I wonder how we are contributing towards the evolution of other animals. It seems that by keeping some animals in captivity as pets, they are not forced to adapt in order to survive. This may be a disadvantage, not that it matters incredibly in that they are, like us, essentially removed from nature. Though, maybe they are simply evolving in a different way. We keep other animals in captivity for food, and not only are we hindering their evolution, but we are also causing them harm by not treating them well. I do think that is a problem.
We could also be contributing to evolution in a positive way. We are helping/increasing the apes knowledge of tool-using and helping to increase their intelligence, which is a substantial benefit. It would be interesting to be able to leave this planet and see how the apes adapt and evolve.
02 May 2012
Boundary Pushing
Though we have removed ourselves from nature in many senses, I think it is important to recognize that we are within its confines and that it allows us and we need it to improve ourselves. Everything that we construct is natural in that we made it, and in that it was made from things that are natural. If something is made entirely of granite, then the structure itself is also granite. There are many ways that we can see that most of us are, in fact, not much better than nature. Most of us would not survive very well in the Amazon, for example. There are many threats there that we no longer have to, therefore, in general, no longer can deal with. Most of us have lost the knowledge of how to survive on our own because we are so dependent on our grocery stores for food, and dependent on our houses, built by others, for protection from animals.
To make a note here, I do think that eventually, while still working within nature, as we have no choice but to do so, we will be able to be much more free. I think that we will be able to better manipulate nature in time. As our technology increases, we are better equipped to manipulate nature allowing us to do more things. At one point, we could not travel faster than we can run, currently, however, we have created jets which can break the speed of sound - I think the fastest thing we've created is a space craft (NASA's New Horizons Craft) that travelled at 36,360mph. Eventually, I imagine, we'll be able to travel near the tachyons (slowest as the speed of light), or possibly even faster than that, which would still be in the confines of nature.
To make a note here, I do think that eventually, while still working within nature, as we have no choice but to do so, we will be able to be much more free. I think that we will be able to better manipulate nature in time. As our technology increases, we are better equipped to manipulate nature allowing us to do more things. At one point, we could not travel faster than we can run, currently, however, we have created jets which can break the speed of sound - I think the fastest thing we've created is a space craft (NASA's New Horizons Craft) that travelled at 36,360mph. Eventually, I imagine, we'll be able to travel near the tachyons (slowest as the speed of light), or possibly even faster than that, which would still be in the confines of nature.
Our Walls
We, humans, have essentially removed ourselves from the competition of nature. As such, I am not certain that we are continuing to evolve naturally. That's not to say that I think it is a bad thing, we are in control of technology which I think is better for evolution; nature can only give us so much non-immortal, largely inadequate things. So, it seems like it is best that we remove ourselves from nature; we no longer have to struggle in the same way that animals living day-to-day do.We have built our walls that protect us from nature, though we hardly have any natural predators anyway. These walls keep us safe and allow us to focus on other things. We get our food inside these walls, and we can focus on improving ourselves through technology. We are learning how to sustain ourselves while creating protection from threats, at least the threats that we don't make for ourselves.
30 April 2012
Ants
In response to Justine - full post here
Just for the record, I would like to point out an exaggeration. Ants can, at most, lift approximately fifty times their weight. The reason why human cannot do this can be explain as such: Mass increases as a cube of length, while muscle mass increases as the a square of length. This means that if a person were to grow 10 times taller, they would be 1,000 times heavier but only 100 times stronger. As such, more of the individual's muscles must work on holding up the heavier mass. Creature A, weighing 1 ounce, would have an easier time lifting 2 ounces (twice its weight), than a 100 pound creature would have lifting 200 lbs. Despite the proportion of 2:1 in both of these cases, the latter still has to lift less weight, as one hundred pounds is 1600 times heavier than one ounce.
Just for the record, I would like to point out an exaggeration. Ants can, at most, lift approximately fifty times their weight. The reason why human cannot do this can be explain as such: Mass increases as a cube of length, while muscle mass increases as the a square of length. This means that if a person were to grow 10 times taller, they would be 1,000 times heavier but only 100 times stronger. As such, more of the individual's muscles must work on holding up the heavier mass. Creature A, weighing 1 ounce, would have an easier time lifting 2 ounces (twice its weight), than a 100 pound creature would have lifting 200 lbs. Despite the proportion of 2:1 in both of these cases, the latter still has to lift less weight, as one hundred pounds is 1600 times heavier than one ounce.
26 April 2012
Taking the Reins
Are humans the end of natural evolution?
Humans are on a track to destroy themselves. Conversely, humanity is also on a track to improve their lives greatly. Humans have been using technology for a long time. Using technology, humans have greatly improved the human condition. As such, it seems like humanity is taking the reins of their own evolution. Can we still say that nature is controlling our evolution? I would say yes, I simply think it is a new kind of nature. Remembering that the universe is determined, we know that we can never escape nature. Additionally, we are within nature, as such, we need nature to improve ourselves; the materials to do so come from nature. I would, however, venture to say that humans have evolved enough to break free of the unguided, by-chance, evolution and have instead taken up a self-directed natural evolution.
The technology required to do so will certain create problems in that, as we discussed in class, humans have the potential to survive and the potential to destroy themselves.
Humans are on a track to destroy themselves. Conversely, humanity is also on a track to improve their lives greatly. Humans have been using technology for a long time. Using technology, humans have greatly improved the human condition. As such, it seems like humanity is taking the reins of their own evolution. Can we still say that nature is controlling our evolution? I would say yes, I simply think it is a new kind of nature. Remembering that the universe is determined, we know that we can never escape nature. Additionally, we are within nature, as such, we need nature to improve ourselves; the materials to do so come from nature. I would, however, venture to say that humans have evolved enough to break free of the unguided, by-chance, evolution and have instead taken up a self-directed natural evolution.
The technology required to do so will certain create problems in that, as we discussed in class, humans have the potential to survive and the potential to destroy themselves.
Helping Others
Related to my last post, what about the possibility of assistance coming from another species?
Imagine humans found a way off this planet, that is to say, before the sun becomes a red dwarf and swallows the earth, Surely we could consider them fit, largely due to their intellect and tool-using prowess, However, imagine then, that humans choose to bring along oysters and red pandas. Would this mean that if the sun swallowed the world, humans, oysters, and red pandas, would have been the most fit on earth? As with my last answer, I am not inclined to say that those animals are the most fit. This is another example of how circumstance unrelated to evolutionary adaptation could possibly influence the survival of a species.
Imagine humans found a way off this planet, that is to say, before the sun becomes a red dwarf and swallows the earth, Surely we could consider them fit, largely due to their intellect and tool-using prowess, However, imagine then, that humans choose to bring along oysters and red pandas. Would this mean that if the sun swallowed the world, humans, oysters, and red pandas, would have been the most fit on earth? As with my last answer, I am not inclined to say that those animals are the most fit. This is another example of how circumstance unrelated to evolutionary adaptation could possibly influence the survival of a species.
Circumstances
What other factors, if any, besides natural selection contribute to the survival of a species?
I would say that chance, or rather, the circumstance for one species at any given time, contributes heavily to the survival of a species. We said yesterday, I think, that dinosaurs were incredibly "fit"; that is, they survived for a very long time. I do think it is only slightly unfair to call the dinosaurs unfit due to the unfortunate circumstance of the impact of the Chicxulub asteroid. Granted, a prime example of fitness if the ability to adapt to change of circumstance or to have already adapted to survive most anything (i.e the cockroach), though we can hardly blame dinosaurs for not adapting to such a sudden and drastic change. Similarly, I think it would be unfair to, after a nuclear fallout, call most animals unfit for survival. The deep-sea life would likely remain unaffected by the fallout almost purely because of their distance away from the surface. Is this because they are the most fit? I am uncertain about this.
I would say that chance, or rather, the circumstance for one species at any given time, contributes heavily to the survival of a species. We said yesterday, I think, that dinosaurs were incredibly "fit"; that is, they survived for a very long time. I do think it is only slightly unfair to call the dinosaurs unfit due to the unfortunate circumstance of the impact of the Chicxulub asteroid. Granted, a prime example of fitness if the ability to adapt to change of circumstance or to have already adapted to survive most anything (i.e the cockroach), though we can hardly blame dinosaurs for not adapting to such a sudden and drastic change. Similarly, I think it would be unfair to, after a nuclear fallout, call most animals unfit for survival. The deep-sea life would likely remain unaffected by the fallout almost purely because of their distance away from the surface. Is this because they are the most fit? I am uncertain about this.
25 April 2012
Seldom Deal In Absolutes
In response to Meghan - full post here
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" -Obi-Wan Kenobi
I'm not calling you a Sith, I only used that quote because it's interesting and applies here. I would be cautious with absolutes. Remember that few things are absolutely black and white. As such, you ought not make such a sweeping generalization regarding human desires.
You said that no one wants to choose to be poor, and that no one wants to live paycheck to paycheck, and that everyone starts with a high goal. However, I think that, with a world population of over 7 billion people, you could find at least person who chose to be poor, at least one person who voluntarily lives paycheck to paycheck, and at least one person who started with a low goal or no goal at all.
It is likely the case that the majority of people do not choose poverty, or to live paycheck to paycheck - I am not sure about the high goals - so it would be fair to say that few people choose to do these things.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" -Obi-Wan Kenobi
I'm not calling you a Sith, I only used that quote because it's interesting and applies here. I would be cautious with absolutes. Remember that few things are absolutely black and white. As such, you ought not make such a sweeping generalization regarding human desires.
You said that no one wants to choose to be poor, and that no one wants to live paycheck to paycheck, and that everyone starts with a high goal. However, I think that, with a world population of over 7 billion people, you could find at least person who chose to be poor, at least one person who voluntarily lives paycheck to paycheck, and at least one person who started with a low goal or no goal at all.
It is likely the case that the majority of people do not choose poverty, or to live paycheck to paycheck - I am not sure about the high goals - so it would be fair to say that few people choose to do these things.
21 April 2012
In response to Avery - full post here
You can often see that attitude on youtube; people can be fairly aggressive when dealing with music tastes. Some people will look up artists that they do not like just to talk about how any person who does like that artist is a terrible person and has no taste in good music. Meanwhile, those same people are downright offended when someone posts something negative about their favourite artists.
I saw a post recently which stated that any person who does not like My Chemical Romance should burn in hell. People cannot help it if alternative rock music doesn't fall as nicely onto their ears. Some people are more prone to certain kinds of music, and exposure as a child can have a heavy influence on the person's music tastes. Interestingly, people have been researching the relationship between personality and music interests, and I suspect that there is some correlation. I don't think that people can change this, though some exposure to these categories is good because maybe there will be a song or two that one does like in that genre.
You can often see that attitude on youtube; people can be fairly aggressive when dealing with music tastes. Some people will look up artists that they do not like just to talk about how any person who does like that artist is a terrible person and has no taste in good music. Meanwhile, those same people are downright offended when someone posts something negative about their favourite artists.
I saw a post recently which stated that any person who does not like My Chemical Romance should burn in hell. People cannot help it if alternative rock music doesn't fall as nicely onto their ears. Some people are more prone to certain kinds of music, and exposure as a child can have a heavy influence on the person's music tastes. Interestingly, people have been researching the relationship between personality and music interests, and I suspect that there is some correlation. I don't think that people can change this, though some exposure to these categories is good because maybe there will be a song or two that one does like in that genre.
Does radical freedom make a mockery of ethics?
I think that radical freedom does indeed make more of a mockery of ethics than determinism would. Objective and/or evolutionary morals could still fit nicely into determinism. However, radical freedom, if it were reality, would suggest that our morals are completely subjective and malleable depending on the values and whims of society.
