Week 12 Civil Disobedience

I have lost confidence in America’s checks and balance system. Specifically speaking, Congress. These elected political people are suppose to represent the people of America instead they are either supporting laws and approving funding for programs that benefit them.

Dr. King said “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”. St. Augustine also said “an unjust law is no law at all”. With the entire Congress working for them we must prepare for the worst and that is laws being pass that are not for the people of this country.

The Patriot Act, will this Act ever become reversed? Not likely, what can we do as citizens? Probably nothing, the popularity of the Patriot Act is constantly being under scrutiny but yet Congress passes it after its sunset, it was resigned again on December 31, 2005. If we practice civil disobedience, we should try going against the Patriot Act which is a oxymoron since the unjustness of the Patriot Act is done without us knowing. It just happens while we are going about our normal day lives. (eg. Phone tapping, library check out logs, personal information exposed)

Week 11: Marx

Freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion. It is difficult to define coercion in today’s decision making. Psychologically the masses may collectively agree because people are coerced to believe in something to be true, meanwhile it may just be an illusion.

We need an active state intervention to our freedom is preserved. “The class which has the means of production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production”, said Marx. If you compare this idea to American economic structure you can see similarities. Large corporations employing large mass of people with ties in governmental politics, information distribution, and advertisement. We focus on our freedoms on individual, isolated situations and scenarios such as freedom to vote, speech, freedom to buy consumer good. We think we are free but in the larger scheme of things a lot of our freedoms to make decisions are controlled by an outside force.

Week 9: Buddist

I think it is possible to live accordingly to the teaching of Buddhism. One need to look past the social norms and evaluate one self to weed out the “selfish cravings and desires”.

The United States is defiantly a Buddhist worst nightmare. With free enterprise and capitalism to constant new made up fears. It is difficult to concentrate on finding Nirvana. When you do the rewards are massive. Would Siddhartha Gautama survive New York City in current day? I would think probably not, but his teachings are important groundwork’s on living a fuller life and be more weary of the temptations of a capitalistic nation.

Week 8

Philosophy can make someone reaffirm his/her religious convictions. Does Santa Clause exist? The general public agrees he don’t but how can we prove it? These kind of questions can be applied to religion the existence of a higher being, God. How do we know it exist? Philosophy raises these kinds of issues. According to the argument of “principle of sufficient reason, everything that exists must have a reason that explains why it exists and why it has the properties that it does” (Lawhead 315). This principle justifies the existence of God, people can argue that there is reason for God’s existence therefore he exists.

Week 6: Artificial Intelligence

There are close similarities between programming of computers and programming of humans. Much like installation of software for a computer, when humans go to school they are being "programmed". They are learning a set of instructions. In the case of a college student enrolled in a major. This student will take courses geared toward the major, he/she will learn how to process information and perform tasks related to the subject he/she is studying.
However the differences is that a human may have conscious or subconscious conflict with what they are learning ("program"). For example a student may elect to study business as a major, but prefers to be an artist, thus ignoring the teaching of business related course. Verses computers will take in the software or programs it is told and not change its mind. Humans have the ability to reject what they are told.

Week 5: Dualism and Physicalism

I do agree with Descartes’s argument that we are made of two different substances. According to textbook Descartes says “your mind is the real you” The reason behind our closely linked relationship with the brain is because according to science the brain controls and stores our bodily functions and memories. These functions typically control emotions, analytical skills, and critical thinking.

In my opinion this is what a mind and soul are made of. The brain is just a biological-physically medium that makes up the “mind (which is identical to your soul and your consciousness)” (Descartes)

Week 4: Pragmatism/Feminist Epestimology

I am agreeing with the philosophy of Pragmatism and Liberal feminist. Although it is obvious male and female physiological biological make up is different (eg. woman bare children, men on average have larger in mass). However I do feel that men and women should be equal in social structure and intellectual structures. Women should have the right to voice their opinions about their ideas of philosophy and be taken equally serious as to their male counterpart. I don't agree totally with the idea of "radical feminists". If they want to restructure the way "things should be" because it was male driven for a long time, with the idea of liberal feminist that should not be a problem since men and women would be equal, to explore ideas and make changes together.

I can strongly relate with pragmatism because the ideas of beliefs and experience correspond to each other for me. However as with many different ideas of philosophy I don't feel that one type is solely responsible for humans obtaining truth and knowledge.

Knowledge to me is information that has been transferred either from another individual, object, or obtained by oneself. I feel that it doesn't have to be true, as long as its not deliberately conveyed with deception.

I say it doesn't have to be true because if a person acts upon "false" knowledge, and evidently is effected by it they can make a their own judgment as to whether that piece of knowledge was true, useful... etc..