Civil Disobedience

I think that the "Occupy Wall Street" protests are a perfect example of civil disobedience. The protests are also a source of much argument, a lot of it focused on whether or not civil disobedience in this case is OK or not. I have mixed feelings on this. Upon initially hearing of the protests, I wanted to offer my support. The majority of issues they are protesting and voicing their anger towards I side with them on. However after going down to Zucotti Park myself and seeing first hand they way the protests are carried out I can understand why some people may believe that civil disobedience is unacceptable in this case. I endorse the right for protesters to sit non-violently in an attempt to rally support for something they find unjust. I think the reason people are angry with the occupiers is that they are not only sitting, but camping out and making a great deal of noise in the process. Their civil disobedience results in not only the people they are protesting experiencing obstacles ( the point of the protest-of which I am OK with) but the repeated occurrence of everyday citizens being disturbed by their actions. Is this for the greater good? I would like to think so, however If I lived down near Zucotti I may feel differently. As a one time visitor I was intrigued and even proud that our citizens are so passionate that they would go to such great lengths to peacefully protest something they found unjust, but if I were a resident down there I am sure I would be angered by their acts of civil disobedience. They make walking to work, running errands and catching the train a difficult task, the noise from their drum circle is heard round the clock, the smell of them cooking food, or simply the body odor emanating from the hundreds is sometimes sickening, the constant police presence they attract is a nuisance,  and the homeless sometimes drug addled hanger ons that camp with them because they are so accepting is worrying to a resident of the quiet area. However I would chose all of that over violent acts any day. I would chose annoyance and disagreement over having violent out of control disobeying oppositions to the laws any day. I think that civil disobedience in the end is a more effective way of gaining support for the opposition of morally unjust happenings that are currently present in our country.

Marx&Mills

I would have to say that I agree somewhat with both Marx and Mills. I would like to believe that freedom means being completely free of the power of the government that freedom means we cannot be forced to do something. A small part of me however thinks that this may be unrealistic, that there is a time when having the government powers intervene is necessary and could potentially help us gain freedom. I believe that this is what Marx is trying to say when he says that it is sometimes necessary for this to happen in order to receive freedom to make certain economic choices. As far as freedom goes, the principle I agree with most is the harm principle. I believe that one should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as it is not harming anyone. I think this is especially important in protecting children. I know some may not agree but I do think government interference is necessary in this case. I believe laws and regulations should be made and that eventually government should step in if a child is being harmed by ones actions. This could go for many other laws our country has as well, not just those that just protect children. This is why our country has protected classes. I don't always think government interference is a bad thing. I think there is a line and that line is very hard to find. In the end though the government stepping in to protect a child from harm is not a crack down on our freedom because the child is in turn given freedom. More freedom can be granted through the use of government.

Buddhism vs. Contemporary Society

I believe that it is near impossible to live in 100% accordance with Buddhist beliefs in the contemporary American society. Our society now more that ever is in fact encouraging the opposite of these beliefs especially with the grasp technology now has on society. What is looked upon as great and cool and powerful is having this technology. If you have the new iphone or the latest trend in shoes or bags you are looked up too. In fact,  our "heroes" in society are no longer selfless beings but celebrities whose very being is kept relevant by them having material items. Shows such as "pimp my ride" where peoples cars are customized or makeover shows or modeling competitions, are the television programs that keep our society interested and tuned in. Even those who pretend not to care about material items in our society are simply not being truthful in my opinion. Who these days doesn't want a new cellular phone or a nicer car or a good home. And is that a bad thing? I do appreciate and respect all Buddhist teachings and I truly do think our society has taken materialism to far. But I also think that there are certain material things that do create a happiness that does not always bring a feeling of emptiness. In the end non-material items do matter most to me, but I also yearn for material items that benefit my friends and family. I seek money so that I can support the ones I love, a home to shelter the ones I love. Those material things benefit my family. I suppose in the end it is just a line that everyone must draw for themselves.

The Cosmological & Design Arguments

I definitely think that both of these arguments can create a new feeling about religion for someone. To me they both simplified all of the complex ideas and thoughts about religion. I especially found interest in the cosmological argument. I have always considered myself to be agnostic, and reading this I found myself more interested then I usually am. I definitely do not want to believe that God does not exist, however I do not know if God does exist. It was odd how after reading the cosmological argument I wanted to believe that God existed because it was so simple. Stating that there must be an uncaused first cause I think could change someone's religious convictions. If you do not stop and think about any of the weaknesses of the cosmological theory it seems at first bullet proof. If there are things whose existence depends on a cause and everything is either uncaused or caused by something else then there has to be a God. He is the uncaused first cause. Of course when the weaknesses are brought in to play I automatically went back to my agnostic thinking. But for a moment I was becoming convinced by the supposed obviousness of the cosmological argument. I think philosophy greatly contributes to the understanding of religion because to me religion is all about thought and questioning and asking how and why and that is what a good philosopher does. They question and they seek knowledge. Reading the theories definitely gave me more understanding of how some people are a hundred percent certain their God is real.

Programming

I do not believe that programming a computer is the same as "programming" a human being. When you program a computer there is no thought, no "content" associated with it. Everything it is programmed to do, it will do. It will do the exact same repetition forever. A human learning something is not exactly as repetitive. The example of brushing ones teeth was used. If a robot was programmed to do this it would do it the exact same way every time. For me, as a human, yes I was taught as a child to brush my teeth every night before bed. And I do brush my teeth every night before bed, however because I am human I have content associated with this. I can decide I no longer like mint flavored toothpaste and switch to cinnamon flavored toothpaste. I can decide I need to use an electric toothbrush instead of a regular one, I can decide that Crest makes better floss that Colgate. I can switch my routine and change the program where as a computer does not have the capabilities to decide its likes and dislikes.