If we can agree on a basic claim like "it is bad to be the agent through which harm is dealt." Once we agree on that we can determine what sort of things would be contained in that statement, and agree that we should work to prevent people from harming others, and since we acknowledge that a person is not responsible for making a choice, we can work to make even prisoners more happy. For an example of how this can work, please see this website on Norwegian Prisons <click here>. Additionally, we can acknowledge that our species does not evolve if we kill each other, and that, therefore, it would be best not to kill other people.
I think that radical freedom does indeed make more of a mockery of ethics than determinism would. Objective and/or evolutionary morals could still fit nicely into determinism. However, radical freedom, if it were reality, would suggest that our morals are completely subjective and malleable depending on the values and whims of society.
If we can agree on a basic claim like "it is bad to be the agent through which harm is dealt." Once we agree on that we can determine what sort of things would be contained in that statement, and agree that we should work to prevent people from harming others, and since we acknowledge that a person is not responsible for making a choice, we can work to make even prisoners more happy. For an example of how this can work, please see this website on Norwegian Prisons <click here>. Additionally, we can acknowledge that our species does not evolve if we kill each other, and that, therefore, it would be best not to kill other people.
Alignment
Given that our current society revolves around the idea that we have radical freedom, would it be appropriate to acknowledge that we don't have radical freedom?
I do not think that it is every bad to align our views with reality. I think that the universe is indeed determined, and that thereby we do not have free will. As such, our current society is operating under an incorrect view of reality. This causes us to treat people differently - in that we hold them responsible for things that they are not responsible. This feels right to us, likely because society has held that opinion for thousands of years, and as such many people are hesitant to leave it. Many people would suggest that acknowledging determinism makes a mockery of morals. I think, however, that this is something that we ought to work out. I cannot see a negative aspect of aligning our views with reality. Many philosophers of the past have made an effort to do so. even if the truth threatens to undermine our current view of reality, we ought to align it with reality to assure that we are appropriately dealing with our problems.
I do not think that it is every bad to align our views with reality. I think that the universe is indeed determined, and that thereby we do not have free will. As such, our current society is operating under an incorrect view of reality. This causes us to treat people differently - in that we hold them responsible for things that they are not responsible. This feels right to us, likely because society has held that opinion for thousands of years, and as such many people are hesitant to leave it. Many people would suggest that acknowledging determinism makes a mockery of morals. I think, however, that this is something that we ought to work out. I cannot see a negative aspect of aligning our views with reality. Many philosophers of the past have made an effort to do so. even if the truth threatens to undermine our current view of reality, we ought to align it with reality to assure that we are appropriately dealing with our problems.
18 April 2012
Pre-Determined Freedom
Do we have radical freedom and is that compatible with determined nature of the universe?
I am not of the opinion that we indeed have radical freedom. Freedom, as I understand it, is the ability to, after birth, imagine options and consciously choose one action provided that it is within the confines of the laws of nature. While I think that we certain have the ability to imagine options, I cannot agree that we have the ability make a choice independent of other forces. In an earlier chapter, and in a class past, we discussed determinism. I agree that the universe is completely determined and that thereby we have no power of choice. As such, cannot agree that we have radical freedom. We certain have a wider range of capabilities and have the ability to conceive of more choices that we could make. Though, I think that we were determined to have those thoughts and to act upon whatever choice it is that we act upon.
I am not of the opinion that we indeed have radical freedom. Freedom, as I understand it, is the ability to, after birth, imagine options and consciously choose one action provided that it is within the confines of the laws of nature. While I think that we certain have the ability to imagine options, I cannot agree that we have the ability make a choice independent of other forces. In an earlier chapter, and in a class past, we discussed determinism. I agree that the universe is completely determined and that thereby we have no power of choice. As such, cannot agree that we have radical freedom. We certain have a wider range of capabilities and have the ability to conceive of more choices that we could make. Though, I think that we were determined to have those thoughts and to act upon whatever choice it is that we act upon.
14 April 2012
Response to Andrew
In response to Andrew - full post here
Well, I think that this sort of augmented human is very close in the future. I think that sooner, rather than later, prosthetic limbs and other artificial body parts will be available more readily.
I also think that this is very likely to cause a bad situation. I think it is vital that we move towards socialism before that sort of crazy unfairness settles in. If it did, the middle and poor classes would be at a distinct disadvantage, given that they won't have the same abilities and potential as the more technologically augmented humans. Society needs to change before technology reaches a certain point on the horizon. If society does not change, the world and its people will be in a really bad place. I think the situation is more precarious than many people give it credit for.
Well, I think that this sort of augmented human is very close in the future. I think that sooner, rather than later, prosthetic limbs and other artificial body parts will be available more readily.
I also think that this is very likely to cause a bad situation. I think it is vital that we move towards socialism before that sort of crazy unfairness settles in. If it did, the middle and poor classes would be at a distinct disadvantage, given that they won't have the same abilities and potential as the more technologically augmented humans. Society needs to change before technology reaches a certain point on the horizon. If society does not change, the world and its people will be in a really bad place. I think the situation is more precarious than many people give it credit for.
How could we use technology in conjunction with socialism to liberate people from the need to work?
Technology, I think, could be very used useful in the effort to liberate people from work. We could certain use more technology now in order to prevent people from having to do certain jobs that nobody would want to do. Clean toilets and basic janitorial work could certainly be done by robots. As technology increases, I think, robots will be able to complete more jobs. With socialism, people don't have to worry about losing their jobs to robots because they will still receive all the necessities of life until they are able to contribute to society in a different way. I think that if Karl Marx were alive today, he likely would have supported this idea of using technology to our advantage.
The In-Between Point
There are many problems with capitalism and I used to think that capitalism was the bane of human existence. I have since come around to see ourselves in a position that closely resembles a half-way point between good and bad. It seems much worse that systems of the past because our ability to cause harm to ourselves is greater than it was before. There are many more negative aspects of our society than there were before, it seems reasonable to want to go back to a safer time when we valued different traditions. Capitalism, it seems, is responsible for motivating people to go to war and to create nuclear bombs and guns, and the nature of capitalism combined with industrialism has created an environmental mess which past society would have never considered. There are ways to improve ourselves and we ought to embrace that, we cannot stand idly by because we are aware that there are negatives in capitalism. This is not a place to rest, we have to move forward; we must strive for a better society. As with progress away from the previous stages of human history, we can certainly get rid of many of the problems that we have now. Diseases used to run rampant, and they no longer do. The streets used to stink, they no longer do. Transportation used to leave the majority of travellers dead, that is no longer the case. We can usually address most of our problems as we progress.
How does the American Public Education system portray Karl Marx?
I think that overall, the American public education system portrays Karl Marx in a very negative light. They portray his ideas is the same negative light. The history books used in public schools try to suggest that Russian and China, after having adopted the titles of socialist and communist tried to practice, and succeeded at practising communism. The American media portrays dictatorship (a failed attempt (if it could even be called an attempt) at communism) as successful communism. This is completely untrue and is highly unfair to those who support socialism. In addition to having confused socialism or communism with dictatorship, the American media also portrays socialism as the equivalent to communism. Of course, I cannot simply blame the American media, it is, after all, up to the people to decide what they believe and to research information on their own.
I think that overall, the American public education system portrays Karl Marx in a very negative light. They portray his ideas is the same negative light. The history books used in public schools try to suggest that Russian and China, after having adopted the titles of socialist and communist tried to practice, and succeeded at practising communism. The American media portrays dictatorship (a failed attempt (if it could even be called an attempt) at communism) as successful communism. This is completely untrue and is highly unfair to those who support socialism. In addition to having confused socialism or communism with dictatorship, the American media also portrays socialism as the equivalent to communism. Of course, I cannot simply blame the American media, it is, after all, up to the people to decide what they believe and to research information on their own.
07 April 2012
Kill the Innocent
Question: Do those who take the bible literally and believe that the Christian god's justice is best, seriously entertain the notion that his justice is best?
I would say not. The Christian god's justice, as far as literal interpretations go, is as follows: create beings, create laws that you know they won't follow, demand the death penalty for those who break the laws, sacrifice an innocent life, forgive the guilty. Most people, I'd think, would realize that the third party justice system is not a legitimate system of justice. I cannot foresee many Christians being pleased with the America justice system if there were a serial robber/rapist/killer on trial, who was acquitted so long as the thanks the innocent person who was killed in his place.
I think this sort of obvious wrong justice systems is also evidence of the fact the the bible is not actually for literal interpretation. A figurative interpretation makes all these problems not problems at all.
Christmas and Ishtar
In response to Emily - full post here
So, interestingly, the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter are basically stolen from the Pagans. The vernal equinox is celebrated in honour of Ishtar, and the idea of the ceremony revolves around rebirth and fertilization and sprouting flowers and so on. Christmas comes from celebrating the winter solstice. People would gather to celebrate because it was cold and because they wanted food. The families would all get together to feast. The Catholics came along sometime in the 4th century CE and in order to make Christianity more appealing to both Christians and Pagans, they started to incorporate the celebrations.
As you mentioned in your post, these holidays have become, more than before, capitalist holidays, wherein people feel obligated to buy gifts for others. The tradition is still there, I suppose, it's just slightly more non-thoughtfully completed; done without challenge or desire.
So, interestingly, the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter are basically stolen from the Pagans. The vernal equinox is celebrated in honour of Ishtar, and the idea of the ceremony revolves around rebirth and fertilization and sprouting flowers and so on. Christmas comes from celebrating the winter solstice. People would gather to celebrate because it was cold and because they wanted food. The families would all get together to feast. The Catholics came along sometime in the 4th century CE and in order to make Christianity more appealing to both Christians and Pagans, they started to incorporate the celebrations.
As you mentioned in your post, these holidays have become, more than before, capitalist holidays, wherein people feel obligated to buy gifts for others. The tradition is still there, I suppose, it's just slightly more non-thoughtfully completed; done without challenge or desire.
02 April 2012
Choosing Who to Save
In response to Osa - full post here
You are saying that given the choice between saving person A's life or person B's life, you would choose to let both die? The possibility of being considered unpatriotic should not sufficiently deter you from saving someone's life. I think the label of playing favorites or being unpatriotic should be overlooked when a person's life hangs in the balance. Additionally, if you have the ability to save a person at little cost to yourself and chose not to do it, it is essentially akin to murder; meaning that if you chose to save neither, you have effectively murdered one of them.
I, personally, would save one person trying to base it off of chance or something else. I could blindly run towards one, or make an instinctual choice, or I could even choose on the basis of country of origin (I would likely choose the non-American and receive that unpatriotic title), anything is better than letting one of them die when I could have saved them.
You are saying that given the choice between saving person A's life or person B's life, you would choose to let both die? The possibility of being considered unpatriotic should not sufficiently deter you from saving someone's life. I think the label of playing favorites or being unpatriotic should be overlooked when a person's life hangs in the balance. Additionally, if you have the ability to save a person at little cost to yourself and chose not to do it, it is essentially akin to murder; meaning that if you chose to save neither, you have effectively murdered one of them.
I, personally, would save one person trying to base it off of chance or something else. I could blindly run towards one, or make an instinctual choice, or I could even choose on the basis of country of origin (I would likely choose the non-American and receive that unpatriotic title), anything is better than letting one of them die when I could have saved them.
Patriotism Response
In response to Lyndsey - full post here
Patriotism is bad when it prevents you from progressing forward because you are so caught up on your country being the best. Also, I do not think you can be proud of being an American. What can you be proud of? Can you be proud that your heart beats? Can you be proud that you can breathe? Can you be proud of the fact that you worked for years to create something or to save up money for something? I think you can only be proud of the last one; you can only be proud of something that you accomplished with varying degrees of work. You, therefore, cannot be proud of the mere chance of your birth location; nor can you be proud of ethnicity, skin colour, or hair colour - you did not work for those things.
Patriotism is bad when it prevents you from progressing forward because you are so caught up on your country being the best. Also, I do not think you can be proud of being an American. What can you be proud of? Can you be proud that your heart beats? Can you be proud that you can breathe? Can you be proud of the fact that you worked for years to create something or to save up money for something? I think you can only be proud of the last one; you can only be proud of something that you accomplished with varying degrees of work. You, therefore, cannot be proud of the mere chance of your birth location; nor can you be proud of ethnicity, skin colour, or hair colour - you did not work for those things.
