Week 12

Civil Disobedience

Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law?

In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? And 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience?

This is a topic in which I have mixed feelings about.I personally do not like the sound of the word civil disobedience. This reminds me of telling a child, throw a tantrum if you like, but watch it or ill beat you down. What’s the point of protesting? Is that going to change anything? Do people think that the government is listening? I do think so. I believe this is the main reason in which protests mostly get violent sooner rather than later. Although I disagree with the sound of it and how it makes me feel, if we didn’t have such of law, I can’t imagine the damage that we as people would bring to ourselves and society. In my views, I can definitely relate to protesters simply because when I’m complaining about something and I’m being ignored, and feel that my efforts aren’t going anywhere, I would get upset too. To be honest, I do not think that I can answer the question in what cases if any I would use civil disobedience, maybe that’s why I have never protested or wouldn’t even considered it.

Week 11

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?

I am going to have to go with Marx on this. The government’s job is to protect society and mostly protect people from themselves. This is because there’s too many knuckle heads out there. To have liberty without any intervention would be a disaster for society. This ideal that freedom is “let me do or say what I want” is wrong. No wonder why so many Americans take advantage of this and abuse it. For example; I think that “Freedom of Speech” goes too far and it allows people to go as far as to insult other races and cause chaos in society. Another great example is “Bullying”. These are epidemics facing our society and there’s no doubt in my mind that some of these rights should be modified. In order to maintain peace, they must intervene. Through the years, it has upset me that some these issues facing our society have not been made illegal.

Week 9

Buddhism

According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.

Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

I believe that Buddhism has a great point on this issue and people should listen up. Today’s society is too demanding and keeps telling us through ads, TV commercial, Shows to win money, competitions to earn a better job, that this is the way to go. It is pathetic for government, corporations, and rich folks to tap on the weakness, desires and cravings of poor people and take advantage of this, and somehow convinced us that having money and fortune is the best way to enjoy life. I strongly agree with Buddhism that our suffering is due to our selfishness, cravings and we must detach from it, but these marketing companies don’t help. United States has it completely wrong and we the people should pause and think for a moment and realize what’s happening here. Even during these economy troubles on this dumb country, we are continue to be told that were not doing enough, not educated, not successful , not skinny enough and so on and we believe everything and run to do something about it, like register in school, join the gym just to name a few. In my views Buddhism has a great solution, but quite hard to accomplish on this country for the reasons mention above. Go Buddhism!

Week 8

Cosmological and Design Argument

This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective.

In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's religious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument).

Well, to someone like me, definitely it does. Since I’m not a religious person, I can think outside the box and think of other possibilities. Philosophy is the religion’s worst nightmare. The fact that philosophy questions the existence of just about everything and everything else, it freaks people out.  For those people these topics are not up for discussion, so therefore there’s no way that it would change their mind, even if you bring forward a good argument, they won’t want to hear it or have an open mind to it. To debate with Christianity is a lost fight right from the beginning. Faith is the same as Trust; it’s why I think it doesn’t belong on a philosophical argument. I believe that this is main reason why it’s a lost and predictable argument. Faith gets on the way of having a real discussion or to even have one.

Week 6

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.

What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

Yes, there is a difference, but there are also a lot of similarities. As a former computer programmer I know a thing or two about this. Programmers can make a computer performed just about anything to helps us alleviate our daily painful routines , but you cannot make a computer feel, love, make life decision or even to have will power. Yes, we can also be programmed to learn, follow rules, etc., but we have a choice not do it, and that to me is where the line gets drowned. A computer will not ever have a choice, because programmer will preload those in and randomly the computer chooses, just like Alice the artificial intelligence program. It is not that hard to quickly confuse those programs until it changes the topic randomly.