f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\A Civil Rebuttal not revolt.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Civil Rebuttal (not revolt) Philosophy -- a:pursuit of wisdom. b:a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means. Through this most specific definition given to us respectively by Sir Webster's dictionary, I choose in my best interest to refrain to you just what the meaning of philosophy is. I implore you to try and comprehend this matter in what exactly this word brought abrupt to us is about. The word philosophy has two definitive definitions. The first simply means to pursue, or strive for, wisdom. I beg to differ in the understanding of the fault I make in trying to gain this unprecedented 'knowledge.' The knowledge that we as a unity try to strive for have made us, again as a unity, divides. I asked myself exactly how we have achieved 'civilized chaos' in the search for our solutions and resolutions of the very 'virus' it seems we have caused. I would not of course go so far as to say a civil war between the generations within this house, but moreover to express that simply by me using philosophy, it becomes not only my benefit, but a mutualism between us. Please feel more than obliged to correct me if I am incorrect (morally or politically) but are we not all philosophers ourselves? As a baker's vocation is to bake, a philosopher's vocation is to think. Is it not that we all think? I was deeply saddened at your comments in the oppression and restriction to what I may or may not strive to think. As a pacifist and non-sadist, I call what you believe in as 'ingraining or indoctrination', whereas our own society may call it 'brainwashing'. Our human nature gives us freedom, as does the Constitution. It guarantees us the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Within the refines of this home, I find it a task to see those liberties granted. Here is a few of the world's greatest oppressors: Jim Jones, Adolph Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, David Koresh, and Anton Szandor LaVey. I know, as well as you, that these notorious six are among the world's most hated. However here are a few oppressors from another standpoint: Sigmund Freud, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, and Siddharta Guatama the Buddha. These are the exact opposite of the previously mentioned, who put an oppression into a good morality. It's not about who uses the gift, it's the entirety of the user's ethics. The second definition of the word philosophy aptly states that it is the desire to learn more through speculation rather than observation. Without speculation, we as a planet would be at loss. There would never have been discoveries of planets, medicinal uses, genetic finds, and behavioral studies. Lets face it, without philosophy, we would still get leeched at the doctors for the common cold. These fine discoveries were all made by philosophers. Now these philosophers were brave enough to challenge science, the government, and even the Church. Now, I am not one to stand here and say that I will believe in unholy blasphemy, but rather I feel I should receive the liberty to speak freely as long as I hold myself in a civil and adult manner. In conclusion to this essay, I must tell you that this in itself is my philosophy. I believe it was the great reformist Voltaire who says, "I do not agree with a single word you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it." In some respects, I feel non-indifferent to his theory. So I beseech you to help yourselves as well as others in this house to let me speak freely of my philosophy, for the word is simply a synonym to the word think. The famous quote, "I think, therefore I am." supports my belief and should support yours. Furthermore, if we do not philosophize, we do not think. Scholars have made it known that the only relics of others are within their philosophy. For instance, GOD, Elshadai, or Adanai, is known exclusively through his philosophies. The Bible refers to creation as, ". . . and GOD saw it was good. . ." GOD philosophized that things were good. I know you cannot disagree with me on this reasoning, for you would be one to doubt GOD. I am trying my best to not make this about theology, but to simply keep it within one field. In short: the only people that choose to who speaks of philosophy are the speaker themselves. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\A Comparison of Plato and Aristotle .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plato versus Aristotle Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern. Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in the world. Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the form. According to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave. Only those who love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve understanding of the forms. Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge lovers, are the only beings who can reach true knowledge. This concept has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the form of the good. Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the greatest form--form of the good--in order to rule. The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule. In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers. Even though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the core of his discussion of the ideal state. The question that arises is, 'Why do you need ideal states which will have philosophers as rulers?' There are many layers to the answer of this question. The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal without having philosophers as rulers. This answer leads to the question, 'Then why do you need ideal states to begin with?' The Republic starts with a discussion of Justice which leads to the creation of the ideal state. The reason why an ideal state is needed is to guarantee the existence of Justice. This does not mean, though, that there cannot be states without Justice. Actually, Plato provides at least two reasons why the formation of a state cannot be avoided. These are: 1. human beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and 2. each person has a natural aptitude for a specified task and should concentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp 56-62). Although a person is not self-sufficient, a composition of people--a state--satisfies the needs of all its members. Furthermore, members can specialize on their natural fortitudes and become more productive members of society. States are going to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally. For this reason, certain rules have to be enacted for the well-being of the state. The main way to institutionalize rules is through government and in the form of laws. Plato's The Republic is not an explication of laws of the people. It is a separation of power amongst three classes--Rulers, Auxiliaries, Commoners--that makes the most of each person's natural abilities and strives for the good of the community. The point is to create a harmonious unity amongst the three classes which will lead to the greater good of the community and, consequently, each individual. The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various individuals. Plato assigns different political roles to different members of each class. It appears that the only classes that are allowed to participate in government are the Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosopher Rulers. The lower class does not partake in politics because they are not mentally able. In other words, they do not understand the concept of the forms. Thus, it is better to allow the Philosophers, who do have this knowledge, to lead them. Providing food and abode for the Guardians is the only governmental responsibility the lower class has. The Auxiliaries are in charge of the military, police, and executive duties. Ruling and making laws is reserved for the Philosopher Rulers whose actions are all intended for the good of the state. To ensure that public good continues to be foremost on each Ruler's agenda, the Rulers live in community housing, hold wives/children in common, and do not own private property. The separation of classes is understood by everybody Self-interest, which could be a negative factor in the scheme of things, is eliminated through a very moral oriented education system. All these provisions are generated to maintain unity of the state. The most extravagant precaution that Plato takes is the Foundation Myth of the metals. By making the people believe, through a myth, that the distinction of each class is biological as well as moral, Plato reassures that there won't be any disruption in the harmony of the state. Whereas Plato's The Republic is a text whose goal is to define Justice and in doing so uses the polis, Aristotle's The Politics's sole function is to define itself--define politics. Aristotle begins his text by answering the question: "Why does the state exist?" His answer is that the state is the culmination of natural associations that start with the joining of man and woman ("pair"), which have a family and form a "household"; households unite and form villages; villages unite and form the state. This natural order of events is what is best because it provides for the needs of all the individuals. Aristotle, like Plato, believes that a person is not self-reliant. This lack of sufficiency is the catalyst in the escalating order of unions among people. In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very set on breaking down society. His argument says that there are different classes in society, but they are naturally defined. For example, he devotes a lot of time to an explanation of the "naturalness" of slaves and their role in society. Aristotle is also very sexist and explicitly states so. His view is that women are inferior to men in all senses. Perhaps the most pertaining to our discussion is the citizen, whose role is purely political. Both Plato and Aristotle seem to agree that some people are not capable of practicing an active role in political life. Plato's reason is that the lower class is not mentally adept for the intricacies of higher knowledge on the good. Aristotle seems to base his opinion on a more political issue. He believes that only those that fully participate in their government should be considered citizens of the state. For this reason, he excludes workers as citizens because they would not have the required time to openly participate in politicking. The Aristotelian polis, as opposed to Plato's, is a city with a large middle class which promotes stability and balances the conflicting claims of the poor and the rich. Aristotle combines elements of democracy with elements of aristocracy, again to balance opposing claims. Because he is aware that human interest is an inextricable entity, the distribution of scarce and valuable goods is in proportion to contribution to the good of the polis. This system provides for the self interested who believe that those who work harder should receive more. Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as the mixed social system allows. This is permissible because of the strong involvement of the citizens in government; it is what one would call a "true democracy." Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails. The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, yet today it is difficult to find specific instances where either philosophy is applied. This may be a result of the fact that today's political philosophy differs from both philosopher's. While Aristotle and Plato uphold the good of the community or state above individual good, today's constitution includes a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation. Having these individual rights is a necessity for today's citizens. Going back in history to 1787 will show that one of the reasons there was controversy in the ratification of the constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights. When the drafters promised that as soon as the constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights would be added, the doubting states proceeded to ratify it. According to Plato and Aristotle, a Bill of Rights is not necessary because it does not improve the good of the community. Another point of discrepancy between the philosophers and today's society involves the topic of slavery. Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered grotesque for quite some time. In correlation to slavery, there is the undermining of the female population by Aristotle. Although Plato is a lot less discriminatory, he also believes women are the sub-species. While women have had to fight endless battles to achieve the recognition they deserve, today it is a well accepted fact (generally) that women are as capable as men in performing tasks. Naturally, since Aristotle and Plato have been around for such a long time, our society certainly contains some of their influences in a general sense. For example, today it is believed that certain people are born with certain capacities. Intelligence has been attributed to genetics. Because of the different intelligence levels among people, we have different classes--for example: advanced, intermediate, and beginners. In their appropriate level, each person develops his or her abilities to the highest potential. This concept is sometimes at odds with the ideal of equality, ie. we are all human beings. Yet, in essence, it does not take away from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ in certain capacity levels to complete tasks. Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate our practices. The philosophers are very community oriented while we value the individual. Besides differing with today's standards, each philosopher is in his own way distinct. Plato is very attracted to metaphysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical. Both perspective views are and will continue to puzzle students for years to come. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\A Critique of Socrates Guilt in the Apology.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Brief Comment on the Query: "Is Socrates Guilty As Charged?" History of Political Thought 47.230 B Mini-Essay for Discussion Group #3 In any case of law, when one is considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and of the entity of authority itself. In Socrates case, the situation is no different. One may be said to be guilty or not of any said crime, but the true measure of guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court structure to which it is subject to. Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is 'guilty or not', we must keep in mind the societal norms and standards of Athens at the time, and the legitimacy of his accusers and the validity of the crimes that he allegedly committed. Having said this, we must first look at the affidavit of the trial, what exactly Socrates was being accused with: "Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things under the earth and the heavenly things, and by making the weaker speech the stronger, and by teaching others these same things."1 In breaking this charge down, we see that it is two-fold. Firstly, Socrates is charges with impiety, a person who does not believe in the state gods of Athens and, not only that, but by its literal meaning, does not believe in the authority of gods at all. To this, Socrates seems baffled. He states that the reason behind the 'criminal meddling', the questioning of people's wisdom, was commissioned to him by the gods through the Oracle of Delphi. As Socrates said, "...but when god stationed me, as I supposed and assumed, ordering me to live philosophizing and examining myself and others...that my whole care is to commit no unjust or impious deed."2He even seems to win a victory over one of his accusers, Meletus, in questioning this point. As Socrates points out, it is impossible for him to be both atheistic and to believe in demons, or false gods, for if he believes in the latter, then that would contradict his not believing in gods at all (since even demons are considered to be at least demi-gods). The second part of the charge was that Socrates was attacking the very fabric of the Athenian society by corrupting its citizens, namely the youth. In other words, Meletus and the other accusers are accusing Socrates of a crime of 'non-conformity' - instead of page 2 bowing to those who are held in places of authority and those who have reputations of being wise, Socrates believes that it is his role in life to question these people in their wisdom, and to expose those who claim that they are knowledgeable and wise, but who really are not. This nation of questioning the legitimacy of those in power would certainly not be called a 'crime' by today's standards, nor would it really have in Athenian time. The true nature of this charge was vengeance carried out on the part of the power-holders of Athenian society: the politicians, poets, manual artisans. Socrates, in effect, made fools out of these people, exposing their speeches are mere rhetoric than actual wisdom and knowledge. By being a teacher as such, but never collecting any fees and therefore innocent from profiting from such ventures, he was said to have been corrupting and citizens of Athens into believing that these so-called people of wisdom were not actually wise at all. As Socrates says, "...and this is what will convict me, if it does convict me: not Meletus of Antyus, but the envy and slander of the many. This has convicted many other good men too, and I suppose it will also convict me. And there is no danger that it will stop me."3 Another point to be made is that Socrates proves that if what he has done has actually been corrupting society, and could be considered a crime, then he has not caused any harm voluntarily. In any criminal charge, the fact of the accused's mens rea, or 'guilty mind', would be compulsory to prove on a guilty charge. But Socrates states that, at least for him, voluntarily corrupting any human being would simply be impossible, "...I am not even cognizant that if I ever do something wretched to any of my associates, I will risk getting back something bad from him?"4 Although his 'guilty mind' was never proved, Socrates does realize that he will be found guilty of this charge, although he does say that justly this would never have been a criminal charge, but could have been dealt with privately, "...and if I corrupt involuntarily, the law is not that you bring me in here for such page 3 involuntary wrongs, but that you take me aside in private to teach and admonish me...where the law is to bring in those in need of punishment, not learning."5 There is one other point that might be raised in questioning the legitimacy of the trial, and that is the fact that it was carried out in only one day. Socrates says after his verdict has been read that if his trial could have carried on for a longer period of time, as it might have in other cities such as Sparta, then he might have been able to convince the jury of his innocence. Alas, Socrates quickly became the victim of the wealthy elites in Athenian society, who did not want their hold on the power and minds of the rest of society who be tampered with. If justice is to be questioned in the charge of Socrates, then I do think that Socrates should have been found innocent, since no real crimes were committed. As for a question of the Athenian laws, and the structure of the Athenian justice system, one could say that Socrates might have dabbled in a bit of treason in a way, since those who he was publicly making a mockery out of were those who were in positions of authority. But overall, it cannot be denied that Socrates suffered a great injustice by being found guilty, by being put on trial in the first place. The true substance of the trial was never a criminal matter nor a strain on democracy, but a challenge to an oppressive and oligarcical ruling class, and Socrates became an symbol of true wisdom and knowledge, a symbol that needed to be disposed of for the elites to remain the power-holders in society. List of Works Cited Plato. "The Apology of Socrates." West, Thomas G. and West, Grace Starry, eds. Plato and Aristophanes: Four Texts on Socrates. Itacha, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984. 1Plato, "The Apology of Socrates," Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West, eds., Plato and Aristophanes: Four Texts on Socrates. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), s.19c, p.66. 2Ibid, s.29a/32d, p.80/p.85. 3Ibid, s.28b, p.79. 4Ibid, s.25e, p.75. 5Ibid, s.26a, p.75. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\A Critique of the Book Feeling Good.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the book Feeling Good , David Burns, MD, the author, outlines certain cognitive techniques an individual suffering from depression could use in combating the disorder. He begins the book by briefly describing the pertinence and the prevalence of depression. The author captures the audience's attention in the first paragraph: " In fact depression is so widespread it is considered the common cold of psychiatric disturbances" (Burns, 1992) p. 9. Burns(1992), continues to suggest that the difference between the common cold and depression lies in the fact that depression is lethal. Irwing and Barbara Serason (1996) suggest that at least 90 percent of all suicide victims suffer from a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death. Irwing and Barbara Serason (1996) also state that one of the risk factors in committing suicide is the presence of mood disorder. Silverman (1993) states that suicide among young people 15 to 19 years of age has increased by 30 percent from the years 1980 to 1990. In my opinion David Burns brings up a valid issue in addressing the pertinence of depression as it pertains to peoples tendencies of committing a suicide; other academics have agreed with the same findings. However these academics have not specifically stated that depression is the only risk factor of committing a suicide. They did not even suggest that depression is the heighest weighted risk factor in committing a suicide. The impression the reader gets after reading the introductory paragraph of the Feeling Good book is that severe depression will inevitably result in suicide unless it is cured. Implying that if a person has a depressive disorder, it will lead to a suicide can be dangerous and counterproductive for a person who already feels hopeless; this may reaffirm their belief of hopelessness and the inevitability of the disorder. Once the first paragraph is passed the author indicates that there is hope in curing depression, giving the reader an encouragement to continue with the book. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM-IV), mood disorders are classified into two broad categories, bipolar and unipolar depressive disorders. The book Feeling Good only talks about the unipolar depressive disorders, thus, I will only concentrate on that one category. Unipolar mood disorders are classified under axis I of the DSM-IV. Unipolar depressive disorders are further classified into two categories: dysthymic, and major depressive disorder. Even though both of the disorders are mood disorders they have some fundamental differences and similarities. According to DSM-IV people experiencing major depression must have depressed moods and/or diminished interest for at least two weeks, for most of the day, and for most days than not. They must also experience four additional symptoms, such as: weigh loss or gain, insomnia or hypersomnia, psychomotor retardation or agitation, feelings of worthlessness, feelings of hopelessness, low self-esteem, difficulty concentrating, or suicidal thoughts. This is an acute , and usually recurrent disorder. Around 50 percent of people who experience one major depressive episode will experience another in the course of their life. Dysthymic disorder is similar to major depressive disorder in that people experiencing the disorder go through periods of depressed moods. However, intensity, and duration of such moods are one among many differences between the two disorders. Dysthymic disorder is a chronic disorder lasting, on average, five years. In order to be diagnosed with the disorder one has to feel depressed for most of the day, most days than not for at least two years. The person experiencing this disorder also has to have two of the symptoms mentioned in the section that described major depressive disorder. Due to its chronic nature, dysthymic disorder is sometimes difficult to distinguish from a personality disorder. Feeling Good does not clearly identify the categories of unipolar disorders; it groups them together into one category called "depression". The danger of this is in the reader's perception of what condition they may have. For example, a person who is expressing a major depressive episode and is incapacitated may not have the energy or concentration to employ some of the cognitive techniques outlined in this book. This person may however benefit more from of an Electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) which is not outlined in this book. The readers are not informed of all the options they have to treat the disorder they are experiencing. Rush and Weissemburger (1994), suggest that ECT is very effective in treatment of the major depressive disorders. Research indicates that in 80 to 90 percent of patients experiencing a major depressive episode, ECT is effective. However this treatment is shown not to be effective in treatment of milder forms of depressive disorders such as dysthymia. David Burns' neglect to classify the two separate disorders into distinct categories does not allow him to identify ECT as a successful option in treating major depression. The author however discusses some alternative options in the treatment of depression. He describes one study that was done at the University of Pennsylvania school of Medicine. Doctors John Rush and Aaron Beck, and some other specialists were involved in the study which compared the effectiveness of cognitive therapy and pharmacological treatment of depression. Individuals suffering from major depression were randomly assigned to two groups. One group received individual cognitive psychotherapy while the other group was treated with a tricyclic antidepressant drug called Tofralin. Both groups were treated for twelve weeks before the symptoms were re-evaluated. The results showed that cognitive therapy was superior to the pharmacological treatment in almost all of the conditions measured( number of people recovered completely, number of people who recovered considerably but still experiencing borderline to mild depression, number of people who did not substantially improve, number of people who dropped out of treatment). The empirical findings indicated that fifteen out of nineteen people who were treated with the cognitive therapy completely recovered. Only five out of twenty five people treated with antidepressants completely recovered. The only category where pharmacological treatment was superior was the category that measure the number of people who recovered considerably but are still experiencing border line to mild depression. Only two individuals recovered partially under the cognitive treatment, where 7 people recovered partially under the pharmacological treatment. Similar research was done in 1992 by the National Institute of Mental Health(NIMH), NIMH did not find significant difference between the two therapies immediately after the treatments. They however did find in a 24 month follow up study that patients who were treated with cognitive therapy were much less likely to have the disorder return than the patients who were treated with antidepressants. Even though cognitive therapy seemed to have been superior in both studies, the findings from the two studies were not corroborative. The study David Burns describes in order to support cognitive therapy indicated that significantly more patients recovered in cognitive therapy than in pharmacological therapy immediately after the twelve week treatment. NIMH study found no significant difference between the two treatment immediately following the therapy. The reasons the two studies came up with different results may be numerous. It is impossible to conclude which one of the two studies is more valid. However both studies have experimentally demonstrated that cognitive therapy is a superior form of treatment whether immediately following the therapy or after 24 month follow up period. In order to make a stronger point about the superiority of cognitive therapy, David Burns could have offered at least one more experiment that corroborated the results. In addition the methodology of the experiment he illustrated has some obvious flaws. The group sizes of the two compared conditions(Cognitive therapy and Pharmacological therapy) were not equal. The cognitive therapy group had 19 individuals where the drug therapy group had 25 individuals. In calculating the significant difference between the two group means, using the t-test, would require the groups to be of equal sizes. Therefore, due to the group size inequality, the results may have been interpreted more liberally than if the group sizes were the same. On the other hand having a smaller degree of freedom in the cognitive therapy group required a greater t score in order to infer significance. As a result it is difficult to conclude whether the methodology of the experiment had anything to do with the significance of the results. However, if the study is to be replicated, it would be beneficial to keep the sample sizes the same. This would make the study stronger, and results more interpretable. The author of this book has been greatly influenced by the theories and studies of Aaron Beck MD. Specifically, the author has based the theoretical part of the book on Beck's cognitive distortion model. This model postulates that depression is best described as a cognitive triad of negative thoughts ( Saranson & Saranson 1996). Beck suggests that a person who is depressed focuses on negative thoughts, interprets situations in a negative way, and is pessimistic and hopeless about the future. In other words people who are depressed might blame themselves for their actions in the past and continue to believe that the future is just as gloomy. Beck also believes that any misfortune that happens to a depressed person is internalized and attributed to their own character. These internal and stable interpretations of negative events leaves the person feeling hopeless and in turn depressed. On the other hand, according to Beck's theory, any positive events in the depressed person life are externalized or considered to be "lucky". In a sense, such people may feel that only bad things happen to them and that if anything good does happen it is due to a circumstance that is beyond their control. However, people who are not depressed tend to do the opposite, they blame the situation for anything bad in their life and accept full responsibility for the positive aspects of their life. Beck describes the above as the attributional model of depression. David Burns summarizes this theory in a way that is very easy to follow and conceptualize. He identifies the process that is going on in the depressed person/s mind as the process of cognitive distortions. He identifies the ten most common cognitive distortions. Most of them are self explanatory therefore I will name all of them and only elaborate on some. The first cognitive distortion mentioned is "All or Nothing Thinking", a tendency to evaluate personal qualities in black or white categories. Second is "Overgeneralization". Third is a "Mental Filter", which is a way of picking out a negative part of a situation and thus assuming that the situation as a whole is negative. Forth is "Disqualifying the Positive". Fifth is "Jumping to Conclusions". Sixth is "Magnification and Minimization", which is the way a depressed person magnifies the bad elements of their life and minimizes the good. The seventh cognitive distortion mentioned in the book is "Emotional Reasoning", which is interpreting emotions as proof of how bad the situation is ( i.e., I feel stupid, therefore I am stupid). Eight is "Should Statements". Ninth is "Labeling and Mislabeling", a way of creating a negative self-image based on the errors of the person's errors. The last cognitive distortion David Burns mentiones is "Personalization", which is assuming responsibility for negative events even though there is no basis for doing so. Once the author identified and explained the cognitive distortions, he then attempts to illustrate how they are used in every day life, which makes the book much more relevant to the reader; this is one of the crucial differences between academic writing and self-help books, such as Feeling Good; the reader automatically understands the relevance of the theory and feels compelled to apply it. The strength of the cognitive theory of depression is that it concentrates on the obvious problem at hand. The person who is depressed often does not have the energy or will to search deeper than the problem that is facing them. Therefore, this theory seems very useful especially in its ability to raise motivation in patients. Patients usually understand the thoughts and resulting feelings more clearly as a result of this approach. However the cognitive theory of depression does not break the surface of the problem; the theory does not go deep enough into the "wound"( in order to try to conceptualize and "fix" the root of the problem). The psychodynamic approach is far superior to the cognitive approach when the nature of the problem is deeply rooted and stems from the person's childhood. If the patient who is experiencing depression has an unresolved conflict inside their psyche, the depression may recur if such conflict is not addressed. Unfortunately the original idea behind the cognitive theory would not support that. Fortunately some cognitive therapists, such as Beck, have recognized the importance of this issue and have appropriately reconstructed the clinical application of the cognitive theory so that provision for such deep rootted problems are made. David Burns implements the cognitive theory of depression by suggesting some simple to use self help techniques. These techniques are similar to some of the therapeutic approaches clinicians use in cognitive therapy. For example, a clinician may try to coach the person who is depressed to identify some automatic thought that leaves them feeling depressed, and substitute it with thoughts that evaluate the situation more realistically. David Burns implements this approach in a similar way. He first identifies the importance of gaining self esteem in order to deal with depression. Burns presents some cases where he first identifies what the patient is saying about themselves, and then challenges their statements. This shows the patient how unrealistic their negative self evaluations are and in turn boosts their self image from hopeless to somewhat hopeful. The second step was to help the patient overcome their sense of worthlessness. This was done in a way that the patient is encouraged to identify thoughts that lead them to feel depressed. This approach is concurrent with other cognitive therapists' approaches. The cognitive therapist reasons with the person, encouraging them to understand why these thought are distorted, and finally helps them to implement more realistic self-evaluatory statements. As a result, the approach of combating distorted thoughts by talking back and implementing more realistic thoughts corroborates David Burns' therapy with other cognitively oriented clinicians. This book seems to be very effective in identifying some common thoughts and feelings depressed people might experience. As such, this book would be very appealing to people experiencing depressed moods as well as anyone who feels hopeless about their day-today life. The author describes everyday feelings and thoughts in a way that is very comprehensive. The reader is left with the encouraging impression that their feelings are common and curable. However, for a person experiencing clinical depression, this book may present a false sense of hopefulness. The reader who is in this predicament, may solely rely on this book and ris failing at implementing the techniques suggested by the author. The therapeutic techniques suggested are best utilized under the supervision of a clinician. The author does not encourage the person to get help beyond this book. Therefore, the therapeutic techniques illustrated in this book are left to be interpreted by the patient. This might be dangerous if the depressed person is in a frame of mind where he or she is hanging on any breath of hope put forth. In short, the book itself may not completely accomplish its purpose; which may bring the patient back to their original state if not leave them feeling even more hopeless about their future. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\A Philosophy for all an analysis of the Tao.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Philosophy For All- An Analysis of the Tao There is no single definition of Taoism in the Tao de Ching. The reader realizes that she will not find one in the text after seeing the first sentence. By saying that whatever can be described of the Tao is not the true Tao, its author, Lao-tzu, establishes his first premise: the Tao is a force beyond human explanation. However this assumption does not mean that he can't attempt to describe it. Using the literary tools of contradiction, parallel structure, and metaphor, Lao-tzu discusses the Tao in language regular people can understand. Contradiction In the beginning the Tao gave birth to both good and evil (Ch 5) and along with that came all of the other pairs. In Chapter 36 Lao-tzu discusses action and reaction, "If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand. If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish. If you want to take something, you must first allow it to be given." This excerpt ties into the statement in Chapter 30 that "for every force there is a counter force" which is applicable to political situations. For example, if a ruler noticed an uprising of disgruntled subjects, it would be wise of her to let them organize, or expand, and state their grievances as a whole before she individually addressed their complaints. Lao-tzu also uses contradiction in Ch 22, "If you want to become whole, let yourself be partial. If you want to become strait, let yourself be crooked. If you want to become full, let yourself be empty. If you want to be reborn, let yourself die..." In other words, if a person wants to succeed she must first understand the opposition. This strategy is used often in war. In order to predict what the enemy will do next, one can think like the enemy, be the enemy. Another way to understand this contradiction is by applying it to modern day life. In many cases those who are most against drinking are former alcoholics. They have, in a sense, gone straight from being crooked, been reborn from having died. In Ch 45 Lao-tzu uses contradiction to discuss human nature, "True perfection seems imperfect, yet it is perfectly itself. True fullness seems empty, yet it is fully present." People are always in seek of more. Everything must be bigger, better, newer. We need to look closer at life because even when shown fantastic splendor, humans have a tendency to ask "is that all?". When Lao-tzu says that "true fullness seems empty" he is referring to the fact that people hardly ever notice what they have until it is gone. When something is gone, that is when people realize how "full" their lives were before. Parallel Structure In Ch 41 Lao-tzu uses parallel structure to describe the Tao. "When a superior man hears of the Tao, he immediately begins to embody it. When an average man hears of the Tao, he half believes it, half doubts it. When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud. If he didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the Tao." Parallel structure is a method of repetition after which a conclusion is stated. In this case Lao-tzu describes how a superior, average, and foolish man take to the Tao, and then, how the Tao is defined. In the same way that the superior man must embody the Tao, the foolish man must laugh at it. This is one example of the duality of the Tao- it needs both good and bad aspects to exist. Another instance in which Lao-tzu uses parallel structure is to explain non-being in Chapter 11, "We join spokes together in a wheel but it is the center hole that makes the wagon move. We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want. We hammer wood for a house, but it is the inner space that makes it livable. We work with being, but non-being is what we use." Although in our daily lives we focus on what is, what is not is of more importance. This is another comment on human nature. People tend to overlook what they have, and focus on what they don't have. Like the hole that makes the wheel move, this struggle for what is lacking, i.e. non-being, is what causes people to strive for improvement. Adjectives and Metaphors One of the most effective ways Lao-tzu explains the Tao is through metaphor. As contrasted to bare adjectives, metaphors explain abstract concepts by relating them to every day objects. For example, "It is serene. Empty. Solitary. Unchanging. Infinite. Eternally present" in Ch 25 doesn't really help explain the Tao. However in Ch 4 he says, "The Tao is like a well: used but never used up." And in Ch 5, "The Tao is like a bellows: it is empty yet infinitely capable." These metaphors say essentially the same thing as the description in Ch 25 but they are much easier to comprehend. If the Tao is like a well it is restorative and replenishing. One must work at the Tao to get its rewards just as a person must lift the bucket to the top of the well in order to drink the water. If the Tao is like a bellows, then when it is not used it is vacant, dead. But when in action, the bellows produces powerful currents of air as the Tao produces powerful guidance. Lao-tzu has taken these abstract concepts such as nothingness and infinity and analyzed them in terms of things people understand (i.e. well, bellows...). In Ch 32 he goes on to explain, "The Tao can't be perceived. Smaller than an electron, it contains uncountable galaxies....All things end in the Tao as rivers flow into the sea." Lao-tzu makes the Tao seem so much greater than the reader by explaining that it contains galaxies, but then goes on to connect the reader with it saying that everyone is drawn to the Tao like rivers to the sea. The common man It is important to Lao-tzu to make the people understand the Tao because the Tao is for all. This is why he attempts to state its principles in a fairly straightforward manner. He appreciated the common man and after spending so much time on explaining the Tao, he uses it to tell the people how to live. Often times, to do this, Lao-tzu offers examples of how the ancient Masters conducted themselves. In Ch 15, "They were careful as someone crossing an iced-over stream. Alert as a warrior in enemy territory. Courteous as a guest. Fluid as melting ice. Shapable as a block of wood. Receptive as a valley. Clear as a glass of water." With these similes he explains that as a Taoist the reader should be cautious and kind, flexible and open, observant and straightforward. He does not accept honor or glory as values. Unlike many other philosophies/religions where the ideal person should be an example to others, Taoism focuses on the individual herself. Also unlike many other philosophies which view the commoner as a dullard, Taoism looks upon a moderate person favorably, "The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas. Tolerant like the sky, all-pervading like sunlight, firm like a mountain, supple like a tree in the wind..." (Ch. 59) In Ch 39, "He doesn't glitter like a jewel but lets himself be shaped by the Tao, as rugged and common as a stone." This concept of the ideal moderate is mentioned a number of times. In Ch 9 Lao-tzu admonishes extremism, "Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife, and it will blunt." A Taoist is not someone who is driven by hopes for the respect and admiration of her people, but rather wants to be humble and normal. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\A Sound Theist Argument 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The following paper will provide a sound argument in favor of the existence of God. By demonstrating that an Atheist world cannot account for the preconditions of the laws of logic an Atheist cannot even account for a rational debate concerning the existence of God. "The impossibility of the contrary", the best and only proof that the nesesary truth of the existence of God is his revelation of himself to us that makes it possible for us to use logic. This could be translated, using only nessesary truths, into the form of: L: (laws of logic) G: (God exists) if L entails G L ================ G Logic is "the laws of reasoning that God has established." If God has established these laws of reasoning that we call logic then how could the Atheist system account for the laws of logic. First they are immaterial and universal, and how could anything immaterial and universal be accounted for in a naturalistic (matter only) universe. Second if God has established these laws of reasoning then there would be no atheism. An Atheist wants to believe in laws of logic which are universal in application, but in order to escape the ultimate implications of this idea ( there is a God who imposes universal standards of reason.), the Atheist will try to maintain that the "laws of logic" are merely "conventions" of general agreement amongst them. This is philosophically non-acceptable, if logic were simply a matter of convention, it would be impossible to have any kind of rational debate because either side could win by simply stipulating different laws of logic by convention. Therefore since universal laws cannot be changed by convention since they hold constant in all possible worlds is it not fair to say then that there is a God who imposes universal standards of reason. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Academic Attitude.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Academic Attitude During the course of a student's progression through academia, he must learn that the teacher cannot think for him. It is essential for a student to free his mind, allowing thought to flow. Instead of waiting for the answers to be handed to him on a silver platter, he will rise to his full potential, above to the meta level, and for himself, determine what the answer is. The student must also become active in his learning. Therefore taking his academic potential to the higher level. As well as achieving the higher level of thinking, the student must actively pursue his learning. The way a student approaches his education, weather he be in junior high or seeking his doctorate, is his academic attitude. The student should no longer be baby sat. She must think for herself rather than be force fed information. To achieve this higher level of thinking, as Roger Sale explains, takes discipline. Through discipline the students' mind becomes liberated, allowing her knowledge to become "active" (Sale 14). Therefore, by making her knowledge active, the student is able travel past the surface and explore the information in a deeper sense. In doing this, learning does not become a habit. Rather, instead of memorizing material to perform well on a test, or regurgitate it into a paper, the pupil synthesizes the information presented, relating it to other things, hence, learning about the subject. Information, then, is no longer strictly exchanged from teacher to student. It allows the learner to open her mind, liberalizing it, allowing deeper thought into the subject. Approaching learning with a free mind demonstrates quality academic attitude. It is commonly believed that education is based on the fact that a student is to handed information by the teacher (Freire 23). It is as if the teacher is saying, I am an expert, and if I assume that the important fact about my knowledge is that I am indeed an expert, my way of speaking to you, who are not an expert but a beginning student, is always going to be along the lines of: "I have what you want. Here is what I know and you should learn" (Sale 13). When the student is hand fed the information, what he has really done, as stated by Paulo Freire, is just memorize the content that was presented to him. Then the student "repeats these phrases without perceiving what (for example) four times four really is" (Freire 23). This idea is known as the "Banking Concept" (23) Someone, usually the teacher, makes a deposit of facts, then, when the student needs these facts, withdrawals them (23). Through this, the mind is in no way liberalized. In order to liberalize, one must step away from deposit-making. In its place, act upon his own education. Go the extra mile by asking questions and posing problems as they relate to their own experiences. The student, as part of his academic attitude, needs to become involved in his education. There are many ways a student can become involved. Most importantly, a student must become part of a "conversation" with the author while reading. When the student reads as if having a conversation or discussion, she will be able to raise questions or to challenge the authors claims. In the process of questioning the author, the student will determine for herself the meaning of the passage. Only when the student becomes involved and asks questions does this informative dialogue evolve. It is equally important to pursue some sort of conversation during class as well. Through this type of exchange, both the teacher and student benefit. Not only does the student learn from the teacher, but she teaches the teacher in return (Freire 27). Therefore, the student's level of thinking is elevated, her mind liberated, allowing her to synthesize ideas and facts and arrive at a conclusion. It is up to the student to make this happen by becoming active in her learning. Sure one could go to the library and look up what experts have to say about authors and their writings. He could find out what experts think about a certain author, or what they think an essay means. Though, the student has not really learned anything through this process. He needs to come up with the meaning or answers himself. The student may argue that he could come up with his idea, but it would be a lousy one. Though, an idea is an idea and is good if the student derives it himself. The student would then argue that his idea is not what the author meant. A strong reader, explained by Bartholomae and Petrosky, would know that he is not searching for the author's meaning. The meaning is something a reader develops as he reads through the passage (Bartholomae and Petrosky 41). The pupil takes the information presented to him and, by relating key moments to personal experiences formulates his own meaning. This type of "strong reading" requires the student to think freely. It is then that he is able to dig past the surface and see the subject clearly. Together, a student having an open, "liberalized" mind, and taking responsibility for his academic progress leads to a good academic attitude. The way the student approaches his learning greatly affects his academic attitude. As a pupil, one must approach her material openly and relate to it, formulating her own meaning. In order for the student to perform well, she must actively participate in her learning. She should encourage herself to step beyond her comfort level and ask questions. Become involved in discussion, whether this discussion is with the author or the teacher. It is then that the student becomes more knowledgeable. Only when these types of academic habits are pursued will a student have an excellent academic attitude. A students academic attitude, the way she approaches her education, needs to be open and active. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Accounts of Eros in the Symposium.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Accounts of Eros in the "Symposium" The word love carries with it many, many different interpretations. In modern day, our views on what is appropriate love is much different from the views from the time of Socrates and Plato. To them love was eros, a direct translation of the word love. However, the word itself wasn't the only thing that was different about love. In Plato's "Symposium", there is a celebration for Agathon. He had just won a dramatic contest in Athens, Greece two nights ago. It is customary to drink much wine at these gatherings, however, every one present is too weak from the night before. (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. xiii) So a proposition is made, by Phaedrus, to properly give praise to the god Eros, and speak on the topic of love. It was their opinion that no poet has yet been able to properly do so. (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 7) There were a total of seven accounts given in praise of eros, by seven different people who are present at the party. Of these accounts, the one that made the most sense was the speech of Socrates when he quotes Diotima. This account is practical, and shows love not as a heavenly creature, but as a mortal being, where we can interact with him. It also has answers that most of the other accounts could not even question. This is what stands the speech of Socrates and Diotima apart from most of the others. But, there were two other speeches that were also impressive and brought about points that Socrates did not make. These accounts were given by Aristophanes and Agathon. Through these three speeches, we can get a good picture of what eros is. Starting with the most complete account: Socrates and Diotima; and moving through Aristophanes and then Agathon, this paper will show why these accounts are superior, and why Socrates' makes the most sense. After Agathon's speech, it was Socrates' turn to present his account of eros. But before he does, he tells Agathon that his speech was marvelous and that at one time, Socrates also believed in what Agathon believed. That was until a women named Diotima taught him the real truth in eros. It is however, believed, that Socrates made up the character of Diotima, the reason, though, is unknown. In spite of this, Socrates gives a remarkable speech that is truly complete. One of the first misconceptions among all the speakers was the age of the god Love. Many believed him to the oldest of the gods, thus making him ancient. Diotima knows this is not true. She speaks of the way Love was conceived, a clever scheme by a god to escape her misfortunes. It seems the goddess of poverty, Penia laid down beside Poros and became pregnant with Love (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg.48) This makes Love unique. Love is good, though, because he is a lover of wisdom, that is, he pursues the notion of philosophy. But, he is in between wisdom and ignorance (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 49), according to Diotima, which is much different an account from the other speakers. Phaedrus had placed Love at the top of all gods, describing ways in which Love "breathes might into some of the heroes," (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 10). This is untrue. However, Diotima speaks of ways in which love helps human beings. This happens when the love for things like sports or poetry helps a person create something from nothing. Love is a word used to describe the whole, where there are special parts of love used to describe specific passions and possessions. (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 51). And love is wanting to posses the good forever (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 52) Finally we see the main points in Diotima's argument when she accurately describes the real purpose of love. It is almost like a natural instinct. All animals, including humans, have a need to reproduce. The real purpose in love is giving birth in beauty, whether in body or soul (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg.53). This means that the pregnant person causes the baby, or new born idea if the birth resulted from the soul, to be beautiful because all new borns are beautiful and this is as close as a mortal may get to immortality. By producing offspring, the human being continues life forever. By this, we see what it is that love wants as well. And that is reproduction and birth in beauty (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 53) to continue the love, and retain possessions that have been acquired through the good. Diotima had briefly referred to aspects in her story that closely resembled the account of Aristophanes. Aristophanes also gave a vivid account that had brought up arguments that were very interesting. They were somewhat different from Diotima's, but nonetheless, they were good. Aristophanes believed in human nature. No one else had spoke of this. To Aristophanes, there were three kinds of human beings. To the others, there were only two kinds (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 25) Aristophanes described the way humans were. They were completely round, spherical, had four hands and four legs, two faces and two sets of reproductive organs. The three kinds were male and male; female and female; and a special kind of mix of male and female (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 25) These being presumable were too out of control. The gods needed to contain them in order to be served by them. So Zeus had split each human into two halves, making two distinct people (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 26) Now, each person had a feeling that they were incomplete. They longed for their other half. This is their source, and now ours, for desire to love. They spent their lives searching for that other person to complete the circle. Hence, love is born into every human being to go find their other half, this is our nature (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 27). This idea helps Aristophanes describe the male/female love, because to him, it is of the lowest type of love. But for modern society, it helps describe the male/male and female/female love. This idea makes sense to the members of the party. It truly explains why men would love women, and not just keep them to procreate. When the two halves find each other, it is said that something miraculous happens. They fall in love, and never wish to be separated again. It is almost like they become a single person again. Those men that were split from another man, according to Aristophanes, are the most manly in their nature (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 27). He says that he can prove it because those are the boys that are politicians (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 28) However, this part of Aristophanes argument has no real proff behind it. There is no way of measuring human nature, and so, there is no way of telling which type of human being each boy descended from, whether it be a male to male relationship, or a male to female relationship. This problem in Aristophanes argument brings about another oversight. He claims these men have no interest in marriage and reproduction (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 28) This however, would go against what is good. It is good to produce offspring, we see this in Diotima's account, but for Aristophanes, this does not seem to be a case of good or bad. Aristophanes definition of Love is that it is the name we give for our pursuit of wholeness with our other halves. It is our desire to be complete (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 29). This is a very accurate statement, in light of what Aristophanes is arguing for. This is very much different, however, then the characteristics Agathon gives to Love. Agathon does not think that there is a single idea for love, but that it encompasses many related characteristics. As Agathon first speaks, he wishes to celebrate the gods, not congratulate mankind as his predecessors have done (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 32) Agathon states that Love, is the youngest of all the gods. To defend this, he claims that Love is always within young people and is one of them. Therefore, he stays young forever. The proof here is that the violent deeds done in the past were before Love was created, and taken his throne of king of the gods (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 33). Love's character was noble and moral. He contained four virtuous characteristics: justice, moderation, bravery and wisdom (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 34). In justice, Love could not be harmed by violence, and this was further proof of his age and his position as king of the gods. Love was moderate in that he took power over pleasure. By this, Love had power over pleasure, because the greatest of all pleasure was love (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 35). In other words, Love was a fitting king, according to Agathon. In bravery, Love had a hold on everyone, gods and humans alike. Bravery is related to power, and with this hold, Love is the bravest (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 35). Of all four characteristics, the one that shows proof of Love's goodness towards humans. In wisdom, one can teach another, whatever the task may be. Love gives this wisdom, for it is a love for something that allows us to learn from it, this is a technical skill that Love offers (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 35) Agathon's account of Love is very good. He backs up his claims with popular belief. But, what was right to them, may not seem correct to us, and this is a problem that arises with Agathon's speech. In the times of Socrates and Plato, eros was a much different word then it's translation: love. He have seen how love takes the shape of a god, and how it has influenced the evolution of human kind. In the "Symposium", Socrates gives the most sensible account of eros when he quotes Diotima , even though to this day, it is unclear whether Diotima was a fabrication to fit Socrates' needs when discussing love. The speech of Aristophanes was also worth noting, as he had brought up the point of human nature, the only speaker to do so. As well, Agathon had a very complete speech, he chose to describe the god Love in terms of his moral character and his virtues. These three accounts were the best of all that were offered. Socrates was the superior one to the other two, but nonetheless, the speeches of Aristophanes and Agathon were complete. Together, these three accounts form a very good picture of eros, one that shows every aspect of what eros truly is. Bibliography Nehamas, A. & Woodruff, P. "Symposium", Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1989 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Albert Camus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophy p. 5 October 29,1996 Albert Camus Born on November 7, 1913 in Mandoui, Algeria, Albert Camus earned a worldwide reputation as a novelist and essayist and won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1957. Though his writings, and in some measure against his will, he became the leading moral voice of his generation during the 1950's. Camus died at the height of his fame, in an automobile accident near Sens, France on January 4, 1960. Camus's deepest philosophical interests were in Western philosophy, among them Socrates, Pascal, Spinoza, and Nietsche. His interest in philosophy was almost exclusively moral in character. Camus came to the conclusion that none of the speculative systems of the past could provide and positive guidance for human life or any guarantee of the validity of human value. Camus also concluded that suicide is the only serious philosophical problem. He asks whether it makes any sense to go on living once the meaninglessness of human life is fully understood. Camus referred to this meaninglessness as the "absurdity" of life. He believed that this "absurdity" is the "failure of the world to satisfy the human demand that it provide a basis for human values-for our personal ideals and for our judgments of right and wrong." He maintained that suicide cannot be regarded as an adequate response to the "experience of absurdity." He says that suicide is an admission of incapacity, and such an admission is inconsistent with that human pride to which Camus openly appeals. Camus states, "there is nothing equal to the spectacle of human pride." Furthermore, Camus also dealt with the topic of revolution in his essay The Rebel. Camus rejected what he calls "metaphysical revolt," which he sees as a "radical refusal of the human condition as such," resulting either in suicide or in a "demonic attempt to remake the world in the image of man." Although often considered an existentialist, Camus had his own way of thinking and often disagreed with many existentialist thinkers. Camus was a brilliant writer as well as a philosopher and although complicated his views will always be inspiration for further thought. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\All About Nothing The Story of My Life.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ All About Nothing (The Story of My Life) Perhaps the most important thing that has happened in my life is the fact that nothing really big or important has ever happened in my life. For example, my parents are still happily married, and nobody really close to me has evr died. All of this is very unfortunate, I am sure, because if one of these things had happened I would have been able to find a topic for this very essay which I am writing very easily, and would not have had such a hard time getting this essay in to my teacher on time. Nor have I rescued a little kitten from a tree, which when I think about it is really unfortunate because then not only would I have had a topic, but I might also have gotten my picture in the "Hillsborough Beacon," or even in the "Somerset Messenger Gazette," which, in the lingo of those in the news paper business, is the 'big time.' But there is little point in even mentioning these things, because they have not happened, and thus, I am left topicless. I could try to fool you with some far out, totally unbelievable story about how I was in a car wreck involving at least two dozen cars, including the president's limousine, and how despite having broken two legs, an arm, in addition to various other body parts too numerous to mention, I managed to drag myself out of the wrecked car (A job for the Jaws of Life, for sure, had it been any other person but me in that car), and then how I managed to haul all of the other survivors, among them the president himself, out of their cars, and to safety, only moments before a small fire that was caused by the crash reached the gas tank of one of the cars causing a breath-taking chain reaction of explosions and fires seen and heard for miles around I could...but I will not. In fact, I would not have it any other way. If a highly important meaningful event had happened in my life, the chances are that I would be a completely different person today than the Bill that I am sure you know and love, and probably even worship. It could for example have made me realize how important a proper education is (Do not ask me how.). And, because of this, I could be a diligent hard working student. Thankfully, it didn't and I am not, but the point is, it could have. A scary thought indeed. My parents aren't divorced and do not abuse me, giving me no excuse for bizarre, eccentric, or anti-social behavior, but sometimes I wish they where or did, because then, if they where divorced or did abuse me, I could do anything I wanted knowing full well I could blame everything on them and get off with a mild slap on the wrist if that. But now I am getting off on a tangent that belongs more in a history paper on current events or something like that than in an English paper, so back to my anti-reflective reflective. I have never been subjected to life in a slum, or in the projects, so if I tried to be a "gangsta'" I would be lying to myself, which is something I do not do. I lie to others perhaps, if I can gain anything at all by it, but never to myself. So "gangsta'" is out. Nothing significant ever happened to mold me into the person I am (Except, of course, my own birth, but what I remember about that is not nearly enough to write an essay about.), except nothing at all. Nothing is perhaps the most important thing that could have happened to me. It made me what I am, an average person in every way. I am not too "cool" or stylish, but neither am I a complete social outcast. I am on of the only people I know who goes to a "real" barber shop, as opposed to a stylist or a salon, and one of even fewer who asks for a short regular every time. (The barber actually knows me quite well, as I've been going there since I was three.) I own only four pairs of shoes, which seems like a lot until you consider the fact that that includes boots, cleats, and dress shoes, which leaves me with only one pair of shoes for school, as opposed to some of my friends with a different pair for each day of the week, and that is only the guys. Do not even get me started on the sheer volume of shoes that the girls own. But I do not walk around with newspapers tied around my feet either. Again, completely average. This is all because nothing has happened in my life. You, the reader, who I am sure has had many, many important and wildly exiting things happen in your action packed life, most likely are thinking to yourself, "Isn't that kind of boring? That monotonous, uneventful life and all, I mean." My answer to anyone who asks this is, "Sometimes, but then I remember that I don't have to deal with any of the excitement that other people do. Actually its quite relaxing." I really would not want to have anything big happen to me, and would not wish excitement or important events on anybody. Look at Jim Kelly, quarterback of the Buffalo Bills. If he where to write this essay, I am absolutely positive that he would write it about his losing four consecutive Super Bowls, a big thing in anybody's life for sure. This [losing four Super Bowls] has practically ruined his life. He can not go any where in public without somebody reminding him of his great failures, even if they are trying to be nice abouit it, although a great many most likely ae not, and can probably get downright mean. Even if he had won those Super Bowls his life would still be a wreck. Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw, the only quarterbacks ever to win as many Super Bowls as Kelly has lost, still can not go out in public without being mobbed by fans, even though both have long since retired. And although it was most likely fun and exciting to begin with (I find excitement to be much over rated any way.), the novelty of celebrity has most certianly worn off by now, and not being able even to go to the supermarket has most likely turned in to a large pain in the neck. So, as I feel I have just proved, exiting and important events bring nothing good no matter how extremely good or bad they seem to be. This is why I enjoy my average uneventful life. However, as a personal note, if the good and kind reader of this essay would extend the deadline a few years, I could give her a really good reflective essay about the feelings that I have for the people who I have literally and figuratively crushed on my way to power as the Supreme Ruler of the World. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Amen.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Amen Does prayer play an important role in our lives today? The minority would say no and that prayer shouldn't ever have played an important role in our society. But, the simple fact of the matter is that for hundreds of years, prayer in school has been encouraged by both society and government. In recent years, it has been established that prayer in schools has led to a steady moral decline. Morals must be taught, in school and at home, and they cannot be properly taught without religion as a much needed stepping stone. Our government was based upon religious beliefs from the very beginning. The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. . ." Certainly, it talks about God, creations, God-given moral rights, the providence of God, and the final Day of Judgment-all of which are religious teachings. And school prayer has been an important part of our religious experience from the very beginning. Our very First Amendment didn't separate God and government but actually encouraged religion. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof," (Encarta 96). The first part simply says that the federal government cannot establish one religion for all of the people. The simple idea of everyone in our nation being limited to one form of religion is inconceivable. The second section insists that the government should do nothing to discourage religion. But forbidding prayer in schools discourages religion, doesn't it? Early congressional actions encouraged religion in public schools. For example, the Northwest Treaty (1787 and 1789) declared: "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged" (Encarta 96). By seeing this, religion, which includes prayer, was deemed to be necessary. Congress has prayed at the opening of every session since the very beginning. By acknowledging these facts we ask the simple question, " If the government can pray in their sessions, why can't the governed pray in their (school) sessions? Public schools had prayer for nearly 200 years before the Supreme Court ruled that state-mandated class prayers were unconstitutional in Engel vs. Vitale in 1962 (Buckley 70). How could this trail have such a huge impact on our nation and ultimately alter how we perceive our constitution? The fact that prayer was practiced for nearly 200 years alone establishes it by example as a valid and very important practice in our school system. And with the emergence of private schools becoming more visible and quite popular, does the situation change due to the up-and-coming number of private schools in our communities today? Seeing that privately owned schools obviously have the right to teach certain beliefs and have certain rules to abide by without questioning other authorities, why shouldn't public schools be allowed the same amount of leeway? These private schools are exactly what they say, private, therefore picking and choosing students based upon income and beliefs. Private schools do not have to accept an atheist or Christian, yet they select the type of child that will fit in to their school more adequately. Seeing as how private schools are funded privately, on the other hand, public schools are funded by the government through taxes. This would lead us to believe that the government would be different from the state right? Right, in many ways, the church and state still coincide with one another and many people recognize this and do not like it, thus causing the controversy of prayer in school. Why do we not just simplify the matter and impose a "voluntary" prayer amendment to make everyone happy. This amendment would allow children who want to pray to be able to pray and those who do not want to pray would not be forced into doing so, wouldn't this be a great idea? There are several reasons why "voluntary" prayer amendment would be able to establish itself as a lasting law in our nation. The first would be because it would enforce the First Amendment's guarantee against government established religion. If a "voluntary" prayer amendment was passed then school prayer supporters would eventually attempt to apply this rule by encouraging organized, daily classroom displays of religion and ultimately prayer in schools. By making this into a law it would simply be an act to help solidify our forefather's constitution that has successfully led us where we are today with simply, precise guidelines. America is called the land of the free and home to millions of people. These people have many different cultures and traditions that help to make our country the great nati f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\An Argument for the Legalization of Drugs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ An Argument for the Legalization of Drugs, Based on John Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle²" The question of whether or not to legalize certain drugs has been debated for decades. Although opponents have thus far been successful in preventing this, there are nonetheless a substantial number of people who believe that legalization should be given a chance. Their arguments range from the seeming ineffectiveness of current drug laws to the simple premise that the government has no right to prohibit its citizens from using drugs if they choose to do so. This essay will address the issue from the standpoint of John Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle²," which asserts that people should be free to do what they want unless they threaten the vital interests (i.e., security or autonomy) of others. Using Mills' principle as a litmus test for this issue leads one to come down on the side of legalization. Since Mills is concerned not with individual rights, but with the consequences of one's actions on other people, the question becomes: Is drug use an action that, although performed by an individual, threatens the vital interests of others? Using the example of a casual, responsible drug user who is a contributing (or non-detracting) member of society, it is clear that more harm is done to others if the user must resort to illegal methods to obtain his drugs. The very act of buying drugs is intrinsically illegal and carries the threat of establishing a criminal record for the buyer. This can have a devastating effect on his family, his lifestyle, and his career. The effects on society as a whole include more crowded jail cells (prompting politicians to demand more jails be built), higher taxes to support these jails, and the loss, or at least diminution, of a productive citizen. In order to buy drugs illegally, the user may be forced to expose himself to the fringes of the criminal world--something he would never do under any other circumstances. If drugs were legalized, the criminal stigma would be removed from their purchase, possession, and use. The government would collect taxes on drug sales and, conversely, would not be spending millions of dollars to stem the flow of illegal drugs. This increase in tax dollars could be put to use in drug education and treatment programs for those individuals who are unable to moderate their intake and subsequently become addicts. Then the government would be intervening with its citizens' lives in a benevolent manner (and only when asked) rather than in a forceful, punitive way. Many opponents to legalization point out that drug use leads to spousal and child abuse, random criminal acts precipitated by the effects of drugs on a user's inhibitions, and crimes committed to support drug habits. This argument is fundamentally defective because it addresses the abuse of drugs, which is not the issue here. When an individual's use of drugs leads him to harm others, it becomes a behavioral problem. That is, the issue is no longer drugs, but the behavior of the individual. If that behavior breaks a law, the individual should be punished for that specific conduct--not for drug use. In its pure form, drug use affects only the user, and the government is therefore acting paternally when it regulates this behavior. This government regulation violates Mills' "Revised Harm Principle²" as blatantly as would regulations against sunbathing or overeating or masturbation. A Rebuttal When using John Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle²" to argue for the legalization of drugs, it is necessary to examine that principle (that people should be free to do what they want unless they threaten the vital interests, i.e., security or autonomy, of others) and define its terms. Proponents of legalization argue that drug use is a self-regarding act and has no effect on anyone other than the user. But drug use affects every aspect of society: it affects the security of nonusers, and it affects the autonomy of the user. If drugs were made legal and easily obtainable in this country, the government would be relinquishing its role as protector of those citizens who are unable to control their excesses. These people surrender their autonomy to drug addiction, thus "selling" themselves into a type of slavery. It is true that the decriminalization of drugs would remove much of the stigma associated with them, but this would not be a positive change. It is that stigma that keeps many law-abiding citizens from using illegal drugs, and thus keeps the number of addicts at a minimum. Also, if drugs were legalized, the government would not be legally able to force addicts into treatment programs, and the number of addicts would grow exponentially. This scenario leads to the problem of security, both economic and personal, for the vast number of Americans who probably would not become addicted to drugs if they were legalized. Drug use would become as prolific as alcohol consumption, and the number of societal and health-related problems would be as numerous as those associated with alcohol. More working days would be lost by people unable to control their drug habits, and insurance costs would soar in order to cover expensive treatment required to rehabilitate addicts and to deal with the health problems caused by addiction. These consequences would have a direct effect on people other than the drug users, thus negating the concept that drug use is a self-regarding act. Regarding personal security, legalization advocates try to draw a line between drug use and drug abuse. As it is impossible to predict who would use drugs "responsibly" and who would succumb to addiction, the government has a right and a duty to do everything in its powers to limit the availability of harmful substances, even though the majority of its citizens might never make the transition from use to abuse. Proponents of legalization maintain that legalizing drugs would remove government control from a private area of our lives. This is a faulty assumption because the government's role would only shift, not disappear. There would be taxes, quality control, and distribution issues to deal with, and the government would be at the helm. Therefore, Mills' Principle would still be "violated," and the country would have a slew of new problems to deal with due to the availability of legal drugs and lack of recourse with which to address them. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\An Informative Essay on Gandhi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Leo Peters Section 567-01 Mid-Term Paper This Essay will be about the life and accomplishments of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. And will also discuss Civil Disobedience. Throughout history most national heroes have been warriors, but Gandhi ended British rule over his native India without striking a single blow. A frail man, he devoted his life to peace and brotherhood in order to achieve social and political progress. Yet less than six months after his nonviolent resistance to British rule won independence for India, he was assassinated by a religious fanatic. Gandhi was one of the gentlest of men, a devout and almost mystical Hindu, but he had an iron core of determination. Nothing could change his convictions. This combination of traits made him the leader of India's nationalist movement. Some observers called him a master politician. Others believed him a saint. To millions of Hindus he was their beloved Mahatma, meaning "great soul." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on Oct. 2, 1869, in Porbandar, near Bombay. His family belonged to the Hindu merchant caste Vaisya. His father had been prime minister of several small native states. Gandhi was married when he was only 13 years old. When he was 19 he defied custom by going abroad to study. He studied law at University College in London. Fellow students snubbed him because he was an Indian. In his lonely hours he studied philosophy. In his reading he discovered the principle of nonviolence as enunciated in Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," and he was persuaded by John Ruskin's plea to give up industrialism for farm life and traditional handicrafts--ideals similar to many Hindu religious ideas. In 1891 Gandhi returned to India. Unsuccessful in Bombay, he went to South Africa in 1893. At Natal he was the first so-called "colored" lawyer admitted to the supreme court. He then built a large practice. His interest soon turned to the problem of fellow Indians who had come to South Africa as laborers. He had seen how they were treated as inferiors in India, in England, and then in South Africa. In 1894 he founded the Natal Indian Congress to agitate for Indian rights. Yet he remained loyal to the British Empire. In 1899, during the Boer War, he raised an ambulance corps and served the South African government. In 1906 he gave aid against the Zulu revolt. Later in 1906, however, Gandhi began his peaceful revolution. He declared he would go to jail or even die before obeying an anti-Asian law. Thousands of Indians joined him in this civil disobedience campaign. He was imprisoned twice. Yet in World War I he again organized an ambulance corps for the British before returning home to India in 1914. Gandhi's writings and devout life won him a mass of Indian followers. They followed him almost blindly in his campaign for swaraj, or "home rule." He worked to reconcile all classes and religious sects, especially Hindus and Muslims. In 1919 he became a leader in the newly formed Indian National Congress political party. In 1920 he launched a noncooperation campaign against Britain, urging Indians to spin their own cotton and to boycott British goods, courts, and government. This led to his imprisonment from 1922 to 1924. In 1930, in protest of a salt tax, Gandhi led thousands of Indians on a extremly long march to the sea to make their own salt. Again he was jailed. In 1934 he retired as head of the party but remained its actual leader. Gradually he became convinced that India would receive no real freedom as long as it remained in the British Empire. Early in World War II he demanded immediate independence as India's price for aiding Britain in the war. He was imprisoned for the third time, from 1942 to 1944. Gandhi's victory came in 1947 when India won independence. The subcontinent split into two countries (India and Pakistan) and brought Hindu-Muslim riots. Again Gandhi turned to nonviolence, fasting until Delhi rioters pledged peace to him. On Jan. 30, 1948, while on his way to prayer in Delhi, Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who had been maddened by the Mahatma's efforts to reconcile Hindus and Muslims. An epic motion picture based on his life won several Academy awards in 1983. I hope this essay has been both educational and informing about the life of Gandhi. Thank you for your time. Leo Peters f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Analysis of Crito.