tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8106039909398261742023-08-21T01:12:40.344-07:00Philosophy by a PhoenixUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-22691399367318639392011-10-19T00:38:00.000-07:002011-10-19T01:09:23.902-07:00Societal Progress requires Gadflies<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;">Societal Progress requires Gadflies</span></div><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA9P9bRPKzwU3BxfpbrsiePF2k-O_i8QYWEhlaD2H5ix9jVZZU6qNVZbsS_n0i6pW9bJt8leK-FiLR_LrLCDAnGG8fcK0wgsqWj46r95xgeM5m46_DK0aMdgt9Pi9vG2cpLkQfObb5LZGK/s1600/Archictecture.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 349px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA9P9bRPKzwU3BxfpbrsiePF2k-O_i8QYWEhlaD2H5ix9jVZZU6qNVZbsS_n0i6pW9bJt8leK-FiLR_LrLCDAnGG8fcK0wgsqWj46r95xgeM5m46_DK0aMdgt9Pi9vG2cpLkQfObb5LZGK/s400/Archictecture.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5665111563714181138" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(The following is a paper written for my Philosophy Class. The class is specifically known as "Social and Political Philosophy". It outlines the requirements to create progress in Society.)</span><br /></div><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" >Visionaries are what we lack now entering the 21st century. Rather than people wanting to create a vision for the future and work towards shaping it, a new sort of rhetoric of compromise and moderation seems to have appeared. It seems now that the middle position between any two points, politically and socially, is deemed the one that's always correct. The other two positions are considered extreme and are demagogued as unrealistic or the work of idealists.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>What has happened to our world where no one can see or even envision an </span><span style="line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" >America</span><span style="line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" > different than the circumstances around them? What seems to have happened is that we have lost all our gadflies. Socrates built the framework around an idea of a social catalyst whose very existence is to rile up and irritate the minds and emotions of people for social progress and social change. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Quoting him so he can speak for himself, Socrates explains the gadfly in Plato's Apology as such, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">"For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if <a name="502"></a>I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">gadfly</b>, given <a name="503"></a>to the state by the God; and the state is like a great and noble steed <a name="504"></a>who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be <a name="505"></a>stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has given the state and all <a name="506"></a>day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading <a name="507"></a>and reproaching you. And as you will not easily find another like me, I <a name="508"></a>would advise you to spare me. I dare say that you may feel irritated at <a name="509"></a>being suddenly awakened when you are caught napping; and you may think <a name="510"></a>that if you were to strike me dead, as Anytus advises, which you easily <a name="511"></a>might, then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless <a name="512"></a>God in his care of you gives you another gadfly." <sup>1</sup></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></span></i></span><span style="line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" >Gadflies originally were the flies that flew around horses and irritated them for the majority of the day. This irritation is what Socrates seems to be channeling. To truly understand this irritation and how it works as a positive force, we can use the writings of Doctor Martin Luther King, as he eloquently explains the positive force that comes with this gadfly like effect in his letter from a Birmingham Jail: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">" You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">tension </b>that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and halftruths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><sup>2</sup></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This philosophical argument all builds on two strongly held beliefs. Firstly is the premise that a random given society is rarely perfect and utopian in its morals or positions. It will inherently have evil customs, positions, or traditions that will need changing if the society is to progress forward and become more Just. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Secondly is the premise that the status quo has a characteristic of not wanting change or entropy and as a result requires a lot of energy before it gives way to new ideas or innovations. Just as it takes the most energy to get an object moving at the onset, a gadfly is needed to catalyze society into facing the injustices it has come to accept. That is the purpose of a gadfly and it's moral justification for creating tension given those two easily understandable premises. These gadflies I would label as visionaries.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Visionaries(Gadflies) don't see the world as it is but as it should or could be. They envision a better world and they seek to revolutionize the environment around them to help bring about that change and share their image of the future with the world. Economic visionaries like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs built products to bring into being this new world and had the forethought to know that we'd be using computers and Ipods before they even existed.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>What about the anti-visionary? What of our current state of affairs? The anti-visionary brings about little to no progress living between tight and rigid views of where society is comfortable. If society has a social ill or problem of injustice in its midst, the anti-visionary will seek to solve it by bringing about as little change as possible and only what will be tolerated by the mass of people living in his society. There is no vision of the future and there is no radical changing of society for better or for worse. There is simply the status quo. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A number of issues today that we'd found outrageous were compromised upon decades ago by other non-visionaries; let their lives and choices be our guide and our historical lesson. People would argue for the abolition of slavery, for the right of women to vote, and for equal rights for all Americans during the Civil rights era. The anti-visionaries would be hesitant to accept these proposals and would instead ask for compromises to try to seem more rational and less "extreme" to the moral standards of their own society at that time.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>But today the extreme position would be to deny women the right to vote, to deny all Americans equal rights, or to deny the emancipation of African Americans. EVEN a compromise would be seen as morally bankrupt and would shun anyone seeking to partially enslave African Americans, or partially limit women's right to vote, or partially deny equal civil liberties. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>On a lot of positions the compromise or middle ground of an issue is morally unjust and unimaginable. Would people dare argue with the principle that we are never to kill innocent people? One day a non-visionary(non-gadfly) might well say there may be cases where such murder of innocent civilians is Just or moral. That is the problem with such people. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Their longing to conform to their society's standards skew them from an understanding of the abstract values of good and evil, right and wrong, and justice/injustice.</b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>If we want moral, social, or political progress in any country it will require gadflies. These visionaries will have a picture of a brighter future and will answer to philosophy's deeper abstract questions other people "sleeping" did not think to ask. They awaken us, shake us of the status quo, and in turn are rewarded by seeing their dreams become a reality.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>That's what Dr. Martin Luther King was seeing when he wrote his famous "I have a Dream" speech. He was anticipating, envisioning, and creating a new world where Dr. Kings, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">"</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.</i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="line-height:200%"> "</span></i></span><span style="line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" > <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><sup>3</sup></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style=" line-height:200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Where our gadflies lay now is the question we must all ask ourselves. The loss of such great gifts of God in essence creates a stagnation of that society's progress. That in turn affects all corners of our lives. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="line-height: 200%;font-size:100%;" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>To ask for the best in ourselves, our children, and our Society is to ask for God to send us Gadflies to awaken us when we have slept too long not pondering the deeper questions of our inner soul. There is a need to peer into the essence of our souls and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">question our deeply held assumptions.</b> Gadflies help us to build a better world and establish a better life for us all. Societal progress hinges on such amazing divine blessings as them. Let us hope that one stirs us up soon and awakens us from a new approaching era of confusion, darkness, and doubt. It is all too clear that Obama in every way imaginable is no gadfly and we can expect no significant progression with him.</span></p><br /> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;">End Notes (Sources)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">1. Platos Apology; Plato</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html</span></a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">2. Letter from a </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Birmingham</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> Jail; Dr. King.</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.h-net.org/%7Ehst306/documents/letter.html"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/letter.html</span></a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">3. I have a Dream Speech; Dr. King.</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html</span></a></p><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-26574986312607190322011-08-20T03:16:00.001-07:002011-08-20T03:16:29.406-07:00A Change in the Paradigm<h1 style="text-align: center;" class="program_title"><span id="program_title_text">Why Cities Grow, Corporations Die, and Life Gets Faster</span></h1><div style="text-align: center;"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" height="264" width="400"><param name="flashvars" value="webhost=fora.tv&clipid=13967&cliptype=clip"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="movie" value="http://fora.tv/embedded_player"><embed flashvars="webhost=fora.tv&clipid=13967&cliptype=clip" src="http://fora.tv/embedded_player" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" height="264" width="400"></embed></object></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-24833185959901678872011-08-11T03:24:00.000-07:002011-08-11T03:25:22.969-07:00A good test for a Person's CharacterAsk them:<div>
<br /></div><div><div>1) Would you rather learn lessons by making mistakes and trial and error</div><div>OR</div><div>2) Would you rather be prepared, asking those who came before you, to know what lies ahead?</div></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>If i get a chance I'll go in depth as to which is the right answer as I see it and why you should avoid the other. :)</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-57958469123555459412011-06-27T17:07:00.000-07:002011-06-27T17:15:34.208-07:00Philosophy of the Christian Right / Republican RightI believe the Christian right is a type of neo-Christianity, which has lost touch with the inner essence and message of Christianity.<div><br /></div><div>Neo-Christianity leans more like neoconservatism, which promotes war.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Not all Christians fit this mold and a vast majority of them are fighting this movement. Catholics for instance seem to run contrary to this thinking, but Evangelicals seem to flock to it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some simple facts for people to study, to learn the truth about Christianity:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" >THE POOR</span></div><br /><b>The Bible...<br /></b><br />"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded towards your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land" - Deuteronomy 15:7,11<br /><br />"Jesus said to the man who invited him, "When you have a dinner or supper, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you will be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just" - Luke 14:12-14<br /><br />"You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord will be their savior" - Psalms 14:6<br /><br /><b>The Republicans...<br /></b><br />"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans (After Hurricane Katrina). We couldn't do it, but God did." - Former Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA)<br /><br />"You know, we should not be giving cash to people (Unemployed Workers) who basically are just going to blow it on drugs and not take care of their own children" - Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)<br /><br />"Poor people are, in fact, lazy - Glenn Beck<br /><br />"You can't help those who simply will not be helped. One problem that we've had, even in the best of times, is people who are sleeping on the crates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice." - Ronald Reagan<br /><br />"I don't understand how poor people think" - George W. Bush<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span">WAR</span></div><br /><b>The Bible...<br /></b><br />"Then Jesus said unto him, "Put your sword back into it's place, for those who live by the sword, die by the sword" - Matt 26:52<br /><br />"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" - Matt 5:5-9<br /><br />"But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good for those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same" - Luke 6:27-32<br /><br />"Thou shalt not kill" - Exodus 20:1-13<br /><br /><b>The Republicans...<br /></b><br />"I know people are saying we should have left things the way they were, but I changed after 9/11. I had to act. I don't care if I created more enemies. I had to act" - George W. Bush on Iraq War<br /><br />"We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home" - Sen. John McCain<br /><br />"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and covert them to Christianity" - Ann Coulter<br /><br />"This conflict can only end with their complete and utter destruction" - Dick Cheney<br /><br />"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" - Sen. John McCain<br /><br />"The only way to reduce nuclear weapons is to use them" - Rush Limbaugh<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span">THE RICH</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><b>The Bible...<br /></b><br />"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God" - Matthew 19:24<br /><br />"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money" - Matthew 6:24<br /><br />"Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death" - Proverbs 11:4<br /><br />"Then Jesus said to them, Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed. A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions" - Luke 12:15<br /><br />"When Jesus heard him, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven. Then come, follow me" - Luke 18:22<br /><br /><b>The Republicans...<br /></b><br />"How about $5 million?" - John McCain, when asked at what point does one go from middle-class to rich.<br /><br />"I don't sacrifice. Sorry, I don't participate in recessions. I am not going to sacrifice to make someone else feel good." - Rush Limbaugh<br /><br />"We are struggling like everyone else" - Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Net worth upwards of $56 million.<br /><br />"I'm also unemployed" - Mitt Romney to the unemployed. Mittens is worth $200 million.<br /><br />"Part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich" - Donald Trump on 2012 presidential run.<br /><br />"I struggle to meet my bills right now" - Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), annual salary of $174,000.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span">LOVE, COMPASSION, and FORGIVENESS</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><b>The Bible...<br /></b><br />"Love thy neighbor as thyself" - Mark 12:31<br /><br />"He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who is kind to the needy" - Proverbs 14:21<br /><br />"Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you." - Luke 6:26<br /><br />"If someone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need but shows no compassion, how can God's love be in that person?" - John 3:17<br /><br /><b>The Republicans...<br /></b><br />"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus. Living fossils, so we never forget what these people stood for" - Rush Limbaugh<br /><br />"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go into the New York Times building" - Ann Coulter<br /><br />"I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9/11 victims" - Glenn Beck<br /><br />"I hate those gooks and I will always hate them" - Sen. John McCain<br /><br />"He was a fucker. A big ass motherfucker" - Andrew Breitbart on Ted Kennedy hours after he passed away<br /><br />"You attacked us!" - Allen West to a Muslim American Constituent<br /><br />"The fact is while the overwhelming majority of Muslims are outstanding people, on the other hand 100% of the Islamic terrorists are Muslims, and that is our main enemy today" - Rep. Peter King<br /><br />"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out." - Glenn Beck<br /><br />"I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in congress and find out: Are the Pro-America or Anti-America?" - Michele Bachmann<br /><br />"If you're oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that's not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that. Which means you'd have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you're oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions... pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations." - Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX), in a floor speech on passing an anti-hate crimes bill.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://bigcorporationusa.blogspot.com/2011/06/losing-our-religion-how-conservative.html">Source</a></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div>Christianity at it's core is peaceful.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>To all those in the Christian right, remember your calling: "Love Thine enemy" and "Thou shalt not kill".</div><div><br /></div><div>Again a large majority of Christians have not joined this political movement for hatred.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-50567410489084718662011-05-04T18:42:00.000-07:002011-05-04T19:00:34.454-07:00The unending competition -- Love's great Defeat<div><br /></div><div>I think the industrial revolution ticked in a mindset that has since been very hard to reverse.</div><div><br /></div><div>Simply stated, it's the unending competition for:</div><div><br /></div><div>1. Power</div><div>2. Fame</div><div>3. Wealth</div><div><br /></div><div>Sacrificing the benefits of:</div><div><br /></div><div>1. Family</div><div>2. Happiness</div><div>3. Good Health</div><div>4. Life</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Do you see that last one? Truly, when was the last time life and just living it happily was objective 1?</div><div><br /></div><div>Isn't that the 500th objective after a sub set of objectives, leaving life as the last one.</div><div><br /></div><div>But since when was living life the last objective?</div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>In Defense of Productivity</b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>This doesn't mean we should cease being efficient or doing things that better ourselves and others. People may take this as the hippy mantra. But that is suicidal and leads to people abdicating their duties, and loosing sight of their responsibilities. </div><div><br /></div><div>By living life, I simply mean dedicating time to enjoying it, after the time has been dedicated to work/education.