30 March 2012
Two Sides
In response to Justine - full post here
Sometimes we forget that war is two sided. We think about war with the mindset that only Americans participate in war and that the opposition is shrouded in darkness or something. We think about our poor American soldiers and their poor American families. We think about how sad it would be if our poor American soldiers die. We neglect, however, to think about the opposition. We neglect to think that our poor American soldiers are killing their alleged enemies. Enemies who also have families and children, families and children who believe that their loved ones are fighting for the right cause.
To answer your question about how I would feel if someone I loved went off to fight overseas, I would feel terrible that they thought joining the army was a good option, or feel terrible that they were misled into thinking that it would be fighting for freedom, when instead they were simply killing others because they were told to. I would miss them, and I would want with all of my heart to rewind time so that I could tell them not to be so foolish. I would always support them as people, but not as soldiers, unless there was a seriously justified cause.
Sometimes we forget that war is two sided. We think about war with the mindset that only Americans participate in war and that the opposition is shrouded in darkness or something. We think about our poor American soldiers and their poor American families. We think about how sad it would be if our poor American soldiers die. We neglect, however, to think about the opposition. We neglect to think that our poor American soldiers are killing their alleged enemies. Enemies who also have families and children, families and children who believe that their loved ones are fighting for the right cause.
To answer your question about how I would feel if someone I loved went off to fight overseas, I would feel terrible that they thought joining the army was a good option, or feel terrible that they were misled into thinking that it would be fighting for freedom, when instead they were simply killing others because they were told to. I would miss them, and I would want with all of my heart to rewind time so that I could tell them not to be so foolish. I would always support them as people, but not as soldiers, unless there was a seriously justified cause.
Response (Patriotism)
In response to Rachel - full post here
So, I have a few things to say about this subject. Firstly, you said that patriotism is fighting for a countries theories, beliefs, and morals. I do not think that fighting in the name of those things is a good idea. This is almost circular because wars are fought due to ideological differences, fighting for ideological difference is fighting for war. Additionally, it;s not appropriate to say you are fighting for such things as freedom, if you aren't actually fighting for freedom. Also, the point of freedom is not the ability to give opinions in favor of the common view, you are free when you can give dissenting opinions. American's have none of that. If you tell an American that you don't support the troops, you will be told that soldiers died for your freedom so you shouldn't say that. In reality, saying that is using your freedom.
Fighting for a flawed country is not great because fighting for a flawed country never fixes a flaw. Fixing a flawed country is fixing a flaw. Fighting and fixing are not the same thing.
Also, I think that maybe you are confusing a different country for America. In America people who protest wars, policies, and decisions are put in prison, sometimes indefinitely. I recommend you look into the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. It essentially prohibits protest on any area that the government labels as restricted. You could look up the Patriot Act and tell me what you think of it and the people who are put on terrorist watch-lists for being vegan, atheist, or having a middle eastern sounding name. You could also look into how the US attempted to force John Lennon out of the country for protesting war.
Pride is something that you earn after accomplishing something. You can be proud after you play a piece on piano for the first time. You cannot, however, be proud based on the pure chance of your birth location. It's like saying I'm proud to be born or I'm proud to have a beating heart. There was no work that you put in to these things. Therefore, there is nothing to be proud of. Additionally, we also try to force our values onto other countries. We also have a difficult time changing ourselves, and we shouldn't fight, physically, those who try to change us. We should instead rationally argue with them. Patriotism does a good job at hindering this sort of rational conversation.
So, I have a few things to say about this subject. Firstly, you said that patriotism is fighting for a countries theories, beliefs, and morals. I do not think that fighting in the name of those things is a good idea. This is almost circular because wars are fought due to ideological differences, fighting for ideological difference is fighting for war. Additionally, it;s not appropriate to say you are fighting for such things as freedom, if you aren't actually fighting for freedom. Also, the point of freedom is not the ability to give opinions in favor of the common view, you are free when you can give dissenting opinions. American's have none of that. If you tell an American that you don't support the troops, you will be told that soldiers died for your freedom so you shouldn't say that. In reality, saying that is using your freedom.
Fighting for a flawed country is not great because fighting for a flawed country never fixes a flaw. Fixing a flawed country is fixing a flaw. Fighting and fixing are not the same thing.
Also, I think that maybe you are confusing a different country for America. In America people who protest wars, policies, and decisions are put in prison, sometimes indefinitely. I recommend you look into the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. It essentially prohibits protest on any area that the government labels as restricted. You could look up the Patriot Act and tell me what you think of it and the people who are put on terrorist watch-lists for being vegan, atheist, or having a middle eastern sounding name. You could also look into how the US attempted to force John Lennon out of the country for protesting war.
Pride is something that you earn after accomplishing something. You can be proud after you play a piece on piano for the first time. You cannot, however, be proud based on the pure chance of your birth location. It's like saying I'm proud to be born or I'm proud to have a beating heart. There was no work that you put in to these things. Therefore, there is nothing to be proud of. Additionally, we also try to force our values onto other countries. We also have a difficult time changing ourselves, and we shouldn't fight, physically, those who try to change us. We should instead rationally argue with them. Patriotism does a good job at hindering this sort of rational conversation.
More on Vegetarianism 2
In response to Jake - full post here
Most animals, in fact, are social species. Therefore the same reason that you would choose to kill a plant would apply to them. Also, I am not quite sure what you meant by your second point (outside of the social grouping aspect of evolution).
Regarding your hypothetically being a cow, if you would choose that, that is fine, that does not however mean anything for the rest of the population. On the other hand, in terms of how it actually is, would you rather have a long life and be afraid of predators occasionally, or would you rather have a short life? Mind you, the short life is actually filled with being fed genetically enhanced foods which caused you to grow so fast that your legs break, rendering you unable to stand, because they cannot handle all of your weight. It is filled with constantly being prodded and branded by humans and having your horns ripped from your skull. Filled with being constantly impregnated so that you produce 10 times the milk that you would normally produce in nature, so much, in fact, that your stomach is filled with pus. Filled with being in such close confined quarters that you quite literally cannot turn around or move in any direction. I'm not sure many people would take that short life over a long one filled with fear occasionally.
Yes, I did know that actually - and interestingly, every time you consume a piece of meat you are supporting that activity by giving them money to do so. I, personally, would be much happier to return to the days when cows grazed freely until it was time to give milk. They could give milk, and then never have to suffer from being killed prematurely. There is no need to ever eat animal flesh, to kill an animal prematurely, if we do not need to. It's better for the cow, the environment, and the individual person. Also, as another side note, the economy and the individual worker would never benefit from that. There would be obscene job loss and the entire beef industry (worth $74,000,000,000) would be crippled.
Most animals, in fact, are social species. Therefore the same reason that you would choose to kill a plant would apply to them. Also, I am not quite sure what you meant by your second point (outside of the social grouping aspect of evolution).
Regarding your hypothetically being a cow, if you would choose that, that is fine, that does not however mean anything for the rest of the population. On the other hand, in terms of how it actually is, would you rather have a long life and be afraid of predators occasionally, or would you rather have a short life? Mind you, the short life is actually filled with being fed genetically enhanced foods which caused you to grow so fast that your legs break, rendering you unable to stand, because they cannot handle all of your weight. It is filled with constantly being prodded and branded by humans and having your horns ripped from your skull. Filled with being constantly impregnated so that you produce 10 times the milk that you would normally produce in nature, so much, in fact, that your stomach is filled with pus. Filled with being in such close confined quarters that you quite literally cannot turn around or move in any direction. I'm not sure many people would take that short life over a long one filled with fear occasionally.
Yes, I did know that actually - and interestingly, every time you consume a piece of meat you are supporting that activity by giving them money to do so. I, personally, would be much happier to return to the days when cows grazed freely until it was time to give milk. They could give milk, and then never have to suffer from being killed prematurely. There is no need to ever eat animal flesh, to kill an animal prematurely, if we do not need to. It's better for the cow, the environment, and the individual person. Also, as another side note, the economy and the individual worker would never benefit from that. There would be obscene job loss and the entire beef industry (worth $74,000,000,000) would be crippled.
28 March 2012
Natural Order and Stuff
In response to Jake - full post here
To your third point, though I'll prioritize it: I would like to make this question explicit and ask for an answer: If you were forced to kill one, would you kill a potato plant or a human?
To your second point, to address hypothetically killing cows, I have an answer. I had not realized that we had switched the conversation is this manner. Killing the cow would still be immoral because even though the cow would not feel anything if you killed it during its sleep, you would still be depriving it of a future, the future of feeling things. Plants do not feel things. Saying that you could ethically kill cows in their sleep, would be similar to saying that you could ethically kill people in their sleep. Sleep is simply a suspension of activities, animals still have worth while they sleep.
To your fourth point, I would have to argue otherwise. Living in houses, sheltered from the natural conditions of the world is not part of the biological hierarchy. Nowhere in the biological hierarchy, besides with humans, do you see the systematic breeding of animals (to the point where such a population could never exist in nature) to be systematically slaughtered for the masses. Nowhere is it in the biological hierarchy to use 16 pounds of grain to create 1 pound of meat only to throw away more than a third of the food we have. We have, in all effects, removed ourselves from the natural order of things; we hide in our houses until others do work to produce food for us.
Finally, to your fifth point, I am not suggesting we let all the animals go. We could take care of those animals but stop them from reproducing. Of as you suggested, we could systematically kill this generation and not create any additional animals to be killed.
To your third point, though I'll prioritize it: I would like to make this question explicit and ask for an answer: If you were forced to kill one, would you kill a potato plant or a human?
To your second point, to address hypothetically killing cows, I have an answer. I had not realized that we had switched the conversation is this manner. Killing the cow would still be immoral because even though the cow would not feel anything if you killed it during its sleep, you would still be depriving it of a future, the future of feeling things. Plants do not feel things. Saying that you could ethically kill cows in their sleep, would be similar to saying that you could ethically kill people in their sleep. Sleep is simply a suspension of activities, animals still have worth while they sleep.
To your fourth point, I would have to argue otherwise. Living in houses, sheltered from the natural conditions of the world is not part of the biological hierarchy. Nowhere in the biological hierarchy, besides with humans, do you see the systematic breeding of animals (to the point where such a population could never exist in nature) to be systematically slaughtered for the masses. Nowhere is it in the biological hierarchy to use 16 pounds of grain to create 1 pound of meat only to throw away more than a third of the food we have. We have, in all effects, removed ourselves from the natural order of things; we hide in our houses until others do work to produce food for us.
Finally, to your fifth point, I am not suggesting we let all the animals go. We could take care of those animals but stop them from reproducing. Of as you suggested, we could systematically kill this generation and not create any additional animals to be killed.
26 March 2012
More On Vegetarianism
In response to Jake's response to me - full post here
Foremost, you never actually answered any of the questions that I asked. If you could do that, it my help us to better understand your position on the issue. Would you have chosen to kill one over the other, for any of those options?
Secondly, putting a creature to sleep with chloroform or otherwise does not prevent them from experiencing pain; it only prevents them from screaming in agony because they are rendered unable to do so. However, if we chose to accept the possibility that putting creatures to sleep made it more ethical to eat them, we would still have a problem with eating meat because even if it worked in theory, it would not work practically. The fact that we don't use chloroform on cows before we kill them makes that hypothesis invalid.
