary because it could potentially be bad.  The future is (generally) unknown, and so the idea of living forever could definitely be very scary.

3/26/12

What is your greatest fear and greatest hope regarding the future of technology.  Discuss.

I feel like some forms of technical advancements are necessary, and many of them have been helpful to society, such as advancements in transportation, medicine, et cetera.  Clearly, there's always room for improvement in these fields, so I guess my greatest hope for the future of technology is making the technology that we already have more efficient.  By this, I mostly mean more compatible with the environment, yet still able to function efficiently.  At this point, we have all sorts of technology for entertainment, for  medicine, for transportation, for security, but not all of it is "environment friendly".  Currently, I see no reason to create new technology (with the exception of in the medical field, we could always use new, more efficient technology in the medical field).  The technology that we already have is perfectly suited for it's function: making life more convenient.  We don't really need more convenience in our lives; there comes a point when convenience just becomes laziness.  Another hope is that this technological wealth could be more equally distributed among citizens.  The problem with technology is that its distribution is typically regulated by income - technology tends to be pretty pricy, and those of the lower income brackets tend to have to give up such life-enhancing products due to lack of extra spending money.

My greatest fear is that we as a society will become more reliant on technology that we already are.  In some cases, technology has become more of a crutch, no matter how helpful and expedient it is.  A perfect example, I think, is the computer, and - most significantly - the internet.  Search engines such as google make a wealth of information available to just about anyone with just a few key strokes and the click of a button.  Students today, though, have a lot of trouble looking for information in books.  Students often groan when they see that, for their research project, only 3 out of 10 sources that they have to have for their necessary citations can be from online sources.  The reason why students would have this reaction is not necessarily because they hate print media altogether (many adolescents love books, actually) but because they have never actually had to search for information in print sources - it's something entirely new to them.  Therefore, they're stepping into unfamiliar territory.  This is only one example of how society's reliance on technology has become more of a crutch in recent years.  Seeing this reliance, my fear is that one day people will be unable to think for themselves.  Not because they would be unintelligent all together, but because they would be too lazy.  They would want life to be so easy to the point where they're not even thinking independently or making their own choices any more; they're being spoon-fed facts, ideas, and opinions; they'd be told what to think.  And this terrifies me because it makes me think of what kind of horrible things could happen if the wrong person came into power.  Hitler won over the hearts of millions with his charisma and flawless orations; the people of Germany were so desperate for freedom from the extreme economic depression in their country that they were willing to believe anything he told them.  He was going to bring back the old Germany; he was going to make Germany powerful again.  And yet, he destroyed the lives of millions of others.  I can only imagine what a man (or woman) of similar merit and sentiment could accomplish.  Brainwashing an uninformed society would be easy; this political leader would only have to sound like they had all the answers.

3/27/12

While considered appropriate (and even humane) with animals, is euthanasia morally justified with humans?  Discuss.

I think euthanasia is justified in humans, but only to the extent that the person receiving euthanasia treatment requests it.  If a person does not want to die, that person shouldn't have to.  We consider life to be one of the most fundamental human rights.  But to me, it seems that death is a part of life, no matter how paradoxical that may seem.  For that reason, I believe that we also have the right to death if we choose it.  A person who wants to die - especially someone who experiences chronic, agonizing pain, be it physical or emotional - has the right to die.  In fact, I would go as far to say that it is unethical to deny a person in extreme pain this right to death if they so request it.  Many would say that it is unethical to inflict unnecessary pain.  In denying a person the right to euthanasia, unnecessary pain is being inflicted based on the fact that an individual is forced to live in a condition of chronic suffering until God (or the fates, or the universe, or whatever higher power -if there is one) decides to ease their pain.

3/28/12

What are the prospects for there being other intelligent life in the universe?  Discuss.

I personally think that the possibility that there is intelligent life else where in the universe is very likely.  In fact, I would go even further to venture that it is foolish to believe that humans are the only intelligent life forms in an extremely vast and ever-expanding universe.