</div><div><br /></div><div>So often in the modern years people forget that we live in one of the greatest times in mankind's history. Our forefathers have struggled and sacrificed to get us to this point, and yet we have yet to appreciate the great sights around us. We don't appreciated the train systems built on the backs of thousands of laborers. Trains which help transport a myriad of items to our stores.</div><div><br /></div><div>When is the time to enjoy that and whom do we enjoy it with?</div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Consequences of unending work and the lack of love</b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Happiness is a function of love and support. One can be sick and happy, handicapped and happy, and in pain while happy. (not extreme pain of course) </div><div><br /></div><div>Why don't we ask ourselves where the source of this love is? What do we love that can love and support us back?</div><div><br /></div><div><ul><li>Our work, even if we do love it, doesn't provide much love back. Yet we invest so much time in seeking it out and focusing on it. As if money is the panacea of all our problems.</li></ul><ul><li>Family on the other hand can be a very supportive construct, yet do we spend nearly as much time investing our effort in it?</li></ul></div><div><ul><li>The benefits of spirituality and religion or good works in general are also well known and documented, and yet a lot of people are sacrificing this part of their lives as well. They seem to throw away their responsibilities to their fellow man.</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div>The attitude has changed, from helping others as a form of helping ourselves, to now helping others as a waste of our own time. </div><div><br /></div><div>Fewer and fewer of us are investing time in finding or maintaining a significant other and divorces have been climbing; let's hope they don't get exponentially greater. Why is this part of life being disregarded?</div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>What's your Point?</b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Simply put, the point of this post is to ask where the love of the last 100 years has gone. Has it filled our wallets? </div><div><br /></div><div>Where is our health and youth?</div><div><br /></div><div>What have we done with all our support network?</div><div><br /></div><div>Where is that village to raise that child?</div><div><br /></div><div>Why do we fight for this unending competition of resources. We are finite beings and only require a finite amount of resources. Yet we struggle as if it's an unending infinite walk uphill. Finally at the top of the hill stands life.</div><div><br /></div><div>Life stands in front of you now. Grasp it, find your support networks, get the love you truly deserve, invest time in the proper ways, and get only what you need of the shiny toys that are sold in stores. (If you need any ---- I'm looking at you ipad..... :D)</div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-23741439202502810922011-04-16T02:50:00.000-07:002011-04-16T03:18:42.004-07:00Guidance -- A midnights thoughtsHow can the leaf sustain itself when everything else keeps it above the ground, flying in the air?<div><br /></div><div>When the strong wind blows, whom can the leaf count on to hold firmly to the ground?</div><div><br /></div><div>When the futures of uncertainty cloud the minds of the leaf, can it ever feel tranquility again?</div><div><br /></div><div>When the magnanimous sun shines it's grace upon it, should the leaf despair in ever seeing it again?</div><div><br /></div><div>When the majestic clouds form as shapes and towering figures and rain their sacks down to nourish the earth, should the leaf fear for life or look forward to a stronger future after the pouring struggles and strife?</div><div><br /></div><div>When is the leaf independent of all around it?</div><div><br /></div><div>How can the leaf thank it's branch for holding it firm, when the act of thanking leaves it in even more debt to it's sustainer?</div><div><br /></div><div>From where can the leaf find the strength to help it's nourisher, when it's nourisher is self sufficient?</div><div><br /></div><div>When the leaf is on it's knees, in tears from the generosity of it's masters and providers, how can it ever lift it's head after being given all these gifts?</div><div><br /></div><div>When the struggles hit it, and nature itself seems poised to destroy it, after witnessing it's power, when does the leaf get the strength back to keep going and start fresh?</div><div><br /></div><div>When the leaves around it pressure the first leaf to disregard it's mercies and gifts, through their own selfishness, pride, and ignorance, through what channel can the leaf complain and shine the truth?</div><div><br /></div><div>O One who provides for us all, we hear you.</div><div><br /></div><div>O unparalleled greatness that has no equal, heed this speck of a creation's words.</div><div><br /></div><div>O grace of all that is good and that sheds it's light on all moments of sorrow and despair. </div><div><br /></div><div>Heed this speck of a creations words.</div><div><br /></div><div>Your ongoing mercy has flooded my heart with countless thoughts of the inequity I have treated you with. </div><div><br /></div><div>Surely with each gift I turn more ungrateful and Surely with each hardship you show me ease.</div><div><br /></div><div>With each patience of yours I grow more weary and impatient. With each magnanimous gesture of yours, I grow more severe and cold hearted.</div><div><br /></div><div>As you hide my faults, I ignore your obvious gifts and take advantage of your limitless mercy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh one deserving of all praise, forgive me of my lapses and transgressions. </div><div><br /></div><div>From each moment I have forgotten you, you still turn towards me. With each breath I take, you sustain the life deep inside me.</div><div><br /></div><div>When that life seems unbearable, you still bring about ease at the most miraculous of moments.</div><div><br /></div><div>So oh Creator of all things, remember my words on the great day when all will be judged based on their deeds. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh sustainer, forgiver, nourisher, and Most Great, remember my words, even when I forget yours. Forgive my lapses, even when I deserve no such courtesy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Spread good of me, even when I may be lazy in extending the same courtesy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh Lord, cherisher, and most just. </div><div><br /></div><div>Let me forgive others, as you constantly forgive me, so that one day, I may be worthy of your grace and praise. </div><div><br /></div><div>Let me support others as you support me.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let me not loose sight of my transient life.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let me always remember you, from this day on, til when my lungs breathe their last breath.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh lord, If I should ever dare to think I am worthy or deserving of your countless blessings, then me I be awoken of my fantasy, face down, on the dirt, in complete submission to you.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thank you, the countless thanks, that only pile up as I send them. For each thank you, oweing another, an overflowing debt that could never be dreamed to be payed back.</div><div><br /></div><div>To the one that knows me best, takes care of me best, and treats me best. Thank you oh one worthy of all praise. Thank you Lord. Thank you oh sustainer and oh cherisher.</div><div><br /></div><div>May my voice never stop praising you and your rightly guided leaders which you sent on earth to guide us aright.</div><div><br /></div><div>I await the day of judgment; let me spend each day in praise and in constant forgiveness til then. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh one that never forgets and is still forgotten by the ungrateful. </div><div><br /></div><div>Let me not be one of them and let me always follow the right path of your light and grace. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh one that inspires me, that is the true greatness which I claim to be, having stolen that right from the nourisher which is truly deserving of it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thank you and always keep me remembering your countless blessings.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh most Merciful and most worthy of Praise.</div><div><br /></div><div>Forgive me and thank you. Should I be punished from now til the end of times, still you were not unjust with me for even a moment.</div><div><br /></div><div>I deserve nothing and ask nothing, but simply that you accept my thanks and see me as your lowly servant, in constant need, and that you forgive me for my obvious weakness.</div><div><br /></div><div>To the one that deserves all, may I one day deserve to call myself your true servant and true follower. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh Grace, oh Light, and Oh inspirer of all the hearts. Oh one filling our souls with blessings innumerable to count.</div><div><br /></div><div>May my words never cease speaking of your greatness and obvious beauty. You are indeed worthy of all praise and all things you truly do control with a divine power.</div><div><br /></div><div>My lord which has no equal, nothing brings you weariness, so please stay patient with me, of even that I am not worthy, yet you are infinitely able to give. </div><div><br /></div><div>So give to me out of your infinite wealth, out of your mercy, magnanimity, and grace.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thank you oh source of light, which guides all to the right path, regardless of how far we may have strayed.</div><div><br /></div><div>Treat me with your Mercy oh greatness, for surely I would be most unfortunate to have to face your true Justice, of which no blessing of yours would I have ever been worthy of.</div><div><br /></div><div>Keep me on your path, oh one true Lord, Creator, and God of all Things. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-66023786756616061752011-04-08T02:07:00.001-07:002011-04-08T02:42:00.523-07:00What makes a Writer<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKz6zU8TvvDQ1r7aHHs07fhCz7aR4DGJojJTEkSxuxYx57niMlsaIUmMZ1g0UVjMC9ig4TrKKZnmObrFEyT6oPGTzms7-bIRcn__tbjmihf8Q0DUGXfYG01mfEc4M3uzgVo--9kc02tHKu/s1600/writing+post.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKz6zU8TvvDQ1r7aHHs07fhCz7aR4DGJojJTEkSxuxYx57niMlsaIUmMZ1g0UVjMC9ig4TrKKZnmObrFEyT6oPGTzms7-bIRcn__tbjmihf8Q0DUGXfYG01mfEc4M3uzgVo--9kc02tHKu/s400/writing+post.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5593145184367816018" border="0" /></a><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:85%;">(When the quill becomes a door to a new world and inspiration starts streaming out of you; a writer you have become.)</span></div><div><br />At first people are hesitant to call themselves writers. After simply looking at the previous greats and standing in awe and wonder at their works, how can anyone dare call themselves a writer. The label and title seems a trophy unfit for most.<div><br /></div><div>But when writing becomes pure joy, when it becomes a way to really express your inner self, and when you'd rather write than record yourself speaking, you know you've become a writer.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Just take a second to imagine that. Sitting and typing, or writing by hand, helps you to explain your true intentions, much more than just speaking them... How is that even possible?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>It's why I'm writing this and it's why this isn't being recorded, even though doing so is immensely cheap and easy, and possibly quicker than writing this.</div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Benefits</b></div><div><br /></div><div>When you truly hold the pen steadily it rewards you in many ways. It's a gift from God, where you wield the power of creation, opening new worlds, exploring them, and finding new characters unimaginable in the real world.</div><div><br /></div><div>Words that you can't say fly from deep inside you onto the paper. It's a one way highway, a strong connection between your soul and your writing. It's calming, wonderful, entertaining, and exciting. </div><div><br /></div><div>It beckons to you, calling out to write more even when you least expect it. </div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Negatives</b></div><div><br /></div><div>To write for extended periods requires immense stamina and focus. You have to be true to your story. It can't just be the first thing you think of. Immediately after you think of something you ask yourself, "Is this true to the story, would this happen, could it happen"?</div><div><br /></div><div>Fictional writing is very hard because it needs to stay in the realm of possibility, even in the most fantastic of worlds. It's why non fiction can sometimes be harder to believe than fiction; it can't be denied since it happened but it's unimaginable. That's just not always the case with Fiction, as you do have borders, and you don't want to take too far a leap of logic.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, some stories just need time to sit in your head for a while. Inspiration may wane, and forcing words to paper will only give you a lackluster result. </div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Dedication</b></div><div><br /></div><div>If anything it seems writing requires dedication. You have to remind yourself to re-tap your creative self, and try writing again after you've been away from it for a while.</div><div><br /></div><div>This inability to delve back in, to lose your dedication, kills precious years off the writer. I'm very young and in my early 20's as I sit, but I feel I've lost many precious years simply not sitting down to write when I could have.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm thinking a schedule might remedy this. Force yourself to sit down for 30 minutes and let what happens, happen. If it doesn't work out, wait a week. If inspiration hits you, write; a no pressure dedication oriented schedule.</div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Final Thoughts</b></div><div><br /></div><div>There is no perfect talent or perfect gift. With the good comes the bad, and even though writing can allow you to put light in the shadows of your deepest and most confusing thoughts, it also has it's own requirements and needs that need to be met.</div><div><br /></div><div>The power of creation may rest in your hands but it's tip needs to stay sharpened. Eventually, even the lazy writers are called upon at odd hours of the night, simply to sit down and pour their deepest thoughts to the paper. (My particular case in writing this post)</div><div><br /></div><div>It's never really the words, environment, or the characters that seem to make the story. It always seems to be the overarching vision, theme, and emotion that the story emits.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even the oddest of characters become cherished friends when put in the right circumstances, with the right goals, and with the greatest adventures. </div><div><br /></div><div>Write with me this night, and let our pens write themselves to their drying ends. Watch on as fluttering papers filled with words fly all around us, all small pieces of inspiration forcing their way out.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-13744476908354528942011-03-04T00:05:00.001-08:002011-03-13T15:37:14.606-07:001) Marry a better wife than you? / 2) Why he isn't proposing to you<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUy20Kpt1gGLNkICWONw6y1gTyNo-h0ILDwTo7dBojfcSrLfV15H-FauFCB9eHCjIvpIJVe0c2RuGte7GUKS5Qli_hn_jgR53rYlU_CTj4MlXEdIBn9CEakpYdtkBN7aUYs5sjl5daPyK-/s1600/marriage+post.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 266px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUy20Kpt1gGLNkICWONw6y1gTyNo-h0ILDwTo7dBojfcSrLfV15H-FauFCB9eHCjIvpIJVe0c2RuGte7GUKS5Qli_hn_jgR53rYlU_CTj4MlXEdIBn9CEakpYdtkBN7aUYs5sjl5daPyK-/s400/marriage+post.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5580142159927065602" border="0" /></a><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:85%;">(Who to choose to fly with. Your companion lifting you higher and higher through life's journey.)</span><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>Theres a sort of wall everyone gets to when they seriously think about getting married. When we're younger we always characterize a good wife as one that's better than ourselves. But then when you actually get into the details and you're on the brink of choosing, philosophy throws a curveball at you.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lets take it slowly and just start out concretely. You have two potential spouses you can look into for getting married. One you assume from what you've learned, is better than you, and the other is assumed worse.</div><div><br /></div><div>Which do you marry? Which do you propose to?</div><div><br /></div><div>I found personally, that you'd always love to have the one assumed to be better, but there lies one problem, that may only apply to me, but that you may feel guilt.</div><div><br /></div><div>Why guilt? Guilt at the feeling of giving her something worse than herself, that you feel bad ruining her chances at finding someone better, even if she does accept you.</div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Knowing for Certain</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Lets go a step further and make it easier. Assume that you know for a fact that one is better and one is worse, which one do you go after?</div><div><br /></div><div>If you choose the one that's better, the guilt issue remains. What about the one that you know magically know for a fact, is worse than you as a person?</div><div><br /></div><div>If you marry them, you may mistreat them, constantly having this feeling of condescension inside you, because they were a trade off versus someone better.</div><div><br /></div><div>Is that fair to them? Won't you inevitably bump heads over that? Won't they be disappointed knowing you felt that way?</div><div><br /></div><div>What do you do?</div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div><b>The dilemma</b></div><div><br /></div><div>On one hand you have the guilt of ruining someones chances of finding a better husband, by picking the better wife, knowing she deserves better than you, and on the other hand you have the mistreatment of someone you deem inferior, in whatever standards you assume to be better or worse.</div><div><br /></div><div>What do you do?</div><div><br /></div><div>If I find an answer, I'll probably share with you my insights, but for this late March night, I do nothing more then wonder, ponder, contemplate, worry, and think on what the right choice is.</div><div><br /></div><div>This becomes even more of an issue, as you become someone with less and less pride. The less pride inside you the more you deem others greater than yourself. Then how would you rid yourself of the guilt?</div><div><br /></div><div>The thing is, we all should aim to be less proud, with more humility, knowing God is our only source of life, mercy, and generosity; that all good things originate and are caused by him.</div><div><br /></div><div>So is the humble man doomed to the guilt of marrying a seemingly better wife? </div><div><br /></div><div>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span">Problem 2</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Modest women, since these would be the only people faced with this problem, have their own sort of dilemma. </div><div><br /></div><div>Since these women are not at clubs, are not constantly flirting with guys, and are not flirting and making guy friends, they most likely get married through proposals and one and one encounters.</div><div><br /></div><div>A person will come to them with the intent to marry, they'll get to know one another, and see if it works out. If it does, they marry, and if not, they move on to the next person.</div><div><br /></div><div>But some societies and some cultures look down on women that don't get proposals. <b>Does it automatically mean you're a bad person if this is the case, or ugly, or rude?</b> <b>The answer is no, and speaking from a male perspective, it's easier to understand why:</b></div><div><br /></div><div><ul><li>1) <b>Better than him:</b> If you are a really good person, and really desirable, you'd think people would come to you first. The issue is, since you are better, guys may feel they have no chance, or may feel the guilt to ask you. After enough guys feel this way, you end up getting little to no proposals. This isn't because anything is wrong with you, but the opposite, that you're very desirable and people feel discouraged about asking you thinking their chances are too low.</li></ul></div><div><ul><li>2) <b>Nervous:</b> This applies to all men in general asking any woman for a proposal. Being nervous is a response that gets strengthened if they're in a new society and there is no framework for how people get married in the first place. This phenomenon gets even worse when there is no system for finding spouses and then once a proper spouse is found, it's difficult to know how to approach.