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Analysis of Crito The question is raised within the dialogue between Socrates and Crito concerning civil disobedience. Crito has the desire, the means, and many compelling reasons with which he tries to convince the condemned to acquiesce in the plan to avoid his imminent death. Though Crito's temptation is imposing, it is in accord with reason and fidelity that Socrates chooses to fulfill his obligation to the state, even to death. Before addressing Crito's claims which exhort Socrates to leave the state and avoid immanent death, the condemned lays a solid foundation upon which he asserts his obligation to abide by the laws. The foundation is composed of public opinion, doing wrong, and fulfillment of one's obligations. Addressing public opinion, Socrates boldly asserts that it is more important to follow the advice of the wise and live well than to abide by the indiscriminate and capricious public opinion and live poorly. Even when it is the public who may put one to death, their favor need not be sought, for it is better to live well than to submit to their opinion and live poorly. Next, wrongful doing is dispatched of. They both consent to the idea that, under no circumstances, may one do a wrong, even in retaliation, nor may one do an injury; doing the latter is the same as wrong doing. The last foundation to be questioned is the fulfillment of one's obligations. Both of the philosophers affirm that, provided that the conditions one consents to are legitimate, one is compelled to fulfill those covenants. These each are founded upon right reasoning and do provide a justifiable foundation to discredit any design of dissent. At line fifty, Socrates executes these foundations to destroy and make untenable the petition that he may rightfully dissent: Then consider the logical consequence. If we leave this place without first persuading the state to let us go, are we or are we not doing an injury, and doing it in a quarter where it is least justifiable? Are we or are we not abiding by our just agreements? To criticize or reproach Socrates' decision to accept his punishment is unjustifiable in most of the arguments. The only point of disagreement with Socrates' logic concerns his assertion, "expressed" in his dialogue with the laws, that the state is to be more respected than one's parents. I contend that one would never willingly oblige himself to a totalitarian state in which the laws and the magistrates are to be regarded more highly than one's own family. One would only contract with a government whose power insures the public good and whose establishment seeks the to extend to its citizens utilitarian needs. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Analysis of Human Cultural Identity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Analysis of the Human Cultural Identity This paper is intended to contain the analysis of the human cultural identity, as seen in the following five historical cultural periods: Enlightenment Culture; Greco-Roman Culture; Judeo-Christian Culture; Renaissance-Reformation Culture; and Industrialization-Modernism Culture. It also embodies examples of each era that are clearly stated, and how they relate to the cultural period. The cultural identity of the Enlightenment can be described as emphasizing the possibilities of human reason. This idea can be illustrated with such examples as Thomas Jefferson, Denis Diderot, and Protestantism. Thomas Jefferson was considered among one of the most brilliant American exponents of the Enlightenment culture. He had the time and the resources to educate himself in many topics including history, literature, law, architecture, science, and philosophy. He had the motivation and the connections to apply Enlightenment political philosophy to nation-building. Denis Diderot was a French encyclopedist and philosopher, who also composed plays, novels, essays, and art. He greatly influenced other Enlightenment thinkers with his translations of Encyclopedie ou dictionnaire raisonne des sciences, des arts et des metiers, usually known as Encyclopedie. He used this translation as a powerful propaganda weapon against Ecclesiastical authority, and the semifeudal social reforms of the time. Protestantism is a good example also. It is one of the three major divisions of Christianity. It displays the release of traditional religion and the movement to worldly learning and the rise of protests against the controlled way of expressing ones self. It allows the human himself to reason out the way that he thinks, instead of an authority telling him how to do so therefore, extending his mind. The Industrialism-Modernism culture is a culture that represents social, economical, and scientific advancement, as well as self-doubt, uncertainty, and alienation. These traits can be characterized with such examples as Werner Heisenberg, Epicureanism, and Eli Whitney. Werner Heisenberg was a German physicist known especially for his development in quantum mechanics and his principle of indeterminacy, or theory of uncertainty. This theory explained how it is impossible to know specifically the position and momentum of a particle, an electron for example, with accuracy. This demonstrates the distinctive uncertainty of the culture. It created a strong trend of mysticism among scientists who perceive it as a violation to cause and effect laws. Epicureanism is a philosophy based on the teachings of the Greek philosopher Epicuris. His views coincide with those of Heisenberg in the way that they display the incertitude of how it is impossible to know exactly what things will do or go. In example, he suggested that even atoms are free to move around spontaneously, without order. Any invention or its inventor would fit nicely into this cultural topic. Eli Whitney, for instance, and the cotton gin. This invention was one of the most important, it created a very substantial movement in history. Whitney used scientific knowledge to produce a machine that produced economic progress along with the advancement of less manual labor, and more production for sales. The Greco-Roman culture is one of a male dominant society, and conflicting obedience views. The idea was that men were controlled by reason, and women were controlled by passion, and that if women were not controlled by the practical reasoning men, that disastrous consequences would occur. The male prevalence in this civilization was evident in all perspectives of life including the arts that were created during this time period. For instance, the women were portrayed as clothed, mysterious, and deviant looking and the men as nude, perfected, and authoritative. This philosophical belief, was taken to the absolute extreme. Men were in a sense, afraid, of the disastrous situations that women might create if given the chance to do so. Hellenism and Hebraism are other Greek philosophies that deal with the ideas of how to think and act. Hellenism is the stressing to see things as they really are, right thinking, reasoning for oneself, and Hebraism is the stressing of conduct and obedience, right acting, and obeying Gods commandments. These two conflicting views were struggled with by every individual. The Judeo-Christian culture is one of holy relics, gothic and Romanesque styles, and architectural advances. The holy relics were used to establish a higher status among churches. Such tokens as John the Baptists head could be found in the cathedrals across the civilizations. Another way to achieve status for a church was to build the tallest facility that was possible. The idea was that the bigger the church, the better. This led to styles such as Gothic and Romanesque. The best example of the gothic form is Chartres. The cathedral used advances like the pointed arch and ribbed vault. The Romanesque form was characterized by flying buttresses and stained glass. The flying buttresses not only enabled the churches to be built higher, but also gave them a majestic look. The Renaissance-Reformation culture is that of a revolution of changes in western civilization. Humanism, the revival of classical learning and speculative inquiry beginning in the fifteenth century in Italy during the early Renaissance, disabled the monopolies of the churchs learning, and spread the ability to gain knowledge. The invention of the printing press with moveable type, enabled the supply of books circulating to expand, leading to increased ideas throughout Europe. The Reformation took many forms in society, but all of them mainly deal with the idea that knowledge is power, and power was obtained easier because of the creation of the printing blocks, therefore, enabling people to change society because they were more educated. In conclusion, the preceding information illustrates the cultural periods of Enlightenment; Greco-Roman; Judeo-Christian; Renaissance-Reformation; and Industrialization-Modernism. Each have examples clearly stated, and explain how they relate to the period. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Anselms Ontological Argument and the Philosophers.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anselm's Ontological Argument and the Philosophers Saint Anselm of Aosta, Bec, and Canterbury, perhaps during a moment of enlightenment or starvation-induced hallucination, succeeded in formulating an argument for God's existence which has been debated for almost a thousand years. It shows no sign of going away soon. It is an argument based solely on reason, distinguishing it from other arguments for the existence of God such as cosmological or teleological arguments. These latter arguments respectively depend on the world's causes or design, and thus may weaken as new scientific advances are made (such as Darwin's theory of evolution). We can be sure that no such fate will happen to Anselm's Ontological Argument (the name, by the way, coined by Kant). In form, Anselm's arguments are much like the arguments we see in philosophy today. In Cur Deus Homo we read Anselm's conversation with a skeptic. This sort of question-and-answer form of argumentation (dialectic) is very much like the writings of Plato. The skeptic, Boso, question's Anselm's faith with an array of questions non-believers still ask today. Anselm answers in a step-by-step manner, asking for confirmation along the way, until he arrives at a conclusion with which Boso is forced to agree. This is just like Socrates' procedure with, say, Crito. Later philosophers have both accepted and denied the validity of Anselm's famous ontological argument for the existence of God, presented in both the Proslogium and Monologium. Anselm did not first approach the argument with an open mind, then examine its components with a critical eye to see which side was best. Anselm had made up his mind about the issue long before he began to use dialectic to attempt to dissect it. "Indeed, the extreme ardor which impels him to search everywhere for arguments favorable to the dogma, is a confession his part that the dogma needs support, that it is debatable, that it lacks self-evidence, the criterion of truth." (Weber, V) In chapters 2-4 of his Proslogium, Anselm summarizes the argument. A fool is one who denies the existence of God. But even that fool understands the definition of God, "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." But the fool says that this definition exists only in his mind, and not in reality. But, Anselm observes, a being which exists in both reality and in the understanding would be greater than one that merely exists only in the understanding. So the definition of God, one that points to "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived", points toward a being which exists both in reality and in the understanding. It would be impossible to hold the conception of God in this manner, and yet deny that He exists in reality. The argument was criticized by one of Anselm's contemporaries, a monk named Gaunilo, who said, that by Anselm's reasoning, one could imagine a certain island, more perfect than any other island. If this island can exist in the mind, then according to Anselm, it would necessarily exist in reality, for a 'perfect' island would have this quality. But this is obviously false; we cannot make things exist merely by imagining them. Anselm replied, upholding his argument (in many, many words) by saying that they are comparing apples and oranges. An island is something that can be thought of not to exist, whereas the non-existence of "that than which a greater cannot be conceived is inconceivable." (Reply, ch.. 3) Only for God is it inconceivable not to exist; mere islands or other things do not fit this quality. Copleston sums it up succinctly (for Anselm doesn't): "it would be absurd to speak of a merely possible necessary being (it is a contradiction in terms), whereas there is no contradiction in speaking of merely possible beautiful islands. St. Thomas Aquinas rejects the argument, saying that the human mind cannot possibly conceive of the idea of God by reason alone (a-priori), as Anselm might. The argument does not make sense by itself, and must first provide an idea of the existence of God with an analysis of God's effects (a-posteriori), to which Thomas turns. I think there is evidence in Anselm's writings that he would disagree, saying that the idea of God is an innate one given to us by God, and needs no other revelation to bring it about. "Hence, this being, through its greater likeness, assists the investigating mind in the approach to supreme Truth; and through its more excellent created essence, teaches the more correctly what opinion the mind itself ought to form regarding the Creator." (Monologium, ch. 66) Although St. Thomas was obviously a believer, he was not swayed by the idea of reason alone being sufficient to prove God's existence. His objection of the human mind's capability to ascertain God is echoed by other philosophers such as Kierkegaard (who was also a Christian): "The paradoxical passion of the Reason thus comes repeatedly into collision with the Unknown...and cannot advance beyond this point. [Of God:] How do I know? I cannot know it, for in order to know it, I would have to know the God, and the nature of the difference between God and man; and this I cannot know, because the Reason has reduced it to likeness with that from which it was unlike." (Kierkegaard, 57) Anselm disagrees, and explains why illumination of God through rational discourse brings Man closer to God. "So, undoubtedly, a greater knowledge of the creative Being is attained, the more nearly the creature through which the investigation is made approaches that Being." (Monologium, ch. 66) Descartes restates Anselm's argument for his own purposes, which include defining what sorts of knowledge is around that is grounded in certainty. Most later philosophers tend to use Decartes' formulation of the argument in their analyses. Required for Descartes' project is God, who granted humans the reasoning capability with which we can cognate truths. The form of Anselm's argument he uses involves defining 'existence' as one of God's many perfections. "Existence is a part of the concept of a perfect being; anyone who denied that a perfect being had the property existence would be like someone who denied that a triangle had the property three-sidedness...the mind cannot conceive of triangularity without also conceiving of three-sidedness...the mind cannot conceive of perfection without also conceiving of existence." (Fifth Meditation) Several philosophers ask what properties necessarily should be ascribed to God, and if existence is one of them. Lotze asks how a being's real existence logically follows from its perfectness. This deduction, Lotze says, satisfies our sentimental values that our ideals must exist. "Why should this thought [a perfect being's unreality] disturb us? Plainly for this reason, that it is an immediate certainty that what is greatest, most beautiful, most worthy, is not a mere thought, but must be a reality, because it would be intolerable to believe [otherwise]. If what is greatest did not exist, then what is the greatest would not be, and it is not impossible that that which is greatest of all conceivable things should not be." (Lotze, 669) The mind can contrive wonderful and fantastic things. Where is the fallacy in thinking of a perfect, unreal something? Descartes' formulation which ascribes 'existence' to a most perfect being leads us to the most famous objection to Anselm's argument, from Kant. Kant has a problem with treating 'existence' as a property of a thing, that it makes no sense to talk of things which have the property of existence and others which do. Consider the plausible situation of asking my roommate Matthew to get me a beer. "What kind of beer?" he replies. "Oh, Budweiser. And a cold one, at that. Also an existing one, if you've got any," I might specify. Something just seems amiss. For Kant, when you take away 'existence' from a concept of a thing, there is nothing left to deal with. It makes no sense to talk of an omniscient, all-powerful, all-good God, nor of a red-and- white, cold, non-existent Budweiser. A thing either exists, with properties, or it doesn't. Where Descartes and Anselm would say you are making a logical contradiction by saying "God does not exist" because of the fact that this statement conflicts with the very concept of God including the property of existence, with Kant, making this sort of a statement involves no contradiction. For postulating non-existence as a part of a thing's concept sort of negates any argumentative power that the concept's other qualities might have had. A concept of a thing should focus on its defining qualities, such as cold and Budweiser, rather than on its existence. Anselm's original reply to Gaulino might be applicable here in a defense against Kant. Perhaps it is possible to deny the existence of mere things (be they islands or Budweisers) without logical contradiction, but in the case of a most-perfect being, 'existence' must be part of its concept. Perhaps it is possible that an island can be said not to have existed, maybe if tectonic plates hadn't shifted in a certain way. But God is not bound by the constraints of causality; God transcends cause, existing throughout all time. So in the concept of God is 'existence', as well as His various other attributes. So to say "God does not exist" is contradictory, after all. Kant counters this with a devastating blow. He reduces the ontological argument to a tautology: "The concept of an all-perfect being includes existence." "We hold this concept in our minds, therefore the being must exist." "Thus, an existent being exists." Even if we grant the argument numerous favors, letting it escape from plenty of foibles, in the end, it still doesn't really tell us anything revealing. "All the trouble and labour bestowed on the famous ontological or Cartesian proof of the existence of a supreme Being from concepts alone is trouble and labour wasted. A man might as well expect to become richer in knowledge by the aid of mere ideas as a merchant to increase his wealth by adding some noughts to his cash-account." (Kant, 630) Anselm's argument was not designed to convince unbelievers, but to be food for believers like Gaunilo who wished see what results the tool of dialectic will bring if applied to the question of God. While today the argument seems weak, or even whimsical, it is a brave attempt to go without dogma in explaining God. The argument "must stand or fall by its sheer dialectical force. A principal reason of our difficulty in appreciating its power may well be that pure dialectic makes but a weak appeal to our minds." (Knowles, 106) I think I stand with St. Thomas and Kierkegaard in this matter, for it seems that a purely logical argument of God's existence is somewhat out of place. One must be in a position of "faith seeking understanding", in an a-posteriori state of mind to appreciate an a-priori proof such as this. This is somewhat odd and unsettling, for I tend to agree with logically sound arguments at all other intersections of my life. It seems as if Church dogma these days accentuates the mystery of God, staying away from reasoning such as Anselm's to attract followers. For to have faith in the mystery is what is admirable. One should not be tempted to attend church smugly because it is illogical not to. Anselm. Proslogium, Monologium, Cur Deus Homo. with introduction by Weber, translated by S. N. Deane. Open Court, La Salle, 1948. Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Image Books, New York, 1994. Honderich, Ted (editor). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by N. K. Smith. London, 1933 (2nd edition). Kierkegaard, Soren. Philisophical Fragments. Translated by D. F. Swenson. Princeton University Press, 1962. Knowles, David. The Evolution of Medieval Thought. Random House, New York, 1962. Lotze, Rudolf. Microcosmus. Translated by Hamilton and Jones. Edinburgh, 1887. Southern, Richard. Saint Anselm. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. Van Inwagen, Peter. Metaphysics. Westview Press, Boulder, 1993. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\antigone.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Antigone Antigone and Ismene are sisters. They have two brothers who just killed each other and both died. Creon, whos very powerful, honored one and dishonored the other. The dishonored brother being left outside, unburied, and prohibited anyone to cry or sympathetic on the dead body. Antigone who came from a loyal family could not stand to see her brother died unburied, so she asked her sister to go with her to steal and bury the brother-body. Unwillingly, Ismene affrighted of the law and did not agree with her sister. So Antigone steal and bury the body by herself. When Creon know this, he was very upset and order the army to get the one stole the body. They catch Antigone and take her to Creon. Antigone has not affraid of the execution which Creon would give. Ismene, her sister came and said that she had a share in this matter. But Antigon claims to her own motivation. Haemon is the only son of Creon. He has not agree with what his father commands. They argue about who is right to give commands. Because Haemon had fallen in love with Antigone so he ran a way when his father gave order to kill Antigone. But then, Creon orders to take Anigone to a locked-tomb. A blind prophet named Teiresias go with a boy visit Creon and told him what he did was wrong. At first Creon did not agree, but then after Teiresias gone. He realized what he did was wrong so he called his servants to release Antigone. But it was too late, a messenger came with the bad news that Creons son had killed himself. The story did not stop there, another terrible news came to Creon that the queen is dead. When Creons wife heard the news of her own son killed himself, she put violence upon herself and died. Now Creon opens his eyes and see who is right to judge. He had learn a lesson of wisdom in a hard way. The Antigone has many arguments and it is hard to fingure out which one is the main one. In the beginning is the argument between Antigone and her sister. And then the argument between Creon and Sentry. When Antigone was catch, she argue with Creon. After that Creon argue with his only son. After Antigone gone, the phopphet came and argue with Creon. In my own opinion, the main argument was about who has the right to judge people. Creon said he is the highest and he has the right to tell people what to do and to executed people as he wishes. Antigone has an objection that God is the only has power to forbid, give commands, and penalties. Haemon said: "A man who thinks that he alone is right, or what he says, or what he is himself, unique, such men, when opened up, are seen to be quite empty." "Your face...to a simple citizen." He thinks his father was really wrong to make a decision to kill some one. And he beleives that the city should not possessed by only one man. When Teiresias came and told him parables and asked what brave is it if he fight with someone and that person died, there is no benefit after kill each other. The prophet gave the warning that he can not command someone to live nor he shall not command someone to die. Who is it really have the power to hold mankind in living or take away humans life? With a unhappy ending the story teaches us not to judge people. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Aristotle 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The Philosopher, Aristotle" Joe Rinzel The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle was an amazing individual who possessed a multitude of talents ranging from mastery of rhetoric to interest in physiology. Aristotle lived during the fourth century B.C. in ancient Greece. The culture of the Greeks during this time differs greatly from our present day life and times. Aristotle came into contact with many great men of history, from Plato his instructor and mentor to Alexander the Great, conquerer and ruler of the east. The works of Aristotle have left many after him to contemplate his theories and attitudes toward life and his Realism movement. The time in which Aristotle lived was one where to be heard one had to possess a loud voice and master the art of persuasion, or rhetoric. This was the case throughout Greece, specifically in Athens, where Aristotle spent the major part of his life. The law in Athens came from a group of about five thousand men who were the land holders in the city. In this group an individual must be heard in order to defend himself and others in need. This was accomplished by those trained in rhetoric. Therefore those who taught this art stood to obtain a lot of wealth from their endeavors. These were known as sophists with whom much contempt was held by such philosophers as Socrates. "The greatest school of Rhetoric in all Greece was at this period held in Athens by the renowned Isocrates, who was at the zenith of his reputation."(Collins p. 11) A competitor with this school was Plato's Academy of philosophy which is where Aristotle arrived at in the year 367 B.C.. Plato became Aristotle's teacher and soon realized the massive potential and sheer intellect that Aristotle possessed. Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. in a town just outside the borders of the Macedonian Empire, called Stageira. He was rumored to have been raised in the customs of the Asclepiad. "It was the custom in Asclepiad families for the boys to be trained by their father in the practice of dissection just as regularly as boys in other families learn to read and write."(Collins p. 3) When Aristotle turned seventeen his father, Nicomachus died and he was put under the care of Proxenus of Atarneus, who sent him to Athens to further his education under the tutorship of the great philosopher, Plato. It was at Plato's Academy that Aristotle was realized for his potential and was able to grow in knowledge and understanding of philosophy. It was not long before Aristotle became known as "the Mind of the School" and he stayed there for about twenty years. During this time Aristotle became well known and respected as a writer and orator. His philosophy however grew to differ greatly from that of his mentor's, as well as against those of the previously mentioned, Isocrates. In fact his orations "during his earlier residence at Athens show him somewhat petulantly attacking both Plato and Isocrates."(Collins p. His arguments against his teacher's philosophies were centered on the Platonic theory of Forms. Aristotle started the Realism movement which objected to the idea that the material world is unimportant and a shadow of existence. He disagreed with the belief that the true reality existed through universal ideas, truths, and forms. He had no room in his views for imagination and what he saw as guesses at truths. When Plato died in 347 B.C., Aristotle was thought to be the natural person to take over his work. Plato's nephew, Speusippus, however was named to run the Academy. Aristotle and some of his followers left Athens and traveled to the town of Atarneus where he lived with the ruler, Hermeias for three years. Aristotle was married and appeared happy until Hermais was murdered and caused him to flee with his wife to Mitylene. There he lived for three years until he joined the court of King Philip of Macedonia to engage in tutoring the young Alexander. This continued until the year 336, when Phillip died and Alexander was crowned king of the Macedonia. Aristotle remained in the area as he was in a position of substantial power. There are rumors of Alexander doing favors for Aristotle and indeed using his forces to help Aristotle in his researches and quests for knowledge. Aristotle eventually found his way back to Athens where another follower of Plato, Xenocrates, had taken over control of the Academy at the death of Speusippus. Aristotle founded and developed a rival school of philosophy in the city using his new influence with the Macedonian empire which had taken control of Athens. His reasoning for opening this school probably were involved with spreading his views to the younger generation and also give him an opportunity to put effort into his own works. It was likely that at this time Aristotle began his works on the science of Logic which he founded as the process by which we reason. "He was engaged in founding the physical and natural sciences, especially natural philosophy, physiology, [including] anatomy and psychology, and above all natural history."(Collins p.20) Aristotle was able to proceed in peace for many years working on his theories in relative seclusion. The growing resentment of the Macedonian rulers and those associated with the Empire by the Athenian citizens became clear in the year 323 B.C. when Alexander the Great died of a fever. With this event Aristotle became aware of his numerous enemies, for instance the followers of Isocrates with whom Aristotle argued, earlier in his life. Also those followers of Plato who did not appreciate the dissent by Aristotle away from their master's teachings were considerable in their opposition to him. Finally the obvious sect of anti-Macedonians held much contempt for Aristotle because of his simple orientation with Alexander and the Empire. As a result Aristotle was forced to flee Athens when he was indicted for charges similar to those against Socrates years before. Aristotle's reason for leaving was said to be "in order that the Athenians might not have another opportunity of sinning against philosophy, as they had already done once in the person of Socrates."(Collins p.26) He left for the city of Chalcis were he sought temporary refuge and planned to return to Athens following the expected re-invasion by Macedonia. Fate had something different in mind for Aristotle, he died in 322 B.C. of a sudden illness at the age of sixty-three. Aristotelian thought has progressed and influenced cultures for nearly two millenniums. His founding and development of the theories behind the Realism movement created the debates that were engaged in during the greater part of the middle ages. His immense contributions to the natural sciences serve to be the basis of the standard curriculum for students and learners everywhere. Aristotle was clearly and impressive figure of history and philosophy for whom we should hold much respect and admiration. Bibliography. 1. Collins, Lucas. Aristotle. 2. Blaug, Mark. Aristotle, (384-322 B.C.). f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Aristotle A Comprehensive View on Nature and Society.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Aristotle: A Comprehensive View on Nature and Society In order to fully understand Aristotle's views on a natural system, it is necessary to first explain some general principles of his philosophy. It is in his work the Categories that Aristotle presents the concept of substance, a concept which will serve as the foundation for much of his philosophical system. Substance, for Aristotle, is not a universal, but rather, it is the particular; substance is not a "such," but a "this." Thus, substance is neither in nor is it said of a subject (as are qualities). Rather it is that which makes the subject numerically one; it is that which makes the subject the individual. Substance is "an individual man and [or] an individual horse." Aristotle still classifies universals as substances, for they define what constitutes the substance, and without these universals, a substance would not be what is. There are four characteristics of substances: a substance is a "this", not a qualification or a 'such' (which stresses individuality); a substance has no contraries to it (there are no opposites of a substance); a substance does not admit more or less (there are not degrees of a substance); and a substance can admit contraries while remaining numerically one. In the Physics, Aristotle addresses that which constitutes Natural Objects as substances. He states that all Natural Substances consist of both form and matter. Matter is that out of which the substance arises and form is that into which the matter develops. In building a table, the wood, nails, etc., are the matter, and the idea of a table, what the end result will be, is the form, according to Aristotle. Matter and form are inseparable from each other; there is no 'form' apart from concrete things. Aristotle explains that all substances contain within themselves the origin of their change and movement. He continues by stating that the change which can occur is due to four possible natural causes: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause. Formal and material cause are self explanatory, in that it is the form or the matter of the substance which is responsible for the change within the substance. Efficient and final cause, however, will become more clear once we investigate Aristotle's ideas of actuality and potentiality. We should begin the explanation of actuality and potentially by saying that form can be seen as the actuality of the substance while matter is the potential for that form to exist. The best way to illustrate this is through the analogy of the building of a house. The materials, bricks and wood, should be seen as the matter, the potentially to become a house. The end-result, the house, is the form, it is the potential made actual. The building of the house itself, the movement, is analogous to the four types of causes Aristotle says exist in substances. In the case of this analogy the builder would be the efficient cause in that it is he/she who initiates the change. One could also say that there is a final or teleological cause taking place as well, that the motive is to build a house which serves the purpose of "house-ness", namely that the house is one in which people can live. Through this analogy one can begin to see the nature of each of the causes which can exist within a given substance. Once we see how Aristotle's ideas of actuality and potentially relate to his ideas of form and matter (matter is potentiality, form is it's actuality), which necessarily relate to substance, we can almost begin the analysis of his philosophy on an ethical system. First, however, an introduction to the idea of the "Unmoved Mover" is necessary. In accordance with Aristotle's teleological view of the natural world, the "Unmoved Mover" is a purely actual thing which motivates all things toward the "good." All things try to achieve completeness, full actuality, or perfection; this implies that there must exist an object or state towards which this striving or desire is directed. This object or state is the "Unmoved Mover." This state of perfection must be one of pure actuality since it can have no potential, being perfect; it must be non-natural since all natural things have potential. Thus, it is not moving, yet moves other things to attempt to achieve perfection; this thing is the final cause of the universe. Knowing, now, that which moves all natural things towards the goods, we can begin the analysis on Aristotle's ethical system. In investigating Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, it is important to remember that just like the Physics, it is a teleological view, not on the natural world, but on human nature, the end (telos) of which is the "good." Everything that humans do is aimed at some end; this end is can either have intrinsic or extrinsic worth. This is to say that the acts of humans can either be done for themselves (intrinsic) or can be done as a means to something else (extrinsic). The underlying goal of all our action, Aristotle calls the "good", but along with the "good," comes happiness. For Aristotle, then, all human are just trying to be happy. The good life, then, is a life of happiness; Aristotle says such a life can be achieved by excellence (arete) in two areas of virtue: intellectual and moral. First, we will have to analyze moral virtue in order to understand fully the notion of intellectual virtue. More or less, for Aristotle, the life of moral virtue, not being an exact science, is a life of moderation. This is a common theme with most all the ancient philosophers and authors (especially the playwrights). It is practical wisdom which is not "a priori," but rather it is a learned trade which varies from situation to situation; it can not be taught, it must be learned from experience. What, then, exactly is moral virtue? It is acting in accordance with our nature and our striving towards the "good," by means of moderate actions is everyday life. Knowing this practical type of reason, we can now examine the theoretical type of reason, intellectual virtue. Happiness is an activity, it is not a passive state for Aristotle. It is our potential which allows us to be motivated by the concept of the "Unmoved Mover," towards a state of perfection or perfect happiness. In order to achieve this state, a human, according to Aristotle, must partake in an activity which is both sought for intrinsic purposes and is in itself perfect. Intellectual virtue is this activity. It is a theoretical principle which each person knows "a priori;" it is the act of doing what is most natural for all humans to do, to reason. It is our nature according to Aristotle, to reason, and it follows that if we achieve the perfectness or excellence (arete) in our nature, we achieve perfect happiness. Specifically, for Aristotle, the best way to come close to achieving the perfect "good" is to act as a seeker of truth. The philosopher is the way to go according to Aristotle; "Philosophical thoght is the way to consummate perfect happiness, but it doesn't pay well." f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Aristotle and Friendship.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ARISTOTLE ON FRIENDSHIP Philosophical Ethics December 6, 1995 Friendship is undoubtedly one of the most important elements in the books of Aristotle's ethical principles. Aristotle takes the idea of friendship to a serious degree. He categorizes them into three groups or types of friendships. This report will attempt to define each type of friendship as well as identify the role of friendship in a society. Aristotle considers friendship to be a necessity to live. He claims that no individual would chose to live without friends even if the individual had all of the other good things in life. He also describes friendship as a virtue and as just. Given the above statements on friendship, it is safe to say that Aristotle felt that friendship is something that every human must have in order to reach a peaceful state of mind. It has all of the qualities of good as long as both parties of a friendship are considered good. Therefore, the role of friendship in a society is to promote goodness between all parties involved in it. As previously mentioned, Aristotle has identified three different types of friendships. The first is friendship based on utility. This is a friendship in which both parties become involved with each other for their own personal benefit. An example would be a working relationship with an individual. These are people who do not spend much time together, possibly because they do not like each other, and therefore feel no need to associate with one another unless they are mutually useful. They take pleasure from each other's company just for their own sake. Aristotle uses the elderly and foreigners as examples of friendships based on utility. The second type of friendship is a friendship based on pleasure. This friendship is made between two people that wish to gain pleasure from one another. Aristotle uses the young as an example here. Friendship between the young is grounded on pleasure because the lives of the young are regulated by their feelings, and their main interest is in their own pleasure and the opportunity of the moment. They are quick to create and destroy friendships because their affection changes as fast as the things that please them do. Aristotle felt that this sort of pleasure changes rapidly. The young also have a tendency to fall in love, thus creating an erotic friendship which is swayed by the feelings and based on pleasure. Finally, we have what is considered the by Aristotle as the perfect friendship. This is called the friendship based on goodness. This kind of friendship is between those that desire the good of their friends for their friend's sake not their own. Each friend loves the other for what he is, not for a particular quality. This type of friendship can last as long as the friends remain good. The friendship just might last forever. Aristotle considers it a permanent friendship because in it are all of the attributes that friends ought to possess. This friendship differs than the others mentioned because all the parties involved have each other's qualities. There is no need to use the other for pleasure or utility. They are in it for each other. As you can see, Aristotle held friendship in high regard. He considered it something to better the society as well as the individual. His definitions of the types of friendships can make one relate to his or her own friends. One can try to determine the type of friendships that one may have or wish to have with his or her friends. It would certainly be a challenge in today's day and age to find a friendship based on goodness. Perhaps it can be achieved. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Aristotle.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ARISTOTLE (384 -322 BC) Lu-1 ARISTOTLE'S LIFE Aristotle, Greek philosopher and scientist, is one of the most famous of ancient philosophers. He was born in Stagira, Greece to a physician to the royal court. When he became eighteen, Aristotle entered Plato's School in Athens and remained at this academy for twenty years, as a student and then as a teacher. He was recognized as the Academy's brightest and was given the title of "The Intelligence of the School". When Plato died in 347 BC, Aristotle left Athens and joined a group of disciples of Plato, with his friend Hermias. Hermias became ruler of a city called Assos, a city in Asia Minor. Aristotle married Hermias' adopted daughter, Pythias. In 343 or 342 BC, Philip II, king of Macedonia, told Aristotle to supervise the education of his son, Alexander (later known as "Alexander the Great"). He taught him until 336 BC, when Alexander became the ruler of Macedonia. Alexander the Great later became the ruler of all Greece, and over threw the Persian Empire. In 334 BC, Aristotle returned to Athens and started his own school, the Lyceum. Because he taught while walking around, his students were called the Peripatetic students, meaning "walking" or "strolling". When Alexander died in 323 BC, Aristotle was charged with impiety (lack of reverence to the gods) by the Athenians. The Athenians probably did this because they resented Lu-2 Aristotle's friendship with Alexander, the man who conquered them. Aristotle fled to Euboea. He died there the next year. ETHICS Aristotle believed that there was no way to make an accurate resolution of human decisions since an individual had his or her own choice. He did, however, say that all human beings want "happiness" and that there are many ways in which this goal can be achieved. He also believed that "full excellence" can only be reached by the mature male adult of the upper class, not by women, or children, or barbarians (non-Greeks), or manual workers. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\assisted suicide 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Imagine youu have just found out you are going to die within three months. Recently the questions have been changed form, "What am I going to do with the rest of my life?" to "When should I kill myself"? With painful and crippling diseases such as AIDS and cancer, and Alzheimers along with doctors such as Dr. Kavorkian, some people are choosing death over life. Doctor assisted suicide has been a very controversial subject in the past few years. Some states such as Oregon have passed laws which allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients who have less then six months to live.(Henin 1) Other state have taken the opposite side. I believe that if you are able to reason and think rationally you should decide whether to live or dir. If not the people who know you best should make the decision. If you are ever in a situation where you now you wil soon die the choice whether or not to kill youself should be your own. I believe that doctorassisted suicide should not be controlled by the government, but should be apersonal choice based on the individual. Many people could not imagine living in a hospital bed for the remainder of their lives. They would rather die with dignity than live out the rest of their lives depandant on others. The government thinks that they know what is best for the people. If everyone is an individuall, how can the government know what is best for everyone. I feel that people shold make up thir own minds about what is best for them. Joshua Haney worote an article on assisted suicide. He says, "Everyday we make choices that decide our fate and future. We choose where we work, what we eat and drink, etc. This is just one more choice that we are making. I we take away this right from people we are taking steps towards taking away other rights. Would it be morally right to allow that person to suffer in pain in anguish through some terminal illness?"(Haney2) I completely agree with him. What rights will they take away next? One problem people fae when they are seriously ill is the lack of money. There always weems to be one more bill waiting to be paid. They need money to buy prescription drugs, pay for the doctor appointments, tests, and in some cases lenghty hospital stays. Some insurance companies will refuse to pay for certain test, or drugs, or even refuse treatment altogether. Many patients can't aford to pay for these treatments, and even if they coulld, most of the treatments only prolong life for a short amount fof time. There is also no guarantee that the quality of life during these treatments woulld be wourk the time and money. No one wants to die in debt and leave their families with nothing but medical bills. If you don't wish to continue living in pain, why should you have to pay for treatment that you don't want? When someone is sicsk it is hard on the whole family. When someone is dying they not only have to deal with their own pain and suffering, both physically and mentally but also with the suffering that their friends and family are going through. They might begin to feel like a burden, and may also begin to feel guilty and depressed. Because of this and many other reasons some may choose to die. I am not saying that suicide id right for everyone, but I do think it should be an option when someone is suffering from aphysical disease that has notcure, or hopes of a cure in the near future. I feel that it should be apersonal decision, based on the wishes of the individual. The government and countless numbers of protesters should not claim to know what is right for everyone. They say it is inhimane for doctors to assist in si suicide, but I have to agree with A. Wilkie Kushner, who write,s "We all di. Death is a part of life. Death is inevitable. Why should each of us not have the right to choose when and how we did; and if we are in no position to do so, why shoulld those who know us best not be allowed to help? Why is it considered acceptable for sospital staff to indefinitely postpone death with machines and tubes and potent toxic pharmaceuticals, and not to help people go easily when their time has come? Wher is the humanity in all this? (Kushner 3) BIBLIOGRAPHY Haney, Joshua, "RE: Assisted Suicide," www.yahoo.com 4/16/96 A. Wilkie Kushner, MB-Reprinted from Letters to the Editor, Gobe & Mail www.yahoo.com Hendin, Herbert, MD, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Oregon Tries the Dutch Way, Wellness Web, The Patient's Network, www.yahoo.com f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Assisted Suicide.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Imagine you have just found out you are going to die within three months. Recently the questions have been changed from, ³What am I going to do with the rest of my life?² to ³When should I kill myself?² With painful and crippling diseases such as AIDS and cancer, and Alzheimers along with doctors such as Dr. Kavorkian, , some people are choosing death over life. Doctor assisted suicide has been a very controversial subject in the past few years. Some states such as Oregon have passed laws which allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients who have less than six months to live. (Hendin 1) Other states have taken the opposite side. I believe that if you are able to reason and think rationally you should decide whether to live or die. If not the people who know you best should make the decision. If you are ever in a situation where you know you will soon die the choice whether or not to kill yourself should be your own. I believe that doctor-assisted suicide should not be controlled by the government but should be a personal choice based on the individual. Many people could not imagine living in a hospital bed for the remainder of their lives. They would rather die with dignity then live out the rest of their life dependent on others. The government thinks that they know what is best for the people. If everyone is an individual, how can the government know what is best for everyone. If feel that people should make up their own minds about what is best for them. Joshua Haney wrote an article on assisted suicide. He says, ³ Everyday we make choices that decide our fate and future. We choose where we work, what we eat and drink, etc. This is just one more choice that we are making. If we take away this right from people we are taking steps towards taking away other rights. Would it be morally right to allow that person to suffer in pain in anguish through some terminal illness?²( Haney 2) I completely agree with him. What rights will they take away next? One problem people face when they are seriously ill is the lack of money. There always seems to be one more bill waiting to be paid. They need money to buy prescription drugs, pay for the doctors appointments, tests, and in some cases lengthy hospital stays. Some insurance companies will refuse to pay for certain tests, or drugs, or even refuse treatment altogether. Many patients can¹t afford to pay for these treatments , and even if they could, most of the treatments only prolong life for a short amount of time. There is also no guarantee that the quality of life during these treatments would be worth the time and money. No one wants to die in debt and leave their families with nothing but medical bills. If you don¹t wish to continue living in pain, why should you have to pay for treatment that you don¹t want. When someone is sick it is hard on the whole family. When someone is dying they not only have to deal with their own pain and suffering, both physically and mentally, but also with the suffering that their friends and family are going through. They might begin to feel like a burden, and may also begin to feel guilty and depressed. Because of this and many other reasons some may choose to die. I am not saying that suicide is right for everyone, but I do think it should be an option when someone is suffering from a physical disease that has no cure, or hope of a cure in the near future. I feel that it should be a personal decision, based on the wishes of the individual. The government and countless numbers of protesters should not claim to know what is right for everyone. They say it is inhumane for doctors to assist in suicides, but I have to agree with A. Wilkie Kushner, who writes, ³We all die. Death is a part of life. Death is inevitable. Why should each of us not have the right to choose when and how we die; and if we are in no position to do so, why should those who know us best not be allowed to help? Why is it considered acceptable for hospital staff to indefinitely postpone death with machines and tubes and potent toxic pharmaceuticals, and not to help people go easily when their time has come? Where is the humanity in all this?(Kushner 3) THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE OF DOCTOR-ASSISTED SUICIDE BIBLIOGRAPHY Haney, Joshua, ³RE: Assisted Suicide,² www.yahoo.com, 4/16/96 A. Wilkie Kushner, MB--Reprinted from Letters to Editor, Gobe & Mail www.yahoo.com Hendin, Herbert, MD, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Oregon Tries the Dutch Way, Wellness Web, The Patient²s Network, www.yahoo.com OUTLINE 1. Introduction - My opinion on doctor-assisted suicide. 2. Reason 1 - Individual rights vs. government intervention 3. Reason 2 - Financial problems 4. Reason 3 - Pain and suffering of not only the dying, but also of family and frie f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Atomism Democritus & Epicurus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Atomism: Democritus and Epicurus Philosophy 116 October 17, 1996 In the Atomists, we see pluralism taken as far as it could possibly go. We see Democritus and Epicurus divide all the world, as well as the universe, into two categories; atoms and empty space. Everything else is merely thought to exist. The atoms are eternal, infinite in size and number and they are moving through the empty space. There is no motion without empty space. Both Democritus and Epicurus agreed that motion was impossible in a plenum, but it is here that their theories diverge. In the cause of the motion, we begin to see a variety of opinions. Both Democritus and Epicurus agreed that the "qualitative world of sense perception arises from the motion of qualitatively neutral atoms. They believe that the immense qualitative variety results from the 'jostling' of atoms...as they collide and bounce apart, and so, constantly form new groupings" (Jones 84). They believe it to be a mechanical process occurring completely by chance. Furthermore, although new groupings are constantly being formed, only the few that can survive are considered the "right" combinations. These are the combinations we recognize through our senses as being "real", although they are not. However, the way in which this complex motion begins is a source of controversy and disagreement amongst the Atomists. Democritus assumes that the atoms' motion is perpetual. The atoms are never at rest. He presumes that their nature is to move, thereby avoiding "the problem of explaining the origin of the complex motion of atoms by simply affirming that it is in their nature to move so" (Jones 85). He believes that atoms are born along with the whole universe in a vortex. The vortex is not an outside influence, but rather the motion of the atoms themselves. He never accounts for the initiation of this motion. He simply states that it is an inherent quality of the atoms themselves. Epicurus, on the other hand, wanted to find a reasoning behind the initial movement of the atoms; to find the cause of the initial collisions which start the creation process of the universe. Through observation of objects falling "down" within our limited perceptual space, Epicurus concluded that in the vastness of infinite space there can be no "down" since there is no point from which, or to which, an object (in this case an atom) is falling. Since an objects' natural state seemed to be rest, Epicurus decided that it was not motion, but lack thereof, that is in a things' true nature. Therefore it is motion which requires an explanation (Jones 85). Since it is agreed that the atoms must collide in order to form "objects" that possess different qualities, the frequency of these collisions must be infinitely large. How else can one account for the variety of objects recognized as "normal"? The space in which the atoms are traveling is large beyond our every conception of size, and the atoms are small on the very same scale. The probability of even two of these atoms colliding while they fall through the void is minute, if not non-existent. Epicurus attempts to explain these collisions with his "swerve" theory. In this, he holds there is an arbitrary, imperceptible swerve in the straight "falling" path of the atoms. Rather than contribute the collisions to the nature of the atoms themselves, he is attempting to account for the frequency of collisions, and in effect increase the probability of two atoms colliding in infinite space. There are many problems with this postulation. In effect, it is no better an argument than Democritus' nature theory. If we begin to assume that events simply "happen" arbitrarily, we do not gain any deeper insight than we do by saying that these events are in the nature of things. Both of these positions lead us away from Atomism, since we are beginning to affirm the creation of something out of nothing, a position to which the Atomists are diametrically opposed. Modern philosophers like Dr. Jones, allow for Epicurus' swerve theory since "given one swerve the system can develop, for it is plausible to suppose that colliding atoms react in different ways. 'Some leap back at great space apart, others are thrust but a short way from the blow'" (Jones 88). Ambiguous as it is, Epicurus could not logically come to another conclusion without violating his earlier teachings. Another point on which the Atomists disagree is the nature of qualitative differences such as weight and color. Although both Democritus and Epicurus agree that atoms are without these qualities, their explanations of the phenomenon of their existence are quite different. Democritus, attempting to maintain the integrity of Atomistic physics, says that qualitative differences are, in fact, illusions. Neither atoms, nor empty space possess these characteristics, therefore, Democritus concludes, they must be illusions. He supports this theory by saying that the motion of the atoms that constitute the sensed object causes some of the atoms of that object to be flung into the path of the atoms of the sensory organ, which in itself is a collection of atoms in motion. Thereby, the collision of the atoms which are moving from the object being sensed set the atoms of the sense organ in motion. The motion perpetuates the illusion of qualitative variety. With this argument, Democritus is able to account for the differences of opinion regarding an objects' qualities. What smells sweet to one, may smell foul to another. Antithetically, Epicurus attempts to explain sensory phenomenon in a clearer way. His explanation, however, again deviates from the core declarations of Atomism. Epicurus agrees that atoms themselves have no qualitative differences. Nonetheless, he declares that groups of atoms can develop a quality such as color. He theorized that the qualities we perceive are a by-product of the motion and collision within atomic groups themselves. As the group moves, the qualities change. These qualities Epicurus called "'properties' not 'accidents' of combinations or collections of atoms. A property is a characteristic that some entity necessarily has; an accident is a characteristic that is temporary and transient. Thus, in accordance with these definitions, color is a property of atomic collections (for all such collection have some color or other), and 'red' is an accident. Though a collection is necessarily colored, it is not necessarily "red" (Jones 89). Therefore, Epicurus attributed the qualitative differences not to our perception, but to the atoms themselves. We come to an impass here. We have already decided that all that exists are atoms and empty space. Epicurus then goes on to state that the qualities are not illusions, yet they do not exist as part of the atoms, nor do they exist within the void. Where, then, are these qualities? Epicurus ambiguously calls these qualities "accompaniments" yet never explains how they can exist outside of reality and still be considered real. Epicurus changed the doctrine of Democritus in many ways in an attempt to clarify some of the more questionable postulations. Epicurus' theory is not necessarily superior, but certainly progressive. There is room for discourse on a variety of the Atomists' theories. Since they are the first school of thought from which we have so much written record, there is bound to be divergence of opinion. The areas I have discussed relate only the area of physics. Epicurus attempts to resolve some of the dilemmas Democritus leaves unresolved in ethical and psychological dilemmas as well. Of course, lingual and interpretive constraints play a part in all philosophical theory of the classical period. Yet in our "modern" world, we rely heavily on the ideas set forth by these great thinkers. It would be foolish to take one concept as superior over another because the scope of ideas given to us by these thinkers is too great a wealth to judge subjectively. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Behind Closed Doors.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ BEHIND CLOSED DOORS The Correlation Between Multiple Personality Disorder and Child Abuse "Each day that we pretended, we replaced reality with lies, or dreams, or angry schemes, in search of dignity... until our lies got bigger than the truth, and we had no one real to be" From "For Children Who Were Broken" by Elia Wise Multiple Personality Disorder and Child Abuse Have you ever wanted to be someone else? Throughout history the idea of not being just us has intrigued everyone from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde. But imagine having no control over who you are. Imagine having 30 people inside of you, and every one of them wanting to be in control. This is the case with Multiple Personality Disorder, and it effects thousands of people in the United States alone. But why does MPD fascinate us? It has often been found quite interesting. Movies, books, and even talk shows have been made trying to show the harsh reality of the disorder, but how seriously are we expected to take Truddi Chase and the "Troops" when they are on The Oprah Show? How worried are we for Sybil when we remember Sally Field as Gidget? As grim as this disorder is we often don't realize the severity unless we hear it from "the voices." Using the psychoanalytical approach, I will show how past abusive experiences have driven some to MPD. Citing case studies from such books as When Rabbit Howls, The Truddi Chase Story, Sybil, and Jennifer and Herselves the correlation between MPD and abuse will be made. There are more similarities to these examples than just MPD, all were driven to MPD due to excessive physical, ual, or emotional abuse from a parental figure. Also, each of these studies show the cause and effects this disorder has on . Most MPD sufferers are , in fact female MPD sufferers outnumber men by a ratio of nine to one (Hales, 1993). This may be true because will keep their feelings of hostility toward others to themselves, whereas men would be more likely to lash out in random acts of . For instance, Anna doesn't want to believe that she is getting beaten, so she believes if she becomes someone else, it is not really her that is taking the abuse. However, it is only a matter of time before the abuse increases or takes another form. The effect compounds, one more personality develops, and so on until "the voices" have consumed Anna and left her broken, with every facet of her personality now being an independent mind. With statistics showing that some form of abuse happens to as many as one out of every four s (Hales , 1993) it is almost impossible not to understand why so many are affected by MPD. Not every form of abuse causes as dramatic of results as MPD. Children who survive less personal traumas, such as concentration camps, are far less likely to develop the disorder than someone who is suffering at the hands of a loved one. Since 1970, the reported rate of growth in multiples and incest cases has been parallel. Almost as if when the bond breaks, the personality shatters. The alter personalities create a safe haven where the pain cannot reach. Each personality is specially equipped to deal with a specific type of crisis, depending on whatever was happening when they came into existence. The make-up of most multiples is usually the same. Each body generally consists of the same people. There is a small child, who was born when the abuse started. A flirtatious side who exhibits the repressed ual feelings. A male, who is either protector or abuser. A strong female, who doesn't need anyone, and assorted other personalities. But are the personalities just personalities? Not in their mind. Multiples believe that they are all different people, they just happen to be sharing the same body, they can be brothers, sisters, or just close friends. As strange as it sounds, this statement may have some bearing. Psychologists have long been able to tell their patients apart from "the others," just by their faces, body language and posture change, they actually look like someone else. Tests have also shown that each personality has its own blood pressure, heart rate, and so on. It appears that multiples go through some sort of self-hypnotism when they can no longer handle reality. They go into hiding and someone else, who is more capable to handle the situation takes over. When later questioned about what happened while they were not in control, most multiples are clueless. They report long blackout periods, if they admit to "losing time" at all. Losing time is one of the most obvious signs of MPD. When multiples "wake up" wearing different clothing or eating food they know they did not buy, admission of the disorder is easier. It is when multiples begin to want their lives back that they start to wonder what caused them to end up the way they did. Scientists have long wondered what causes MPD. The cause was first thought to be the result of mental deficiencies or a defective gene in the make-up of multiples. After extensive testing proved that multiples are extremely gifted, few with an IQ of less than 120 (Schoenewolf, 1991), that possibility was thrown out. It has now been shown that traumatic experiences in life cause Multiple Personality Disorder. The pattern seems to be that for every severely troubling episode in life, a new personality is born to help with that particular incident. The subconscious will withdrawal the conscious and take over whenever the threat of abuse surfaced. The anxiety of the subversion would frighten the children to the point were they could not function without the help of others. When beaten by her father Jennifer turned into Margaret, a very independent woman, with a deeply rooted fear of men. While Jennifer was being ually abused by her mother, Jenny appeared, because Jenny was strong and would just go away. To Jennifer, they weren't alter personalities, rather friends who needed a place to stay. Many would dismiss it as an overactive imagination. Sybil's parents would call her "moody" when she changed. Many others believed it was all just make-believe, most were psychologists. With no clinical definition of this mystery disorder, many patients were misdiagnosed. Before MPD was identified as a disorder in 1980, the majority of patients were diagnosed as Schizophrenics or Manic Depressives, therefore it was believed that there was no cure. Today, through extensive therapy, there is hope for multiples. Treatment is a three-step process, which is usually just as trying on the therapist as the patient. The first stage is just being aware that you have the disorder, about 80 percent of MPD sufferers do not realize they have the disease, most don't want to. The hardest part of the healing process is getting the patient to admit that there is something wrong with them. Multiples have spent so much time denying the fact that they have problems, asking them to admit to having the disorder is like asking them to admit that they are crazy. However, this stage must be secured before any treatment is possible. The second stage is co-consciousness. While there is no interaction between the personalities and their "host," there are fewer blackout periods, and there is an awareness of what the others are doing at times. The third step is integration. The goal in this step is all of the personalities merging into one root, or base personality, but first patients go through a draining process called abreaction. In abreaction the acts of abuse are relived under the watchful eye of a therapist. This process causes patients to relive the abuse that they have been through, and deal with it head on. Ideally, this step allows multiples to become a well-rounded individual who is capable of handling problems on their own without help from the alters. However, it is not an ideal world. Very few MPD sufferers ever achieve total integration. The personalities that have integrated disappear, leaving behind their best traits. Those personalities that have resisted tend to regress until their presence is no longer felt. While it's not perfect, this is the most common cure. Fortunately, once this step is reached, the chance of relapse is slim, if therapy is continued. The majority of multiples do require continued therapy after integration. In a 15 year study, it was shown that of multiples that continued seeing a therapist on a regular basis 96% no longer had multiple personalities (Hales, 1993). Of the remaining four percent, only one or two personalities resurfaced. They were usually the more developed, or older personalities that the base had come to depend on, and refused to live without. While therapy is the only cure, it is not a cure-all. There are some who will never lose their alters, whether it be safety reasons or an act of habit. Some multiples are unable to deal with the emotional trauma of therapy, without losing whatever grasp they still have on reality. Therapy is about the most painful thing that multiples can go through. It is more painful than the abuse because they are forced to face it, they cannot become someone else. For the first time in their lives, they are actually feeling. One patient was quoted as saying, "Our entire self is beginning to thaw after a long, long time of being completely frozen." Multiple Personality Disorder is one of the most treatable defects of the human brain. Through empathy MPD virtually disappears, multiples just need to realize that they are not the only one. In a study conducted at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Researchers were able to confirm allegations of parental abuse in 17 out of 20 reported cases. The earlier treatment begins the easier it is to recover, but it isn't commonly until early hood that the world of multiples begins to collapse. While many multiples continue to deny that there is anything wrong with them, those who are brave enough to seek help are among the strongest individuals known. They risk their entire world, but what they gain is immeasurable. They need to recognize that they are worthy, and understand that they are heroes just to be alive. REFERENCES 1. Chase, Truddi. When Rabbit Howls. Jove Books. New York (1987) 2 Schoenewolf, Dr. Gerald. Jennifer and Herselves. Donald I. Fine, Inc. New York (1991) 3. Schreiber, F.R. Sybil. Warner Books. New York (1973) 4. Sizemore, C.C. A Mind of My Own. Greene Com. New York (1989) 5 Hales, Dianne. "Silencing the Voices Within," Good Housekeeping. (August 1993) 6. Taylor, John. "The Lost Daughter," Esquire. (March, 1994) 7. Coons, Dr. Philip. Child Abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder. {Online} Available http://wchat.on.ca/web/asarc/mpd.html 12/06/96 Word Count: 1,832 Pages: 9 12/19/96 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Berkely.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Berkeley As man progressed through the various stages of evolution, it is assumed that at a certain point he began to ponder the world around him. Of course, these first attempts fell short of being scholarly, probably consisting of a few grunts and snorts at best. As time passed on, though, these ideas persisted and were eventually tackled by the more intellectual, so-called philosophers. Thus, excavation of "the external world" began. As the authoritarinism of the ancients gave way to the more liberal views of the modernists, two main positions concerning epistemology and the nature of the world arose. The first view was exemplified by the empiricists, who stated that all knowledge comes from the senses. In opposition, the rationalists maintained that knowledge comes purely from deduction, and that this knowledge is processed by certain innate schema in the mind. Those that belonged to the empiricist school of thought developed quite separate and distinct ideas concerning the nature of the substratum of sensible objects. John Locke and David Hume upheld the belief that sensible things were composed of material substance, the basic framework for the materialist position. The main figure who believed that material substance did not exist is George Berkeley. In truth, it is the immaterialist position that seems the most logical when placed under close scrutiny. The initial groundwork for Berkeley's position is the truism that the materialist is a skeptic. In the writing of his three dialogues, Berkeley develops two characters: Hylas (the materialist) and Philonous (Berkeley himself). Philonous draws upon one central supposition of the materialist to formulate his argument of skepticism against him; this idea is that one can never perceive the real essence of anything. In short, the materialist feels that the information received through sense experience gives a representative picture of the outside world (the representative theory of perception), and one can not penetrate to the true essece of an object. This makes logical sense, for the only way to perceive this real essence would be to become the object itself! Although the idea is logical, it does contain a certain grounding for agnosticism. Let the reader consider this: if there is no way to actually sense the true material essence of anything, and all knowledge in empiricism comes from the senses, then the real material essence can not be perceived and therefore it can not be posited. This deserves careful consideration, for the materialist has been self-proclaimed a skeptic! If the believer in this theory were asked if a mythical beast such as a cyclops existed he would most certainly say no. As part of his reply he might add that because it can not be sensed it is not a piece of knowledge. After being enlightened by the above proposed argument, though, that same materialist is logically forced to agree that, because the "material substratum1" itself can not be sensed, its existence can not be treated as knowledge. The materialist belief has, in effect, become as futile as proving that the cyclops exists; his ideas have lead him into skepticism. Having proven that the materialist is, at best, a doubter, Berkeley goes on to offer the compelling argument that primary and secondary qualities are, together, one thing. As the materialist believes, primary qualities of an object are those things that are abstract (not sense oriented). Examples of these would be number, figure, motion, and extension. Secondary qualities are those things that are concrete (sense oriented), such as color, smell, sound, and taste. The materialist feels that these primary qualities persist even when the secondary ones are not there. Thus, if a person were blind, then that individual would not be able to hear or to touch items; yet the so-called real qualities such as figure would remain existent in the objects. As previously shown, the materialist is agnostic in his belief of these real (primary) qualities. It is here that Berkeley directs an alternate hypothesis: that the abstract primary qualities don't exist at all. In fact, the immaterialist position states that these qualities are merely secondary in nature, as they, too, can not be perceived as being separate from an object. For instance, if a person is asked to imagine a primary quality alone, as an abstraction, it is impossible. To illustrate this point, suppose that a person is asked to think simply of number alone. This person may reply that the idea he is formulating is that of three red spheres. In truth this is not an abstract idea, because when the qualities of color (red) and shape (sphere) are taken away, all that is left is three of nothing! Thus, it is impossible to think of the abstraction of number, given that an abstract quality can not focus on anything concrete (such as red spheres in the above mentioned example). Therefore, it follows that, since no primary, abstract quality can exist alone, it is the same as a secondary quality in which an actual object must first be perceived. Berkeley moves on to show that the perceived qualities of an object are ideas which exist only in a mind. To do this, he states that a sensation is an idea. This is logical, for sensations can not be felt by mindless objects. However, it is this point which Berkeley scrutinizes in the materialist statement that an external object "is a material substance with the sensible qualities inhering in it.2" The materialist is proclaiming that sensible qualities, which exist in the mind only, are actually in the object. Logically, the only possible way for this to occur is if the external object had a mind for the qualities to be thought of and stored by. The notion that inanimate objects have minds is ridiculous, and thus the materialists' belief has been reduced to absurdity. Let the reader consider this example to reinforce the point. A ten-story building is erected, and a person who lives in a single-story house in the country sees the new building. To this person the structure may seem quite tall, as he has never seen any building taller than three stories. However, a construction worker comes across the same building and perceives its height quite differently than the previous man. Since the second man usually works on buildings about thirty stories high, he thinks that the building is fairly short. Obviously, the new building can not be both tall and short at the same time; yet this is the outcome if one believes that the quality of tallness is inherent in the object. In fact, if the idealist (immaterialist) position is considered it seems logical that one person could view something differently than another. This is because the idea concerning that thing could be different in the two separate minds. At this point Berkeley explains that the so-called tertiary qualities of an external object are non-existent. The materialist defines these qualities as the ability in one object to produce change in another object. In the three dialogues, Hylas brings up the point that these qualities are "perceive[d] by the sense... and exist in the object that occasions [them]3." An example of this quality would be a burning candle. Suppose that a person puts his finger in the flame long enough to feel the pain of a burn. The materialist would attribute this pain to the lit candle itself, stating that the ability to produce pain is inherent in it. However, this can not be the case. As previously discussed, the external objects are merely ideas which we perceive through sense experience. Just as these objects do not possess any primary or secondary qualities, they also can not have the ability to cause change in something else. In fact, these tertiary qualities are also ideas perceived only in the mind. Given that objects are ideas and humans possess minds to perceive them with, the nature of both ideas and minds deserves careful consideration. Berkeley assumes the view that ideas are passive and only perceivable in a mind. He goes on to state that these ideas are existent only when a mind is perceiving them. This is logical, for when something is not being ruminated upon it does not exist in the realm of knowledge at that particular time. As an example, if I were to move to another country and, after some time, forget about my old house in America, it would not exist to me anymore. In accordance with the immaterialists' view, my actively perceiving mind would be electing not to reflect back upon the past. Thus, only the active mind can create the purely passive idea. Since an idea only exists when it is being perceived or reflected upon, this brings into question the nature of reality. For instance, assume that a person attends an art museum early on Sunday morning. As that person views the artwork, the paintings themselves are sensible things, or ideas, actively being perceived by a mind; in short, they exist. However, when the museum closes and the person goes home, does the artwork continue to exist? Obviously the person pursues other activities of the day, and he ceases to think about what he did earlier. However, at a certain time those paintings were part of what the person knew to be true through sensation; the artwork was part of the person's reality. Do the paintings therefore cease to exist since they are no longer being thought of? Berkley argues that such objects still exist because the mind of God is always perceiving them. Unlike the materialists' view, the immaterialist puts God at the center of his views. In truth, God is the "omnipresent external mind which knows and comprehends all things, and exhibits them to our view in such a manner and according to such rules as He Himself has ordained and are by us termed the 'laws of nature.'4" It is important to stress the idea that God shows people the ideas in his mind, and these ideas make up the reality beheld by the human mind. Therefore, for any person to perceive something, the idea must be in the mind of God first. The fact that there are two distinct minds raises questions about the nature of these minds. The idealist proclaims that the human mind is strictly finite in its ability to have sense experience. With this being the case, a person can only have a single sensation at a time. Since sensations are the same as ideas, humans can only have one idea at once. On the other hand, God's mind is infinite and is thus able to have multiple perceptions. These perceptions of God are also ideas, and it follows that these ideas comprise the reality beheld in the finite human mind. Instead of the materialists' belief in the representative theory of perception, where a material object has real (primary) qualities which humans perceive as sensible (secondary) qualities, Berkeley has posited an alternate theory. This is that God upholds all of the ideas which comprise human reality, and people perceive these ideas as sensations directly from God's infinite mind. It should also be noted that just as the finite mind is different from the infinite mind, the ideas in each mind have some certain distinctions. The finite mind can only contemplate a limited range of thoughts. To illustrate this, let the reader attempt to imagine an infinite number of stars. After some intellection, the reader will realize that it is an impossible task. This is because the human mind can only think in terms of bounded entities; thus, in the above mentioned case, the reader may have thought of a great many stars. However, the stars were finite in number and could therefore not represent the notion of infinity. In short, the finite mind can only conceive finite thoughts. Not only this, but, as previously disgussed, humans can perceive only one thought at a time. If the reader does not think this to be the case, then let her attempt to imagine a small boy and a thunderstorm as completely separate ideas. Although both ideas may be thought of, the only way for this to occur is when they are placed in the same mental picture. In summary, the human mind has important limits which can easily be observed. On the contrary, the infinite mind of God is limitless in its ability to perceive ideas. In God's mind, an infinite thought (a thought without boundaries) can exist. This infinite idea's existence in God's mind is more that possible; it must necessarily be the case. This is because infinite concepts such as the number system and the universe must come from, as do all thoughts, a mind. However, since the human mind is finite and therefore incapable of conceiving boundless thoughts, then those infinite ideas must arise from the infinite mind of God. Not only does God's mind contain infinite thoughts, but it also must possess the ability to think of, in the least, many thoughts at once. This is necessarily the case for the collection of God's ideas which people call reality to exist; if God did not have this ability then external objects would not exist when the finite mind was not perceiving them. Thus far the immaterialist position has been considered in its parts; at this point it shall be viewed as one simple model. Let the reader picture an isosceles triangle which is divided into three parts: the top, middle, and bottom. At the apex of the figure is God's infinite mind. The middle portion of the triangle is occupied by the finite minds of people. Lastly, the bottom section contains the ideas perceived by humans. Because God is at the pinnacle of the figure, He also perceives the ideas that people do. However, since the human mind is finite, it can not conceive of the infinite ideas in God's mind at the apex of the triangle. Now, the concepts of either perceiving or being perceived can be added to the picture. Both the top and middle portions of the figure are minds, so both of these sections are perceivers. At the bottom of the model are ideas, and since they do not act of their own volition, they are perceived. As previously shown, perceivers are active and the perceived is passive. Lastly, the concept of existence can be applied to the triangle. Since existence is that which is either perceived or perceives5, and each part of the model has been shown to meet one of these criteria, then the entire triangle must be considered to exist. In the final analysis, it is evident that Berkley's immaterialist position is logically feasible. From his definitions of minds and ideas to his careful attribution of their respective qualities, George Berkeley has produced a compelling argument for his views. However, this is not all that he has done; in fact, Berkeley has shown the necessary importance of God. In the materialist view, a belief in God is not logically necessary to uphold the "material substratum2." Berkeley shows that God must exist, for He is at the heart of Berkeley's position. In short, the materialist view allows for atheism as a possible option. Notes. George Berkeley. "Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous." Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg p. 175. 2. Berkeley, p. 165. 3. Berkeley, p. 165. 4. Berkeley, p. 191. 5. Berkeley, p. 179. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Biological Determinism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. According to the author of the article "All in the Genes?", there is no intrinsic causality between genetics and intelligence. The author analyses different aspects of biological determinism, and supplies many examples, which illustrate aspects of this problem that are being discussed since the time when these ideas became popular. He does not agree with biological determinist that the intellectual performance of a person depends on genes inherited from his parents. There are a lot of different theories about intellectual capabilities. All these theories reflect different points of views, depending on the period of time the authors of these theories lived. The author argues for the theory that in the nineteenth century , artificial barriers in social hierarchy prevented people from achieving higher intellectual performance. In the end of XX century, in most places these barriers were removed by the democratic processes, and nothing artificial can stand between the natural sorting process and social status of the people. These changes can not be considered as historical because the age of democracy is just two hundred years , and the time when inequality between classes and between people was a natural situation is almost as long as the history of the world . The author insists that there is no connection between environmental differences and genetics. In support of his idea the author state that any Canadian student can perform better in mathematics than some ancient professors of mathematics. The author comes to the conclusion that changes in a cultural environment are the main factor that determines level of intellectual performance, not inherited combination of parent's genes . He argues that genetic differences that appear in one environment may easily disappear in another. A theory that twins were raised in different social conditions will have the same level of intellectual performance because identical genetics constitution was used by the ideologist of biological determinism. The author rejects this theory because from his point of view, all these cases cannot be considered as always reliable on a close look, in most cases, twins were raised by the members of the same family or in other words, not in a diametrical opposite level of society. The author believes that there is no convincing measure of the role of genes in influencing human behavioural variation. During the argumentation of questions of biological determinism, the author supports his idea with numerous examples. He gives examples of supporters of bio determinism and outlines that these examples are not reliable. One of the fallacies of biological determinism is the result of IQ testing. According to some scientist only 20% of performance depend on environment and other 80% depend on genetic variations. The author state that this is completely fallacious because there is no connection between the variation that can be ascribed as genetic differences and whether an IQ performance was affected by environment and by how much. IQ measures little more than a person' s ability to take a test. Scores increase dramatically as a person is trained or familiarised with a test. It means that an IQ level does not depend on the intellectual abilities of parents but on the manner of studying and preparation that can be considered as environmental changes. For the author, there is a casual relationship between genetic and environmental differences. He gives us an example of a fruitflies with more bristles under the wing on the left side than on the right side. He says that these differences are caused by random chances of cell during growth and development and that every organism is a unique combination of genes and environmental random chances. Another fallacy can be illustrated by the statement provided by the author, which is built on the ideology of biological determinism: ". . . if most of the variation in, say, intelligence among individuals is a consequence of variation among their genes, then manipulating the environment will not make much differences". The author argues that the proportion of variation in genes is not fixed properly, but one that varies from environment to environment. So, the author of the article provides many examples and rejects the fact that the intelligence is only affected by genes. 2. We can characterises the ideology of biological determinism as an explanation of social, cultural and physical inadequacy among people based on their inborn biological differences, which are passed along from parents to children. Scientists who support the theory of biological determinism insist that all people differ in their fundamental abilities because of some innate differences, such as genetic constitution. This ideology of genetic inequality states that there is a bridge between racial genetic constitution and the size of the brain. Many scientists believe that the evaluations of people's brain sizes correspond to a person's intellectual ability. Samples of skulls from around the world confirmed Western European supremacy. The "scientists" in pursuit of studies such as biological determinism always failed to clarify how typical these skulls were of their respective populations. Simple selection of skulls easily biased results, without a scientist necessarily realising his own subjectivity. The theory of biological determinism appeared primarily to legitimate forms of social inadequacy and control. Such ideas were the product of industrial revolution, as well as cultural and ideological. Some ideologies of biological determinism assert that sophisticated behaviour is not taught, but develops automatically. There is a difference between mankind and animal's behaviour. For example, child learns how to speak his first words under the influence of the parents or relatives, but a child who is raised in an isolated environment cannot communicate in a normal way. We can conclude from this example that a child begins to speak not because of genetic variations of his or her parents, but because of the environment he is located in. History knows the cases when a child was raised among animals, but his human's inherited genetic constitution did not influence his intellectual performance. The fact that so many oriental children do well seems to be more of a nurture/environmental reason rather than a nature/genetic reason. Their parents may have come from villages with little or no chance of an education. When they migrate to the West, many, as a result of conflict such as the Vietnam war, brought their ideologies with them. But they may not have the higher intelligence as an innate ability, so therefore neither would their children. This is an example to show that in some cases nature can affect the way nurture rules your life, and it is completely controverts the ideology of biological determinism. Another author's example that contradicts the theory of biological determinism is Wilson's disease, which causes suffering from inability of detoxify to cooper, which is an example of a genetic disorder. A few centuries ago people with such behaviour could not be considered fully functional. However, because of achievements of modern medicine, a treatment for these genetic disorders was found, and just by taking a pill, such a genetic disorder can be eliminated. Today we do not accept people with genetic inability because these people are different from us, but tomorrow they will be full members of our society. 3. From my point of view, biological determinism does not have a direct bridge to social inequality and political control. In my opinion, intelligence is shaped by a mixture of genes and environmental influence. The question, is whether all people have approximately the same capacity to think and to work. But it is not appropriate question to ask. The question should be, whether all people are motivated by the same things? Given the cases consider, the answer is "no". This is an important distinction. Every one of us has different surroundings which in one way or another shapes our perceptions of social reality. Rules of the society where we live can tell each of us to act a given way in certain situations. Our nature is our genetic endowment. It determines our basic physical appearance: our hair and eye colour, etc. It determines the types of emotions and motivations we can experience. We have different inner responses to different environments. However, our genes depend on the environment to fill in the missing details. So, if we are genetically predisposed to become agitated in a crowded setting, but we never experience such an environment, we will not have this genetic behaviour. We cannot tell whether that people in our society are distinct from each other because of those unexpressed innate differences. No two people are motivated by the same experience; that's why we are so different. There is no doubt that our achievements in a society are predominated by our own contribution to any business and how much effort we put to it. It requires 100 % contribution in order to achieve the deserved result. In every layer of society we can encounter cases when individuals are raised above the average because of the level of their intellectual ability, but not because their parents were rich and famous. One historical example that contradicts the theory of biological determinism is a the world famous scientist Albert Einstein. Jewish immigrant from Germany, he was not rich, his parents were not professors or politicians. Because of his significant intellectual power, he became famous all around the world. And even after his death, his brain was taken by a scientist who tried to figure out what was the difference between him and the rest of us. Nothing unusual in his brain was found. This specific example contradicts the theory of biological determinism. Einstein's innate capacities were not transmitted from generation to generation biologically. Thus is his efforts made him famous and acceptable through the world. Thus is his contribution to science could give him a control and a power, if he desired it. Yes, Einstein was in some way different from others. What can it be? If we assume that all individuals were raised in the same environmental condition, such as family, school and neighbourhood, than the differences between them and others can be explained by the genetic constitution, but it still does not mean that this genetic constitution was 100% inherited from their parents. From my point of view, these genetic differences can be explained only by the random combination of genes. I think it can not be explained by any logical way or by genetic science but only as a result of play of nature . The best proof of this idea can be that after all of successes in the field of genetic science, there is still no any remedies that can let to produce smart children. Another example that contradicts a theory of biological determinism, that we do not live by our natural, instinctual, primitive way because we do not live, as primitive animals do in nature. Civilisation is a subversion of nature. In a global contest there is a huge amount of examples when people whose parents did not have any money or power, achieved the higher level of power. For example Napoleon, a son of the ordinary people, citizen of Corsica, just with the help of his intellectual power he became the first person in the France. He did not inherit any imperious qualities from his parents, but he manages to become an imperator. We can say that his existence causes the death and starvation of millions people during the wars that he had. What can be the best proof of the power when person's desire for control decides for people to die or to live? History knows an example where it is not innate abilities bring people to the power and control. A monster of the 20th century came to the power that responsible for the World War II. Anything is known about Hitler's sadistic behaviour or harmful acts in his childhood. Hitler's hate came from the fact that he was an outsider who did not belong anywhere, who never found a safe and secure place in a society. The environment he lived in, the unfairness of German society, the crisis in his family made him mad and furious This is an influence of a society made him a bloody criminal of the 20th century. Hitler's remarkable power as a speaker and the will to the revenge made him a very good orator that helped him to lead the masses. Hitler and Napoleon had inner responses in different ways to different environment. No one can assume that a hunger for a domination and an authority came to them with their mothers' blood. Therefore, there is no bridge between biological determinism of innate capacities and a desire of people with a power to invade and kill the innocent population. Our genes encode only what they need to, to conserve genetic material. The rest of the detail is left for the environment to fill in. 4. For thousands of years humans ask the question of their "human" nature. They have attempted to find themselves in relation to the animal kingdom. The quest for knowledge is universal in Frankenstein: It is well-known that the scientific revolution of 17th centuries initiated a profound intellectual upheaval in western thought that replaced the philosophical universe of Aristotle and the Middle Ages with the new infinitary and mechanistic universe of Copernican astronomy and Galilean-Newtonian physics. And this new mechanistic universe dominated western thought until the early years of the 20th century-shaping almost all aspects of the further development of western culture and setting the stage, for the revolutionary scientific developments of the present century. The scientific revolution that resulted in the new mechanistic universe of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton also resulted in an equally profound upheaval in the development of western medicine. In Science and Literature in the Nineteenth Century Mary Shelley's theme of scientific interference with the fundamental mysteries of life makes Frankenstein the prototype of numerous works of science fiction. She creates the typical representative of her time. Frankenstein is a great medical scholar, exaggeration of Shelley's simple student. A "Frankenstein Effect," the suite of moral and ethical problems encountered when man tries to improve our nature. The monster, being a sort of matter duplication of Victor, has a physical and psychic link with his creator. If the monster is wounded, Victor also gets the same wound. This transforms the story from its usual allegory of the relationship of God and Man to one of the two sides of a single person's personality. I do think that Frankenstein's monster can be considered as a product of theory of biological determinism. Biological determinism states that intellectual abilities are enclosed in us by genes inherited from parents. The main idea of Victor Frankenstein, was a creation of some kind of machine or robot, which, like we assume, does not have any genes background and therefore, according to the theory of biological determinism, does not have any intellectual future. Despite this assumption, a monster begins to show the sign of the intellect, he tries to get knowledges, and it means that something going on with him. This something changes his intellectual structure, shifting him from the animal state to the human being. If we follow the ideas of biological determinism, it should be nonsense: Monster does not have any intellectual background. He does not even have parents. But in fact, happened something opposite, according to the book, the monster very much wants to stimulate his intellect and has a great desire for knowledge. He eagerly listens the humans' discussion and teachings and he revels in finding some books: ''The possession of these treasures gave me extreme delight; I now continually studied and exercised my mind upon these histories. Just like his creator at the beginning of the narrative, he is thirsty for knowledge and reads everything that he can lay his hands on. The artificial man is put in a number of situations where one would expect a human being to react in one way and a machine or construct in another . The monster that Frankenstein creates has all of human society against him from the start. Wee see Shelly's intentions to show that monster and his behaviour reflect the image of our society, where humans are not very kind to each other and not to mention how they treat somebody who is not human or looks repulsive. The monster or the people that he tries to be friend with and who consistently refuse his offers of friendship on the basis of his appearance. We see the author's intentions to show comparisons between the monster and other people. She illustrates the presence of human's characteristics that are traditionally thought to be defining characteristics for a monster. The monster did very human thing when he risked his own life and saved a young girl who has fallen into a rapid river. We see than a monster has very negative impression about a society he meets, but despite of that, he has very good intentions to contact a human race. However, the influence of a society makes him depressed and dissatisfied with his life situation. "The feelings of kindness and gentleness which I had entertained but a few moments before gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind.'' Having come this far, one might be forgiven for wondering which is the most ''human'' the monster or the people that he tries to be friend and who consistently refuse his offers of friendship solely on the basis of his appearance. Therefore, from author's intentions and Frankenstein motivations we can tell that the monster is a by-product of the theory of biological determinism. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Buddha.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If Buddha were alive today, how would he answer the question How should one live? What is right? Who is to say what is right? How do we know what we are doing is right? These are all questions that allude to how should one live? Different people have different opinions on this area. Buddha's theory is one way to answer the question. Buddha has four noble truths. These four noble truths are suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering. If you go through all four of these truths, you will live a "right" life. Suffering, according to Buddha, is anything that doesn't cause pleasure. Anytime you do not get what you want, it is suffering. Being born is suffering. In Buddha's theory, isn't practically everthing we do then suffering? Buddha defines suffering with the five aggregates of grasping. They are the aggreagates of grasping that is form, feeling, perception, mental formaitons, and consciousness. I don't agree with Buddha in any of this. I don't think suffering is caused by any of this. This is all life. I don't think that we are suffering all of this time. My definition of suffering would be anything that causes any pain, not anything that doesn't cause pleasure. There is a huge difference between the two. With Buddha, you are either suffering or in pleasure. I think that there is a middle ground. There are many times when people are not suffering and also not feeling pleasure. The origin of suffering, according to Buddha, is craving. Craving comes from anything that is agreeable and pleasurable. Sights, sounds, mental pictures, etc. are all agreeable and pleasurable therefore they all cause craving. Whenever we think of any of this, cravings arise. This is where suffering comes from. This is true to a point. Craving is what causes suffering. Craving comes from pleasurable things. That means that pleasurable things cause suffering. People want what they don't have. These we think are pleasurable things. We suffer from not getting what we want. When a baby wants a cookie and doesn't get it, he is suffering. It was not getting the cookie that caused the suffering. It was the craving for the cookie that caused his suffering. Buddha was right on the money when he said that craving is what caues suffering. What is the stopping of suffering? If we want to stop suffering, we have got to start at the beginning. To stop suffering, we have to stop craving. We have to totally get away from it. Simple as that. It's true. If we want to stop suffering, we have to stop ourselves from craving. This is the third noble truth. May sound easy to do, but in the fourth noble truth, we learn it is not as easy as we think. The fourth noble truth may sound as simple as a commercial. Stop all your suffering in just eight easy steps!! As we journey through these eight "easy" steps, we find them to not be as simple as we think. the first is Right View. Right View is knowing that we suffer and what suffering is. It is knowing that we can stop suffering. Step one is always the easiest. The second is Right Thought. Right Thought is the thought og harmlessness. That means we have to stop thinking about bad for other people. No more thinking about killing the teacher who gave you a pop quiz the day you forgot your notebook at home. This second stop in the eightfold path is not quite as easy as the first. I think that as people, we generally feel jealousy over other people. It is this jealously that leads us to ill thoughts of people. It is hard to stop. It comes with feeling good about yourself. Next, Right Speech. Right Speech is no more lying, slander, or harsh speech. In our society, we learn that doing all this is ok. We learn from our parents that telling one "itty, bitty white lie" never hurt anybody. We see in politics that slandering someone is o.k. To stop all this, we'd have to start with a whole new generation and teach them that this is wrong to do. It's hard when you find out someone is talking bad about you to not do the same. In Buddha's theory, this isn't allowed. The nest is Right Action. Right Action is not taking life, not stealing, and no sexual misconduct. This is not so hard. Many people in our society can't do it, but many are. Many people actually live this way. The fifth step is Right Livelihood. This is simply put giving up wrong livelihood and keeping himself by right livelihood. People can surely handle doing this. Right Effort is making an effort to grow. It is bringing up an effort to stop doing what is wrong. I think people do this most of the time. People are generally good. They make and effort to do what they feel is good. They try not to do evil things. In my opinion, this is what people are already doing. Right Midfulness is thinking of mind as mind, feelings as feeling, etc. People tend to think of their thoughts as whats so. To be in Right Mindfulness, we have to put things aside and think of what is actually so. We have to stop making a story about things. An example of this is if you see a man with a broken arm. People tend to make up a story about this. He was a mountain climber and he fell while climbing Mt. Everest. It's just a man with a broken arm. Nothing more, nothing less. I may be totally off on that one, but that's what I think Right Mindfulness is. Lastly, we have Right Concentration. Right Concentration occers after man has detached himself from craving and unwholesome mental states, he can concentrate on the first jhana. Once he has inner tranquility, he has reached the second jhana. When he gives up delight and is mindful and clearly aware, he is in the third jhana. He gives up pleasure and suffering. He gives up gladness and sadness. He is now in the fourth jhana. This is Right Concentration. With all these, man puts a stop to suffering. Back to the question at hand. If Buddha were alive right now, how would he say one should live? I think that if he were alive, he'd take our whole society into consideration when answering the question. I think he'd say that people should be kind to one another and not cause harm. We should live by establised "good" morals. We should be happy with what we have. Maybe not stop every bad thing we say or think about or do, but try to limit ourselves. I think that these are all things that Buddha might say. Most important, I think he'd say "Don't do anything I wouldn't do." f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Business and Ethics.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE VAFB, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT ECBU 346 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION BUSINESS AND ETHICS FEBURARY 12, 1997 BY DOUG RONING Business and Ethics From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be very lucrative. In general, a steady stream of orders keep coming in, revenue increases and the company continues to grow. There are a few obvious downfalls to working with government contracts; a higher quality is to be expected as well as extensive research accompanied by accurate and complete documentation are usually required. If one part of the process fails to perform correctly it can cause minor flaws as well a problems that can carry some serious repercussions; For example the case of the failed computer chip at Company X. When both the employee and company are found at fault, the question arises of how extensive should the repercussions be? Is the company as a whole liable or do you look into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective one would have to look at the available information of both the employees and their superiors along with the role of others in the situation. Next you would have to analyze the final outcome from a corporate perspective and then examine the corporate responsibility as a whole in order to find a resolution for cases such as this. The first mitigating factor involved in the Company X case is the uncertainty, on the part of the employees, on their duties that they were assigned. It is possible that during the testing procedure, an employee couldn't distinguish between the parts they were to test under government standards and commercial standards. In some cases they might have even been misinformed on the final product that they tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of the employees would fully excuse them from any moral responsibility for any damage that may result from their work. Whether it is decided that an employee is fully excused, or is given some moral responsibility, would have to be looked at on an individual basis. The second mitigating factor is one of threats that an employee might suffer if they do not follow through with their assignment. After the bogus testing was completed in the Company X labs, the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that the parts had more than met the governments testing standards. From a legal and ethical standpoint, both the testers and the writers of the reports were merely acting as agents on direct orders from upper management. The writers of the reports were well aware of the situation yet they acted in this manner on the instruction of a supervisor. Acting in an ethical manner becomes a secondary priority in this type of environment. As stated by Alan Reder, "if they [the employees] feel they will suffer retribution, if they report a problem, they aren't too likely to open their mouths." (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified they would come under questioning and perhaps their job would be in jeopardy. Although working under these conditions does not fully excuse an employee from moral fault, it does give a starting point to help narrow down the person or department that issued the original request for the unethical acts. The third mitigating factor is one that perhaps encompasses the majority of the employees in the Company X case. We have to balance the direct involvement that each employee had with the defective parts. Thus, it has to be made clear that many of the employees did not have direct involvement with the testing departments or with the parts that eventually failed. Even employees, or sub-contractors that were directly involved with the production were not aware of the ignorance on the part of the testing department. For example, the electrical engineer that designed the defective computer chip could have stated that it was tested and it did indeed meet the required government tests. Also, for the employees that handled the part after the testing process, they were dealing with what they believed to be a piece of equipment that met government standards. If the part was not tested properly, and did eventually fail, isn't the testing department more morally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that was in charge of installing the chip? In large corporations there may be several testing departments and in some cases one may be held more responsible than another depending on their involvement. A process like this can serve as a dual purpose for finding irresponsible employees as well as those that are morally excused. The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is the measure of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by the product. Since Company X was repeatedly being added to the list of approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the level of seriousness, in the opinion of the contractor approval committees, is not of monumental importance. Yet a person has to wonder how this case would have been different if it caused the loss of life in a military setting. Perhaps the repercussions would have taken effect much faster and been more stringent. The fact that Company X did not cause a death does not make them a safe company. They are still to be held responsible for any errors for which their products cause, no matter the extent. As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility, mitigating factors and excusing factors, most would argue that the corporation as a whole should be held responsible. The executives within a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of the employees responsible. A company should be reprimanded and be left alone to carry out its own internal investigation and repercussions. From a business law perspective this is the ideal case since a corporation is defined as being a separate legal entity. Furthermore, opposition would argue that this resolution would benefit both the company and the government since it would not inconvenience either party. The original resolution in the Company X case was along these lines. The government permanently removed Company X from its approved contractors list and then Company X set out to untangle the web of wrongdoing from within. This allowed for a relatively quick resolution as well as an ideal scenario for Company X. In response, one could argue that the whole corporation has no morals or even a concept of the word. A corporation is only as moral and ethical as the employees that work for it. All employees, including top ranking executives are working towards the advancement of the company as a whole. All employees, including the sub-contractors and assembly line workers, are in some part morally responsible. Every employee should have been clear on their employment duties and aware of which parts were intended for government use. Uncertainty is not an excuse for moral responsibility in the case of the workers. Also, the fact that some employees failed to act in an ethical manner gives even more moral responsibility to that employee. While some are definitely more morally responsible than others, every employee has to carry some burden of weight in this case. In fact, when the government reached a final resolution, they decided to further impose repercussions and certain employees of Company X were banned from future work in any government office (Velazquez, 54). Looking at the case from the standpoint of Company X, the outcome was favorable considering alternate steps in which the government could have taken. As explained before, it is ideal for a company to be able to conduct its own investigation as well as it's own punishment. After all, it would be best for a company to determine what specific departments are responsible rather than having a court of law trying to decide which employee is to be blamed. Yet, since there were ethical issues of dishonesty and secrecy involved, Company X should have conducted a thorough analysis of their employees as well as their own practices. It is through such efforts that a corporation can raise the ethical standard of everyone in the organization. This case brings into light the whole issue of corporate responsibility. The two sides that must ultimately be balanced are the self interests of the company, with main goal of maximum profit, and the impacts that a corporation can cause on society (Sawyer, 78). To further strengthen this need, one could argue that there are very few business decisions that do not have an affect on society in one way or another. In fact, with the vast number of growing corporations, society is being affected on various fronts; everything from water contamination to air bag safety is becoming a major concern. Every decision that a business makes is gauged by the financial responsibility to their corporation instead of their social responsibility to the local community. This was pointed out on various occasions as the main reason why Company X falsified their reports. The cost of reingineering of the defective part did not outweigh the loss of business. In the opinion of the executives, they were acting in a sensible manner. After all, no executive wants to think of themselves as morally irresponsible. The question that naturally arises, in debating corporate responsibility, is what types of checks and balances can be employed within a company to ensure that a corporation and all of its agents act in an ethical manner. Taking the example of the Company X case, one can notice many failures in moral responsibility. Company X would have to review its employees, particularly the supervisors, for basic ethical values such as honesty. For example, ultimately it was the widespread falsification of the testing documentation that caused the downfall of Company X, not the integrity of it's imployees. In the outline of the case it is never mentioned that the employees initiated this idea, it would seem that it was the supervisors that gave the order to falsify the documents. Through open communication, a company can resolve a variety of its ethical dilemmas. As for the financial aspects of the corporation, it has to decide whether the long term effects that a reprimand can have outweighs their bottom line. In other words, corporations have to start moving away from the thought of instant profit and start realizing both the long term effects and benefits. These long term benefits can include a stronger sense of ethics in the work force as well as a better overall example to society. In conclusion, I agree with the use of mitigating factors in determining moral responsibility. A company, as defined by law, is only a name on a piece of paper. The company acts and conducts itself according to the employees that work for it. I use the word employee because in ethical thinking there should be no distinction of rank within a company. There are times when executives can be held directly responsible and at the same time, there are cases where employees are acting unethically without the executives knowing. Neither title of executive or employee are always morally perfect. Therefore, when a company has acted irresponsibly, its employees must be held liable in a proportionate amount. As for the future of ethics in business I would speculate that if employees started to think more in long term benefits and profits, many of the ethical dilemmas that we face today would be greatly reduced. As mentioned before, businesses today uses the measuring stick of profitability. We need to stress the importance of placing ethical weight on all major business decisions. Opponents would argue that this is a long term plan that require too many radical changes. Also, there is no way that an industry wide standard can be set due to the vast differences in corporations. In response, I would argue that although there are no industry standards that are feasible, but it is possible for every company to examine their practices as well as the attitudes of their employees. There will be a number of companies that will defend that are doing all they can to make sure their employees are aware of their moral values. Yet other companies will find that they do have areas that need improvement. It is steps like these that spark change in an organization. Once a few companies start to see the benefits, it can help to encourage other companies to follow suit. After all, as seen in the case of Company X, mistakes in one department can cause the deterioration of an entire corporation. When a corporation realizes the costs involved with decisions such as this, the changes required to rectify are small in comparison. Works Cited Pava, Moses. "Corporate Responsibility and Financial Performance." Quorum Books, March 1995. Reder, Alan. "In Pursuit of Principle and Profit." G.P. Putnams Sons Publishing, 1995. Sawyer, George. "Business and Society: Managing Corporate Social Impact." Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Feburary 1993. Velazquez, Manuel. "Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases." Business and Ethics From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be very lucrative. In general, a steady stream of orders keep coming in, revenue increases and the company continues to grow. There are a few obvious downfalls to working with government contracts; a higher quality is to be expected as well as extensive research accompanied by accurate and complete documentation are usually required. If one part of the process fails to perform correctly it can cause minor flaws as well a problems that can carry some serious repercussions; For example the case of the failed computer chip at Company X. When both the employee and company are found at fault, the question arises of how extensive should the repercussions be? Is the company as a whole liable or do you look into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective one would have to look at the available information of both the employees and their superiors along with the role of others in the situation. Next you would have to analyze the final outcome from a corporate perspective and then examine the corporate responsibility as a whole in order to find a resolution for cases such as this. The first mitigating factor involved in the Company X case is the uncertainty, on the part of the employees, on their duties that they were assigned. It is possible that during the testing procedure, an employee couldn't distinguish between the parts they were to test under government standards and commercial standards. In some cases they might have even been misinformed on the final product that they tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of the employees would fully excuse them from any moral responsibility for any damage that may result from their work. Whether it is decided that an employee is fully excused, or is given some moral responsibility, would have to be looked at on an individual basis. The second mitigating factor is one of threats that an employee might suffer if they do not follow through with their assignment. After the bogus testing was completed in the Company X labs, the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that the parts had more than met the governments testing standards. From a legal and ethical standpoint, both the testers and the writers of the reports were merely acting as agents on direct orders from upper management. The writers of the reports were well aware of the situation yet they acted in this manner on the instruction of a supervisor. Acting in an ethical manner becomes a secondary priority in this type of environment. As stated by Alan Reder, "if they [the employees] feel they will suffer retribution, if they report a problem, they aren't too likely to open their mouths." (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified they would come under questioning and perhaps their job would be in jeopardy. Although working under these conditions does not fully excuse an employee from moral fault, it does give a starting point to help narrow down the person or department that issued the original request for the unethical acts. The third mitigating factor is one that perhaps encompasses the majority of the employees in the Company X case. We have to balance the direct involvement that each employee had with the defective parts. Thus, it has to be made clear that many of the employees did not have direct involvement with the testing departments or with the parts that eventually failed. Even employees, or sub-contractors that were directly involved with the production were not aware of the ignorance on the part of the testing department. For example, the electrical engineer that designed the defective computer chip could have stated that it was tested and it did indeed meet the required government tests. Also, for the employees that handled the part after the testing process, they were dealing with what they believed to be a piece of equipment that met government standards. If the part was not tested properly, and did eventually fail, isn't the testing department more morally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that was in charge of installing the chip? In large corporations there may be several testing departments and in some cases one may be held more responsible than another depending on their involvement. A process like this can serve as a dual purpose for finding irresponsible employees as well as those that are morally excused. The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is the measure of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by the product. Since Company X was repeatedly being added to the list of approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the level of seriousness, in the opinion of the contractor approval committees, is not of monumental importance. Yet a person has to wonder how this case would have been different if it caused the loss of life in a military setting. Perhaps the repercussions would have taken effect much faster and been more stringent. The fact that Company X did not cause a death does not make them a safe company. They are still to be held responsible for any errors for which their products cause, no matter the extent. As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility, mitigating factors and excusing factors, most would argue that the corporation as a whole should be held responsible. The executives within a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of the employees responsible. A company should be reprimanded and be left alone to carry out its own internal investigation and repercussions. From a business law perspective this is the ideal case since a corporation is defined as being a separate legal entity. Furthermore, opposition would argue that this resolution would benefit both the company and the government since it would not inconvenience either party. The original resolution in the Company X case was along these lines. The government permanently removed Company X from its approved contractors list and then Company X set out to untangle the web of wrongdoing from within. This allowed for a relatively quick resolution as well as an ideal scenario for Company X. In response, one could argue that the whole corporation has no morals or even a concept of the word. A corporation is only as moral and ethical as the employees that work for it. All employees, including top ranking executives are working towards the advancement of the company as a whole. All employees, including the sub-contractors and assembly line workers, are in some part morally responsible. Every employee should have been clear on their employment duties and aware of which parts were intended for government use. Uncertainty is not an excuse for moral responsibility in the case of the workers. Also, the fact that some employees failed to act in an ethical manner gives even more moral responsibility to that employee. While some are definitely more morally responsible than others, every employee has to carry some burden of weight in this case. In fact, when the government reached a final resolution, they decided to further impose repercussions and certain employees of Company X were banned from future work in any government office (Velazquez, 54). Looking at the case from the standpoint of Company X, the outcome was favorable considering alternate steps in which the government could have taken. As explained before, it is ideal for a company to be able to conduct its own investigation as well as it's own punishment. After all, it would be best for a company to determine what specific departments are responsible rather than having a court of law trying to decide which employee is to be blamed. Yet, since there were ethical issues of dishonesty and secrecy involved, Company X should have conducted a thorough analysis of their employees as well as their own practices. It is through such efforts that a corporation can raise the ethical standard of everyone in the organization. This case brings into light the whole issue of corporate responsibility. The two sides that must ultimately be balanced are the self interests of the company, with main goal of maximum profit, and the impacts that a corporation can cause on society (Sawyer, 78). To further strengthen this need, one could argue that there are very few business decisions that do not have an affect on society in one way or another. In fact, with the vast number of growing corporations, society is being affected on various fronts; everything from water contamination to air bag safety is becoming a major concern. Every decision that a business makes is gauged by the financial responsibility to their corporation instead of their social responsibility to the local community. This was pointed out on various occasions as the main reason why Company X falsified their reports. The cost of reingineering of the defective part did not outweigh the loss of business. In the opinion of the executives, they were acting in a sensible manner. After all, no executive wants to think of themselves as morally irresponsible. The question that naturally arises, in debating corporate responsibility, is what types of checks and balances can be employed within a company to ensure that a corporation and all of its agents act in an ethical manner. Taking the example of the Company X case, one can notice many failures in moral responsibility. Company X would have to review its employees, particularly the supervisors, for basic ethical values such as honesty. For example, ultimately it was the widespread falsification of the testing documentation that caused the downfall of Company X, not the integrity of it's imployees. In the outline of the case it is never mentioned that the employees initiated this idea, it would seem that it was the supervisors that gave the order to falsify the documents. Through open communication, a company can resolve a variety of its ethical dilemmas. As for the financial aspects of the corporation, it has to decide whether the long term effects that a reprimand can have outweighs their bottom line. In other words, corporations have to start moving away from the thought of instant profit and start realizing both the long term effects and benefits. These long term benefits can include a stronger sense of ethics in the work force as well as a better overall example to society. In conclusion, I agree with the use of mitigating factors in determining moral responsibility. A company, as defined by law, is only a name on a piece of paper. The company acts and conducts itself according to the employees that work for it. I use the word employee because in ethical thinking there should be no distinction of rank within a company. There are times when executives can be held directly responsible and at the same time, there are cases where employees are acting unethically without the executives knowing. Neither title of executive or employee are always morally perfect. Therefore, when a company has acted irresponsibly, its employees must be held liable in a proportionate amount. As for the future of ethics in business I would speculate that if employees started to think more in long term benefits and profits, many of the ethical dilemmas that we face today would be greatly reduced. As mentioned before, businesses today uses the measuring stick of profitability. We need to stress the importance of placing ethical weight on all major business decisions. Opponents would argue that this is a long term plan that require too many radical changes. Also, there is no way that an industry wide standard can be set due to the vast differences in corporations. In response, I would argue that although there are no industry standards that are feasible, but it is possible for every company to examine their practices as well as the attitudes of their employees. There will be a number of companies that will defend that are doing all they can to make sure their employees are aware of their moral values. Yet other companies will find that they do have areas that need improvement. It is steps like these that spark change in an organization. Once a few companies start to see the benefits, it can help to encourage other companies to follow suit. After all, as seen in the case of Company X, mistakes in one department can cause the deterioration of an entire corporation. When a corporation realizes the costs involved with decisions such as this, the changes required to rectify are small in comparison. Works Cited Pava, Moses. "Corporate Responsibility and Financial Performance." Quorum Books, March 1995. Reder, Alan. "In Pursuit of Principle and Profit." G.P. Putnams Sons Publishing, 1995. Sawyer, George. "Business and Society: Managing Corporate Social Impact." Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Feburary 1993. Velazquez, Manuel. "Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases." Business and Ethics From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be very lucrative. In general, a steady stream of orders keep coming in, revenue increases and the company continues to grow. There are a few obvious downfalls to working with government contracts; a higher quality is to be expected as well as extensive research accompanied by accurate and complete documentation are usually required. If one part of the process fails to perform correctly it can cause minor flaws as well a problems that can carry some serious repercussions; For example the case of the failed computer chip at Company X. When both the employee and company are found at fault, the question arises of how extensive should the repercussions be? Is the company as a whole liable or do you look into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective one would have to look at the available information of both the employees and their superiors along with the role of others in the situation. Next you would have to analyze the final outcome from a corporate perspective and then examine the corporate responsibility as a whole in order to find a resolution for cases such as this. The first mitigating factor involved in the Company X case is the uncertainty, on the part of the employees, on their duties that they were assigned. It is possible that during the testing procedure, an employee couldn't distinguish between the parts they were to test under government standards and commercial standards. In some cases they might have even been misinformed on the final product that they tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of the employees would fully excuse them from any moral responsibility for any damage that may result from their work. Whether it is decided that an employee is fully excused, or is given some moral responsibility, would have to be looked at on an individual basis. The second mitigating factor is one of threats that an employee might suffer if they do not follow through with their assignment. After the bogus testing was completed in the Company X labs, the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that the parts had more than met the governments testing standards. From a legal and ethical standpoint, both the testers and the writers of the reports were merely acting as agents on direct orders from upper management. The writers of the reports were well aware of the situation yet they acted in this manner on the instruction of a supervisor. Acting in an ethical manner becomes a secondary priority in this type of environment. As stated by Alan Reder, "if they [the employees] feel they will suffer retribution, if they report a problem, they aren't too likely to open their mouths." (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified they would come under questioning and perhaps their job would be in jeopardy. Although working under these conditions does not fully excuse an employee from moral fault, it does give a starting point to help narrow down the person or department that issued the original request for the unethical acts. The third mitigating factor is one that perhaps encompasses the majority of the employees in the Company X case. We have to balance the direct involvement that each employee had with the defective parts. Thus, it has to be made clear that many of the employees did not have direct involvement with the testing depPrentice Hall Publishing, Feburary 1992. "WebCrawler Search Results." Webcrawler. With the query words ethics and business. 26 January 1997. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Can Computers Understand .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Can Computers understand? 1) Thinking is the hallmark of understanding. 2) Only special machines can think. 3) If something can think it can understand. 4) Only special machines that can think can understand. 5) ³Mental² states and their resulting actions are products of the center of activity (brain). 6) To understand, thoughts must be produced by the brain. 7) A computer¹s mental states and events are controlled by a program. 8) The program is not a product of the computer. 9) A computer does not produce ³thoughts² in its brain. 10) A computer cannot understand. John Searle addresses the point of the ability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to understand, in Mind Brains, and Programs. His main argument is that because AI¹s are computers and computers have no thoughts of their own, they cannot understand. Any actions being performed to simulate behavior are confined by the programs available to the computer. He presents the example of a man linking Chinese characters and appearing to know the language, but in reality the man is just following the instructions given to him ( the program). This example serves well to explain how although a computer can look like it understands a story, it can do no more than ³go through the motions.² Of course such a definitive standpoint on an issue as controversial as the capacity of an AI to understand will draw many critics. The criticism of his theory that I find to be the most credible is The Other Mind Reply offered by Yale University. This line of thinking asks: if behavior is what we can determine the presence of cognition through, and an AI passes a behavioral test, why don¹t we attribute cognition to it? I myself do not believe in the philosophy of AI understanding, because to support either side on this issue one must have a belief for or against the ability of man to create another being capable of thought. I do not believe that any machine based creature we may ever create has the ability to think. Thought is something that is independently done and cannot be given to another, or more accurately, programmed in. Regardless of however many tests that may be passed simulating thought and understanding, a programmed being is not capable of thought and understanding. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Categorical Imperative vs Utilitarianism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kant: the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative Kantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative as a method for determining morality of actions. This formula is a two part test. First, one creates a maxim and considers whether the maxim could be a universal law for all rational beings. Second, one determines whether rational beings would will it to be a universal law. Once it is clear that the maxim passes both prongs of the test, there are no exceptions. As a paramedic faced with a distraught widow who asks whether her late husband suffered in his accidental death, you must decide which maxim to create and based on the test which action to perform. The maxim "when answering a widow's inquiry as to the nature and duration of her late husbands death, one should always tell the truth regarding the nature of her late husband's death" (M1) passes both parts of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative. Consequently, according to Kant, M1 is a moral action. The initial stage of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative requires that a maxim be universally applicable to all rational beings. M1 succeeds in passing the first stage. We can easily imagine a world in which paramedics always answer widows truthfully when queried. Therefore, this maxim is logical and everyone can abide by it without causing a logical impossibility. The next logical step is to apply the second stage of the test. The second requirement is that a rational being would will this maxim to become a universal law. In testing this part, you must decide whether in every case, a rational being would believe that the morally correct action is to tell the truth. First, it is clear that the widow expects to know the truth. A lie would only serve to spare her feelings if she believed it to be the truth. Therefore, even people who would consider lying to her, must concede that the correct and expected action is to tell the truth. By asking she has already decided, good or bad, that she must know the truth. What if telling the truth brings the widow to the point where she commits suicide, however? Is telling her the truth then a moral action although its consequence is this terrible response? If telling the widow the truth drives her to commit suicide, it seems like no rational being would will the maxim to become a universal law. The suicide is, however, a consequence of your initial action. The suicide has no bearing, at least for the Categorical Imperative, on whether telling the truth is moral or not. Likewise it is impossible to judge whether upon hearing the news, the widow would commit suicide. Granted it is a possibility, but there are a multitude of alternative choices that she could make and it is impossible to predict each one. To decide whether rational being would will a maxim to become a law, the maxim itself must be examined rationally and not its consequences. Accordingly, the maxim passes the second test. Conversely, some people might argue that in telling the widow a lie, you spare her years of torment and suffering. These supporters of "white lies" feel the maxim should read, "When facing a distraught widow, you should lie in regards to the death of her late husband in order to spare her feelings." Applying the first part of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative, it appears that this maxim is a moral act. Certainly, a universal law that prevents the feelings of people who are already in pain from being hurt further seems like an excellent universal law. Unfortunately for this line of objection, the only reason a lie works is because the person being lied to believes it to be the truth. In a situation where every widow is lied to in order to spare her feelings, then they never get the truth. This leads to a logical contradiction because no one will believe a lie if they know it a lie and the maxim fails. Perhaps the die-hard liar can regroup and test a narrower maxim. If it is narrow enough so that it encompasses only a few people, then it passes the first test. For example, the maxim could read, "When facing a distraught widow whose late husband has driven off a bridge at night, and he struggled to get out of the car but ended up drowning, and he was wearing a brown suit and brown loafers, then you should tell the widow that he died instantly in order to spare her feelings." We can easily imagine a world in which all paramedics lied to widows in this specific situation. That does not necessarily mean that it will pass the second test however. Even if it does pass the first test, narrowing down maxim can create other problems. For instance circumstances may change and the people who were originally included in the universal law, may not be included anymore. Consequently you many not want to will your maxim to be a universal law. Likewise, if one person can make these maxims that include only a select group of people, so can everyone else. If you create a maxim about lying to widows that is specific enough to pass the first test, so can everyone else. One must ask if rational beings would really will such a world in which there would be many, many specific, but universal, laws. In order to answer this question, one must use the rational "I" for the statement "I, as a rational being would will such a world," not the specific, embodied "I" which represents you in your present condition. You must consider that you could be the widow in the situation rather than the paramedic, then decide whether you would will such a universal law. I agree with the morality based on Kantian principles because it is strict in its application of moral conduct. Consequently there is no vacillating in individual cases to determine whether an action is moral or not. An action is moral in itself not because of its consequences but because any rational being wills it to be a universal law and it does not contradict itself. Regardless of what the widow does with the information, the act of telling her the truth, is a moral one. No one would argue that telling the truth, if she asks for it, is an immoral thing to do. Sometimes moral actions are difficult, and perhaps in this situation it would be easier to lie to the widow, but it would still be an immoral action that I would not want everyone to do. This picture of morality resonates with my common sense view of morality. If the widow subsequently commits suicide or commits any other immoral act as a consequence, that has no bearing on the morality of the original action in itself. Utilitarianism would differ on this point. Utilitarianism outlines that an action is moral if it increases the total happiness of society. Morality is based on consequences. Telling a lie to the widow would increase her happiness and consequently would, at least possibly, be a moral action. Utilitarianism would also take into account the precedent set by lying; however, the analysis still rests on predicted consequence rather than on the action's intrinsic moral value. The morality of telling the lie is on a case by case basis. In some situations, it might be better to tell the truth, and according to utilitarianism that would then be the moral action. Unlike Kantian philosophy, one is not bound by an immutable universal law. Instead one must judge in each case which action will produce the most overall happiness. The problem with this approach is that morality loses any value as a universal or intrinsic quality. Every decision is made on an individual basis in an individual and specific situation. In fact, utilitarianism considers happiness to be the only intrinsically valuable end. Defenders of utilitarianism claim that it maintains universality by considering the greatest happiness of all beings, rather than just individual happiness. Still, the morality is based on constantly changing and often unpredictable consequences. The requirement that one consider all of the consequences of an action and determine the best possible action through such calculations makes me reject utilitarianism as a method of determining morality. Although utilitarianism often offers the easier solution to perform because it produces immediate gratification and allows many exceptions to common sense moral codes, the answers it gives are unfilling and unrealistic. Furthermore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make all of the required calculations beforehand. Kant's solution, although as interpreted by Kant is sometimes overly extreme, is much better than utilitarianism. It resonates with my moral sensibilities to consider that actions are moral or immoral regardless of their immediate consequences. I am willing to accept that sometimes the moral action is harder to perform, but I am unwilling to accept that morality rests within the specifics of a situation and the possible consequences. Therefore, I consider Kant's Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative to be a better test of morality than Mill's Utilitarianism. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\censorship in american society.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jennifer Stern ENC 1102 Essay 1 6 February, 1997 The Censorship in the American Society As society emerges into the twenty-first century, control amongst the people is still evident in the actions sought by both houses of Congress. Individuals, in many cultures, are being sheltered from the controversial issues. By suppressing ideas or themes of materials in which a person does not agree, portrays a false atmosphere of society. When the Congress feels that people do not have the ability to form decisions for themselves, this is where the censorship begins. The issue of censorship is currently being debated concerning the violence on television programming. Censorship is defined as "the supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.(Konvitz 1)" Censorship is a form of controlling the members of society. Government leaders and public officials, who believe that literary, artistic, or educational materials are not suitable for the public, take the liberty of eliminating and/or editing it. Censorship amongst the population in the United States of America, regulates the peoples lives, similar to that of a communist country. The individuals who examine and critique the debatable material, will censor it when they find it objectionable or offensive. Milton R. Konvitz feels that "objectionable material will be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to national security(1)." The spirit of censorship seems to exist in the minds of people, the objected viewers, who has the power. There are no standards as to what is unacceptable. If the material has an offending word, arouses a protest or an underlying message conveyed and causes resentment to a person, the material is inadmissible. Jennifer Stern ENC 1102 Essay 1 6 February, 1997 The Censorship in the American Society As society emerges into the twenty-first century, control amongst the people is still evident in the actions sought by both houses of Congress. Individuals, in many cultures, are being sheltered from the controversial issues. By suppressing ideas or themes of materials in which a person does not agree, portrays a false atmosphere of society. When the Congress feels that people do not have the ability to form decisions for themselves, this is where the censorship begins. The issue of censorship is currently being debated concerning the violence on television programming. Censorship is defined as "the supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.(Konvitz 1)" Censorship is a form of controlling the members of society. Government leaders and public officials, who believe that literary, artistic, or educational materials are not suitable for the public, take the liberty of eliminating and/or editing it. Censorship amongst the population in the United States of America, regulates the peoples lives, similar to that of a communist country. The individuals who examine and critique the debatable material, will censor it when they find it objectionable or offensive. Milton R. Konvitz feels that "objectionable material will be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to national security(1)." The spirit of censorship seems to exist in the minds of people, the objected viewers, who has the power. There are no standards as to what is unacceptable. If the material has an offending word, arouses a protest or an underlying message conveyed and causes resentment to a person, the material is inadmissible. Jennifer Stern ENC 1102 Essay 1 6 February, 1997 The Censorship in the American Society As society emerges into the twenty-first century, control amongst the people is still evident in the actions sought by both houses of Congress. Individuals, in many cultures, are being sheltered from the controversial issues. By suppressing ideas or themes of materials in which a person does not agree, portrays a false atmosphere of society. When the Congress feels that people do not have the ability to form decisions for themselves, this is where the censorship begins. The issue of censorship is currently being debated concerning the violence on television programming. Censorship is defined as "the supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.(Konvitz 1)" Censorship is a form of controlling the members of society. Government leaders and public officials, who believe that literary, artistic, or educational materials are not suitable for the public, take the liberty of eliminating and/or editing it. Censorship amongst the population in the United States of America, regulates the peoples lives, similar to that of a communist country. The individuals who examine and critique the debatable material, will censor it when they find it objectionable or offensive. Milton R. Konvitz feels that "objectionable material will be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to national security(1)." The spirit of censorship seems to exist in the minds of people, the objected viewers, who has the power. There are no standards as to what is unacceptable. If the material has an offending word, arouses a protest or an underlying message conveyed and causes resentment to a person, the material is inadmissible. Jennifer Stern ENC 1102 Essay 1 6 February, 1997 The Censorship in the American Society As society emerges into the twenty-first century, control amongst the people is still evident in the actions sought by both houses of Congress. Individuals, in many cultures, are being sheltered from the controversial issues. By suppressing ideas or themes of materials in which a person does not agree, portrays a false atmosphere of society. When the Congress feels that people do not have the ability to form decisions for themselves, this is where the censorship begins. The issue of censorship is currently being debated concerning the violence on television programming. Censorship is defined as "the supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.(Konvitz 1)" Censorship is a form of controlling the members of society. Government leaders and public officials, who believe that literary, artistic, or educational materials are not suitable for the public, take the liberty of eliminating and/or editing it. Censorship amongst the population in the United States of America, regulates the peoples lives, similar to that of a communist country. The individuals who examine and critique the debatable material, will censor it when they find it objectionable or offensive. Milton R. Konvitz feels that "objectionable material will be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to national security(1)." The spirit of censorship seems to exist in the minds of people, the objected viewers, who has the power. There are no standards as to what is unacceptable. If the material has an offending word, arouses a protest or an underlying message conveyed and causes resentment to a person, the material is inadmissible. Jennifer Stern ENC 1102 Essay 1 6 February, 1997 The Censorship in the American Society As society emerges into the twenty-first century, control amongst the people is still evident in the actions sought by both houses of Congress. Individuals, in many cultures, are being sheltered from the controversial issues. By suppressing ideas or themes of materials in which a person does not agree, portrays a false atmosphere of society. When the Congress feels that people do not have the ability to form decisions for themselves, this is where the censorship begins. The issue of censorship is currently being debated concerning the violence on television programming. Censorship is defined as "the supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.(Konvitz 1)" Censorship is a form of controlling the members of society. Government leaders and public officials, who believe that literary, artistic, or educational materials are not suitable for the public, take the liberty of eliminating and/or editing it. Censorship amongst the population in the United States of America, regulates the peoples lives, similar to that of a communist country. The individuals who examine and critique the debatable material, will censor it when they find it objectionable or offensive. Milton R. Konvitz feels that "objectionable material will be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to national security(1)." The spirit of censorship seems to exist in the minds of people, the objected viewers, who has the power. There are no standards as to what is unacceptable. If the material has an offending word, arouses a protest or an underlying message conveyed and causes resentment to a person, the material is inadmissible. Jennifer Stern ENC 1102 Essay 1 6 February, 1997 The Censorship in the American Society As society emerges into the twenty-first century, control amongst the people is still evident in the actions sought by both houses of Congress. Individuals, in many cultures, are being sheltered from the controversial issues. By suppressing ideas or themes of materials in which a person does not agree, portrays a false atmosphere of society. When the Congress feels that people do not have the ability to form decisions for themselves, this is where the censorship begins. The issue of censorship is currently being debated concerning the violence on television programming. Censorship is defined as "the supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.(Konvitz 1)" Censorship is a form of controlling the members of society. Government leaders and public officials, who believe that literary, artistic, or educational materials are not suitable for the public, take the liberty of eliminating and/or editing it. Censorship amongst the population in the United States of America, regulates the peoples lives, similar to that of a communist country. The individuals who examine and critique the debatable material, will censor it when they find it objectionable or offensive. Milton R. Konvitz feels that "objectionable material will be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to national security(1)." The spirit of censorship seems to exist in the minds of people, the objected viewers, who has the power. There are no standards as to what is unacceptable. If the material has an offending word, arouses a protest or an underlying message conveyed and causes resentment to a person, the material is inadmissible. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Chance or Planning.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Maureen C. Lett HSS 208-Dr. O'Hara April 17, 1996 Chance or Planning Intelligence and planning are necessary factors in scientific research, however chance and luck are also important and somewhat necessary factors. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and the memoir, The Double Helix, written by James Watson, prove this assertion. Charles Darwin, James Watson and Francis Crick were all intelligent men that planned their experiments, however without chance and luck their success and scientific achievement would not be as great. Intelligence and planning are important in scientific discovery, but are not always the dominating forces that drive scientific research. Such is the case with Charles Darwin, James Watson and Francis Crick. All three of these men were extremely intellectual, but their intellect only contributed partially to their success. Intellect and planning, combined with chance and luck contributed to their overall success. People take chances on a daily basis. If you actually stop and think about it, life is one big game of chance. It is by chance that we are born, that we continue to survive, and that we will eventually die. Some people feel that this cycle occurs do to the will of God, others, like Charles Darwin believe that it happens based on chance or natural selection. Whatever you believe or disbelieve, life cannot be planned. No matter how hard a person attempts to "plan" their path in life, it is by chance and luck where that path takes us. Darwin's career was also based on chance, not planning. Darwin never planned to become a scientist or the father of natural selection. It was by pure chance that he obtained the job on the voyage of the Beagle, which started his career. Darwin stated about this voyage that, "The voyage of the Beagle has been the by far the most important event in my life and has determined my whole career. . ." (Darwin, p.76) Darwin had not planned to take the trip on the Beagle, he obtained the opportunity by mere chance. One can attempt to "plan" for a job or career, but chance and luck are the major factors which allow for success. Although Darwin's intellect played a role in obtaining the position, chance and luck were the major factors. Many scientists suffer great strokes of luck. Two other scientists that did not "plan" their success were James Watson and Francis Crick. These two men were not great planners of scientific research, but through chance and luck they obtained their scientific goal. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA and its double helix. Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, and Linus Pauling were other scientists that were extremely close to discovering the structure of DNA at the same time as Watson and Crick. They all had basically the same information, however Watson and Crick, due to chance and luck finished the race first, but not very far ahead of their competitors. Watson and Crick admit that the race to find the structure of DNA was close, however their luck or chance contributed tremendously to their achievement. Watson and Crick, much like Darwin achieved their "greatness" due to mere chance, not planning. Watson and Crick were very fortunate that their chance or good stroke of luck did not run out. They were lucky that they conceived the notion to make a three dimensional model of the helix. They were also lucky that death did not strike either of them. Crick states, in the book The Double Helix, that, "If Watson had been killed by a tennis ball I am reasonably sure that I would not have solved the structure alone. . ." (Watson, p. 143) Fortunately Watson was not killed by a tennis ball and Crick did not have to ponder the problem of DNA alone. Both men were extremely fortunate to have each other. Again luck and chance were important factors in their discovery, not planning. Charles Darwin was also lucky that death did not strike him. Disease is extremely common when traveling by ship, and by mere chance Darwin was not struck with any life threatening illness. Darwin, while traveling on the Beagle, could have contracted any type of disease. Medications for illnesses were not easily available for consumption, and often the infected patients died. By chance Darwin did not become ill, if he had perhaps the world would not know about evolution or natural selection. Darwin could not "plan" for the success of his book Origin of the Species. It was by chance that some people agreed with his theory of natural selection. Darwin stated about his religious belief that, ". . . I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation." (Darwin, p. 86) Darwin became disillusioned in Christianity due to the fact that several of his closest friends did not believe in God. Darwin stated about this that, "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true. . . the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this is my father, brother, and almost all of my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (Darwin, p. 87) Darwin went out on a limb when he expressed his disbelief in God and the Bible. He could not plan for the general public to agree with his radical idea. It was by chance that his book became such a success. Both believers and non-believers purchased his book. Also, by chance he converted many non-believers into believing his radical form of thought. A Cambridge painter once stated that, ". . . the important thing is to be there when the picture is painted. And this it seems to me, is partly a matter of luck, partly good judgement, inspiration, and persistent application." (Watson, p. 145) This statement holds extremely true to Watson and Cricks discovery of DNA. Intellect, persistence, and good judgement contributed to their success. However, luck and chance were the major contributing factors. Charles Darwin said that his, ". . . success as a man of science, whatever this may have amounted to, has been determined, as far as I can judge, by complex and diversified mental qualities and conditions. Of these the most important have been - the love of science - unbounded patience in long reflecting over any subject - industry in observing and collecting facts - and a fair share of invention as well as common sense. With such moderate abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that thus I should have influenced to a considerable extent the beliefs of scientific men on some important points." (Darwin, p. 145) Although Darwin stated his theory with clear and concise arguments, it was by chance that people believed him, considering he could not plan for his future success. Although planning is somewhat important in scientific research and discovery, chance plays a much more important role. Without chance most scientific discoveries would not have happened. John Lennon was quoted as stating, "Life is what happens as we make other plans." Science is much like life. One can not plan for it, it just takes place. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Charles Darwin and Imperialism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Charles Darwin and Imperialism England went through dramatic changes in the 19th century. English culture, socio-economic structure and politics where largely influenced by the principles of science. Many social expressions occurred due to these changes. Transformations which categorized this time period could be observed in social institutions; for instance: the switch from popular Evangelicalism to atheism, emergence of feminism and the creation of new political ideologies (Liberalism, Conservatism and Radicalism). These are just a few of the changes that took place. All of this social alteration can be attributed to the importance of science. The English people began to trust more in empiricism and logical thought than in faith and glory of the empire . One who contributed greatly to this transformation was Charles Darwin. In his two most famous works, The Origin of Species and The Decent of Man, Darwin introduces the concept of "the survival of the fittest" and "natural selection". The Darwinian ideas introduced into English society justified a great number of political policies and social movements. England at the turn of the century was still a largest power in the international system. The English perceived, through the justification of Darwinism, they were fit to be the imperial hegemon in the world. The issue this essay will deal with is Imperialism and how Darwinism justified its practice. Darwin argued in his work, The Decent of Man, "When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race. . . the grade of civilisation seems to be a most important element in success in competing nations."(Darwin, Decent of Man, p. 297). In this observation, Darwin connotated superiority to civilized nations. In this same work, he referred to the indigenous people as "savages, barbarians and tribal men". This immediately transfers a condescending attitude toward the "uncivilised people". Darwin classified them as tribes while the English and other Aryan cultures were a race. These claims of basic inequality gave the English the "jurisdiction" philosophically, to exploit the colonies to a greater level than previously attained. The drive to "Christianize" the colonies was abandoned, politically. The view shifted from "owing the primitive world" education and Christianity, to a more self-interested "we English are naturally better". Therefore, the we should be exploiting you, because, that is why you are here. Charles Darwin had a tremendous amount of influence on the scientific community and the English population. It can be seen that Darwinism played a large part in justifying the imperial behavior of England. Darwin's studies on nature and the behavior of animals had unlocked "Pandora's Box" in a manner of speaking. He studies reveal how close to nature humanity really is. The English empire quickly saw themselves as a dominant predatorial species of the world. In conclusion, the English empire used Darwinian concept to justify the on-going process of imperialism. Charles Darwin's ideas elevated the ego's of the English people to over-estimate themselves socially and globally. The affects of Darwinism can be seen throughout the spectrum of social interaction both in the animal kingdom and human society. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Child Abuse.