Thirdly, it's not in anyone's best interest to confuse the ethics of a term with the definition of the term. The philosophy is still a vegetarian one because it involves only eating non-animal foods. Even if it only slightly less barbaric, it is still vegetarianism. Because there is a large difference in the central nervous system and the intelligence of animals compared to plants, I think that vegetarianism is substantially less barbaric than meat-eating. Even if you do not agree that it is substantially different, you have already stated that you agree that it is slightly less barbaric, and thereby, presumably, better. Based on that, you ought to become vegetarian given that it is the best option; the lesser of two evils, if you view it such a light. Still I think people are hard-pressed to hold potatoes at the same moral worth, or even similar moral worth to humans, dolphins, parrots, chimpanzees, and so on.
This is just a note, I'm not really using it in defence of any of my points. Interestingly, there are plants that, despite lack of nervous system, have developed the ability to defend themselves by using semiochemicals to attract the higher trophic predators of the herbivores that are feeding on them. A fairly cool ability, I must say. Additionally, many plants have thorns or are poisonous.
Foremost, you never actually answered any of the questions that I asked. If you could do that, it my help us to better understand your position on the issue. Would you have chosen to kill one over the other, for any of those options?
Secondly, putting a creature to sleep with chloroform or otherwise does not prevent them from experiencing pain; it only prevents them from screaming in agony because they are rendered unable to do so. However, if we chose to accept the possibility that putting creatures to sleep made it more ethical to eat them, we would still have a problem with eating meat because even if it worked in theory, it would not work practically. The fact that we don't use chloroform on cows before we kill them makes that hypothesis invalid.
Thirdly, it's not in anyone's best interest to confuse the ethics of a term with the definition of the term. The philosophy is still a vegetarian one because it involves only eating non-animal foods. Even if it only slightly less barbaric, it is still vegetarianism. Because there is a large difference in the central nervous system and the intelligence of animals compared to plants, I think that vegetarianism is substantially less barbaric than meat-eating. Even if you do not agree that it is substantially different, you have already stated that you agree that it is slightly less barbaric, and thereby, presumably, better. Based on that, you ought to become vegetarian given that it is the best option; the lesser of two evils, if you view it such a light. Still I think people are hard-pressed to hold potatoes at the same moral worth, or even similar moral worth to humans, dolphins, parrots, chimpanzees, and so on.
This is just a note, I'm not really using it in defence of any of my points. Interestingly, there are plants that, despite lack of nervous system, have developed the ability to defend themselves by using semiochemicals to attract the higher trophic predators of the herbivores that are feeding on them. A fairly cool ability, I must say. Additionally, many plants have thorns or are poisonous.
24 March 2012
Potatoes v. Dogs
In response to Jake's response to me on Andrew Nelson's post - full post found here
The ethics of vegetarianism are not accurately described as "not killing a living thing." The ethics of vegetarianism is more accurately described as "not causing other things to suffer." Plants, unlike animals, lack a nervous system, so they are unable to experience pain, to our knowledge.
While I understand the feelings behind not wanting or liking the sliding scale, it is very useful and practical. For instance, would you rather, if you were forced to, stab either a potato or a dog? If you had to choose one, would you rather stab a cow or a chimpanzee? Again, if forced to choose, would you rather kill a 80 year old man with brain damage or a highly intelligent 16 year old? If you made a choice between any of those, then you agree about the value of one living thing over another. If you did not distinguished between the options, then would you kill humans and eat them, since they have the same worth as a cow or potato.
We must kill living things to eat, I agree. I think, however, that we may as well only eat the things which we think cannot experience pain. Even if all life is equal in worth, wouldn't it be best to not cause pain to things which we know have the capacity to suffer?
The ethics of vegetarianism are not accurately described as "not killing a living thing." The ethics of vegetarianism is more accurately described as "not causing other things to suffer." Plants, unlike animals, lack a nervous system, so they are unable to experience pain, to our knowledge.
While I understand the feelings behind not wanting or liking the sliding scale, it is very useful and practical. For instance, would you rather, if you were forced to, stab either a potato or a dog? If you had to choose one, would you rather stab a cow or a chimpanzee? Again, if forced to choose, would you rather kill a 80 year old man with brain damage or a highly intelligent 16 year old? If you made a choice between any of those, then you agree about the value of one living thing over another. If you did not distinguished between the options, then would you kill humans and eat them, since they have the same worth as a cow or potato.
We must kill living things to eat, I agree. I think, however, that we may as well only eat the things which we think cannot experience pain. Even if all life is equal in worth, wouldn't it be best to not cause pain to things which we know have the capacity to suffer?
23 March 2012
Why the Sun Really Shines (Really This Time)
In class today we mentioned Karl Marx's view that science serves to replace nonsense with less absurd nonsense. I do agree with his view on the matter; science is indeed very fallible. There are many people who treat science as though it were a similar dogmatic force as the religion that they oppose. When asked certain things about how they believe the universe is governed they suggest that they know certain things. This song is a catchy cover of the education song written in 1959. Maybe scientists were less dogmatic about their studies in the past, but this is still a good example of how science is fallible.
This song (Why the Sun Shines) is sort of juxtaposed with the song (Why the Sun Really Shines) found after this block of text. In the second song the artist clarifies that the scientific thesis of the sun being a mass of gas has been rendered invalid. This does not however mean that there is no way that this song could also be wrong; maybe the sun is not made of plasma either. We are more confident, however, that the sun is not composed of what we recognize as gas.None of this is to say that we should disbelieve any conclusion that scientists reach, only that it could very well be wrong but, given our technology it is the best answer we have. We should not blindly accept any scientific solution as a fact of the universe because it is very likely to change. The story of the Big Bang, for instance, should not be accepted as the definite truth of the universe, it is simply one of the best hypotheses that we have at the time, as technology improves the answers will get better.
As a final note, the unchanging thesis are not automatically better or correct because they have not changed. The view that God created the universe has been around for a much longer time, and has remained relatively unchanged aside from minor variations. That unchanging nature of that belief does not mean that it is more stable and therefore more probably true.
22 March 2012
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is the idea that a person who is making a claim is responsible for finding sufficient evidence to warrant their position on the issue. In the case regarding our class, the person who says "I believe such and such about the unconscious mind" has the responsibility of providing sufficient evidence. The individual cannot place the burden of proof on the opposition as in "you cannot prove that such and such is not the case," this would be committing the logical fallacy called Appeal to Ignorance. Even if you know for certain that no evidence can be found contrary to your position, it is a bad philosophy to imply that lack of contrary evidence equates to a reason for believing something , because evidence could always surface later and the person whom you are pressing for opposition is not likely an expert in that field.
This situation does not apply only to affirmative assertions. If, for instance, I said that there is not a perfectly visible pink unicorn in the bowman, it would be up to me to prove that there is not a pink unicorn there. Though you could prove me wrong by surveying the entirety of Bowman and finding a pink unicorn, you don't have to so long as you do not assert that there are pink unicorns. Not believing A does not automatically equate to believing not A, you can simply refuse to believe of disbelieve a claim until proven If, for whatever reason, you were unable to prove that there is a unicorn, that doesn't meant that my assertion is right. What this is neither evidence of presence or evidence of absence, you can take a stance on either side so long as it doesn't harm others and so long as you recognize that the other side has an equally valid view.
This situation does not apply only to affirmative assertions. If, for instance, I said that there is not a perfectly visible pink unicorn in the bowman, it would be up to me to prove that there is not a pink unicorn there. Though you could prove me wrong by surveying the entirety of Bowman and finding a pink unicorn, you don't have to so long as you do not assert that there are pink unicorns. Not believing A does not automatically equate to believing not A, you can simply refuse to believe of disbelieve a claim until proven If, for whatever reason, you were unable to prove that there is a unicorn, that doesn't meant that my assertion is right. What this is neither evidence of presence or evidence of absence, you can take a stance on either side so long as it doesn't harm others and so long as you recognize that the other side has an equally valid view.
19 March 2012
Vain Efforts and Better Solutions
Second part of my response to Andrew's post found here
Finally, most people in first world countries would likely be more opposed to eating insects than they would be opposed to giving up meat. If we are going to make an effort to get rid of the consumption of (non-insect) animals, we may as well work to get rid of the consumption of insects. Converting everyone to practice entomophagy would require more work for a less desirable result.
I suggest then, that we should make an effort to become entirely vegetarian. If we do so, the demand to find a decent substitute, founded largely in the meat-taste loving community, would likely speed up the technology necessary for cloned meat. Meat substitutes will only get better for meat-taste lovers, if more meat-taste lovers give up meat and search for/seek to create new meat substitutes. Necessity and desire are the parents of invention.
Finally, most people in first world countries would likely be more opposed to eating insects than they would be opposed to giving up meat. If we are going to make an effort to get rid of the consumption of (non-insect) animals, we may as well work to get rid of the consumption of insects. Converting everyone to practice entomophagy would require more work for a less desirable result.
I suggest then, that we should make an effort to become entirely vegetarian. If we do so, the demand to find a decent substitute, founded largely in the meat-taste loving community, would likely speed up the technology necessary for cloned meat. Meat substitutes will only get better for meat-taste lovers, if more meat-taste lovers give up meat and search for/seek to create new meat substitutes. Necessity and desire are the parents of invention.
Why Entomophagy Is Not The Best Idea
First part of my response to Andrew's Post found here
I agree that these could potentially be solutions, or at least better alternatives to eating animals. There are a few problems however, namely with the first one. Entomophagy, the consumption of insects, is not exactly a healthy choice to make.
Insects have health risks that aren't as prevalent in other animals; they have different kinds of parasites which are more difficult to get rid of compared to the bacteria and parasites in meat; due to the nature of their size, the preparation is less effective at killing parasites; their bodies cannot, at the expense of retaining a decent taste, bear the temperatures necessary to kill the bacteria and parasites. In California there were a number of cases of lead poisoning caused by the consumption of grasshoppers. Additionally, in order to make entomophagy more reasonable, we would have to cease using insecticides or herbicides, given that those are unsuitable for human consumption.
While I agree that eating insects is better, in terms of ethics, than eating other animals, I am not inclined to agree that because people care less about insects than other animals it is acceptable to go out of our way to kill insects. The ethics of vegetarianism is as follows: If you can sustain yourself without causing other living things to suffer, you ought to do so; this is also negotiable in that if you must cause suffering it is best to cause as little of it as possible. So, it would be perfectly ethical to eat the likes of shellfish, meal-worms, larvae, and other grub given that their capacity for pain is very low. Thus, farming insects like grasshoppers to eat would be more ethically appropriate, but not as appropriate as not doing so.
I agree that these could potentially be solutions, or at least better alternatives to eating animals. There are a few problems however, namely with the first one. Entomophagy, the consumption of insects, is not exactly a healthy choice to make.
Insects have health risks that aren't as prevalent in other animals; they have different kinds of parasites which are more difficult to get rid of compared to the bacteria and parasites in meat; due to the nature of their size, the preparation is less effective at killing parasites; their bodies cannot, at the expense of retaining a decent taste, bear the temperatures necessary to kill the bacteria and parasites. In California there were a number of cases of lead poisoning caused by the consumption of grasshoppers. Additionally, in order to make entomophagy more reasonable, we would have to cease using insecticides or herbicides, given that those are unsuitable for human consumption.
While I agree that eating insects is better, in terms of ethics, than eating other animals, I am not inclined to agree that because people care less about insects than other animals it is acceptable to go out of our way to kill insects. The ethics of vegetarianism is as follows: If you can sustain yourself without causing other living things to suffer, you ought to do so; this is also negotiable in that if you must cause suffering it is best to cause as little of it as possible. So, it would be perfectly ethical to eat the likes of shellfish, meal-worms, larvae, and other grub given that their capacity for pain is very low. Thus, farming insects like grasshoppers to eat would be more ethically appropriate, but not as appropriate as not doing so.
15 March 2012
Video Games and Desensitization
In response to Emily - full post here
I must confess that it is slightly annoying when people associate all video-games with desensitization. There are many video games which are so obviously disconnected from reality. I don't think that my killing of a peahat (here) from Legend of Zelda results in my being desensitized to some moral wrong; I likely will not mistake a peahat for a human being.