</li></ul></div><div><ul><li>3) <b>Accidentally offend:</b> People will frequently not ask for proposals because they don't want to offend the parents of that daughter or the daughter themselves. They don't want to feel as if the only reason they liked that person or family is for selfish marriage reasons.</li></ul></div><div><ul><li>4) <b>Awkwardness / Denial :</b> Some guys also have issues with denial and worry about feeling awkward if their proposal is turned down. This feeling may be strengthened if you have close family or friendship ties with the proposee. Your fear could ricochet into fear of hurting your friends and feeling awkward at bothering their family over the marriage.</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The point is simple, if you're not being proposed to, it doesn't automatically mean something is wrong with you. Actually, more likely, it means someone may be right and others are intimidated by you, and fear rejection.</div><div><br /></div><div>I finish off with this often shared paragraph, which should remind all women of their value:</div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0); font-weight: bold;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:medium;" >Girls are like</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:medium;" ><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);">apples on trees. The best</span></div><span class="leaves" style="color:green;"><div style="text-align: center;">ones are at the top of the tree.</div><div style="text-align: center;">The boys don't want to reach for</div><div style="text-align: center;">the good ones because they are afraid</div><div style="text-align: center;">of falling and getting hurt. Instead, they</div><div style="text-align: center;">just get the rotten apples from the ground</div><div style="text-align: center;">that aren't as good, but easy. So the apples</div><div style="text-align: center;">at the top think something is wrong with</div><div style="text-align: center;">them, when in reality, they're amazing.</div><div style="text-align: center;">They just have to wait for the right</div><div style="text-align: center;">boy to come along, the one</div><div style="text-align: center;">who's brave enough</div></span><span class="trunk" style="color: rgb(210, 105, 30);"><div style="text-align: center;">to climb</div><div style="text-align: center;">all the way</div><div style="text-align: center;">to the top</div><div style="text-align: center;">of the tree.</div></span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://phocks.org/stumble/girlsarelike.php">Source</a></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-13068460754157839912011-02-11T22:24:00.000-08:002011-02-12T00:22:55.882-08:00Tunisia, Egypt, and The Muslim World<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3349/ip3och110114124.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 521px; height: 344px;" src="http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3349/ip3och110114124.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(<a href="http://ochlik.photoshelter.com/image?_bqG=64&_bqH=eJzLLwqN9Agv8vU1Nwg2d3UzCNf1LcnwNQ2vDCq2MjQ0sjI1sDI0AAIrz3iXYGdbN093j5BgNTAn3tHPxbYEyA4Ndg2K93SxDQUpjPdzcXbJCkxPdnNUi3d0DrEtTk0sSs4AACbsHms-I_IDI00006JhyrYjOIG8">Remi Ochlik</a> in a single photo is able to capture the frustration, sadness, and anger of the whole Muslim world.)</span><br /></div><br /></div>There has been a political shift in the paradigm of the whole world and to not write about it would be tantamount to insanity for any philosopher.<br /><br />A 30 year dictator has stepped down after 3 weeks of political wrangling. In one month two such dictators fell, both near to each other and both near to the heart of the Muslim world.<br /><br />What were their demands, what sparked this, and why was it so surprising?<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Past</span><br /><br />Previously governments, especially the U.S and the U.K, endorsed security before democracy. Yet how can a society be secure when it's freedoms are so stripped and laid bare? How can you call a society secure when it's people revel in the idea of freedom? Where is the security in a so called President that pockets billions of dollars of money that does not rightfully belong to him?<br /><br />Any sane and just man knows that this is an INSECURE society. As for our political lay folk, they seemed too busy "establishing" security in the Muslim world, rather than understanding the insecurity they were seeding and the dissatisfaction they were feeding.<br /><br />At the end of the day, they got neither security nor democracy nor peace, as former U.S Secretary of State Condelleza Rice pointed out.<br /><br />The cause of this revolution was simple, injustice.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Suprise</span><br /><br />So why was this so surprising to the common lay political folk in Washington? Why was their instability machine not the answer they had hoped for.<br /><br />Simply, they underestimated the power of <span style="font-weight: bold;">regular people</span>. Although a government may crush a person or try to ruin their credibility(Torture and Rendition), and although a government may ban a opposing political organization (Muslim Brotherhood), it can't change it's people or kill them all.<br /><br />The old political folk assumed they could suppress their people and time and time again history teaches us the same lesson, always to the same people unwilling to learn it. Simply, you cannot truly control the lives of millions of people and bend them to your will. Eventually you will break and the bend of Justice will catch up with you, even if it takes 30 years, as in Egypt's case.<br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The People</span><br /><br />Part of the reason this happened now was the people themselves. According to a Qatar University graduate that went on Al-Jazeera, he mentioned that the people are now Educated, Wealthy, and unwilling to accept less than they deserve.<br /><br />He continued saying, they did not want a government to serve but instead they wanted the government to serve them and nothing less than that would be acceptable.<br /><br />There was no leader, but each individual working for the whole, and there was no whole, except each individual working for the betterment of the other.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Not So Bloody Revolution</span><br /><br />Although sadly around 300 people have died, considering what occurred during other revolutions, this wasn't as bad.<br /><br />One of the main reasons was for the Just actions of the Egyptian Military. They deserve no less than praise for their restraint. They were the true stalwarts of peace and their actions saved countless thousands and possible millions of lives.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Spark</span><br /><br />The powder was already set, it just needed the proper spark. Or another way to think about it is that the glass was full of injustice and this was the last drop that made it overflow. Finally it can be though of as that old idiom of the straw that broke the camels back.<br /><br />What was that spark? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mohamed_Bouazizi">Mohamed Bouazizi</a>. His story can be read <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2043331-3,00.html">here</a>. It's a great article written by one of my favorite magazines, Time.<br /><br />How can humans allow such corrupt governments to perpetrate such actions? The answer was that they wouldn't and the people rose up.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Final Thoughts</span><br /><br />Unjust governments cannot be propped up. There is no security unless the people are treated properly and are given their rights.<br /><br />Bribery, extortion, torture, political wrangling, and oppression will be overcome.<br /><br />Justice will prevail as history has a long arch that always bends towards it.<br /><br />May all people, all over the world, live in security, with dignity, with proper human rights and with true economic Justice, under our one merciful and compassionate God that we all believe in and turn towards.<br /><br />May all the oppressors remember this day, as it has been repeated in history countless times; that they will perish, their wealth will crumble, and their heads will eventually bow in shame.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-89018962748577124072011-02-09T23:59:00.000-08:002011-02-14T18:19:58.053-08:00Philosophy of Friendship<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3657/20443379540e59b3d184.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 423px; height: 500px;" src="http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3657/20443379540e59b3d184.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(Facebook Friends <span style="font-style: italic;">v.s</span> a Friend. Have we diluted our meaningful relationships to a jumble of weak electronically connected links?)</span></div><br />I thought it was time to discuss and contemplate on what exactly makes someone your friend and how we distinguish a friend from any other normal person.<br /><br />One of the main reasons and inspirations for this discussion was simply because I thought people were using the term friend too loosely.<br /><br />I'm sure there are a number of people you think of as your friend now and to try and get you to reassess your definition I'm going to ask one simple question.<br /><br />Simply:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">"Do we have any responsibilities to our friends, any tasks which we should complete because of them, or any standards with which we have to meet for them?"</span><br /><br />For instance:<br /><br /><ul><li>1) If a person is your friend do you have a responsibility to keep in touch with them, at least speaking for once a year, or is it o.k to still be friends after not haven spoken for more than a year? <span style="font-weight: bold;">Would not speaking to them after so long affect your friendship?</span></li></ul><ul><li>2) To what extent should we worry and be involved in our friends lives in order to help them? <span style="font-weight: bold;">Is it acceptable to never want to do so and still be considered a friend?</span></li></ul><ul><li>3) Would a friend ever miss another friends birthday party/event? <span style="font-weight: bold;">Are you still friends if you don't, at the very least, come to their birthday party?</span></li></ul><ul><li>4) Do you trust your friend more than the average person? <span style="font-weight: bold;">Would betraying a friends trust affect their friendship with you?</span></li></ul>~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Responsibilities</span><br /><br />So as you can see from the above questions, if any of those apply to you, you would agree that with friendship comes a certain level of responsibility.<br /><br />So why mention this, why waste your time thinking about the subject?<br /><br />Simply put, we consider people friends that really are acquaintances; a word I feel should be used more. <span style="font-weight: bold;">These are people you may see very rarely at specific events and/or whom your only contact might consist of facebook or myspace. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">These friends, are the worrisome ones I fear about, as you seem to have no sense of responsibility towards them. You hardly keep in touch, don't celebrate birthdays together, and rarely spend a passing thought worrying about their well-being. </span><br /><br />Such responsibilities seem to be the backbone of friendships and our society has stripped the backbone in order to make friend <span style="font-weight: bold;">an easier term to apply to more people.</span><br /><br />That simply dilutes our experience with our friends, and dilutes our efforts into actually making meaningful relationships. Then we have an excuse to not treat our true friends properly. If 90% of your "friends" are treated a certain way then those actions will affect your true friends whom will get less calls from you and connections simply because <span style="font-weight: bold;">that's the "norm" with friends</span>.<br /><br />Yet when you strip away the caring that exists between friends, the one molded by your help, worries, and effort, you find that you've lost meaningful relationships and replaced them with hollow ones.<br /><br />Without such meaningful relationships, as a consequence, life looses a lot of it's glory, happiness, and luster.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why we jump to use the word "friend" instead of "acquaintance</span>"<br /><br />So we can agree on what is happening but we should now focus on why it's happening.<br /><br />Why are we diluting and weakening the term that is "friend"?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">It may be because we don't want to offend people. </span>Telling a person whom likes you that they are not your friend is seen as a slap in the face. Even if you don't mean it that way and even if it's true. If someone likes you and has been nice to you, in order to keep from upsetting them, the social norm has become that we should say they are our friends; not strangers.<br /><br />People forget that another category already exists for these people that are not our friends. These people are known as acquaintances.<br />That word implies that we know them and there is some small bond in place, but possibly because it has a negative connotation, we try not to use it.<br /><br />What we forget is, the moment we label someone a friend, a number of responsibilities attach themselves to that person and to us. <span style="font-weight: bold;">That being the case, how can we then go attaching it to everyone, especially if we don't undertake the tasks needed to become and remain good friends?</span><br /><br />The only answer to the problem is to use the word acquaintance more and have a healthy conversation as to why you used that word instead of friend, so as to not offend the other party.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Exceptional Friends - The Exception</span><br /><br />These examples and discussions should beware of a certain area that I believe is an exception to the rule.<br /><br />For friends that have spent and created strong bonds, even time apart would not destroy their strong friendship. Maybe because of forced relocation or for financial reasons they had to leave but if a strong connection was made, with years of effort forged into it, it is very possible for that friendship to stay active even with all the barriers.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">These people should not be included in any of the above, as most of the people we're speaking about are people<span style="font-style: italic;"> you just met or barely know</span>.</span><br /><br />If you know them deeply, and have a similar connection, your friendship is a different topic for a different time. You may never see them again and remember the bonds of friendship you built, reminiscing on the past as your friend is thousands of miles away.<br /><br />They, as your once true friend, can and may certainly continue to stay your true friend.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Final piece of advice</span><br /><br />The key here seems to be that we need to take care of our friends. We need to greatly increase that definition and use that term with the strength it deserves.<br /><br />Lessen your pool of "friends" and then on those that remain, focus your attention. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Keep up to date with them, call them regularly, worry about them, help them, and try to cover their faults as they cover yours. </span><br /><br />Even if it may be only 1, 2, or 3 people, a true friendship based on responsibility, caring, an input of effort, and compassion, is much better than a dilute group of numerous people that you rarely see, rarely speak to, and truly do not care deeply about.<br /><br />Apply the proper definition of friend to your life and in turn reap the benefits of life itself; more happiness, more satisfaction, and more joy in general.<br /><br />Who knew a simple definition of a simple word could cause such mayhem if understood and applied incorrectly?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-11165829994807822072010-12-24T03:03:00.000-08:002010-12-24T03:04:09.594-08:00Human derived Moral codes are inherently Evil -- Ethics<div style="text-align: center;font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:130%;">This is a copy of my 10 page argument paper where I try to persuade the reader into one simple fact, that any code of morality derived by humans is inherently evil in some sense, and as such, unfit to be followed. The best Ethical system is an unchanging, static, objective one, where good and evil remain the same from one century to the next and villains do not over time become heroes.<br /></span></div><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">Claim: </b>Any Human derived moral system will inherently have some parts of its moral code be morally wrong, even if a large percentage of it is acceptable.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">Explanation of claim: </b>There are special reasons inherent to every human derived ethical code, that in turn leave room for evil and chaos to emerge. Even if by chance you get all people to agree on a majority of rules, something which is a great feat in itself, you will still have the grey areas near the boundaries and those areas will leave room for murder, death, and destruction. In this paper I will work to show you exactly what ideas each human derived moral code has to contend with, that in turn leaves room for error and evil.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">Reasons in Support of the Claim:</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">1. Objective Morality: </b>I do not believe in moral relativism and the argument of morality itself falls flat when you say that what’s good and what’s evil is simply relative and not grounded in reality. If such a world exists where good and evil sways in the wind, then a morale code to control it becomes impossible. <u>What was once good may become evil and what was once evil may become good</u>. I think all philosophers of great caliber will contend that Morality MUST be objective and that a good action, properly defined, must always remain such in the exact same circumstances defined. If it changed later in the future, with the exact same circumstances, than morality doesn’t matter and good and evil are simply a roll of the dice depending on when you live in the world and what country you were born in. My reasons following this one will come to show that a human ethical code is always subjective, and thus it violates this idea and leads the human morale code to fail as a system to live by. It is noteworthy to mention that Thomas Nagel in his book “The View from Nowhere” believes that an objective world or perspective in everything is not possible; and may not be possible in anything. On that merit alone Human derived moral codes would all be subjective, and they would all violate this first principle of mine which would lead them all to be evil in one way or another, as they would inevitably violate one or more objective morale laws, if they were subjective, as Nagel suggests.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">2.</b> <b style="">Human Bias and Defining Human Rights</b>: Since the laws that we’re creating in our moral systems eventually will lead to laws to live by and courts to enforce them, we as people will inevitably inject our own bias into them in different ways, to give ourselves an advantage. Where does the first point of injection occur? It occurs when defining Human Rights. When the issue of abortion comes up, who has the right to abort the baby and what if the other parent disagrees? Let’s assume the fetus is 4 months old, three situations come up:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">1) The father wants an abortion but the mother disagrees.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">2) The mother wants an abortion but the father disagrees.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">3) The fetus cannot be aborted on either issue because both parents are intruding on it’s right to live. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">So what would utilitarianism do to define their rights? How would Kant define their rights? Is it Just to define people’s rights and actions based on the system of what creates the most overall happiness? How does that even solve the issue of rights? Does the person whom has the most good will, control the issue of who has the most rights? Ethics cannot define people’s rights fairly, that is the crux of this argument. Bias shrouds this issue in every direction. Some believe the fetus’ right to live supersedes both parent’s rights. Others say the mother gets more rights in having a child then the father. Who derives these conclusions and how do we derive them fairly? I argue that Utilitarianism and Kant’s Good will cannot give us conclusive answers on these issues and thus they lead to holes in our moral code which leave room for evil.