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Child abuse is one of the saddest and most tragic problems in America today. Each year an estimated one to two million American children are being beaten, neglected, or sexually abused by their parents or guardians. Infants only a few days old as well as teenagers are subject to child abuse. There are four types of child abuse: physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. Child abuse is a serious problem that plagues America's youth and should be stopped. Physical abuse is a form of child abuse that should be stopped as soon as possible. According to social agencies, beatings of children have multiplied over the past twenty years. Physical abuse is any abuse that is harmful to the child. This kind of abuse includes the physical discipline which results in observable injuries on the child. It also includes use of a life-threatening weapon, like a gun or a knife, against a child and any abuse resulting in death. Any abuse which results in a sever injury requiring prompt medical attention, that could be life threatening, that could cause mental and/or physical impairment, could cause disfigurement, or chronic pain is too classified as physical child abuse. Another form of physical abuse is any knowing or willful mistreatment which in the opinion of a licensed medical doctor causes great bodily harm and/or results in hospitalization for treatment of this injury or condition; this may include physical injury sustained as a result of abuse or conditions which result from a parent's willful failure to act to stop this from happening to the child. Physical neglect is defined as failure to provide for a child's physical survival needs to the extent that there is harm or risk of harm to the child's health and safety. Physical neglect includes these four things: inadequate food, inadequate shelter, inadequate medical care, and inadequate supervision. Forty-two percent of all child abuse reports involve allegations of physical neglect. The inadequate food element includes a child intentionally or deliberately not getting fed or given water. It also includes a diagnosis by a physician of failure to thrive because of a parent's failure to feed the child. Inadequate shelter includes prolonged and serious illness resulting from exposure to the elements or to serious dangerous substances as evidenced by serious injury. Inadequate medical care encompasses the child not receiving medical treatment for an injury, illness, or disability, and if left untreated, the condition is life-threatening, or will result in permanent impairment, or is a serious threat to public health. Inadequate supervision is dependent upon the child's age, developmental level, willingness to stay alone, time of day, awareness of what to do in case of an emergency, whether the child is responsible for watching younger brothers and/or sisters, whether the child had any physical or mental limitations that would make it difficult or impossible for the child to care for himself/herself, and/or any other applicable circumstances. Some signs of neglect are obvious in children and others are not. A sign of neglect is that the child/children have repeated injuries that are not properly treated or adequately explained. Another sign of neglect is that the child/children begin acting in unusual ways ranging from disruptive and aggressive to passive and withdrawn. Their sleep is disturbed (nightmares, bedwetting, fear of sleeping alone). They lose all of their appetite or they overeat. There is a sudden drop in school grades or participation in school or after school activities. They may act in stylized ways, such as sexual behavior that is not normal for their age group. Sexual abuse is defined as acts of sexual harassment and sexual exploitation of minors. Sexual abuse encompasses a broad range of behavior and may consist of many acts over a long period of time or a single incident. The nature of sexual abuse, the shame of the child victim, and the possible involvement of trusted parents, stepparents, or other persons in a caretaker role make it extremely difficult for children to come forward to report sexual abuse. Sexual contact is the intentional touching of the victim's intimate parts, whether on top of or underneath of the victim's clothing, if that intentional touching can be reasonably interpreted as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or satisfaction. Sexual penetration includes oral sex, anal intercourse, or any intrusion, no matter how insignificant, of any part of a person's body or object into the genital or anal openings of another person's body. Sexual abuse may also include child pornography, child prostitution, or exposure of children to sexual acts or materials depicting sexual acts. Emotional abuse includes verbal assaults, ignoring and indifference, or constant family conflict. It also includes punishments like locking the child in a dark closet. Sometimes such behaviors can cause serious mental disorders. If a child is degraded enough, the child will begin to live up to the image that is being communicated by the abusing parent or caretaker. This type of abuse is the hardest kind to notice because it leaves no bruises. A child who is emotionally abused may seem withdrawn, or act out frustration by abusing other children, animals, or belongings. Child abuse is a serious problem that plagues America's youth and must be stopped. Physical abuse and physical neglect can hurt someone to the point of having to visit the hospital or even death. Sexual abuse can cause injury and scar someone for life with the memories of the act or acts of sexual abuse the child had done to him/her. Emotional abuse can also scar someone for life in the sense that it can change your all around behavior about the world and everyone in it because of one incident or a series of acts that occurred in your childhood. Child abuse must be stopped in order to have a normal and prosperous youth of tomorrow. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Childhood Delinquence.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Remember doing something mischievous or wrong when you were a kid and getting the label "delinquent" slapped on you ? Did you ever wonder what it meant ? That is what my topic for today is . . . juvenile delinquency. In this report I will: define juvenile delinquency, give the extent of juvenile delinquency, give some suggestions on what causes juvenile delinquency, and what is being done in various communities to deal with this growing problem. The legal term juvenile delinquent was established so that young lawbreakers could avoid the disgrace of being classified in legal records as criminals. Juvenile delinquency laws were designed to provide treatment, rather than punishment, for juvenile offenders. Young delinquents usually are sent to juvenile courts, where the main aim is to rehabilitate offenders, rather than to punish them. But the term juvenile delinquency itself has come to imply disgrace in today's society. A youngster can be labeled a delinquent for breaking any one of a number of laws, ranging from robbery to running away from home. But an action for which a youth may be declared a delinquent in one community may not be against the law in another community. In some communities, the police ignore many children who are accused of minor delinquencies or refer them directly to their parents. But in other communities, the police may refer such children to a juvenile court, where they may officially be declared delinquents. Crime statistics, though they are often incomplete and may be misleading, do give an indication of the extent of the delinquency problem. The FBI reports that during the early 1980's, about two-fifths of all arrests in the United States for burglary and arson were of persons under the age of 18. Juveniles also accounted for about one-third of all arrests for larceny. During any year, about 4 % of all children between the ages of 10 and 18 appear in a juvenile court. The percentage of youngsters in this group who are sent to court at least once is much higher. A third or more of those boys living in the slum areas of large cities may appear in a juvenile court at least once. Girls are becoming increasingly involved in juvenile delinquency. Today, about one of every five youngsters appearing in juvenile court is a girl. In the early 1900's, this ratio was about 1 girl to every 50 or 60 boys. Sociologists have conducted a number of studies to determine how much delinquency is not reported to the police. Most youngsters report taking part in one or more delinquent acts, though a majority of the offenses are minor. Experts have concluded that youthful misbehavior is much more common than is indicated by arrest records and juvenile court statistics. Many studies have been made in an effort to determine the causes of delinquency. Most of these have focused on family relationships or on neighborhood or community conditions. The results of these investigations have shown that it is doubtful that any child becomes a delinquent for any single reason. Family Relationships, especially those between parents and individual children, have been the focus of several delinquency studies. An early study comparing delinquent and nondelinquent brothers showed that over 90 % of the delinquents had unhappy home lives and felt discontented with their life circumstances. Only 13 % of their brothers felt this way. Whatever the nature of the delinquents' unhappiness, delinquency appeared to them to be a solution. It brought attention to youths neglected by their parents, or approval by delinquent friends, or it solved problems of an unhappy home life in other ways. More recent studies have revealed that many delinquents had parents with whom they did not get along or who were inconsistent in their patterns of discipline and punishment. Neighborhood conditions have been stressed in studies by sociologists. Many of these inquiries concentrate on differing rates of delinquency, rather than on the way individuals become delinquents. A series of studies have shown that delinquency rates are above average in the poorest sections of cities. Such areas have many broken homes and a high rate of alcoholism. They also have poor schools, high unemployment, few recreational facilities, and high crime rates. Many young people see delinquency as their only escape from boredom, poverty, and other problems. Social scientists have also studied the influence of other youngsters on those who commit delinquencies. For example, they point out that most youngsters who engage in delinquent behavior do so with other juveniles and often in organized gangs. Studies indicate that the causes of delinquency also extend to a whole society. For example, delinquency rates tend to be high among the low-income groups in societies where most people are well-to-do. The pain of being poor and living in slum conditions are felt more strongly in a rich society than in a poor one. Many efforts have been made to develop programs of delinquency prevention. There is little evidence, however, that any of these programs is truly effective. Some programs provide counseling services to youths who appear to be on the verge of becoming delinquents. Other programs draw youngsters into clubs and recreational centers in an effort to keep them away from situations in which delinquency is likely to occur. In recent years, many efforts have centered on improving the educational and work skills of youngsters. For those juveniles who have already become delinquents, there are programs designed to prevent them from committing future delinquent acts. Probation services are offered through juvenile courts in an effort to provide guidance for delinquent children. The more progressive institutions for juveniles attempt to provide treatment programs for offenders--work experiences, counseling, education, and group therapy. However, many other institutions provide little more than protective custody for juvenile delinquents. In conclusion, I have defined juvenile delinquency, explained the extent of juvenile delinquency, gave some suggestions on what causes juvenile delinquency, and what is being done in various communities to deal with the problem of juvenile delinquency. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Classical Theory Structure.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Classical Theory Structure Introduction By way of illustration, in this document we will describe and explain the classical structural theory as presented by Max Weber. To highlight the advantages and disadvantages of this classical structure as used in a realistic modern organization we will apply this theroy as used today in our public police department. Classical Structural Theory In the classical structural theory a person is hired for their technical expertise rather than on the recommendation of a connection from within the company. Generally these people are more inclined to work in very well-defined process oriented positions. Employees are given titles in which the authority to perform specific duties are vested. Outside of the defined position the employee has little or no authority. Lines of authority and positions are clearly defined by formally established rules and regulations that help to ensure uniformity of operations, and provide for continuity of business as well as making responsibility easy to place. In his 10 points Weber implied that procedures imposed on all who fall within their reach are formal and impersonal (Pace & Faules, 1994, p. 30-31). In addition to these procedures, It is suggested that an attitude of discipline is an integral part of the organization that wants to promote efficiency (Pace & Faules, 1994, chapter 3). They are intentionally designed without attention to personal or emotional considerations to prevent distortion of employees' rational judgment in carrying out their assigned duties. Employees working in a classically structured organization are encouraged to maintain distinction between their private and professional lives. The last tenet of Max Weber's theory involves security and advancement. He held that security in a position was gained by tenure. For motivated individuals who want to advance their careers, hard work and achievement are viewed in this type of organization as the best way to develop a good rapport with the supervisor. Because responsibility is so easily laid on individuals, awarding recognition on an individual basis is the rule. In today's society, even as we progress from the so-called Industrial Age to the Information Age, such organizations still exist. The police department is a high visibility organization that continues to utilize the ideas founded in classical theory. Potential officers are given a series of tests, both physical and mental, which determine to a great extent their probability of being hired. In line with Weber's work, each position in the department has a title which is representative of their level in the hierarchy (Pace & Faules, 1994, p. 30-31). Strict self discipline is praised and there are many policies in place to ensure that rational judgment is maintained. The most common way to advance in the police department is through time on the job. Seniority, especially when combined with competency, is given a great deal of weight. Maintaining the premise that authority is vested not in a person but in the position, when an officer leaves the force he or she looses the power to chase criminals through red lights, arrest drug lords, and perform other duties for which the authority rises out of the position once held. Advantages of Classical Structural Theory The opinion that easily identifiable structure and tightly managed rules and regulations are advantageous in public organizations is widely held. Structure and policy are of tremendous interest to all those interested in the uniformity and continuity of public safety. The advantages of the classical structure within our example have multiple impacts on how the organization operates. As affirmed by Frederick Taylor, with a clear and concise reporting path we can visualize how the police department utilizes this in their daily operations (Pace & Faules, 1994, p. 32-33). In a crisis situation it is imperative that the police department work in a unison direction with as little verbal interaction as possible. This allows partners to communicate with a structural nonverbal direction. Strict rules guiding the behavior of officers on duty help to protect the public from officers acting out domestic aggressions at work. In this way, the separation of private and professional lives is a distinct advantage. Disadvantages of Classical Structural Theory Despite the many advantages associated with this type of arrangement within the police department, a number of disadvantages also exist. For employees, goals of advancement maybe slow to realize due to the tenure required to obtain various levels in the hierarchy. In addition to tenure, employees of the police department are also limited by budget restraints and number of employees needed to provide an acceptable level of service. For the public, the rules and regulations followed by officers leave little room for consideration of individual circumstances. Conclusion As a result of several years of this type of structure, and the culmination of several high tech jobs in the market place, many companies are beginning to move away from this type of organization. Companies have come to realize that employees' personal goals and environment are critical to their work performance, which classical structure tends to stagnate. Thus, it is the consensus of the group that classically structured organizations should start to examine the impacts that a more subjective approach to organizing may have on their specific organizations. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Cogniton and Marxism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Practical Cognition Theories of Knowledge (Karl Marx) In his early years of writing, Karl Marx's ideas were similar to American Pragmatism, especially his ideas about epistemology. He defines truth in a pragmatic fashion and explains cognition in terms of practical needs of the human being. While some of his ideas were not followed to their logical conclusion, nor made sense, the fundamentals of his epistemology contain valuable ideas which can be viewed as furthering pragmatism as a respectable philosophy. His theory of cognition states that cognition is a biological function of the human which is used as a tool for his survival. Marx defines truth in a pragmatic way. The truth value of a judgement is due to the usefulness of accepting or rejecting the judgement. A statement is true if accepting it makes a positive difference or has a helpful influence and it is false if accepting it causes difficulty or dissatisfaction. The meaning of a statement is the practical result of accepting the statement. In general, then, the truth or falsity of a statement is relative, not only to the individual accepting or rejecting the statement, but also to the circumstances in which that person finds himself. Truth is relative, but Marx is not an extreme relativist (no one to be taken seriously is) because there is a constraint to how relative the truth can be; Humans are making the truth judgements, and humans have a common element, viz . their needs, which do not vary greatly between people. Humans are in contact with nature at a fundamental level. The human understanding of nature is a consequence of the fact that nature confronts humans when they try to fulfill their needs. This is the case with any organism, and each species reacts according to the tools of that species. One of the human tools is the intellect, and it works through the cognition of the perception of elements of nature. Cognition occurs as the organizing of sensory data into categories. Without the ability to make generalizations, man would not be able to think. Moreover, the human capacity to think is exactly the same as making abstractions about experience. There is nothing more to descriptions of the world than those abstractions. Details about the world are described only in terms of generalizations, for if there were a word for a specific detail unique to only one event, then that word would be nothing but a name -an abbreviation for the term, the specific detail x , unique to only this one event, y . The assimilation of the external world, which is at first biological, subsequently social and therefore human, occurs as an organization of the raw material of nature in an effort to satisfy needs; cognition, which is a factor in the assimilation, cannot evade this universal determinism. To ask how an observer would see a world whose essence was pure thinking and consciousness of which was defined exclusively by a disinterested cognitive effort, is to ask a barren question, for all consciousness is actually born of practical needs, and the act of cognition itself is a tool designed to satisfy these needs.(1) A world which is independent of what humans might think, which is what the logical positivists seek to know, is useless to humans, and impossible for a human to comprehend. Even to say, It is impossible for a human to comprehend the world in its pure form, words the problem incorrectly because the very meaning of comprehend contradicts anything which is not artificially broken into abstractions. According to Marx, the world seems to be naturally divided into species and genera, not because the world divides them as such, but because man is at odds with his environment at a fundamental level and the categories into which his world is divided are a natural result of his effort to survive. We do not have concepts that are not useful to our survival, or do not help us in our endeavors, though such concepts could easily fit in our intellectual capacity. We could ostensibly make the general dichotomy of objects that either ding or thud when hit regardless of whether such a dichotomy is useful. We do not have a word for such a dichotomy. The point is that "natural" distinctions are still artificially applied by the human intellect upon the world which has no such distinctions inherently, but those distinctions seem natural because they helped humans survive and succeed in their efforts. Marx's theory of knowledge is a form of pragmatism which includes elements of Darwinism that explain how certain types of categorizing became prevalent. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\commitment.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Commitment When you abide to do something with all your heart and soul. We live in a cynical world where commitment is often times obscured by day to day life. Many believe that our goals are a commitment to ourselves. People make goals for themselves in order to strive for greatness, but a man once told me that goals not written down are only dreams. We can dream all we like but without commitment to do the things we set for ourselves nothing can be achieved. When we see a future that will enhance our lives we strive to make that future happen, but with the tyranny of the urgent we are oppressed and our vision is clouded which makes us try less than we should for the things that are meant for us. There is a time for focus on the now but we must never lose sight of the attainable future that is there. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Compare how Hobbes and Augustine think the condition of war a.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Compare how Hobbes and Augustine think the condition of war arises and defend one author's account of 'ordinary' morality as an antedote for it. Augustine believes that the condition of war arises when the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God is disrupted (The City of God, 690) whereas Hobbes believes that the original state of nature is a condition of constant war, which rational and self-motivated people want to end. Augustine argues that peace is more than the absence of hostilities - it is a state of harmony that makes possible the full functioning of human beings. Full functioning comes from the four internal virtues (courage, justice, temperance, and prudence) that we must exercise to achieve good human morality. Human morality, by and of its self, will not allow us humans to travel to our moral destination. It is only an exercise of the four virtues so that we as humans can achieve some sort of peace on our own through God's saving grace. To Augustine, humans seek an object of love they can't lose. The problem with that to humans is that humans can't provide that to other humans completely. Only God can and that in turn causes hostility among humans. The love of God, then, is the only way humans can completely satisfy all four virtues and have eternal peace. Eternal peace is where faith, love, and hope are to be enjoyed, such as in The City of God. In Book XIX, Augustinian social theory summarizes the principle of ordered harmony. This theory finds perfection in a mutual society that believes in God. Believing in God, though, lends a problem in the simple rule of justice: how do we give each other their due? Seemingly, war or hostility would not be a part of a Christian's life on earth. Augustine counters by indicating that war may be and is waged by God's commandment. To Augustine, waging war out of obedience to God is very different than to wage war for personal gain. But even wars caused by unselfish humans can be profitable to the faithful through patience and discipline to God. Augustine seems to believe that war is waged so that peace may be obtained. Since we all seek peace, war, then, can be obligatory when evil has control. Hobbes, on the other hand, believes that war is a natural condition of mankind. Although Hobbes and Augustine seem to both believe that there needs to be one source of law (Augustine, God and Hobbes, Social Contracts), Hobbes takes off to suggest that we are motivated by selfish self interests and because of that, we are better off living in a world of moral rules. Without there rules we are at the mercy of other people's self - interest. War becomes the need to gain control of our own environments when others try to exploit us. These self - interests are Hobbe's way of saying that all of our actions are a product of our own beliefs. We believe we are more superior than anyone else other than God and this natural passion brings in the first law of nature according to Hobbes: Liberty of man to reason. We all wish to reason for ourselves and we expect others to understand this as they want the same. Therefore, war comes from the lack of others respecting your feelings, to some degree. The second law of nature, where we should lay down our liberty when others do as well, brings out a sense of unity between us. If we give up our rights to each other then we will all be happy and that leads to peace. The third law of nature is to do to others as they do you. Seemingly this authorizes, even demands, war when war is waged against you. But unless there is a betrayal, war would be against the law of nature. The fourth law of nature, to show gratitude to others who benefit you, is a take off of the love thy neighbor theme, it seems. It follows that if I help you in war then you have benefited me and I should benefit you in return for a mutal defence. Preservation is a self - interest and we all desire that. Overall, I believe that Hobbe's theory cast closer to Lord of the Flies than Augustine's. The way the boys separate into groups (ie: hunters and the peaceful) shows a return to the basics of life. The boys chose to go with the hunters out of fear or that not going with them (knowing a monster was out there) would bring on a more favorable result. I would assume this is a form of Consequentialism because the action was best for the boy himself or for the group. In Lord of the Flies, hostilities grew out of each boy's own self-interest for desire, be it safety, food, shelter, or peer attention and companionship in numbers. Based on Hobbes theory, when the hunters stole the knife or eyeglasses from the peaceful boys, the hunters were simply acting in their own rational self-interest. Whether they were morally correct or not is a different question. But their attempt to set their own set of moral rules through their actions demonstrates their basic need to control their own self-interests. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Comparison between 2 romantic writers.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INTRODUCTION In this paper, I won't stick to only one topic. I will compare different topics, such as happiness and life between two romantic writers, D. H. Lawrence and Friedrich Nietzsche from D. H. Lawrence's You touched me and Friedrich Nietzche's The use and abuse of history taken from The twilight of the Idols. I will start talking about life and happiness by giving my own little definition of each of these two terms. LIFE Life: one word, many meanings. Life: one word, one precious thing. We see life in a total different way by the two writers. Life, in D. H. Lawrence's You touched me, is one, short and precious thing. We see life through the eyes of a dying father and his two daughters, who loves their father a lot and an adopted son enrolled in the army. The father continuously fights his disease, battling to stay alive. We see life as a fragile, vulnerable thing. It can also vanish unexpectedly. What I mean by "life can also vanish unexpectedly" is that you never know when something terrible could happen to you and see it taken away. Friedrich Nietzshe explains us a lot more his perception of life. Unfortunately, I didn't understand most of the things he meant, but I will explain what I think I understood. Nietzshe describes life with the help of a man and a beast. The beast always forgets what he wants to say and what he said. This behaviour is also called forgetfulness. He (Nietzshe) claims that [life in any true sense is absolutely impossible without forgetfulness]. He also says something about death. [And when death brings at last the desired forgetfulness, it abolishes life and being together, and sets the seal on the knowledge that "being" is merely a continual "has been", a thing that lives by denying and destroying and contradicting itself]. He also mentions a universal law about living things. [A living thing can only be healthy, strong and productive within a certain horizon: if it be incapable of drawing one round itself, or too selfish to lose its own view in another's, it will come to an untimely end.] HAPPINESS Happiness: everybody's ultimate goal. Unfortunately, happiness is very hard goal to reach. D. H. Lawrence demonstrate the failure of reaching happiness through money and other goods. Emmie and Matilda were two girls of a rich man. But these two girls were not quite happy. They couldn't get married because they were expecting too much of men. Their (Matilda and Emmie) minds were based on money or valuable goods, restricting them from a lot of things. Hadrian was not a rich kid but he seemed to be happy the way he was. He wanted freedom and that's how he was happy. The two girls were captives of their rich lives. Hadrian understood that happiness wasn't about money, but about other superficial things, such as freedom and love. When Matilda touched Hadrian, Hadrian suddenly fell in love with her. He wanted to marry her now to be happy, not for her money, even though he didn't dislike the idea of the father that if Matilda wouldn't marry Hadrian, everything that the father had would go to Hadrian when he (the father) dies. The father also understood that happiness wasn't in the money. So, as we can see, what D. H. Lawrence is trying to tell us is that happiness is not about being rich, but more about freedom. Friedrich Nietzshe got a more complex view of happiness. Actually, since it's pretty complex and I can't explain it well, I will site an extract from The use and abuse of history. [If happiness and the chase for new happiness keep alive in any sense the will to live, no philosophy has perhaps more truth than the cynic's: for beast's happiness, like that of the perfect cynic, is the visible proof of the truth of cynism. The smallest pleasure, if it be only continuous and make one happy, is incomparably a greater happiness than the more intensive pleasure that comes as an episode, a wild freak, a mad interval between ennui, desire, and privation. But in the smallest and greatest happiness there is always one thing that makes it happiness: the power of forgetting, or, in more learned phrase, the capacity of feeling "unhistorically" throughout its duration. One who cannot leave himself behind on the threshold of the moment and forget the past, who cannot stand on a single point, like a goddess of victory, without fear or giddiness, will never know what happiness is; and, worse still, will never do anything to make others happy. The extreme case would be the man without any power to forget, who is condemned to see "becoming" everywhere. Such a man believes no more in himself or his own existence, he sees everything fly past in an eternal succession, and loses himself in the stream of becoming. At last, like the logical disciple of Heraclitus, he will hardly dare to raise his finger.] Conclusion In conclusion, D. H. Lawrence's point of view about life and happiness seems to be quite different of Friedrich Nietzshe's perception. Although Nietsche's perception was more complex to understand, it seems that Nietzsche has a more correct view of life and happiness. BIBLIOGRAPHY D.H Lawrence, You touched me, from The complete stories volume two, 1920 Friedrich Nietzsche The use and abuse of history from The twilight of the Idols. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Confessions by Augustine Evil.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A philosophical question faces Christians, and in fact all theists, that challenges the belief in G-d. To theists, G-d is an omnipotent, perfect God. He is good. Theists accept this, and embrace it, for how else can they worship G-d and give their lives to Him unless He is good? However, n this world evil is constantly seen all around us. Because G-d is the author of all things in this world, and he is good, theists must then ask themselves what evil is and where it came from. Augustine sets up an argument I his Confessions that attempts to define evil, and in doing so he explains its existence. To follow this argument, it is important to realize that Augustine accepts some basic precepts regarding G-d and His creation. To begin with, G-d is the author of everything. Augustine says, "nothing that exists could exist without you [G-d]" (1.2). G-d is the creator and source of all things. Again " . . . when He made the world He did not go away and leave it. By Him it was created and in Him exists" (4.12). Nothing in this world exists apart from G-d. Also, G-d is in control of everything in this world. "Everything takes its place according to your law" (1.7). Augustine clearly sets forth that G-d is the creator and source of everything. Not only is He the source, but he is the reason for its continued existence. The next step Augustine takes regards the nature of G-d's creation. For Augustine, G-d is good, because everything He made is good. "You are our G-d, supreme Good, the Creator and Ruler of the universe" (1.20), and again, "Therefore, the G-d who made me must be good and all the good in me is His"(1.20). Everything about G-d is good. There is no aspect of Him that is lacking, false, or not good. These characteristics are in turn transferred to His creation. "You, my G-d, are the source of all good"(1.6). However, Augustine makes an important distinction regarding the creation of good and evil when he says, "O Lord my G-d, creator and arbiter of all natural things, but arbiter only, not creator, of sin"(1.10). The question of what evil is, and where it came from, still remains. Augustine establishes that everything G-d made is good, and since G-d made everything, everything must be good. He than asks where evil could have come from. After all, evil did not come from G-d, it must have come from a source other than G-d. If this true, then is it not so that G-d could have been prevented evil from entering into the world as He is G-d? Because we clearly see evil in the world. Did G-d allow it to enter? This would seem to mean either that G-d is not entirely good, or that he is not omniscient and all powerful. These questions Augustine does his best to answer. First, Augustine establishes a definition of evil. Originally, he believed that evil had substance. "I believed that evil, too was some similar kind of substance . . . And because such little piety as I had compelled me to believe that G-d, who is good, could not have created evil nature, I imagined that there were two antagonistic masses, both of which were infinite, yet the evil in a lesser and the good in a greater degree"(5.10). However, his view changes later, where he says that, "Evil is nothing but the removal of good until finally no good remains"(3.7). Under this definition, evil does exist as a substance. Instead, it is the result of a removal; of good until there is nothing left, at which time the object/person would cease to exist in a physical realm. "And evil, the origin of which I was trying to find, is not because if it were a substance, it would be good"(7.12). Augustine approaches this issue from an entirely different angle. First he says: Do we have any good evidence that G-d even exists? If He does, is He good? So he develops his argument from natural theology. He looks for independent evidence available to us that G-d is real and He is good. That is why Augustine properly starts with proofs for the existence of G-d and once establishing that there is good reason to believe He exists and HE is good, then that produces a different kind of series of statements. All that G-d created is good, evil is not good. Therefore, evil is not something that G-d created. This was Augustine's solution and his main contribution because, when he asked the questions: What is evil? Does it have any being or not? Where did it come from? HE observed that evil is something that always injures, and an injury is deprivation of good. If there were no deprivation of good in the thing being injured, then there would not be any injury. And, since all things were made with goodness by G-d originally, then when things are evil, they are deprived of the goodness that G-d gave them. In other words, everything that G-d made is good, and when you take away some goodness from something that G-d made, we call that condition evil. Another way of putting it is that evil is a privation of good. In this analysis, good is the substantial thing, the thing with substance. Evil does not have any substance. It is merely good that is missing. If it does not have any substance, then it does not require a creator. In other words, evil is like a moral hole, a nothingness that obtains when something is removed. That's what a hole is, when something is removed, a hole will remain. But the hole isn't something. It's nothing. Just as a shadow is no more than a hole in light, evil is a kind of hole in goodness. To say that something is evil then is just a shorthand way of saying it lacks goodness. Augustine goes on to explain how such a thing can be, and gets into a discussion about free will. Finally, Augustine state forth a reason for the existence of what we call evil, or the removal of good: namely, free will exercised wrongfully. G-d created humans with free will, which is inherently good. However, we can misuse free will and choose to do other than good. "in you [G-d] our good abides forever, and when we turn away from it we turn to evil"(4.16), Augustine writes. When this happens the good is bent or injured in its goodness, which results in evil. Augustine describes how the soul can err when he says, "my own [soul] was changeable and erred of its own free will"(4.15). Also, "When I chose to so something or not to do it, I was quite certain that it was my own self, and not some other person who made this act of will, so that I was on the point of understanding that herein lay the cause of my sin"(7.3). Augustine also describes Satan, who is for Christians, the greatest evil known, as "a good angel who became a devil because of his own wicked will"(7.3) The misuse of free will results in the reduction of good, which is evil. "We do evil because we choose to do so of our own free will"(7.3). Free will can be corrupted and misused, which is the definition of evil. To summarize, G-d is good. Everything G-d has created is good. Evil does not come from G-d Rather evil is a reduction of good. This explains the existence of evil in G-d's creation without threatening either omnipotence, or His goodness. The opportunity we have to make the choice between being the good He made, or ruining our goodness, is a gift that should not be taken lightly. Augustine believes that with His creation, G-d has given humankind free rein to learn more about Him and grow closer to Him. The modern Christian Leslie Newbigin writes fully Augustinian way when he states "I believe that all created beings have a sacramental character in that they exist by the creative goodness and for the redeeming purpose of G-d, that nothing is rightly understood otherwise, and that, nevertheless, G-d in creating a world . . . has provided for us a space within which we are given freedom to search, to experiment, and to find out for ourselves how things really are"(Foolishness to the Greeks, 89). Yes, this does mean that some will stray from the path of good and pursue evil, but the Augustinian Christian believes that if there were no choice to be made, their praises to G-d would not be so meaningful. For Augustine, it is free will that makes human lives worth living, and makes a relationship with a good G-d unique. Evil results from persons turning from this relationship, and the consequential removal of good from their lives. Works Cited Augustine. Confessions. Trans. Pine-Coffin. London: Penguin Books, 1961. Newbigin, Leslie. Foolishness to the Greeks. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerrdmans Publishing Company, 1986. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Confuciniasm and Today.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If our government was run for the people, and not for the enrichment of its rulers, the US would be a more tightly unified nation. Confucius stressed that a government be run for the well-being of the people, and if that was applied today, results would be outstanding. Confucius also said to put aside military conquests and to work for the good of the country. Applied today, that would really help our USA. Confucius taught that government should be run for the well-being of the people. For that to happen, more power has to be given to state governments, in order to really suit the needs of the countries people. The government could narrow down on the struggles of each part of the country. I think they would find a good number of the struggles to be similar. Therefore, stated would work together in order to solve universal problems. For example, you could eliminate a problem in Olympia, Washington and Miami, Florida at the same time. Because of their similar problems. Another teaching of Confucius is to put aside military conquests and focus on the good of the country. The US definitely needs to do this. Every day on television we see poor, famined children persuading us to support their struggle. Them commercials should be outlawed. The commercials should be on the poor famined kids in the United States. We have our own poverty problem in our country. We should take care of that before we solve another countries problem. The U.S. has also money and military force in the middle east. Sure we get some valuable products from them, but we should solve our own problems before we decide to dive into the rebuilding of some foreign nation. These two teachings of Confucious if applied today, would result in the superiority of the Untied States of America over the rest of the world. The past does repeat itself, and if our government is too foolish to realize that, and learn from their past, there is no hope on a successful future for our country. The United States government is afraid to take some advice. Advice, which would change the world. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Confucius 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Confuciunism is a philosophy vased on the teachings of Confucius, a Chinese philosopher/teacher. Confucius highly stressed ethics. It is thought the reason for this is because the China of his time was corrupt. Confucius thought the way to live with good ethics was to follow the five virtues: Jen; to do good on others, yi; rightsiosness by justice, li; religious and moral ways of acting , chih; wisdom and hsin; faithfulness. All of these being represented by the parts of a tree for example: Jen being the root, yi the trunk, li the branches, chih the flower, and hsin the fruit. The most important of the five being li. Confucius used this to formulate his plan for the recovery of china. Confucius equally emphasized the relationship with rulers and there subjects. This is where he combined ethics and politics. At one time Confucius was asked by Chi K 'ang Tsu, the head of the chi clan, how to rule. Confucius replied "To govern is to keep straight. If you , sir, lead your subjects straight, who will venture to fall out of line?" Confucius believed in what is called "superior Man." This was someone who followed the five virtues, and abided them. Confucius was a perfect example of a "superior Man." Some people believe that he was a great man, he was indeed, but he was merely a teacher of ethics with great wisdom. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Confucius, Hammurabi, and the book of the dead.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Compare and Contrast the writings of Confucius, Hammurabi, and the book of the dead Three of the most famous writings from ancient civilizations are the writings of Confucius, Hammurabi's code of laws, and Egypt's Book of the Dead. At first, they seem very different, they're from different times, regions, and religions, but they all offer a peek into what values ancient people considered important. One of the values that all three civilizations is justice and fairness. I feel that this is best viewed in Hammurabi's laws. All of the penalties for the crimes are very stiff, but fair. I feel that it is fair that "If he has broken the limb of a patrician, his limb shall be broken" It's like in the Bible "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." In Egypt, in the Book of the Dead, a man couldn't proceed into the after life unless he was found innocent of any wrong doing on Earth. In Confucius' writings, he never actually says the word "justice", but he does say "Great Man cherishes excellence; Petty Man, his own comfort. Great Man cherishes the rules and regulations; Petty Man special favors." To me, that mean "Great Man is fair, Petty man is unfair." The second of these three values is responsibility and respect to one's family and elders, and responsibility and respect to others families and elders. This is most evident in Confucius' writings. He is constantly stressing family values and responsibility. One quote that shows this is "Let the sole sorry of your parents be that you might become ill." This stresses personal responsibility and respect to your parents. Hammurabi showed responsibility by saying "If a builder has built a house for a man, and has not made his work sound, and the house he built has fallen, and caused the death of the man's son, the builder's son shall be put to death." That quote shows a man's responsibility for himself and his family. In Egypt, during the ritual of the dead, it is said that the dead man, in order to pass into the afterlife, must profess that he has not done anything to hurt anyone. This shows responsibility because if the man did not tell the truth, he was responsible for not entering the afterlife. Knowing that they would be responsible for their actions, the Egyptians tried not to hurt people in their mortal lives. The final value that all three cultures had in common was being truthful. All three cultures relied heavily on the truth. In Hammurabi's laws, it says "If a man has borne false witness in a trial, or has not established the statement that he has made, if that case be a capital trial, that man shall be put to death." In other words "If you lie, you die." When Confucius examined himself every day, he asked the question "have I been false with my friends?" In Egypt, it was important that a man be truthful when brought before Osiris, because if they didn't tell the truth, they would be banished from the afterlife. One of the lines of the Book of the Dead reads "I have not committed sin in the place of truth," which I read as "I have not lied." Each one of these three civilizations used different methods to enforce them. In Sumer, Hammurabi's strict punishments kept people from disobeying them. On the other hand, Egypt didn't use any kind of physical punishment, but they used threats. The people thought that if they went against the values, Osiris, god of the afterlife, would punish them after their died. In China, the values weren't enforced, but they were protected by the government. In the second century B.C., Confucianism became the official philosophy of China, thus preserving it for the future. I am greatly impressed by Hammurabi's ideas. His laws may sound harsh, but they had to be. In ancient Sumer, you had to be harsh or people wouldn't even listen. I don't agree, however, with his double standards. I feel that a life is worth just as much whether it's a patrician or a plebeian. I think that Confucius' ideas are the ones that come the closest to my own beliefs. I like the fact that Confucius' ideas are still just as relevant today as they were in ancient China. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Confucius.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ M. Douglas McKinney Philosophy of Religion CONFUCIANISM AND CHRISTIANITY The premise of Confucian teachings are centered around the idea of Jen or the ³virtue of humanity (Ching 68).² To accomplish this divinity, five relationships must be honored: ruler and minister, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger brother, and friend and friend (Hopfe). These relationships led a push for a revolution of the political system to adopt the methods of Jen. Confucius sought to revive the ancient Chinese culture by redefining the importance of society and government. He described a society governed by ³reasonable, humane, and just sensibilities, not by the passions of individuals arbitrarily empowered by hereditary status² (Clearly). He felt that this could be achieved through education and the unification of cultural beliefs. He believed that a nation would be benefited by citizens that were ³cultivated people whose intellects and emotions had been developed and matured by conscious people² (Clearly). He felt that those born into the feudal system were had a personal duty to excel socially by means of power. Those who were of lesser class should also seek out education to better themselves. All purposes for betterment of man and society as one whole is known as Li. Li means ³the rationalized social order² (Yutang). Confucius felt that love and respect for authority was a key to a perfect society; this strict respect was practiced through rituals and magic (Smith). The Confucius traditions have caused a tradition to set within its institution and is extremely active. It has, unfortunately, allowed the political institution to manipulate the Confucius system. As with Christianity. Christianity also preaches a divine, brotherly love. Modern Christianity seeks to discover a ³rational understanding of the person² as did Confucius (Ess ed. 381); yet, Christianity feels that faith in the Jesus Christ as a personal savior is essential to this enlightenment. It was also under the guise of Christianity that it had to confront totalitarian systems ³[dehumanize] uses of power in its sphere of influence (state and church, and [these] systems triumphed under the banner of de-Christianization (Ess ed. 384). Unlike Confucius reformers of their corrupt state pushed the beliefs of the true ideals of Confucius, Christians believed in an ³Absolute against all absolving of the relative, can protest in the name of God (Ess ed. 384).² Some would argue that Confucius did support and an Absolute, but he described it as the entirety of Heaven. Several scholars believe that his Heaven was analogous to the God unto which Christians served. Christians feel that in order to also gain a Jen-like status one must have a serious relationship with the church and Jesus Christ himself. Confucius differed in that they feel that the body, mind and soul must be recognized as one to reach Jen (Smith). Through education or ritual practices one gains wealth. With wealth one achieved power. These are the essentials to living a good life (O¹Briére). However, relationships between men is the most desirable. These aspects are the embodiment of Li. Li was love for authority and respect for others (Alexander). Christianity also looks at wealth in a slightly different manner. ³At the heart of the Christian faith and at its source of its traditions in Scripture is the belief in a covenant (Carmen 17).² It is the promise between God and the individual that ensures (through faith) that one¹s kindly actions on Earth will be divinely awarded. The five relationships of Jen are also honored in Christianity with references to ³Honor thy father and mother, for this is the first commandment with promise (Ephesians 6:1).² It is prevalent that Christianity and Confucius are very similar in their philosophy. Some would argue that Confucius lack of a strong theology is its failure to comply with the Christian ethics. Others would say it is there drive to be a virtuous individual compensates for this tedium. They equally feel that relationships with neighbors and family is an integral part of becoming virtuous. Even the spiritual outlook on the self is equivalent in the sense of purification. Christians rely on the teachings of Jesus while the Confucius look towards those who have wealthy estates. This point conveys that Christians may be more dependent on their spiritual guidance opposed to the Confucius examination of the worldly infrastructure of trial and error. Thus it is not surprising that when faced with a choice of both religions, an individuals merit may be the deciding factor on which is more ideal for them. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahern, Emily M. The Cult of the Dead in a Chinese Village. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California; 1973. Alitto, S. Guy. The Last Confucian: Liang Shu-ming and the Chinese Dilemma of Modernity. University of California Press, Berkeley; 1979. Alexander, G. G. Confucius, the Great Teacher. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., London; 1980. Beversluis, Joel. A Source Book for Earth¹s Community of Religion. New York; 1995. Carmen, John B. and Donald G. Dawe. Christianity Faith In a Religiously Plural World. Orbis Books, New York; 1978. Chan, W. T. Religious Trends in Modern China. Columbia University Press, New York; 1953. Ching, Julia and Hans Küng. Christianity and Chinese Religious. Doubleday, London; 1988. Clearly, Thomas. The Essential Confucius. Harper, San Fransico; 1992. Cochrane, Norris Charles. Christianity and Classical Culture. Oxford University Press, London; 1972. Conzlemann, Hans. The History of Primitive Christianity. Abingdon Press, New York; 1973. de Groot, J. J. L. The Religious System. 6 vols., Leiden; 1892. Do-Dinh, Pierre. Confucius and Chinese Humanism. Funk and Wagnalls, New York; 1969. Goguel, Maurice. The Birth of Christianity. London; 1953. Hopfe, Lewis M. Religions of the World. Macmillian College Publishing Company, New York; 1994. Hughes, E. R. and K. Chinese Philosophy in Classical Times. J. M. Dent and Sons, London; 1942. Hughes, E. R. and K. Religion in China. Hutchinson¹s University Library, London; 1950. Kelen, Betty. Confucius: In Life and Legend. Thomas Nelson INC., New York; 1971. Küng. Hans and ed. Christianity and the World Religions. Doubleday, New York; 1986 McCuen., Gary E. The Religious Right. Hudson, Wisconsin; 1989. O¹Brière, S. J. Fifty Years of Chinese Garment. Lutterworth Press, London; 1951. Siu, R. G. H. The Man of Many Qualities: A Legacy of the I Ching. Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man. Harper & Row, New York; 1958 Smith, Howard. Confucius. Charles Scribner¹s Sons, New York; 1973 Soper, Edmund Davison. The Religions of Mankind. Abingdon Press, New York; 1966. Toynbee, Arnold. Christianity Among the Religions of the World. Charles Scribner¹s Sons, New York; 1957 Weber, Max. The Religion of China. The Free Press, New York; 1951. Wieger, L. History of Religious Belief and Philosophical Opinions in China. Catholic Mission, Hsein-sein, China; 1927. Yang, C. K. Religion in Chinese Society. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles; 1961. Yutang, Lin. The Wisdom of Confucius. The Modern library, New York; 1938. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\conscience.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines conscience as "the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or good." In A Man for All Seasons, each character's conscience plays the ultimate role in the outcome of the story. "Individual conscience" is trait that each character possesses. This trait differs in intensity throughout the play in each of the main characters. Sir Thomas More and King Henry VIII show their unchangeable conscience, by their actions. More refuses to accept the King's divorce of Catherine, and marriage to Anne. The King appoints More to Lord Chancellor, hoping to persuade Sir Thomas to accept his marriage. King Henry wants everyone to accept his divorce. He believes he is right for going against Pope's ruling, and he wants all his royal subjects, and men of popularity to accept his decision. This is the King's "individual conscience" talking. He fears that without the acceptance from Thomas, Lord Chancellor, that he has made God angry, and he will pay for his unsupported decision. Sir Thomas More was the only character that believed and stuck with his conscience, by doing so, it cost him his life. Sir Thomas was a very prominent member of the King's council, he was the only member whom did not take bribes to sway his decision. Sir Thomas had always trusted in his conscience. He believed that the right way, and God's way lies in the conscience. Sir Thomas was separated between church and state, and he stuck with his decision. The King liked More, he liked him so much, that he promoted Sir Thomas to Lord Chancellor. This decision was also to help sway More into accepting his marriage to Anne. However, when the King comes to More asking for his blessing, More refuses, and resigns as Chancellor. The King becomes furious and storms off. More now has the hardest decisions to make. He has to choose between saying he accepts the King's marriage, or sticking with his conscience and paying the ultimate cost, the cost of loosing his family and his life. Alice More, Sir Thomas' wife has a conscience much weaker than that of he husband's. She is willing to accept the King's marriage to Anne, for this marriage means nothing to her or her family, nor does this affect her life in any major way. This is why she is so demanding of Thomas to go against his conscience, and save himself, and the well being of the family. Thomas' stubborn actions caused Alice to become angry and frustrated with him. She did not understand how Thomas could allow himself to be persecuted and executed for not accepting the King's marriage. Thomas's daughter Margaret wasn't a strong as her father with her conscience. She could say something without meaning it in the heart. Margaret was all forgiving, when Sir Thomas resigned as Chancellor, no one would remove the chain from his neck. She removed it for him, even though she thought he should just accept the King's marriage. She believed it was more important for Thomas to be there for his family than the church. In a last effort to convince her father to take the oath, Margaret said to Thomas "God more regards the thoughts of the heart than the words of the mouth." The play shows a wide variety of individual consciences, Sir Thomas More and the King have the strongest ones. Margaret and Alice More were more easily disposed, they could go against their morals, and say something. Just because they say something does not mean that they mean it. This is the message they were trying to pass along to Sir Thomas. Sir Thomas' decision to stick with his morals, cost him his life, his family, but not his pride. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Creativity and Human Evolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Creativity is the sole heart of modernization, technology and the arts. Without creativity, humanity would still thrive in caves. There is no argument against creativity being an important aspect of our society, there is, however, a question whether creativity is spawned by mental disorder. Albert Einstein came up with ideas that seemed impossible or eccentric. Froyd's psychology theorems were laughed at, but now widely used and accepted. Both men were highly successful with their work. Einstein was considered a slow person and mentally incapable by his teachers. Froyd was an excellent student and was considered above average in all his school work. Both men were labeled as geniuses, and both men suffered from some kind of depression . Dr. Arnold M. Ludwig informs us that ". . . creativity must go beyond the bounds of what already is known or deductible by reason . . . "(American Journal of Psychotherapy). It is creativity that is the soul of the inventor, painter or poet. Creativity is not equal among most people and in fact is hindered by " . . . self censorship, that inner voice of judgment that confines our creative spirit within the boundaries of what we deem acceptable."(Psych Today). Dr. Torrence, in his studies, concluded that intelligence does not have any effect on creativity and it is the thinking style that actually stimulates creativity (Journal of Personality). His tests focused on the hemispheres of the brain in which he stated that " . . . left - hemisphere style is related to less creativity than right - hemisphere and interhemisphere styles." (Journal of Personality). Results of Torrance's study prompted others to reject his conclusion by maintaining that ". . . intellectual superiority is the primary determining factor in creative performance." (Kirk & Gallager 1983). Intelligence might not be a major factor in innovations but according to William F. Allmen of U.S. News and World Report, " . . . history's most creative minds clearly operate on a different plane." It is this millennium long mind set that prompted psychologist Howard Gardner to examine, or build, a profile of a genius. In his book, Creating Minds, Gardner relates five similarities that he found while examining Sigmund Froyd, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Igor Stravinsky, T.S. Elliot, Martha Graham and Mahatma Gandhi. According to Gardner, a creative mind grows up in social seclusion. The upbringing of such an individual is usually middle class, where focus of life is based on hard work and high moral values. Such an individual is also known to push away friends and relatives. His work absorbs him and total focus of attention is dedicated to the ongoing project. The 'genius' is known to follow a '10 year rule', where this person is known to have". . . two bursts of creativity."(U.S. News and World Report). First one is very extreme, and the second is usually more socially accepted. According to Gardner a 'genius' is also known to have childlike perceptions on things. Taking a totally different route to solving a problem was one of the major ways Albert Einstein came up with his time and space theories. In the 4th century B.C. Aristotle was quoted as saying, "Why is it that all men who are outstanding in philosophy, poetry or the arts are melancholic?"(New York Times, c1). Ever since then a famous anonymous quote was formed, "There is a thin line between genius and madness." (New York Times). It is not uncommon for a creative person to suffer from different types of depressions. According to a study performed by Dr. Arnold M. Ludwig at the University of Kentucky Medical Center that ". . . looked at the incidence of psychiatric illness among 1004 eminent men and women . . . Ludwig discovered that psychiatric disturbances were far more common among the artists than among the others." (New York Times. C8). Dr. Ludwig does not conclude that all creative people suffer from mental illness, however he does suggest that a certain correlation does exist and it cannot be ignored. Another study performed by University of Stanford suggested an opposite conclusion to Dr. Ludwigs. The study allegedly examined over a thousand 'geniuses' and ". . . suggest[ed] a connection between creativity and mental health rather than mental illness"(American Journal of Psychotherapy). The same study insists that a general problem exists with the difficulty in determining the nature of creativity. Dr. Ludwing implied that creative individuals are usually more troubled than their 'noncreative' counterparts but have more resources to deal with their problems(American Journal of Psychotherapy). Reading previous studies, one could conclude two separate theories. One is that depression stimulates creativity, and the other that creativity stimulates depression. According to some current tests performed at the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr. Post and Dr. Terence Ketter used a PET, brain scanning device, to examine brain activity during mental depressions. As the volunteers were injected with a drug that stimulated mania, brain's limbic activity increased. The limbic activity is part of the brain that is responsible for the creative side of a person. When another drug was injected that stimulated anxiety and euphoria, the limbic activity ceased. (New York Times) Depression is known to cause sleeping disorders. There are times where an individual is overcome by sleep. It is during these times where the mind is somehow set free to 'roam' and new ideas form. Thomas Edison would use this hypnagogic state to think through his problems and come up with solutions. He would place two metal ball in his hands, lay back in his chair and fall asleep. As soon as he drifted into the first phase of sleep, his hand muscles gave way and the balls dropped on metal plates below. The noise would wake Thomas Edison, and instantly he would jot down the ideas that came to him(Psychology Today). Sleep is not the only way ideas come to us. Whenever we are envolved in a relaxing activity such as a walk or while taking a shower, our minds envoce our limbic part of the brain. Human mind is still a mystery to us all. It is hard to conclude on what spawns creativity. Depression and intelligence seem very far apart, yet scientists have found that both could be linked together. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Critical Analysis of Gilgamesh.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There are many differences and critical comparisons that can be drawn between the epics of Beowulf and Gilgamesh. Both are historical poems which shape their respected culture and both have major social, cultural, and political impacts on the development of western civilization literature and writing. Before any analysis is made, it is vital that some kind of a foundation be established so that a further, in-depth exploration of the complex nature of both narratives can be accomplished. The epic of Gilgamesh is an important Middle Eastern literary work, written in cuneiform on 12 clay tablets about 2000 BC. This heroic poem is named for its hero, Gilgamesh, a tyrannical Babylonian king who ruled the city of Uruk, known in the Bible as Erech (now Warka, Iraq). According to the myth, the gods respond to the prayers of the oppressed citizenry of Uruk and send a wild, brutish man, Enkidu, to challenge Gilgamesh to a wrestling match. When the contest ends with neither as a clear victor, Gilgamesh and Enkidu become close friends. They journey together and share many adventures. Accounts of their heroism and bravery in slaying dangerous beasts spread to many lands. When the two travelers return to Uruk, Ishtar (guardian deity of the city) proclaims her love for the heroic Gilgamesh. When he rejects her, she sends the Bull of Heaven to destroy the city. Gilgamesh and Enkidu kill the bull, and, as punishment for his participation, the gods doom Enkidu to die. After Enkidu's death, Gilgamesh seeks out the wise man Utnapishtim to learn the secret of immortality. The sage recounts to Gilgamesh a story of a great flood (the details of which are so remarkably similar to later biblical accounts of the flood that scholars have taken great interest in this story). After much hesitation, Utnapishtim reveals to Gilgamesh that a plant bestowing eternal youth is in the sea. Gilgamesh dives into the water and finds the plant but later loses it to a serpent and, disconsolate, returns to Uruk to end his days. This saga was widely studied and translated in ancient times. Biblical writers appear to have modeled their account of the friendship of David and Jonathan on the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Numerous Greek writers also incorporated elements found in the Gilgamesh epic into their dragon-slaying epics and into stories concerning the close bond between Achilles and Patroclus. Gilgamesh is definitely the best known of all ancient Mesopotamian heroes. Numerous tales in the Akkadian language have been told about Gilgamesh, and the whole collection has been described as an odyssey-the odyssey of a king who did not want to die. This is one of the major differences between the heroic characters. Beowulf, in order to achieve immortality through the tales of his bards, must perish in battle to accomplish this task. A similarity between both characters is their desire to obtain immortality. They both have different techniques in trying to reach their ultimate destination, although both share the unique qualities of being flawless, strong, and heroic to the end. The fullest extant text of the Gilgamesh epic is on twelve incomplete Akkadian-language tablets found at Nineveh in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (reigned 668-627 BC). The gaps that occur in the tablets have been partly filled by various fragments found elsewhere in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In addition, five short poems in the Sumerian language are known from tablets that were written during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC; the poems have been entitled "Gilgamesh and Huwawa," "Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven," "Gilgamesh and Agga of Kish," "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Nether World," and "The Death of Gilgamesh." The Gilgamesh of the poems and of the epic tablets was probably the Gilgamesh who ruled at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC and who was thus a contemporary of Agga, ruler of Kish; Gilgamesh of Uruk was also mentioned in the Sumerian list of kings as reigning after the flood. Much like Beowulf, there is, however, no historical evidence for the exploits narrated in poems and the epic. The Ninevite version of the epic begins with a prologue in praise of Gilgamesh, part divine and part human, the great builder and warrior, knower of all things on land and sea. In order to curb Gilgamesh's seemingly harsh rule, the god Anu caused the creation of a Enkidu, a wild man who at first lived among animals. Soon, however, Enkidu was initiated into the ways of city life and traveled to Uruk, where Gilgamesh awaited him. Tablet II describes a trial of strength between the two men in which Gilgamesh was the victor; thereafter, Enkidu was the friend and companion (in Sumerian texts, the servant) of Gilgamesh. In Tablets III-V the two men set out together against Huwawa (Humbaba), the divinely appointed guardian of a remote cedar forest, but the rest of the engagement is not recorded in the surviving fragments. In Tablet VI Gilgamesh, who had returned to Uruk, rejected the marriage proposal of Ishtar, the goddess of love, and then, with Enkidu's aid, killed the divine bull that she had sent to destroy him. Tablet VII begins with Enkidu's account of a dream in which the gods Anu, Ea, and Shamash decided that he must die for slaying the bull. Enkidu then fell ill and dreamed of the "house of dust" that awaited him. Gilgamesh's lament for his friend and the state funeral of Enkidu are narrated in Tablet VIII. Afterward, Gilgamesh made a dangerous journey (Tablets IX and X) in search of Utnapishtim, the survivor of the Babylonian flood, in order to learn from him how to escape death. He finally reached Utnapishtim, who told him the story of the flood and showed him where to find a plant that would renew youth (Tablet XI). But after Gilgamesh obtained the plant, it was seized by a serpent, and Gilgamesh unhappily returned to Uruk. An appendage to the epic, Tablet XII, related the loss of objects called (perhaps "drum" and "drumstick") given to Gilgamesh by Ishtar. The epic ends with the return of the spirit of Enkidu, who promised to recover the objects and then gave a grim report on the underworld. Beowulf is an Anglo-Saxon epic poem, the most important work of Old English literature. The earliest surviving manuscript is in the British Library; it is written in the West Saxon dialect and is believed to date from the late 10th century. On the basis of this text, Beowulf is generally considered to be the work of an anonymous 8th-century Anglian poet who fused Scandinavian history and pagan mythology with Christian elements. The poem consists of 3182 lines, each line with four accents marked by alliteration and divided into two parts by a caesura. The structure of the typical Beowulf line comes through in modern translation, for example: Then came from the moor under misted cliffs Grendel marching God's anger he bore ... Much like Gilgamesh, the story is told in vigorous, picturesque language, with heavy use of metaphor; a famous example is the term "whale-road" for sea. The poem tells of a hero, a Scandinavian prince named Beowulf, who rids the Danes of the monster Grendel, half man and half fiend, and Grendel's mother, who comes that evening to avenge Grendel's death. Fifty years later Beowulf, now king of his native land, fights a dragon who has devastated his people. Both Beowulf and the dragon are mortally wounded in the fight. The poem ends with Beowulf's funeral as his mourners chant his epitaph. Both Beowulf and Gilgamesh are loved and are shown loyalty from their people. Although both Beowulf and Gilgamesh represent two different types of heroes, both achieve ultimate good through their actions. The need for love and loyalty is also manifested throughout both poems. Death merely becomes an incident in the lives of Beowulf and Gilgamesh. They both teach its audience and invaluable lesson: What matters is not how long, but rather how well we live. Bibliography Fry, Donald K. The Beowulf Poet: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1968. A collection of essays on the poem current up to the mid 1960s. Fulk, R.D., ed. Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology. Indiana University Press.Indianapolis: 1991. Fulk's anthology is a diverse collection of critical approaches to Beowulf. Essays range from the poem's structure and design to Christian and intellectual perspectives to theory on the narrative. The collection includes J.R.R. Tolkien's famous "The Monsters and the Critics," in which he critiques the history of Beowulf criticism to his own day. Greenfield, Stanley B. and Daniel G. Calder. A new critical history of old English literature. New York : New York University Press, 1986. Excellent overview of the history of Old English literature with a good chapter on Beowulf and heroic poetry. A good place to start for an orientation to Beowulf in literary historical context. Nicholson, Lewis E., ed. An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963. A standard collection of scholarly essays on Beowulf up to the early 1960s. Chase, Colin, ed. The Dating of Beowulf. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981. This book is a compilation of studies done from 1979 to 1981 to determine the date when Beowulf was composed. The studies used many different methods to determine its origins, from grammar and sentence construction to comparing the text to historical knowledge. The collected essays present many opinions, but they do not make any conclusions. The Norton Anthology of World Literature, ed. Gilgamesh: Norton and Company, 1985. Contains world literature from the various authors and ages. A Critical Appraisal of: Beowulf and Gilgamesh f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Critical Responses to Descartes Skeptical Argument.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In this essay, I will examine Rene Descartes' skeptical argument and responses by O.K. Bouwsma and Norman Malcolm. I intend to prove that while both Bouwsma and Malcolm make points that refute specific parts of Descartes' argument in their criticisms, neither is sufficient in itself to refute the whole. In order to understand Descartes' argument and its sometimes radical ideas, one must have at least a general idea of his motives in undertaking the argument. The seventeenth century was a time of great scientific progress, and the blossoming scientific community was concerned with setting up a consistent standard to define what constituted science. Their science was based on conjunction and empirical affirmation, ideally without any preconceived notions to taint the results. Descartes, however, believed that the senses were unreliable and that science based solely on information gained from the senses was uncertain. He was concerned with finding a point of certainty on which to base scientific thought. Eventually he settled on mathematics as a basis for science, because he believed mathematics and geometry to be based on some inherent truths. He believed that it was through mathematics that we were able to make sense of our world, and that the ability to think mathematically was an innate ability of all human beings. This theory becomes important in Descartes' Meditations because he is forced to explain where the mathematical ideas that he believed we were born with came from. Having discussed Descartes' background, I will now explain the specifics of his argument. The basis of Descartes' entire argument is that the senses can not be trusted, and his objective is to reach a point of certainty, one undeniable truth that fixes our existence. He said it best in his own words, "I will . . . apply myself earnestly and openly to the general destruction of my former opinions."1 By opinions he meant all the facts and notions about the world which he had previously held as truths. Any point which had even the slightest hint of doubt was discarded and considered completely false. Descartes decided that he would consider all things until he found that either nothing is certain, which is itself a point of certainty, or he reached the one undeniable truth he was searching for. In order to accomplish this certainty, in the first Meditation he asks the reader to assume that they are asleep and that all their sensory information is the product of dreams. More significantly, Descartes implies that all consciousness could actually be a dream state, thus proving that the senses can be doubted. The dream argument has its intrinsic problems, however. One, is that images in dreams can be described as "painted images".2 In other words, a dream image is only a portrait of a real-life object, place or person. If we are dreaming then it is implied that at some point we were conscious and able to perceive these things. If we are able to perceive these things then we must admit that we have senses and that our senses are, at least in part, true. This was exactly what Descartes was trying to disprove, and it was one reason he abandoned the dream argument. The second problem with this argument is that it points to mathematics as a point of certainty. I believe Descartes best explained this in his own words: "[W]hether I be awake or asleep, two plus three equals five and a square does not have more than four sides: nor does it seem possible that such obvious truths can fall under the suspicions of falsity."3 Even when we are dreaming, the laws of mathematics and geometry hold true, but they can not be Descartes' point of certainty for a simple reason; these abilities that Descartes believed were innate still had to come from somewhere. If they are in our heads when we are born, someone had to put them there. Descartes' question is who, and he comes up with two possibilities. One possibility is that our inherent mathematical abilities are the gift of a benign creator, a gift of God. As a supremely good being, he would not allow us to be deceived, and mathematical processes would be a point of certain and undeniable truth. If this were the case, the idea of mathematics would meet Descartes' objectives as a point of certainty. The existence of God, however, can not be proven and so there is a second possibility that Descartes proposed. He asks the reader to imagine that instead of a benign God, there is an "evil genius . . .who has directed his entire effort to misleading [us] "4 In this case, all things in the physical world would have to be thought of as deceptions, because all our sensory information, including ideas of sizes, shapes and colors would be fed to us by the evil genius. This is enough to prove that mathematics can not be a point of certainty. It is here that he concludes the first Meditation. Having decided that we have no senses that are not deceptive, Descartes, in the second Meditation, looks for something outside the world of sensation to find some certainty. What he discovers is that he knows he exists. He knows he exists because he is thinking he exists. If there is an evil genius out there deceiving him at least he is secure in his thoughts. By thinking he exists, by knowing he is "something", not even the evil genius can convince him he is "nothing".5 His point of certainty comes down to the statement "I am, I exist"6 or more aptly translated "I think, therefore I am". Descartes ideas sometimes seem radical or extreme and his argument has been challenged many times. Two particular criticisms that we discussed were "Descartes' Evil Genius" by O.K. Bouwsma and "Knowledge Regained" by Normon Malcolm. I would like to examine the significant points each has made in their criticisms and then discuss why I believe each argument is damaging but not sufficient to refute Descartes' argument. Bouwsma's criticism focuses on Descartes' idea of an evil genius creating an "illusory" world. His intent was to prove that Descartes' ideas of illusion and deception were misleading. First, Bouwsma set out to define "illusions" and to show how they are detected. In order to accomplish this goal, he gave the example of the evil genius turning the world and everything in it into paper. "An illusion," Bouwsma says, "is something that looks like or sounds like, so much like, something else that you either mistake it for something else, or you can easily understand how someone might come to do this."7 In this first example, the reader watches "Tom" as he is exposed to and realizes the difference between the real world and the genius' paper one. Although the evil genius attempted to create a realistic world out of paper, Tom saw through the illusion when he realized the difference between the paper flowers and real flowers. Tom was not really deceived by the paper illusion since he saw through it rather quickly, but he did "experience" the illusion.8 He experienced it and he detected it. Bouwsma, with this example, is trying to point out the importance of how people detect illusions. For instance, Tom detects the illusion because he knows the difference between flowers and paper. If he did not know the difference, he would not be able to detect the illusion and he would go on being deceived. Bouwsma also states that it is critical that the genius also understand the difference between his illusion and reality even if Tom does not. Bouwsma then admits that Descartes had something slightly different in mind. He asks the reader what would happen if Descartes' ideas were true, if the genius' illusion were so perfect that it would be impossible to tell the difference between the illusion and reality. Here Bouwsma sets up a second example, one in which the world has been destroyed but Tom goes on believing that the world exists, just as Descartes had imagined. Tom can not detect this illusion, for it is completely unlike the paper illusion. In this example, there is no difference between the illusory world and the real one. Tom continues living in what he thinks is the real world; he goes on being deceived. What Bouwsma wants the reader to think about is this idea of deception. Is Tom really being deceived if he can not tell the difference between the real world that the genius destroyed, and the illusory one the genius created for him? Bouwsma does not believe that Tom is being deceived. The evil genius has a sense of the world that Tom can not comprehend, because the genius is the only one who knows the difference between the real world and the illusion that he has created. The word "illusion" then, would mean something different to the evil genius than it does to Tom. In order for something to be an illusion, there must be a way to detect the reality, like in the paper example. Because there is no way for Tom to detect the difference, there is no illusion. For Tom, the "illusion" becomes the reality and the existence of the evil genius does not alter his life. Malcolm comes up with a very different criticism of Descartes. His argument focuses on the simple premise that there is nothing more real to a person than their sensory experience. He begins by stating two points commonly associated with Descartes and skepticism in order to challenge their validity. First, that any sensory experience one has now, can be refuted sometime in the future and second that any statement made based on sensory experience is purely hypothetical. Malcolm attempts to show that the opposite is true; that sensory experience can not be refuted and that it is in fact the only certain knowledge a person can have. In order to prove his idea, Malcolm makes three propositions. The first is what one would call a factual statement. The second is a type of belief, and the third is an observation based on direct sensory experience. Malcolm attempts to show the reader that what one considers fact can be proven wrong by new evidence that is discovered in the future, but that sensory experience can not be refuted. For example, he used the statement: "The sun is about ninety million miles from the earth."9 New evidence could turn up in the future that could drastically alter that figure. This statement that is considered fact could be disputed. But what about a statement of near certain belief, such as Malcolm's example: "There is a heart in my body."10 This statement seems impossible to deny, but what if one were presented with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Eventually, the person would come to believe the evidence presented to them and accept that they had no heart. From this example, one can gather that even statements of almost absolute certainty can be proven wrong. Malcolm then examines his final proposition: "Here is an ink-bottle."11 This statement is an observation. Malcolm sees the ink-bottle on the desk before him. This, Malcolm believes, is a certain, indisputable statement. If at that moment he sees the ink-bottle, no evidence can convince him he did not, at least at that moment, see the ink-bottle. Direct sensory experience, according to Malcolm, brings certainty. As in the example, a person has no direct sensory experience of the distance of the sun from the earth. This is the problem with statements of fact and belief and explains why they can so easily be proven wrong. Malcolm believed that people are psychologically impelled to believe in their immediate sensory experiences. Bouwsma and Malcolm offer sound and reasonable arguments, but neither is able to completely defeat skepticism. They are damaging to Descartes, but not destructive to the whole of skepticism. For example, Bouwsma makes an excellent case against the evil genius argument by suggesting that what the genius would consider illusion, people would consider reality. But it must be noted that while Bouwsma has made a valid suggestion, it does not prove that the evil genius does not exist. It is as impossible to prove that the evil genius does not exist as it is to prove that God does exist. Also Bouwsma's criticism focused primarily on the evil genius example and did not take into account the rest of Descartes' argument. There is a lot more to Descartes' argument than that particular point. Descartes only brought up that extreme example in order to prove that we can not trust our senses. It is important to keep in mind that Descartes' purpose in undertaking the skeptical argument was to find a point of certainty in our existence and not to prove that the world is meaningless. Malcolm has made an admirable case for the validity of the senses, but upon careful examination he says very much the same thing as Bouwsma. Namely, that the senses are real to us. Bouwsma came to this point by examining the idea of the evil genius and the idea of "illusions". Malcolm came to it through examining the differences between fact, belief and sensory information. Despite the differences in how they discovered it, they both came to the same conclusion. The point is valid and their reasoning is sound, but it does not prove that Descartes is wrong. The strength of the skeptical argument lies in the fact that it can not be completely disproved. No one can prove or disprove the existence of an evil genius, they can only go so far as to say that it does not matter. This is essentially what Bouwsma and Malcolm have done. They tried to prove that the existence of the evil genius would not make a difference in our lives. For this reason, I believe that although Bouwsma and Malcolm have made a valid point, they have only touched the surface of Descartes' argument. They have succeeded in proving that life is not meaningless, but that was not the purpose of Descartes' argument to begin with. % f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Culture Nature & Freedom Treating Juvinile offenders.