Scientists are already starting to test whether or not humans are the only intelligent life on earth itself.  Although the results are not complete, they do suggest that other species have the potential to be just as intelligent, if not more intelligent.  Tests on animals such as octopi, dolphins, and whales have indicated that those aforementioned animals possess intelligence of some form or another.  (For example, as I have mentioned before, octopi have proven themselves to be excellent problem solvers and have found ways to escape captivity on many occasions).  And when brain size is considered, it maybe possible that other species here on earth possess some form of intelligence as well.  Humans consider themselves to be the most intelligent.  Dogs are considered to be less intelligent than humans.  The brains of dogs are smaller than humans.  So on with mice and other rodents; dogs are more intelligent than mice, and the brains of dogs are significantly larger than mice.  And so on with insects, and even microbes, and single celled organism.  The trend is that as the brain gets smaller and smaller, the animal exhibits less and less capacity for intelligence.  Considering how much larger a dolphin's brain is compared to that of a human, or a whale's brain, or even an elephant's brain, and considering the trend of brain size compared to capacity of intelligence, I feel that it is entirely possible that there is more intelligent life here, on our home planet.

So considering all of these examples of potential intelligence here that most humans do not even consider, there absolutely is a strong chance that there are other life forms in the far corners of universe, especially intelligent life.  The universe is huge, the other planets and stars have had just as much time to form and grow as ours.  Just taking into consideration the vastness of the universe, and the fact that the universe is still expanding today, I think it's foolish and even pompous to think that humans possess the only intelligent life, and even to think that intelligent life can only be found on earth, even if other species are included in the equation.

FEBRUARY PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNALS

2/1/12

In light of reading Aristotle's Politics, do we still have forms of slavery in the U.S. today?  Why or why not?  Discuss.

Although the slave trade was abolished in 1808, in away, slavery has not been completely eradicated.  The role of "housewife" could almost be seen as slavery.  For a while now, it has been the societal norm that men go off to work and have lives outside the home while women stay at home and tend to the keeping of the house and the needs of the husband and the children.  Essentially she has no time to do what she truly desires to do, and in that way because she has no freedom to pursue her own interests like her husband and children do, she is not free.  The wife is expected to meet the needs of everyone in her family but herself.  In the past, women were even considered second class citizens.  Although women are considered citizens by the US and are given various rights such as the right to vote, they are not necessarily free.  Women and men are born equal.  They are intrinsically the same; the only striking difference between the two is anatomy.  Men and women alike have desires.  How is it, then, that women should be expected to forfeit their desires while men are allowed to pursue them?  In this way, women, at this juncture, are still in bondage according to their gender.  Even though at this point it is socially acceptable for women to be in the work place, it is not nearly as socially acceptable for men to stay at home and help with the care of the house and the children.  House work is still considered an inferior sphere, and because of this it is fine for women to stay at home but not nearly as okay for men.

2/3/12

Consider what your favourite genre of art is (be the medium literature, film, music, or art).  What is the nature of the pleasure you derive from it?

My favourite art form is music.  My musical taste adjusts frequently to suit the events and circumstances of my life, and also my moods and feelings.  But the genre that I will always love listening to is probably what most would consider classical music.  I love the complexity that each piece is rife with.  The way the sounds of each instrument are layered together reminds me, in a way, of the complexity of life and humanity.  These notes, chords, and rhythms can be played in such a way that creates a disastrous cacophony; without order and structure, there is great discord and disagreement in the music.  Yet, when all the instrumentalists are able to agree on what to play and when to play, they create beautiful harmonies and melodies, with each sound and each note complementing and enhancing the peace not just for the greater good of one player or the greater good of the orchestra, but also for the greater good of all those who choose to listen. 

I love listening to classical music because of the depth and emotions that it has the potential to embody.  In the hands of an amateur, a cello can sound screechy and scratchy as the student attempts to play.  But when a more experienced cellist sits down to play is or her instrument, he/she causes the cello to release deep, warm, and mellow tones that go right to the pit of the listener's stomach and the depths of his/her heart.   Such instruments as this, all very common in classical music, emanate feelings and emotions strong enough to move a person to smile or cry.

This form of music embodies the complexities in thoughts, feelings and emotions that surround and embody the human psyche, humanity, and the process of life in general.

2/6/12

What is the nature of the enjoyment that people derive from watching sports? Discuss.

I've heard it said that all animals kill, or at least, hurt other beings.  Yet it seems that only the exceptionally intelligent ones kill for pleasure.  Among these "intelligent organisms" that have been known to stalk prey for pure entertainment are dolphins, octopi, and humans.  Octopi are actually very intelligent, with incredible problem solving skills - they have been masters of escaping captivation on many occasions.  In some situations, octopi have been found strangling sharks for no apparent reason.  Dolphins, highly relational and emotional animals, have been found killing porpoises for no true purpose and even playing with the carcasses afterwards.  And then comes Homo sapiens.  Humans, as we all know, are intelligent creatures known for their enlarged frontal lobes of the brain, which have to do with cognition, reasoning, emotions, et cetera.  Humans are known not only for hunting other animals for fun, but also for harming each other for entertainment.  In sports such as the gladiator games or even football, people compete against other people with violent displays of valor.  People who cannot or do not participate in such games live vicariously through those who can and do.  But what is the relationship between this increased intelligence and needless violence?  This behavior could be an outlet for built-up emotions and stress that other animals of lesser intelligence do not experience - or at least, not to the same capacity.  People look forward to going home at the end of the day and watching football, wrestling, boxing, and the like on TV.  They watch as people face their opponents and confront their problems - just as the average human being wishes he/she could do in every day life.

