Civil disobedience

I think that it is justifiable to break the law when there are clear cases of injustice happening. Of course the definition of just/unjust can change in meaning from person to person and from situation to situation. In my opinion, an unjust situation is one where the basic civil rights of a person are violated. Furthermore, it is when there is coercion, excess use of power/violence and an undeniable unbalance where those on top abuse their power. If we were to take the current protests against police brutality happening around the country, we would be able to see that many communities have reached their breaking point due to social inequality. While I do not condone violence, I do think that in those type of situations some version of civil disobedience is necessary in order to bring attention to the real issues. It is immoral and unjust to target communities where there are clear lack of opportunities. At the same time, I think is unjust to generalize the actions of a whole organization based on the behavior of only a few. Either party would then be justified to take actions against the status quo but in an “organized” manner. As it has been shown, when chaos is combined with violence, one can only expect more chaos. I also believe that violence taints the ultimate meaning behind any type of protest and it serves as grounds for those in power to justify their actions.

I don’t necessarily agree with St. Augustine’s claim that “an unjust law is no law at all”. The reason being is because such radical statement can open the door for people to not follow any laws at all. Sometimes unjust laws need to be negotiated in order for them to benefit society. Other times is not the law itself that is unjust but rather the interpretation given to it by other people that makes it so. Civil disobedience should be seen as a last resort after all types of negotiations have been exhausted. Also, when taking this type of action one must remember that above all else the goal is to bring attention to deep rooted issues not to create more issues. Thus, one must be ready to accept any consequence without having to resort to violence. 

Marx and Mill

I have to say that I agree with both Mill and Marx. I think that Mill makes an extremely valid argument when he states that part of our freedom is the fact that we are not coerced to do anything. One of his main arguments was that as society became more unified, values became more uniform. According to Mill this poses a grave danger because it leads to lack of individuality. Once we stop exercising our right to be ourselves, we begin to lose our freedom. It is also at this point that we become more susceptible to be swayed one way or another. Is important to keep in mind that most of the time when the state intervenes and tries to manipulate members of its society, it is never done in a direct way but rather in a more subtle form.  For Mill the idea of the state intervening in one’s life in one way or another was catastrophic.

However, if the state were to be on the sidelines all the time who would protect society against injustice? In this instance is when I see myself agreeing with Marx. While it is great to keep our freedom and individuality, it does come with a high price sometimes. Being that no individual is like another (even amongst family members) not everybody has the same good intentions at heart. So in the case presented by Marx in regards to the disparities that stem from different economic classes; it is imperative to have the state intervene. This, however, does not mean that we would be able to make our own choices. They would be limited by the boundaries the state would put into place. I think that due to the type of society that we live in, the involvement of the state is inevitable even if we try to fool ourselves to think otherwise. 

Buddhism

I think that it would be hard to live according to the Buddhist teachings in contemporary United States. We live in a capitalist society that defines its members by what they have and not have. Everybody is so busy wanting to get a piece of the pie that very few realize the rat race we are in. The more we have, we achieve, the more we want. While this is not bad in itself, after all who doesn’t want to see their goals fulfilled, it does go according with the theory of us eventually feeling empty once those desires are achieved.  Also, whether we want to or not in our society there are some basic needs that we must have in order to be contributing members of society. Every day we are pushed to work harder, earn more money, and spend more for things such as food, shelter. Now days even education has become another check on the long list of things one must have in order to lead a “successful” life.

I personally believe that it would be very hard for anyone to try to live according to the Buddhist teaching in a society like ours. We would first have to re-train our way of thinking and even our belief system. These type of philosophies are also usually shared with the whole community and are followed for the benefit of everyone. We, unfortunately, live in an individualistic society and the lack of support makes it that much harder for anyone to follow 100%. In my opinion, one way how we can start to let go of our own desires and illusions is by re-training our minds one goal at a time. Perhaps we could start by just simply being content with the things we have and who we are at the moment, then gradually we could work on detaching ourselves from the desires that keep us prisoners. 