Interestingly, there are some games which sort of push the envelope. Games are becoming increasingly more realistic. Some games, first person shooters, for instance, are becoming very realistic. The Unites States army actually uses the likes of Call of Duty and Modern Warfare to desensitize people to killing. Of course, having signed up for the army, these people are already in the mindset of actually killing people for a living so there isn't really a way to tell how greatly the video game affects them.
I must confess that it is slightly annoying when people associate all video-games with desensitization. There are many video games which are so obviously disconnected from reality. I don't think that my killing of a peahat (here) from Legend of Zelda results in my being desensitized to some moral wrong; I likely will not mistake a peahat for a human being.
.png){kind=link}
Interestingly, there are some games which sort of push the envelope. Games are becoming increasingly more realistic. Some games, first person shooters, for instance, are becoming very realistic. The Unites States army actually uses the likes of Call of Duty and Modern Warfare to desensitize people to killing. Of course, having signed up for the army, these people are already in the mindset of actually killing people for a living so there isn't really a way to tell how greatly the video game affects them.
08 March 2012
What The Devil Do You Want?
Question: Do feminists really want equal rights?
Well, I would say that I think that a fair portion of them actually want more rights and privileges than men have; They claim that females are simply better than males and thereby males are unnecessary and evil. These kinds of women suggest that they do not need men at all because they are so useless. This kind of view is essentially placing one kind of sexism with another, which is certainly no better than the original sexism.
Another portion of women, on the surface, want equal rights though they are really thinking in terms of pay and opportunity. Many women do not want to lose the advantages that they have over men. These women would surely take the equal pay and opportunity but likely opt out of having to receive the same penalty for the same, having to reject the sympathy given to them in domestic violence cases, and having to deny the greater priority given to them in child custody cases. additionally, they would likely not want to take on some roles that men do; for instance, they would not want other men to expect them to pick up the tab at a restaurant.
There are also women who do want equal rights, and fight for precisely that. I think that they are on the best side of this issue, and I think that they should be given the equal rights that they are asking for. Men and women should have equal rights; in fact, all humans should have equal rights (as a side note, they do have equal rights from birth, society simply oppresses some of them more than others.
Question: What can we do about patriarchy?
The issue of patriarchy can be dealt with in an upfront non-violent resistance. Given that society is comprised only of individuals, any justified social issue of equality which affects a large portion of society can be dealt with in an effective manner. The strike method, can be largely effective, I find. It doesn't work when a person is replaceable like a teacher or factory line worker, but when a large portion of society refuses to take part in basic societal functions, the society is forced into a submission. If women wanted equal rights and were not given it, they could, instead of going along with the game, choose to opt out of it; they could choose to not go to work, not clean the house, not make dinner, not go shopping, not wear immodest clothing, not wear make-up, not sleep in the same bed as their spouses, not get married, not engage in sexual activities. This comes at the expense of doing severe damage to society, this sort of action would drive legislature to quickly fix things, given that men would have to pick up the slack. Men would be forced to come to a compromise and grant equal pay, rights, and so on.
This method also applies to all minorities; imagine if immigrants decided to not work until they were treated equally, Americans would have to pick up the jobs which they do not want. The immigrant refusal to work would result in less food being harvested, and thereby causing some hunger and forcing society to change. The LGBT community and Allies could enact the same approach.
The issue of patriarchy can be dealt with in an upfront non-violent resistance. Given that society is comprised only of individuals, any justified social issue of equality which affects a large portion of society can be dealt with in an effective manner. The strike method, can be largely effective, I find. It doesn't work when a person is replaceable like a teacher or factory line worker, but when a large portion of society refuses to take part in basic societal functions, the society is forced into a submission. If women wanted equal rights and were not given it, they could, instead of going along with the game, choose to opt out of it; they could choose to not go to work, not clean the house, not make dinner, not go shopping, not wear immodest clothing, not wear make-up, not sleep in the same bed as their spouses, not get married, not engage in sexual activities. This comes at the expense of doing severe damage to society, this sort of action would drive legislature to quickly fix things, given that men would have to pick up the slack. Men would be forced to come to a compromise and grant equal pay, rights, and so on.
This method also applies to all minorities; imagine if immigrants decided to not work until they were treated equally, Americans would have to pick up the jobs which they do not want. The immigrant refusal to work would result in less food being harvested, and thereby causing some hunger and forcing society to change. The LGBT community and Allies could enact the same approach.
07 March 2012
Deceptive Subconscious
Response to Katie - full post here
Regardless of whether or not your thoughts are real, the universe is more likely deterministic. Additionally, given that you do not have power over your subconscious, if it is controlling you then you are not a subject of free will because you have no power to change what you think. Also, the very act of having made a decision doesn't meant that something has free will. The question, then, is what is causing your subconscious to deceive you as it does. If we can decided that it is a bunch of electric signals, which are governed by the universe, we can also decide that you do not have free will because the predetermined movement of electrons is what is causing you to act as you are.
Regardless of whether or not your thoughts are real, the universe is more likely deterministic. Additionally, given that you do not have power over your subconscious, if it is controlling you then you are not a subject of free will because you have no power to change what you think. Also, the very act of having made a decision doesn't meant that something has free will. The question, then, is what is causing your subconscious to deceive you as it does. If we can decided that it is a bunch of electric signals, which are governed by the universe, we can also decide that you do not have free will because the predetermined movement of electrons is what is causing you to act as you are.
Ethics of Spider Killing on a Sliding Scale
In response to Andrew - full post here
I think that it's interesting that you brought up the ethics of killing spiders. As Avery mentioned above, sentience is on a sliding scale, and we have to weight various sentience levels against our understanding of morality. As he also hinted at, there are people who are against the killing of mosquitoes or even blades of grass; the Jains are an example of such a group. Some people that I have talked to have suggested that the ethics of killing plants is the same as the ethics of killing animals, so they choose to kill both. Now, back to spiders; I think that killing spiders, based on your conclusions about the disease carrying mosquitoes, is certainly less ethically correct than killing mosquitoes.
As a note, I do not kill insects when I can avoid doing so. I think that people are well within their right to kill mosquitoes, ticks, and other harmful insects. However, I think that the killing of other harmless insects is unnecessary; beetles, like lady bugs for instance, cause no harm, so why kill them? Also, some spiders like those within the Portia genus have exhibited an ability to learn and problem solve. I think that, unless the insect is a inconvenience to you, it may be morally wrong to go out of your way to kill one.
I think that it's interesting that you brought up the ethics of killing spiders. As Avery mentioned above, sentience is on a sliding scale, and we have to weight various sentience levels against our understanding of morality. As he also hinted at, there are people who are against the killing of mosquitoes or even blades of grass; the Jains are an example of such a group. Some people that I have talked to have suggested that the ethics of killing plants is the same as the ethics of killing animals, so they choose to kill both. Now, back to spiders; I think that killing spiders, based on your conclusions about the disease carrying mosquitoes, is certainly less ethically correct than killing mosquitoes.
As a note, I do not kill insects when I can avoid doing so. I think that people are well within their right to kill mosquitoes, ticks, and other harmful insects. However, I think that the killing of other harmless insects is unnecessary; beetles, like lady bugs for instance, cause no harm, so why kill them? Also, some spiders like those within the Portia genus have exhibited an ability to learn and problem solve. I think that, unless the insect is a inconvenience to you, it may be morally wrong to go out of your way to kill one.
02 March 2012
Science and State
If it is a commonplace belief that we should separate church and state, should we also separate science from state?
I think so, yes. In order to remain ideologically neutral it would be essential to separate science from state. By that I mean that science should not be quite as regulated by the state. Originally, the separation of church and state was intended to keep state out of church, not vice versa. Science should become more of an international endeavor rather than allowing it to be hindered by modern state. Of course, one of the problems that this brings up is the problem of education; what do you teach when there is a separation of church and science and state? How can you teach about biology with favoring science in the state?
I think so, yes. In order to remain ideologically neutral it would be essential to separate science from state. By that I mean that science should not be quite as regulated by the state. Originally, the separation of church and state was intended to keep state out of church, not vice versa. Science should become more of an international endeavor rather than allowing it to be hindered by modern state. Of course, one of the problems that this brings up is the problem of education; what do you teach when there is a separation of church and science and state? How can you teach about biology with favoring science in the state?
Citizens v. Denizens
When trying to promote a peaceful co-existence of different ideologies would it be more useful to draw similarities between the people holding those ideologies? Should we talk about denizens rather than citizens; should we strive for global goals, rather than national ones?
Clark speaks about citizens, first amendment, democracy, congress, and so on. He is sort of suggesting that this peaceful co-existence is likely to happen in America, or that it could only happen in America. I am of the opinion that if we truly desire to have a peaceful co-existence between naturalist and supernaturalists, we should probably also seek the peaceful co-existence between 'nations.' I personally think that this can be best achieved by getting rid of the concept of nation and recognizing our unity as denizens of the world. Recognizing that we are all on this lovely planet together will allow us to better decide upon decisions that would be best for all of us rather than best for a single or few nations.
Clark speaks about citizens, first amendment, democracy, congress, and so on. He is sort of suggesting that this peaceful co-existence is likely to happen in America, or that it could only happen in America. I am of the opinion that if we truly desire to have a peaceful co-existence between naturalist and supernaturalists, we should probably also seek the peaceful co-existence between 'nations.' I personally think that this can be best achieved by getting rid of the concept of nation and recognizing our unity as denizens of the world. Recognizing that we are all on this lovely planet together will allow us to better decide upon decisions that would be best for all of us rather than best for a single or few nations.
27 February 2012
Novelty in Heaven
We have mentioned a few times in class that once you have something that you want, you don't want it anymore. You can spend years waiting for a brand new cell phone, once you have that cell phone for a year you will no longer be as enthused about it. It occurred to me many years ago that this same principle (which Dave Kenneth Johnson mentioned in class, though I've forgotten the name) does very well apply to heaven.
Heaven, so I've been told, is a place where people who have spent their lives obeying the Christian god's will have the privilege of continuing to obey and praise god for all of eternity. In addition to that reward, you get to be eternally happy, having everything you could ever want (except for maybe the love of your friends whom did not obey god). It seems to me that two things could occur here. The first is that your mind will be altered to make you find this after-lifestyle more agreeable, that you will always be content; in which case, you are no longer yourself and therefore reap no reward. The second is that, after spending 3 billion years of your newly eternal life, you find yourself unable to be satisfied with heaven; you would be completely unhappy with that life because the novelty has worn off. Sadly, however, you could not end that life, because it is eternal and because in heaven, you can only do good wholesome things, like obey your god.. Thus, that which you previously identified as heaven becomes more like hell; which is not a reward.
Ethics In A Determined Universe
In response to Meghan and Stacy (click on the names for links)
We currently operate under the assumption that humans are the agents by which an action is made. Under this assumption, it seems right to hold people responsible for their actions, because they could have made a choice to not perform any given action. Given our current assumptions, it seems perfectly acceptable to treat people poorly after they have committed a crime; If person A kills person B, it seems right, to us, to deprive person A of comfort; thus we have punishment. Punishment, I think, is not the right approach.
Determinism has it that people cannot be held responsible for making a choice, because they are simply the agent through which, not by which, an action was made. To provide a good example of how a determinist could deal with crime, you have to invoke a lack of choice. Therefore, think of it this way:
A child is born with a severe, yet non-terminal communicable disease present from birth. Since the child had no control over this, the child cannot be held accountable for this circumstance. Most of can agree, then, that it would be wrong to lock this child in a cold, dark room which reeks of urine. Surely, however, the child must be quarantined from society. Given that the child cannot be held responsible for having a disease, we would likely treat the child as comfortably as could be allowed. Additionally, we would likely search for a cure to this disease.
This example shows that, in a deterministic universe, the punitive approach to dealing with crime would be far less fitting than a rehabilitative approach. Given that criminals are not responsible for their actions, it is wrong to punish them. It is not wrong, however, to supply them with as many comforts as can be allowed and help them to be rid of their criminal ways, that they do not act criminally again.