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">3. Limited Reasoning Capacity</b>: <span style=""> </span>If we take Utilitarianism and we take Kant’ s good will and we apply their rules with a limited reasoning capacity, then we will always do some amount of evil acts; this is inevitable. Why is this so? Consider that all it takes for a decision to be good in Utilitarianism is to believe in an overall increase in the amount of happiness and thus if you believe your particular decision creates the most happiness but you reason incorrectly, you have just made a mistake and done an evil action. The same goes with Kant and his Good will. If I reason incorrectly that my intention is good but after further examination I find out it was wrong and my intention was evil because I reasoned incorrectly, I again have done an evil action. <u>This is what we call Human Error, it is impossible to remove, and it only attests to our fallibility</u>. We are not perfect creatures and we are bound, inevitably, to reason incorrectly because of our limited knowledge and as a result we are bound to make mistakes. These mistakes not only occur in the application of moral laws but also in the <u>creation of them</u>. If Kant were given one million years of life, I’m sure he would find some flaw somewhere in his reasoning that was left as a remnant in his first philosophical dialogue with the world. That small mistake will cascade into many evil decisions and Kant cannot be blamed for making it because he is as fallible as every other human in the world. Again, to summarize this argument, our reasoning capacity affects how we apply the moral codes we learned, and without perfect reasoning we will inevitably make a mistake somewhere down the line and commit an evil action. Even in the creation of the morale code itself we are sure to make errors that we’d realize existed after one million years of contemplation, thought, and reasoning. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">4. Concept of Justice is Lost through Scholarly Ideologue battles</b>: Kant rightly ridicules utilitarianism for relying too much on consequentiality. If a person does a good action with an evil deed, then why should he be rewarded for it? If, for the sake of the king’s money, you help out his son, why should your acts be given any true moral value? Would you like your best friend if you found out he only spoke to you to or liked you because of your wealth? Intention matters but what Kant forgets is that your action matters as well. If actions did not matter then Hitler must be seen as a good person. Hitler acknowledged that his race was under attack and that he needed to protect his people and his race from destruction. He was fighting for survival in his mind and being attacked on all sides so whatever he did was in defense and justified by the aggression of everyone else. He believed his Aryan race was the most superior and gave the most to society and to have it destroyed would be a travesty for all people. As he said in Mein Kampf: “<i style="">All the human culture, all the results of art, science and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan. This very fact admits of the not unfounded inference that he alone was the founder of all higher humanity, therefore representing the prototype of all that we understand by the word "man." He is the Prometheus of mankind from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has sprung at all times, forever kindling anew that fire of knowledge which illuminated the night of silent mysteries and thus caused man to climb the path to mastery over the other beings of the earth . . . It was he who laid the foundations and erected the walls of every great structure in human culture.”</i> The vast majority of people agree that waging a war on humanity and being the cause of millions of deaths, along with the systematic genocide of six million Jews, was appalling, unjust, and completely unacceptable. But if we judge him by Kant’s Good will, he comes out clean. Where is the justice in Human Morale systems and why is it so elusive? Hitler is just one case where Kant’s morale system fails and it attests to the quote, “The road to hell is paved by good intentions”. Actions are important, because what are we at the end of the day, if not the very definition of our actions, be they good or bad? Human morale systems lose this basic concept for Justice when they enter the realms of ideology and in the end, basic human justice for life, liberty, and happiness is lost, at least in certain circumstances, as has been documented time and time again in history. Kant’s view is extreme and unjust because he fails to realize that consequences and actions matter. Murdering someone, with good intentions, is still Murder, especially if that person he is about to kill is an innocent by standard of good intentions himself. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">Reasons Against the Claim:</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">I. No other options exist: </b>The argument may be posed that there are no alternative sources for ethics and a standard is being created for it that is unacceptably high. Just as in any venture in the real world, we cannot create buildings that are unshakeable or drugs which make us live forever, so why should ethics be any different? Why is there no room for a small amount of evil here and there; which will add to the debate? If we cannot get a static unchanging objective Morality, but we can get very very close to it, than why can’t that be enough? This is a fair argument because sometimes asking for more than is possible is unfair. I can’t ask my doctor to make me 20 years healthier or younger, so why should I ask my philosopher to perform acts of miracles too? Imagine for a second a moral code that takes care of 90% of my moral choices, in a Just way, and still I must complain for more? Perfection should not be the standard for morality, as may argue my competitors. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">II. Human Rights can be defined but not agreed upon: </b>My academic rival may also argue that he may be able to create a set moral code of human rights, based on his fundamental ideas of Morality, but that the trouble that would occur is people would not agree with him. That in order to preserve the most good in the world, a man may be limited to certain rights and a woman may be limited to others. That in order for there to be good will, and respect for the Law, Kant can define our Human rights in a way that allows us to act as proper reasoning creatures, not under the power of a Monarch and under courts of law that respect intention and the difference between manslaughter and murder. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">III. Limited Reasoning Capacity</b>: Just because Humans have a limited reasoning capacity does not mean that people will not eventually come to the realizations of a Human Moral system and agree with it. Just because Kant was a human, doesn’t mean he made any mistakes in his reasoning when he created his moral code. After a million years, he still may not change a word in any of his dissertations or works. It also may be unfair to hold a philosopher at fault for the incorrect reasoning of his adherents. If a certain number of people did not take the time to properly apply his Philosophical moral code to their lives, that is their own fault and as a result of their own ignorance. Such people should not tarnish the name and aim of a Human based moral system which expects it’s adherents to be able to reason properly in relation to its construct. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">IV Justice is too malleable a word</b>: One man’s justice is another man’s evil. The word Justice, even if it applies as a true idea and a true standard, varies too much to compare to ideological principles which are hard in fast in their definitions. Even if something may seem unjust, it may be possible to, after a period of contemplation, understand the justice in it. So it is unfair to say that some principle of Utilitarianism is wrong simply because it seems unjust. The standard of justice is too freely flown to be allowable as a true defense against the precepts of a human moral code. What may appear unjust may in essence be the very nature of justice itself; but our ignorance may be eluding us from it. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">Decision:</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>At the end of the day, I want a proper, universal, objective moral code. I want the precepts of good and evil to remain so if I practice them in 1,000 years. I do not want a relative world in which I struggle to decide in what is good and what is evil. I do not want to be <u>punished</u> for doing something that innately seemed correct to me and something which many philosophers would praise me for. I want human rights to be based on fundamental principles not founded in self interest and bias. I want my rights to be as fair as anyone else’s so that I do not gain an unfair advantage on them. I don’t want my limited reasoning capacity to affect my choices in life, and to affect what is good and what is evil. I believe in the standard of Justice and I uphold it as a standard to strike down any ideologues that refuse to see the consequences of their theories and their simple written work. If a moral code as this, which is static and unchanging, and upholds the test of time, cannot be fabricated, than no moral code is sufficient to satisfy the many cravings of justice, equitability, and respect that lay within my inner conscience.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">Rebuttal: </b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">1. No Other Options exist- Yes they do</b>: If you are like Plato, Socrates, Newton, Einstein, or a number of other great thinkers in the world, than you believe in the existence of God. If you go a step further and then believe God sent down a moral code that is objective, that is untouched and therefore unbiased by us, then you lead to a point where you have found an impartial objective, perfect, moral code. That moral code, should have the answers to all decisions, with exceptions also placed, in certain situations where a rule may need to have limits placed on it’s over reaching power. Do you want to find an objective and perfectly sourced Morale code? If so there is no need to adhere to these human, biased, imperfect, codes of life. We need only look for God’s morale code, if you believe he sent it down, as billions of people through time have believed and adhered to. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">2.</b> <b style="">Human Rights can be defined but not agreed upon – That’s subjectivity: </b>To say that Human rights, as in the issue of abortion that came up earlier, can be defined properly but not agreed upon, is just like saying they are not objective and lead you to a realm of subjectivity. Even among philosophers, there are huge disagreements with issues of the State of Government and its relation and rights to the people. Why is it that there is so much strife and disagreement in the realms of Human rights? It’s because it’s simply too biased a subject for philosophers to face properly. This is a subject solely tainted with the hands of Mankind. No Human morale code ever devised can give me solid and clear answers that we can all agree on. No human morale code has ever come close and it’s why politics is such a heated discussion because it’s central to this issue of human rights. Do we have the right to regulate or take over banks or don’t we? Can they betray us, sell us bad loans, and come out clean, without any morale recompense for their immoral actions; or do they have that right to be greedy and are we to blame for our ignorance? Do celebrities have a right to privacy or don’t they? To what extent can we gossip on our fellow Human Beings? When is slander allowed? Is Free speech the overriding factor in all of the above, and does it take precedence in everything, including slander? Philosophers cannot decipher this code of Human rights and the very problems and arguments we have left unsolved today are proofs of this fact. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">3. Limited Reasoning Capacity—Constant evil quandary: </b>If you admit that humans are fallible and you admit that the sole purpose of a moral code is to provide an outlet for defining good and evil, then you must admit that any morale code devised by humans will be wrought with some mistakes. To disagree to this claim means to believe someone created a perfect moral code, and such a belief seems naïve. If even one hole or even one exception can be found in any morale code, then you have room for error and in turn evil. So our limited reasoning capacity again shows us that we cannot create nor adhere properly to a human morale code. This problem will not go away by simply wishing it away. We are not perfect beings and we make honest mistakes all the time. To expect perfection from such creatures is to deny the very nature of reality, death, and destruction that has occurred at our hands. Even if we could somehow move passed our bias, which is an argument in itself, there is no evidence to show that a human can create a perfect morale code that would be just in every situation a human may stumble upon. Without that level of quality, we make an inherently evil system that will make mistakes. Such a system should not be a standard for deriving good and evil, even if it be correct 90% of the time. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><b style="">4. Justice is too malleable a word – Kant Disagrees: </b>There is an innate conscience in all of us that Kant calls out to. It is an innate conscience that, as Kant seems to say, knows good from evil and decides the laws for ourselves, if we wanted others to follow suit in the same way. <u>It’s that golden rule that allows us to make good and evil in Kant’s OWN human based moral code</u>. So if that conscience finds a hole in a Human derived Morale code, and we are appalled at the level of injustice that ensues because of such a rule, than it’s perfectly fair to say such a rule is wrong. Justice can be a standard on which to compare the principles of any Human Morale system, and if such systems are leaking in certain areas of right and wrong, then they should be exposed by the standard of my conscience and in turn the essence of Justice. Kant would fight for this in a similar fashion because remember, if Kant is wrong, and we have no innate conscience of what good or evil is, then we can never decide rules for ourselves or others to follow, and Kant’s whole morale system fails. There is a standard of Justice, it can be applied, and many times, such as in the issue of Hitler, an Ideology and Ideologues in general can be lead astray because they lose sight of the innate justice in all of us. Hitler butchered millions of people, regardless of his good will. He is responsible for those deaths and should be known for all time as an evil person, even if a Kant adherent may disagree for ideological reasons. Justice always trumps Ideology, as Kant would agree to when he devised his morale code and said: “<i style="">Would I be content that my maxim (principle) should hold as a universal law for myself as well as for others</i>?” To answer is to know Justice.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-43350184904188658902010-12-21T03:14:00.001-08:002010-12-21T05:51:35.866-08:00Naturalistic Fallacy -- Anti Muslim Rhetoric<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;">During this article I'd like to touch upon a specific fallacy and also three specific video case studies of people either not being logical or making logical leaps that are improper or false.<br /><br />To decode them we will look at their foundations and analyze their assumptions, assuming they bothered to provide any evidence for their arguments in the first place.<br /></span></div><br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1)</span></span> An interesting video I stumbled across including a man named Mark Steyn:<br /><br /><a href="http://fora.tv/2010/04/26/Mark_Steyn_The_End_of_the_World_as_We_Know#Mark_Steyn_What_If_the_West_Turned_Muslim">http://fora.tv/2010/04/26/Mark_Steyn_The_End_of_the_World_as_We_Know#Mark_Steyn_What_If_the_West_Turned_Muslim</a><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mark Steyn: </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Would you want to raise a family in Cairo? Which currently Muslim city would you live in?"</span></blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Philosophical Summary/Breakdown:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">"This religion is bad(worrisome to the west) because no city in our natural world in the control of a Muslim is currently good. Therefore, because a large amount of Muslims are ruled by evil people, they themselves must have an evil religion which fosters evil leaders."</span>(It sounds absurd, I know, but that is what he is arguing.)<br /><br />~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Naturalistic Fallacy</span><br /><br />Just because nature or the world shows us something, does not necessarily mean that is a proper representation of it.<br /><br />An easier and nuanced approach would be to use the "is... Ought" method taught by Hume.<br /><br />Just because something<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem"> IS a certain way, doesn't mean that is how it OUGHT</a> to be.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">So it may be circumstances, outside the control of Muslims(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding">lurking variables</a>), have led to corrupt governments, and that those factors that created these kings have no bearing on the religion itself. </span><br /><br />That is why you can't say, this is how it is, and that is how it AUGHT to be, because it <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">might not have to be that way.</span> It might be <span style="font-weight: bold;">forced</span> that way by other variables outside your control.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Judging Religions or Principles by their Followers</span><br /><br />At the end of the day you can't judge a religion by a <span style="font-weight: bold;">country</span> or a <span style="font-weight: bold;">group of people. </span>The group of people may be in stark contrast to what the religion says. It's best to just be critical of the religion on it's own grounds and it's own tenants; that alone is sufficient.<br /><br />Also, any tendencies we may see in those people, should not lead us to say, "that is what this religion creates, and because it <span style="font-weight: bold;">is this way</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">that is how it ought to be</span>, and therefore I consider all of this wrong and evil."<br /><br />Those types of arguments are <span style="font-weight: bold;">nonsensical, illogical, and are littered with a bigoted and intolerant attitude.</span><br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2)</span></span> A similar intolerant and hate ridden speech was given by <a href="http://fora.tv/2010/07/29/Nomad_From_Islam_to_America_with_Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali_on_Converting_Muslims_to_Christianity">Ayaan Hirsi Ali</a>, promoting Christians to convert Muslims.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">She says:</span><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">"How can we get the 1.57 billion Muslims to believe in something other than what the radical Muslims are proselytizing because </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >they are winning the argument</span><span style="font-size:130%;">"</span></blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><br /><br />This alone is a baseless fact, and to even say 1% of Muslims are radical equates to:<br /><br />15.7 MILLION Radical Muslims, WAY above any FBI or CIA estimate. She is simply out of touch and shows no evidence to suggest that the radicals are winning the arguments, EXCEPT for her own word, which is baseless without evidence.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">She continues:</span><br /><blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span>"...and yes there are Christians who are radicals, there are Christians who are.... I wouldn't say... just... they're absolutely not as violent but intolerant and narrow, but that is not the Christianity that I have seen."</span></span></blockquote><br /><br />So what she's implying is that Christianity is better than Islam, and isn't as radical, because, that's not what she's<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"> "seen".</span><br /><br />Naturalistic error, once again.<br /><br /><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jCqHiceDhuk?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jCqHiceDhuk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></embed></object><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(Nice video trying to stem some of the fanatical hate speech and islamophobia)</span><br /><br /></div><br />She finishes her speech off with:<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">"The Catholic churches and the Protestant Churches, the moderate ones, are already established and know how to do that(convert people), they're just being intimidated either by the PC people <span style="font-weight: bold;">or people like you who think they're all radical.