2/7/12

Regarding things that are pleasant, is it better to give or receive?  Discuss.

When you ask a person questions of a similar nature, they usually always say that they prefer giving nice gifts than receiving nice gifts.  Usually they would explain their rationale by saying that they "feel good" when they see how happy it makes the other person.  But is this feeling genuine?  Do people give to make others feel good or to make themselves feel good?  It almost seems like  people who go out of their way to achieve this "feeling" that they get when they see others happy is more an act of one trying to appease his or her own desires to build up self confidence and self worth.  People feel like they are suddenly better people when they do nice things for others, but this may not always be the case.  Giving for the sake of the betterment of others is one thing, but giving to gratify yourself and build up your own self esteem is another.

Also, such explanations for why people like to give as "it makes me feel good to see how happy the other person is" could very well be false.  No one wants to seem like a selfish jerk, so of course everyone who wants to appear to be a decent human being would say that it is better to give than to receive.  This is also a form of self gratification because the person who offers this answer will always look like a good person and maintain a good reputation.

2/9/12

Does human behavior (not intelligence - behavior) indicate that we are more like animals or an all together separate creature?  Discuss.

In many ways, humans still are very much like animals in their behavior, but they are also very different.  Humans are born with instincts just as animals are; for example, when a baby is hungry, it cries for food.  If the baby does not cry, it cannot receive proper sustenance and nourishment.  Humans have instincts to reproduce, just as animals do, but because of the cognitive nature of human beings, we often attach emotions and meanings to the need to reproduce.  While animals seem to be able to reproduce indiscriminately, the intelligent and comprehensive nature of humans have led men and women to attach feeling to this act - often, we consider it acceptable for people to only have one significant other, and often the result of a man or a woman having multiple significant others results in heartbreak and bad feelings.  Interestingly enough, this sort of thing is very natural in the animal world.

Yet, these thoughts and feelings are only a result of man's intelligent nature; humans, like other animals, need to survive and reproduce.  Those are the two main goals in life, no matter what Phylum, Kingdom, or Class an organism hails from.  Humans exhibit an instinctual need to thrive in the world, just as other organisms do.  The only difference is the emotional hang-ups and attachments they add as a result of their cognitive nature.

2/10/12

What are the qualities of a leader and do you have them?  Discuss.

Some people might see a true leader as someone who is outspoken; someone who always has an answer to every question and who has the "charisma" or the "will power" to push their own agenda into effect.  I disagree.

A leader maybe someone who takes charge, who defends a principle behind which he or she stands, or someone who is not afraid to put themselves out there, to put their own reputations and lives on the line for the greater good of the community, and even humanity.  This may seem a bit idealistic, but we have seen such great qualities as these in many people who would be considered great leaders, even if they lead in a less conspicuous way.  I believe that mother Teresa was possibly one of the world's most powerful leaders.  She lead not with the attitude that her stance was ultimately the "right one", not with the purpose of recognition or fame, but with humility and kindness in her heart.  Her goal was not to be a leader, and yet that was what she became for many.

I think that is a true leader - one who steps up in a time of need when they see that no one else intends to.  True leaders attempt to act selflessly, understanding that not just one person or a few people, but that many people are being affected.  People such as Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., et cetera are true leaders.  Their purpose is to take care of the people of the world, not to lord power over them.  People follow the paths of these individuals because they respect them.  These individuals have earned said respect for their honorable notions, their selflessness, and their humility as human beings.  Human beings with such qualities are almost revered.  Leaders with such qualities are seem to be more and more rare to come by in recent times; it almost appears that some leaders are only in it for the power and the glory.

I don't know for sure whether or not I have these specific qualities.  I hope I do because what I'm planning to do with my life seems to kind of fall into line with the principles of Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King.  I've been thinking a lot about being a doctor, possibly participating in the Peace Corps, and maybe (hopefully) becoming involved with the Doctors without Boarders program.  At this point, it is probably kind of hard to tell whether or not I have these characteristics, especially to the extent that those individuals expressed them.  Hopefully throughout my life, if I do have those characteristics, they grow and develop, helping me to become the leader in my field that I aspire to be.  If I were to become a leader at some point in my life, I would want to be the kind that leads quietly and humbly; standing by my principles and exercising my powers and skills for the greater good of humanity.