Similarly, since ethics still exists in a deterministic universe, it would be good to recognize, promote, and reward good actions. If a teacher dedicated years of his or her life to helping students become better people, it would be good to recognize that this is a good quality to have, and to promote the idea that people should aspire to be similarly good. Praising good qualities does not harm anybody, it only promotes it, which could one of the primary causes for someone else exhibiting similar qualities.
We currently operate under the assumption that humans are the agents by which an action is made. Under this assumption, it seems right to hold people responsible for their actions, because they could have made a choice to not perform any given action. Given our current assumptions, it seems perfectly acceptable to treat people poorly after they have committed a crime; If person A kills person B, it seems right, to us, to deprive person A of comfort; thus we have punishment. Punishment, I think, is not the right approach.
Determinism has it that people cannot be held responsible for making a choice, because they are simply the agent through which, not by which, an action was made. To provide a good example of how a determinist could deal with crime, you have to invoke a lack of choice. Therefore, think of it this way:
A child is born with a severe, yet non-terminal communicable disease present from birth. Since the child had no control over this, the child cannot be held accountable for this circumstance. Most of can agree, then, that it would be wrong to lock this child in a cold, dark room which reeks of urine. Surely, however, the child must be quarantined from society. Given that the child cannot be held responsible for having a disease, we would likely treat the child as comfortably as could be allowed. Additionally, we would likely search for a cure to this disease.
This example shows that, in a deterministic universe, the punitive approach to dealing with crime would be far less fitting than a rehabilitative approach. Given that criminals are not responsible for their actions, it is wrong to punish them. It is not wrong, however, to supply them with as many comforts as can be allowed and help them to be rid of their criminal ways, that they do not act criminally again.
Similarly, since ethics still exists in a deterministic universe, it would be good to recognize, promote, and reward good actions. If a teacher dedicated years of his or her life to helping students become better people, it would be good to recognize that this is a good quality to have, and to promote the idea that people should aspire to be similarly good. Praising good qualities does not harm anybody, it only promotes it, which could one of the primary causes for someone else exhibiting similar qualities.
24 February 2012
I Do Not Want That To Be True
I often hear people announce that they don't like something, or they don't want it to be true. This is a strikingly bad idea and it has no logical base. It's illegitimacy is demonstrated when that mindset is applied to a dangerous situation. Imagine there was a killer in your house; what good does not wanting the killer there, or not liking him being there do? The answer is: absolutely nothing. When applied to a serious situation, no sane person would accept that for even themselves. So why bother trying to use it for other arguments?
Additionally, it can only apply to things that one fears losing as in, "I don't want it to be true that my family member died (again, your desires doesn't effect the fact that the family member is indeed dead)," or "I want to have free will, don't threaten my belief that it does," or "I don't want to be descended from apes." This mind set does not apply to things that one wishes that one had as in, "I want to have chronokinesis" or "I want to have a million dollars." Your desires have no effect on reality. This argument is a very poor argument, in fact, it's not an argument at all, unless we take it by the standards of a whiny toddler. Please do not use this argument. I realize that it is a defense mechanism and all, but it holds no merit; it just makes you look like a silly person.
Spacetime
Question: If the universe is already determined does that confirm the existence of a 4th spacetime dimension, given a linear model of time?
I do believe so. The fourth dimension of space is time, making spacetime. It is almost universally accepted that time is linear, meaning that every event that has ever occurred could be plotted on one solid line. Where or not time is finite or infinite is still a matter of debate. The main point is that linear time provides the most obvious demonstration of causality.
If the universe is already determined, then how your consciousness is going to die has already been determined; Your life from beginning to end has already been determined. Now, similar to how second dimensional being could hypothetically travel along in the 3rd dimension without its knowing (a third dimensional being could bend a long piece of paper and twist it (making the ends touch to make it 3-D). We are, if this is right, travelling along a 4th dimensional path completely unaware to this. Given that only a third dimensional being could see the previous dimensions, only a 4th dimensional being could see it's own life and possibly the events contained in it.
I do believe so. The fourth dimension of space is time, making spacetime. It is almost universally accepted that time is linear, meaning that every event that has ever occurred could be plotted on one solid line. Where or not time is finite or infinite is still a matter of debate. The main point is that linear time provides the most obvious demonstration of causality.
If the universe is already determined, then how your consciousness is going to die has already been determined; Your life from beginning to end has already been determined. Now, similar to how second dimensional being could hypothetically travel along in the 3rd dimension without its knowing (a third dimensional being could bend a long piece of paper and twist it (making the ends touch to make it 3-D). We are, if this is right, travelling along a 4th dimensional path completely unaware to this. Given that only a third dimensional being could see the previous dimensions, only a 4th dimensional being could see it's own life and possibly the events contained in it.
22 February 2012
Omniscient/Deterministic v. Free Will
Question: Is omniscience compatible with free will?
Some religious people (I have Christians in mind) make two separate and paradoxical claims about the universe. Their first claim is that their god is omniscient (all-knowing) with a plan for everything. Their second claim is that their god gave them free will. Determinism and omniscience are essentially the same thing. If a god is omniscient it means that they have knowledge of how everything will ever be. The example in the previous post also applies here; whether you choose to kick a ball or not, your omniscient god already knows your choice; you have no choice but to act in the way that your god knows you will.
Some religious people (I have Christians in mind) make two separate and paradoxical claims about the universe. Their first claim is that their god is omniscient (all-knowing) with a plan for everything. Their second claim is that their god gave them free will. Determinism and omniscience are essentially the same thing. If a god is omniscient it means that they have knowledge of how everything will ever be. The example in the previous post also applies here; whether you choose to kick a ball or not, your omniscient god already knows your choice; you have no choice but to act in the way that your god knows you will.
If you have free will then your god will constantly have to make amendments to their plan. Let's say that there are two people, person A and Person B. God plans for and knows that person B will save a boy from drowning. Similarly, this god knows that person A will not kick a ball. If the god knows all of this to be the determined future, he can have a plan that will definitely occur. If we add free will, however, it becomes clear that the god cannot have a plan. If person A acts on free will and kicks the ball which hits person B and knocks him into the street where B is hit by a bus, then the god will have to craft a different plan; additionally, it becomes clear that the god cannot predict even the immediate future. So long as humans have free will the god's plan and knowledge is entirely subject to human action and thought.
Always One Determined Future.
Even if, hypothetically, we could accurately predict that actions of humans, our ability to do so has already been determined. Additionally, the only thing that we actually have control over is ourselves. When one attempts to imagine predicting the self, it becomes clear that one cannot break the determined future. Imagine wanting to kick a ball; if you know that everything that exists has determined that you will kick the ball, you could act under the illusion of free will and choose not to kick the ball. This, however, does not demonstrate free will; it simply demonstrates that in response to knowing you would kick the ball, it was determined that you would choose not to. Essentially, what you do is already determined regardless of what you actually do; whether you choose to kick the ball or not, it was already determined that you would make that choice based off of whatever predictable thought process you had.
18 February 2012
Selfish v. Self-Interest (An Understanding)
Question: I realized that I had asked the same question twice, essentially. So I'm going to change my question to something more like "what is the difference between selfish and self-interest. The purpose of this will be two-fold; I will lay out my own understanding of these terms and hope that others will come to read and understand it.
Selfishness, actually, is better defined as wanting what is best for only yourself and always at the expense of someone else. Self-interest, however, is the interest in your own desires and benefits at no overall cost to others.
Selfishness is only caring about yourself while giving no concern for another person; it's hoarding all of the food for yourself in a survival scenario. Self-interest is doing something that will benefit you at no harm (but maybe benefit) to others; it's like getting food so that you will survive, but choosing to give part of it to other people, or like choosing not to fight a bear to kill it and eat it (as it's the only source of food); While this will cause both of you to starve, it's self interested because it would probably come at great harm to you. You would be almost heroic if you did fight this bear, but you shouldn't be punished if you had not.
Selfishness, actually, is better defined as wanting what is best for only yourself and always at the expense of someone else. Self-interest, however, is the interest in your own desires and benefits at no overall cost to others.
Selfishness is only caring about yourself while giving no concern for another person; it's hoarding all of the food for yourself in a survival scenario. Self-interest is doing something that will benefit you at no harm (but maybe benefit) to others; it's like getting food so that you will survive, but choosing to give part of it to other people, or like choosing not to fight a bear to kill it and eat it (as it's the only source of food); While this will cause both of you to starve, it's self interested because it would probably come at great harm to you. You would be almost heroic if you did fight this bear, but you shouldn't be punished if you had not.
Stubbornly Altruistic
Question: Can the goal of an initially altruistic act become non-altruistic when the situation changes due to the other party’s refusal to accept the act?
Here I am thinking specifically about the example where two people are in a life boat. It would be altruistic, and even supererogatory, to offer all of your food the other person. If the other person then refused to accept the offer, you are left in a new situation; knowing full well that the other person will not be eating the food, could you be called altruistic for your constant refusal to eat the food? What if that person refused to eat until you agreed to eat too?
I think it may very well still be altruistic to refuse to eat the food, in that you are still trying to place the needs of someone else above them. I think, however, that it would also be exceedingly stubborn to not reach some sort of compromise. Given that you are now fully aware that both of you would die if you continue in this manner. I'd imagine that both of them can be sort of altruistic and eat only if the other person eats.
Here I am thinking specifically about the example where two people are in a life boat. It would be altruistic, and even supererogatory, to offer all of your food the other person. If the other person then refused to accept the offer, you are left in a new situation; knowing full well that the other person will not be eating the food, could you be called altruistic for your constant refusal to eat the food? What if that person refused to eat until you agreed to eat too?
I think it may very well still be altruistic to refuse to eat the food, in that you are still trying to place the needs of someone else above them. I think, however, that it would also be exceedingly stubborn to not reach some sort of compromise. Given that you are now fully aware that both of you would die if you continue in this manner. I'd imagine that both of them can be sort of altruistic and eat only if the other person eats.
What Philosophers Want
Response to Justine - full post here
The philosophers are not some odd race of people, they too are people who, much like you, are trying to make sense of the world. Some people may not like to have their views changed but sometimes, I think, it is completely necessary. They don't want you to be unhappy. Most of them just want you to think and to do things that you actually want to do, but sometimes it takes lots of thinking to do. They want you to be happy and to see the truth which they think is fairly essential to being happy. Would you want to spend your entire life eating something that you didn't like, just because you didn't know that anything else existed? There is not just living life, you don't need to constantly think about everything you do, but as they come up you should consider them fully and then act accordingly. You don't need to plan anything out, really.
The philosophers are not some odd race of people, they too are people who, much like you, are trying to make sense of the world. Some people may not like to have their views changed but sometimes, I think, it is completely necessary. They don't want you to be unhappy. Most of them just want you to think and to do things that you actually want to do, but sometimes it takes lots of thinking to do. They want you to be happy and to see the truth which they think is fairly essential to being happy. Would you want to spend your entire life eating something that you didn't like, just because you didn't know that anything else existed? There is not just living life, you don't need to constantly think about everything you do, but as they come up you should consider them fully and then act accordingly. You don't need to plan anything out, really.
15 February 2012
Selfish At What Cost?
Response to Justine: - full post here
Selfishness, actually, is better defined as wanting what is best for only yourself and always at the expense of someone else. Self-interest, however, is the interest in your own desires and benefits at no overall cost to others.
In the lifeboat scenario, it would be selfish only to take the food without any consideration of the other person. If I have no concern for the other person I am selfish. However, if I do have interest in that person, but choose to eat the food because they want me to and because they won't it's only self interest.
Watching a baby drown is selfish only if saving the child comes to no or minimal expense to you. If you are very well able to save the child, it would be selfish. It would be self-interested if saving the child comes at considerable risk to you. As to whether or not the person watching should go to prison, I think so, if they had the ability to help and little or no expense to them and chose not to.