</span> I think that we should stop doing that. <span style="font-weight: bold;">I think that they should start competing"</span></span></blockquote><br /><br />She has made it clear what side she sits on. She wants a competition, and she prefers Christians to Muslims because of what she has "<span style="font-weight: bold;">seen</span>", again a naturalistic fallacy because she may not have seen many proper moderate Muslims.<br /><br />If you notice her speech is all, "My, I think, We should, that's how it is".<br /><br />She's manipulative, without actually accruing any facts besides saying "1.57". What actual fact based arguments is she making?<br /><br />This is all sensationalism. <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">It's an attempt to emotionally drive you to believe something without logically informing you as to why; without giving sound evidence to support a proper argument on a firm foundation.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The truth is:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">All people</span> that feel conversion is necessary, and that we should convert others, regardless of the rudeness and enmity it entails, a<span style="font-weight: bold;">re radicals</span>.<br /><br />It's why MOST churches and Mosques <span style="font-weight: bold;">do not proselytize</span> and do not go door to door preaching.<br /><br />Let each pray and follow whom they will, and account to their Lord. That is the American way. America was founded by people seeking religious asylum. This principle of religious freedom is INGRAINED in our country and in the constitution.<br /><br />If we want to have a <span style="font-weight: bold;">civilized and logical</span> debate between the religions, that's all good and well, and substantive.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sensationalized drama asking us to come to arms, to convert 1.57 billion people, is nonsense and the fuel for anti-Islamic sentiment and hatred.</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">(The consequence of not doing so is an army of Radical Muslims and a WWIII military ending....<br />Again sensationalist propaganda that has absolutely no fact based merit and should be taken on her "word" and what she's "seen")</span><br /><br />Shame on her for such sensationalism. She would be shamed by her Alma mater and whatever University named her a <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Scholar</span></span>, if she even is one or has any degrees to her name.<br /><br />She does not act in accordance to the principles of a Scholar. Instead she look more the part of a political pundit, manipulating their audience using scary WWIII undertones; similar to the likes of Glen Beck.<br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><br />But definitely not a Scholar, which would come forward with coherent arguments, strong <span style="font-weight: bold;">supporting</span> facts, and a logical framework.<br /></span><br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >3)</span> Last Video, this time by <a href="http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values#Sam_Harris_Islam_Is_Not_the_Religion_of_Peace">Sam Harris</a>:<br /><br />He argues:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:180%;">"So the problem is not Religious extremism, because extremism isn't a problem <span style="font-weight: bold;">if your core beliefs are truly non violent.</span>"</span></blockquote><br /><br /><br />He makes a lapse in judgment here. Although he's being very methodical in this video and at least using a reasonable argument, he says something which can be disproven easily.<br /><br />He is basically saying if your core beliefs are non violence than that leads you to never having evil and extreme radical believers; but then what about Christianity?<br /><br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Isn't Christianity the ultimate Peaceful religion?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">If Jesus is slapped, did he not say turn to thy other cheek?<br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">What wars or conquests did Jesus fight?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Did Jesus not allow himself, according to christians, to be tortured and killed?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">What more better a shining example than Jesus himself, the pinnacle, the IDOL of Ghandi, and of pacifists.</span></li></ul><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. </span></span></li></ul><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."</span></span></li></ul><a href="http://www.rationalresponders.com/atheists_for_jesus_a_richard_dawkins_essay">Source </a>(Athiests for Jesus, an essay by Richard Dawkins praising Jesus)<br /></blockquote><br /></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />So I'd say at the CORE of Christianity is peace, and yet there are Christians that bomb abortion clinics and start world wars like Hitler.<br /><br />What? You say Hitler wasn't a Christian. Have you not seen his Nazi Belts or read his manifesto?<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/8397/buckleu.jpg"><img src="http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/8397/buckleu.jpg" border="'0'/" /></a></span><br /></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />It says <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns">Gott mit uns</a>, or God with us. Are not Hitler and Jesus polar opposites?<br /><br />That fact alone destroys Sam Harris' argument.<br /><br />It has been shown that a religion with a peaceful core, can still be manipulated into a radical and violent one.<br /><br />It just takes a number of centuries, a good head on your shoulders, and lots of charisma.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Sooner or later, even Sam Harris' example of Jainism will be shown to be fallible, once 1 follower of Jainism does something evil in the name of his religion, or an evil person joins Jainism with the intent to manipulate the religion to meet his own needs.</span><br /><br />The reason why Jainism has been left untouched until now is it's power pales in comparison with that of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Why hijack a hardly known religion, with few followers, when you can spend your energy and manipulate millions of people.<br /><br />That's why Jainism has been left alone.<br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">For Sam Harris to argue this is impossible, destroys his argument, rendering it useless.</span></span><br /></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><br />He cannot argue that Jesus and Christianity, at their core, is not peaceful, because every sign even by atheistic writers like <a href="http://www.rationalresponders.com/atheists_for_jesus_a_richard_dawkins_essay">Dawkins</a> have attested to the pacifism of Jesus and his true followers. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />So what we are left with is an empty shell of an argument and <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">the ability for peaceful religions to be manipulated.</span><br /><br />But isn't that fairly obvious.... that anything can be manipulated. There are no holy untouchable organizations today that do not fear corruption.<br /><br />Everything can be manipulated.<br />Why?<br /></span>Because people are not perfect creatures, and our own inner faults pave the room for manipulation. These are all common sense conclusions to get to with just a bit of time and contemplation.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />For his second point where he says Osama isn't fudging the facts, and is simply painting the truth about Islam, he simply gives no evidence.<br /><br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;">No Quotes by the Prophet of Islam.<br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">No Quranic Verses.<br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">No statements by Osama.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">No lines from books of scholarly analysis.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Nothing.<br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">He just says it as a fact, paraphrasing him: Obama and Islam are one, and he doesn't fudge the facts.</span></li></ul><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Sam Harris goes so far as to say:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:180%;"><br />"He(Osama) is giving a truly straightforward version of Islam and you really have to be an acrobat to figure out how he's distorting the faith"</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:180%;"></span><br /><br /><br />To make such an amazing claim, that more than a billion Muslims have a religion that encourages Terrorism(or Murder), or that would allow such a thing, REQUIRES evidence to prove.<br /><br />As the famous scientist Carl Sagan said, <span style="font-weight: bold;">"Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence"</span>. This supposed scholar gave none...<br /><br />On that point alone, his argument is without foundation, and fails.<br />It's a point that <span style="font-weight: bold;">even seems absurd to think about</span>, that a billion murderers exist in this world, commanded to fight holy wars around the earth. That's 1 in every 6 people...<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Final Thoughts</span><br /><br />The authors of these videos grasped the hands of hatred, for their own reasons, be it ignorance or a lack of will to seek out the truth(laziness).<br />Either way they did a disservice to themselves to not educate themselves properly before spreading false propaganda.<br /><br />In Sam Harris' case where he actually tried to make a logical argument, he failed to <span style="font-weight: bold;">contemplate</span> on his thesis, and allowed a large hole to remain in the heart of his argument, easy to unveil, causing the whole theory to fall apart.<br /><br />As we saw, even though his original point had some logical reasoning, his second point had no merit and was simply a bigoted slap in the face to every Muslim that prays peacefully on this Earth. Not even did he <span style="font-weight: bold;">attempt</span> to support his extraordinary and inflammatory claims.<br /><br />At it's core, all we got here, from these three videos, was xenophobia, ignorance, a lack of reasoning capability, and hatred.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-13379693560258109552010-10-20T15:59:00.001-07:002010-10-20T16:07:55.706-07:00Philosophy of Linguistics -- Damning with Faint Praise<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_OcnLsR_rC8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_OcnLsR_rC8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />I recently came upon that video where the commentator mentioned an idiom I hadn't heard before.<br /><br />He was comparing two people as you saw and mentioned the term:<br /><br />"Damning with faint praise"<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />I instantly <a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/damned+with+faint+praise">looked it up</a>:<br /><span class="hw"><br /></span><div class="ds-single"><i>Fig.</i> <span style="font-weight: bold;">to criticize someone or something indirectly by not praising enthusiastically.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;" class="illustration">The critic did not say that he disliked the play, but he damned it with faint praise.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="illustration">Mrs. Brown is very proud of her son's achievements, but damns her daughter's with faint praise.</span></div><br />~~~~~~~~<br /><br />Once I figured out what it meant, it was just such a colorful way to say something, and as someone who enjoys writing, I love the pictures that are invoked when you say you're damning someone with faint praise.<br /><br />I felt inspiration, and I actually saw one person practicing this faint praise(or really it should be thought of lack of praise) on another.<br /><br />You really see the powers idioms have on our discussions, when they invoke so much emotion and so much color into our conversation.<br /><br />They, in essence, bring into existence incarnations of the feelings and meanings deep inside our words.<br /><br />They are manifestations of our true intentions and beliefs. Maybe that's why we memorize or are familiar with hundreds or thousands of them.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-46597979128601804672010-10-06T15:46:00.001-07:002010-10-06T16:06:28.199-07:00Philosophy of Causation / An eye into StatisticsI was watching <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Cfk1FY5Ys">this video</a>, and read a comment that I wanted to discuss.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The comment is as follows:</span><br /><br /><blockquote>"The three states that had abortion laws three years earlier had crime rates that decreased three years earlier and Ben thinks it's meaningless. lol"</blockquote><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">My response:</span><br /><br /><blockquote>Statistically it is.(It is meaningless)<br /><br />If you can't isolate a situation, any number of factors could be the cause of it.<br /><br />People who don't know statistics can't understand this point.<br /><br />Try googling Correlation versus causation. The two things are not the same.<br /><br />Ben went to Columbia university, and although he's annoying at times, it's why he was right and you were wrong.<br /></blockquote><br />~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />I didn't mean to come off as too cruel, but it's true that I think Ben's understanding of statistics easily lead him to his conclusion; again thanks to his upper class education.<br /><br />Such a conclusion would probably elude a person whom had not taken statistics and would not be able to grasp the reason why they would be wrong.<br /><br />The reason is simple, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation">correlation of things is not a causation</a> because there may be hidden causes that you are unaware of.<br /><br />As the old saying goes, sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence, especially when you're comparing state wide stats; something enormously complicated.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Example:</span><br /><br />You're looking at a graph, and for some reason it seems to show that the more firefighters there are the more damage occurs to a home.<br /><br />You look at the chart and for homes that had 20 firefighters the damage that occurred was much more than in homes that had 18 19 or 15.<br /><br />It's a trend and the line beautifully goes up and to the right.<br /><br />So you automatically assume, more firefighters means more damage, and therefore you want to limit how many firefighters go to homes.<br /><br />Although you'd be wrong, because you just let correlation become causation.<br /><br />You missed a simple fact, that the more a home is on fire and the bigger the fire is, the more firefighters will be there. Also since the fire is much bigger it's bound to do more damage than a smaller fire.<br /><br />It's not the firefighters causing the damage, it's the fire, and the bigger it is, the more firefighters you need to stop it.<br /><br />By limiting the number of firefighters going to homes, you would actually be increasing the damage and allowing the fire to burn for longer.<br /><br />That's why correlation, is not causation.<br />The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_value">p-value</a> test is a good safety net, for the problem of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurking_variable">lurking variables</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-21804178180757961072010-09-24T03:49:00.000-07:002010-09-24T04:20:27.363-07:00Philosophy of Hate / Immigration / Isolationism -- No Irish Need Apply<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5228/3082374723b8827b3774.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 456px; height: 341px;" src="http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5228/3082374723b8827b3774.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(Nowadays that sign would say No Muslims or Hispanics need apply. The cycle of hate continues.)</span><br /><br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold;">A few tales from history:</span><br /><ul><li>Signs once read, No Irish need apply.</li></ul><ul><li>We once interned thousands of Japanese Americans, simply because of their ethnicity; an act that later we apologized for.</li></ul><ul><li>We used to deny Human rights to Black people, causing them to struggle through a long and grueling ordeal just to be considered a full human being on paper. </li></ul><ul><li>There was a time where we kept the Chinese immigrants in California working like slaves. A form of neo-indentured servitude. </li></ul><ul><li>Anti-semetism was once popular before as well, but who today would dare make fun or demonize someone by calling them Jewish? How bigoted and rude would that be?<br /></li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">My question:</span><br /><br />So then why are <span style="font-weight: bold;">new labels, </span>used by republicans and based on religion or ethnicity, <span style="font-weight: bold;">acceptable today</span>?<br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><br />We have this affinity for hate, and distaste for immigration. Regardless of the facts that immigration is actually less today, and people are actually more productive now than they ever were because of technology. We still hate immigrants or any strange people.<br /><br />People still stoke this fear of the unknown nonsense.<br /><br />What did it all lead to but more hate?<br /><br />Why am I even writing about all this; simply because the new label of death has become <span style="font-weight: bold;">Muslim</span>.<br /><br />Listen to Sarah Palin applying it to Barack Obama, ever so skillfully:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">(Now keep in mind I regularly call the President, Pocket Change Obama, and I disagree with the majority of what he's done, but I don't demonize him or stoke fear mongering by trying to label him Muslim today, as others would have called him Irish before just to score political points and stoke fear of individuals or ethnicities.)</span><br /><br /><object height="385" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N-0Ml_nXucw?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N-0Ml_nXucw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="640"></embed></object><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Who ever bothered to say George Walker Bush?</span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">No one did.</span></span><br /></div><br />Even though his father shared his name, no one bothered mentioning his middle name on television while he was president. They knew who people meant when they said George Bush.<br /><br />Actually if you were speaking of his father you'd say George H. W. Bush.<br /><br />Do you know why Sarah said Hussein?<br /><br />Philosophers are always asked to look deeper and analyze the substance of what people say and feel. In this situation it's quite obvious why the term Hussein was used.<br /><br />In this case, Obama is no better than an Irishman, a China-men, a Jap, a Muslim, Black Man, or a Jew. All labels of hatred, and all used for political purposes.<br /><br />The fact remains, all those people are alike, because all people are alike. We are judged not by the color of our skins, but by the content of our character.<br /><br />Shame on anyone who uses those terms to try and diminish someone's honesty, credibility, or reputation.<br /><br />Shame on them.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-36719788617884051662010-09-15T00:19:00.000-07:002010-09-15T00:49:48.480-07:00Giving in to your Lower Desires v.s Self Control<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/4751/41678019935e88afa2cfz.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 435px; height: 324px;" src="http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/4751/41678019935e88afa2cfz.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(Don't let your lower desires chain you down and ruin your potential. The key to self actualization is patience and self control; with a little bit of contemplation on our own actions.)</span><br /></div><br />I once had an interesting conversation with someone whom at any cost wants to be happy.<br /><br />My main message was not giving into your lower desires and using self control. Lower desires, after all, has been written about for centuries, and confirmed by famous Philosophers like John Stuart Mill, a champion of utilitarianism.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">This is how our conversation went:</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(This was an online conversation and the exact log of it is below, with the exception of our names being generalized to them and Me.