2/13/12

What is the nature or humans choosing (not accidents) to have children?  Discuss.

Some might describe the human desire to reproduce as instinctual - it's basic evolutionary principle, all animals have the drive to produce viable and fertile offspring so that their species may continue to strive and survive.  While this is probably true with Homo sapiens, there's another element that is different from this common drive to survive.  Humans are separated into the species Homo sapiens based on their evolved cognitive abilities.  They have the same instincts as other animals do - to eat, to sleep, to become the "alpha male" (or female) - to survive.  Yet, the cognitive and reasoning abilities of humans have lead them to attach ideas, opinions, and emotions to these common instincts.

This attachment changes the situation from simply populating the earth to an emotional decision that often requires such abstract concepts as trust and love.  Of course, motherly and fatherly instincts play a role in choosing to bear and raise children, but for humans it seems to have a different meaning than it does for most species.  While animals may form bonds with their children for a short time after giving birth to their offspring, this bond does not seem to last for a very long time.  Whereas with humans, whether you like it or not, you have a bond with your family intrinsically created at birth.  Your family is always there, even when they are not physically there.  You have a bond with them from the day you are born until the day you (or they) die.  This is not so with animals - animals are with their parents for a short time, and after that time, they are on their own to sew their own seeds.

In a way, it simply is what it is.  People are animals, there is no way to deny it.  We have the same basic needs as animals, we just attach emotional meaning to everything due to our more developed emotional capacities and our need to add reason and meaning to life.  This almost leads into the argument of whether or not life has meaning.  I personally go back and forth between whether or not life has meaning, sometimes looking at it in terms of science and sometimes in terms of faith.  But I digress.  Humans attach emotions to basic animal instincts - this is neither inherently good, nor is it inherently bad.  It simply is what it is.

2/14/12

Especially after reading Augustine, what is the basis for determining what is evil in the world?  Discuss

I don't really know how to answer this question - it's a multifaceted idea that can be taken in many directions.  I feel like evil can be defined as the absence of good.  It's kind of a strange concept, this question.  I feel like in order to answer it, we need to first answer the question of whether or not humans or innately good, innately bad, or possibly neither. 

Some people may believe that humans are born pure, with a good and Godly nature and are then corrupted by the evils in life.  But if this is so, then where do said evils come from?  Wouldn't it follow that if all human beings are born without evil, then there would be no evil in the world to corrupt?  Something cannot be created from nothing.

There are also those who believe that humans are innately evil.  Some branches of Christianity would fall into this line of thought - Jonathan Edwards and his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" comes to mind.  Yet, we encounter a similar problem here - if all people are born bad, then how is it that there are good people like mother Teresa and Gandhi in the world?  If all you've ever known from the day you were born is evil and sin, how could you possibly come to be a good person?

The same reasoning may be applied to people being born neither good nor evil - just a clean slate.  In this situation, there is neither good nor evil, so how is it that there are examples of both good and bad in the world?

Maybe it's that there is an ample amount of good and evil in everyone.  Maybe all people aren't innately good nor are all people innately evil - maybe there's a mixture of people who are innately good and people who are innately evil, leading to the mixture of good and evil that we see in the world today.

And maybe it's that there is really no evil.  Maybe evil is a creation of society.  I recall from Grapes of Wrath that the old preacher Jode comes across has a mentality to this effect.  I believe he professed something along the lines of he didn't believe in evil or good actions anymore.  He used to think that way when he was younger and still preaching, but that later in his life as he experienced more he abandoned that way of thinking.  Instead, he believes that all actions are neutral - there are no good people or bad people; good actions or bad actions.  There are just people and the things they do.

I'm particularly interested in this idea because it's one that's fairly new to me.  All my life I've been told, since I was a child in Sunday school, about good and evil; God and sin; heaven and hell.  I like this sort of non-dualistic thinking because it avoids the logical fallacy of false dilemma.  But I digress.  I feel like there are too many possibilities for this question to be answered definitively.  I think I'd rather be non-dualistically wishy-washy and open to multiple ideas about good and evil than dualistic, dogmatic, and close minded about the issue.  I feel like there's a lot more to be learned and discussed in the grey areas of this issue.  So in this way, I guess I am saying (for the time being) that good and evil are just concepts created by society.