Selfishness, actually, is better defined as wanting what is best for only yourself and always at the expense of someone else. Self-interest, however, is the interest in your own desires and benefits at no overall cost to others.
In the lifeboat scenario, it would be selfish only to take the food without any consideration of the other person. If I have no concern for the other person I am selfish. However, if I do have interest in that person, but choose to eat the food because they want me to and because they won't it's only self interest.
Watching a baby drown is selfish only if saving the child comes to no or minimal expense to you. If you are very well able to save the child, it would be selfish. It would be self-interested if saving the child comes at considerable risk to you. As to whether or not the person watching should go to prison, I think so, if they had the ability to help and little or no expense to them and chose not to.
Incompatible Miracaused
Two of many things that I hear from Christians at least, are that everything happens for a reason and that miracles exist. Given that the notion of miracles is expressed in saying the the event has not been caused, I cannot see how these things are compatible in one religion. Unexplained events are simply unexplained; they do have a cause however. If you believe that everything happens for a reason, then you can believe that god is the reason for everything. If you choose then to believe in miracles, you must reject the notion that things happen for a reason. Either that, or you must agree that miracles are beyond the control of even god.
It's slightly amusing thinking that if you accept that everything happens for a reason and that god is that ultimate reason, the moving hand, then we cannot distinguish between a healed cancer patient and having just enough tomato to make a sandwich.
Also as an interesting note, I haven't seen any miracles for amputees.
11 February 2012
Things That Bare Our Likeness
There is a certain aspect or feature in every human that connects us to them. People tend to heavily favor things that are similar to them. A person is okay with eating non-human animals because they are not similar enough to us, they are noticeably different. Note that we don't tend to eat other primates, which I think is based largely on our similarities. We have made great efforts to distinguish ourselves from other animals, even going as far as unwarranted species name changes. While listening to people talk about sports teams, it occurred to me that liking one sports team over another, nationalism, and this distinction between ourselves and other animals are all similar. Where we support a nation or team because, in general, we where born there and told it is better than everything else. While thinking about this I realized that this is probably an evolutionary hold-over, where being familiar with and supporting the same genus and species resulted in a better chance for all, though I do not think that this position is necessary any longer. I think it would be best now to improve the entire species by support those who are actually better than others.
10 February 2012
Aristotle Reason Über Alles
Question: Why does Aristotle favor political activity above other lifestyle activities?
I think that Aristotle favors the political life over other life styles because he recognizes that human cannot be only reasonable. In fact, he doesn't think they should be at all. He does not support pure reason in so much as it hinders social interaction and such. He recognizes that humans are indeed social creatures. He still does think that reason and intellectual inquiry are necessary in living a fulfilled life. Not only does he think that they are necessary, he thinks they are best.
People who enter into politics, if fact, have the opportunity to improve the lives of others and try to persuade them to join a life of reason. They can control certain economic and political events which may interfere with people's ability to improve themselves. Wielding this power, they are expected to use it in a manner that is supported by reason and promote the well-fare of others. I would guess that he wouldn't be a fan of contemporary politics (though not many people are).
Aristotle's Animals and Research
Question: What would a contemporary Aristotle think about the nature of animals?
Given that there has been quite the sum of research done on animal intelligence since the time of Aristotle, I can imagine that he may have to edit his view of the nature of animals. Since he lived in Greece in the fourth century, I don't think he had many animals to observe of test with puzzles and so on. And seeing as how he was a scientist foremost, I can assume that if he had access to chimpanzees he may have viewed things different, though we cannot be certain.
If he were alive today he could probably do research regarding the intelligence of apes and African grey parrots, for example. These animals are very intelligent and have puzzle solving abilities. They can learn new things and repeat them without having to be reminded. If Aristotle were to be alive during this era, I think he would have to greatly modify his view on what makes us different from non-human animals. Though I wonder if, for the sake of his argument, he would come up with something new for his philosophical views. I don't suppose he would have to do much, it's pretty apparent that parrots do not live as humans do, though there is something to be said about their intelligence.
Given that there has been quite the sum of research done on animal intelligence since the time of Aristotle, I can imagine that he may have to edit his view of the nature of animals. Since he lived in Greece in the fourth century, I don't think he had many animals to observe of test with puzzles and so on. And seeing as how he was a scientist foremost, I can assume that if he had access to chimpanzees he may have viewed things different, though we cannot be certain.
If he were alive today he could probably do research regarding the intelligence of apes and African grey parrots, for example. These animals are very intelligent and have puzzle solving abilities. They can learn new things and repeat them without having to be reminded. If Aristotle were to be alive during this era, I think he would have to greatly modify his view on what makes us different from non-human animals. Though I wonder if, for the sake of his argument, he would come up with something new for his philosophical views. I don't suppose he would have to do much, it's pretty apparent that parrots do not live as humans do, though there is something to be said about their intelligence.
06 February 2012
What Came First?
Question from class: did the chicken come first or did the egg come first?
I would, in all seriousness, have to argue that the egg came first. If we are thinking about this from the perspective of a creationist, or someone of that mindset, we cannot know because 'god' could have very well made either first. I determined that, evolution tells us that before there was a chicken, there was an almost-chicken. So, basically, go back until you find the first thing that you would consider a chicken, that chicken was born from the egg of a almost-chicken. A hybridization of fowls, over a given length of time, could have very well resulted in the creation of a chicken egg, which is to say, again, the first creature that we would consider a chicken.
I would, in all seriousness, have to argue that the egg came first. If we are thinking about this from the perspective of a creationist, or someone of that mindset, we cannot know because 'god' could have very well made either first. I determined that, evolution tells us that before there was a chicken, there was an almost-chicken. So, basically, go back until you find the first thing that you would consider a chicken, that chicken was born from the egg of a almost-chicken. A hybridization of fowls, over a given length of time, could have very well resulted in the creation of a chicken egg, which is to say, again, the first creature that we would consider a chicken.
03 February 2012
Eternal - Perfection
Question: Well, gee. if being eternal is a necessary condition for being perfect, why don't us human want to be eternal? We hate the idea.
Plato suggests that being eternal and unchanging is something necessary to be perfect. Everything that exists in the form world is so. Why then, don't humans want to be eternal- you hear people talking about how living forever would be terrible. The reasons they give generally include, well your friends would die, or you'd get bored. I answer that if humans were eternal, your friends would not die, and you wouldn't get bored if you were unchanging. It's simply because we are imperfect in other ways that we cannot enjoy the perfection of immortality.
Additionally, the parallels between the perfect form of a human and the notion of a Christian Heaven are astonishing. In both, you have eternal life, and nothing ever changes because you will always be good and content with the happiness that you have in obeying the good lordy-lord, everyday. It seems strange to me that people wouldn't want eternal life on earth, but that they find heaven to be a reward...
Plato suggests that being eternal and unchanging is something necessary to be perfect. Everything that exists in the form world is so. Why then, don't humans want to be eternal- you hear people talking about how living forever would be terrible. The reasons they give generally include, well your friends would die, or you'd get bored. I answer that if humans were eternal, your friends would not die, and you wouldn't get bored if you were unchanging. It's simply because we are imperfect in other ways that we cannot enjoy the perfection of immortality.
Additionally, the parallels between the perfect form of a human and the notion of a Christian Heaven are astonishing. In both, you have eternal life, and nothing ever changes because you will always be good and content with the happiness that you have in obeying the good lordy-lord, everyday. It seems strange to me that people wouldn't want eternal life on earth, but that they find heaven to be a reward...
Problem with Public Education
Question: Does public education make a person reasonable? Does it help democracy?
Public education, as it stands now, is essentially mandated for all people below the age of 16. This means, simply, that people do not actively choose to go to school, and thereby they learn less because they have no interest in learning. Plato thinks that the problem with democracy is that often times people do not know what is best for them. In response to that, democratic countries have invoked public education. This, however, is not an admirable attempt. Attempting to force knowledge onto those who don't want it is essentially useless. Additionally, even if they did want it, the public education system is teaching students how to be a part of society, not how to change it, it's not teaching them how they should think about voting. In fact, it's not teaching them how to think at all, it teaches them what to think. The emphasis is on mathematics and history and science and job training.
I, personally, think that the public education system should be mandated from K - 4th grade, and then the students should be relieve until they want to come back. With that, I think that even post secondary education should be free, for those who want the knowledge, and not the job training. Mostly those who have continued their education of their own choice should hold voting power. Though I do think that a certain power should be granted to those who didn't choose education. The power of rebellion maybe...
Public education, as it stands now, is essentially mandated for all people below the age of 16. This means, simply, that people do not actively choose to go to school, and thereby they learn less because they have no interest in learning. Plato thinks that the problem with democracy is that often times people do not know what is best for them. In response to that, democratic countries have invoked public education. This, however, is not an admirable attempt. Attempting to force knowledge onto those who don't want it is essentially useless. Additionally, even if they did want it, the public education system is teaching students how to be a part of society, not how to change it, it's not teaching them how they should think about voting. In fact, it's not teaching them how to think at all, it teaches them what to think. The emphasis is on mathematics and history and science and job training.
I, personally, think that the public education system should be mandated from K - 4th grade, and then the students should be relieve until they want to come back. With that, I think that even post secondary education should be free, for those who want the knowledge, and not the job training. Mostly those who have continued their education of their own choice should hold voting power. Though I do think that a certain power should be granted to those who didn't choose education. The power of rebellion maybe...
01 February 2012
Crawling Back to the Cave
In the allegory of the cave people are entertained by shadows on the back wall of a cave. They have to desire to see things that are real on the outside of the cave. When they are told to let loose their chains and to see the real world, they sometimes choose not to, or have a really difficult time in deciding to abandon their unjustified beliefs. It occurred to me that going into the cave is much easier than exiting it, You can spend you entire life enjoying reality and not being mindlessly entertained with fiction or things that are unknowable. Some people, however, will find their way back to the cave to die. When faced with death, yearning for more life, or for some great sense of comfort and so on, many people crawl back to their cave and become content with and enjoy the storytelling of the shadowy puppeteer of religion.
31 January 2012
Learning v. Reiteration/Reinforcement
Response to Emily - Full post here - http://hobbitsworld42.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-we-learn-morality.html
I think an important distinction should be made between learning and reiterating. Which is to say that movies, games, and stories are not necessarily there to teach us any morals, but rather to reiterate moral ideas that society finds agreeable. I think the same principle which you mentioned in the example of killing applies to other moral problems. If left to our own devices we would realize that we don't want people to steal things from us, or if we are invested in a relationship that we intend to be between only two people, we wouldn't want the other to go to someone else. We don't (generally) want people to lie to us (though in some instances, most people could find lying agreeable). We learn all of these things almost independent from media.
So, I think that we are not necessarily taught our morals. I think we have an evolutionary set of morals which we come around to knowing anyway. Society uses the mediums of parents, media, school, and so on, to reiterate or fortify the agreeable, according to contemporary society, morals . We see this when we look at books and consider what parents taught their children in the days of The Bible compared to now. You won't see 'stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath' or 'stone disobedient child' in many recently written moral guidance books. If you do, you'll be told it's a metaphor or that it's irrelevant to our society.
I think an important distinction should be made between learning and reiterating. Which is to say that movies, games, and stories are not necessarily there to teach us any morals, but rather to reiterate moral ideas that society finds agreeable. I think the same principle which you mentioned in the example of killing applies to other moral problems. If left to our own devices we would realize that we don't want people to steal things from us, or if we are invested in a relationship that we intend to be between only two people, we wouldn't want the other to go to someone else. We don't (generally) want people to lie to us (though in some instances, most people could find lying agreeable). We learn all of these things almost independent from media.