</span>)<br /></div><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Them:</span> See, taoism says that if you're going to be angry, to be angry.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Them:</span> And if you're going to dislocate your brother's arm and crack two of his ribs ... then that's what you need to do.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> Can you then give in to your emotions, however deep they may be?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me: </span>Or is there self control somewhere in there?<br />Them: Oh, the entire thing is about self control.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> Cracking your brothers ribs doesn't seem very controlling...<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me: </span>more like, lack of control.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Them:</span> See, I'm kicking his a** *because I feel like it* ... not because he's made me angry, not because he did something to deserve it. Just because he's there.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me: </span>So you do whatever you feel like?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> and that is self control?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Them:</span> Sure.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> We both agree that's not self control lol<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Them:</span> Without explaining a lot of **** I don't feel like explaining, I can't make you understand.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> In a court of law, to intend to kill someone separates Murder from Manslaughter. One lacks self control and one does not.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> lol anyways my philosophy is probably the exact opposite. Control your lower desires, to actualize ones self<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Them:</span> So you're into self-denial, which is contradictory to being happy.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> <span style="font-size:180%;">It depends what you mean by being happy. If giving into your lower desires is being happy then rape is moral in your code.</span><br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />After that the conversation ended and they had to head out.<br /><br />I can't blame them really. How could you justify a world where rape is acceptable? How could you justify a world with no self control?<br /><br />It seems morally clear that there is a need, a moral principle, and a value in this idea we've conceived as Self control.<br /><br />It allows one to reach higher levels of happiness and live a better life in general.<br /><br />It's something for all of us to contemplate on next time we let our emotions or desires get out of hand.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-973740530741401452010-09-02T23:19:00.000-07:002010-09-02T23:30:59.636-07:00The Philosophy of a Hero<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7660/hansrosling3.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 465px; height: 309px;" src="http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7660/hansrosling3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span id="eow-title" class="" dir="ltr" title="Rosling's World - a documentary about Hans Rosling"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span id="eow-title" class="" dir="ltr" title="Rosling's World - a documentary about Hans Rosling" style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rosling's World - A documentary about Hans Rosling</span> </span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_7howQzatw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_7howQzatw</a><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(Advisory: Video only for those 18 years or older)</span><br /></div><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />Truly a great man:<br /><br /><ul><li>1) A doctor for 20 years in Africa, willing to sacrifice his life to battle a foreign disease.</li></ul><ul><li>2) A Professor teaching the best things in the world to his students</li></ul><ul><li>3) A lecturer inspiring the world to change through the invisible hand of statistics.</li></ul><ul><li>4) A compassion and love for humanity, that it should emanate in all his actions.</li></ul><br />What more can we ask of such a man, except that he leads as an example for us all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-50695359892985957182010-09-02T16:35:00.001-07:002010-10-21T00:19:13.074-07:00Philosophy and Analysis of Climate Change - Global Warming - CO2 Significance on Global Temperatures<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6766/43703526381237b3f906z.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 446px; height: 446px;" src="http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6766/43703526381237b3f906z.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />This may be just because of ignorance on my side but I can't seem to find any evidence of the <span style="font-weight: bold;">significance of CO2</span> in our atmosphere <span style="font-weight: bold;">contributing</span> to Global warming. (Let alone that being from <span style="font-style: italic;">man-made sources</span> or not)<br /><br />Here is what I did learn that I was unsure about before:<br /><br />~~~~~<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Global Warming Trend</span> </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">(This section has nothing to do with C02. We're just discussing a trend that the world is warming without discussing it's cause first.)</span><br /></div><br />It seems from all the information in <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-evidence">this article</a>, that to deny a trend in rising temperature, seems an assault on science and data itself.<br /><br />So that means if the data and science is strong, at it appears to be so, then no assault on such data will give you any success, and their opinion that a trend in global warming is occurring would remain victorious.<br /><br />A review of the data published on the site, that tries to imply a trend in global warming:<br /><br /><ul><li><a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/">NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis</a></li><li><a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/">CRU direct surface temperature analysis</a></li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements">Satellite Data</a></li><li><a href="http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html">Radiosondes</a></li><li><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html">Borehole analysis</a></li><li><a href="http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html">Glacial melt observations</a> </li><li><a href="http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html">Sea ice melt</a></li><li><a href="http://sealevel.colorado.edu/">Sea level rise</a></li><li><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html">Proxy Reconstructions</a></li><li><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500">Permafrost melt</a></li></ul>So the author says:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>"There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend."</blockquote></span><br /><br />I would tend to agree with him on this point because of the data he has presented.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >CO2 level rise</span><span style="font-size:180%;"><br /></span></div><br />I think at this point it's fairly obvious that 100 years after the Industrial revolution, we have released a lot more CO2 in the air than would have been naturally produced.<br /><br />So I think just from a common sense perspective, CO2 rising makes sense with the general facts I've observed in the world and learned from history.<br /><br />Here is a graph to add some evidence to the conversation that CO2 levels have indeed risen:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/558/siomlgr.gif"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 393px; height: 326px;" src="http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/558/siomlgr.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />I am very critical of graphs that have no true zeros for their x-axis, as all people who know statistics should be.<br /><br />It hides the true significance of the curve upward or downward when you zoom in on a graph like this one does.<br /><br />You get a much higher trend upward than you would if you had a true zero on the graph.<br /><br />So to mathematically describe the change better, you could take the highest value, subtract it from the lowest, and divide by the lowest to get a percent change.<br /><br />So the percent change in carbon dioxide since the 1960's is approximately 19% higher; which is still a significant increase in CO2.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Greenhouse Effect</span><span style="font-size:180%;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >- Causation</span><span style="font-size:180%;"><br /></span></div><br />So the causation between CO2 and Temperature rise is the <span style="font-weight: bold;">green house effect</span>.<br /><br />It seems that CO2 though is much weaker than other influences that warm the earth, historically speaking, and that CO2, historically speaking, has <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;">LAGGED</span> temperature</a>.<br /><br />Meaning in the past <span style="font-weight: bold;">first</span> temperature went up, before CO2 went up. That just meant that historically speaking, there always seems to be <span style="font-weight: bold;">forces stronger than CO2</span> that change the earth's temp more.<br /><br />So what I'm getting at is that even if we accept the common and sound science that CO2 increases temperature, we found <span style="font-weight: bold;">it does so weakly</span>, compared to other things that have done it in the past such as large volcanic eruptions.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean CO2 has no effect, just because it doesn't initiate the change from a cold planet to a hot one. It still helps in the background.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Example:</span><br /><br />Imagine you're in a home and that home represents the earth. Now when the sun comes up and the light shines through the windows, the home starts to warm up, but what if during that time, you also had a heater going at 76 degrees?<br /><br />If the home is 70 degrees, it would take the heater a while to get it to 76, but it's having an effect regardless. At the end of the day the sun is doing most of the hard work, as it'll get it to 76 before the heater does, but again the heater is having a small effect anyways.<br /><br />So it's wrong to say that the heater has no effect, just like it's wrong to say CO2, even if it's not the initiator of warming cycles, automatically has nothing to do with warming cycles. It still helps.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Significance</span><span style="font-size:180%;"><br /></span></div><br />Now here is where my ignorance seems to meet the crux of the argument, or if this was music I'd say here is the crescendo; for the writers we'll say we're getting to the climax :D.<br /><br />We agree that the world is warming and we also agree CO2, according to current science, through the greenhouse effect contributes to it.<br /><br />But is the role CO2 plays in our environment significant?<br />Is it a strong enough force on it's own to cause the types of damage we worry about?<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Example:</span><br /><br />If I could convince 100 people to all rub their hands together for 10 minutes, at the same time, every day, for 10 years, could we as a group increase the world's temperature?<br /><br />I think you're probably laughing as you read that, or at least chuckling slightly, because you know that the small amount of heat we create isn't nearly enough to warm the entire earth.<br /><br />It isn't <span style="font-weight: bold;">significant</span> enough.<br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><br />So the question now goes to CO2, is it's power <span style="font-weight: bold;">significant enough</span> to rise global temps?<br /><br />As we admitted before CO2 is hardly the initiator of global temperature changes, historically speaking, but it may have a role in keeping temperatures high and spreading the temperature evenly across the world.<br /><br />But again, are high CO2 levels, a <span style="font-weight: bold;">significant</span> risk to increasing world temperatures?<br /><br />I can't find any exact proof of that. It may be again because of my own ignorance, but I can't seem to find how significant CO2 specifically is in respect to global temperatures and greenhouse gases.<br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Man Made Greenhouse Gases v.s Naturally Made</span><br /></div><br /><br />So this discussion is about Greenhouse gases, rather than CO2 because as the argument goes, it's their effect that warms the earth, and if they're correct that effect is significant enough to change global temps.<br /><br />To be exact, here are all greenhouse gases we should worry about according to those that say they're a threat:<br /><blockquote><br />Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[1]</span>The major greenhouse gases are <span style="font-weight: bold;">water vapor</span>, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; <span style="font-weight: bold;">carbon dioxide</span> (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; <span style="font-weight: bold;">methane</span> (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and <span style="font-weight: bold;">ozone</span> (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[2][3][4]</span> Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so have different effects on radiation from water vapor.</blockquote>Sources:<br /><ol class="references"><li id="cite_note-IPCC_WG1_AR4_Ch1-32"><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#cite_ref-IPCC_WG1_AR4_Ch1_32-0">1)</a></b> <span class="citation web">IPCC (2007). <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf" class="external text" rel="nofollow">"Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science"</a> (PDF). <i>IPCC WG1 AR4 Report</i>. IPCC. pp. p97 (PDF page 5 of 36)<span class="printonly">. <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf" class="external free" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf</a></span><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved 21 April 2009</span>. "To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around −19 °C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14 °C). Instead, the necessary −19 °C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the surface."</span><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Chapter+1%3A+Historical+Overview+of+Climate+Change+Science&rft.atitle=IPCC+WG1+AR4+Report&rft.aulast=IPCC&rft.au=IPCC&rft.date=2007&rft.pages=pp.+p97+%28PDF+page+5+of+36%29&rft.pub=IPCC&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Fpdf%2Fassessment-report%2Far4%2Fwg1%2Far4-wg1-chapter1.pdf&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Global_warming"><span style="display: none;"> </span></span></span></li><li id="cite_note-33"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2) </span></span><span class="citation Journal">Kiehl, J.T.; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trenberth" title="Kevin Trenberth" class="mw-redirect">Trenberth, K.E.</a> (1997). <a href="http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf" class="external text" rel="nofollow">"Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget"</a> (PDF). <i>Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society</i> <b>78</b> (2): 197–208. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">doi</a>:<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175%2F1520-0477%281997%29078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2" class="external text" rel="nofollow">10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078>2.0.CO;2</a><span class="printonly">. <a href="http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf" class="external free" rel="nofollow">http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf</a></span><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved 21 April 2009</span>.</span><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Earth%27s+Annual+Global+Mean+Energy+Budget&rft.jtitle=Bulletin+of+the+American+Meteorological+Society&rft.aulast=Kiehl&rft.aufirst=J.T.&rft.au=Kiehl%2C%26%2332%3BJ.T.&rft.au=Trenberth%2C%26%2332%3BK.E.&rft.date=1997&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=2&rft.pages=197%E2%80%93208&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175%2F1520-0477%281997%29078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atmo.arizona.edu%2Fstudents%2Fcourselinks%2Fspring04%2Fatmo451b%2Fpdf%2FRadiationBudget.pdf&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Global_warming"><span style="display: none;"> </span></span></span></li><li id="cite_note-34"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3)</span></span> <span class="citation web"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt" title="Gavin Schmidt">Schmidt, Gavin</a> (6 Apr 2005). <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142" class="external text" rel="nofollow">"Water vapour: feedback or forcing?"</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate" title="RealClimate">RealClimate</a><span class="printonly">. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142" class="external free" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142</a></span><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved 21 April 2009</span>.</span><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Water+vapour%3A+feedback+or+forcing%3F&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Schmidt&rft.aufirst=Gavin&rft.au=Schmidt%2C%26%2332%3BGavin&rft.date=6+Apr+2005&rft.pub=%5B%5BRealClimate%5D%5D&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php%3Fp%3D142&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Global_warming"><span style="display: none;"> </span></span></span></li><li id="cite_note-35"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4)</span></span> <span class="citation web">Russell, Randy (May 16, 2007). <a href="http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html&edu=high" class="external text" rel="nofollow">"The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases"</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Corporation_for_Atmospheric_Research" title="University Corporation for Atmospheric Research">University Corporation for Atmospheric Research</a> Windows to the Universe<span class="printonly">. <a href="http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html&edu=high" class="external free" rel="nofollow">http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html&edu=high</a></span><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved Dec 27, 2009</span>.</span></span></li></ol><br />A simple question comes back to mind when people talk about fighting Climate change:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Is the man-made portion of CO2 WE release significant enough on it's own to cause climate change?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">If we only release 1% of all greenhouse gases, then we have no hope in stopping it's effects.<br />If instead we release 20% <span style="font-style: italic;">or more</span> of all greenhouse gases, we may have some effect if we limit our release of gases.</span><br /><br />So how much greenhouse gas do we emit compared to nature? Again this is only an important question if we answer the first one mentioned above, <span style="font-weight: bold;">if Greenhouse gases are even a significant factor in Global Warming.</span> If they are the cause of it.<br /><br />If greenhouse gases are significant, <span style="font-weight: bold;">and they're not like my 100 friends that rub their hands in vain</span>, then what percentage of those gases do we contribute?<br /><br />There is a nice article about this <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html">here</a>, which basically states that we only contribute about <span style="font-weight: bold;">.28%</span> of the Greenhouse Gases in the air, and that number becomes <span style="font-weight: bold;">5%</span> if we ignore water vapor as climate scientists do because they say it's not a forcing variable. That means if we were to cut all Greenhouse Gas creating processes in half, we'd save only 2.5%.<br /><br />That fact is unreasonable of course, to cut back by that much, but is a 2.5% savings going to help us much?<br /><br />Even if it does help us, there's still the other 2.5% that plagues us, so is it worth it?<br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Final Thoughts</span><span style="font-size:180%;"><br /></span></div><br />So at least we learned some things as we went through this process of analysis.