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Groneman Argiro, T. W. Civ. 205 December 12,1996 Culture, Nature & Freedom: Treating Juvenile Offenders. In Kansas, Juvenile offenders are sent to "Youth Centers". These are merely Child prisons, lockdown facilities for kids. This style of treatment goes against every idea of growth put forward in this class. In this paper I will try to justify the use of residential treatment schemes through the ideas found in several of this semesters authors; including T.Huxtley, Rousseau, DuBois, Freud, A.Huxtley, and Mill. The Ideals set forth by these intellectuals should be the basis for all treatment, to better the individuals and society. First, We can look to DuBois. He believes that people can change their own consciousness. He shows this through his Immersion narrative. This can't work in a youth center. The only cultural ideal here is the Master/slave dialectic between staff and youth. The sides work apart. The two can't join because one does not experience the other. There is no way to be "above the veil" of their status. In a residential treatment modality, Relationship building is key to success. The youth need to feel the veil has been lifted. It allows them to explore safely and see the world in a greater view. The view as other is removed and a true balance displaces the master / slave one. Next, we can look at Mills Ideas on culture. He would like to elevate the morals of the human mind. To do this, we must continually test the standard. New ideas must be able to circulate freely. We must weigh how all actions effect others. This can not be done in these Youth centers as well. They have very specific codes and any questioning is reprimanded. Cultural influx is at a standstill and Censor ship is at it's highest possible level. A residential treatment modality gives all ideas a free shot. Self Government, A system used by the youth assures a safe environment to share all feedback and new ideas openly, to non judgmental ears. it looks at how one's action are related to others and provides a 'safe place' for all expression. Allowing ideas to stay fresh and moral stability and growth to flourish. This leads us directly to the dehumanization described by T.H. Huxtley. First, we have the effects of Social-Darwinism. We are using our own projections of nature for a model. These children are being culturally pushed aside for progress, stuck in mini prisons. Where, rather than fix problems, we push them into suffering so that we may achieve gains. Then there is the idea of the gospel of wealth. Why help these kids? My money is a product of an evolutionary force, so is there placement. Helping would only interrupt their punishment. These Youth Centers also rob them of their ability to meet the goals of our society's Protestant work ethic. They have no contribution! These three things let us dehumanize these children and put their responsibility off on others. Residential treatment, on the other hand, removes the gospel of wealth mentality; earn as much as you want, monetary forces are not evolutionary. Intervention is key to Residential Treatment, no punishment of lower classes. This system makes everyone equal. This flows into the work ethic removal as well, everyone contributes and the group benefits. No individual benefit is given out. If one is good, then all are good. Finally, it erases the mask of Social-Darwinism. The youth work to meet goals for each other. No one wants to be above the rest. A strong whole help everyone individually as well. A week whole causes resentment and jealousy. A look at Wiesel gives us insight to the effect of the political institution on these Centers. Are these kids a product of our culture? If so how do we keep this from occurring? The answer is not to lock them up. What family bonds were available? Instead of locking the kids up, we need to find our mistake! Rationality has an opportunity to fail here. Residential treatment lets everyone be separate and define their own meanings of life, between being and life itself. This helps each youth find meaning in life virtue of their own experiences. From here we can move to A. Huxtley. His views show what would happen if culture completely displaced nature in society. This translates to the society of a youth Center. Youth Centers are completely denaturalized, almost to the point of being sterile. The futures of these youth should not be predestined, and mapped out as in a youth center. Here progress is mapped. In a residential style treatment setup the social control is through self government and peer interactions, not a cultural controlling body. Also the myth of progress is dismantles. Residential treatment looks for change not progress. These ongoing changes allow for humanness. There is an availability of true human values, not just the pop culture presented in the prison center. Finally, we can look at Freud. His ideas link the behaviors exhibited to inner problems with family and society. He brings into question the moral and cultural values instilled by other institutions such as church and school. He trys to place things in several different categories. First, The Eros and Thantos Dialectic. Agressivity hang in the balance here. Our family structure should let us put the primary agressivity we have in check. Regardless, Freud looks to the person and the cultural venue for answers. A youth center is only a storage facility. There is no therapeutic gain achieved in these Child Prisons. They merely use reactive measures to stop behaviors, instead of looking for antecedents proactively. Once again residential treatment has an edge. Through the self government, relationship building process, and cultural challenges, the youth in these settings work on the exterior antecedents that may be effecting their behaviors . This ,in addition to clearing the distorted cultural view, also provides a venue for problem solving and rational discussions of ideas. It provides a vehicle for the youth to begin the self searching required to look into some of these ideas and find a better reality. Growth and gain for all is the key. For Freud, this is achieved by keeping drives in check between the pleasure principle, our moral super ego, and the authoritative "I" in the ego. Again, this is only done in residential settings. Youth Centers only house children, hampering all these abilities spoken about above. I believe that the question of how to rehabilitate Juvenile Offenders is simple. We must Fix kids instead of locking them up. The Ideas presented here are the most sound way to do that. These theories allow for mental growth, equality, change and freedom from censorship to new ideas. This is exactly what these youth need. Their culture has limited them and placed a veil over them in society. Residential treatment is the only way to remedy this. The safety of idea exchange and the freedom of growth allow for each youth to develop the personality needed to question the right things and put the cultural puzzle together. Youth centers only let them sit, and ponder the only culture they know. This makes the group Fester and fall further down the rungs of the societal ladder. This setup only hardens the veil of separation between the troubled youth and society. As you can see residential treatment is the only alternative to give these youth a chance to gain the skills needed for life today. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\David Hume on Miracles.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hume In explaining Hume's critique of the belief in miracles, we must first understand the definition of a miracle. The Webster Dictionary defines a miracle as: a supernatural event regarded as to define action, one of the acts worked by Christ which revealed his divinity an extremely remarkable achievement or event, an unexpected piece of luck. Therefore, a miracle is based on one's perception of past experiences, what everyone sees. It is based on a individuals own reality, and the faith in which he/she believes in, it is based on interior events such as what we are taught, and exterior events, such as what we hear or see first hand. When studying Hume's view of a miracle, he interprets or defines a miracle as such; a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, an event which is not normal to most of mankind. Hume explains this point brilliantly when he states, "Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it has ever happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden." (Hume p.888) Hume states that this death is quite unusual, however it seemed to happen naturally. He could only define it as a true miracle if this dead man were to come back to life. This would be a miraculous event because such an experience has not yet been commonly observed. In which case, his philosophical view of a miracle would be true. Hume critiques and discredits the belief in a miracle merely because it goes against the laws of nature. Hume defines the laws of nature to be what has been "uniformly" observed by mankind, such as the laws of identity and gravity. He views society as being far to liberal in what they consider to be a miracle. He gives the reader four ideas to support his philosophy in defining a true miracle, or the belief in a miracle. These points leads us to believe that there has never been a miraculous event established. Hume's first reason in contradicting a miracle is, in all of history there has not been a miraculous event with a sufficient number of witnesses. He questions the integrity of the men and the reputation in which they hold in society. If their reputation holds great integrity, then and only then can we have full assurance in the testimony of men. Hume is constantly asking throughout the passage questions to support proof for a miracle. He asks questions such as this; Who is qualified? Who has the authority to say who qualifies? As he asks these questions we can see there are no real answers, in which case, it tends to break the validity of the witnesses to the miracle. Hume's second reason in contradicting the validity of a miracle is that he views all of our beliefs, or what we choose to accept, or not accept through past experience and what history dictates to us. Furthermore, he tends to discredit an individual by playing on a human beings consciousness or sense of reality. An example is; using words such as, the individuals need for "excitement" and "wonder" arising from miracles. Even the individual who can not enjoy the pleasure immediately will still believe in a miracle, regardless of the possible validity of the miracle. With this, it leads the individual to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of pride. These individuals tend to be the followers within society. These individuals will tend to believe faster than the leaders in the society. With no regard to the miracles validity, whether it is true or false, or second hand information. Miracles lead to such strong temptations, that we as individuals tend to lose sense of our own belief of fantasy and reality. As individuals we tend to believe to find attention, and to gossip of the unknown. Through emotions and behavior Hume tends to believe there has been many forged miracles, regardless if the information is somewhat valid or not. His third reason in discrediting the belief in a miracle is testimony versus reality. Hume states, "It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous events, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous ancestors; or if civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from these barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend perceived opinions." (Hume p.891) In any case many of the miraculous events which happened in past history would not be considered a miracle in today's world, or at any other time in history. The reality most people believed at that period, as a result can be considered lies or exaggerations. Hume discredits the miracle as to the time period in which the miracle is taking place, the mentality, or the reality of individuals at that given time. Hume suggests that during certain times in history we are told of miraculous accounts of travelers. "Because we as individuals love to wonder, there is an end to common sense, and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority." (Hume p.890) The final point Hume gives to discredit the validity of a miracle is that there must be a number of witnesses to validate the miracle. "So that not only the miracle destroys the credit of testimony, but the testimony destroys itself." (Hume p.892). This basically means that the witnesses must all give the exact same testimony of the facts of the event. Hume finds difficulty in the belief or integrity of any individual, and the difficulty of detecting falsehood in any private or even public place in history. "Where it is said to happen much more when the scene is removed to ever so small a distance." (Hume p.892) A court of justice with accuracy and judgment may find themselves often distinguishing between true and false. If it is trusted to society through debate, rumors, and mans passion it tends to be difficult to trust the validity of the miracle. Throughout the rest of the readings Hume states a few events which many believe are miracles. He discredits many these miracles through his critiques. I have chosen to illustrate two "so-called" miracles from the New American Bible and to show how Hume would view these miracles. The stories are of Noah's Ark and The Burning Bush. The story of Noah's Ark took place when the Lord began to realize how great mans wickedness on earth had become. He began to regret the fact that he had created man on earth. The lord decided the only way to rid the wickedness would be to destroy all men, and all living creatures living on the earth. The only men in which he would not destroy were to be Noah, his sons, Noah's wife and his sons wives. He also would save a pair of animals. Of each species. The rest were to perish from the earth. He chose Noah to be the favor and carry out the task. The Lord requested Noah to build a ark explained exactly how it was to be made. Noah spent six hundred years of his life building the ark in which God insisted upon. When the ark was finally complete The Lord told Noah it was time to gather the selected few the floods were about to come. These floods lasted forty days and forty nights. The floods wiped out all living creatures on earth, except all on the ark. In the six hundred and first year of Noah's life the floods stopped and the earth began to dry. Noah then built an alter to the Lord and choosing from every clean animal he offered holocaust on the alter. As God states "Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man's heart are evil from the start; nor will I ever strike down all living beings, as I have done." In deciding upon whether this is a valid miracle in Hume's opinion of miracles I believe he would consider it to be a miracle but, would have a hard time validating the testimony of it. The reasons in which he would criticize the validity with in the testimony would be as follows. The testimony versus the reality. To further support the theory he would argue the time period in which the miracle had taken place. And would find it difficult to believe with out a reasonable doubt. There is a question to whether it could be lies or exaggerations. Furthermore, it could not possibly be a validated miracle considering the amount of men in which witnessed the event. As well a s questioning the integrity of the men. Although this miracle was a act of God we can still question the validity of our ancestors or God for that matter. Hume would not be satisfied not only with the integrity of the individuals but the amount of witnesses at the given time. Therefore we can only view this as a miracle depending upon our own individual perceptions of what we believe to be true. This leads to a non uniform event since we as individuals hold different beliefs of what we hold true, and false. The second miracle in which I will discuss was that of Moses and the burning bush. As Moses was working in the fields a angel of the Lord appeared to him in fire flaming out of the holy bush. Almost amazing the bush was full of flames but was yet not consumed. As he walked closer he heard the voice, the voice of God telling Moses he was the chosen one to take the Israelite's out of Egypt away from the cruel hands of the Egyptians. In disbelief that he was the chosen one he set forth on his journey to Egypt with God watching over him and leading the way. As Moses leads the Israelite's out of Egypt he comes to the Red Sea with the Egyptians close behind. As the bible explains the miracle takes place the Red Sea splits leading the Israelite's to freedom. As the Egyptians were crossing the sea it closed it's gates and let them drown with in the waters of the sea. In justifying whether Hume would discredit this miracle he would definitely see how one may say it is a miracle, but again would have a hard time validating the testimony of the miracle. Again we see the pattern of the fact that there is no one to testify for the event. We can only view this as a truthful experience through our belief in God and the bible. It is what we are taught to believe through religious texts, and our house of worship. It is the individuals perception of reality and what he or she believes to be a valid event. In conclusion, a miracle is actually based on an individuals own perception of past and present experiences. The belief in a miraculous event tends to have no real evidence through mans hope, it tends to be something better through our expectations. I can not debate the belief of a miracle. There is no right or wrong belief. It is viewed through our own individual perception and faith, our existence and sense of reality. 7 1 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Depression and Relationship Study.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Study of Depression and Relationships A primary concern for Psychology research is depression. Depression affects a great deal of our population and many aspects of an individual's mental health and well-being. In my research of books, articles, and Internet pages on depression, I chose to base my paper mainly on a 1994 article of a study of depression, entitled Depression, Working Models of Others, and Relationship Functioning, by Katherine B. Carnelley, Paula R. Pietromonaco, and Kenneth Jaffe. This study focuses on the idea that the type of care received in childhood, positive or negative, has a great effect on relationship functioning later in adulthood. But there are two links between child-rearing and relationship functioning: attachment style and depression. Both derive from the type of care received in childhood and affect relationship functioning, and both exert a reciprocal influence on each other in adulthood. The researchers of this study wanted to examine all the correlation's between type of care, attachment style, depression, and relationship functioning. They proposed a three part hypothesis: 1. A less positive childhood would result in an insecure attachment style and depression, 2. Depressives would exhibit a preoccupied or fearful style of attachment, and 3. attachment style would affect relationship functioning more than depression. The research was conducted in two independent studies. The first study sampled 204 college women. Women were studied based on the very plausible assumptions that women are more susceptible to depression than men and relationships carry more significance with women than men. The women were screened using the Beck Depression Inventory, a popular method of testing consisting of 21 multiple choice questions to be administered by a clinician. The questions range in scope from feelings of sadness to loss of libido. From these results, a sample of 163 was taken: 73 whose scores indicated mild depression. From this point the researchers administered various inventories to assess the type of childhood care given, romantic attachment styles, and relationship functioning. Depression appears to be the independent variable, because the sample was selected based on desired levels of depression. Once the distinction in levels of depression had been made, childhood care, attachment style, and relationship functioning were assessed in relation to depression. The actual distinction between independent and dependent variables is confusing. There are almost ten variables in this experiment: mild depression, no depression, dating or not dating (101 out of 163 were involved in stable dating relationships that averaged 19.99 months), positive or negative child-rearing, attachment style (fearful, preoccupied, or secure), and relationship functioning (overall satisfaction, quality of interactions with partner, and conflict resolution style). The confusion arises in that the study is assessing the relationships of so many variables. The second study repeated the first except the sample consisted of recovering clinically depressed married women and non depressed married women. The first hypothesis 1a was confirmed as having a strong correlation between women with negative childhood experiences with their mother and a preoccupied and avoidant attachment style. Hypothesis 1b was confirmed by a strong correlation between childhood experiences and depression. A very strong correlation existed between depression and fearful and preoccupied attachment styles, consistent with the second hypothesis. The researchers found that attachment style had more of an impact than depression, "attachment style was the most consistent predictor of relationship functioning and generally predicted functioning better than depression," consistent with the third hypothesis. The second study consisting of clinically depressed married women, and non depressed women found a correlation between greater fearful avoidance and preoccupation in recovering clinically depressed married women. This study raised several interesting questions: To what can the various types of relationship functioning and the multifarious correlation's between the variables involved be ascribed? Are the factors controlling depression external or internal? How do people develop their "working models" of relationships? Do these models derive from childhood, or are they slowly assimilated over the course of one's life? I would now like to go on to the treatment and results of depression and the affects on the ones they love. When one is depressive, some studies show that one may become more productive at work, they need less, sleep, and also concentrate harder on their work according to Syndrome of The Elite: Bipolar Disorder II, by Carl Sherman. People affected sometimes can have quick, innovative intelligence. They can be charismatic, have more energy, but they can also have extreme mood swings to upset a relationship. When one is treated with a medication such as lithium to stabilize their moods, one may actually benefit from having such a disease. These people will be hard working, need less sleep, and can get ahead in their jobs. Some of the top executives, creative people, and entrepreneurs benefit from these conditions. However, in the home these mood swings may lead to unresolved fights, and anger within one's family. Depression can lead to excessive behavior, such as gambling, and exorbitant lifestyles. This is compounded by the problem that one suffering also likes to be isolated, and prefers not to talk about compounding problems they may be facing. This can build up a fire inside one's self. We can only say for sure that with the bi-polar stages of manic depression, that many relationships can only follow the highs and lows of the depressive's states. To fight this disease, many people turn to the many available anti-depressant drugs on the market now. These drugs alter the bio-chemicals in the brain itself. It works wonders for most people. In fact, 85% of all manic depressives have great results right away when treated according to an the article entitled, 1 in 5 adults suffer mental illness Experts say great strides made in treating Depression, by Natalie Neiman. Also according to this study, almost 15 to 20 percent of manic depressives commit suicide, which makes treating this disease a must. One way of tracing this is through hereditary. Almost 40-50 percent of the siblings of manic depressive's children also have a depression disorder. It is sometimes however hard to decipher between a normal teenager's mood swings, or a depression. People need to realize not to discriminate, and know that it is a treatable chemistry imbalance. If one's teenager is acting in a depressive state have them talk to a psychologist, and assure them nothing is wrong with them, and that it can only help. I chose to do my research on this given that I am manic depressive. I had recently broken up in a relationship, and this research helped to satisfy some curiosities. With this research I realize how much I have been helped, and it helped to explain some of my personality traits. Someone who has manic depression should definitely go in for help, and should realize the risk of not. The research shows that the interaction between relationship functioning, depression, and attachment style are attributable to early childhood. In other words, an individual's experiences in his or her formative years can have lasting psychological effects, up to the most basic social functions in adulthood. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Descartes 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I think therefore I am." Man wills, refuses, perceives, understands, and denies many principles. As explained by Rene' Descartes, man is a thinking thing, a conscious being who truthfully exists because he is certain that it is so. All that man perceives is internally present and not external to him or his mind. The focal point of the third meditation that must be dealt with is: Can one perceive or confirm the existence of an idea or object that is external to him mainly - God? There are three ways, Descartes explains, that one may come to the conclusion of an objects existence. The first is through nature. The second is through feeling an object independent of one's will, for example; heat and cold. The third, and most elaborated upon is the point of cause and effect, or more simply, the objective reality of an idea. We will primarily deal with the third reason of cause and effect. Descartes brings some examples to demonstrate his cause and effect theory. More importantly, is the logic that lies behind the actual theory. The rationale that an object will have an effect is only if it stems from a legitimate cause. A stone, for example, cannot be perceived accurately if there isn't an initial idea preceding with equal or superior properties in one's intellect. The mind generates ideas and develops reality through previous schema or beliefs as Descartes states: " And although an idea may give rise to another idea, this regress cannot, nevertheless, be infinite;we must in the end reach a first idea, the cause of which is, as it were, the archetype in which all the reality that is found objectively in these ideas is contained formally." Additionally, properties such as color, sound, heat, and cold are too complex in their nature for Descartes to determine whether they are true or false. In other words, are the ideas that one has about a property true or false? Consequently, Descartes concludes that there is a common element between examples like the stone and the cold. The cold portraying the unreal or false object and the stone as a true object. He contends that they both contain "substance" like man himself, and are therefore similar. The only difficulty that arises is the consideration of God's existence. There is no substance or idea for the notion of God to originate from. The valid question that Descartes asks is: Is it conceivable that a finite being have the idea of an infinite existence? We can understand from Descartes writings that he believes in a God. God is unspeakably great, eternal, independent, and all knowing. What Descartes deduces is that the nature of an infinite existence cannot be comprehended by a finite being. Subsequently, by the fact that he believes there is a God is proof for his existence. The idea was placed there by an outside factor. He further states that if man is independent of all other existence then he has the potential to reach to become infinite. This in turn, lead Descartes to say that if he was the author of his own being and independent of all existence, then he would be God. By that matter, it is all these points collectively that indicate to Descartes that he is dependant on another being, that is a God. It can be argued, very briefly, that Descartes assertion about God is slightly contradictory. As I stated earlier, an object is perceived in the mind as long as there are equal or superior properties in the mind. His rests his whole argument on the basis that one cannot fully grasp or fathom the existence of God logically. It is obvious that his perception is doubtful in the first place. There is a lot more material to be covered before I can honestly sever Descartes' whole argument, but this is my opinion on the third meditation. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Descartes Med 1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Descartes' Meditation One Being a foundationalist, Descartes needs to destroy the foundations of his beliefs so that in his Meditations he will be able to build upon new foundations of undeniable and self evident truths. In order to do this Descartes must first find a valid argument that will allow him to doubt his foundation beliefs and in turn doubt what is considered to be reality. He begins by first noting that one can not trust their own senses, because we can be deceived by our sciences. An example of such would be if one looks at an optical illusion, they are seeing something that is not really there, and therefore are being deceived by their sense of sight. But this is not enough to justify doubting all things, so Descartes offers a different approach, the Dream Argument. The Dream Argument is essential in because it allows one to logically question not only the senses but their surroundings and actions as well. Although one can doubt that what they see or hear is not really as is perceived; a person can not deny that they are for instance, standing, thinking about how their senses are deceiving them, with their feet planted on the ground, in their bedroom, feeling a little tired and so on. Only if one was, as Descartes writes, "..insane, whose brains are impaired by such an unrelenting vapor of black bile.." that they believe they are something other than what they are, would one doubt reality, without an argument. The argument is as follows: If the experience of a dream is indistinguishable between that dream and reality; and there is no test to differentiate between dreaming and awakens, then one must doubt the world outside their minds. This is so because even if one believes they are awake and perceiving their surroundings soundly, they have no way of knowing for certain that they are not, at that moment, dreaming. Still this argument is not sufficient in Descartes' quest to doubt "everything". This is so because even when we are dreaming we still know certain undeniable truths or a priori knowledge, these are facts such as a5 + b5 = c5 (in a right triangle) or that triangles have three sides. Descartes then begins to entertain the idea of a God who created all things, could be deceiving us so that we were wrong in our thinking when we believe a priori beliefs. But Descartes believes God to be all good, and being so, God would not deceive us or even allow us to be so deceived. Descartes cuts short this argument, and explains that he believes in God, as he writes "...not out of frivolity or lack of forethought, but for valid and considered reasons." . Descartes therefore abandons the thought of God as he is thought of by most people (for the time being) and instead offers a different "deity". In order to be able to doubt even a priori knowledge Descartes comes up with what is known as the Evil Genius Hypothesis. The Evil Genius Hypothesis is this : instead of a "supremely good God, the source of truth" there exists an Evil Genius who deceives completely so that all that is perceived is not actually what exists in the "real" world. Because the Evil Genius can mislead a person into thinking for instance, that a triangle has four sides or some other false belief, there is no realm of perception that is not touched by the argument. The Evil Genius argument allows Descartes to logically distrust and doubt a priori and a posterior knowledge. This argument completes Descartes' mission for a logical argument that will allow him to doubt everything, and start from the bottom of the hierarchy of his beliefs. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Descartes wax passage, With reference to Hume.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Descartes' wax passage, With reference to Hume Synopsis 1) Introduction, "How do we know what we know?" 2) Talk on Descartes, his line of thinking, he is a "thinking thing" 3) Discuss the wax passage, how and why Descartes drew his conclusions. Descartes believes clear and distinct perceptions are drawn through the mind, not the senses 4) Compare/contrast Descartes with Hume. Hume beliefs conclusions on the wax were drawn from past experiences of cause and effect, gained through the senses. 5) Conclusion How do we know what we know? Ideas reside in the minds of intelligent beings, but a clear perception of where these ideas come from is often the point of debate. It is with this in mind that René Descartes set forth on the daunting task to determine where clear and distinct ideas come from. A particular passage written in Meditations on First Philosophy (Descartes 1641), named the "Wax Passage" shall be examined. Descartes' thought process shall be followed, and the central point of his argument discussed. These findings shall be contrasted with the thoughts of David Hume (**insert fact about Hume here**) In Meditations on First Philosophy, it is the self-imposed task of Descartes to cast doubt upon all which he knows, in order to build a solid foundation of knowledge out of irrefutable truths. Borrowing an idea from Archimedes, that with one firm and immovable point, the earth could be moved, Descartes sought one immovable truth. Descartes' immovable truth, a truth on which he would lay down his foundation of knowledge, and define all that which he knows, was the simple line 'Cogito ergo sume"; I think, therefor I am. This allowed for his existence. Where this line failed, however, was in the proof or disproof of the external world. Once Descartes established himself as a "thinking thing", his attention turned to the external world. Descartes reflects upon his dealing with physical objects, and questions the state of corporeal nature, dealing directly with the senses. Re-stating the fact that Descartes believes that these sensations of taste, touch, smell, and the like can be fooled, he attacks these bodily perceptions, not from the point of "what makes them true", but rather "what makes them false". Descartes asks, "What is there in all of this that is not every bit as true as the fact that I exist..." (Descartes:20). These senses lead him to ideas of external objects, which he claims to perceive "clearly and distinctly", yet he is not willing to trust his senses; he is not willing to state truthfully that he is positive these things exist. In doubting all that exists, a sort of intellectual barrier had been erected, forcing Descartes' thoughts into narrow constraints, in order that this passage was born, and in order that his question be answered, these constraints had to be lifted "...my mind loves to wander....let us just this once allow it completely rein free." (Descartes:21) It is this state of "wandering mind" that the wax passage was conceived. The wax passage itself is a simple piece of writing, and a simple train of thought to follow. The essence of the passage is that Descartes believes, and attempts to convince the reader that the "clear and distinct" ideas one might have of objects external to one's body are not perceived through the senses, but rather through the intellect. While examining a piece of wax, one has certain ideas, ideas initially thought to have come from the senses, but all that can be ascertained through the senses can be proven to be false. "Let us take, for instance, this piece of wax....Its colour, shape, and size are manifest. It is hard and cold; it is easy to touch....I am bringing it close to the fire... Its size is increasing, it is becoming liquid and hot; you can hardly touch it....Does the same wax remain?"(Descartes:21) Obviously the same wax remains, and the clear and distinct ideas of the wax remain as well. , yet all sensory perceptions of the wax have changed. Descartes asks then "so what was there in the wax that was so distinctly grasped?...the senses of taste, smell, sight, touch or hearing has now changed; and yet the wax remains" (Descartes:21) In answer to this, he suggests that perhaps the wax is not merely the sum of its sensory attributes. Descartes argues that if all attributes are stripped away, what is left is the "essence" of the wax. This essence can manifest itself to him in an infinite number of ways. The wax can assume any shape, size, or smell, and since Descartes assumes that he himself is incapable of imagining the wax in infinite ways, the insight he has gained into the wax was not brought about by his faculty of imagination. With the elimination of the senses, and then the elimination of the imagination, what is left must be the answer. The clear and distinct ideas of the wax must have been perceived through the mind alone. "...the perception of the wax is neither a seeing, nor a touching, nor an imagining, . Nor has it ever been...rather it is an inspection on the part of the mind alone" (Descartes:22) What Descartes wants this passage to impress upon the reader is that what we know of external objects (i.e. the wax) is not gained by any other means but through the mind alone. The "essence" of objects can present itself in many ways, but that is all it is, a presentation. The "essence" itself resides behind the attributes. This abandonment of the traditional idea of gaining knowledge about the outside world through the senses was crucial to Descartes goal of a body of "undeniable truths", as he had formed the hypothesis that the senses could be fooled, but not the mind. This line of thinking is not universal amongst philosophers. The process of acquiring knowledge is a continual operation, accordingly, the examination of this procedure should continue as well. Descartes was not the only one to examine the epistemic position of man. The ideas of philosopher David Hume shall be imposed on the now well examined piece of wax. David Hume, a philosopher, who like Descartes, took it upon himself to bring to words human-kind's epistemic position, drew conclusions greatly different than that of his predecessor. Bluntly put, Hume would sum up Descartes view as simply "spouting words" The view of Hume is that all ideas must have a sense datum from which they are born. Hume firmly believes that no idea can be held by an individual, unless the idea itself, or portions of it, has been directly experienced by the individual. "A blind man can form no notion of colours; a deaf man of sounds." (Hume:12) This passage clearly shows Hume's believe in sensory perceptions. Were he to have examined the wax, he would not have perceived an "essence", but rather the individual attributes which encompass the wax. When dealing with an attribute as suspicious as an "essence", Hume would enquire "...from what impression is that supposed idea derived? And if it be impossible to assign any, this will serve to confirm our suspicion."(Hume:13) Hume believes that human inquiry may be divided into two sections, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. The dividing point between these is that matters of fact can be conceive of being false. One would not conceive of two plus two equaling four being wrong, thus it is a relation of ideas, where the idea of two plus two is related to four. It was matters of fact, however, that Hume found "...a subject worthy of curiosity, to enquire what is the nature of that evidence, which assures us of any real existence and matter of fact, beyond the present testimony of our senses."(Hume:16) Hume reasoned that all dealing with matter of fact was routed in cause and effect, where sensory perception such as heat and light, would be the effect of fire. Knowledge of this relation is mandatory, for one could not understand an effect, without understanding its cause. The knowledge of this relation, argues Hume "...is not, in any instance attained by reasoning a priori ; but arises entirely from experience"(Hume:17) Hume here again states his believe that "causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason, but by experience"(Hume:17) To relate this to the wax passage, Hume would consider as true only what he could perceive by his senses, and only what he could induct about the wax, based on former experiences. Hume would not know of the melting of the wax if a fire were not present. This part of the what Descartes would call the essence of the wax would not be perceived according to Hume, unless induced from a prior experience. The teaching of these two philosophers have influenced many minds since their writings. Descartes belief that clear and distinct perceptions come from the intellect and not the senses was critical to his ultimate goal in Meditations on First Philosophy. Hume's view of this, if he were to have had the chance to examine the same piece of wax as Descartes would have been that the wax is only what it appears to be, based on the attributes perceived, and inductions of these attributes, based on past experiences. Word Count: 1536 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Descartes.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I think therefore I am." Man wills, refuses, perceives, understands, and denies many principles. As explained by Rene' Descartes, man is a thinking thing, a conscious being who truthfully exists because he is certain that it is so. All that man perceives is internally present and not external to him or his mind. The focal point of the third meditation that must be dealt with is: Can one perceive or confirm the existence of an idea or object that is external to him mainly - God? There are three ways, Descartes explains, that one may come to the conclusion of an objects existence. The first is through nature. The second is through feeling an object independent of one's will, for example; heat and cold. The third, and most elaborated upon is the point of cause and effect, or more simply, the objective reality of an idea. We will primarily deal with the third reason of cause and effect. Descartes brings some examples to demonstrate his cause and effect theory. More importantly, is the logic that lies behind the actual theory. The rationale that an object will have an effect is only if it stems from a legitimate cause. A stone, for example, cannot be perceived accurately if there isn't an initial idea preceding with equal or superior properties in one's intellect. The mind generates ideas and develops reality through previous schema or beliefs as Descartes states: " And although an idea may give rise to another idea, this regress cannot, nevertheless, be infinite;we must in the end reach a first idea, the cause of which is, as it were, the archetype in which all the reality that is found objectively in these ideas is contained formally." Additionally, properties such as color, sound, heat, and cold are too complex in their nature for Descartes to determine whether they are true or false. In other words, are the ideas that one has about a property true or false? Consequently, Descartes concludes that there is a common element between examples like the stone and the cold. The cold portraying the unreal or false object and the stone as a true object. He contends that they both contain "substance" like man himself, and are therefore similar. The only difficulty that arises is the consideration of God's existence. There is no substance or idea for the notion of God to originate from. The valid question that Descartes asks is: Is it conceivable that a finite being have the idea of an infinite existence? We can understand from Descartes writings that he believes in a God. God is unspeakably great, eternal, independent, and all knowing. What Descartes deduces is that the nature of an infinite existence cannot be comprehended by a finite being. Subsequently, by the fact that he believes there is a God is proof for his existence. The idea was placed there by an outside factor. He further states that if man is independent of all other existence then he has the potential to reach to become infinite. This in turn, lead Descartes to say that if he was the author of his own being and independent of all existence, then he would be God. By that matter, it is all these points collectively that indicate to Descartes that he is dependant on another being, that is a God. It can be argued, very briefly, that Descartes assertion about God is slightly contradictory. As I stated earlier, an object is perceived in the mind as long as there are equal or superior properties in the mind. His rests his whole argument on the basis that one cannot fully grasp or fathom the existence of God logically. It is obvious that his perception is doubtful in the first place. There is a lot more material to be covered before I can honestly sever Descartes' whole argument, but this is my opinion on the third meditation. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\direct democracy vs representitive democracy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Direct Democracy --VS-- Representative Democracy The term Democracy is derived from two Greek words, demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule. These two words form the word democracy which means rule by the people. Aristotle, and other ancient Greek political philosophers, used the phrase, `the governors are to be the governed', or as we have come to know it, `rule and be ruled in turn'. The two major types of democracy are Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy. Clearly the arguments for and against each form of democracy are plentiful. However, it is my belief that theoretically, Direct Democracy is the superior form of political rule. Due to problems with in the direct democratic system, its use as a practical form of government is not even thinkable. Therefore, in order for any form of democracy to function, Representative Democracy is the superior form of political rule. Jean Jacques Rousseau is considered by many to be the `Grandfather' of direct the democracy theory. Rousseau's ideal society would be where the citizens were directly involved in the creation of the laws which are to govern their lives. He maintained that, "all citizens should meet together and decide what is best for the community and enact the appropriate laws. Any law which was not directly created by the citizens is not valid, and if those laws are imposed on people, that is equivalent to the people being enslaved. The citizens of a society must both develop and obey `the supreme decision of the general will', which is the society's determination of the common good. It is not even thinkable that all citizens will agree on what good is. Rousseau recognized this and accepted a term of majority rule. Those who voted against a policy which is found to be the best for the general, must have been thinking of personal gains, rather than the gains of the entire society. The feature which distinguishes direct democracy from other forms of government is the idea of agreement and the key to agreement is discussion. It is impossible to reach an agreement without discussion, because it is not right to think that everybody will have the same opinion on all matters. But, it is very possible, that through discussion an agreement could be reached by all members. Representation, on the other hand allows a select few to make decisions in their own best interest, which is not necessarily the best interest of the society. However, direct democracy is not the perfect method to produce a union of the community. For a direct democracy to work, face to face communication between all members of the community is needed. The only way this is possible is to meet in large groups. Due to the fear of high tension, many citizens "will not participate in these large group meeting. So in order for these fearful people to voice their opinions they must get together in smaller, less tensions groups, where they are not as timid to say as they wish to see happen. A direct democracy can only work in a small group, so as a form of government for an entire community or country, direct democracy would definitely fail. As the membership increases, people become less involved. Once the membership reaches the size of a country, the participation still exists, but is limited to as low as it can go. Thus in a country, any form of direct democracy is only possible in individual communities. In order for a committee small enough to operate on direct democracy principles to have any authority at all, it must represent a much larger group. Membership in this larger group is chosen by election, so the people still have a say in the ruling process. Since the rulers are selected by the people, the rulers should represent what the public wants. Thus, out of direct democracy, is born a new form of government, the Representative Democracy. Representative democracy is not democracy in its purest form. The main argument against representative democracy is that "No one can represent me. I'm the only one who knows what I'm thinking and no one else can represent my views." We have already learned it is also impossible to represent yourself. Through representation, chosen by the people, the hope is that all people will be adequately represented. While everyone may not get all of their views represented all the time, representative democracy should create a situation where most of the views are represented. Direct democracy is not impossible in all situations, but in order for in to exist the following two characteristics must exist- The organization must be local, (limited in members) and the opinions of the members must be similar to each other. While these conditions are often found in a small organization, when looking at a country, these conditions are impossible to meet. In a mixed society direct democracy would lead to ineffective management, unwanted inefficiency, and political instability. While In a representative democracy, the representatives rely on political compromise to resolve conflicts, and develop policies that are flexible enough to meet shifting circumstances. The once dominant Greek culture has become out-of-date and along with it went the hope for a direct democracy system of government. The direct democracy theory may have worked in the small Greek towns of 500BC, but in large modern societies, it simply could not work. Which is why the representative democracy was started, which, while providing the citizen with less opportunity for participation, is ideally suited for rule in modern times Thus, clearly a direct democracy is the only true form of democracy. However, if democracy is to be is used in a modern society, it can not take its purist form. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Discussion of miracles with hume.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Discussion of the Feasibility of Miracles and the Grounds for Christianity existing without Miracles. Kurt Erler Philosophical Classics 11/11/96 In the following Discussion, I will point out the facts and ideas that disagree with Hume's ideas. The ideas are the ones on miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding involving Section ten Of Miracles. The idea of this is using the circle philosophical argument. If one agrees that Christians believe in the Bible, and that miracles have people understand the Bible as Hume points out, then Christians must believe in miracles. If one takes away any of these things, the statement does not hold. In this case, the removal of the Bible is used. Hume confronts the ideas of religion directly by stating that without the splendor of miracles, Christianity and other beliefs would not stand. He states that miracles are used to make us believe the scriptures. This is not true, since from the starts of Christianity there were not always scriptures. There were pieces of art work done for generations before the texts were written and after that, they still had to be published. From there, only the rich were well off enough to afford such a book. In fact, the Gospels were written from 20-100 years after Christ died. The Acts were a collection of works made from two hundred to three hundred years after the crucifixion, collected from different accounts. And then there are the letters, which were written approximately four hundred and fifty years after the fact. They were written by St. Paul, who was also a soldier for the Roman army and killed hundreds of Christians, who believed and followed God, without the scriptures that Hume talks about. From this, if you take away the scriptures, God's church carries on and if you take the people from the church, "God's church" still survives. The scriptures do not make people believe, they help people understand. For this Hume is correct. He states that miracles help Christians understand what they believe, but the belief and faith are deeper. Miracles and parables helped people believe and understand what was to be our faith, but they are not what faith is about. You can take any miracle, and faith will still exist. Miracles are also becoming more understood. There is thought that as Hume presents, some miracles are in themselves tricks of nature, such as the splitting of the Red Sea. At a time of extreme low tide one can cross, and that the Egyptian army sank because of the mud or their heavy armor they were laden with. There are bodies and armor found underneath the Red Sea that is Roman and there exists evidence of this being the cause of it. Hume says that miracles are the defiance or the breaking of the rules of nature. In his explanation, the lifting of a house or mountain is just as big a miracle, as is the lifting of a feather by the wind. As stated, in this Hume is possibly correct, that miracles are phenomena of nature that can, with advances in science, be explained. This is what Hume calls Transgressions of a law of nature. Hume defining non-natural events is led to believe that they are miracles, but all the time miracles, through science, are seen to be possible, so a miracle then is not a miracle as much know, yet the faith is not broken. Hume is also trying to end in his mind, what he thinks is superstition. He thinks that when we start to think clearly about religion, we will start to lose our belief in it. Again he is using the argument that is stated in the above paragraph. Hume's criticisms are not aimed to tell you that your religious beliefs are false, instead he does not agree with the evidence given to support their convictions. He says the only advantage to holding onto your religious beliefs or being able to support them, is that you could give an unbeliever reason to share your beliefs. If you think that there is rational evidence for your beliefs, then you can go out and share them and get others to believe the same. Again, Christianity holds without the miracles, for in the beginning, there were no miracles that were talked about. Here is where a fideist is true. A fideist is someone who is willing to stick to their religious beliefs without having to see proof or miracles, so they just have faith. The advantage is that they are what people would be without miracles and that they are what would carry the church if all the other proofs and miracles didn't occur anymore, for Jesus even said that "Blessed are they who believe without seeing, for the kingdom of God is theirs." Hume now goes on to say that we can never for certain know that miracles do exist. He says that the closest thing we have to believe in miracles is the transgressions of a law of nature (p. 77). Our beliefs in nature are the strongest. He says that otherwise, evidence and witnesses can be wrong, and so the evidence found must be compelling enough that its falsehood breaks laws of nature. For these reasons, we will never have enough or strong enough evidence to prove that a miracle occurred. Again, since we depend on experience, as Hume states, to know or explain what we see and what goes on, how can we know what a miracle is or looks like, such as similar as the example that you have no reason to believe that this world is incomplete and needs work, because you have never seen a completed world. This turns into his argument of knowing God through experience. Not only can we not know God from experience of miracles, but he again uses the idea that since we have never experienced God, we can not define him or what he is. This we can use with the argument of mathematics. We have never experienced infinite, a line, a plane or many other mathematical things, but we use them in many equations and in understanding other things. Humans are capable of comprehending things that we do not entirely understand. Hume's arguments do not hold, because of the strong beliefs and ideas of humans before the knowing of miracles and the like. There is something innate about humans that tell them that something is most likely there. The beginnings of the universe, the creation of life, these things and others just do not appear from nowhere. This is the same thing that makes people know what good and bad are. You can not believe in God, but something still tells you that killing a baby is wrong and to help someone is right. It is the feeling in the back of your head that does this to you. This is Hume's idea of morality. This is because of how we think one act would effect the world. Therefore, when we see one person doing many good acts, we think of them as a good person. We cannot infer that in another world a deity would change the small problems of this world. Where ever we have beliefs based on experience we can go as far as experience lets us go, but no further. This is Hume's idea of understanding. Again, if one points out the mathematical explanations, this does not hold. He says we cannot transcend experience, so we have no idea of immortality. We get all idea from experience. Solid beliefs come from observing constant occurrences of something. The only beliefs that will stand up are beliefs that give you strong imperial evidence. Skepticism leads to moderation in views and that is good. The changing of these views leads us to still show that Hume is wrong in that faith, infinite, and God still exists in human minds, even though we have never experienced him fully. As shown, time did not always have miracles on text to show them the way. We had faith and hope, and for many that is still all they have or need. Discussion of the Feasibility of Miracles and the Grounds for Christianity existing without Miracles. Kurt Erler Philosophical Classics 11/11/96 In the following Discussion, I will point out the facts and ideas that disagree with Hume's ideas. The ideas are the ones on miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding involving Section ten Of Miracles. The idea of this is using the circle philosophical argument. If one agrees that Christians believe in the Bible, and that miracles have people understand the Bible as Hume points out, then Christians must believe in miracles. If one takes away any of these things, the statement does not hold. In this case, the removal of the Bible is used. Hume confronts the ideas of religion directly by stating that without the splendor of miracles, Christianity and other beliefs would not stand. He states that miracles are used to make us believe the scriptures. This is not true, since from the starts of Christianity there were not always scriptures. There were pieces of art work done for generations before the texts were written and after that, they still had to be published. From there, only the rich were well off enough to afford such a book. In fact, the Gospels were written from 20-100 years after Christ died. The Acts were a collection of works made from two hundred to three hundred years after the crucifixion, collected from different accounts. And then there are the letters, which were written approximately four hundred and fifty years after the fact. They were written by St. Paul, who was also a soldier for the Roman army and killed hundreds of Christians, who believed and followed God, without the scriptures that Hume talks about. From this, if you take away the scriptures, God's church carries on and if you take the people from the church, "God's church" still survives. The scriptures do not make people believe, they help people understand. For this Hume is correct. He states that miracles help Christians understand what they believe, but the belief and faith are deeper. Miracles and parables helped people believe and understand what was to be our faith, but they are not what faith is about. You can take any miracle, and faith will still exist. Miracles are also becoming more understood. There is thought that as Hume presents, some miracles are in themselves tricks of nature, such as the splitting of the Red Sea. At a time of extreme low tide one can cross, and that the Egyptian army sank because of the mud or their heavy armor they were laden with. There are bodies and armor found underneath the Red Sea that is Roman and there exists evidence of this being the cause of it. Hume says that miracles are the defiance or the breaking of the rules of nature. In his explanation, the lifting of a house or mountain is just as big a miracle, as is the lifting of a feather by the wind. As stated, in this Hume is possibly correct, that miracles are phenomena of nature that can, with advances in science, be explained. This is what Hume calls Transgressions of a law of nature. Hume defining non-natural events is led to believe that they are miracles, but all the time miracles, through science, are seen to be possible, so a miracle then is not a miracle as much know, yet the faith is not broken. Hume is also trying to end in his mind, what he thinks is superstition. He thinks that when we start to think clearly about religion, we will start to lose our belief in it. Again he is using the argument that is stated in the above paragraph. Hume's criticisms are not aimed to tell you that your religious beliefs are false, instead he does not agree with the evidence given to support their convictions. He says the only advantage to holding onto your religious beliefs or being able to support them, is that you could give an unbeliever reason to share your beliefs. If you think that there is rational evidence for your beliefs, then you can go out and share them and get others to believe the same. Again, Christianity holds without the miracles, for in the beginning, there were no miracles that were talked about. Here is where a fideist is true. A fideist is someone who is willing to stick to their religious beliefs without having to see proof or miracles, so they just have faith. The advantage is that they are what people would be without miracles and that they are what would carry the church if all the other proofs and miracles didn't occur anymore, for Jesus even said that "Blessed are they who believe without seeing, for the kingdom of God is theirs." Hume now goes on to say that we can never for certain know that miracles do exist. He says that the closest thing we have to believe in miracles is the transgressions of a law of nature (p. 77). Our beliefs in nature are the strongest. He says that otherwise, evidence and witnesses can be wrong, and so the evidence found must be compelling enough that its falsehood breaks laws of nature. For these reasons, we will never have enough or strong enough evidence to prove that a miracle occurred. Again, since we depend on experience, as Hume states, to know or explain what we see and what goes on, how can we know what a miracle is or looks like, such as similar as the example that you have no reason to believe that this world is incomplete and needs work, because you have never seen a completed world. This turns into his argument of knowing God through experience. Not only can we not know God from experience of miracles, but he again uses the idea that since we have never experienced God, we can not define him or what he is. This we can use with the argument of mathematics. We have never experienced infinite, a line, a plane or many other mathematical things, but we use them in many equations and in understanding other things. Humans are capable of comprehending things that we do not entirely understand. Hume's arguments do not hold, because of the strong beliefs and ideas of humans before the knowing of miracles and the like. There is something innate about humans that tell them that something is most likely there. The beginnings of the universe, the creation of life, these things and others just do not appear from nowhere. This is the same thing that makes people know what good and bad are. You can not believe in God, but something still tells you that killing a baby is wrong and to help someone is right. It is the feeling in the back of your head that does this to you. This is Hume's idea of morality. This is because of how we think one act would effect the world. Therefore, when we see one person doing many good acts, we think of them as a good person. We cannot infer that in another world a deity would change the small problems of this world. Where ever we have beliefs based on experience we can go as far as experience lets us go, but no further. This is Hume's idea of understanding. Again, if one points out the mathematical explanations, this does not hold. He says we cannot transcend experience, so we have no idea of immortality. We get all idea from experience. Solid beliefs come from observing constant occurrences of something. The only beliefs that will stand up are beliefs that give you strong imperial evidence. Skepticism leads to moderation in views and that is good. The changing of these views leads us to still show that Hume is wrong in that faith, infinite, and God still exists in human minds, even though we have never experienced him fully. As shown, time did not always have miracles on text to show them the way. We had faith and hope, and for many that is still all they have or need. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Distraction.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ " I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps, it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any time for that one." -Henry David Thoreau Many times I would find myself in a state of mass confusion. It was as if I had no perception of where I would go with my life. I was trapped in a realm of things which were unfamiliar to me. When I tried to experience these new adventures I ended up back where I started in a slow state of death and decay. New ideas and thoughts seemed impossible for me to grasp. It seemed that anything that was new to me was too much of a hassle. How could I move on in a positive manner in this state. All that I wanted to do was the same old thing over and over like a broken record repeating itself over and over until it wore itself out. I finally, wore myself out. I started to feel as if I was the worn out record player and that I would be dropped into the trash when I stopped working the way I was supposed to. After a short while I found some inspiration from an unknown point. I had realized I would not succeed in this battle called life without serious work. The only one who could help me was me. I knew that I wasn't meant to do the exact same thing for the rest of my life. I had to escape this bottomless pit and move on to the next adventure. "I had several more lives to live and could not spare any time for that one." I moved on to another life. My "new" life was very hard to get used to, but was well worth the trouble. I began trying new things and actually enjoyed it. I realize now that I only have a short time in my life and I have to make a difference here, before I move on to the higher place. I need to speak my views and express my feelings. I need to have fun and work for what I believe in at the same time. Soon I will move on once again to a whole new realm of adventure and a whole new set of standards. These progressions are what are keeping me alive and will follow with me long after I have passed on. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Do we have a good reason to believe in existence of a higher.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Transcendentalism and a belief in a "higher power" We do not have good reasons to believe in something transcendental. Most of the arguments in favor of God, or a so-called "higher power" are based on faith and emotion, and not a clear logical argument. In fact, these arguments are often in favor of throwing logic out the window. In many ways, this question is similar to someone attempting to prove the existence of an invisible elephant. It is far easier to prove that the elephant does not exist than it is to prove that it does. Socrates' principle of examination states that we must carefully examine all things. The tools we humans use to do this are logic and the scientific method. In order to believe in something transcendental, you cannot examine your beliefs using logic and science. If you do, there is no way to prove the existence of a higher power. The primary argument against the existence of a Judeo-Christian all-knowing, all-powerful, righteous God is the argument from evil. This argument argues against the presence of a higher power using facts of ordinary life. This argument states that most would agree that some of the pain and suffering (evil) in this world is unnecessary. To be considered a necessary evil, the occurrence must be the only way to produce something good, which outweighs the evil. Many events, such as infant deaths, would not be classified in this category. If such an all-knowing deity existed, it states, He would know that this evil was occurring. If He was all-powerful, He would have the power to stop this evil. If He was righteous, He would stop the evil from occurring Therefore, the existence of evil cannot be compatible with the existence of this type of God. The primary response to the argument from evil is the appeal to human freedom. This argument states that God sees evil as necessary so that we humans may be free to choose our own path. The fatal flaw in this argument is that there are evils that exist not as a direct result of human choice. Natural evils such as floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes serve no purpose according to this definition, and are therefore unnecessary evils. A theist might respond to this with another weak rebuttal, stating that every evil produces compassion and understanding in others, and creates good in that regard. This is an overly positive, almost delusional view of evil. Almost everyone will be able to come up with at least one example of someone who has suffered an evil that has not directly or indirectly led to anything good. The other argument for something transcendental is the argument from faith. It is, however, also a weak argument. It states that we will never be able to find direct evidence of God's existence through logic or natural science, so we must find an alternate method. This argument requires us to suspend Socrates' basic philosophical principle of examination. The argument from faith asks us to leave this idea alone, and simply believe that it works. This basic lack of logic and reasoning makes this a weak argument. Another of the arguments is the design argument. This states that the universe is far too structured and complex to be derived from a big bang, or another random sequence of events. A transcendental "watchmaker" is the only explanation for the complexities of the universe, say proponents of this argument. The weak link in this argument is that for the many structured things that exist, there are just as many chaotic things. Not everything in the universe serves a purpose, or has an efficient design. Again, this is connected back to the argument from evil. Some evils are unnecessary flaws in the watch's design. Thomas Paley, a critic of the argument, asked why a higher being design a flawed watch with so many pointless features. There is no good counter to that argument. Another argument is the First Cause argument. This argument states that everything that exists had a separate cause of its coming into existence. This creates a causal chain, extending backward in time, which cannot be infinite. If it is not infinite, then there must be a first cause, which must be God. This seems like a reasonable argument, but one of its premises is shaky. There is no good reason to state that there cannot be an infinite series of causes. Scientists might argue for the Big Bang theory as a beginning to our universe, but it also could have had a cause. Another shaky premise of the argument is the last one. Why does the end of the chain have to be the Judeo-Christian god? It could also be a transcendental force, without the many traits associated to a god. It is also remarkably self-centered for one religion to believe it has the monopoly on God. Why could the first cause not be Allah, Buddha, or the like? Two other minor arguments try to connect physical reality to the existence of God. The first is the argument from miracles. This argument states that many people have a legitimate belief that they have experienced miracles. With so many unexplained phenomena in this world, they argue, it is probable that God must be causing these remarkable events. The next argument is the argument from religious experience. Proponents argue that many people claim to have been "touched" by a higher power. Because of this direct contact, we must believe in the existence of a transcendental being. Many people have very similar stories of walking into a bright light in near-death experiences. With all of these occurrences, supporters argue, we must be able to see the existence of a god. The response to both of these arguments is that there is not one bit of concrete evidence to support either claim. Every time we have tested so-called articles of religious miracle, such as the Shroud of Turin, they have not lived up to their claim. We also cannot prove through any scientific method that anyone has ever been touched by a transcendental force. These near-death experiences are probably a simple lack of blood to the brain. The only tools that we have to prove or disprove the existence of a transcendental power are our senses, the scientific method, and logic. With all of our technological advances, we have never been able to find substantial evidence that this power exists or ever did exist. We also have not found a logical argument to prove its existence. Without this substantive proof, we cannot say that we have logical or reasonable reasons to believe in something transcendental. We humans have not found the invisible elephant, but have already created the circus for it. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Do We Have Souls.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On the question of 'Do we have souls' and 'Can they survive after death', this writer will attempt a reasoned explanation and defense of my views to this philosophical question. After careful explanation of my own views , thoughts, and careful examination of the selected materials for this paper; I have come to this conclusion: unlike the problem of free will, the question of human beings having souls and their survival after the physical body is deceased, is not an easily argued topic. The problem of free will [as an example] can be more rationally discussed and analyzed through tangible means such as patterned and learned behavior and its like, but in dealing with the question of souls and in accepting their existence, it is an intangible thing which cannot be proved or disproved [at least as long as the physical body is existing]. This writer believe that a discussion , no matter how seemingly rational or even irrational is purely speculation and can have no real physical proof of that existence. Of the read philosophers on this topic, all are speculatory in their attempt to prove, disprove, or even clarify their position of the topic in question. This writer will first contribute his own speculation and proceed to explore the selected philosophers material on this subject. Though it first must be said that most of the read material is or seems to be question-begging and therefore leads only to more questions from myself. The question of having souls and their existence after the physical body is deceased has always been on men's minds. From the first beginnings of written history from the Ancient Near Eastern civilizations [Egyptians, Mesopotamian] , men [people] have always regarded the afterlife and the question of souls. It was not given much philosophical thought until the ancient Greek sophists, in the decline of their city-states that this topic was explored, but not only explored but started to gather acceptance among the people. Again, only when 'physical' life was becoming less cherished due to the decline and unhappiness with their earthly surroundings. Though the Hebrew people spoke and thought of an afterlife for their spirit, it was really not until widespread Christianity came about, and again this was at the time of decline of the Roman Empire. My initial point being that the idea of souls and their existence seemed to grow stronger at times of great depression or strife [much like when people pray to God when they only need something]. It was then that faith and hope for a better life after this one was at its greatest. Thus the emergence of the powerful religions such as Christianity and Islam, who base their teachings of faith on the fact [or non-fact] that there is a better life after this one, but to get there "you must join us and participate within our rules and propagate our faith that we give you". This is called conditional immortality [A.E. Taylor, p.601]. The ability to believe one has a soul and its existence after the physical body dies is not only for the participants in organized religion. I believe that the human body and mind work together over a lifetime to develop what I will myself call a soul or spirit, and with the advent of this soul - a place for it to exist without the physical body. I feel that the real close-minded thinking comes from the thought that life [in any sense] is over at the time of physical death, just as it may be close-minded to think that we are existing alone in the vast cosmos. I will concede that with our earthly rational thought that it is difficult to rationalize an existence after this one, so I am able to understand why some people believe that when the physical life is over, it truly is over. To give an analogy on how I believe the soul is developed: the development of the soul is like the programming of a computer it is fed all the various information and it is that information when it is in the computer that it defines itself by using the definitive information it has been given for the greater purpose of its ultimate use. The soul [I believe] is the culmination of learned information that is developed through the course of the physical existence, using its resources together [mind and body] to define itself for a greater purpose, which may very well be the afterlife of a soul. It is those defining characteristics that we develop throughout our lifetime that make us who we are - one might be able to call it personality. As with most difficult philosophical issues, answers lead to more questions such as where did the soul come from, what does it consist of [tangible or intangible material?, or both?] and what really happens to it - what is its ultimate purpose [excluding Christian thought]? These are questions presumably that everyone has, but it is when we try and answer these questions with 'earthly' or 'personable' [Antony G.N. Flew, p.615] descriptions or categorizing them is where we go wrong. Because we are dealing with something that is derived from and exists totally on faith, tangible to us at present, and the only way to prove or disprove beyond speculation - is to end the physical one - and thus there is no way to solve the problem or question. Clarifying, what I'm saying is that on an issue or problem such as this you cannot rationalize it with regular philosophic deduction. In Lamonts " The Illusion of Immortality" , he has used science to deduce that there is no life for the mind/personality/soul after physical death and rationalizing it by saying this is "common sense". Again we are dealing with something that is totally reliant on faith [which has really nothing to do with common sense] , and by that point alone it cannot be proved by science or earthly reasoning, But as this writer has found in philosophy, it is easier to disagree or attempt to disprove, rather than prove. To sum up my own views, I shall borrow from Antony G.N. Flew in his " Can A Man Witness His Own Funeral", : "I can survive my death" [a metaphor for afterlife or existence of a soul] " cannot be self contradictory and therefore senseless, because it refers to a possibility which is not mearly conceivable but imaginable". I would now like to explore more fully the selected philosophers in their discussion of if we have souls and is there an afterlife for these souls. Gilbert Ryle in "Descartes' Myth" gives the "Official Descartes Doctrine" [on souls] as follows. " With doubtful exceptions of idiots and infants in arms, every human being has both a body and a mind". What he is saying here is quite obvious, but further interpretation of the whole passage seems to be this: we all have the 'tools' [body and mind] but that they lead two separate existence's, the physical body and mind being one of external existence, and the "hidden" mind being one of internal. Human beings have both the mind and body and both work together - they both also work separately and that separation being the 'hidden' mind. Again, both are said to work together in the physical sense [body mechanics] but the mind also works independently from the physical body. What may not be fully clear is if he is meaning the sub conscience [which is referred to in the passage] or to the soul itself, and are they even separate entities to him? He talks of the hidden mind and quotes "...the actual transactions between the episodes of the private and the public history remain mysterious, since by definition they can belong to either series". What I interpret him saying is that the mind records and perceives its own series of perceptions that are not only hidden from ourselves, but from everybody else. These are kept 'secret' and separate from even our own memories, perception and so on that we can usually see or call to mind. Ryle refutes Descartes theory [as do I] in the fact that he has put a boundary on defining mind and body. Ryle does not feel the mind is bound to 'mechanical laws' [as Descartes does] like the body, which is what Descartes theory is all about. Because Descartes theorized that if the body is bound by mechanical laws and causes , so must the mind be - non mechanical laws- including the hidden mind. All of his references to the secret and hidden mind are by my observation, regarding or referring to the soul. To sum up Ryle, he is saying that the mind and the body are not separate, but that the mind has two parts - hidden and observed- and that the hidden mind is not subject to the physical/mechanical laws or non-mechanical forces [which is unclear to what those are]. They [the hidden/seen mind] exist separately from each other but both are necessary to the complete mind. Ryle basically feels that Descartes theory was a 'category mistake' and was categorized incorrectly because he included the whole mind and body together, thus both were subject to the laws and causes of both. So if the two terms belong to the same category; it would be proper to construct prepositions embodying them. Descartes and Ryle both agree though that there is another facet to the mind, possibly what can be called the soul. I have chose to write at some extent on Ryles' article because we share similar basic views [that are also along the same line as Descartes]. I believe that there is a separation between the physical mind which controls the body and harbors memories and its like, and that the soul is really an extension of our real self and that physical or tangible mind. It is that 'hidden mind' that all of the selected articles have referred to as a 'personality' of some sort, and that this personality [soul] is our real self which is defined throughout our lifetime by our surroundings and that is developed along with our development as human beings [along the lines of 'trial and tribulations of life']. I do not feel that this personality/soul can be proved by any type of conventional laboratory test or any type of philosophical deduction, and that we are dealing with something that is an untouchable extension of ourselves which really cannot be probed by any means except our own belief. Thus it is within ourselves and may be part of our soul development to justify its existence and whether it goes on to another existence. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Does God Exist .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ D O E S G O D E X I S T ? St. Thomas Aquinas has written several important works. Some of them are: The Disputed Questions on the Power of God, Exposition of Dionysius on the Divine Names and Disputed Questions on Spiritual Creatures. Most of Aquinas's works have been written to try to prove the existence of God. Aquinas has been a firm believer that everything had to have a creator and the only possible solution would be something called God. It is with this idea that Aquinas's Third Way was written. In his De aeternitate mundi contra murmurantes, Aquinas insists that human reason cannot prove the impossibility of an eternally created universe. Once again Aquinas has written with the certainty that God has to exist in order to have created the universe. There is no doubt in Aquinas's mind that everything was created for a reason and that reason was God's will. In the text Medieval Philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas' article entitled Does God Exist? , Aquinas tries to show the different steps that can prove God does exist and that the world had to have been created by God. This article is comprised of five different ways in which Aquinas tries to prove that we can be sure that God exists. In the third way, Aquinas tries to show that God exists if it is true that we exist. In the article Aquinas says that it is possible for things to exist and for them not to exist. He means that living things will one day become non-living things. Aquinas believes that all things can not be mortal because if it were true, then at some point nothing would exist. What he means is if all things were living things, meaning that they had to be mortal, then at some time these things must also become non-existing. Aquinas says that if everything were mortal, then nothing could be existing at present, because what is nonexistent begins to be only through something which already exists. This can be translated to mean that if all mortal things have to stop existing then there can't be anything which exists today. Aquinas believes that it takes a living presence to help create other live things in order for them to live also. This means that there must have been something which existed through eternity to help create living things which exist today. Aquinas believes that something had to have created life throughout time in order for things to be living today. He says this thing must have existed from the beginning and that it must still exist now. His belief is that living things and non-living things have lived through eternity with the help of a higher, more powerful presence. He also says that if it were true that nothing existed at one time, then it would be impossible for anything to begin to exist again, meaning nothing could exist now, which is obviously false. What he means by this is that it takes a living presence to help create other living things. It is impossible for anyone to logically believe that things such as rocks, trees, and water can exist without there being a creator. It is for this reason that Aquinas believes that God was the only thing that existed then, so therefore he must have been the one who created everything. This theory does prove that something had to exist from the beginning. The problem I did find with this theory is that it doesn't prove that God exists but that something existed. What I mean by this is Aquinas calls this thing God but he doesn't prove that it's the 'God' that people believe to exist. Most people would agree that God is something more personal than Aquinas' theory of God. The image of God is interpreted differently by many people, although most of these people would agree that God must be all knowing, truthful, honest, loving, patient, forgiving and eternal. The all knowing and loving God is not the same as Aquinas' God because Aquinas only proved that God was something infinite. Aquinas' theory does not prove that God is patient, loving, or forgiving which is what God is believed to mean to most people. The image people have of God doesn't only stop at being our creator. Another problem which I found while reading Aquinas' article is that it doesn't explain Darwinian theories. Darwinians base their theory on evolution. Darwinians believe that God doesn't exist but that all living things have evolved through nature. The idea of evolution and evolving from nature means that there could not have been a creator but that one molecule started the process of evolution. This theory can't be actually be disputed in Aquinas' third way because he only uses the word God to mean creator. Darwinians could say that the first molecule could also be called "God" if people wished, although it wouldn't be the form of God Christians believe in. In both theories, Aquinas' and Darwin's, infinite regression is used. Both of these theories lead to different ideas of where existing things came from. Aquinas third way has some small problems which can be argued by atheists and orthodox Christians. I agree with what Aquinas had to say in his third way to be true. I believe that it must be true because all things must have had a creator. While speaking to an Anglican pastor, I learned that he also agreed in Aquinas' theory because he was taught that the question would still remain of who created the molecule. The question will always remain how did God evolve. I cannot answer this question but Aquinas' theory has helped me understand the process of living things and I is no longer doubt that God is infinite. B I B L I O G R A P H Y Aquinas, St. Thomas. "Does God Exist?" In Medieval Philosophy: From St. Augustine to Nicholas of Cusa, 335-38. John F. Wippel, Allan B. Wolter, ed. New York: The Free Press, 1969. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Does the problem of evil disprove Gods existence .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophers have looked for ways to explain God's existence for centuries. One such argment that the believer must justify in order to maintain the possibility of God's existence is the problem of evil. In his essay, "The Problem of Evil," by Richard Swinburne, the author attempts to explain how evil can exist in a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being, namely God. Swinburne uses to free-will defense and says that God gave us a choice between doing good and doing evil. If someone chooses to do good over evil, then that Good is greater than if one had no choice at all but to do good. This is a weak argument and in order to clarify those weaknesses one can look at Steven M. Cahn's essay entitled "Cacodaemony." This essay parallels Swineburne's, but states that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon created the world. By looking at how weak the argument for cacodaemony is, one can see how unlikely it is that the Demon exists and then can see that the existence of God is just as unlikely. In "The Problem of Evil", Swinburne says that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being created the world. If this were true, how can evil exist in this world? If God consciously knew He was creating a world in which there is evil, then He would not be omnibenevolent. If God did not know He was creating a world in which evil exists, then He would not be omniscient. If God is omnipotent then He would be able to stop any evil from occurring. Either way, God would not be what Christianity makes him out to be. Swinburne argues that the theodicist, one who believes that it is not wrong for God to create a world in which there is evil, can logically explain the existence of evil in the world. The main argument that the theodicist uses is the free-will defense, which claims that God gave humans the freedom to choose between doing acts of good and acts of evil. The theodicist argues that the good person could do is greater if it is chosen instead of doing evil. It is better to choose to walk an elderly person across the road instead of deciding to push the elderly person in front of an oncoming car. The theodicist believes that it is better for a person to have that choice, though nearly everyone would naturally choose to help the person across the street, than to have no choice at all and be forced to help that person. Swinburne writes that giving people a moral responsibility to do the right thing is good. "But if He did so by imposing a full character on a humanly free creature, this would be giving him a character which he had not in any way chosen or adopted for himself" (9). Swinburne believes that the freedom to choose and develop ones own character is a very important thing and each person deserves to have the ability to choose between Good and evil. This, however, does not justify the amount of pain and suffering in the world. If someone were to consciously choose to do an evil act over a good one, the suffering caused to the innocent people involved would not be right. There are some people with mental disorders or those born with retardation that do not have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or who sometimes suffer from lack of proper judgement. These people cannot make a choice between good and evil, so sometimes they do evil acts, and sometimes they do good ones. Would it not be better for these people not to have the choice, a choice that they may not be fit to make? For example, a man who is schizophrenic may hear voices that tell him to do something that he knows is morally wrong, such as kill somebody. Would it not be better for God to intervene and make this person's judgement better? It most certainly would be better for God to intervene and give this person a proper sense of right and wrong and the ability to do the right thing. It would have been a better world if God had created Hitler so that he would not feel the need to order the massacre of millions of Jews. Swinburne, however, thinks that it is better for these people to have a choice to do wrong or to do right. Swinburne argues that, although evils are bad, their existence is necessary for the existence of some types of goods. Certain evils that occur, such as the suffering of others, cause us to be compassionate, courageous, self-sacrificing, etc. Swinburne says that these are goods that exist because of the existence of evil. "Evils give men an opportunity to perform the acts which show men at their best" (10). Someone who sees a woman getting raped may show courage and compassion by trying to stop the rapist. It is illogical, however, to say, that it is a good thing that woman was getting raped so that the kindhearted citizen could intervene. This woman, would still suffer from the mentl tortures of being violated. Even though it was a courageous thing that the person stopped the rape, the woman would be better off if the rape had not even happened at all. Women as a whole would feel a lot safer if rape did not exist. Yet it is an evil, and it does exist, and the compassion ane may feel towards a victim of this evil does not make the victim better off than if there never existed such a thing as rape. If no one were in pain, then it is true that goods such as compassion would not exist. How can it be justified, however, that it is good that some suffer so that others can exhibit good traits? Those people can try and bring others who are in pain happiness and relief, but many others will still experience pain both physical and mental. The woman who is getting raped will still feel mental pain after the good person stopped the rapist. It is illogical to say that it is good for evil to exist so that others will exhibit good traits. It is good that people come together and try to improve and perfect this world, but it is not good that people have to suffer in order for others to try and improve the world. Swinburne also mentions the other types of evils that are not caused by humans, such as natural disasters. The theodicist argues that "God ties the goodness of man to the well-being of the world and that afailure of one leads to a failure of the other" (12). Earthquakes and volcanoes are a way to punish humanity for misbehaving. This does not explain why earthquakes happen, and why so many die as a result of them. The west coast cannot be at fault for the earthquaks that plague them constantly. Many law-abiding, good citizens died in the Earthquakes that rocked San Francisco and Los Angeles a few years ago. God would not have allowed all those innocent people to die. Nor can the thousands of people who lost their homes because of Hurricane Andrew be blamed. All one needs to do is to take a class about Geology or Meteorology to know why these and other natural disasters happen. It would be illogical for God, if He is omnibenevolent, to make many good people suffer because of natural disasters. Earthquakes and volcanoes have existed on this planet long before humans were around. The world was plagued with earthquakes and volcanoes during and before the time of the dinosaurs, hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved and Christianity came about. The theodicist cannot explain why God would allow so much pain to be caused to humans by natural disasters. This presents a serious hole in the compatibility of God with evil in this world. Swinburne also discusses the different types of goods that exist in the world. These goods are instrumental and intrinsic. An intrinsic good is something that is good by itself, such as love or happiness. An instrumental good is something that may not be good by itself, but it can be used to achieve a greater good. An example of an instrumental good would be modern medicine. The existence of the Black Plague in medieval Europe caused suffering and death to millions. It also resulted in the bettering of living conditions. The death of one third of the population of Europe cannot be justified by the compassion felt by those that lived towards those that die. Another example of an instrumental good is penicillin. It was discovered and helped to cure polio and saved many lives. The suffering of the many that contracted, suffered and died from this disease cannot be justified by the few that fought to conquer this disease. It is not a good thing that Polio existed. Even if the theodicist still believes that the existence of God and the existence of evil are compatible, by looking at Steven M. Cahn's essay "Cacodaemony," one will see that they are not. In his essay, Cahn parallels Swinburne's situation of the problem of evil with the problem of goodness. Cahn states that it is equally likely that if an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being created the world, then an omniscient omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon could have done the same. The problem that arises in Cahn's essay is: how could a world containing goodness have been created by this all-powerful Demon? It exactly parallels the problem in Swinburne's essay, how could evil exist in a world created by God? Cahn attacks this problem by using the same argument that Swinburne uses, the free-will defense. Cahn also creates two types of good, just as Swinburne categorized two types of evil. Cahn calls these goods moral goods, those humans do for each other, and physical goods, those found in the human environment. Cahn writes that the Demon could have created a world in which humans do not have the ability to do good, but this Demon has. Cahn writes that the Demon has given humans free-will to choose to do evil or good. If one chooses evil over good, then that evil is greater than if one had no choice at all but to do evil. "The Demon thus had to provide human beings with freedom, so that they might perform their bad actions volunarily, thus maximizing evil"(23). Cahn writes that the world wouldnot be as evil as it could be if the Demon made it so that everyone was just evil. These arguments are not very convincing. Too many people choose good over evil for this to be the worst of all possible worlds, which is what it should be if an omniscient, omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon created it. This world would be more evil if the Demon made us inherently evil and goodness did not even exist. If we were all made with the same characteristics as the Demon then we would be more evil than if we had to choose to come up with those evil traits on our own. This world would be a worse place if everyone just fought and hated each other, just like this world would be a better place if everyone was peaceful and happy. This Demon could not exist because there is too much good in the world, and that good does not get an adequate explanation. Since the arguments for Cacodaemony is disproved, so is the one for the theodicist, since these two arguments are equally likely and equally weak. By looking at Cahn's "Cacodaemony," one can see how improbably it is that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnimalevolent Demon created the world. Cahn's argument, however, exactly parallels Swinburne's in "The Problem of Evil." Both use the free-will defense to attempt to explain how evil or goodness could exist in a world created by God or a Demon. Both arguments have the same strength, as Cahn notes, and both are very weak arguments. If it seems unlikely that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon created the world, then it is just as unlikely that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being created the world. It is likely that neither God nor the Demon exists, and the problem of evil and the problem of goodness wind up supporting the position of the atheist. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Does Video Game Violence Have Effects on Children .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Abstract Does Video Game Violence Affect Children? This project shows if video game violence affects children. Many children between the ages of eight years old and ten years old will be observed before, during, and after playing violent video games. Looking for violent behavior before, during, and after playing violent video games is the whole experiment. The conclusion is that most children have no problems after playing the violent videogames. Does Video Game Violence Affect Children? I think that most of the children will be unaffected by playing violent games. Most children have the ability to tell the difference between reality and a game, so they should act normally. But the others may have their behavior affected because of the lack of telling the difference between reality and pretend. For my experiment I used a Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Sega Genesis, Sony Playstation, and PC CD-ROM. The games I used were Mortal Kombat Trilogy (on Nintendo 64), Mortal Kombat II (on Super Nintendo), Mortal Kombat (on Sega Genesis), Killer Instinct Gold (on Nintendo 64), Power Rangers (on Sega Genesis), Tomb Raider (on PC CD-ROM), and Bishouju Senshi Sayla Moon SuperS (on Japanese Playstation). The first step I used was gathering a group of children ages 8-10 years old (5 girls, and 5 boys), got their parents permission, and made sure they had no idea there was an experiment taking place. The second step I took was observing the children play together before being exposed to violent video games, I looked for any sign of violent behavior. What I consider violent behavior is punching, kicking, slapping (even if no contact is made), and cussing. After watching them I discovered that none of them showed any signs of violent behavior. The third step was letting them play the video games. I had problems getting the five girls to play the games, they refused unless I let them play Sailor Moon first. After that was settled I observed their behavior and I noticed twitching fingers, eyebrows, and toes. Fourth I let them play together again and observed their behavior for any signs of violence. Two days after they went home I called their parents and asked if their has been any change in their child's behavior. Throughout most of the experiment the children have had no "bad" behavioral problems until the end of my experiment. In the last phase of my experiment two of the boys had exibited violent behavior, which was them pretending to fight. Also in the last phase of my experiment two of the girls seemed very disgusted after viewing "fatalities" from Mortal Kombat Trilogy. Also when I called their houses one of the children's parents notified me of unusually violent behavior the day before. The results prove my hypothesis to be correct. Most of the children had no changes but some of them did. I think that if people explain to their children and teach them the difference between reality and a game there would be no problems with behavior after playing violent video games. Also I agree with the rating system used to regulate gaming, because some children are not ready to watch someone's head get ripped off (even if the characters aren't real) at a young age. A mistake I had made were not getting written permission for the use of their children in my experiment even though I did get verbal. Mind at Play: The Psychology of Video Games Elizabeth F. Loftus Youth Violence Michael D. Biskup Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun Geofferey, Canada Game Players magazine Game Fan magazine Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine PC Gamer magazine PC Novice magazine Bill's Child Psychology Net Site Doug's page O' Video Game Violence f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Dreams 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The assignment is to recall a dream and analyze it from one or two theoretical perspectives we've learned thus far in dream analysis. Dreams have been a vehicle to express emotions, thoughts and feelings. Sometimes they pose questions which have been rooted in our conscious. Dreams are personalized works which we have consciously directed and created in our minds and no one interpretation is right or wrong. Weeks later upon receiving this assignment I had an incredible dream of my mother of which I will never forget. It was a beautiful sunny day, not one cloud to blemish the sky. I remember this particular afternoon being warm and bright. The scenery seemed to depict a post card perfect summer's day. My mother and I were walking in a park, a park I've never visited or seen. I felt as if anyone were to stare at us they could see the contentment and harmony radiating from myself. I was watching myself lay down on very soft green grass, but before I did I turned around to see if my mother was still near. I saw myself lay down under a tree. This tree was uniquely beautiful because of its thin twisting, almost fragile looking branches. The tree was unusual for it was bare, there were no leaves, nor was it green. The tree just stood by itself colored naked and bare for all to witness. The birds of summer seemed to favor this unique looking tree by gathering and sitting on its thin but strong branches. I laid under this tree looking up towards the birds feeling happy. I heard myself laughing and listening to these birds singing. Where after I walked towards a pond, a man made pond of gray marble brick. An immense wall lining a narrow stairwell was to its left. My mother was kneeling by the pond wading her hand just above the water, touching it very delicately. This was her pond and her pond had the most incredibly beautiful bright fish. They consisted of aqua blue, yellow and green colored fish with fins that seemed to be as fine as hair as it floated towheads my mother's hands. I watched myself watching her, feeling as if I was invading a private moment and in awe of the spectacle I was witnessing. We left the park and her pond and were on our way home. As we walked arm in arm the weather seemed to be getting darker and colder. The clouds rolling in seemed to be constricting and threatening to engulf us. We arrived an immense bridge which was hundreds of feet above a body of murky water. I felt threatened and didn't trust crossing this bridge and my mother instinctively new my fear and preceded to cross, reassuring me it was safe. I didn't cross the bridge but watched her take her steps alone. She reached the middle of the bridge and it collapsed. I ran towards the edge looking down at my mother as she was struggling to hold on and trying to get a better grip. She was calling out my name, begging me to help her, but I just stood there frozen in silence and feeling no emotion. I saw her fingers turn white as they lost their hold one by one, until she was holding on with just one hand. She turned her head to look at me one last time before she lost the grip in her other hand and fell. I remember hearing no noise of her body hitting the water, just empty silence, but the expression of her face is etched into my memory. Remembering this dream brings up emotions of guilt and was painful to envision. There are many theoretical perspectives one can use to analyze such dreams. Ultimately to find a potential explanation or interpretation of what dreams mean. I have looked closer into the works of Sigmund Freud to study what this all means and maybe find an appropriate analysis of my dream. Freud is one of the most popular theorists today and has developed many theoretical perspectives pertaining to personality. He organized three levels of mental life; the unconscious, preconscious and the conscious. Simply put the unconscious is the irretrievable stuff in our memory, the preconscious if the retrievable stuff and the conscious if the stuff in current awareness. Over lapping this concept is his three levels of the mind which are the Id, Ego and Superego. The "id" is a part of the mind which seeks pleasure, it is irrational and not rooted in reality. The "ego" serves the reality principle and is more rational and connected to reality. Finally, we have the "superego" which is our moral and idealistic principle. It speaks as your conscious, judging and making you feel guilty. All these concepts display sides of personality whether good or bad. Freud believed that dreams or "Freudian slips" were a "disguised means of expressing unconscious impulses or hidden desires." He gave greater emphasis to that of the latent content over the manifest content . The latent content being the unconscious material in our dream which reduces anxiety. Where as the manifest content is the surface meaning or the dream as recalled by the dreamer. Freud's basic assumption was that all dreams are wish-fulfillment's. Freud noted three typical anxiety dreams: the embarrassment dream of nakedness, dreams of death of a beloved person and dreams of failing an exam. In my case I dreamt the death of my mother and felt guilty for not saving her. Freud interprets the death of an older person such as a parent as fulfilling the Oedipal wish. During my dream I felt anxiety and guilt which he depicts as typical for adults as well as children. The female Oedipus complex is a term used by Freud to indicate feelings of hostility for the mother and sexual love for the father. Although I dreamt of death, he states that I do not necessarily mean to have a death wish for my mother. I agree it could have been a reflection of hostility towards her but disagree greatly with the generalization of sexual love for my father. There was a significant emphasis on the description of the tree. The tree looked fragile, thin and naked. This could be interpreted according to Freud as an anxiety of the embarrassment dream of nakedness. Adults repress the desire to exhibit the nakedness of oneself. Freud may have interpreted the tree as a reflection of myself and the birds as spectators. These particular spectators refrain from scolding and make me feel accepted and happy. Dream content may be distorted through condensation and displacement according to Freud. Condensation is the compression of several ideas of the latent manifest content. Condensation is embodied by three characteristics of compression, omission and fragments. Compression is the latent content projecting itself towards the manifest content. Omission is a "guardian" which doesn't let the latent element through. Fragments are pieces of the latent element which does get through. Displacement is the shift of emphasis from important to unimportant (vice-versa) in the manifest content or the replacement of latent item with a remote item. My dreams seem to have a greater emphasis on the 'nice' things such as grass, trees, water and de-emphasized the 'dark' side of the dream leading up to my mother's fall. Freud concluded this structuralization of the dream to reduce fearful or anxiety -provoking situations. Sexuality is a recurring them in the works of Freud and it is believed to be the root problem or feeling in our dreams. Nakedness and sexuality also play a major role in my dream which display symbolic meaning, psychoanalytic importance (latent content). Freud generalized the manifest content to always relate to conscious and preconscious material from the day before. Freud believed that dreams were wish-fulfillment's, of course this is not the case with my dream of my mother falling. He perceived many of our wishes in dreams as originating during our early childhood experiences. This resulted from the suppression of infantile sexual behaviour which recur many years later in our dreams. He distinguished that not all dreams originate in childhood experiences, but result from adult wishes. Freud contributed to the works of dream interpretation and his is just one of many insights to the mystical world of dreams. Everyone has their interpretative analysis and no one answer is right, but we may come closer to a simplistic generalization, maybe even produce a dictionary on how to read your dream. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Dreams.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Since the dawn of mankind, man has been searching for the answer to just one question: Why do we dream? I believe strongly that the reason is not clear-cut and as easy to answer as it might seem. I think that dreams range in meaning and importance. When someone has a dream, there are many possible types of dreams they could have. First of these possibilities is for a dream that involves absolutely no meaning whatsoever. The dream is meaningless and involves a chain or series of events that are unrelated to one another and may be of people or places familiar or not. These dreams are most likely created because of the flash and mixture of chemicals that occurs during sleep. Many times these dreams are actually so bazaar that they have no meaning even to the dreamer. So these dreams are mostly just passed over and ignored. The second type of dream is one in which the dreamer can comprehend everything that is going on but things seem to have no meaning as before. But in some of these dreams, there are symbols that come into play. When you look at these dreams sometimes they can represent real life events. Often these are predictions about what could happen in the future or are an interpretation of things that have passed. These, like almost all other dreams have significance as a result of bodily rejuvenation processes. This type of dream has a significance I believe in helping the person have the feeling of a good sleep, where things have, if not in some bazaar way, been resolved. The third type of dream is one which makes great and perfect sense to the dreamer but doesn't have any real meaning. An example of this is dreaming that you are flying. Although you know what you are doing, and are comprehending this, it really doesn't have meaning in your life. Dreams like this can be quite mentally satisfying to the dreamer. Many times a dream like this can be almost a form of entertainment to the dreamer, especially if the dreamer realizes they are dreaming. When this happens sometimes the dreamer will take control of their dream and can do things they would not normally be able to do in real life. Another type of dream is one where the dream has full meaning and the dreamer can fully realize everything that happens. Dreams like this can show exactly the way things could happen in the future, or ways of dealing with problems that will occur or have occurred. Many people believe that a dream of this kind could be an actual depiction of the way things will happen. Many people swear to this belief. I personally do believe in this possibility. Basically, I believe that people have not even begun to realize the potential of the human mind. I think that even with as much as we know about technology, it cannot even compare to the power and unlimited ability of the human mind. I believe that many times, our dreams can actually be predictions about the future. Also, I personally believe that the mind can actually solve problems while in a sleep state. I know that sometimes I have gone to sleep with a problem planted in my mind, and would awaken having dreamt of an answer. Many times this would help me to more clearly confront the problem and resolve it. I don't really believe in any one of the theories about dreaming myself, but rather think that a mixture of all of them is true. What it comes down to is that dreaming is a chemical process that at the same time generates a side-effect that we call dreaming. But the brain itself actually will control this so that it sometimes has meaning to us. I believe that subconsciously we have areas of the brain that are in-tune to things beyond normal comprehension. These areas develop the real meaning of dreams and their significance in our lives. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Dualism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dualism I believe that the popular or "ghost in the machine" form of substance dualism best solves the mind body problem. My views in this area have been influenced by my twelve years of Catholic education. The soul, or mind, depending on your level of belief, was a complete and separate entity and was the center of a human being. The body was an ambulatory device that the soul directed. The idea that the mind is a separate entity and that it is independent of the physical body is the central point of substance dualism. Churchland explains that substance dualism claims that the mind is a distinct nonphysical thing, a complete nonphysical entity that is independent of any physical body to which it is temporarily attached. Any and all mental states and activities, as well as physical ones, originate from this unique entity. Substance dualism states that the real essence of you has nothing to do with your physical body, but rather from the distinct nonphysical entity of the mind. The mind is in constant interaction with the body. The body's sense organs create experiences in the mind. The desires and decisions of the mind cause the body to act in certain ways. This is what makes each mind's body its own. The popular or "ghost in the machine" form of substance dualism states that a person is a "ghost in a machine", the ghost being the mind or spirit and the machine is the body. Within this description, the mind/spirit controls the body and is in intimate contact with the brain. The brain would be the nexus between the mind and body. The popular form of substance dualism was adopted after the difficulties of Cartesian dualism could not be overcome. Rene Descartes stated that the nonphysical and the physical could not interact. this became a problem in dualism since the nonphysical mind needed to interact with the physical body. These difficulties provided a motive for the move to popular substance dualism. The first major argument for substance dualism is religion. Each of the major religions place belief in life after death; that there is an immortal soul that will survive death. This very closely resembles substance dualism. The mind can be substituted for the immortal soul. In fact the two are almost interchangeable. This argument is primarily the basis for my own belief in substance dualism. My personal experiences as a religion student give me insight into this argument. The second major argument for substance dualism is irreducibility. this points to a variety of mental phenomena that no physical explanation could account for what is going on. An example would be the quality and meaningful content of human thoughts and beliefs. These things cannot be reduced to purely physical terms, hence irreducibility. This is also another good argument that I can understand from personal experiences. I cannot reduce my reactions and feelings toward how a steak tastes to a mathematical equation. This is the same idea. The final argument for substance dualism is parapsychological phenomena. Mental powers such as telepathy, precognition, telekinesis, and clairvoyance are all near impossible to explain within the boundaries of physics and psychology. These phenomena reflect the nonphysical and supernatural nature that dualism gives to the mind. Because I believe in these phenomena, it seems logical to me that parapsychology is an excellent argument for substance dualism. These arguments give a good basis for a philosopher to believe in substance dualism. However there are also serious arguments against it The first major argument against dualism is simplicity. Materialists state that because their view is simpler (they only believe in one thing- that which is physical) it is more rational to subscribe to their view. The materialist point of view is also easier to prove because there is no doubt that physical matter exists, while nonphysical matter is currently a hypothesis. This argument seems very illogical to me. Philosophical views should be chosen because one makes more sense to you, not because one has a smaller number of ideas within it. The second major argument against substance dualism is explanatory impotence. Materialists can explain anything physical through scientific study, whereas dualists can explain nothing because no theory has ever been formulated. Churchland says, "...dualism is less a theory of mind than it is an empty space waiting for a genuine theory of mind to be put in". I see one flaw with the materialist theory here. The mind in the dualist theory may use a form of energy transfer not yet discovered by science. Centuries ago, undiscovered forms of science were refuted and called "magic". In the future, The mind may become completely understood by science. The third argument against substance dualism is neural dependence. That the mental capacities depend on the brain's neural activities. The materialists show that the mind is altered when the brain is altered by drugs or injuries. I would explain this by saying that since the mind is a separate nonphysical entity and cannot interact with physical matter, it needs a focal point to control the body from. This focal point is the brain. The mind and the brain are so intimately intertwined any disruption of the brain will affect the mind. The Final argument against substance dualism is evolutionary history. The materialist states that human beings have been incrementally built up from simpler physical creatures. This is evolution. Because this is a pure physical process and the simpler creatures we were constructed from had no nonphysical mind, there is no way to account for our mind. This is a difficult argument to win. The only rebuttal I can give is that because we are a pinnacle of evolution, we developed the nonphysical mind along with free-will and our level of intelligence. This may be an extremely arrogant and proud view, but it is the only one I can think of. I believe that the strength of dualism's positive arguments outweighs is detractions. Works Cited Churchland, Paul M. Matter and Consciousness. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1994 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Early To Bed.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Early to Bed "Early to bed early to rise makes a man healthy wealthy and wise," is one of the most widely quoted proverbs from Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac. This proverb is seldom disputed however I fail to see the logic behind it. I think that he who goes to bed early misses out on a lot of things and must be antisocial. Let us just say that everybody in the world sleeps eight hours a day, and every one goes to bed at about eleven and gets up around seven but he who wishes to be healthy, wealthy , and wise goes to bed around eight and wake up at about four. He would still get the same amount of sleep as the rest of the world because not only did he go to bed early but he got up early too so that destroys the logic that he would get more sleep and therefore feel healthier. If you were to sleep longer than the average person you might be able to think more clearly which over time might improve ones physical and mental health which I suppose could be interpreted as wisdom, but as we have established early to bed early to rise does not result in more sleep. Perhaps if one were to wake up before the rest of the world they would have peace and quiet which would give them an opportunity to read which could make one more wise, but who can really learn that early in the morning? Who exactly is going to become wealthier as a result of going to sleep earlier and waking up earlier? I think that the average business person would become less wealthy as a result of going to bed and getting up early. It would be pointless for a company to open before the average consumer is even awake and it would be foolish to miss out on business due to closing early so one's employees could get to bed early. I suppose that if one were a cat burglar one might become more wealthy by conducting business while most of the world is still in asleep, but I think most of the world would miss out on business by having hours that conflicted with the rest of the world's. Early to bed early to rise makes a man healthy wealthy and wise? Well it has yet to be proven. Perhaps early to bed late to rise might improve one's health. It's baffleing to determine how one is to obtain wisdom merely by going to bed early and getting up early, unless maybe there are some really good documentaries on P.B.S. really early in the morning. If one enjoys being alone waking up early might be the thing to do but one should not be mislead by the proverb. Early to bed early to rise won't make you healthy, wealthy or wise. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Edgar Allan Poe.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Edgar Allan Poe Edgar Allan Poe was born near London on the 19th of January 1809. His mother was an actor and his father was a doctor. When Poe was 2 years old his father disappeared. His mother, who was seriously ill in tuberculosis, took Poe and his sister to Richmond, Virginia. Poe's mother died soon after this. The two siblings became then separated and Poe was taken care of by the wealthy family of the Allans. Due to Mr. Allans work the family had to move to England, where they spent five years. In 1826 Poe started at "The University of Virginia". Although he was a good student he didn't succeed due to his gambling, fighting and drinking. When Mr. Allan found out about this Poe had to finish school and start working in Mr. Allan's tobaccoshop. After some time Poe moved to Boston where he started publishing his small poems and short stories in newspapers. In 1827, Poe's first book "Tamberlane and other poems" came under the pseudonym of "A Bostonian". These poems were very influenced by Byron and showed a youthful attitude. Later the same year he joined the army. He succeeded there and In 1829 he signed for an officer-training. This was the same year as he published his second book "Al Aaraaf, Tamberlane and minor poems" but this time under the name of Edgar A Poe. Before he left his training he got financial help from the other cadets to publish his third version of the book, although Poe called this book a second version. In this book there are famous poems as "To Helen" and "Israfel". These poems show the musical effect that has come to characterize Poe's poems. Later Poe moved to Baltimore to live with his ant. There he married his cousin who was only 13 years old. Then Poe moved to New York to become famous, but with almost no success. Poe had after 1837 his best period with his greatest works as "The murders in the Rue Morgue" (1841) and "The fall of the house of Usher" (1839). Poe's wife passed away in 1847, and Poe took it hard. Yet he continued with his writing until he died the on 7th October 1849 by alcoholic poisoning. Edgar Allan Poe was mostly known for his analytic and criticising analyses. It was them which gave him respect as a critic. Poe was influenced by the British 18th century's romantic horror short stories. That is why he wrote those. He was also very influenced by Jules Verne, Rudyard Kipling and Conan Doyle. Especially their early works, before the had found their own style. Poe was fascinated by the mystical and the unknown. He was also interested in the human subconscious and why a human being react in a certain way at a certain time. His stories are often about dark castles and castle-ruins which often have secrets buried deep down in the walls where they have been for centuries. Most likely in a moonlit desert landscape. Magical experiments and hypnosis play a big part in Poe's works. Many people thinks that Edgar Allan Poe was one of the first detective story writer with the short story "The murders in the Rue morgue", where the detective Monsieur Dupin solves a strange homicide case where a giant monkey is the murderer. This short story is a bit different because there is for example a three-page laying out about algae and mosses in the story. Poe had a rhythmic and floating language in his texts and to show this, I have a couple of excerpts from the poem "The Raven". There are also examples of the mystical that often is found in Poe's productions. The poem is written in four-stroke iamb. The Raven " Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door." " Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December; And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor. Eagerly I wished the morrowvainly I had sought to borrow From my books surcease of sorrow-sorrow for the lost Lenore For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore Nameless here for evermore. And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain Thrilled me filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before." " But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping, And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door, That I scarce was sure I heard you"-here I opened wide the door- Darkness there and nothing more." " Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning, Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before. "Surely," said I, "surely that is something at my window lattice; Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter, In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore; Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he; Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door Perched, and sat, and nothing more." " Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting "Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore! Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken! Leave my loneliness unbroken! -- quit the bust above my door! Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door! Qouth the Raven, "Nevermore." And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door; And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon that is dreaming, And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor, And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor Shall be lifted-nevermore! " I think this is a good poem. It is typical for Poe. When you read the poem you can directly feel the rhythm. The characterising details are also in the poem. The moonlit landscape (1). The unnatural (2). The mood is also well hold up. It is really unpleasant and frightening. One can really feel the person sitting in his chair in a cottage somewhere. One is sitting and waiting for something to happen when there suddenly is a knock on the door... Nobody there. Nothing but the terrifying silence and the dark shadows. The poem is good and I assume that it is the mood that makes it worth reading. I have also read the short story "The facts in the case of M. Valdemar". It's about a person who's friend is called Valdemar. Valdemar is very ill. He's got consumption. Valdemar's left lung is all clogged up and his right lung is almost in the same condition when we meet him. The main character (The person P--) wants to cure Valdemar by using mesmerism, a special sort of hypnosis. Valdemar is taken to P-- and the treatment is begun after Valdemar's approval. At the beginning Valdemar's condition is improving but after a while he falls into a coma-similar condition where the only words that Valdemar can say are that he is dead or that he wants to die. Valdemar dies in the end of the short story after being "sleeping" for seven months. In this short story we can find good examples of Poe's character. The person P-wants to use hypnosis to improve a dying mans condition. Hypnosis is very typical for Poe. There is also a good atmosphere in this text. It's a bit spooky to read this short story, when the only thing one can hear is how ones brain is imagining Valdemar lying on his bed, dying, and the only sounds are Valdemar's rattling breathings and his attempts to communication. This short story is, like the poem "The Raven", good if I may say what I think. I have also read the short story "The fall of the house of Usher" and I'm going to write about of it. I chose it because it's the most famous short story written by Poe and It is said that it is the best too. The fall of the house of Usher I've read "The fall of the house of Usher" by Edgar Allan Poe, It was written in 1839 and the main theme is horror. It's about a young man who is visiting his old friend from childhood who has become seriously ill. The man is staying there to keep his friend company and he is reading books to entertain the friend. One doesn't get to know the main character because he doesn't speak about himself. The only thing that is obvious is that he can ride but it's irrelevant. The old friend is called Roderick Usher. He is very nervous person when the young man arrives. He also got a hereditary decease that makes him extremely sensitive. He can only eat food with no or little taste, wear clothes of a certain cloth and the smell of flowers and sunlight makes him furious. He also got an abnormal regret. One doesn't get to know Roderick's sister either except that she is even more ill than Roderick. The house where the Ushers live is an old castle with grey and miss-coloured walls overgrown by mould and mosses. But the house looked like it could stay up for several years from now because the walls hadn't begun falling apart. What one almost couldn't see was a fissure which made its way, from the roof, down the wall in zig-zag direction until it disappeared in the sullen waters of the moat . These early descriptions of the castle is important to build up the grey and sad atmosphere. The castle tells the reader that the people who live there aren't rich too. As I just said is that the atmosphere is built up by describing the castle that the young man arrives to. Poe uses sentences like "I looked upon the scene before me-upon the mere house, and the simple landscape features of the domain-upon the bleak walls-upon the vacant eye-like windows-upon a few rank sedges-and upon a few white trunks of decayed trees...". But the description of Roderick is also helping to put together the impression with sentences like: "The silken hair, too, had been suffered to grow all unheeded, and as, in its wild gossamer texture, it floated rather than fell about the face." The whole story is about Roderick who has become isolated in his castle and there he has grown extreme sensitivity to senses. I think that Poe is trying to tell people that they shouldn't isolate themselves. They will then become like Roderick where the only thing that matters is his sister that passes away after some time. Along with that the sister dies, everything falls apart. I really mean fall apart then. Just after that the young man has left the house everything falls into pieces and it is suddenly obvious that the framework was weak although the house looked table. I had major expectations when I started reading this short story and I was not disappointed. It was great. The atmosphere was very realistic and the story was good. The ending comes as a surprise. It isn't at all what one can expect. As the matter of fact I liked all the short stories that I have read that Poe has written. He is really a great horror-writer. Maybe the best. But Stephen King is also great. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Emily Dickinsons Female Transcendentalist Views.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The early 19th century ideas of transcendentalism, which were introduced by Ralph Emerson and David Thoreau, where man as an individual becomes spiritually consumed with nature and himself through experience are contrasted by Emily Dickinson, who chose to branch off this path by showing that a transcendentalist experience could be achieved through imagination alone. These three monumental writers set the boundaries for this new realm of thought. Although these writers ideas were not similar, they all followed the simple idea that "the universe is composed of Nature and the Soul" . The male perspective seen through the works of Thoreau and Emerson, where nature "refers to essences unchanged by man; the air, the river, the leaf" , is revised and satirized by Dickinson's statement that "Of all the Souls that stand create-, I have elected- One" . Dickinson's works were meant to taunt society by showing how a woman, ironically trapped in her "natural" surroundings of the home, could obtain as much power, if not more than any male writer. This ironic revisions of ideas is directed at all male transcendentalists and figures in society. Both Ralph Emerson and David Thoreau used societies stereotype of the true male environment, "nature", to draw their power and write from their experiences. Experience was the most important factor to these writers. The ability "to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account in my next excursion" was the basis of all their writings. "To get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the whole world" was their goal behind all their writings. They did not use their power of writing in order to gain a transcendentalist experience, but rather to record them. Both Emerson and Thoreau chose to contact their true natural surroundings, and experience time alone in the "woods". By being "in solitude", it brought forth a conciseness that "all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence" . Mans views of nature being rightfully his, to do with what he wants, is harshly contrasted by Emerson, who feels that "Nature sais,-He is my creature" . Emerson felt that man, corrupted by society, can over power the fate of over looking his true meaning. Escaping from the wheel of society into "the woods, is perpetual youth". By living in the woods, he found that fusing nature with soul, one can accomplish anything. Emerson felt that nature was an extension of five of his senses, where he could feel the tree moving in the wind as if it was his own body. He stressed the theme of "having intercourse with heaven and earth", or interlacing your body and soul with nature. But, of all five senses, he stressed vision the most. Beauty can only be accomplished through the gate way of the eye, which is where most experiences are derived from. "The eye is the best of artists" , and has the power to display "the simple perception of natural forms" , which is where true beauty comes form. "Nature satisfies the soul purely by its loveliness" . By becoming "a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing. I see all" . Being self reliant on oneself, following the idea that "Man is his own star" , Emerson displays his transcendentalist idea that applies to anyone who would like to follow it. The importance of flowing with nature, and excepting what you are is stressed in Emerson's self-reliance. By following the modo "Ne te quæsiveris extra" , Emerson completely committed himself to "nature". By letting it become part of his soul, he used its power to enable him to transcend into the identity of anything or anyone he would like. This idea is important to Emerson because it transforms "the tradesman, the attorney comes out of the din and craft of the street, and sees the sky and the woods, and is a man again" . Looking at himself as an individual, not as a number lost in a sea of people walking down a street, enabled Emerson to draw power to himself, where he did not have to rely on anyone or anything. He became his own deity, his own master, and his self owner. Emerson contained the ability "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart, is true for all men" , and that in itself is a philosophy which made him stand out from many, and made him an individual. Emerson clearly states in Nature, being in your natural surrounding, the wilderness, is the key to happiness. But fails to recognize that not all human's natural surroundings are the "woods". Although he does admit that a true transcendentalist "does not reside in nature, but in man, or in a harmony of both" , he still focuses on a transcendentalist being in tune with nature. Emerson feels that transcendentalism must come from experience in the wilderness, and then through intellect. David Thoreau also used "nature" for an escape from the wheel of society, where he "went into the woods" in order "to live deliberately". The woods is where the soul and nature combine to be one. Thoreau ideas were the foundations of transcendentalism, where Emerson, and any other transcendentalist built off. Thoreau's works were more politically centered than of Emerson's, but followed the same fundamentals that Emerson held in mind. Thoreau made his trek into the "woods" in order to escape the machine, and leave behind society in order to prove that one can live with simplicity, and does not have to rely on society in order to provide his needs. Thoreau made his escape to Walden pond, where he composed one of his works, Life in the Woods. Through his experiences with nature, he questioned himself, "why should we live with such hurry and waste of life" ? The formulation of these questions clarified his thoughts to produce his ideas on transcendentalism. One should live there life as an individual, and not be weary the mob around him. "Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises" ? Thoreau was much more concerned with his experiences around him. Nature, for him, was a renewal of the soul, where he could confide in. Thoreau was also critical of mans progress, becoming more and more machine like. "Most of the luxuries and many of the so-called comforts of life are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind" . Simplicity was the only way Thoreau found hid way back to the true "nature" of man. He viewed his life as a man who "does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer" , and no one could challenge that or take that away from him. All of his power was drawn from "nature", the nature of a true man, where he could transcend to any point and become anything that he wanted. In contrast to these two male writers, Emily Dickinson proved that transcendentalism can be achieved with out the element of experience, but rather just using imagination and the power of intellect to accomplish her goals. She used many transcendentalist ideas in her writing, but all mostly to show the power of intellect; a women's intellect. Dickinson, ironically surrounded by her societies stereotype of her natural surroundings, "Discarded of the Housewife" , and showed male transcendentalists that she could obtain as much experience through her mind and writings, then as she could, actually being in the wilderness. Through her writings, she constantly proves that yes; she is in her natural surroundings, but the walls and ceiling of her house cannot stop the power of the mind. Ironically being trapped in her house by her own will, she takes all male power and influence from her life, and adds it to her own. She renders her self genderless, because there is no need of digression from male or female. She becomes her own "Divine". The power which Dickinson writes with all comes from her body within. "The brain-is wider than the sky" , and Dickinson proved it through her writings. She wrote about first hand experiences that she never had, transcendentalist experiences, from the inside of her home. There was no Walden Pond to experience nature, and there was no sunset to watch, all there was for her, was the corners of the ceiling of her house. How ever, with the power of imagination behind her, Dickinson could transcend to anywhere she wanted, and she experienced anything she wanted. Dickinson used her writing, and "solitude" from society, to enable her to "Soul selects her own Society" . "The Brain is just weight of God" , her own brain and her own soul, and of coarse, her own god; "Mine" . Emily Dickinson split of the transcendentalist road, to form her own branch, where the power of imagination took the place of experience. Her bold feminine statement to society proved that the confines of ones house is not enough to capture the power of the mind. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Enlightened Philosophers.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Enlightenment -- -The Light Bulb of the 1700's Throughout history many people have changed society with their ideas and actions. Two philosophers whose ideas and actions changed society are Voltaire and John Lock. Martin Luther and Galileo also changed society. John Lock and Voltaire both fought for basic human rights. Voltaire fought for basic religious freedom. He claimed that if god created the Catholic religion and god loves all people, then why does the Catholic religion have the right to torment other religions. As a result of this, Voltaire was exiled. John Lock also fought for human rights. He thought that government should protect the people. John Locke and Voltaire both spoke against a major power. Voltaire spoke against the church while Locke spoke against the government. Thus, change began occurring in both the church and government. John Locke and Voltaire changed society, because now people were beginning to challenge authority. John Locke influenced Thomas Jefferson because Thomas Jefferson believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Martin Luther and Galileo both disagreed with certain things that the church believed in. Martin Luther said that the only way to atone for your sins were through prayer and contrition. In his 95 Thesis he established that salvation is within oneself and that individual faith in God is very important .But the church did not see it that way. The church believed that the only way to atone for your sins were through indulgences. Indulgences were paying for the removal of your sins. Martin Luther was later excommunicated from the church. Galileo also disagreed with certain things that the church believed in. Galileo proved Aristotle's theory wrong about gravity. One night during dinner, Galileo picked up two pieces of fruit of unequal size. He then dropped them and established that they dropped at the same rate. The church had believed Aristotle's theory. Aristotle said that the two pieces of fruit of unequal size would drop at different rates. Although his theory might have been correct, he never proved it. As a result of this, Galileo was put on trial. Both Martin Luther and Galileo spoke against the church. They changed and influenced the future of society because now people began speaking against the church or a major authority. So, as you can see from this essay, the thoughts of John Lock and Voltaire are very similar to those of Martin Luther and Galileo. All four of these people spoke against a major power. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Ethics in the workplace.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ethics in Business >From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be a very lucrative proposition. In general, a stream of orders keep coming in, revenue increases and the company grows in the aggregate. The obvious downfalls to working in this manner is both higher quality expected as well as the extensive research and documentation required for government contracts. If a part fails to perform correctly it can cause minor glitches as well as problems that can carry serious repercussions, such as in the National Semiconductor case. When both the culpable component and company are found, the question arises of how extensive these repercussions should be. Is the company as an entity liable or do you look into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective one would have to look at the mitigating factors of both the employees and their superiors along with the role of others in the failure of these components. Next you would have to analyze the final ruling from a corporate perspective and then we must examine the macro issue of corporate responsibility in order to attempt to find a resolution for cases like these. The first mitigating factor involved in the National Semiconductor case is the uncertainty, on the part of the employees, on the duties that they were assigned. It is plausible that during the testing procedure, an employee couldnt distinguish which parts they were to test under government standards and commercial standards. In some cases they might have even been misinformed on the final consumers of the products that they tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of the employees would fully excuse them from any moral responsibility for any damage that may result from their work. Whether it is decided that an employees is fully excused, or is given some moral responsibility, would have to be looked at on an individual basis. The second mitigating factor is the duress or threats that an employee might suffer if they do not follow through with their assignment. After the bogus testing was completed in the National Semiconductor labs, the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that the parts had surpassed the governmental testing standards. From a legal and ethical standpoint, both the testers and the writers of the reports were merely acting as agents on direct orders from a superior. This was also the case when the plant in Singapore refused to falsify the documents and were later falsified by the employees at the have California plant before being submitted to the approval committees (Velazquez, 53). The writers of the reports were well aware of the situation yet they acted in this manner on the instruction of a supervisor. Acting in an ethical manner becomes a secondary priority in this type of environment. As stated by Alan Reder, . . . if they [the employees] feel they will suffer retribution, if they report a problem, they arent too likely to open their mouths. (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified they would come under questioning and perhaps their employment would go into jeopardy. Although working under these conditions does not fully excuse an employees from moral fault, it does start the divulging process for determining the order of the chain of command of superiors and it helps to narrow down the person or department that issued the original request for the unethical acts. The third mitigating factor is one that perhaps encompasses the majority of the employees in the National Semiconductor case. We have to balance the direct involvement that each employee had with the defective parts. Thus, it has to be made clear that many of the employees did not have a direct duty with the testing departments or with the parts that eventually failed. Even employees, or sub-contractors, that were directly involved with the production were not aware of the incompetence on the part of the testing department. For example, the electrical engineer that designed the defective computer chip could act in good faith that it would be tested to ensure that it did indeed meet the required government endurance tests. Also, for the employees that handled the part after the testing process, they were dealing with what they believed to be a component that met every governmental standard. If it was not tested properly, and did eventually fail, isnt the testing department more morally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that was in charge of installing the chip? Plus, in large corporations there may be several testing departments and is some cases one may be held more responsible than another depending on their involvement. A process like this can serve the dual purpose of finding irresponsible employees as well as those that are morally excused. The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is the gauging of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by this product. Since National Semiconductor was repeatedly being reinstated to the listed of approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the level of seriousness, in the opinion of For the contractor approval committees, is not of monumental importance. Yet one has to wonder how this case would have been different if the lack of testing did cause the loss of life in either a domestic or foreign military setting. Perhaps the repercussions would have come faster much more stringent. The fact that National Semiconductor did not cause a death does not make them a safe company. They are still to be held responsible for any errors that their products cause, no matter the magnitude. As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility, mitigating factors and excusing factors, they would argue that the entity of the corporation as a whole should be held responsible. The executives within a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of the employees responsible into a public forum. A company should be reprimanded and be left alone to carry out its own internal investigation and repercussions. From a business law perspective this is the ideal case since a corporation is defined as being a separate legal entity. Furthermore, the opposition would argue that this resolution would benefit both the company and the government since it would not inconvenience either party. The original resolution in the National Semiconductor case was along these lines. The government permanently removed National from its approved contractors list and then National set out to untangle the web of culpability within its own confines. This allowed a relatively quick resolution as well as the ideal scenario for National Semiconductor. In response, one could argue that the entity of a corporation has no morals or even a concept of the word, it is only as moral and ethical as the employees that work in that entity. All of the employees, including top ranking executives are working towards advancing the entity known as their corporation (Capitman, 117). All employees, including the sub-contractors and assembly line workers, are in some part morally responsible because they should have been clear on their employment duties and they all should have been aware of which parts were intended for government use. Ambiguity is not an excusing factor of moral responsibility for the workers. Also, the fact that some employees failed to act in an ethical manner gives even more moral responsibility to that employee. While some are definitely more morally responsible than others, every employee has some burden of weight in this case. In fact, when the government reached a final resolution, they decided to further impose repercussions and certain employees of National Semiconductor were banned from future work in any government office (Velazquez, 54). Looking at the case from the standpoint of National Semiconductor, the outcome was favorable considering the alternate steps that the government could taken. As explained before, it is ideal for a company to be able to conduct its own investigation as well as its own punishments. After all, it would be best for a company to determine what specific departments are responsible rather than having a court of law impose a burden on every employee in its corporation. Yet, since there are ethical issues of dishonesty and secrecy involved, National Semiconductor should have conducted a thorough analysis of their employees as well as their own practices. It is through efforts like these that a corporation can raise the ethical standard of everyone in their organization. This case brings into light the whole issue of corporate responsibility. The two sides that must ultimately be balanced are the self interests of the company, with main goal of maximum profit, and the impacts that a corporation can cause on society (Sawyer, 78). To further strengthen this need, one could argue that there are very few business decisions that do not affect society in way or another. In fact, with the plethora of corporations, society is being affected on various fronts; everything from water contamination to air bag safety is a concern. The biggest problem that all of us must contend with is that every decision that a business makes is gauged by the financial responsibility to their corporation instead of their social responsibility to the local community, and in some cases, the international community. This was pointed out on various occasions as the main reason why National Semiconductor falsified their reports. The cost that the full tests would incur did not outweigh their profit margins. Their business sense lead them to do what all companies want . . . maximum profit. In the opinion of the executives, they were acting in a sensible manner. After all, no executive wants to think of themselves as morally irresponsible. (Capitman, 118). The question that naturally arises, in debating corporate responsibility, is what types of checks and balances can be employed within a company to ensure that a corporation and all of its agents act in an ethical manner. Taking the example of the National Semiconductor case, one can notice many failures in moral responsibility. National Semiconductor would have to review its employees, particularly the supervisors, for basic ethical values such as honesty. example, ultimately it was the widespread falsification of the testing documentation that caused the downfall of National Semiconductor, not the integrity of their components. In the synopsis of the case it is never mentioned that the employees initiated this idea, it would seem that it was the supervisors that gave the order to falsify the f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Euthanasia 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Michael Wilson FYSM 136-01 9/15/96 Professor Lee Michael Wilson FYSM 136-01 9/15/96 Professor Lee Essay #1: Euthanasia A long time ago, culture was universal and permanent. There was one set of beliefs, ideals, and norms, and these were the standard for all human beings in all places and all times. We, however, live in the modern world. Our ethics are not an inheritance of the past, completed and ready for universal application. We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia. Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be. [Rachels, 56] My position is almost identical. I believe there are some instances in which euthanasia is immoral, but I believe it should unquestionably be legal. In the following paragraphs, I will display the position of the opposition to the legality of euthanasia as well as the position of the supporters. I shall attempt to prove that, yes, euthanasia should be legal. There is a strong opposition against the legalization of euthanasia. The main argument against the legality of euthanasia is sometimes known as the slippery slope argument. People argue that if euthanasia was legally permitted, it would lead to a general decline in the respect for human life. It is professed that we would kill people in the beginning simply to put them out of extreme agony. This is the ideal. But the opposition states that the killing of people wouldn't stop here. The killing could perhaps escalate to mass murder of innocent victims. When would the killing stop? This is what scares the opponent. The opponents argue that once something is accepted, we have no right to deny other similar practices. This is when doctors and patients would start taking advantage of the new law. Therefore, the first step should not be taken. I disagree with this notion and believe that there would hardly be any abuse of the new law. I have formed three reasons why euthanasia ought to be legal. First, history tells us that mercy killers have generally been let off easy in court. In the case of Hans Florian, a man who shot his elderly wife to death because she had lost her mind to Alzheimer's disease, the grand jury refused to indict him. His argument was that he shot her because he feared that he might die first and then she would be left alone [Rachels, 57]. As in this case and numerous others, the killers are usually let off easy because of sympathetic jury members or judges. For this reason, euthanasia should be legal, for it goes along with current attitudes in the courtroom. Secondly, the constitution states that were are all allotted our certain unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since we have this right to life, it is our right to decide what we want to do with our lives, and no one else's right to tell us what to do. The third proponent to my reasoning is something called Mill's Principle. This principle states that people should be free to live their lives as they themselves think best, as long as they are not doing harm to others [Merkov, 21]. Also, this principle only applies to people who are competent and can make rational decisions. For if one is not in their right frame of mind, they could make an ill-fated decision on their life. Euthanasia should be legalized because it is inhumane to allow people to continue suffering when they request release by rapid and painless termination of life. Patients frequently suffer agony from pain that is uncontrollable. Administration of death is the only effective release from suffering in these situations. If a person is in excruciating pain day and night, or if they are living vegetables in a permanent and unrelenting comatose with no hope for life, shouldn't they be allowed to end their lives legally. In ending the patient's life, you put an end not only to their agony, but the agony of their families and friends who must watch them suffer. None of this would be possible without the legalization of euthanasia. Moreover, it would put less pressure on family members knowing that the act was committed legally. In conclusion, the advantages of legalizing euthanasia outweigh the advantages of illegalization. It is highly unlikely that the legalization would lead to an over abuse of the rule. Of course there will always be some abusers, but not enough to cause panic. Once again, it is one's individual right to decide what he or she wishes to do with their lives. I believe it is no one else's business to have the final say in what you do with your life. If a person is on their death bed and wishes to end there existence before matters complicate, they should legally have that right. A long time ago, culture was universal and permanent. There was one set of beliefs, ideals, and norms, and these were the standard for all human beings in all places and all times. We, however, live in the modern world. Our ethics are not an inheritance of the past, completed and ready for universal application. We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia. Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be. [Rachels, 56] My position is almost identical. I believe there are some instances in which euthanasia is immoral, but I believe it should unquestionably be legal. In the following paragraphs, I will display the position of the opposition to the legality of euthanasia as well as the position of the supporters. I shall attempt to prove that, yes, euthanasia should be legal. There is a strong opposition against the legalization of euthanasia. The main argument against the legality of euthanasia is sometimes known as the slippery slope argument. People argue that if euthanasia was legally permitted, it would lead to a general decline in the respect for human life. It is professed that we would kill people in the beginning simply to put them out of extreme agony. This is the ideal. But the opposition states that the killing of people wouldn't stop here. The killing could perhaps escalate to mass murder of innocent victims. When would the killing stop? This is what scares the opponent. The opponents argue that once something is accepted, we have no right to deny other similar practices. This is when doctors and patients would start taking advantage of the new law. Therefore, the first step should not be taken. I disagree with this notion and believe that there would hardly be any abuse of the new law. I have formed three reasons why euthanasia ought to be legal. First, history tells us that mercy killers have generally been let off easy in court. In the case of Hans Florian, a man who shot his elderly wife to death because she had lost her mind to Alzheimer's disease, the grand jury refused to indict him. His argument was that he shot her because he feared that he might die first and then she would be left alone [Rachels, 57]. As in this case and numerous others, the killers are usually let off easy because of sympathetic jury members or judges. For this reason, euthanasia should be legal, for it goes along with current attitudes in the courtroom. Secondly, the constitution states that were are all allotted our certain unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since we have this right to life, it is our right to decide what we want to do with our lives, and no one else's right to tell us what to do. The third proponent to my reasoning is something called Mill's Principle. This principle states that people should be free to live their lives as they themselves think best, as long as they are not doing harm to others [Merkov, 21]. Also, this principle only applies to people who are competent and can make rational decisions. For if one is not in their right frame of mind, they could make an ill-fated decision on their life. Euthanasia should be legalized because it is inhumane to allow people to continue suffering when they request release by rapid and painless termination of life. Patients frequently suffer agony from pain that is uncontrollable. Administration of death is the only effective release from suffering in these situatio f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Euthanasia 3.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Euthanasia Mark T. Maxwell Running Head: Euthanasia Abstract This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective will favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective will favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia. Thesis Statement Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. Euthanasia is a merciful means to and end of long-term suffering. Euthanasia is a relatively new dilemma for the United States and has gained a bad reputation from negative media hype surrounding assisted suicides. Euthanasia has a purpose and should be evaluated as humanely filling a void created by our sometimes inhumane modern society. Antithesis Statement Euthanasia is nothing less than cold-blooded killing. Euthanasia cheapens life, even more so than the very divisive issue of abortion. Euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong and should be banned in these United States. Modern medicine has evolved by leaps and bounds recently, euthanasia resets these medical advances back by years and reduces today's Medical Doctors to administrators of death. Euthanasia defined The term Euthanasia is used generally to refer to an easy or painless death. Voluntary euthanasia involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. Passive or negative euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death-that is, allowing someone to die; active or positive euthanasia involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. Euthanasia is often mistaken or associated with for assisted suicide, a distant cousin of euthanasia, in which a person wishes to commit suicide but feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for the death, depending on local laws. There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This paper targets euthanasia; pros and cons, not assisted suicide. Thesis Argument That Euthanasia Should Be Accepted Without doubt, modern dying has become fearsome. Doctors now possess the technologies and the skills to forestall natural death almost indefinitely. All too often, the terminally ill suffer needless pain and are kept alive without real hope, as families hold a harrowing deathwatch. In ancient Greece and Rome it was permissible in some situations to help others die. For example, the Greek writer Plutarch mentioned that in Sparta, infanticide was practiced on children who lacked "health and vigor." Both Socrates and Plato sanctioned forms of euthanasia in certain cases. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an approved custom in several ancient societies . Euthanasia has been accepted both legally and morally in various forms in many societies . "There is no more profoundly personal decision, nor one which is closer to the heart of personal liberty, than the choice which a terminally ill person makes to end his or her suffering ...," U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein wrote (R-1). Organizations supporting the legalization of voluntary euthanasia were established in Great Britain in 1935 and in the United States in 1938. They have gained some public support, but so far they have been unable to achieve their goal in either nation. In the last few decades, Western laws against passive and voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased (1). The proeuthanasia, or "right to die," movement has received considerable encouragement by the passage of laws in 40 states by 1990, which allow legally competent individuals to make "living wills." These wills empower and instruct doctors to withhold life-support systems if the individuals become terminally ill . Euthanasia continues to occur in all societies, including those in which it is held to be immoral and illegal. A medically assisted end to a meaningless and worthless "void" of an existence is both accepted and condoned by the medical profession. In a Colorado survey, 60% of physicians stated that they have cared for patients for whom they believe active euthanasia would be justifiable, and 59% expressed a willingness to use lethal drugs in such cases if legal. In a study of 676 San Francisco physicians, 70% believed that patients with an incurable terminal illness should have the option of active euthanasia, and 45% would carry out such a request, if legal (35% were opposed). Nearly 90% of physicians in another study agreed that "sometimes it is appropriate to give pain medication to relieve suffering, even if it may hasten a patient's death."(R-2) Antithesis Argument That Euthanasia Is Unacceptable With the rise of organized religion, euthanasia became morally and ethically abhorrent. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all hold human life sacred and condemn euthanasia in any form . The American Medical Association continues to condemn assisted suicide . Western laws have generally considered the act of helping someone to die a form of homicide subject to legal sanctions. Even a passive withholding of help to prevent death has frequently been severely punished . And the Roman Catholic Church's newly released catechism says: ``Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder.'' (R-1). The Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association recommends that the American Medical Association reject euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as being incompatible with the nature and purposes of the healing arts (R-2). "When does the right to die become the obligation to die?" asks the Rev. Richard McCormick, professor of Christian ethics at Notre Dame University who spoke recently against assisted suicide at Fort Lauderdale's Holy Cross Hospital. "Imagine an 85-year-old grandmother" with the option of ordering a suicide dose from a doctor: "'Do they want me to ask for it now?' Physician-assisted suicide saves money. ... This is a flight from the challenge of social compassion." (R-1). The issue of euthanasia is not a recent one. The Oath of Hippocrates is said to have originated in approximately the fifth century B.C. and, even then, it incorporated a specific pledge against physician-assisted suicide when it said, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone, even if asked." What of the innocent bystanders? The family, friends or even foes of someone that elects to exercise their "right to die"? It is suggested that a person suffering from an incurable or terminal illness is not complete command of their mental faculties and thereby incapable of such an extraordinary decision. Surely a degraded mental capacity rules out realistic thinking with regard to survivors. How many "innocent bystanders" also pay the price of euthanasia? Synthesis For Euthanasia Euthanasia occurs in all societies, including those in which it is held to be immoral and illegal . Euthanasia occurs under the guise of secrecy in societies that secrecy is mandatory. The first priority for the care of patients facing severe pain as a result of a terminal illness or chronic condition should be the relief of their pain. Relieving the patient's psychosocial and other suffering is as important as relieving the patient's pain. Western laws against passive and voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased, although serious moral and legal questions still exist . Some opponents of euthanasia have feared that the increasing success that doctors have had in transplanting human organs might lead to abuse of the practice of euthanasia. It is now generally understood, however, that physicians will not violate the rights of the dying donor in order to help preserve the life of the organ recipient . Even though polls indicate most Americans support the right of sick people to end their pain through self-inflicted death, euthanasia is one of the more contentious aspects of the death-with-dignity movement . "This is really one of the most fundamental abilities that a human being has to decide if he or she wants to die," says Meyer, who practiced radiology for 40 years (R-1). Slightly more than half of the physicians surveyed in Washington State would approve the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances. A total of 938 physicians completed questionnaires about their attitudes toward euthanasia and assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide was described as prescribing medication and providing counseling to patients on overdosing to end their own lives. Euthanasia was defined as administering an overdose of medication at an ill patient's request. Forty-two percent of physicians indicated that they found euthanasia ethically acceptable under some circumstances. Fifty-four percent indicated that they believed euthanasia should be legal under certain circumstances . Today, patients are entitled to opt for passive euthanasia; that is, to make free and informed choices to refuse life support. The controversy over active euthanasia, however, is likely to remain intense because of opposition from religious groups and many members of the medical profession . The medical profession has generally been caught in the middle of the social controversies that rage over euthanasia. Government and religious groups as well as the medical profession itself agree that doctors are not required to use "extraordinary means" to prolong the life of the terminally ill . The Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliment developed and approved the following substantive and procedural guidelines, or "points" for Dutch physicians to consider when practicing or administering Euthanasia: Substantive Guidelines (a) Euthanasia must be voluntary; the patient's request must be seriously considered and enduring. (b) The patient must have adequate information about his or her medical condition, the prognosis, and alternative methods of treatment (though it is not required that the patient be terminally ill). (c) The patient's suffering must be intolerable, in the patient's view, and must also be irreversible. (d) There must be no reasonable alternatives for relieving the patient's suffering that are acceptable to the patient. Procedural Guidelines (e) Euthanasia may be performed only by a physician (though a nurse may assist the physician). (f) The physician must consult with a second physician whose judgment can be expected to be independent. (g) The physician must exercise due care in reviewing and verifying the patient's condition as well as in performing the euthanasia procedure itself. (h) The relatives must be informed unless the patient does not wish this. (i) There should be a written record of the case. (j) The case may not be reported as a natural death. (R-2). Having choices, including having the legal right for help to die is what's important in preserving the basic democratic fabric of the United States of America. The issue of euthanasia is, by it's very nature, a very difficult and private choice. Euthanasia should remain exactly that; a choice; a choice that ought not be legislated or restricted by opposing forces or opinions. (R-1) Assisted suicide: Helping terminally ill, or "quick fix" for intolerant society? (Originated from Knight-Ridder Newspapers) by Patty Shillington Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service June 15 '94 p0615 (R-2) Report of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association. (Transcript) v10 Issues in Law & Medicine Summer '94 p81-90 (R-3) "Euthanasia," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation. (R-4) Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. (Transcript) v10 Issues in Law & Medicine Summer '94 p91-97 (R-5) The New England Journal of Medicine July 14 '94 p89(6) (R-6) Death on trial: the case of Dr. Kevorkian obscures critical issues - and dangers. (Jack Kevorkian) (Cover Story) by Joseph P. Shapiro il v116 U.S. News & World Report April 25 '94 p31 (R-7) Euthanasia and Medical Decisions Concerning the Ending of Life. by P.J. van der Maas and J.J.M. Delden f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Euthanasia 4.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There has been much debate in recent American society over the legality and morality of a patients right-to-die. Current legal statue prohibits any form of euthanasia, however, there are many moral and ethical dilemmas concerning the controversy. For the purposes of this essay, I will define euthanasia as the implementation of a decision that a person's life will come to an end before it need stop. In other words, it is a life ending when it would otherwise be prolonged. There is an important distinction between voluntary euthanasia where the decision to terminate life coincides with the individuals wishes and involuntary euthanasia where the individual concerned does not know about the decision and has not approved it in advance. I will be dealing specifically with the concept of voluntary euthanasia, for it seems intuitive that involuntary euthanasia is not only illegal but also profoundly immoral. Opponents arguments against euthanasia which fail to substantiate their claims, many proponents arguments highlighted by the right to autonomy, and empirical examples of legalized euthanasia all prove the moral legitimacy of physician- assisted-suicide. Opponents of euthanasia generally point to three main arguments which I will mention only for the purposes of refuting them. First, many cite the Hippocratic oath which reads, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" as a reason to oppose euthanasia. Clearly, the Hippocratic oath does condemn the practice, however, I do not find this as reason enough to reject the moral permissibility of euthanasia. If the premise of the oath is flawed (i.e., if it is morally permissible for a physician to assist in suicide), then a physician should not be prohibited from assisting in suicide simply because of an oath. Indeed, if it is proven (as will be done later in this essay) that euthanasia is a moral way to end needless suffering, then doctors should be obliged to fulfill their patients requests for early death. The second argument that opponents of euthanasia cite is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic of human life being the ultimate value of existence. This argument is vague at best. At the most well-explained level, it says that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved in every instance (because human bodily life is the life of a person) thus euthanasia is wrong because it is killing before life would naturally end. This argument is proven unsound in two ways. First, I believe that human life is distinct from personhood. Many patients requesting euthanasia have ceased to be persons because they are terminally ill and incapable of enjoying the gift of existence. Thus many of these individuals ( and certainly those in a vegetative state with a living will that requests euthanasia) are living lives that are not intrinsically valuable. Second, I disagree with the notion that life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved in every instance. I believe that life is valuable only inasmuch as it is the basis for rational decision-making. (This argument will be elaborated upon later in the essay). Therefore, we respect the value of life by respecting a persons autonomy and allowing them to willingly end their life. The final argument given by opponents of euthanasia is the notion of a slippery slope in which legalized voluntary euthanasia will snowball and begin to result in widespread involuntary euthanasia. The basis for this reasoning is that under a system of voluntary euthanasia, doctors must make the final determination of whether a person can be euthanized or not therefore allowing them to decide if a patients life is "worth" living. Many feel that if doctors can do this to competent people, it could snowball to incompetent patients and doctors may make decisions to euthanize without the will of patients. However, I argue that the moral permissibility of euthanasia depends on a patients voluntary consent. If a patient does not expressly wish to die, then a doctor who kills a patient without the consent of that patient would be acting immorally. From a legal standpoint, the request for euthanasia would have to come first from the patient, which diminishes the likelihood of involuntary euthanasia occurring. Given these two scenarios, the idea of a slippery slope is dispelled on both a theoretical and a pragmatic level. Furthermore, empirical evidence that will be discussed later disproves the notion of a slippery slope. In addition to the responses to opponents claims, there are many reasons why euthanasia is morally acceptable. The justifications for voluntary active euthanasia rest in four main areas. First, society has a moral obligation to respect individual autonomy when we can do so without harm to others and when doing so does not violate some other moral obligation. This is because life is intrinsically valuable only as a result of its necessity for decision-making and free will. Life without autonomy ceases to be of the utmost value, rather, a persons right to choose his or her life (and death) course should be the highest priority. This principle guarantees a persons right to have his or her own decisions respected in determining medical treatment, including euthanasia. The second argument for the moral acceptance of euthanasia rests on the premise of mercy and compassion, two ideals which are essential to human dignity. In most cases when a person requests euthanasia they are suffering unrelenting and continual pain, and there is no reasonable possibility of substantial recovery. It is morally repugnant to watch another person suffer through humiliating helplessness and constant pain when one could prevent it. It is widely considered humane to put animals that are permanently physically impaired to death, yet humans cannot currently receive the same mercy under the law, even when they request it. When we are confronted with suffering which is wholly destructive in its consequences and, as far as we can tell, could have no beneficial result, there is a moral obligation to end it. The third affirmation of the moral legitimacy of euthanasia is that of justice. Euthanasia allows for fairer distribution of medical resources in a society which lacks sufficient resources to treat all of its people. Because we have an obligation to relieve suffering, people have a right to whatever medical resources might be effective in the treatment of their condition. However, the scarcity of resources ensures that not all medical claims can be met, therefore a fair way to distribute medical resources must be found. If treatment must be denied to some people with the result that they will die, then it is better to deny it to those people who are medically unsalvageable and will die soon with or without treatment. The final justification for euthanasia is that the burden of proof for rejecting the morality of the practice should rest with its opponents. It is up to any person or institution wanting to prevent an individual from doing something he or she wants to do to provide sound reasoning which justifies interference. Since it has already been proven that opponents arguments against euthanasia fail to substantiate their claim that it should not occur, then the practice should be considered moral. The Netherlands successful experiment with legalized voluntary euthanasia is further proof that physician-assisted-suicide is a moral action. The Dutch legalized euthanasia partly because they realize that the practice occurs frequently in the status quo and is now entirely at the discretion of physicians. 85% of deaths in the United States occur in hospitals or nursing homes; of those 70% involve withholding life-sustaining treatment. This is certainly a form of euthanasia, yet it is uncontrolled and oftentimes performed without the patient's knowledge. On the contrary, the Dutch system brings the question of euthanasia into the open and allows for regulations which lessen the likelihood of a slippery slope. The requirements for euthanasia under Dutch law are that patients must ask to be euthanized, they must be fully informed of their medical condition, suffering must be intolerable, and the process of carrying out the patients death wish must be performed by a doctor. These stringent guidelines have created an environment where 2,300 individuals have found relief in the form of euthanasia, an number which represents just 1.8 % of all deaths in the Netherlands. Only 1/3 of all requests for euthanasia are honored by physicians, which is proof against the slippery slope argument. A study published by the Dutch government in 1992 further dispels the slippery slope theory. It reported that since euthanasia had been legalized, only 2 cases have been documented where a patient was euthanized without request. In both cases the patient was suffering severe pain, and was terminally ill. Given the large numbers of deaths from euthanasia, this statistic seems to be very small in comparison. Also, in no instance has a patient been put to death against his or her expressed or implied wish. This empirical evidence concretely disproves the notion that voluntary euthanasia will somehow snowball to involuntary euthanasia. It is also powerful proof that voluntary euthanasia can be carried out legally and with no great harms to society or individuals. The unsubstantiated claims of euthanasia opponents, many affirmative arguments supporting the moral permissibility of euthanasia, and the successful Dutch experiment with legalization all prove that euthanasia is a legitimate moral practice. If we do not allow for individual autonomy in determining the scope and extent of medical treatment, then we are sentencing many terminally ill patients to a final stage of life filled with misery and wracked with unrelenting pain. Instead, the moral and ethical course of action is to grant patients who request euthanasia the mercy and relief of a death with dignity. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\EUTHANASIA The Right To Die.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EUTHANASIA THE RIGHT TO DIE: Euthanasia is a very controversial topic. People argue as to whether or not a person who is terminally ill, or handicap, should have the right or not to ask their doctor, or relatives to die by euthanasia. People say that dying by euthanasia is to die with dignity, instead of living an artificial life on respirators and other life support machines. My personal feelings on this topic is one of the minority. If a person is terminally ill, and there is nothing anyone can do for them, why should they have to suffer? Not only do they suffer but their family does also. They will watch as their condition gets worse, and then the vision in their head of the loved one who has finally died many months after they were diagnose as terminally ill, is a memory of a person lying there helpless, not able to feed themselves, get out of bed, or talk to you. One notable euthanasia case would be Sue Rodrigous. She had a disease known as Lou Gehrig's disease or ALS, which is a rare incurable disease of the nervous system. ALS gradually destroys the nerves that control the muscles. The results of which are weakness, paralysis, and eventually death. That is what Sue Rodrigous was suffering from for well over a year. Knowing that her condition was only going to get worse, and eventually, after the pain and suffering, would result in death, Sue wanted to die. She wanted people to remember her as a lively healthy woman, not just a body lying helpless in a hospital bed. With that thought in mind, Sue went to court to fight for right to die by euthanasia. The courts did not agree with her though. Dr. Jack Kevorkian, proposed the creation of a new medical specialist, the "obitiarist," who would assist terminally ill patients to take their own lives, subject to strict guidelines. His patient also suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease. She was in bad shape, struggling to hold her head up, could not talk, and had to communicate using a computer keyboard. She was deteriorating quickly. "She was very smart," he said, a note of sadness entering his voice. Kevorkian built a machine called the "mercitron," a jumble of tubes and bottles that would allow patients with little mobility to inject themselves with a lethal cocktail of drugs. In Of Mice and Men by Steinbeck, there are examples of euthanasia. Candy and his dog were together since the dog was a pup. One of the farm hands pointed out that the dog was no good to himself. The dog was old and would surely die a slow death. Knowing this, Candy agreed to let the man shoot the dog in the back of the head so the dog would die without feeling a thing. " "I don't see no reason for it," said Carlson. He went to his bunk, pulled his bag from underneath it and took out a Luger pistol. "Le's get it over with,"... Candy looked a long time at Slim to try to find some reversal. And Slim gave him none. At last Canady said softly and hopelessly, "Awright -- take 'im." " A day later Candy is talking with George and Lennie, and he says that he wishes that when the day came that he was no good to himself anymore just like his dog had been, that someone shoot him. Of course the most obvious example of euthanasia is at the end of the novel. Lennie who is fond of things that are soft to touch is stroking Curly's wife's hair. He becomes carried away and breaks her neck and kills her. George, fearing Lennie's life, takes his gun and runs into the bushes with him. As the dogs and the men from the farm run after them George realizes that when they catch Lennie they would either torture him, or send him to a mental hospital. George knows that would just kill Lennie. So George takes his gun and kills Lennie with one shot to the head. "And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head. The hand shook violently, but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger." With every example of euthanasia there are some people who agree, and some who are dead set against it. There are comprehensible, and logical reasons why some people are against euthanasia. Most people want their loved ones with them until their day has actually come for them to die. It might give people an understanding that it was all right to kill themselves. While the patient is lying in bed some clinic, or scientist, might find a cure for the very disease that patient is dying from. For medical reasons they may be able to find out more about a certain disease while someone has it. As many times as you ponder the idea of euthanasia you will find just as many pros as cons. Maybe we have to start thinking like the person in the hospital bed, who is unable to walk, talk, feed themselves, think for themselves, or even breathe for themselves. Even from the perspective of the family member who has to watch their own flesh and blood suffer. O! that this too solid flesh would melt, Thaw and resolve itself into a dew; Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! · William Shakespeare f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Euthanasia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Euthanasia Euthanasia - is it killing or letting die? In the last thirty years, this has been a highly controversial topic, the worldly morals versus the Christian. Although there are certain instances where it is justifiably considered to be letting die, it is essentially killing. § Euthanasia comes from a Greek word, meaning "easy death," and is now often associated with the infamous Dr. Kevorkian. There are three types of euthanasia - what doctors consider to be "letting the patient die," for instance taking both conscious and unconscious patients off of life support, not reviving the patient in case of a heart failure, et cetera. There is also assisted suicide. Dr. Kevorkian and his suicide machine have made themselves known through this technique. The machine injects a lethal dosage into the "patients" blood stream, killing then painlessly within ten minutes. § The first type mentioned above is known as "active voluntary euthanasia." This is where a conscious, mentally competent person, usually with a severe physical ailment, loses the will to live. Many have said that keeping them alive is just prolonging their death, a form of cruel and unusual punishment. They may ask that life support equipment be disconnected so that they can die quickly, painlessly, with dignity. Most doctors are trained to try their best to defeat death, or at least try to delay it as long as possible. But if the patient is hopelessly ill, and would prefer to die, the doctor may consult the hospital ethics committee, and take him or her off of life support. When taken to court in these issues, the doctors defend themselves in saying, "I didn't kill him, I let him die." This is illegal throughout the United States and the rest of the world, but it still is a common occurrence. § The second type, "passive voluntary euthanasia," is done when a terminally ill patient's or a patient in a persistent vegetative state's (PVS) family chooses to take their loved one off of life support. A PVS patient has no self-awareness or any awareness of their surroundings because the cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain, id dead. The brain stem, the part of the brain that controls the major organs of the body, still works, though. A PVS patient will never become conscious again after entering this state, will remain like this until he or she dies. They are not brain dead, however. Technically, in the United States, brain death occurs when the brain tissue breaks down, disabling the lungs and other vital organs, and requiring machines to keep the patient alive. The family may choose to have the patient taken off of life support if they wish, and if the doctors comply, it will be done. §There was a case, though, where the doctor said he had a "moral problem" in killing a patient and the parents took the doctor to court. The judge ruled that removing life support "would be homicide and an act of euthanasia" and said that "judicial conscience and morality" told him that the doctors were dealing with the patient correctly. But the parents later appealed to the Supreme Court and the decision was reversed, stating that the patient had the right to refuse treatment. § The third and most hotly contested type of euthanasia is doctor-assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his suicide machine have become famous for his contribution to this type of euthanasia. His first case, in 1990, involved Janet Adkins of Portland, OR, after she found out that she had Alzheimer's disease. She had seen the doctor on Donahue and in Newsweek magazine, and contacted him. He outfitted his Volkswagen van with the suicide device, and on June fourth, 1990, They drove to a local park in Michigan. The machine had three bottles of liquid hanging upside down inside a frame. One had a harmless saline solution in it; the next had a chemical that causes unconsciousness; the third had potassium chloride, a compound that stops the heart. Kevorkian hooked Adkins up to a tube similar to that on an I.V. She died in less than six minutes. According to Kevorkian, just before dying, "she looked at me with grateful eyes and said, 'Thank you, thank you, thank you.'" The doctor then called the police and reported what had happened. He was barred from using the suicide machine again, but four months later he assisted in the suicide of two women. The question is, though, should euthanasia be legalized, is it ethical? It is not ethical, and in almost all cases, it is murder. In the Netherlands, it is already performed widely and openly. In November of 1991, voters in Washington State had a chance to decide whether or not they wanted to legalize euthanasia, to make legal "dying with dignity." It was voted in to legalize it under the following conditions: the patient would have to be mentally competent, two doctors would have to agree that the patient had less than six months to live, and the patient would be required to ask for euthanasia in writing. But even though it was voted legal, when asked on television, everyone asked said that they strongly believed that it was unethical. Said one, "Rules against killing are not isolated moral principles, but pieces of a web that form a moral code. The more threads removed, the weaker it becomes." Said another, "Asking doctors to kill undermines the moral integrity and confidence in a profession that heals, comforts, and protects life." Dr. Leo Alexander stated that "the problem with euthanasia is the acceptance of an attitude that life is worthless, can be thrown away. That attitude is in its early stages right now, but as it progresses, so will our value of life drop. Anyone, the socially unproductive, the socially unwanted, will be considered useless, will kill off our own species, our morals. It is a way of mocking human life, turning ourselves into God, deciding who is fit to live and die, as we push the real live God out of our lives." Says F. Schaeffer and C. Koop, "Every life is pious and worthwhile in itself - not only to us as human beings, but also to God. Every person is worth fighting for. We must use our constitutional processes, while we still have them, to fight for the rights and lives of our older persons and persons with disabilities." f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Evil from a theologians point of view.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By textbook definition, evil is "What is morally wrong, what hinders the realization of good" (Webster). If that is evil, then what is good? It's "what is morally excellent, virtuous, well behaved, dutiful." (Webster) Philosophers have argued over what evil is and why it exists for thousands of years. They have raised questions like 'How can there be a God if there is evil?' These questions were raised due to God's nature: he is said to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. If this is the case, why doesn't he stop evil? And, since people are supposed to be created in God's image, why are they capable of moral evil? If one believes that God exists, there can only be one answer: evil exists because God allows it, and moral evil exists because God has given us freedom of choice. Evil has been looked at in many different ways throughout the years. Philosophers like Socrates and Plato believed evil was a matter of ignorance. Ancient Persians saw good and evil as two principles, "engaged in a perpetual struggle."(Collier) In reality, evil is merely the absence of good. "The essence of all reality is good, evil is merely the faulty reflection of reality found in a world of particulars."(Funk & Wagnalls) There can be many different types of evil. Two of such types are moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil consists of things like pain and suffering, while moral evil consists of making 'bad' decisions. "Moral evil depends on the exercise of human will; natural evil is independent of this." (MacGregor) The main difference between these two evils is that people are unable to control natural evil, while moral evil depends on their will. Some people even say physical evil is a human necessity; "Without the evil of pain, man would not be warned of illness and of danger". (Colliers) In life, there are times where 'bad' people are better off than 'good' people. Why is this? Some say it is a test for the soul, and rewards await us. "The human family is as one, and its members help one another by their good actions as the also cause suffering to one another for their faults"(Collier). As an example, take what happened to Jesus. He suffered for all sins of mankind, and through this saved them all. But what of moral evil, which consists of things like murder, which people can control? Why does God permit it if the consequences are undesirable? To understand why moral evil exists, the concept of free will must be understood. Freedom of choice, or free will is "the power and exercise of unhampered choice." (Webster) Therefore humans are capable of making their own decisions and doing whatever they please. Freedom doesn't mean an absence of influences, rather that these influences do not force a person to decide in a certain way, and he/she can choose between these influences (e.g. A man thinks a walk outside would be a good idea because he needs fresh air. But, the man is tired and doesn't really feel like it. He must choose which 'path' to follow ) People don't always know the influences that act upon them all the time; some of these are subconscious. Certain people would say that if they knew these subconscious motivations, our behavior could be explained and free will would be nullified, since our behavior would always be predictable. "Advocates of free will do not deny that these unconscious causes exist, simply that it is a positive casual influence added to the equation." (Royce) Let's say, for example, a person wanted to hurt another. This person might not know why, but can still choose not to. Therefore if a person's moral character is well known, his decisions are most likely predictable and not random. Thus, free will is not random, not completely determined, but necessary for the development of moral character. That is why moral evil exists. It is a side-effect of free will. "Christian philosophy has always attributed the presence of evil in the world to the actions of a man's free will." (Collier) To understand, the situation must first be analyzed. Since God is all-good, 'doing' good would be doing something which God himself would do or approve to. Therefore doing evil would be the opposite; doing something which God wouldn't do or approve to. Going back to a previous question, why would God want us to be capable of moral evil? "if it is not a logical impossibility for man to choose good on one or even several occasions, then there is no logical impossibility for man to choose good on every occasion", "If it was open to an omnibenevolent God the possibility of creating beings who freely choose good, and He did not take this opportunity, this would prove that He is not omnipotent.", " If God is all-powerful He should have made human beings perfect. A perfect God should create perfect beings." (Mackie) To answer all of there arguments, one must look at God's relationship to people and what his motives are. What God really wants is to have people like him and to have a close relationship to him. If God created people so they chose good on every occasion, he would be the cause of their behavior. God is known to be 'the source of what good', good itself. Therefore the best choice a person could make would be to have a close relationship to God. However, if God created humans always to make this choice, they would not be free compared to him. Why would he want us to freely choose to have a close relationship to him? "Free will, though it makes evil possible, is the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." (Lewis) There are many examples that can prove this. Let's take one of true love. In case one, a man wants to marry a woman, but knows she isn't interested in him. He forces the woman to marry him and tells her that she will love him. Deep down, this man knows she resents and probably hates him. Now in case two, a man asks a woman to marry him, and she says yes because she loves him. Their relationship is one where their love is genuine and can grow. Now, apply this to God. Because he loves us, he gives us the choice to decide whether or not to follow him. "To have created men without freedom would mean that man could not freely love and serve God, or in any way contribute to his own salvation." (Collier) "You have the freedom of choice to accept God, which is to love Him, or to reject Him, which is to decline to love him." (MacGregor) Despite all opposing arguments, God is all-good and all-powerful. Moral evil is in part caused by free will and free will is the only way that allows true love and good moral character to grow. Some may say that they don't agree with this statement, and, by exercising the gift of free will continue to separate themselves from God. But, if God is the greatest good, why would one want to distance themselves from him? If God is the greatest good, an appropriate response would seem to get to know Him. *** really sorry, but I lost the bibliography *** f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Exestentialist View on Human Condition.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Existentialist View of Human Condition Two of the main principles of Existentialist Human Condition are: That man exists and then creates himself and what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else as well. Lets examine the first principle: man exists and then defines himself. What it means is that man is created on this earth and is nothing but a body, blood and guts. What he chooses to do and to be is what makes him a man. If a man comes into this world and chooses to steal, cheat, kill and lie then that is what that man has made himself to be. While society may see him as a "evil" person, that is what is right for him. Now on the other hand if a person chooses to be generous, kind, honest and loving, society may see him as a "good" person while it is still right for him. According to the Existentialists, a person is placed on this earth with no predisposed "good" or "evil" values, one man is not created with any more good or evil than the next. By the decisions we make in life we create ourselves. Next the second view, what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else. This is a view I really believe in. Everything we do in life effects someone else, whether we no it or not. Every time we drive our car. Every time we eat something, spend money, go for a jog someone else is effected. For an example: a man goes to the store and buys a stereo. First of all the clerk the clerk is effected because they have to check you out, so you have taken some of their time. The store is effected because they are minus one radio from their store. The manufacturer now has to make one more to replace the one that was bought from the store. The manufacturing employees are effected because put the radio together, and so on. On the other hand a man who chooses to steal that same stereo will effect even more people. If he get caught the store, the manufacturer, the police, the courts, the jails and all the people who are involved with those organizations. So now the question is raised "what if everyone acted the same way that man did?" Well there could be nothing but anarchy, no laws, or government. Basically we would revert to a type of Neanderthal type state. This is why many classic philosophers have problems with the Existentialist point of view, because of the "what if" questions. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\EXIST.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For centuries man has grappled with the riddle of what it means to be a person. But the questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? are still unanswered. Yet, while man is still a long way from arriving at any acceptable definitions, there is deep within everyone the hint of an idea of what it means to be a whole person, that is happy, functioning and fulfilled. So, throughout history man has made a continuous search to find out what makes him whole. Every person is different so the special situation in which one person finds fulfillment can't work for everyone. But in the lives of those who have found fulfillment there is a universal pattern. The universal pattern is that those who have found fulfillment have had a willingness to accept change and take risks. Conversely, those who have not found wholeness are characterized by an unconquerable desire to be safe, to be out of danger and to avoid risk. The first step in the search for identity is to answer the question, How do you see yourself? In the play No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre Estelle loses sight of her identity. She says "When I can't see myself, I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist." What a man sees himself as in the mirror largely determines his actions during the day. Estelle had to look into the "mirror" of men to confirm her identity. A man is the number one determining factor in discovering who he is. Each individual must understand that he is responsible for his own pain, misery, unhappiness, or for his own joy. Man is not a product of what people have done or are now doing to us. Man has the power to become whatever he wants to be; to feel as much love or anger or joy as we want to feel. Another subsequent factor in determining our identity is the image, name, or label given to us by society. In other words, what we believe other people think of us. Most people participate in many groups friends, school, family, jobs, clubs, churches and more each contributing to our identity. We have to accept the death of the superman who is alone needing no one, inner directed and indifferent to his surroundings. We see in Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment that when Raskolnkov separates himself from humanity by committing murder that he could not survive. A person needs to understand that they are responsible for their own choices but they cannot discount the fact that there will always be a group that is essential to understanding their identity. There is a far more important area than how man sees himself or how society sees him, this area is where he has the most control over his own identity. The area in which he has most control over his own identity is in the area of what he is actually doing. In other words, man determines himself by the choices he makes. Having this freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Since individuals are free to choose their own path they must accept the responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. In the play No Exit by Sartre the characters Estelle and Garcin thought of themselves as being nobler than what they were, when in reality the choices they made determined one to be a boy toy and the other to be a cruel coward. The Bible also gives us some insight on this point. What made Moses Moses? The fact that he made the choices he did. If Moses had stayed in Pharaoh's court, if Moses had stayed in the desserts of Midian, or if Moses had refused to go to Pharaoh, then he would not have been Moses. We have the freedom to choose and we become what we choose to do. Far to many people are locked into set patterns of thinking and living. People resist change vigorously satisfied with the dull normality of the same routines. One of the most vital ingredients to any fulfilling life is the ability to accept change and choose to risk. Change for most people does not always feel good but it is an important part in growing. Most people fear change because they are afraid of the risks that it will bring. When people do not conquer their fear all growth stops. The fear of growing of old is what kept Estelle from being more than mere a boy toy. The fear of dying kept Garcin from being a great pacifist journalist. If a Congressional Medal of Honor winner had not conquered his fear of death, to jump out of a trench to save his buddy, his friend would be dead. If Moses had not conquered his fear of losing a comfortable life, Israel would still be slaves to Egypt. If Columbus had not conquered his fear of falling off the earth, America would not have been settled. If my Dad had not conquered his fear of rejection, I would have never of been born. People need to look at their fear, consider all the options then move out and act boldly. People can stand outside their fear indefinitely and nothing will change. But everyone has within themselves the resources and the strengths to face and confront their fears, and to become the whole person they want to become, they have to do it. The questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? may never be answered in our lifetime. But people can begin to lead more fulfilling lives by understanding and applying three closely related principles. People must begin to see themselves as being their own self and not just a product of society. After people realize that they are their own self they must realize they are what they do. The final step in living more fulfilling lives is to be open to change and risk. Breaking from this paralyzing fear will allow people to realize life is a gift and they will try to live every day to the fullest. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\existence of God by Descartes.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Existence of God For centuries, the idea of God has been a part of man's history. Past and present, there has always been a different integration consisting of the believers and the non-believers of God. The group of those who have "faith" in God tend to be related to one religion or another. On the other hand, the skeptics find the existence of God somewhat puzzling and try to seek the answers through scientific methods. Even as of today with all the modern technologies and the development of sciences, we still do not have a definitive answer to the question "does God exist?" Among many philosophers and scholars who have tried to answer this question, we shall look upon Rene Descartes' theory on the existence of God. In terms of believers and non-believers, Descartes would be one of the believers. Before we go any further, we must ponder upon several questions. What is God? Does God exist? If such God does exist, then where does this being come from? Why do believers and non-believers hold on to their beliefs as they do? What significance does the existence of God have upon mankind? These are only the tip of the iceberg amongst the vast array of unanswered questions related to God. Though there are so many uncertainties as we have just mentioned, the existence of all other uncertainties in our world may explain why the existence of God is so real to many people. For the believers, God provides a convenient answer to all these questions except for the answers regarding God itself. The following are some of the general arguments for the existence of God. The first argument comes from the theory of design; there are orders in the universe which can't be occurring by mere chance. Secondly, the existence of God explains the arguments regarding the efficient causality; as the world exhibits orderly causal sequences, something had to start it all up. Thirdly but not the least, God provides an answer to the question of the origin of life and its destination after death. ( For the sake of convenience, we shall borrow some theological ideas from Christianity, the Christian God, to exemplify our comparisons.) As an example, God is the creator of all, and there is a place in heaven, a kingdom of God, for those who have faith in God. This helps believers understand their identity and alleviate the fear of death. Now then, let us look upon how Descartes responds to the question of what God is? Descartes' hypothesis on his theory starts with the idea of a God who is eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, and perfect. In his earlier Meditations, he claims that God may be a deceiver; he, however, concludes later that God is a non-deceiver because an act of deceit would be an attribute of moral imperfection. According to Descartes, this idea of a supremely intelligent and supremely powerful being, who created everything that exists, can not and does not come from within him who is imperfect. Moreover, this perception did not originate from the experiences of the world, nor was this drawn from the senses. Rather, he believes that this perception of God is prior to his own perception, and it could only actually arise from a perfect being. Thus Descartes concludes the only remaining option to be that this perception was innate in him. If we assume that God is perfect, then we may wonder why human beings, a creation of God, are created imperfect and liable to make mistakes? Since an imperfect creation was made by God, doesn't this mean that he is imperfect? Yet, Descartes claims that God gave humans no faculty for making mistakes, and we are constituted as a mediator between God and nothingness. The reasoning behind the justifications made by Descartes is related to "free will." Descartes states that the faculty of judgement is not infinite in human beings; human error is not dependent upon God but is rather a mere defect. On the other hand, free will is a freedom to choose which is infinite. Furthermore, he implies that the fact that the boundaries of will extending further than the finite intellect is the very source of human error. From this discussion, it is clear that humans do have the capacity to err. Even if we considered that the above statements were true, couldn't we make an argument about why God has created such imbalance between the magnitudes of the will and the intellect? Then this imbalance can be accounted as a defect no matter what the justification may be; moreover, this implies that God did indeed make a mistake by creating a being that has faculties that lack perfection. From this we can derive at the possibility that God may be imperfect, and this is a contradiction to Descartes' argument of God as a perfect being. In the " Meditation Five," Descartes attempts to prove his hypothesis of the existence of God based on the theory of clarity and distinctness of perception. He begins this theory by mentioning that ideas of certain things which are outside of him have their own truth and natures. These ideas were not fabricated by him, and they have not entered him through the sense experience. Since he knows these ideas clearly, he claims that they are something and are true. Descartes states that those that he can clearly and distinctly perceive are the only things that fully convince him as being true. From this concept, he constructs a logic which supposedly proves his hypothesis; the clear and distinct perception of the undoubted existence of God means that existence is inseparable from God. From this assumption, Descartes jumps to the conclusion that God does indeed exist; however, can this be considered as a legitimate reasoning and be accepted as a proof beyond reasonable doubt? Must everything that Descartes perceives be true as long as it is clear and distinct? Isn't he revolving in a loop of circular reasoning by assuming as true the very point that he is trying to prove? Let us ponder upon what Descartes has said before for the sake of argument. In "Meditation Four," he clearly states that " the will extends further than the intellect " (p85.) He also stated that the faculty of choosing, his will, is finite. If this is so, then the faculty of knowing the truth, his intellect, must be also be finite. Furthermore, Descartes himself acknowledges the fact that he is not perfect. From these premises, I believe that we have the grounds to speculate that the perceptions based on his finite faculties of knowledge hold the potential of having mistakes. In the above discussion, I was trying neither to prove nor disprove the existence of God; I was, however, trying to offer some skepticism upon statements which many people have claimed about the existence of God. Although Descartes embraces quite a grand statement on the issues of God, I felt that his beliefs were biased towards his own perception and lacked evidence in proving that God exists to the point beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that neither Descartes nor modern science have been able to successfully prove whether God exists or not. What's really important, no matter whether such a being exists or not, is that the ideology of God has certainly existed throughout the history of man. Moreover, the power of this ideology of God has proven to be overwhelming among the believers who have faith in its religion. Even for the non-believers or so called atheists, the ideology of God has an affect and/or an influence on them in one way or another. On a larger scale, it is not an exaggeration to say that our society is built on the ideology of God. What is your opinion? "In God we trust?" f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Existentialism and Theatre.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Existentialism and Theatre Existentialism is a concept that became popular during the second World War in France, and just after it. French playrights have often used the stage to express their views, and these views came to surface even during a Nazi occupation. Bernard Shaw got his play "Saint Joan" past the German censors because it appeared to be very Anti-British. French audiences however immediately understood the real meaning of the play, and replaced the British with the Germans. Those sorts of "hidden meanings" were common throughout the period so that plays would be able to pass censorship. Existentialism proposes that man is full of anxiety and despair with no meaning in his life, just simply existing, until he made decisive choice about his own future. That is the way to achieve dignity as a human being. Existentialists felt that adopting a social or political cause was one way of giving purpose to a life. Sartre is well known for the "Theatre engage" or Theatre 'committed', which is supposedly committed to social and/or political action. One of the major playwrights during this period was Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre had been imprisoned in Germany in 1940 but managed to escape, and become one of the leaders of the Existential movement. Other popular playwrights were Albert Camus, and Jean Anouilh. Just like Anouilh, Camus accidentally became the spokesman for the French Underground when he wrote his famous essay, "Le Mythe de Sisyphe" or "The Myth of Sisyphus". Sisyphus was the man condemned by the gods to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, only to have it roll back down again. For Camus, this related heavily to everyday life, and he saw Sisyphus an "absurd" hero, with a pointless existence. Camus felt that it was necessary to wonder what the meaning of life was, and that the human being longed for some sense of clarity in the world, since "if the world were clear, art would not exist". "The Myth of Sisyphus" became a prototype for existentialism in the theatre, and eventually The Theatre of the Absurd. Right after the Second World War, Paris became the theatre capital of the west, and popularized a new form of surrealistic theatre called "Theatre of the Absurd". Many historians contribute the sudden popularity of absurdism in France to the gruesome revelations of gas chambers and war atrocities coming out of Germany after the war. The main idea of The Theatre of the Absurd was to point out man's helplessness and pointless existence in a world without purpose. As Richard Coe described it "It is the freedom of the slave to crawl east along the deck of a boat going west". Two of the most popular playwrights of this time include Samuel Beckett, who's most famous piece was "Waiting for Godot", and Eugene Ioensco with "Exit the King". Most absurdist plays have no logical plot. The absence of the plot pushes an emphasis on proving the pointless existence of man. Quite often, such plays reveal the human condition at it's absolute worst. Absurdist playwrites often used such techniques as symbolism, mime, the circus, and the commedia dell'arte, which are quite evident in the more popular plays of the time, such as Waiting for Godot, The Bald Prima Donna, and Amedee. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Existentialism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Existentialism Existentialism is a concept that became popular during the second World War in France, and just after it. French playrights have often used the stage to express their views, and these views came to surface even during a Nazi occupation. Bernard Shaw got his play "Saint Joan" past the German censors because it appeared to be very Anti-British. French audiences however immediately understood the real meaning of the play, and replaced the British with the Germans. Those sorts of "hidden meanings" were common throughout the period so that plays would be able to pass censorship. Existentialism proposes that man is full of anxiety and despare with no meaning in his life, just simply existing, until he made decisive choice about his own future. That is the way to achieve dignity as a human being. Existentialists felt that adopting a social or political cause was one way of giving purpose to a life. Sartre is well known for the "Theatre engage" or Theatre 'commited', which is supposedly commited to social and/or political action. On of the major playwrights during this period was Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre had been imprisoned in Germany in 1940 but managed to escape, and become one of the leaders of the Existential movement. Other popular playwrights were Albert Camus, and Jean Anouilh. Just like Anouilh, Camus accidentally became the spokesman for the French Underground when he wrote his famous essay, "Le Mythe de Sisyphe" or "The Myth of Sisyphus". Sisyphus was the man condemned by the gods to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, only to have it roll back down again. For Camus, this related heavily to everyday life, and he saw Sisyphus an "absurd" hero, with a pointless existance. Camus felt that it was necessary to wonder what the meaning of life was, and that the human being longed for some sense of clarity in the world, since "if the world were clear, art would not exist". "The Myth of Sisyphus" became a prototype for existentialism in the theatre, and eventually The Theatre of the Absurd. Right after the Second World War, Paris became the theatre capital of the west, and popularized a new form of surrealistic theatre called "Theatre of the Absurd". Many historians contribute the sudden popularity of absurdism in France to the gruesome revelations of gas chambers and war atrocities coming out of Germany after the war. The main idea of The Theatre of the Absurd was to point out man's helplessness and pointless existance in a world without purpose. As Richard Coe described it "It is the freedom of the slave to crawl east along the deck of a boat going west". Two of the most popular playwrights of this time include Samuel Beckett, who's most famous piece was "Waiting for Godot", and Eugene Ioensco with "Exit the King". Most absurdist plays have no logical plot. The absense of the plot pushes an emphasis on proving the pointless existance of man. Quite often, such plays reveal the human condition at it's absolute worst. Absurdist playwrites often used such techniques as symbolism, mime, the circus, and the commedia dell'arte, which are quite evident in the more popular plays of the time, such as Waiting for Godot, The Bald Prima Donna, and Amedee. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Existentialist Darwism and Neoisolationist Rejection in Camu.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Camus's The Stranger is a grim profession that choice and individual freedom are integral components of human nature, and the commitment and responsibility that accompany these elements are ultimately the deciding factors of the morality of one's existence. Meursault is placed in an indifferent world, a world that embraces absurdity and persecutes reason; such is the nature of existentialist belief, that rationalization and logic are ultimately the essence of humanity, and that societal premonitions and an irrelevant status quo serve only to perpetuate a false sense of truth. Meursault's virtue, as well as his undoing, lies in his unique tendency to choose, and thereby exist, without computing objective standards or universal sentiment. His stoic, de facto existentialism is a catalyst for endless conflict between his rationalization- and logic-based existence and that of others, which focuses on an objective subscription to "the norm" ; such is evident in heated discussions with the magistrate and prison minister, who are seen as paragons of invalid logic and the quixotic, quasi-passionate pursuit of hackneyed conformity. No windmills are slain1 in this simulated existence; absurdity of a different ilk dominates the popular mentality, one which would alienate a man based on his perceived indifference towards the mundane, and try, convict, and execute a man based on his lack of purported empathy towards the irrelevant. Attention to the trial sequence will reveal that the key elements of the conviction had little to do with the actual crime Meursault had committed, but rather the "unspeakable atrocities" he had committed while in mourning of his mother's death, which consisted of smoking a cigarette, drinking a cup of coffee, and failing to cry or appear sufficiently distraught. Indeed, the deformed misconception of moral truth which the jury [society] seeks is based on a detached, objective observation of right or wrong, thereby misrepresenting the ideals of justice by failing to recognize that personal freedom and choice are "...the essence of individual existence and the deciding factor of one's morality.2" The execution of Meursault at the close of the novel symbolically brings forth outpourings of emotion, as Meursault confronts his nothingness and the impossibility of justifying the [immoral] choices he has made; he realizes the pure contingency of his life, and that he has voided, in essence, his own existence by failing to accept the risk and responsibility that the personal freedom of an existentialist reality entails. 1 From Don Quixote (1605, trans. 1612), a satirical Spanish novel by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. 2 Soren Kierkegaard, Nineteenth-century Danish philosopher, on "Moral Individualism and Truth." f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\FGM Female Genital Mutilation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reaction Paper IV FGM: Female Genital Mutilation Female genital mutilation has been practiced in country's around the world for thousands of years, and will continue to be practiced, until those that practice it decide to stop. Many people who live in country's that are more industrialized, like the U.S.A., tend to think that no ones believes on right and wrong is correct, except their own. That is what comes up in conversation about FGM. Personally, I am not pro-FGM when it comes to its practice. However, I believe people who want to practice it, should be allowed to, without a bunch of "activists against the practice of FGM" telling them to stop, or even "informing" them about the potential health risks. The reason I am against even explaining the health risks to the people that practice this is, because whenever you have people that believe enough in something to base their entire life around it, there is nothing you can do or say that will get them to change; it would be like talking to a wall. They will only change when the people themselves that live by these traditions get fed up with all the side-effects caused by the practice of FGM. It is every person and community's right to decide for themselves, without the intervention of outsiders, to decide to do whatever they want to do to their bodies and minds. I know, "these women that are being circumcised, aren't freely deciding on this to be done to them, they don't know any better, they've been brainwashed". I have two responses to this. The first is, if they have grown up in this culture all their lives, and this procedure has been done to their mothers, sisters, great grandmothers, etc. on the fear that if it is not done, something tearable will happen, there is no way they would not want it done; no matter how much pain it causes, and besides those that are able to break away from the thought of why it must be done, will do so with or without the help of outsiders. But if they're that committed to the tradition, they will change for no one. The second point is, when you decide you are going to educate these people about how their traditions are wrong and unhealthy, that is saying you know better. You may think they are stupid for preforming FGM, but you must remember, they think you are just as stupid for not performing it. Perhaps, these people that perform FGM have philosophy classes too, where they decide if they should try and make the western countries, like the U.S.A., see the great health risk they are taking when they do not perform these circumcisions; "after all that is probably why babies die and men are impotent in those countries". That is why I believe it is wrong to intervene, in any way when it comes to FGM. These people believe what they are doing is right and OK, thus, what we do is wrong and not OK; to them we are just as wrong, as they are to us. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Finding a Middle Road.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 The concept of sustainable development is an attempt to balance two moral demands placed on the environment. The first demand is for development, including economic development or growth. It arises mainly from the interests of people who live in developing countries. Their present poverty gives them a low quality of life and calls urgently for steps to improve their quality of life. The second demand is for sustainability, for ensuring that we do not risk the future in the sake of gains in the present. This arises from the interests of people in the future who will need access to a reasonable quality of life, non-renewable resources, unspoiled wilderness, and a healthy biosphere. These two moral demands do conflict. In fact, economic growth is the prime source of threats to the natural environment. We have a rough sense of what a good quality of life for humans consists of. Also, we can make some rough judgments about when a person's quality of life has increased or decreased. Utilitarianism about future generations says that people should weigh these increases impartially with respect to times. And, in particular, should not prefer a smaller increase in the present well-being to larger increases in the future. We should try to maximize the sum of increases in well-being across times counting future lives equally against those in the present. Our moral goal should always be to produce the greatest total of such gains, no matter by whom they are enjoyed. Utilitarianism has been extensively discussed by philosophers, and many objections have been raised against it. Two objections are especially relevant 2 here. First, utilitarianism is an extremely, even excessively demanding moral view for most humans. If we have a duty always to bring about the best outcome, than any time we can increase the well-being of others (which is just about at any time), we have a moral duty to do so. There is no moral time off, no moral relaxation, nor is there a moral holiday. Humans are always duty bound to sacrificing something for the benefit of others at a given time. Second, utilitarianism can favor unequal distributions of well-being. In particular, it can impose severe deprivations on the few for the sake of gains for the many. Given its interpretations of impartiality, utilitarianism will count the deprivations of the few as a moral cost. But, if they produce benefits for enough people, this cost will be outweighed. Even a severe inequality can be balanced out and approved of by a utilitarian. Some philosophers, feeling the force of these objections, have proposed replacing utilitarianism about future generations with an egalitarian view. This view cares not just about the sum of benefits across generations, but also about their equitable distribution. We do not sacrifice the worst-off generation for better-off generations, but aim at equality of conditions among them. This egalitarian view can take many forms, but a good version has been proposed by Brian Barry. He says that each generation has a duty to pass on to its successors a total range of resources and opportunities that is at least as good as its own.[1] Those generations that enjoy favorable conditions of life must pass on similar circumstances of life to their future. However, generations that are less fortunate have no such stringent obligations. What is required of each 3 generation is that it just pass on a total package of opportunities that is comparable to its own; whatever the exact composition of that package may be. Barry's approach to the egalitarian view can easily be interpreted as an ethic of outcomes. Assuming this interpretation, is the egalitarian view the best of our duty concerning future generations? There seems to be one major objection against Berry's view. Brian Barry's egalitarian view does not place excessive demands on early generations to make sacrifices for the sake of later generations. That is because it places no such demands-early generations need do nothing at all for later generations. Surely early generations have some duty to enable their successors to live better than themselves. An ideal of sustainability, or of a constant level of well-being through time, may be attractive to think of when starting from a high level of well-being. But, it is not so attractive when starting from a low level of well-being. There is nothing inspiring about a consistently maintained level of misery. Yet Barry's view allows consistent misery to persist. It finds nothing objectionable in a sequence where the first generation passes on a very limited range of opportunities and resources to the next generation, and so on. Surely this sequence of events is objectionable. There may not be as stringent a duty to improve conditions for future generations as utilitarianism claims, but there must be some such duty that exists. Personally, there has to be a middle between utilitarianism for future generations and Brian Barry's egalitarian view. I feel that our so-called duty is only to make the conditions of future generations reasonably good. If people 4 follow utilitarianism, then we will say that we have a duty to give future generations a reasonable quality of life through demanding sacrifices of ourselves. And if people followed Barry's egalitarian view, then future generations may be stuck in the same rut as past generations. That is why a middle-road must be used. By taking these two ideas, then we can see that each generation should pass on to its successors a range of opportunities that allows for a reasonable quality of life. However, it should not be seen as a duty. If it is seen as a duty, then most humans may be turned off by the prospect of taking care of their environment for future generations. If it is seen by humans that our environment is a precious jewel, then we will more than likely want to share it with our future generations. Works Cited [1] Brian Berry, "Intergenerational Justice in Energy Policy." In D. MacLean and P. G. Brown, eds., Energy and the Future Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Littlefield, 1983 pp.274. Resources 1. Barry, Brian. "Intergenerational Justice in Energy Policy," in D. MacLean and P. G. Brown, eds., Energy and the Future Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Littlefield, 1983. 2. Danielson, Peter. "Personal Responsibility," in H. Coward and T. Hurka, eds., Ethics and Climate Change: The Greenhouse Effect Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier UP, 1993. 3. Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics, 7th ed. London: Macmillan, 1907. 4. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Finding a Middle Road 12/12/96 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Five factor model of personality.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The precise definition of personality has been a point of discussion amongst many different theorists within many different disciplines since the beginning of civilisation. Personality can be defined as "the distinctive and characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behaviour that define an individual's personal style and influence his or her interactions with the environment" (Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith & Bem, 1993: 525). It can be proposed that personality psychology has two different tasks. "The first involves specifying the variables on which individuals differ from one another. The second involves synthesising the psychological processes of human functioning into an integrated account of the total person" (Atkinson et al., 1993: 532). There are many different theories of personality and many different theorists. The purpose of this essay is to examine the trait approach, specifically the five-factor model. Both the development and limitations of the Five-Factor model of personality shall be discussed. Trait theory is based on several assumptions. The first assumption is that any difference between people that is seen as significant will have a name. Secondly, these names, known as traits, are conceived of as continuous dimensions. In general, trait theories assume that people vary simultaneously on a number of personality factors. These traits are of both the conjunctive and disjunctive form. Therefore, to understand a trait, it is necessary to understand what a particular trait is and what type of behaviour is evidence of that trait. (Atkinson et al., 1993). Five factor theorists are one set of trait theorists. The claim of five factor theorists is that behaviour can be best predicted and explained by measurement of five dominant personality factors. The five factor theory is a fairly recent proposal and has its basis in earlier work, which shall be discussed. One of the statistical techniques most commonly used in the study of personality is that of factor analysis: By identifying groups of highly intercorrelated variables, factor analysis enables us to determine how many underlying factors are measured by a set of p original variables. In other words, factor analysis is used to uncover the factor structure of a set of variables. (Diekhoff, 1992: 333) A factor analysis will generally show that a smaller number of factors represents the same information as the original number of variables. Once the variables making up the factors have been identified, some of the redundant variables may be removed (Diekhoff, 1992). As such, a large number of traits may be reduced to a number of personality factors. The procedure of factor analysis was a significant part of both the development and criticism of the five personality factor theory, as well as the theories on which it is based. An experiment conducted by Allport and Oddbert (1936, cited in Goldberg, 1990) was based on the assumption that a dictionary contains a list of every possible trait name. Oddbert and Allport took every word from a dictionary that related to personality descriptors. This list was then revised to remove synonyms and unclear or doubtful words. Another researcher, Raymond Cattell (1945, cited in Atkinson et al, 1993) further revised the Allport-Oddbert list to 171 words. A study was then conducted by Cattell on a group of subjects who were asked to rate people they knew on the 171 traits. The results were factor analysed and 12 personality factors were found. However, 4 additional factors were found by analysing self-ratings. Cattell concluded that, in the adult human, 16 personality factors were dominant. Eyesenck, (1953, cited in Atkinson et al, 1993) was another major theorist to use factor analysis. Although using the same basic approach as Cattell, Eyesenck used a more discriminatory factor analysis which resulted in far less than 16 factors. Eyesencks' major factors are introversion- extroversion and neuroticism. These are believed to be ordinal factors and as such, scores on each dimension are independent of one another. The majority of future studies concluded that the actual number of personality factors, for which there is significant evidence, is between Eyesencks' two and Cattells' 16. Since Cattells' study, many researchers have conducted similar studies, or re-analysis of Cattells' original data. Most of the researchers, such as Norman (1967, cited in Merenda, 1993) found support for far less than 16 personality factors. At most, it was generally concluded that there are between three and seven factors of personality. As a compromise, many researchers agree that there are five personality factors, as suggested by Norman's original work (1963, cited in Goldberg, 1990). Support for the Five-Factor model comes from current researchers such as McCrae and Costa (1985) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995). Opposition to the theory is also abundant, such as the work of Jack Block (1995). All trait theorists agree that there is a finite number of traits on which people have a "score". The exact number of traits is still currently a point of contention amongst theorists. However, "today we believe it is more fruitful to adopt the working hypothesis that the five-factor model of personality is essentially correct." (McCrae & John, 1992: 175). There is also still "disagreement among analysts as to factor titles" (John, 1990: 96). Many writers have adopted the names used by Norman (1963, cited in Goldberg, 1990) which are; extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and culture. For simplicity, this is the version of the five factor model that shall be adopted for this essay. The best known limitations of the five factor model of personality relate to the problems of trait theory in general. Trait approaches are directed primarily at specifying the variables of personality. There is little dealing with the dynamic processes of personality functioning. Traits are static entities and more complete theories of personality, such as those of Eyesenck, come from a combination of trait theory with another psychological theory. For example, Eyesenck adopted a learning theory to combine with trait theory. As such, trait theory, and therefore the five factor model, do not deal with a large aspect of personality: change. Mischel (1968, cited in Atkinson et al. 1993) is perhaps the best known critic of the trait theorists. Basically Mischel states that the underlying assumption of the approach may be untrue: people may have such dynamic personalities that they do not possess trait-like characteristics. Mischel also claims that there should be a high correlation between scores on a trait measure for a subject and performance in a situation where that trait is evoked. However, according to Mischel, the correlation is extremely low. Mischel further argues that knowing a persons' "traits" does not help predict their behaviour and measures of the same trait do not correlate highly with one another. Although this criticism seems almost perfect, there is still a large number of trait theorists. Their responses to Mischel's criticism shall be evaluated. The main defence of the trait approach comes in two forms. Firstly a conceptual form in which Mischel's understanding of what makes up a trait is questioned. The second form of defence comes from a methodological perspective, where the measurement of "trait" behaviour is examined. To be able to appropriately comment on trait theory, it is important to understand exactly what a trait is. McCrae and Costa (1995) suggest that not every person has every trait. Therefore it is possible to confuse descriptors of behaviour with traits. There needs to be consistencies of behaviour to evidence a trait. Also traits can be of either a conjunctive or disjunctive type. It has been suggested that the evidence suggested by Mischel is invalid because aggression was seen as conjunctive when it is actually disjunctive. Correcting this mistake could significantly increase the correlation between different measures of the same trait. As such, one criticism of Mischel may be answered. The second defence of trait theory examines the research method used by Mischel. It is proposed that it is necessary to have many more than one observation of behaviour, before comparing behaviour to trait scores. The reasoning behind this argument is that each trait test has at least 20 to 40 items. As such, there should be at least half as many observations. A single question test would be unacceptable and therefore a single observation of behaviour should also be unacceptable. Another possible experimental error may have occurred due to moderator variables. Moderator variables such as sex of subject may change the correlation between behaviour and trait scores. If these variables are controlled for, the correlation may significantly increase and Mischels' criticism may need to be re- evaluated. Cattell's 16pf, the predecessor of the five factor model, also had a significant limitation. The 16 pf had a low predictive power of performance of a subject on a given test, when used alone. However, the personality profiles which can be created using the 16pf are reasonably effective in an applied situation in predicting adjustment of an individual entering a particular group. Also, the performance predicting power of the 16 pf can be improved by giving the 16pf and correlating it to some measure of the person's performance. Multiple regression can then be used to weight each of the 16pf factors so that correlation between the 16pf score and performance is at maximum. This gives a more satisfactory prediction of performance using the 16pf, yet it's predictive power is still quite low. The 16pf is still used in many applied situations because no other psychological tool is available with better predictive power. Since the five factor model is based on the 16pf, this limitation is also applicable to the five factor model. It is possible to suggest that the limitations pertaining to the trait approach and 16pf are insignificant or not applicable to the big five model of personality. However, there are limitations that specifically relate to this model. Jack Block (1995) and Dan McAdams (1992) are the main theorists to evaluate the five factor model specifically and examine it's limitations. Block's criticisms are answered by theorists such as McCrae and Costa (1995) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995). The basis of Block's argument is that it is uncertain that all important trait-descriptive terms are representatively distributed in language. For instance, collectively suppressed traits might be unrepresented. Another major point is that the Big Five are very broad and might not differentiate accurately enough for practical applications. For example, assigning people to high, middle and low on each of the factors gives 243 personality types, which may be enough types but doesn't solve the broadness problem. Block suggests a few changes to procedure should be adopted but admits "my suggestions are mild, obvious and entail scientific sobriety coupled with slow, hard work aiming to educe order from the present jumbled empiricism characterising personality psychology". (Block, 1995: 209). Both Costa and McCrae (1995) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995) suggest that Block has lost sight of why the five factor model was developed. Block criticises the model for not being applicable to practical situations when it's purpose is to describe the full range of personality traits. Block's criticism also "does not distinguish between the Big Five model ... from alternative models of the causal underpinnings of personality differences" (Goldberg & Saucier, 1995: 221). A large amount of crucial evidence supporting the Big Five model is also left out of the criticism. Each reply also suggests that Block's closing suggestions provide few specific proposals of alternative models. McAdams' (1992) critical appraisal of the five-factor model outlines several major limitations. McAdams views the five-factor model as "essentially a 'psychology of the stranger', providing information about persons that one would need to know when one knows nothing about them. It is argues that because of inherent limitations, the Big Five may be viewed as one important model in personality studies but not the integrative model of personality". Some of the limitations described are those applicable to all trait theories and one applies to the 16pf and any theories based on the 16pf. However, two limitations specific to the five factor model are discussed. The main limitation specific to the five factor model of personality are firstly a failure to offer a program for studying personality organisation and integration and secondly a reliance on statements about individuals by other individuals. The extent to which the five-factor model is a major advance in personality study therefore depends on what is hoped to be gained in the field. If personality study is interested in the study of observer's trait ratings, the big five model is extremely useful. If the purpose of the field is also to investigate observers' attributions about individual differences the five- factor model is less significant. If the study of personality aims to emphasise the whole person and the dynamic nature of personality, the model seems to be only of minor concern. As such, from the view of "multifaceted personology, the five-factor model is one model in personality... not the model of personality" (McAdams, 1992: 355). In conclusion, the support and criticisms of the five factor model are not as black and white as would be hoped. Each argument has logical reasoning and can provide evidence to support itself. Each view also has a large number of supporters. Neither one is necessarily correct, as it is possible for the model to be applicable at some stages, and not applicable at others. As a result, it is probable and acceptable to conclude that the five factor theory may or may not be an appropriate model of personality. Perhaps a comparison of how much supporting literature there is for each argument is a useful method for deciding which theory an individual may choose to support. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\formation of an individual.