Physicalism

After doing the reading and listening to the lecture on both Descartes theory of dualism and the theory of physicalism, I side more with the belief of physicalism. It just makes the most sense that there is only one physical-material substance. I really truly believe this is the only thing we need to explain our own mental abilities. Simply based upon my small knowledge of how the human brain operates, physicalism seems the more rational theory. I also think dualism comes with too many problems. The problems with where and how the interactions occur and take place and the other dilemmas that come with dualism. The self has to be identical to the activities of the body or the brain. Mental states are identical to brain events. I really don't see how there can be disagreement with physicalism when dualism presents so many more obvious problems. I realize there are things in our mental life that are nothing like those of our physical life, and I guess I am not sure how exactly to explain that. I feel as if they are somehow tied in. I think that if we mentally feel guilty, maybe it is possible to physically feel guilty as well? Maybe all of the mental states are physical states too? I guess I'm still pondering this one...

Week 4 Thoughts

After concluding the chapters on epistemology, I think that I agree a little with each theory. I never outright disagreed with any of the theories on knowledge. I found them all interesting and to me truthful in some way or another.  Since Pragmatism is one of the most recent ones we read about it is the most fresh in my mind, and I have to say that I do think the Pragmatic view is right. I do believe that things must be understood in terms of the practical effects associated with them, and I also am beginning to agree that knowledge is not a detached attitude of contemplation. I think they are correct in saying that knowledge is our way of interacting with the world. I am not saying I one hundred percent am a pragmatist, because I know they lean a little on the side of skepticism. As far as being a skeptic or a rationalist I think I sided more on the rationalist side. I also think knowledge is based on our ability to reason. I think the two beliefs I found myself believing less of then the others were definitely empiricism and skepticism. Although last week we had to question Kant's theories. I actually found that a very difficult assignment because I wasn't sure which I actually genuinely wanted to question. Overall I have found all interesting, I just tend to side with certain ones over others.

Empiricism

I do agree with the Empiricists claim that all of our knowledge relies on our senses.  The basic claim is that the only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience. I agree with this and I believe I can given example that would back up this claim.
Example: Lets say it is morning and I am trying to decide what I should wear based upon the temperature outside. I check the weather and it shows that it is supposed to be 30 degrees outside. Then I decide to open my window. It is dark out, the trees are blowing in the wind, (sure looks cold). I decide to ask my roommate ( he says it "seems" pretty cold out). Do I have any genuine knowledge yet? I don't think so. So I head outside. Sure enough it is cold out! To me, until this moment when my senses experience the bitter biting wind and my nose begins to run and my ears begin to burn I have not had any genuine knowledge. I rely on my sense experience on an everyday basis to give me knowledge about my surroundings. I could have reasonable estimated that it was warm outside based upon the weather channel, my view from my window, and my roommates remarks, however as you stated in the lecture, "Reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless grounded in sense experience."

Descartes

I believe that we definitely do use methodological skepticism in our everyday lives. The simplest example I think think to compare it to is when trying to follow directions. I have lived in New York City for three and a half years now. I know my way around the city fairly well, but there is always some doubt. I mean the city is huge! When trying to find my way places I simply use the process of doubting in order to arrive at certainty. Most recent example: this morning I was to have my hair colored at a new salon I have never been to. I know the address of the salon and I know the subway located closest to the salon. However, I am unsure of how to get from the subway to the the salon, so I use the process of doubting. I get off the subway and I see a series of residential looking buildings. Well I doubt that the salon is that way because why would a salon be in a residential building? Therefore I must go the other way down the street. I then see up ahead an entrance on to the FDR. Well, I doubt a salon would be located on the FDR, nor can I walk along the FDR so I know that I must turn at some point. So on and so forth my logic goes until I arrive at certainty, the salon. I guess on a small scale, I did what Descartes did when "bathed his beliefs in an acid bath to see if any doubt survived." As soon as I contemplated going one way, as soon as I began to believe it was right I made sure by checking out my more concrete surroundings. If I was "sure" I was supposed to turn left, I would make absolute sure it made sense first by checking out the buildings and the layout of the street etc.  I know this is a very simple elementary example of how methodological skepticism can be used in daily routine, however I believe it is one that is easily relatable. There are a million ways I use doubt to come to conclusions in my everyday life whether in simple or more complex situations!

Week 1 Thoughts

I enjoyed the first weeks readings more than I originally thought. I began the week by first by reading the assigned chapter in the textbook. I was slightly confused and not sure I really understood the apology and the allegory as I was supposed too. I then listened to the lecture and suddenly I not only understood it, but I was genuinely interested in learning more about them both. I enjoyed the allegory the most, mainly because I first thought it very strange and didn't see the relevance, but as soon as I delved deeper into the meaning behind the prisoners and the meaning behind the puppets shadows I understood how they were "us" and how the images are certain things in society. I for one automatically associated them with the media as a whole and how it can become such a half-truth on society. I am very excited to continue to see how Socrates theories and questionings are still very much prevalent today.

Alexa's Introduction

Hi,

I'm Alexa this is my first distance learning class ever taken. I am excited to be taking Philosophy because it is something I have always had an interest in but never had the opportunity to learn more about.