<br /><br />We learned that warming is occurring and that CO2 levels are rising by about 20% since the 1960's.<br /><br />But what we learned as far as Greenhouse gases are concerned is that in general, we have a small effect on how much we send into the air.<br /><br />Only about <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html">5%(ignoring water vapor)</a> of Greenhouse Gases in the air, are up there because of us, and even if we cut all output in half, we'd still have put 2.5% up.<br /><br />Again that's assuming the 5% we put up there is a significant increase in Global temperatures at all.<br /><br />So there remains a lot of unanswered questions for me at the end of this.<br />Maybe that's why this issue isn't definitively decided.<br /><br />At the end of the day the argument is not about whether the Earth is warming or not, or if we increased levels of CO2. <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">The argument is about how much of the greenhouse gases we're responsible for and to what extent the amount we put up there affects global temperatures.</span></span><br /><br />If that question was clearly answered I don't think any skeptics would remain.<br /><br />Until I get a clear answer to that I remain a skeptic of Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade, and Carbon Regulation.<br /><br />I'm more concerned with stopping Malaria, Cancer, Poverty, and giving every child a decent Education. I mean even Renewable energy is more important and more dire/urgent a situation than Climate change is now.<br /><br />Those I think should be our focus and where our priorities stand until the Climatologists can get their argument properly explained.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-59341685798219744652010-09-02T16:22:00.000-07:002010-09-02T20:53:44.213-07:00Free will<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4084/382788002423957fdafab.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 440px; height: 263px;" src="http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4084/382788002423957fdafab.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(Free will is simply the ability to choose for yourself your own path. Whatever doors or options nature throws at you, at the end of the day, you pick which door you go through and why. Choice; that's the essence of free will.)</span><br /><br /></div><br />Someone had the audacity to claim they had no free will to which I replied:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Lol :D<br /><br />In a world where no one has free will, no one should go to jail or be punished for crimes they did, that they had no control over.<br /><br />In a world where there is no free will, there is no such thing as self control, which means you can't tell people to stop screaming at you, because according to you, they can't control themselves.<br /><br />To say the world affects me, does not negate free will, it just means "my choices" vary.<br /><br />Btw I did not choose to write this, so I cannot be blamed for it! :D"</blockquote><br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Philosophically speaking I mentioned:</span><br /><br /><ul><li>1) The injustice of punishment based on the victims necessity to commit evil.</li></ul><ul><li>2) The laughable assault on self control, to which any person knows that he or she is in full control of his emotions and reactions.</li></ul><ul><li>3) The world constantly giving me new inputs is constantly giving me new options to choose from, and these new inputs that affect me, are still at the mercy of my control when I "choose" the proper output I want generated by the new inputs.</li></ul><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Example:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I am 6 years old and someone shows me I have the power to lie now.</span><br /><br />I don't choose to lie a that moment but from then on I have that option and I didn't have that option before that moment.<br /><br />My epiphany of this act known as lying, has given me a new choice of action.<br /><br />The environment didn't choose for me to start lying, it only taught me this new possible road I could take, but that if I took it, it would be my choice.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Final Thoughts</span><br /><br />I find the best way to remove responsibility for yourself and your actions, is this illusion of believing that you have no free will.<br /><br />As you saw from my last sentence, the person above can not blame me for my reply, because according to him, I have no control over my actions. :D<br /><br />To any true philosopher, I feel this concept is amusing to reflect upon, but completely laughable to believe.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-38049744193305526512010-04-03T19:25:00.000-07:002010-04-03T20:17:06.885-07:00Contentment, Fame, and The Human Condition<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWfeBGBaeUiRnWi3yh61IuWeo1rEaiIFkdmqgfC9OIkzYItvPqDdgLkMIpORvRoUfjwZs4tkpIRjcBqmyyEfE0ggRPrvwFH-kdP1PAX0VUUW9BcdSFLfPBCgnoInlgryyNhDFzrp0CcpVt/s1600/happiness+post+1.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 274px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWfeBGBaeUiRnWi3yh61IuWeo1rEaiIFkdmqgfC9OIkzYItvPqDdgLkMIpORvRoUfjwZs4tkpIRjcBqmyyEfE0ggRPrvwFH-kdP1PAX0VUUW9BcdSFLfPBCgnoInlgryyNhDFzrp0CcpVt/s400/happiness+post+1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5456115220727379954" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(Nothing else matters. Our world is complete. Our bliss everlasting. Can we ever feel that way again?)</span></div><br /><br />This won't be the kind of article that tries to propose the answers to a problem, simply because this problem is a part of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition">human condition</a>. It's a problem that baffles me and takes over a strong majority of my life.<br /><br />To answer it would quell a lot of secondary and tertiary problems that result because of it but to answer it takes an immense amount of contemplation and forward thought.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Contentment </span><br /><br />Why am I not content? Why do i want more and why do I not settle for what's obviously amazingly good already?<br /><br />If you look at my particular situation, I'm in the top 1% of the world's population as a factor of wealth. Most people in the world have significantly less than me, and that fact never escapes my mind, and yet I want more. Why?<br /><br /><br />Are any people content with what they have or are we all facing this condition together, some facing it better than the rest?<br /><br />Maybe we can gain clues by looking into the lives of those who live contently. The people that feel they have everything they need to live sufficiently happy.<br /><br />~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A possible Clue</span><br /><br />I saw a great <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZkXDUcD_SM&feature=player_embedded">video </a>with philosophers, lawyers, and economists all debating certain issues of the time and one point was raised that really inspired a lot of thought. Go to the 35 minute mark to see the part I'm speaking about.<br /><br />A reference to the great philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau is made, when he mentions that happiness is the relationship between the gap in <span style="font-weight: bold;">what you want and what you're able to get. </span><br /><br />So maybe that's it. Maybe I'm so discontented because I know how much greatness awaits out there for the top .001% of the world. Maybe being forced to view such greatness for so many years has skewed my picture of happiness.<br /><br />In that case, what am I supposed to do? How do I unskew my view of the world and show myself that I'm happy as I am now.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fame</span><br /><br />This all builds to fame, which can be seen as an outlet to happiness. But most people who have learned anything about fame, know that Fame sucks.<br /><br />It's hard to be anything but frank about this topic. There is very little upside to the world that is fame because your whole life and privacy is in one quick swoop, annexed and taken over by the world.<br /><br />Fame is a plague on the life of a person, and one that keeps chipping away at your self esteem and your view of the world.<br /><br />But I and a lot of others are willing to do certain things to obtain it. Why?<br /><br />Why isn't our logic strong and clear enough to keep us away from that hole? If given the chance, most people, regardless of how bad they know fame is, do take it. Why?<br /><br />What is with our human condition that lowers us to these levels and makes us so unsatisfied, and so illogical.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Happiness</span><br /><br />At the end of the day, we want fame, and contentment for one simple reason; happiness.<br /><br />We want that calm bliss, sitting in our boat on the lake, as the water softly ripples beneath us. We want the world to turn endlessly all around us, as we sit, content in our own little world as if nothing can intervene in this sanctified land.<br /><br />We want felicity. I love that world by the way; it's so poetic and illustrative of the world I'm trying to create.<br /><br />Felicity, pure pleasure and an endless calm that quells every throb inside us.<br /><br />So why is that such a hard place to reach, and why can't a member of the top 1% of the world, reach it?<br /><br />We have more riches than any time before us, and any empire before us, and still we want, desire, and need more?<br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why are humans so greedy?</span><br /></div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_wFgjXiiCYHJ7K3J4IH0foHDqITAwdYuu_iRZGpSS7zy_toaMNDEbffnoQrzOHo4jXMDI8ezzkKklTGzIZ6DQYq7v-_h8F-AXHC8KgR4QC6O6TQReFxXPn8wJX46cEWTIq-LNVjO-EMtI/s1600/happiness+post+2.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 266px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_wFgjXiiCYHJ7K3J4IH0foHDqITAwdYuu_iRZGpSS7zy_toaMNDEbffnoQrzOHo4jXMDI8ezzkKklTGzIZ6DQYq7v-_h8F-AXHC8KgR4QC6O6TQReFxXPn8wJX46cEWTIq-LNVjO-EMtI/s400/happiness+post+2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5456115884340956210" border="0" /></a><br />Maybe the human condition is simply our inability to look at what we have, and just accept it fully. After all, won't there always be someone who has more?<br /><br />I can say this fully and with no regrets though: The human condition can not be answered logically and reasoned through. We already have many reasons not to be greedy, yet we still partake in that past time.<br /><br />To quell my heart in this matter and polish my world view will require an experience or a feeling in this world, that will forever calm me for the rest of my time here.<br /><br />Whatever experience that is, will make me a better person. It will allow me to enjoy what I have and to stop wanting for more.<br /><br /><br />If you've found this experience and quelled your desires, than consider yourself the Nobility of the world.<br /><br /><br />To be without want is to not want to find being; especially through material gains.<br /><br />May we all reach that felicity some day.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-38686038489013495832010-03-16T19:02:00.000-07:002010-03-16T19:21:34.333-07:00Our Deductive World<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeDPRf4TMw7rXdeAkkBAKH8TJ8O8Wf_F77QeQXWpZi1TEn2sI4n5Vrpo2G6QUbuuYExl4FEo-jYKb2TjSdMkNOORmBXZmgJagNoq7kqfW-mzA-9qnCatRAPjmHYj6h0sLZMN4D6swoKykN/s1600-h/City+Skyline.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 260px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeDPRf4TMw7rXdeAkkBAKH8TJ8O8Wf_F77QeQXWpZi1TEn2sI4n5Vrpo2G6QUbuuYExl4FEo-jYKb2TjSdMkNOORmBXZmgJagNoq7kqfW-mzA-9qnCatRAPjmHYj6h0sLZMN4D6swoKykN/s400/City+Skyline.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5449421978566271938" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(It's our finite truths versus the absolute, but at the end of the day we can't get anywhere without the few finite truths that we have learned. We always start with those assumptions)</span><br /></div><br /> There is no real wall between science and philosophy. The only difference between the two is one is a creative and assumed world, while the other is less creative and less open to debate. So first off, you need to put aside this notion that to speak philosophy is not to speak science, that’s not the case.<br /><br />Philosophy is Math, Logic, and Creativity.<br />Science is observation, Logic, Math, and preconceived notions that hold credence(Theories/Laws).<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:180%;">ab•so•lute</span><br /><br /></div>• free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.<br />• not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.<br />• complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.<br />• free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">An Informal Logical argument for living in an inductive, non absolute world </span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(A world where we know nothing absolutely)</span></span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1)</span> Either I my observation and reasoning is limited and imperfect and it will remain that way, or it is perfect and unlimited.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2)</span> Either our observation and reasoning as a species, together, is perfect and absolute, or it’s imperfect and we could all still be incorrect. (The earth being flat, spontaneous generation, etc etc)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3)</span> If my observation and reasoning, and the world’s scientist’s observation and reasoning is imperfect and limited then anything based on that limited observation and reasoning is also imperfect and limited. Therefore it follows that we will never know anything is true or absolute.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4)</span> My reasoning and observations could be faulty. There is no way to prove my reasoning is absolutely correct, or that my observations are completely correct.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5)</span> There will always be doubt and therefore our knowledge will never be Absolute.<br /><br />That lack of perfection and that inability to prove things absolutely(without any doubt) means anything we try and prove or disprove, or conjecture on (this is 99% likely), is at the end of the day just hearsay. It’s our best guess.<br /><br />So rather than living my life saying, “It’s more than likely that gravity exists”, I say, “Given the proofs about gravity, I conjecture such and such… ”.<br />From a scientific standpoint, we haven’t even seen enough observations to make credible theories.<br /><br />From a scientific perspective, we haven’t even explored enough of our own universe to conjecture about the nature of anything.<br /><br />But if we use that mentality to color our world, we would never have created the internet, made modern day breakthroughs in medicine, or seen the gigantic feats of engineering that all rely on this faulty inductive science.<br /><br />I even go so far as to dislike the probability argument. I dislike to hear that something has a more than likely outcome of being true. We all know uncertainty exists, it’s just some of us choose to live our lives knowing it’s there but accepting certain realities.<br /><br />• The Theory of Gravity<br />• The Belief in God<br />• The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy<br /><br />They are all things I know to be true, even if I can’t deductively prove any of them correct, beyond a shadow of a doubt.<br /><br />The people thinking it’s my responsibility to prove all those things absolutely are thinking in absurd terms.<br /><br />Lets accept the doubt that exists in our inductive world, but lets also allow the terms such as “prove, disprove, fact, and fiction”.<br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><br />To live in a world where we cannot accept the idea of a “<span style="font-weight: bold;">fact</span>” is the most <span style="font-weight: bold;">absurd</span> idea of all.<br /><br />Let’s accept our limited, inductive, and imperfect world and stop thinking in terms of probability and uncertainty.<br /><br />The existence of truth and falsehood cannot be denied.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-7336137040185753412010-02-17T22:57:00.000-08:002010-02-17T23:39:08.721-08:00The Philosophy or essence of Law<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZbI_vOlXD9DvdS5hrcxO-M0wYk_GtOPw-W8UO20sLJQAifLZ4VtskG2GKhXRBdGTzGJ29co2SOUsr2eyr5EuUC7fGSS0VjcRWqY0_DlOZ_TPYJ5PIAbewl9w9AaWYFU6gs2PsbhWNsFxZ/s1600-h/philosophy+of+law.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 301px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZbI_vOlXD9DvdS5hrcxO-M0wYk_GtOPw-W8UO20sLJQAifLZ4VtskG2GKhXRBdGTzGJ29co2SOUsr2eyr5EuUC7fGSS0VjcRWqY0_DlOZ_TPYJ5PIAbewl9w9AaWYFU6gs2PsbhWNsFxZ/s400/philosophy+of+law.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5439484119291894674" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(The effects of good laws may be enough to change them, even if they're rooted in justice. But what do we do when even those new practical laws become abused or create new effects that give us unforeseen problems?)</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><br /></div>I first must pose a situation to define the context of the discussion of law and hopefully make our discussion a bit more practical and down to earth.<br /><br />A war criminal known for genocide has come to speak at your University. Your friends have decided to go hear him speak and you decide to come along. Unbeknownst (Unknown) to you, they and a group of others are planning to interrupt his speech repeatedly until he stops speaking or they are all taken away.<br /><br />The speech begins and one by one the chants and screams start. Warnings are issued and the chancellor of the University himself stands to quiet the interruptions. All actions are in vain. Finally police mounted at the entrances start escorting your friends out one by one.<br /><br />You think in all this commotion, <span style="font-weight: bold;">if we should uphold free speech for war criminals and at what point can we silence an individual</span>.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The roots of the argument</span><br /><br />A similar situation occurred to me and the first thought that came to my mind was that free speech must be upheld. But then I asked myself why I felt that.<br /><br />My answer was simple:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">"If we deny the right of speech to one person, even justifiably, such a law could be used unjustly to silence us. So to protect us all we exclaim Free speech."</span><br /><br />But do you what I did there? I reasoned not on the law itself but it's application. I reasoned unjustly corrupting the application of a good law that might silence evil people who spread discord in the land simply because it's application might be abused.<br /><br />So that brings up another question.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Should good laws be changed for fear of their application's unjust misuse? </span><br /><br />Which poses another question.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Should laws be made on their practicality of application, as it applies to the real world rather than the essence of good and evil?</span><br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fear</span><br /><br />Suddenly I was in murky territory. I was using possible applications or situations of corruptions to make laws. I had forgotten the essence of law itself, which is in my humble opinion, <span style="font-weight: bold;">to preserve Good and expel evil for the sake of the citizens of a country, thereby allowing each of them to live safely and justly. </span><br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Back to the example</span><br /><br />So some would argue that a war criminal guilty of killing many innocent adults and children does not deserve the right to speak, let alone even live. Most could argue that sincerely I feel.<br /><br />But most don't argue that simply because they fear for their own right. They fear that a tyrant would abuse and use wide sweeping interpretations of this law to create their own agenda and unjustly silence his opponents.<br /><br />So I ask myself, Who is correct? How should laws be written? Who's future possible problems with applications of laws should we trust? Do laws have any essence in good and evil whatsoever? Can those laws built on practicality too be abused?<br /><br />To prove that a law based on the practicality of it's application can be abused and misused, would bring us back to our original problem and now we'd be <span style="font-weight: bold;">without</span> the essence of Good and evil.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Arguments of practicality</span><br /><br />The drug war as it's called in America is a very good example of this practicality argument. Some say drugs practically can never be removed from society and are the cause of much strife in the land because of their funding of organized crime.