Cosmology and Design

I think that some of the arguments found in philosophy can help a person’s religious beliefs in either a positive or negative way, depending on how strong their convictions were to begin with. If we were to take the theory presented by Cosmology (which is referred to as the science that studies the beginning of the universe and the way it functions) to someone who has deep strong religious beliefs; they would eventually say that despite all the information being provided about the universe starting with the “Big Bang”, there is a higher being that allowed for it to happen in the first place. In my personal experience, religion has helped me make sense of situations that seemed too big for me to comprehend. Furthermore, even when there has been tangible proof for the occurrence of certain situations, I have found myself going back to the belief that one creator was ultimately in charge.

At the same time, Cosmology can sway someone whose religious beliefs are not as strong into the scientific aspect of things. If we were to go back to the example provided above about the “Big Bang”, this would provide all the evidence necessary that the universe was created as a result of physical and/or chemical reactions. For someone who believes only in science, the aforementioned reactions that are required for life to happen are the only tangible proof needed to support their theory. Something that I have notice that is being left out from the philosophical point of view, is the belief in fate. A person who is atheist does not believe in fate, rather they believe that every action has its consequent reaction and one cannot exist without the other. But for a person of faith, fate has everything to do with the way they lead their lives. While the action/reaction debate still is valid, there are plenty of scenarios that are attributed to fate. Fate also allows a person of faith to make sense of those life events that are too big to comprehend or to justify with just scientific data. At the end, I strongly believe that whether it is through religion or science, we all need a reason to justify and explain some events that are too big for us to comprehend on our own. 

Artificial Intelligence

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between the programming of computers and the way humans are "programmed" by society. To begin with, computers and all its functions are made by humans and for humans. There is no way that a computer can function without the initial input of a human. Furthermore, for all the advancement in technology and the improvements computers have contributed to our daily lives; they still are not able to take over human actions just be sheer instinct. 

Another point that needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that computers are pretty universal in the way in which they work once programmed. What I mean by this is that if you were to take two computers that were programmed by the same person, they will react the same way time and time again to the same commands. 

On the other hand, the way in which humans are "programmed" can vary depending on  the place where they are being raised, the culture, the influence other people have on them. People also have the choice to either follow what has been taught to them or make their own choice in order to follow their own path. Furthermore, if you have two people who have been raised in the same circumstances, with the same influence and the same "programming instructions" more often than not you will get two different reactions. 

It is precisely these differences that make humans and artificial intelligence so different. As smart and useful as computers get with improvements, they lack the liberty of choice and instinct that we, as humans, have and enjoy. Even though computers can be updated once they are programmed, humans have the ability to be completely "re-programmed" if they chose to. 

Dualism

I believe that we are beings composed of two substances like Descartes argued. However, unlike him I believe that these two substances are completely interrelated with one another, which is also known as interactionism. If it wasn't for our ability to combine both our physical assets (like the brain) with our mental ones (like the mind) we wouldn't be able to make simple decisions such as what to write for this blog. 

Due to the lack of knowledge during Descartes' time as to how the brain works, a lot was not properly understood (i.e the example given in the reading about the pineal gland). But now with the technology available to us, we can comprehend more about the way in which the brain works and all the connections that must happen in order for us to complete simple tasks.  

One way in which the brain and the mind work together can be seen in people who have had accidents and suffer trauma. Depending on the severity of the injury, some people have described feeling trapped in their own bodies. In a documentary “Coma” by HBO, a patient by the name of Tom is seen struggling to get his body follow simple commands such as “close your hand”. In an interview done a few months after he had regained both mental and physical strength, he explained how even though early on in his recovery from a coma he could understand what was asked of him; he still wasn't able to get his body to do what he wanted.

If we go back to Descartes’ argument of interactionism, one can see that in the previous example Tom needed both his physical asset (his brain) and his metal (his mind) in order to be able to complete the tasks that were asked of him. I strongly believe that one does not work without the other and with the help of both we become the people that we are.  

Our sense of reality

I believe that our perception of reality is greatly influenced by our senses, however, they are not the only source of our knowledge. Through experiments, scientists have been able to prove that our brain constructs reality through perceptual illusions. By this what scientist mean is that the brain makes a guess (an informed one) in regards to the information being received and the way it is interprets it. 