2/23/2012

On Death.  Discuss.

It almost seems as if humans have an infatuation with death despite their fears.  The speaker brought up  books of the dead and rituals.  I really like what he said about Philosophy - to philosophize is to learn how to die and to learn how to die is to free ones self from slavery.  Freedom means accepting the constraints of one's reality.  If I recall correctly, the Stoics saw life as a giant feast - one must live life to the fullest.  Yet, they also saw death as a way to say thank you to life.  This is a particularly interesting concept to me, and a concept that I personally really like - I find it very profound.  I feel like this way of thinking goes hand in hand with what this guy is saying.  People treat death as if it's something to be avoided.  Of course fear of death is natural - humans will always fear the unknown; it's part of reality.  But as fear of the unknown is reality, the unknown and death itself are also realities. 

Going back to what he said that linked death and one's freedom.  This almost seems like a paradox - how can acceptance of death free a human soul?  But in the same breath, it makes sense.  By running from an inevitable fate, by attempting to avoid that which is literally unavoidable, you make yourself more afraid than is necessary.  When you don't accept that death is real and that death happens to everyone, you make yourself a slave to the avoidance of death.

Even in the process of avoiding death, one is still dying.  From the day we are born, everyone in the world is dying.  From the moment life is created in the womb, life is also dwindling - death accompanies time.

To be aware of death is neither to be with or without fear - to be aware of death is to acknowledge that death is reality - it will happen to everyone.  Although fear is inevitable, avoidance is not.  The only way to acknowledge death is not to dwell on death itself, but to live life to the fullest - to examine one's life, to enjoy and be thankful for every additional day of life granted.  As the Stoics said - death is a way to say thank you to life.  Living everyday like it's your last - in other words, not avoiding death by pretending that you are immortal, or assuming that you have more time than you are granted - that is how you say thank you to life.  That, to me is how you live the examined life - living consciously versus frivolously, considering life yet always remembering that life is not eternal.

2/24/12

Reality, what is real, how we know it's real.  Discuss.

What is reality in itself really like?  This question that was posed to me is interesting.  The man in the video brought up all of the processes that we use to measure our reality, like mathematics, physics, chemistry, and then begins to point out some of the ways in which those measurements are limiting.  Can we ever really and truly know what a thing is or what it is like?  Can we ever truly know ourselves?  It seems like all we can ever really know about the world and about ourselves are the few characteristics that we have been able to discover. 

I feel that we never can truly know the nature of ourselves or the rest of the world because everything and everyone is constantly experiencing change.  Theorems change, new theorems are added (mathematically, scientifically, what have you).  People and animals constantly change.  You are not the same person going to bed at night as you were waking up in the morning.  Even in such a short time span as 24 hours, events and experiences and even changes in the body which happen throughout the day change a person, even if it is just the tiniest bit.  So if this constant change is occurring and will occur continuously, how is it that we think we can truly know ourselves, others, and our world?  It takes time to learn new things, and even to realize that a change has occurred.  If all this additional information and change is happening to people and the world, a person can continually attempt to learn about the true nature of people and the world, but you can never truly know everything.

Another interesting concept he brought up was whether or not our experiences - what we see, hear, feel, ect - are real.  One thing this made me think of was dreams.  Some dreams can seem so real, down to the people who are in the dream and their characterizations, the sights, the sounds, and so on.  Is it possible that all of this that we see everyday is just an incredibly vivid dream?  This thought brings two movies to mind - the Matrix and Inception.  And I feel like they both can be considered the two extremes - waking up from a dream (which is considered "reality") and burrowing further and further into a dream that you can't even distinguish between what is real and what is dream.  Some times I wonder if the matrix idea is real, if all of this is just a pointless dream.  Some times events and experiences don't feel real in my life - it almost seems like I'm just alone in a movie theater somewhere, watching a film of my life just playing out on the screen.  It's almost like having an outer body experience.  Sometimes this disconnect between reality (or what I perceive to be reality) leads me to ponder whether or not what I'm experiencing is real.  But most days I avoid the thoughts, mindlessly moving through the day and hoping that there's more to life than just sleeping and dreaming in a little cocoon, just like in the Matrix.

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.

MIGHT START POSTING "PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNALS".

So, in my senior Philosophy class my teacher has us write responses to a prompt of a (somewhat) philosophical nature. He calls them philosophical journals. I think I might post them here (considering no one reads this...) just so that I don't lose them forever after I turn in my school laptop at the end of the year.

...Yeah. I think I'll do that.