So, I think that we are not necessarily taught our morals. I think we have an evolutionary set of morals which we come around to knowing anyway. Society uses the mediums of parents, media, school, and so on, to reiterate or fortify the agreeable, according to contemporary society, morals . We see this when we look at books and consider what parents taught their children in the days of The Bible compared to now. You won't see 'stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath' or 'stone disobedient child' in many recently written moral guidance books. If you do, you'll be told it's a metaphor or that it's irrelevant to our society.
For Culture's Sake Alone
Response to Katie - full post here : http://notralphwaldoemerson.blogspot.com/2012/01/broke.html
Given that extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic motivation - meaning that rewards/bonuses and such actually decrease a person's motivation to make music because they want to. I would argue that people making music for music's sake, and teaching for teaching's sake, and being athletic (and fit) for athletic's sake, would greatly increase the culture and passion to perform.
If all musicians were so because they loved music and not money, it would rule out those who write music for wealth - the industry would be better and filled with more heart-felt music.
If all teachers were so because they loved teaching and not money, it would allow them to be fully engaged in their teaching and to be fully invested in the students, not the check - the education system would be better and filled with genuinely compassionate students. P.S. Teachers are not really paid enough where a person would want to become one to receive high pay.
I mean think about ancient civilizations during which time they had no currency, people taught and made music just for fun, to continue legends, and because it's just enjoyable, no culture was destroyed there.
As an additional note, if the entire society followed benevolence, then this economic system would probably not flourish.
Given that extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic motivation - meaning that rewards/bonuses and such actually decrease a person's motivation to make music because they want to. I would argue that people making music for music's sake, and teaching for teaching's sake, and being athletic (and fit) for athletic's sake, would greatly increase the culture and passion to perform.
If all musicians were so because they loved music and not money, it would rule out those who write music for wealth - the industry would be better and filled with more heart-felt music.
If all teachers were so because they loved teaching and not money, it would allow them to be fully engaged in their teaching and to be fully invested in the students, not the check - the education system would be better and filled with genuinely compassionate students. P.S. Teachers are not really paid enough where a person would want to become one to receive high pay.
I mean think about ancient civilizations during which time they had no currency, people taught and made music just for fun, to continue legends, and because it's just enjoyable, no culture was destroyed there.
As an additional note, if the entire society followed benevolence, then this economic system would probably not flourish.
27 January 2012
Using Scientific Reason to Promote Religious Reasoning
Upon discussing the problem of evil in class, it occurred to me that I had also heard an attempt, transmitted through chain email message, to rationalize it away. Unlike the methods that we discussed in class, this method isn't employed in attempt to run away from the problem, it tries to use scientific reason to rationalize the problem of evil. In short, the conversation was supposedly had between Albert Einstein and an unknown college professor and went like so:
Al: Do 'darkness' and 'cold' exist?
Prof: Yes
Al: No, they do not. Dark is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat. Now, does evil exist?
Prof: Aye, it does
Al: No, you are wrong. Evil is simply the absence of God.
This, notwithstanding the invocation of science to defend religion, does not actually answer the problem of evil, even if it appears to do so. Those who attempt to employ this argument to dismiss the problem of evil are convinced that simply invoking science will cause people to not question the problem any further. The question of the problem of evil is - if god is all powerful and all-good, why does he allow evil to exist? The question that this dialogue answered is - What is evil? In addition to all of this, I've also heard it said that God is Omni-present as well, so he doesn't really have an absence.
Morality and Animals
Confucius suggests that morality is a fabric of the universe, if so then do animals have morality?
I think that Confucius would probably say that the decree of heaven does only apply to humans, and not other non-human animals (I don't suppose he recognized humans a animals). I can imagine that he probably, if he gave it any good sum of thought would suggest that there exists a different 'morality' of sorts for many different. He could also say that morals are things that are fully conscious and only exist to those who can think about their actions. So maybe he thinks that animals don't necessarily have a set of 'morals' but instead act as in in their nature because they aren't malleable as humans are.
25 January 2012
True Benevolence and Selflessness
Once again, I find myself back in the realm of dealing with benevolence. It was suggested in my class today that wanting to become benevolent is selfish because of a supposed reward that was received at the end of this journey. I agree that wanting to become benevolent for a reward is selfish. I do, however, think that doing so would equate to not being benevolent and thereby not actually receiving the reward. A person would have to genuinely want to be benevolent for the sake of being benevolent. If a person wanted to be benevolent for a reward, the heavens would not reward them, until they decided that the reward wasn't important. It seemed to me, like the effort to be benevolent would have to be genuine, where the reward is simply an accident consequence. Perhaps more simply put - I do not think that a benevolent person would have any desire or need for a reward. Being benevolent and selfless is already the best reward.
*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).
*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).
Benevolence and Lifestyle
Today, in my Nature of Human Nature Class, it was said that because Confucius worked all of his life to reach benevolence, it was made easier for us to reach benevolence. In conjunction with this, perhaps defining what was meant by 'easier for us to reach,' the term 'goal' was used several times to refer to achieving the Decree of the Heavens and, thus, benevolence. Goal is defined, by Merriam-Webster, as 'the end toward which effort is directed.' This implies that nothing additional, no continued effort, is required after attaining this end. After you achieve the 'goal' once, you don't need to persist.
Benevolence, I think, is a lifestyle choice. You cannot be benevolent once and then claim a metal for it. As with other aspects of personality and character trait, it can change. You cannot say that you were nice, because you once helped a woman across the street but from thereon pushed old ladies into the street. Similarly, you cannot be benevolent (selfless) once and then consider yourself benevolent forever. You need to be constantly working on it.
*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).
*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).
Heaven, Universe, and Psyche
Question: What is the relation between Heaven (as in the Decree of Heaven), the Fabric of the Universe, and the human psyche?
In my not-so-professional (in that I receive no payment for holding this) opinion, these concepts are of mechanical relation.
The Universe as Psyche - Everything that we 'know' about the universe, everything in the scope of human action and thought, all that we perceive and conceive, as far as we can know, exists only in our psyche. To restate this: We can only think and know about the universe in our psyche, Thus, the universe and our psyche are essentially, for our purposes, the same thing.
Morality is a part of that which makes up our psyche (a part of the fabric the universe). Heaven, which is the idea from which we draw correct set of morals, exists naturally our psyche (the universe). We always have access to our psyche, as it is inherent in us, and therefore always have access to the correct set of morals, and should therefore always act on those morals.
I feel that this connection is further evident in that Confucius suggested that the only thing that anyone has any power over is their actions/moral choices. He suggests that a person can have no effect on what is (another parts of the universe (what we perceive from our psyche) that is not morality). Another part of our psyche (the universe) is our recognition of what and how things are. We cannot change those things. No matter how I will away Murdock Hall, or President Obama, they will continue to be. If, however, I wish away a bad moral thought, I have the power to replacing it with a correct moral thought.
*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).
In my not-so-professional (in that I receive no payment for holding this) opinion, these concepts are of mechanical relation.
The Universe as Psyche - Everything that we 'know' about the universe, everything in the scope of human action and thought, all that we perceive and conceive, as far as we can know, exists only in our psyche. To restate this: We can only think and know about the universe in our psyche, Thus, the universe and our psyche are essentially, for our purposes, the same thing.
Morality is a part of that which makes up our psyche (a part of the fabric the universe). Heaven, which is the idea from which we draw correct set of morals, exists naturally our psyche (the universe). We always have access to our psyche, as it is inherent in us, and therefore always have access to the correct set of morals, and should therefore always act on those morals.
I feel that this connection is further evident in that Confucius suggested that the only thing that anyone has any power over is their actions/moral choices. He suggests that a person can have no effect on what is (another parts of the universe (what we perceive from our psyche) that is not morality). Another part of our psyche (the universe) is our recognition of what and how things are. We cannot change those things. No matter how I will away Murdock Hall, or President Obama, they will continue to be. If, however, I wish away a bad moral thought, I have the power to replacing it with a correct moral thought.
*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).
20 January 2012
Through What Sorcery, Made He The World.
I simply want to elaborate, slightly, on Ockham's Razor. I think it is important to recognize that an argument is cut/denied by Ockham's razor if 1.) it does not adequately address something, that is to say, if upon 'solving' the problem, more questions are raised, and 2.) There are many assumptions that have to be agreed upon for it to be true. I wanted to bring this up because I was once engaging in debate (if one chooses to call it so) with a fellow Christian. We were discussing the formation/creation of the world and I was informed that every science-related theory was cut off by Ockham's razor on the basis that 'God made it' is, in fact the simplest answer. I tried to inform them that such an answer raises questions like 'who made God?' and 'how did he make it?' they informed me that 'he has always existed' was the simplest answer. I told them that even if I were to agree, they cannot deny that the answer is not the most simple if it does not adequately explain something/answer a question.
18 January 2012
S.C.T.M. -- Semi-Condensed Textual Me
Hello, my name is Brandon Gerard Gaudet, or at least that's what people call me as a result of my parents having named me so (anyhow, I'll have another post about this later). I am a freshman at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, abbreviated MCLA, which I like to call Muh-klah. I am majoring in philosophy - and I have found myself among only a few others doing the same. All this information here and information similar to it, such as the location from which I hail and my age, are completely unimportant. I don't know why precisely, however, I apparently felt especially inclined to include what I did while leaving out the rest.
I am a vegetarian primarily for biological and ethical reasons, though environmental reasons are also important to me (additionally, there are micro and macroeconomic reasons that can contribute towards vegetarianism, though I do not particularly care about those). I am an agnostic or something of that sort, in that I recognize that we cannot 'know' that a deity does not exist with any more certainty than we can 'know' that one does. Practically speaking, I live as though no deity exists but from time to time I enjoy reading various religious text, namely the bible (my favourite part is Leviticus 26:14-46 (alternately Deuteronomy 28:15-68), READ IT!!!). I have an apparently innate pacificism (different from pacifism), which I find pretty cool.
My taste in music is fairly expansive Some of the artists that I listen to are - Ben Folds, The Beatles, Nightwish, Rise Against, Beethoven, Koji Kondo (composer of Legend of Zelda music) and other video game music composers. Wow, this is incredibly convenient. Look at this here; by pure coincidence, the perfect segue. This is a true miracle to behold. I was just type-typing away, and lo, my post happened to mention Legend of Zelda - what an amazing happenstance. I happen to have a minor obsession with The Legend of Zelda. This explains why I chose the names and URLs for my 3 blogs. The URLs are the names of the Golden Goddesses from Zelda, the first letters of various things associated with those goddesses, and philoso-(name of the element (and thereby color) associated with them). The blog titles are the aforementioned associations.
That's me :-) in a semi-condensed textual form.
I am a vegetarian primarily for biological and ethical reasons, though environmental reasons are also important to me (additionally, there are micro and macroeconomic reasons that can contribute towards vegetarianism, though I do not particularly care about those). I am an agnostic or something of that sort, in that I recognize that we cannot 'know' that a deity does not exist with any more certainty than we can 'know' that one does. Practically speaking, I live as though no deity exists but from time to time I enjoy reading various religious text, namely the bible (my favourite part is Leviticus 26:14-46 (alternately Deuteronomy 28:15-68), READ IT!!!). I have an apparently innate pacificism (different from pacifism), which I find pretty cool.
My taste in music is fairly expansive Some of the artists that I listen to are - Ben Folds, The Beatles, Nightwish, Rise Against, Beethoven, Koji Kondo (composer of Legend of Zelda music) and other video game music composers. Wow, this is incredibly convenient. Look at this here; by pure coincidence, the perfect segue. This is a true miracle to behold. I was just type-typing away, and lo, my post happened to mention Legend of Zelda - what an amazing happenstance. I happen to have a minor obsession with The Legend of Zelda. This explains why I chose the names and URLs for my 3 blogs. The URLs are the names of the Golden Goddesses from Zelda, the first letters of various things associated with those goddesses, and philoso-(name of the element (and thereby color) associated with them). The blog titles are the aforementioned associations.
That's me :-) in a semi-condensed textual form.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)