An example of this is the way we interpret and make sense of colors. One would guess and/or assume that when looking at a cube that has different color patterns on it,  what we see is the actual color (i.e blue,green, red squares). However, this is not the case. What happens in actuality is that the brain just makes an interpretation between what the eye sees  (through the photo pigments found in the cones of the eye) and what the its interpretation from the different information being received. 

If we were to take the above information and analyze it from an empiricists point of view, then we would be able to argue that the brain just makes sense of our color perception based on our previous knowledge and/or exposure to colors before. But what about those facts that have been proven by science beyond reasonable doubt? 

Physics, like math, is an area that cannot be disputed in regards to its facts. But we cannot necessarily say that we experience physics through our senses. One example is the First Law of Thermodynamics.While there are several ways in which it can be explained, it can be safely summarized as follow:
    " Energy cannot be neither created nor destroyed, but it can change forms"
Energy is not something we can feel, we know what it is, we can explain it and how it works; but yet for all the knowledge we have in regards to it, no one can describe what energy feels like. The advancement in science have provide us with facts that defies an empiricist's claim that our senses are the only source of  knowledge. I would have to argue that they enhance our knowledge and help us put words to those things we wouldn't be able to otherwise, but in order to really make sense of our reality we need more. 

Descartes and Methodological Skepticism

In our everyday lives we use 'methodological skepticism', the question is whether or not we accept our findings or we choose to remain blissfully ignorant. One innate condition about human beings is the fear to change. No matter how many times we go through life experiences that can serve as a teaching tool to show that change is not the equivalent to a negative outcome; we still fear it and above all else avoid it. I believe that the more attached we are to a certain situation and/or person the harder it becomes to see reality objectively. 

Being in the denial is a common coping strategy that we employ and even when we can no longer deny the truth of reality it becomes easier to build a different reality in our minds. For some people this becomes the only way in which they are able to face their lives day to day, others employ it when it is the most convenient, but there are also those who get so exhausted that they finally begin to question their reality. The problem with the latter is that they can become so jaded that from that point on they will begin to question absolutely everything.

 On the other hand, there are those individuals that are naturally skeptics. They question absolutely everything they are being told, everything they experience at a given point and even those around them. It is hard to persuade them and to do so, one has to be able to present facts being doubt. These type of individuals employ Descartes' method to not only reach conclusions but also to lead their lives. Some would argue that this is an exhausting way of living, moreover, they would say that these type of people have "trust issues". 

I would argue that employing a certain amount of "methodological skepticism" in our everyday lives is not only healthy but also necessary. It is the best way to reassure ourselves that we have a clear sense of what our reality is. Also, by employing this method we can avoid being manipulated by those who seek to control those whom they might deem as "weak". The key, in my opinion, is to find balance between Descartes' method and taking things for what they are. One can not deny that there are certain things in our daily lives that do not have a clear answer, they just simply are. 

Socrates and The Allegory of the Cave

According to Socrates, the number one responsibility that we have in life is to better ourselves everyday. In his mind, a life that is not examined and questioned, is not a life that is worth living. Socrates, lets remember, was in fact condemned and given the death penalty due to his beliefs. During his trial,not once did he ask for clemency, nor did he fight for his innocence. Until the very end, Socrates kept true to his morals and values and asked the jury to really question themselves along with their own morals. 

For Socrates, philosophy was a road people follow when questioning what really was. His method of questioning, also known as "dialectic", was so unique in the sense that he never made himself out to be better than anyone else. In fact, he would claim ignorance in order to provide room for the other person to fully explain his/her ideas. The latter, provided the perfect opportunity for their ideas to be fully exposed and therefore be open to growth. One could argue that the liberating aspect of philosophy, by Socrates' standards, is that by exposing one's ideas, personal growth can therefore be achieved. By questioning the aforementioned, the flaws and contradictions are hence uncovered thus allowing for further examination. All this is in the hopes that a new more evolved and clear idea is achieved. 

By following Socrates' logic, the lack of self examination is indeed deserving of pessimism. If people choose to "stay in the cave" and accept everything that is being told to them,then they are not reaching (or even trying to reach) their full potential. Moreover, if questions are not asked, there is the threat for society to become stagnant and the possibility for progression to be missed altogether. 

My Blog

This will be my philosophy blog.