<br /><br />I tend to agree with that position however controversial it may be. I prefer a non organized syndicate any day, over a few thousand more deaths by people who sadly used a substance they shouldn't have. I only make such a distinction, however tough it may be, because I feel the organized crime syndicate would murder equal if not more numbers of people than would members of society whom legally bought and ruined their lives on heroin for instance.<br /><br />So look what i have done. I have taken away the essence of good and evil in a law, in this case preserving human life and rejection these evil drugs, so that I may make a more practical law that would destroy a good number of organized gangs.<br /><br />Is the creation of these organized gangs an unforeseen effect of creating laws based on good and evil?<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Reconciliation</span><br /><br />So how can this be reconciled? Am I a walking contradiction? How can the canvas be white and not white at the same time?<br /><br />If i define something i cannot undefine it at the same time.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Should laws be based on their application, opening a myriad of problems associated with who decides and who is more correct about their future implications; or should they go back to their roots of justice/injustice, good and evil?</span><br /><br />Sometimes it's better to pose the question, and contemplate on the answer, rather than grab in the dark for false hope.<br /><br />In this case I won't grab for the answer, but search for what may be an unending quest for the essence of law.<br /><br />I will lay one rule down though and that's that the ends will never justify the means and I refuse to use that logic to take a person's right away for a prophecy that may or may not come to fruition.<br /><br />That is a road filled with death, destruction, evil, corruption, and injustice; something the law can never stand for.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-27255877105252821492009-12-21T03:27:00.001-08:002009-12-21T13:52:51.963-08:00Redefined focus<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHcAfqyA-LQr-HHKSicHAk0cn928gQj1q0Izof28XJKZOu4KC7G6wFCIwgmxAi0dYpwmE4hP9ns5UK7-lIKrlgoSPsObt0v8HamyxnMX-LY_gA-4FtMYra8bsFRvVFsNBkchMXHyptgiMD/s1600-h/Focus.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 266px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHcAfqyA-LQr-HHKSicHAk0cn928gQj1q0Izof28XJKZOu4KC7G6wFCIwgmxAi0dYpwmE4hP9ns5UK7-lIKrlgoSPsObt0v8HamyxnMX-LY_gA-4FtMYra8bsFRvVFsNBkchMXHyptgiMD/s400/Focus.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417809719322186338" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">(Focus on what's best in life and blur the bad. Efficiency in life will never occur unless you focus on the right aspects of it and understand what to leave behind.)</span><br /><br /></div><br />A few new redefined focuses I've thought about that i had to share:<br /><br /><ul><li>1) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Money does not equal wealth, and neither equal happiness.</span></li></ul><br /><ul><li>2) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Being Busy isn't the same as being productive. </span></li></ul><br /><ul><li>3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">The timing is never right for the most important things in your life.</span> Doing things eventually or soon never happens unless you plan it.</li></ul><br /><ul><li>4)<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Being bold and doing radical changes to your life, for the sake of happiness and not at the expense of others, is probably the best thing anyone can do</span>. These changes, as a point of necessity before you choose them, must make you happier regardless of the consequences.</li></ul><br /><ul><li>5) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Be different but not ignorant.</span> Walking on your hands is not the same as deciding to walk faster or slower, one is different one is ignorant and inefficient .</li></ul><br /><ul><li>6) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Do it now.</span> What is it? Whatever you want done. Dream it, Plan It, Do it.</li></ul><br /><ul><li>7) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Perspective is what focuses life, like a camera lens.</span> Remember the grave when you feel materialistic, remember others success when you feel proud, and remember the billions of others who have less than you when you feel greedy.</li></ul><br /><ul><li>8) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Execution is everything.</span> An idea changes shape as it's executed. The best final results come from the best execution, not the best ideas. I can have the greatest business idea for a store ever but if I don't execute it right and I go bankrupt, it's not the Ideas fault, but how I ran my business.</li></ul><ul><li>9) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Be thankful for your blessings because, truthfully, everyone is blessed.</span> If you're religious like me you give your thanks for these many blessings to God who has been nothing but generous with us. Besides blessing us with our 5 senses, all our limbs, the ability to stay healthy, our family, our friends, protecting our honor by hiding our secrets, and spreading our success without us lifting a finger; God constantly forgives us for our lack of notice of His blessings and our many slip ups that are the result of our ignorance or irrationality.<br /></li></ul><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Final Thoughts</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">My new focuses, My new outlooks, My new schedule.</span> Take what you can philosophically of the above and contemplate, contemplate, contemplate.<br /><br />Every nugget of knowledge has wisdom. There is no way I, or any other author, can extract all the wisdom stored in our data(nuggets of knowledge/observations).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-25160957432237744152009-10-10T23:30:00.000-07:002009-10-10T23:57:32.731-07:00The Superficial is Easy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDGc8DiRPvMpAsHF-5vUEzEoSgORx0ikWAe3iL7rfidqhsqMWc-tCl92tOhBwZisRle60X7dpo-RRkSrlXR1AxAYDmdS-YAXJEMQOC-JAEoy5Z_lRYYstJwjrr7t7pxmeW8uYLhpL5T8vC/s1600-h/superficial+post.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 293px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDGc8DiRPvMpAsHF-5vUEzEoSgORx0ikWAe3iL7rfidqhsqMWc-tCl92tOhBwZisRle60X7dpo-RRkSrlXR1AxAYDmdS-YAXJEMQOC-JAEoy5Z_lRYYstJwjrr7t7pxmeW8uYLhpL5T8vC/s400/superficial+post.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5391232955908209730" border="0" /></a><br /><br />It's been a while but seriously this had to come out. Literally I couldn't sleep until I got this off my chest.<br /><br />This isn't just ordinary run of the mill frustration you see on Philosophy by a Phoenix, this is disillusionment. This is loss of hope. This is full on disbelief.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">I see it, What more do I need?</span><br /><br />The superficial is SOOOOOOOOO easy to spot. The hair, the eyes, the face, the skin, it's all right there in front of you. But we stay on it. We obsess. We stare. We disregard the rest.<br /><br />It's pathetic, shallow, and it's corrupting America.<br />It's infuriating.<br /><br />Are we nothing but our shells? Can a person not live like their shell dictates they should?<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Philosophy and why this matters</span><br /><br />Philosophy, as Plato described it, was the inner workings of everyday ideas and thought. What philosophers were SUPPOSED to do was to LEAVE the cave of the everyday, transcend regular thought in a sense, and EXPLORE the outside.<br /><br />With new ideas, points of view, and insight they came back into the cave to share with the world their epiphanies.<br /><br />I'M IN A WORLD WHERE THAT ISN'T HAPPENING ANYMORE. How can I continue to live in a world where the topic of the day is someone's shell? A person's worth is simply their shell.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">This isn't just looks</span><br /><br />If all you've read into this so far is beauty, you're not reading far enough. This isn't just about beauty, this has to do with the masks we where. There are so many people who are so good at wearing masks that other people buy their stories and ACCEPT their SHELLS.<br /><br />Their persona, their facade, their alter ego is what society perceives them to be. No one drives deeper, no one questions these presuppositions, and no one works to be critical anymore.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why it's so personal</span><br /><br />Sincerity is easier to spot for some than others. When some people see insincerity, the mask being put on, and a fake alter ego taking over, it's like watching someone sip poison.<br /><br />Then it's like watching your friends sip poison as they buy that persons story.<br />The superficial is easy to accept but it's hard to be critical of, in this day and age.<br /><br />The seemingly nice guy, is the prideful, always manipulating, selfish person who lies underneath his exterior mask.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Light shining from the distance</span><br /><br /><br />The only thing keeping me from loosing all hope together is a friend who is the exact opposite of their shell. In nearly every way I've poked and prodded they've chosen the higher path.<br />Most people don't see the value in such a person and they may be glanced off by you because you didn't prod deeply.<br /><br />You might think they're just an ordinary preppy or valley girl, and would label them as such.<br />Most DO this. Most have written this person off. Most do not understand this person's value.<br /><br />I live in a world where to be sincere, to sacrifice your superficial life, and to transcend out of our normal caves is the work of Mad men.<br /><br />And ALL I mean by leaving the cave, is leaving the norm. Asking tough questions. Trying to examine people based on their TRUE feelings and ideas, not what they portray.<br /><br />Testing what they portray.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Being Critical of what they portray.</span><br /><br />Leaving the cave, hundreds of years ago, required much more work than that and required justifying your positions but philosophers nowadays don't even need that to be considered out of the cave.<br /><br />Now just testing the waters, making sure someone is who they say they are, is extreme.<br /><br />The superficial is easy, it's boring, it's a mask. Prod deeper into who someone is.<br />Don't be that stereotypical pig of a guy or that woman who needs the John Wayne cowboy.<br /><br />LOOK BEHIND the superficial. You might actually find a person lying behind the veil.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810603990939826174.post-36042913562667503952009-07-12T03:58:00.000-07:002009-07-12T04:41:19.368-07:00The Universe and God<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd602PD2mmMcGaje55NKApiYrApPz6-pB_2JCNSoIJ7mNievOUXuRNcDe1Plf1lZoHOV1Yep80_nMnZbN5mwc9HQ_98m7uJC92pJIS-NYBNn0Nm4AwQ0KCMmCJ8Y3e9OK9DqT6RerCUWg8/s1600-h/33051216_29f3951417_o.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357536152935869954" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd602PD2mmMcGaje55NKApiYrApPz6-pB_2JCNSoIJ7mNievOUXuRNcDe1Plf1lZoHOV1Yep80_nMnZbN5mwc9HQ_98m7uJC92pJIS-NYBNn0Nm4AwQ0KCMmCJ8Y3e9OK9DqT6RerCUWg8/s400/33051216_29f3951417_o.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> (A nebula that serves as a cradle for the creation of stars. This particular one is called the Eagle nebula for it's shape. In essense this is a picture back in time as we can only see the light that took thousands of years to get here.)</span></div><br />Philosophy has danced around one particular subject more than anything else. I touched upon it in my last post but I’d like to touch on another aspect of it and create a type of series.<br /><br />The topic as you might have guessed is God and how philosophy deals with the question of His existence. It would be impossible to call this a blog on philosophy if we don’t deal with the most important philosophical question of all.<br /><br />There are other mini topics though that directly leads to our main one. These topics have at one time or another crossed everyone’s mind but now I’d like to periodically answer them all as I deem correctly. Today’s topic will deal with the universe and how a philosopher looks at it when dealing with the question of God’s existence.<br /><br />The previous post mentioned how evil is allowed to coexist while God’s mercy is also manifest.<br /><br />This post will speak on the universe and how its footprint helps answer the question of God’s existence.<br /><br />Future posts will touch on morality and where to get it’s construct (The mystery post) along with a range of other topics.<br /><br />~~~~~~~<br /><br /><strong>Absolute knowledge of the Universe</strong><br /><br />Though no one can absolutely know the future, it seems that as of now science has hit a brick wall when it comes to studying the universe.<br /><br />The wall is known as Plank time. It’s 1.0 x 10^-47 seconds after the universe was created.<br />That’s basically a very small decimal with 46 zeroes. So it’s tremendously less than a millisecond.<br /><br />All current models of our universe end there. Why? The best theory is because that’s when all the Universe’s laws came into existence and a moment before that there was absolutely nothing governing the universe.<br /><br />So if the laws of your construct, or system, fall apart it’s like trying to explore a home that’s so weak its foundations threaten to drop the whole thing and when your reach the second floor everything collapses before you can get a look.<br /><br />This wall is important to understand because all the constants of the universe were created right then and at one interval. To think that such an ordered universe with such self sustaining properties could roll the dice so quickly and decide so effortlessly on its future and end up winning on every gamble; is mind boggling. This will be discussed in more detail later because first we need to prove there was a beginning to the universe in the first place.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><strong>The Steady State Theory</strong><br /><br />A friend of mine centralized his world on this theory. He wasn’t necessarily a science whiz but the world made sense to him when this theory took hold. It was something he picked not because of science but because it helped order his world.<br /><br />Maybe that’s why it’s so popular today, even if it’s completely abhorred by the vast majority of scientists. Science has totally and utterly destroyed this concept even though it keeps lingering in our minds.<br /><br />So what did my friend’s world revolve around? He felt, as the steady state theory tells us, that the universe didn’t have a beginning and it had always been around. He felt it that in an infinite amount of time life eventually developed.<br /><br />See if the universe had no beginning there was no need for a creator to create it. It doesn’t need creating because it was always there, he’d think to himself. My friend was still open to other opinions and ready to listen so I used a well known proof against his theory to shake up his world.<br /><br />I simply told him to consider Hydrogen. Hydrogen as you probably know is the most abundant element in the Universe. When it clumps together and the gravity is strong enough it creates Helium inside Stars. This is known as nuclear fusion and it’s what powers our sun.<br /><br />I then mentioned the law of conservation of matter and energy. It simply states that Matter and Energy are neither created nor destroyed but always converted from one to the other. Even in a Nuclear bomb, the atom that is split releases a set amount of Energy that can be measured by E=MC^2.<br /><br />I then asked him what would happen if for an infinite span of time Hydrogen continued bonding with hydrogen. Or another way I put it, “How much hydrogen would there be in the universe if for an Infinite amount of years before your birth, hydrogen became helium. How much hydrogen would be left after your birth?”<br /><br />After a few seconds he realized that with an INFINITE span of time, there would be no hydrogen left and the fact that Hydrogen is the most abundant element currently stands as a clear testament to the Universe’s creation.<br /><br />He quickly asked me, “But if the universe was created, what was there before the universe?” I simply told him what scientists say, nothing. By nothing I mean there was no matter, space, or time. As scientists put it, according to the Big Bang theory, matter, space, and time were created when the universe was created.<br /><br />“But how could there be nothing, especially no time or space?” he seemed to say pleadingly.<br /><br />I simply told him to ponder on those thoughts and now wake up to his new world. He would have to re-mold his thinking and ideas around new principles and new concepts. One new concept he’d now have to take very seriously was God and how a universe this great simply came from nothing.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><strong>Self Sustaining<br /></strong><br />As you can probably tell the universe takes care of everything it needs on its own. The water cycle on the earth is a great example and many other great examples can be given.<br /><br />As one scientist put it once, “The universe is self sustaining, what would God need to do anyway?”<br /><br />He was looking at the question the wrong way. He should have asked himself, “How did the Universe become self sustaining in the first place? Where did these laws and qualities come from?”<br /><br />What makes the universe self sustaining in the first place are the laws that guide it. There is a set mathematical number for the strength of gravity, the inner molecular forces, the amount of matter in this universe, and hundreds of other laws.<br /><br />Because these laws were fine tuned correctly, we live in a universe that functions well and has these self sustaining qualities.<br /><br />Regardless of the actual decision that went into picking each law, there are interactions with the laws themselves that help produce stability.<br /><br />For example there was the choice of how much matter to put in the world and the choice for the strength of gravity. Imagine two knobs and a dial underneath which could choose from an infinite span of numbers. Remember that you must be correct by mere fractions or the whole universe is no longer self sustaining.<br /><br />Like if gravity was 2% weaker and the amount of matter in this world was correctly picked, we’d never form stars because Gravity would not have enough force to cause nuclear fusion.<br /><br />Or if the earth was just 5% further or closer to the sun, that life would be impossible. Besides distance, you must take into account the size of the earth which determines its gravitational pull. There is also the problem of the moon, without which we could not exist. Should the moon disappear we would have 2 extreme sides to the earth, one with extreme heat and one with extreme cold.<br /><br />Just these small details alone pale in comparison to the constants you must pick which have dire consequences if picked wrong.<br /><br />Thus as you can see the mere fact our universe is self sustaining in the first place is a marvel.<br /><br />The probability for this to happen by chance works like this:<br /><br />We have lets say 1,000 or so set constants that need to be picked + details that were required to make life for us self sustaining.<br />____________________________________ Divided by<br /><br />An infinite amount of possible chances and numbers to choose from.<br /><br /><br />So what do you get when you divide a finite number by an infinite amount of chances? You get infinity which means it’s completely impossible that these choices could have come out correct on their own by mere random chance, every single time. How can this be done especially when the margin of error is so small? How can this be done when you have to consider all the interactions of the constants themselves with each other?<br /><br />The universe is self sustaining but never forgot that obtaining these properties is a miracle in its own right.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br /><strong>Final Thoughts<br /></strong><br />What we can gather from this discussion is simple and yet very thought provoking.<br /><br />1) At one time nothing existed; no time, space, or matter.<br />2) A self sustaining universe was then created from nothing.<br />3) Plank time occurred and after it all the constants were chosen instantly.<br />4) Life formed and asked how all this took place.<br /><br />Whether God exists or not is for you to ponder on. But what remains clear is a myriad of astonishing events took place before the advent of our creation. How they took place is a question that remains central to the question of God itself. Also what constitutes nothing?<br /><br />Are we truly the final descendants of a void; of nothing; of a vacuum more empty than that of space?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0