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The formation of an individual: Cases, Terms, & Tools Man needs a polity, and in the same way a polity needs man. This is the focus of the first chapter in the formation of an individual. The formation of an individual is a very complicated process, yet it is a process that is very necessary. Through the formation of some types of government man tries to form himself from his acquired beliefs. The most basic form of government is a couple, but it branches out to entire societies. In these societies there are certain issues that the individual must deal with, the first is oppression. Oppression is probably the hardest of all of the problems that one faces on his road to humanization. Oppression is a single force, held by few, that prevents others from reaching their status. This form of inequality can be seen in almost all forms of government, save anarchism because there are no superiors that can oppress. We saw this oppression in the movie AA Dry White Season@. This movie summarized the problems with injustice, inequality, and oppression. In order for us to become more fully human, and move along on our road to our own formation we must break free from our oppressors. By breaking free, you are not starting a war, or even a conflict, but you are actively participating in your own realization. Before we can break free of the oppression that I just described we must first be able to realize when we are being oppressed. Through a complicated process of influence we gain our own thoughts, words, and actions. It first starts with our own set of beliefs. Most likely the ones that our parents set for us. But after we gain that first sense of who we are, and who we should be, then and only then can we realize if we are oppressed. We must understand the actions of ourselves before we can understand those of others. On the journey to create our own individuality we need to be influenced because after we are influenced we can then Aweed out@ the ideas that most likely conform to our own opinions. This onion is the most effective tool or method in the formation of an individual. Paulo Friere addressed the issue of oppression and why it must be stopped in his essay APedagogy of the Oppressed.@ In this essay he dictates that through education we can and must stop oppression. Yet this Abreaking free@ cannot be an individual effort, but a combine summation of forces. Near the beginning of his essay he says that man must break free of the chains that bind him to his master because this is not how it was supposed to be. By using it I mean his existence. We were all meant to be free. ABut while both humanization and dehumanization are real alternatives only the first is man=s vocation@(28). More over humanization = freedom. Freedoms is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an ideal which becomes a myth. It is rather an indispensable condition for the quest of human completion. Throughout Paulo=s entire article he stresses the importance that this needed freedom has, and without freedom we are nothing more than just shadows, we can never better ourselves but only stay the same unless our master, the shadow caster changes. We must liberate ourselves from this situation, but without mutual cooperation a goal of liberation is quite impossible. Friere says Aliberation is thus a childbirth, and a painful one. The man who emerges is a new man, viable only as the oppressor - oppressed contradiction is superseded by the humanization of all men@(33). It is necessary for men to liberate himself from his master, and likewise it is necessary for all men to liberate themselves. Throughout Friere=s=s entire article we can deduce the theme that humanization is the pinnacle of existence, and like any human being we all seek the pinnacle. But the hardest goal in achieving this humanization is the first step in overcoming oppression. Once oppression is conquered, humanization is a more possible goal. The initial steps in the formation of an individual must the conscious realization of who we are, then we must decipher all of the restraints that hold us back form who we want to be. Next we join hands and begin our quest of humanization. Once we have been humanized through the combined effort of all that seek the same as we do we can then and only then become a free individual. The formation of an individual: Guiding Principles, Choices, & Limitations After we realize who we are and begin our path of humanization we must try to understand why we are oppressed, and once we understand this, we can more fully understand ourselves. Through our own guiding principles, choice, and limitations that we face in our lives we consciously form who we are. The onion once again comes into play here. In fact it might be at this time where it is the most influential. Through our developmental stages as a child to our maturization as an adult we are constantly perceiving the world differently. This is a necessary thing because this means that we are always changing, from now until we die. We saw that this was extremely apparent in both the AChildhood@ movies and in AElephant Man@. In the beginning of AElephant Man@ the elephant man was an outcast--- a societal freak. But as time slowly drug its feet he gained respect from the doctor and eventually gained love from the doctor. In the childhood movies we viewed the perpetual change in the behavior of kids. In fact we saw the slow and painful development of who they were as a person. This ever changing opinion of the world around us can be seen through the onion once more. Influences constantly change our feelings for other people and other things. We are forever changing our views of the world and through this Aperpetual flux@ we slowly Atest out@ different view points. The perpetual flux is the most apparent way that we can investigate the way we form ourselves. Through their changing we are already on the road to a more fully human life, and through liberation from our oppressors human completion is only one more step away. And after all human completion is the goal of all mankind. The founder of this idea of Aperpetual flux@ is David Hume. He says, very much like the onion theory, that we are nothing more than our perceptions. Like the onion, Hume says that everything we see / hear, or even more, anything and everything we experience through our senses changes us just a little bit. Hume claims that since we are nothing more than our perceptions when we no longer perceive we no longer exist. From David Hume=s essay AOf Personal Identity@ comes this quote: AWhen my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep, as long as I am insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions removed by death, and could I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate, after the dissolution of my body, I should be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity@(187). From this I will derive the statement that a perpetual flux or perpetual movement is as necessary as life is to an individual. Anyone who is not in a perpetual flux does not exist. Through a perpetual flux we unconsciously decide what the best method of achieving humanization is. Somewhat like Peck=s theory of development, we constantly test different situations in our subconscious, and before we even comprehend the situations most of the perceptions are already removed. Our sub-conscious is a certain type of filter, even better, our subconscious is a special type of filter that Aweeds out@ many raw ideas before they even reach our conscious. So through our perpetual flux we are determining what the best type of individual is for us. Through an unconscious reality we slowly weed out and pick different situations that all have different outcomes. This is all happening during the formation of an individual, and with this formation process we are that much closer to what we perceive liberation and the humanization of our own selves. Yet we must keep in mind that a changing opinion is good, in fact it is nearly required. Actually, a perpetual flux is required. The formation of an individual: Economic, Religious, & Political With economic, religious, and political influences all laying far away from the beginning / origin of the onion once can only venture to say that they are the least important. If one is not careful these can be the prime candidates of oppression. Everywhere economic, religious, and political oppression exists. In the movie AGandhi@ we saw all of the oppression that was in different parts of the world. And through Satyagraha we all saw the joint liberation and the humanization of all men, at least the ones that participated in the non-violence. From other sources we learned that we do have a say in our own religions and political communities, we must know how to use our powers to our advantage. In the same way that we benefit from our own economic situations, religious standpoint, and political view, we are also restrained by them as well. If we do not have the proper resources [budget project] we are oppressed by money, and all that is attached by money. If we belong to a religious community, or even if we don=t, we can still be the victims of oppression. Whether we are oppressed because we belong or we don=t belong, religious oppression is everywhere. Finally come political oppressions. This is probably the worst one, because it happens in large numbers, and it also happens all of the time. We are often oppressed by the government that we function in. This is where Gandhi professed his beliefs. Satyagraha was a fight for our rights as a struggling individual in an oppressive relationship. In the same way Emerson said that self government is a Areal@ alternative to Political oppression. His basic argument was since we all have our own views, and own our own property, then we all should have an equal voice. If we are not given this needed voice, we must find an alternative. In Emerson=s AThe Idea of Self-Government@ Emerson stresses the importance of a functional government, he does not say Anarchy is the only way to achieve this, but it is a way. He says that man needs a good government, and if one cannot be provided he must maintain his own. From Emerson=s essay AThe Idea of Self-Government@ come this quote about the perfect government. AThe idea after which each community is aiming to make and mend its law, is the will of the wise man. The wise man it cannot find nature, and it makes awkward but earnest efforts to secure his government by contrivance;@(150) This means that the perfect government is at peace with itself and its members, or the Awill of the wise man@. In a perfect government personal rights are also very important, the mutual respect of all is needed in the creation of a government. As the respect for these rights increases, oppression decreases, and peace is closer. APersonal rights, universally the same, demand a government framed on the ration of the census; property demands a government framed on the ratio of owners and of owning@(134). This is a fundamental truth that we all must accept. Everything is relative in our world / society, and in government there are no exceptions. Mutual respect and the active awareness of all is required or government can no longer exist. Not only in political freedom is this prevalent, but in Religious freedom this is obvious too. In most cases Religious freedom is just as important as political freedom, and sometimes religious freedom is even more important. Religious freedom is placed below political freedom many times because their is much more political oppression than there is religious oppression. But this does not mean that religious freedom does not exist. Voltaire writes in his philosophical dictionary that religious freedom is very important. AIf you can have 2 religions among you they will massacre each other, but if you have 30 they will live in peace.@ This is a fundamental truth that we all must understand. If we force people into religion they will undoubtedly start to fight, but if we let them believe what they want to believe, then they will not be oppressed, or thought of as oppressed and therefore will live in religious harmony. And once this harmony is reached humanization is inevitable. It is impossible to deny the existence of oppression and the forceful influence by others in our world. But this oppression must be confronted, whether it be through peaceful resistance, such as Satyagraha, or through bloodied warfare. The outcome is the same either way, you are fighting for a just cause and combining forces not because you are forced to, but because people share the same feelings as you. This is not wrong, yet good to have people join in mutual consent. Like Emerson says, people, as long as they have an equal part in the government, can live in harmony. This harmony is necessary for peaceful cooperation, and the humanization of all men. With religion next, Voltaire boldly stated that religious freedom is needed for a homeostasis to be reached from different viewpoints. Through mutual respect the humanization of all men is not but one more hill on the path towards freedom. The formation of an individual: Conclusion By nature society oppresses. By nature religion oppresses. By nature everything that does not coincide with our beliefs oppresses. There is no other way to rid the world of oppression, but there is a way around it. Before we can understand oppression we must first understand ourselves. Through the Aonion effect@ we gain an awareness of our world around us. As we perceive this world we are constantly changing, always in a perpetual flux. A perpetual flux is most likely the most significant of all of the ways we form our self. The formation of an individual is a long and tiring process, yet it must be done. There is no other alternative. Once we understand who we are through the onion, and all of our perceptions we are now ready to understand the machine called oppression. Oppression exists everywhere, and the only way to break free is to gain control of our own individuality and join hands in a crusade towards humanization. Whether it be Satyagraha or any peaceful resistance, as long as the force is of mutual consent, then the only plausible outcome is victory. And furthermore victory for the individual as well as a victory for the entire brigade. When the victory is won we have broken the engine of oppression, but the machine still exists. As long as thee is mutual peace, as opposed to forced peace, the engine will stay broken and liberation will be inevitable. But if oppression rises up again ABut almost always, during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or >sub-oppressors=. The very structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped. Their idea is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors.@ Such as the switching of roles in the oppressor - oppressed relationship, the engine will be fixed / replaced. After the engine is replaced by this newly found false generosity the gears will turn and the machine of oppression will stalk again. Welcome to the hatemachine? We must dodge this effect and stand tall for what we believe in. Yet mutual respect must exist. Through peaceful cooperation, liberation into freedom has already happened. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\freedom and reason in Kant.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Alice Furnari 24 /2/97 Freedom and Reason in Kant Morality, Kant says, cannot be regarded as a set of rules which prescribe the means necessary to the achievement of a given end; its rules must be obeyed without consideration of the consequences that will follow from doing so or not. A principle that presupposes a desired object as the determinant of the will cannot give rise to a moral law; that is, the morality of an act of will cannot be determined by the matter or content of the will for when the will is materially determined the question of its morality does not arise. This consideration leads Kant to one of his most important theses. If the moral character of willing is not determined by the content of what is willed, it must be determined by the form:" If a rational being can think of his maxims as universal laws, he can do so only by considering them as principles which contain the determining ground of the will because of their form and not because of their matter". Therefore, the morality of a maxim is determined by its functioning as a universal law, applicable as a general rule to every rational agent. Since a moral will must be so in virtue of its form alone, the will must be capable of a purely formal determination; that is, it must be possible for a man to act in a certain way for the sole reason that willing in this way is prescribed by a universal law, no matter what the empirical results will be. A will to which moral considerations apply must be, in the strictest sense, a free will, one that can function independently of the laws of natural causality. The concept of morality, therefore, has to be explained in terms of a universal moral law, and the ability to will in obedience to such a law leads us to postulate the freedom. The freedom which Kant is talking about, is not only a negative freedom consisting in the absence of constraint by empirical causes, it is also a positive freedom which consists in the ability to make acts of will in accordance with the moral law, for no other reason than that they are in accordance with it. Freedom, in this sense, corresponds to Autonomy of the will and its absence ( any situation in which the will is determined by external causes ) is called Heteronomy. In obeying the moral law for the sake of the law alone, the will is autonomous because it is obeying a law which it imposes on itself. In the third section of the "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals", Kant answers the problem of the possibility of the Categorical Imperative. Is the problem to be understood as if the Categorical Imperative is possible, or how it is possible? In the "Critics of Pure Reason", the problem regarding the synthetic a priori judgments concerns just the modality in which they can be applied. The fact that they are actually possible is proved by the synthetic a priori judgment contained in sciences as mathematics and physics which are trustworthy sciences. Metaphysics, however, is not a reliable science and, therefore, Kant suggests that we should look not only for the modality in which they can be applied, but also for their reliability. Similarly, the Metaphysics of Morals must prove the validity of the moral imperative. As Paton suggested, Kant tries to show not only how the Categorical Imperative is possible, but also that it is possible.[" Furthermore, we have not asserted the truth of this proposition, much less professed to have within our power a proof of it. We simply showed by developing the universally accepted concept of morality, that autonomy of the will is unavoidably bound up with it, or rather is its very foundation" par. 445]. The condition for the possibility of the Categorical Imperative is Freedom. The third section contains a demonstration of Freedom which Kant tries to derive by means of excluding at least other two ways. A first would be to assert that Freedom is experienced by us, that it is sensed, but this is not the truthful one, because experience would be the one of my personal freedom and Kant wants to demonstrate that every rational being is free , in order to infer that every rational being must obey the Categorical Imperative. A second way would be to show that every rational being has at least the idea of Freedom, i.e. he is convinced to act according to reason, not only under instincts; he is persuaded to act in this way, because he sees that acting this way is right, because he is determined by his reason and not only by blind instincts. But, if a rational being had the idea of freedom, but were not really free, he would be mistaken even about his reasonableness; he would think he were acting for some reasons, whilst he would actually be like a robot. But, as we saw before, being aware of being rational means being aware of the necessity of acting in accordance with a law , and what we are trying to do is to justify this necessity. Surely, if we consider ourselves to be free, we acknowledge ourselves obliged to follow the moral law, and if we consider ourselves obliged to follow the moral law is because we think of ourselves as free. But there seems to be a vicious circle because, until now, it has been demonstrated neither that we are obliged to follow the law, independently from the conviction of being free, nor that we are free, independently from the belief of being subject to the law. We still have to prove that the Categorical Imperative is possible. There is still a way open to us: " To inquire whether we do not take one point of view when ,by means of Freedom, we think of ourselves as a priori efficient causes, and another point of view when we represent ourselves reference to our actions as effects which we see before our eyes" [par. 450]. The point of view of Freedom is the one from which we consider ourselves belonging to the intellectual world. Everyone understands the distinction between the sensible world and the intellectual world through this criterion: any object whose existence is given through a modification or a passiveness of mine, is given just as a phenomenon, that is, how it appears not how it is in itself. Thus, if something appears, there must be the thing that appears: the concept of phenomenon presupposes the one of thing in itself. The difference between appearance and thing in itself correspond to "the difference between representations which are given to us from without and in which we are passive, from those which we produce entirely from ourselves and in which we show our own activity" [par. 451]. This is also the distinction, shown in the "Critics of Pure Reason", between intellectus ectypus and intellectus archetypus; the former receives from the objects a representation and represents them just as they appear, the latter learns by creating and learning what it has created: it learns it as it is in itself. In the Grounding the knowledge that the human being has of himself through the internal sense does not get him to know what he is in himself . "For since he does not create himself and since he acquires the concept of himself not a priori, but empirically, it is natural that he can attain knowledge even about himself only through inner sense and therefore, only through the appearance of his nature and the way in which his consciousness is affected. He must necessarily assume that beyond his own subject's constitution as composed of nothing but appearances, there must be something else as basis, namely, his ego as constituted in itself." [par.451]. The person finds in himself a faculty that distinguishes him from all other objects and from himself as affected by objects. This faculty is Reason, it is pure spontaneity. Now, Determinism is law of the phenomenal world, therefore, the person, as Reason, as belonging to the intellectual world, is not affected by the laws of Determinism: he is free. This is Kant's proof of Freedom. Is it satisfactory? Later on, in the "Critics of Practical Reason", Kant does not attempt to deduce synthetically Morality from Freedom, as he tried to do in the Grounding by stating that Freedom was the necessary condition for Morality, but he assumes the moral law as a "fact of the reason" from which he infers Freedom. There have been critics blaming Kant of a sort of vicious circle, because he seemed to demonstrate Freedom by means of deduction from Morality and then to show the possibility of the Categorical Imperative deducing it from Freedom. Kant answers that there is no vicious circle because in the ontological order Freedom is the condition for Morality ( it is not possible to follow the duty for the duty if you are not free), but in the order of our knowledge, the moral law is the requirement for Freedom ( we would not consider ourselves free, if we did not think of ourselves as subject to the moral law). Freedom is the ratio essendi of the moral law, but the moral law is the ratio cognoscendi of Freedom. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\freewill and determinism conflict choice.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ We ought then regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its previous state and the cause of the one which is to follow. An intelligence knowing at a given instant of time all the forces operating in nature, as well as the position at that instant of all things of which the universe consists, would be able to comprehend the motions of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the smallest atoms in a single formula - provided that it was sufficiently powerful to submit all these data analysis. To it nothing would be uncertain and the future would be present to its eyes as much as the past. This passage comes from P.S. de Laplace's "Philosophical Essay on Probabilities." If such determinism is true, then everyone's every thought and action must be inevitable; that no one really has any choice about anything, because we are all helpless products of blind forces which have made us what we are. In this paper concerning the free will and determinism debate I will argue that determinism is not plausible, I shall do this by giving reasons for determining how determinism is false, give arguments for determinism, and then refute those arguments. There are those who think that our behavior is a result of free choice, but there are others who presume "we are servants of cosmic destiny or that behavior is nothing but a reflex of heredity and environment." The position of determinism is that every event is the necessary outcome of a cause or set of causes. That everything is a consequence of external forces, and such forces produce all that happens. Man is not free. If we accept the determinist argument and assume human behavior as a consequence of external factors rather than of free choice, then we must realize that our explanation of human behavior leaves no room for morality. If people do not choose their actions, then they are not really responsible for them, and there is no need for praising or blaming them. If determinism were true, then there would be no basis for human effort, for why should a person make an effort if what he or she does doesn't make a difference? If what will be will be, then one has an excuse for doing nothing. Life would not be so meaningful for people on deterministic grounds. "The nature of human life may be such that man must understand himself as being free, for human life as we know it would not make much sense without the concept of freedom." The challenge and struggle usually emerge from situations, such as helping to recycle or reaching out to youths in inner city projects, in which individuals feel that their effort can make a difference. In our everyday lives, there are many times when we have to make decisions; what we are going to eat for breakfast, or where we are going to walk. When we talk or write, we are deciding on the arrangement of our thoughts, and we have to search for the right expressions. Our life, while we are awake and active, is a mixture of important and unimportant choices. Having free will means that we are able to act voluntarily, that we could have decided to act differently than we did. When someone is criticized for looking sloppy, or making an offensive remark, he may try to excuse himself with a "I could not help it" remark. But if he is a normal person mentally, then he could have helped it; he could have acted differently. "The great American pragmatist William James in his famous essay 'The Dilemma of Determinism,' James rejects determinism on the grounds that there is no free choice. James appealed to direct experience to provide evidence of the existence of free choice." Feelings which we all have such as regret or remorse makes no sense unless there is free will. People experience regret or sorrow only because they believe they could have done otherwise. If determinism were true, then people could never have done otherwise and there should be no reason to feel any regret. A determinist may argue that human behavior is caused by environment conditions, general trends, circumstances, and social economic forces beyond human effort and will. "Freudians have shown that men do things not because of free choice but because of deep unconscious forces and libidinal energy or sexual drives. Darwin described man as a product of evolution, as any animal is; Marx showed how man is shaped by economic forces over which he has no control; and behaviorist psychologist explained human behavior of evidence in favor of deterministic thesis." Determinist believes that people believe they are free only because they're ignorant of the causes of their actions. Spinoza makes that point when he says, "Men are deceived in thinking themselves free, a belief that consists of the causes by which they are determined." He continues: "In the mind there is no absolute, or free will. The mind is determined to this or that volition by a cause, which is likewise determined by another cause, ad infinitum." All of his philosophy reflected the deterministic view that we are not free to change the world because we are all part of a grand causal chain, but his philosophy also claims the idea that if we accept determinism we free ourselves from ignorance and emotional servitude. If a person has the capacity to free himself from the bondage of ignorance and emotional impulses and come to agree with Spinoza, then this would seem to be a very significant type of freedom. So it can be concluded that Spinoza was saying something absurd or that he understood the reality and value of freedom. Human experience over the course of history does rely itself on freedom. If determinism is true, why should people bother deliberating about what to do or deciding and choose seriously? If determinism is true, then whatever is determined to happen by the past history of the universe is going to happen. A person's biography was written before he or she was born, so there's no sense in making an effort. Whatever will be will be, whatever the person do or don't do. So then why even bother getting out of bed? Anthony Flew, Western Philosophy (New York: Bobb_Merrill Company, 1971), p. 223. Thomas Ellis Katen, Doing Philosophy (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1973), p. 321. Ibid., p. 386. Ibid., p. 315. Spinoza. The Ethics. Part 2, proposition 35, sholium. Ibid., proposition 48. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Freewill vs Determination.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Free Will Versus Determinism The controversy between free will and determinism has been argued about for years. What is the difference between the two? Looking in a dictionary, free will is the power, attributed to human beings, of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. Free will allows free choice. Yet, determinism is the total opposite. Determinism has this definition: The philosophical doctrine that every event, act, and decision is the inescapable consequence of antecedents that are independent of the human will. Determinism states that humans have no free will to choose what they wish. That seems real extreme and harsh. Even though this is what determinism is, doesn't mean that the determinists are trying to steal your freedom. It's only what they believe because of religion and cause and effect. In religion, many people believe in the existence of a god supports determinism. The basis of god is that he is all-knowing and all-powerful. If free will is allowed, there would be decisions and actions in which God could not know due to the person's choice. This would limit God's omnipotence, which is unacceptable to some. The other argument for determinism is causation, or causes and effects. This argument depends on relationships that should happen with the same results every time, such as a baseball breaking a window, breaking the window. Basing on this, everything in the universe has a cause. And if all the causes and the events were known, then it would be possible to easily predict the future. If everything can be foreseen, then this proves that nothing that anyone does can change the courses of the future. This, of course, is not possible. Determinism says that what you do can be the cause of what your life turns out to be. This can be true. Yet, you can act otherwise that would steer you off that path of where your life was heading. Common sense tells us that we can change, which determinism opposes to. It also says that if we feel we are not forced, we could have acted differently. That is why I choose to side with free will. Determinism has too many extremes and limits that, already shown, is not possible in this world. Free will is the mind's ability to choose with intelligence. That doesn't mean that our choice has all the freedom in the world. Our choices cannot and obviously should not be totally free from our knowledge, values and perceptions of everyday life and the things around us. Our choices are not free from past thoughts and decisions or from outside influences. The freedom in freewill is not the dismissal of these influencing factors: our self awareness, our imagination, our ability to seek out knowledge and project the future, and our awareness of and observing our own thinking. This is our source of freedom. This makes us self-determined, being aware of what we want. The proper understanding of free will is that choices are not free from influences, but free to make intelligent choices. If determinism were true, no person would be able to change his actions, therefore no one could ever be held morally responsible for his own actions. Common sense says that we can change our actions by our own choice. Everyone in this world has common sense. In this argument determinism is definitely not true. One can want to do something, but from past experiences, can stop and not do the actions he had planned. A thief, who finally got caught and suffered two awful years in prison, can decide to not steal after seeing a desirable pair of pants lying openly on a rack. He can restrain himself from doing wrong, after realizing from past consequences. This leads to the next argument. We can and have overcome our desires and inclinations. Both common sense and fact show that we can actively change our behavior. Yet a determinist would say that we only perceive that we can change our actions and behavior. But, that too, is false. Before, I wanted an expensive shirt that I really, really liked, but I, then, remembered the last time I bought a shirt that expensive, begging on my knees to my mom to buy it for me, and I rarely wore it. That made my mom really mad. This would leave me to not buy that desirable shirt, changing my actions ( I really have not bought an expensive shirt, after that incident ). Free will states that we do not feel forced to act. At the time of a decision, we feel we have other choices. A determinist would say to this that such feelings of control are illusions, that we are just ignorant of all the irresistible forces acting upon us. Again, I would have to disagree to that. Noticing the consequences of an action could cause the individual to not act. The feeling of control is not an illusion; we see the actions and think about what may happen if we acted. Free will says that at a certain time we feel that we could have chosen to act differently. A determinist reply to that is that our behavior is already determined by previous events. Therefore we can not change our behavior. Previous events do affects us; we cannot ignore that. But, like the previous examples, if the previous events' consequences were not good, we would mostly likely change, unless that individual was deranged. These arguments on free will definitely does not pertain to all people. Everyone is different. Yet mostly likely, individuals think towards free will. An implication to determinism is that man becomes nothing more than a puppet. That may sound cruel, but it is true. Under the rules of determinism, man must go by past events, doing the same thing he did in the past, right or wrong. He can not change his behavior, unable to let out his emotions. The man has become a puppet, being controlled and restricted. And in everyday life, determinism does not exist in most lives. It is logical and reasonable to say that the all of free will is a measure of our humanness. Whatever we choose will effect our future. But we will base our decisions on what we feel is right, taking in our moral feelings. Free will is a measure of self- determination that people feel themselves to possess and by which they make moral judgments. Length of essay: 1080 words f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Freud View On The Nature Of Man.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Human Nature Is Inherently Bad There are many theories as to Human nature. One of Which exists, under the thoughts of a prominent philosopher, and founder of Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud. His deductive argument, entails his conclusion that man is bad, or as Freud explains it as Homo Homini Lupus (man is a wolf to man). Freud justification for such a drastic approach type conclusion, can by described as basically atrocities of the century Freud lived in. In example the invasion of the Huns, as a brutal entity designed to portray Man's innately evil nature. And the atrocities of the First World War. Freud's view of Man is an evil one. And that all Men are innately evil and aggression lies within the human as a part of his nature. Our inclination to aggression is apparent in one's relation with his neighbor and is apparent in everyday casual behavior. Freud also states that as a civilized society we use violence only on criminals and that the law is not able to prosecute the more careful, and smaller aggression of man which can sometimes be just as evil. Freud also introduces the restrictions set forth by civilization to control the aggressive inclinations of Man (used in the plural sense). Freud's argument is comprised of factually correct statements ( for his time ). His premises are accepted by many leading Psychologists' today. However the notion that Man is innately evil does not sit well with me and probably not with most optimists, such as myself. His argument's conclusion is well supported and his premises meet the conditions of a deductive argument with relevance and grounds. This argument can be understood as a dedu f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Friedrich Nietzsche.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Life & Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy Class Essay Born: 1844. Rocken, Germany Died: 1900. Weimar, Germany Major Works: The Gay Science (1882), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885), Beyond Good & Evil (1886), On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), MAJOR IDEAS Self deception is a particularly destructive characteristic of West Culture. Life is The Will To Power; our natural desire is to dominate and reshape the world to fit our own preferences and assert our personal strength to the fullest degree possible. Struggle, through which individuals achieve a degree of power commensurate with their abilities, is the basic fact of human existence. Ideals of human equality perpetuate mediocrity -- a truth that has been distorted and concealed by modern value systems. Christian morality, which identifies goodness with meekness and servility is the prime culprit in creating a cultural climate that thwarts the drive for excellence and self realization God is dead; a new era of human creativity and achievement is at hand. -- Great Thinkers In The Western World. By: Ian P. McGreal, 1992 PREFACE Much information is available on Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche, including many books that he wrote himself, during his philosophical career. I took this as a good sign I would find a fountain of enlightened material produced by the man. I've had to go through a bit of my own philosophical meditations to put my own value judgements aside, and truly look for the contributions Nietzsche gave to philosophy. Much of my understanding came only after I had a grasp of Neitzsche's history; therefore, I encourage you to read-up on his history before diving into his philosophy (see Appendix I). The modern Westerner might disagree with every aspect of his philosophy, but there are many things one must unfortunately admit are true (only if you put your morality aside). So, from here, I will present his contributions to philosophy, and do my best to delete my own opinions, other than to say that he was not the chosen topic of this paper out of any admiration. THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE Sometimes philosophy is called "timeless," implying that it's lessons are of value to any generation. This may be hard to see in Nietzsche's work; but, we are assured that it was appropriate thought for his time. However, even Nietzsche's critics admit that his words hold an undeniable truth, as hard as it is to accept. Perhaps this is why his work is timeless, and has survived 150 years in print. Christianity "God is Dead!" announced Zarathustra (better known as Zoroaster), in Neitzsche's proudest book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885). Unlike many philosophers, Nietzsche never tried to prove or disprove the existence of God, just that belief in God can create sickness; and to convince that highest achievements in human life depend on elimination of God. Whether God existed had no relevance in his goal. Proclamation of the death of God was a fundamental ingredient in the revaluation of values Nietzsche advocated. "Nothing has done more than Christianity to entrench the morality of mediocrity in human consciousness." "Christian love extols qualities of weakness; it causes guilt. Charity is just teaching hatred and revenge directed toward nobility." "Belief in God is a tool to bring submission to the individual of noble character." -- F. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Hero Morality Nietzsche had an ideal world in mind, with an ideal government and an ideal God: the "Overman" or "Superman." These Gods were a product of natural selection, or social Darwinism. He felt, very strongly, that any kind of moral limitations upon man would only stand in the way of The Overman. "The Will To Power," his strongest teaching, meant that The Overman should and would do anything possible to gain power, control and strength. If one showed the smallest bit of weakness or morality, he would be killed by the stronger Overman, and taken over. Thus, the advancement of The Master Race (Nietzsche's "Master Race" will be discussed later). "Not mankind, but superman is the goal. The very last thing a sensible man would undertake would be to improve mankind: mankind does not improve, it doesn't even exist - it is an abstraction." "... his superman as the individual rising precariously out of the mire of mass mediocrity, and owing his existence more to deliberate breeding and careful nurture than to the hazards of natural selection." Master Race Nietzsche is often referred to as a pre-Nazi thinker, by his idealism of The Master Race. He was, in fact, a prime influence on the writing of Hitler's highest men, and quoted in Hitler's speeches. But, his writings were mostly taken out of context, because he was very open about his distaste for "those anti- semites." If one is able to come from a more intelligent place, regarding the breeding of best-fit humans, Nietzsche was far beyond Hitler. Nietzsche understood the necessity for variation in a population, and especially was able to appreciate the contributions of other races and cultures. His ideal society would be a race that included select bits from many races/cultures. The only culture that he seemed to have a special appreciation for were the Polish. He wrote, "The Poles, I consider the most gifted and gallant among Slavic people..." Still, he wrote about his value for the Jews, as response to the growing anti-semite culture in Germany during his time: "The whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation though a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred. In almost all contemporary nations, therefore -- in direct proportion to the degree which they act up nationalistically -- the literary obscenity of leading the Jews to slaughter as scapegoats of every conceivable public and internal misfortune is spreading. As soon as it is no longer a matter of preserving nations, but of producing the strongest possible Euro-Mixed race, the Jew is just as useful and desirable as ingredient as any other national remnant." War Mentality Nietzsche had an incredible infatuation with evil and violence. He did so much to find evil and cruelty in the world, that he seemed to have a sadistic pleasure in celebrating it; "man is the cruelest animal," he states in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In his book, Beyond Good and Evil, he really aims at changing the reader's opinion as to what is good and what is evil, but professes, except at moments, to be raising what is "evil" and decrying what is "good." It is necessary for higher men to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendencies of the age, for in all directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters. "Everything that pampers, that softens, and that brings the 'people' or 'woman' to the front, operates in favor of universal suffrage -- that is to say, the dominion of 'inferior' men." Women & The Family This brings us to Nietzsche's view of women. At this point, I believe it's important to note Nietzsche's experience with women, because his writings about them seemed to begin closely after being rejected by the only woman he admitted to love. She rejected him as heasked her hand in marriage. "Men shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior. All else is folly." "The patriotic member of a militant society will look upon bravery and strength as the highest virtues of a man; upon obedience as the highest virtue of the citizen; and upon silent submission to multiple motherhood as the highest virtue of woman." "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip." From Nietzsche's experience with women, as author Betrand Russell said, "Nine out of ten women would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks." Many of his comments toward women reflected what a lonely and unloved person he was. In some poems he wrote after his prospective wife left him, he wrote this lonely line: "I could sing a song, and I will sing it, although I am alone in an empty house and must sing it to mine own ears." So, he added appropriately to his beliefs the following: "How absurd it is, after all, to let higher individuals marry for love -- heroes with servant girls and geniuses with seamstresses! When a man is in love he should not be permitted to make decisions affecting his entire life. We should declare invalid the vows of lovers and should make love a legal impediment to marriage." The Aristocracy Nietzsche loved his aristocratic anarchism, and had such a hate for democracy, that it consumes nearly every bit of his philosophy. His ideal society was divided into three classes: producers (farmers, merchants, business men), officials (soldiers and government), and rulers. The latter would rule, but they would not officiate in government; the actual government is a menial task. The rulers would be philosopher-statesmen rather than office-holders. Their power will rest on the control of credit and the army; but they would live more like the proud- soldier than like the financier. Nietzsche believed that some people were inherently more important than others; their happiness or unhappiness counted for more than the happiness of average people. He dismissed John Stuart Mill as a "blockhead" for the presupposition that everyone was equal. He wrote about Mill: "I abhor the man's vulgarity when he says "what is right for one man is right for another. Such principals wild fain establish the whole of human traffic upon mutual services, so every action would appear to be a cash payment for something done to us. The hypothesis here is ignoble to the last degree; it is taken for granted that there is some sort of equivalence in value between my actions and thine." Nietzsche, as I said before, hated democracy, but he recognized Christianity as a greater risk. Perhaps this was because people are always more loyal to their od, than their government. He felt that democracy began with Christianity: "...holy epileptics like saint Paul, who had no honesty. The new testament is the gospel of a completely ignoble species of man. Christianity is the most fatal and seductive lie that ever existed." So, before stripping people of their choice and equality, their God had to be taken first, Then the government. "Consequently, the road to the superman must lie through aristocracy. Democracy - - this manner for counting noses -- must be eradicated before it Is too late. The first step here is the destruction of Christianity so far as all higher men are concerned." Conclusion As Will Durant stated Nietzsche's faults so eloquently, "we can see him suffering at every line, and we must love him even where we question him," I couldn't agree more. I always ask the supremacist the question, "why do you support a supremacist government that would probably reject you into it's lower class?" I have no doubt, that if Nietzsche lived in his ideal society, he would have no honor, as he misses every requirement, being a sickly man who was rejected from the army, and lacking the strength to compete with his own "superman." Word Count: 1,878 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Functionalism vs Physicalism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ While acquiring knowledge on the topics of Functionalism and Physicalism, I ran across many disagreement between the two. Interestingly, those disagreements gave me an impression of different sides arguing with their own support from their own theories. As if an Arabian and a Roman were arguing about whether the number eleven is an "Arabic" number or a "Roman" number. Though, as I read more and more of the readings (especially Putnam's), I started to see a pattern that led me to think that maybe Functionalism is compatible with Physicalism after all; that these two theories can coexist. The claim above is based on the information gathered in the two readings assigned and therefore, I should go step by step in order to arrive at my conclusion that they can indeed coexist. First, I draw Ned Block's elaboration on Metaphysical Functionalism as a start of my argument. As Block suggests, Metaphysical Functionalism is mainly concern about what mental states are; instead of a psychological explanation (Block, p. 172). Moreover, they concern themselves with mental state type; not a specific token of the type. As in the case of pain, they are concerned with a mental state called pain, and not of particular pains (i.e. stomach-ache, pin-pricks, etc.). But, according to Putnam, if the Physicalists does indeed attributes the name "physical states" to the enormous number of mental states we humans have, then, I think it would be impossible for them to be concerned only with the type and not the tokens. But once they started to consider each specific pain (token), they will have to ascribe a different physical-chemical state to each token-state. Ultimately, the common thing "to all pains in virtue of which they are pains (Block, p. 172)" cannot be put in terms of a single physical state. Recall that the same problem does not exist in the consideration of Functionalism because Functionalism concern itself basically with the causal relations between these tokens and not a particular one. Therefore, the common thing that exists in Functionalism "to all pains in virtue of which they are pains" is actually the function or the functional state that account for all mental states type; and not a particular mental state token. Therefore I conclude by suggesting that the disagreement (or the incompatibility) between the two theories is actually a misunderstanding on each side on their scope on studies. And while they do not conflict each other in the same scope, I grant them their coexistence. (At least this is what I can dig up in the readings!) f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Galileo and Newton.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2/4/97 Galileo and Newton Galileo believed the physical world to be bounded. He says that all material things have "this or that shape" and are small or large in relation to other things. He also says that material objects are either in motion or at rest, touching or not touching some other body, and are either one in number, or many. The central properties of the material world are mathematical and strengthened through experimentation. Galileo excludes the properties of tastes, odors, colors, and so on when describing the material world. He states that these properties "reside only in the consciousness." These latter properties would cease to exist without the living creature so the mathematically defined properties are the most accurate in describing the material world. Galileo seems to test his beliefs through experimentation and mathematical reasoning. He sites examples in life that support his hypothesis. His argument is of a scientific nature because he is making a hypothesis on a distinctive type of concept. The conclusions that Galileo made relate directly to the work in physics for which he is so well known. His conclusions put emphasis on shapes, numbers, and motion which are all properties that lend themselves to support through "reasoning back and forth between theory and experiment." I feel that Galileo's argument is a valid one because it explains relations in nature and the physical world through mathematical analysis. This allows him to define a world outside of human existence that can be logically calculated and explained. His view describes the world in which living creatures live and not contrasts it to the world within living creatures. The problem with Galileo's view is that it pioneers a scientific outlook but never actually fulfills it. Newton believes the world is ultimately made up of hard particles that can retain different properties. The central properties are solid, massy, impenetrable, and movable particles. He believes God created matter in the beginning in such a way to allow the particles to take on mathematical forms. His approach is a scientific one because he practices the continual interaction of experiment and theory. It is the hard particles that move in such a way that can be assigned certain mathematical principles that clearly explain the interaction of bodies. Newton's conclusion seems to be a strong one because it deals with the world being made up of particles and shows how these particles act with each other in a way that can be explained scientifically. I like the idea of organized flow in the world and God being the creator of it all. The mathematical/scientific approach offers explanation to how the particles are moving. Galileo and Newton differ in certain aspects of their understanding of the physical world. Galileo doesn't put much emphasis on the role of creativity in science. Newton believes in the mathematical and experimentation outlook of science pioneered by Galileo but he believed that new concepts are the product of creative imagination. He felt that math should explain the concepts imagined. Newton extended ideas pioneered by Galileo on issues of forces, masses, shapes, and forms. Newton didn't feel that the scientific theory needed to answer every question asked about a phenomenon in order to be useful. Galileo and Newton make a strong argument for the lack of purposes or values in nature. Their scientific minds sought answers on a logical scale. They could analyze the material world through calculations and in this math was suitable explanation. In the study of physics, purposes are irrelevant. Physics looks for the mathematical explanation of concepts and doesn't need to analyze the purpose behind such. It is concerned simply with what happens and how it is happening. The philosophy of physics could extend the concepts to incorporate purpose. The world is the product of the chance concourse of atoms. Everything is comprised of atoms and it makes up the known world to which mathematical principles analyze. If there are no purposes in the universe and this fact is supported through scientific study, then there is purpose in that science works to break down the material world to series of facts that are constantly adapting to one another. The world view introduced by seventeenth century mechanists is science. Science became the answer or way to the answer. Aristotelian view is concerned with the final state whereas as the scientists thought the important information was the entire process, or efficient causes. It is also concerned with the purposes and values that are at work in nature while mechanists see nature as a mechanism that operates blindly, and the forces of nature are in themselves entirely indifferent to purposes or values. Newton, in opposition to Aristotle, didn't believe in unknown causes. He wanted answers that were or could be proven. I feel that Newton has the stronger view because his deals with observable facts and not just concepts. Newton's ideas about the world extend the concepts of Democritus. Newton strengthens the mechanistic view by providing it with mathematical reasoning. Aristotle's argument of Democritus weakens when dealing with Newton. He had scientific evidence that backed up his claims. However, Newton still doesn't concern mechanism with the answer of "why" but rather looked to understand the immediate "how." Newton would agree that Democritus didn't support his arguments with fact and that they are mostly conceptual views. Newton would have to support Democritus for initiating the atomic theory and would probably say that his ideas are relevant and not over simplified. Form in the world is the effect of other causes in a long, scientific chain of efficient causes by the interactions of atoms. In a way Newton's cosmological ideas are better because he was able to support interactions within the universe with mathematical reasoning. He eventually came to the belief that "there is no scientific explanation for the pattern of the planets," holding that coplanar orbits with velocities in the same direction cannot be accounted for by natural causes. This lead him to the answer that God prevents the universe from collapsing. I feel this is better than Timaeus's view of patterns in the cosmos because he has to discard certain information because he himself can't find mathematical proof for these theories. Later, Laplace will be able to account for the coplanar character of the solar system by showing inadequacies in Newton's science. This is a credit to Newton in that if he couldn't back a theory with mathematical reason and experiment, he wasn't just going to assume it to be true. Galileo and Newton along with Plato believed in atoms or particles as the material of which all things are made of. I also infer that they would somewhat agree on how truth can be perceived differently in the same manner that opinion is different from knowledge (this idea was illustrated by Plato in his divided line analogy). For the mechanists, opinion is a perception of truth but an incorrect one because it is not supported with mathematical reasoning and experimentation, which would then make it knowledge. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Genetic Engineering.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hollywood has been showing it to us for years. Frankenstein, The Six Million Dollar Man, Jurassic Park, etc.; the list goes on. All these movies show man's instinct to create. This fiction of playing God in recent years is becoming a reality. In 1952, deoxyribonucleic acid was discovered(Dewitt, 1994). The spiral staircase molecule, DNA. DNA is the building block of life. This block holds the code for every aspect of any life on the planet Earth. DNA decides whether one life will be a plant or rhinoceros. DNA also carries the information that tells how smart, creative, bossy, shy, athletic, or any other description you can think of. The secret code of DNA would prove to be invaluable. This is the reason the Human Genome Project has been started. Scientist around the world are using super computers to crack the code. This 15 year project is predicted to end by the year 2005(Dewitt, 1994). That is only 10 years from now. What does that mean to the average Joe? Well, today we already live with genetically engineered items. The FDA has approved bioengineered tomatoes that ripen without rotting(Dewitt, 1994). Entire herds of cattle are now being injected with a growth hormone(BST) so that they will produce more milk than ordinary cattle(Dewitt, 1994). Also drought resistance grass that needs no moving. Scientists will soon be able to collect DNA from endangered species. This DNA could be used to clone more condors, bald eagle, mountain gorillas, and many other animals. Totally extinct animals may be recreated as well, i.e. Jurassic Park. Imagine having your own dodo bird or pet triceratops. Many types of diseases will be cured. Just take out the gene that giving you the problem. Pure panacea. As soon as a baby is born his or hers parents will know everything about him or her. If they will be artistic. Will she get breast cancer? Will he be tall or short? Is he a genius. Ten years from 2005, these questions won't even have to be asked. Made to order babies. Made to order babies?!? Is this where we are headed? It's only a matter of time before a president's hair clippings are swept up at a barbershop and then used to detect what diseases he has or is susceptible to. The rich may one day be able to obtain "immortality" by cloning themselves. I couldn't picture three Donald Trumps all thinking the same. There is even a darker side to this. Governments may decide to create super soldiers. Killing machines with top physical and mental prowess. This was the dream of Adolf Hitler himself. These genetic alterations may also only be accessible to the rich. Darwin's rule of evolution, survival of the fittest; if this holds true, anyone with more than 25% melanin in their skin(Afrikans mainly)will be left out. The perfect man and woman will be a reality with genetic engineering. What is the perfect man or woman? That is a question no one knows, but probably someone will soon define. Mankind may get so intelligent that we forget all of our "animal" instincts. As with all things, there can be a good side and a bad side. Genetic engineering will have a major effect on our future society. There will be many social changes. It is hard enough today to know whether someone has breast implants or if there hair is real. We might have to guess if a person was born or manufactured at Genes 'R' Us(Dewitt, 1994). A greater sense of deception and mistrust will invade the psyche of the masses. Our behavior itself may itself be a manufactured product of some person in a white lab coat. Many believe that the Internet and online services will lead to the elimination of personal privacy. Genetic and bioengineering just maybe the end to human nature. Article Citations Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1994, January). The Genetic Revolution. TIME Magazine, Vol. 143 No. 2 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Ghandi and MLK.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Title: "Power Comes From the Barrel of a Gun" - took the opposing view "Would you respect me, If I didn't have this gun? 'Cause without it, I don't get it, And that's why I carry one." -Phil Collins Power. A word from which many meanings derive. To each individual, it means something distinct and it is how one uses their power that makes up who they are. Power does not come from the barrel of a gun. A gun can do nothing without someone there to pull the trigger. The power to take a life rests within the person, the gun simply serving as their tool. When groups protesting for a cause they believe in use violent tactics, do they ever accomplish anything? When we kill , what do we achieve? To say that power lies in the barrel of a gun is to say that the most effective way to get what we want, or what we feel we deserve is to murder. It is only those with no faith in their dreams, or belief in themselves who could make such a statement. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "If a man hasn't found something he will die for, he isn't fit to live." A leader in the Black community and the recipient of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, King's accomplishment of attaining civil rights for Blacks was a great one, but the road to achievement was long and full of sacrifices. It was a time when Blacks had no rights and most of them accepted this as the way it was and no one could do anything about it. Most of them, but not King. When the police arrested a black woman for sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to give up her seat to a white woman, King led a committee that organized a boycott of buses. The results were that on April 23, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that "segregation in public transportation is unconstitutional" and that South Carolina as well as 12 other states must remove the "whites only" signs that hung in the front of the buses. This was just the beginning, he vowed to continue his fight using "passive resistance and the weapon of love". He helped establish the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and became its first president. Then in 1957, King met with Vice-president Nixon in Washington to "discuss racial problems . He went on to lead protests, demonstrations and marches, making the non-violent resistance stronger than it had ever been before. He succeeded in making people aware that every human being is born equal and that no one should be denied his civil rights. Martin Luther King had a dream and he knew that there was only one way to make it come true, to wake up and to take action. He was a true example of someone putting their power to good use. He started his life with a disadvantage, he was hated because of the color of his skin, but he did not let that stop him. He was arrested, thrown in jail, stabbed, stoned, he even had his home bombed. Through it all, he refused to give up, he had found a cause worth dying for and he did. He was murdered on the night of April 4, 1968. People tried to use their power to stop him and his fight. In the end, they may have succeeded in killing its leader, but the battle against racism lived on. Looking back, people say that Martin Luther King Jr. was a very powerful man. I have never heard anyone say his attackers or his murderers had. "I am indeed, a practical dreamer. My dreams are not airy nothings. I want to convert my dreams into realities, as far as possible." -Mohandas K. Gandhi Mahatma is the name the people of India gave to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The meaning is Great Soul, and they considered him as the father of their nation. He named his autobiography, "The story of My Experiments With Truth." That was, after all, what his life was about: the truth and his search to find it. He was against violence in any form, he felt there existed better methods of accomplishing things, and he proved to be successful. he made up his won technique for social action that he called satyagraha, "non-violent resistance to injustice and wrong." Gandhi's actions were guided by his philosophy that the way a person behaves is more important than what he achieves. It was these tactics that he used in his fight for India's independence. Gandhi was a lawyer, on a business trip to South Africa and he was greeted with prejudice and discrimination against the fellow Indians living there. What was supposed to be a trip, ended up being a 21 year stay as he began to work towards a cause he believed in, Indian rights. He launched a newspaper entitles, "Indian Opinion" that was published weekly. He returned to India and soon after became the leader of the Indian Nationalistic Movement. He led a satyagraha campaign, but the moment riots broke out, he canceled it. It was defeating its own purpose if violence was involved. Gandhi brought about many economic and social reforms; he led campaigns, strikes, demonstrations, and achieved many great things. The people of India will always be grateful to him, for he played the major role in acquiring freedom for their country, which Great Britain finally granted in the year 1947. Although he may not have been large in build, his strengths when it came to the issue he believed in as well as his moral values, were immeasurable. He found something to fight for and he did, never suing violence, even if it could have worked to his advantage. He was a man much like Martin Luther King Jr., both achieving civil rights for their people and attempting to abolish discrimination. Unfortunately, Gandhi too, suffered from his opposition. he too was arrested on several occasion and was the victim of murder. The day he dies was one marked with grief, but not a weakness on his part. No one thought on that day, Gandhi lost his power and his murderers achieved it. Reflecting on his life, one could describe it as a series of historical events . Gandhi defined a satyagraha as one with the persistent hope, "who followed a vision of truth and tried to deploy the strength of truth and love in daily life. I believe that that is an accurate description of is own character. "In the name of our party's movement, The Syrian Muslim Party of Justice, we declare that the blood of all Jews living in Syria will be spilled starting on Saturday the 13 of March 1994, according to Muslim month (1/Shawal 1414). May the almighty witness our deed." A special branch of the secret police in Syria --the Makhabrat-- was assigned to keep the Jewish community's activities under constant surveillance. Emigration of the Jews was forbidden. When Jews who still tried to escape illegally were caught, they were thrown in jail without a trial or charge. Jews were not permitted to be a candidate in an election nor were they granted voting rights. Travel was allowed only for medical treatment or to visit relatives In order to assure their return, they were required to leave as family members behind as well as large sums of money. There were restrictions on the numbers of Jews allowed to attend University, and the only Jewish schools in Damascus were ordered to accept a vast number of Palestinian students. The Jews were forced to wear identity cards, marking their religion on it. All mail from outside Syria was censored and telephone calls were monitored. The Jews outside Syria found out what was going on and decided to take the matter into their own hands. Everyone went about it in their own individual way. Michael Schelew, national chairman of the Syrian Jewry Committee of B'nai Brith Canada's Institute for International Affairs and Paul Marcus, National Director of B'nai Birth Canada's Institute for International Affairs, wrote an article for the Leader-Post, a newspaper printed in Regina. The article was entitle, "The abuse of Jews a fact of life in Syria" and it exposed the truth about what was really going on there. NAHON, an organization that focuses mainly on social action and is made up exclusively of students, distributed this article as well as many others at one of their conventions, to promote awareness among students in Montreal. When Syrian President Hafez Assad made a commitment to allow the Jews to leave freely in 1992, he did not honor his promise. 73 senators wrote a letter expressing their concern over this issue to President Clinton, urging him to "press Syria to honor its commitment to allow the Hews the right to travel freely." B'nai Brith Youth Organization began an international petition, requesting that "the Syrian government fulfill its promise and allow free emigration of Jews from the country" immediately. Everyone had their own way of helping, each individual and group used their power in their way, and together, we succeeded. The Jews in Syria are now to free to leave the country as they wish. Regardless of whether or not an individual is the president of the United States or simply a student, they have the power. It is up to us to make the difference because the power remains with the people, not the gun. it is easy to walk blindly past the truth, to close our eyes and deny what is going on. It is easy to blame others and to say that unless we kill, there is nothing we can do. The ones who make use of their power are the heroes, the ones who are remembered. Do not follow the path set out for you, do as the people mentioned in this paper have. Pave you own, and leave a trail. Power does not lie within the barrel of a gun, it lies within you. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Goodness Immanuel Kant.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ GOODNESS Kant The philosopher I used is Immanuel Kant. He was very practical in his thinking of goodness. A quote of his was ³I ought, therefore I can². His view was good anything is under good will . He believed good will was the primary goodness, good in its purest form, and that it couldn¹t be corrupted. Good feelings and good intentions and actions can be interpreted in different ways; man can corrupt these things into evil...even though it still might be good in that man¹s eyes. What he¹s really trying to say is that good will is good in its objective form. Therefore, it defines goodness. A few examples of forms of goodness that could be corrupt are intelligence, courage, and resolution. These things can be very good, but can be used for evil as well. The short story I would like to allude to in order to connect these themes and ideas is ³A Good Man is Hard to Find². The title even has ³good² in it...and according to Kant, goodness in its purest form is good will. The question now would be, does the Misfit have good will? Is what he is doing good, objectively, and purely? He is purging and purifying the world. He is Christ like in many senses. He is purifying the world by purging it of its evil...relating to the Old Testament. God decided that the human race was too evil to survive, so he flooded it. God killed, as well as the Misfit. This isn¹t the same as Christ, though; it just adds to the religious element. Christ¹s mission was to try and rid the world of evil, and sacrificed for it. The Misfit sacrificed his freedom initially, was ³reborn² again by escaping from jail, and become a Christ like figure again...he¹s now reborn, and his mission has an even stronger exclamation point on it, just like Christ¹s after he was resurrected. The literal differences are obvious; Christ never held anyone at gunpoint, let alone kill old ladies (no matter HOW hateful). But the allusions above illustrate that the Misfit was indeed a Christ-like figure with good intentions; good will . The Misfit was in a world of evil where he felt it was his mission, as well as his intention and his will, to be the savior of the good people. When it really comes to good will, I believe that the Misfit did have good will and that, in a world such as his, the South, he was not just playing God, but his will was forcing him to be God to judge the ³infidels². I think the best poem I can relate to Kant¹s philosophy is ³Richard Cory². Richard Cory didn¹t have good will, that was his downfall. You can¹t tell a whole lot from his personal life from the poem, but you can always assume that he didn¹t have good will, at least in relation to Kant¹s philosophy. Assuming that, we look at his ³good² actions, intentions, etc. from the poem. He was a pillar of society, looked at as the model of goodness. This is exactly the people¹s mistake. I believe that the people killed Richard Cory by not looking inward for goodness; by saying: ³ Well, if Richard Cory does that, if I do that, I¹ll be good like him². This put him on a pedestal, like the hunger artist. The people killed him by this method; he realized that the people did not have good will because they were looking at him for goodness, and therefore, he could never have good will. The people were looking for an identity, and it was too much for Richard Cory. An aspect of my life, or upcoming life, that I¹d relate to Kant¹s philosophy is the fact that someday, I¹d like to be a parent. We say it¹s for ³selfish reasons², but I think most people who realize what they¹re doing when they want to become a parent , and not just a biological mother/father, also realize how much responsibility, caring, and planning parenting really takes. God knows that the fact this isn¹t happening often enough is leading to problems like overpopulation and societal breakdown, but I would want to be a role model to my child(ren) and teach them everything I know so that eventually, they will be the best possible person I can raise them to be, and then be able to go out on their own and do the same. I think that this is good will, because, yes, reproduction is selfish in a way, but if you have the good will to be a good parent, by teaching your children, and trying to make them model their lives after yours, if you truly believe you can be a good mother/father, then you are acting on good will much more than selfishness. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Hammurabi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hammurabi In his position as King of Babylonia, Hammurabi managed to organize the world's first code of laws and establish Babylon as the dominant and successful Amorite city of its time. "Records written on clay tablets show that Hammurabi was a very capable administrator and a successful warrior. His rule spanned from 1792 B.C. to 1750 B.C. When he became king in 1792, he was still young, but had already become entrusted with many official duties in his administration"(Grolier). In the early years of his reign, Hammurabi mostly participated in traditional activities, such as repairing buildings, digging canals, and fighting wars. Yet later in his rule, Hammurabi organized a unique code of laws, the first of its kind, therefore making himself one of the world's most influential leaders. Hammurabi was primarily influential to the world because of his code of laws. This code consisted of 282 provisions, systematically arranged under a variety of subjects. He sorted his laws into groups such as family, labor, personal property, real estate, trade, and business. This was the first time in history that any laws had been categorized into various sections. This format of organization was emulated by civilizations of the future. For example, Semitic cultures succeeding Hammurabi's rule used some of the same laws that were included in Hammurabi's code. Hammurabi's method of thought is evident in present day societies which are influenced by his code. Modern governments currently create specific laws, which are placed into their appropriate family of similar laws. Hammurabi had his laws recorded upon an eight foot high black stone monument. Hammurabi based his code on principles like, the strong should not injure the weak, and that punishment should fit the crime. As for punishment, "legal actions were initiated under the code by written pleadings; testimony was taken under oath. The code was severe in it's penalties, prescribing "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.""(Grolier). This code of laws was able to be maintained by invoking the authority of the gods and the state. Although the punishments were different than those of today, the authority of the state (government) is similar. Currently, punishments are issued through the state's law enforcement system, comparable to the way punishment was determined and enforced in ancient Babylon. In the code, crimes punishable by death required a trial in front of a bench of judges. Included in these crimes were: bigamy, incest, kidnapping, adultery and theft. There were also laws similar to today. For example, a husband who wished to divorce his wife, was required to pay alimony and child support. By creating the world's first set of organized laws, Hammurabi constituted a model set of moral codes for other civilizations to duplicate. "The code of Hammurabi is believed to have greatly influenced the development of Near Eastern civilizations for centuries after it was written"(Britannica). Although Hammurabi failed to establish an effective bureaucratic system himself, his ideas were successful in establishing laws in Babylonia. Since Babylon was the world's first metropolis, the large population needed to be bound by a strict set of organized civil laws. The way Hammurabi constructed his laws is influential to the world today, because laws can be more easily understood by the people. Bibliography "Code of Hammurabi." Encyclopedia Britannica (1989), X, 682. "Hammurabi." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (1994). "Hammurabi." Compton's Encyclopedia (1990), XI, 225. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Happiness.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The standard definition of happiness is that it is a condition of supreme well-being and good spirits. There can be many definitions of the word happiness. It can be applied to many examples. Many people are often in search of happiness. One meaning can be explained when someone tells a joke. If one finds the joke funny, they laugh. This condition of happiness is the most temporary one, for it only lasts a moment. No one will be affected deeply into their emotions by a joke. It is more like a comical relief. Another way of happiness is when something good happens to someone. Maybe getting a good grade on a test or getting a raise at work. This kind of happiness usually comes from personal accomplishment. One will be happy if they know they did something good. They do not necessarily have to be rewarded to feel happy. For example, some people find happiness in just living a good life, a life of piety. Often, people may find happiness in the simplest of things. Maybe being alone in nature or playing with a puppy will provide happiness. One may or may not show their feeling of happiness. Sometimes their happiness is just a feeling of contentment, while other times they may actually be smiling. Lifelong happiness is something many people strive to achieve. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Happyness.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HAPPINESS Happiness: In one word, this concept exemplifies the American dream. People go to any means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issues that induce pleasures in each individual, and intrinsically, this emotion remains the ultimate goal, John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century philosopher, correctly advocated the pursuit of happiness, and maintained the concept that above all other values, pleasure existed as the final destination, Mill's hedonistic views correctly and rationally identified a natural human tendency, and his Utilitarian arguments strongly support the theory that above all else, happiness is the most important dream to be fulfilled. Upon researching for this paper, I came across a counter argument, which was based on metaphysics. Immanuel Kant, in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, defends his strong beliefs in the issue of a good will, and surfaces as MM's chief opponent on the topic of metaphysics, The issue diminishes to a clash between emotions and pleasures verses rationality and logic. Yet, what use is logic when the good agent is miserable? Mill's stance within Utilitarianism exists as the more favorable of the two beliefs, for happiness exist as the one intrinsically favorable element, not an emotionless mind. The main defender of the Utilitarian system exists within the Greatest happiness Principle. Mill lived as a chief advocate of this concept, which supports the idea that a decision is morally correct as long as it increases and encourages pleasures and happiness. Kant, however, in his endless quest to remain separate from emotions and thrive only on logic, would argue that autonomy should be placed above happiness in a list of intrinsic values. A good will, however, does not comfort an individual in any way if happiness does not accompany this asset, Consider this example of a seemingly happily married couple. The wife in this duo is madly in love with her husband fiercely loyal, and completely happy with her marriage and children. The husband, however, as wrongfully strayed, and had a brief, but damaging affair behind his wife's back. Kant would argue that autonomy reigns over pleasure, and the woman should therefore want to be informed of her husband's adultery, Mill would greatly disagree. By revealing the secret of the past affair, the woman's happy world would be instantly shattered. Her pride would diminish, her stability would fall apart, and the children especially would be forced to view a nasty side of their beloved father. In this case, individual control is greatly overshadowed by the need for happiness. The husband is no longer acting unfaithful and the family can easily continue to live in a happy realm, If the secret were to become uncovered, all members of this circumstance unavoidably would become terribly disappointed, Under the Greatest Happiness Principle, the wife should not be informed. Since happiness truly lives as the ultimate in human desires, sparing such immense amounts of pain truly is the logical choice, Mill's argument prevails, and all those involved remain happy. Through this example, one can easily see that although autonomy is often a favorable feature, it does not overshadow the importance of happiness. One of the main arguments against Utilitarianism exist in the lack of apparent fairness. An advocate of the Kantian logic principle would argue that Mill's belief system does not allow for equal treatment, When considering what is best for an entire society, however, it is necessary for certain individuals to endure suffering. The good of society remains the ultimate goal, and unfortunate pain is therefore inevitable, If young children are being killed in a certain community, the obvious good for this society is discovering and punishing the murderer. Especially when children are involved, people automatically demand prompt justice. The officials of this area have searched immensely for the accused, yet no leads have surfaced, and the community suddenly erupts with anger, they demand that someone be punished, As a Utilitarian, the police chief sees a window of opportunity. A drug dealer has recently been brought in on yet another drug selling offense, and the chief decides to coerce the invaluable member of society into confessing the crime at hand, By doing so, the community instantly reunites in support and a dangerous and deadly revolt is avoided, and a menace to society is right back where he would have been regardless of his confession: behind bars, Kant, however, would argue that logically, the chase for the true offender should continue. He would shun the emotional decision to make the whole society happy by ignoring the rational decisions. But since the community obviously chooses happiness over logic, Kant's arguments are irrelevant. In addition, Kant believes in a decision making process completely separate from the natural human emotions, Such a demand is possible only for a character such as Star Trek's Dr. Spock, for human emotions are as much a part of every day life as the decision making process itself. Logically speaking, therefore, Mill's Utilitarianism arguments maintain the largest dose of validity. Other opponents to the philosophical viewpoint of Utilitarianism state that followers of this belief system often promote an ignorant lifestyle, They maintain that advocates of the Greatest Happiness Principle believe in the theory that "ignorance is bliss," Again, such reasoning is quite faulty. Displaying the erroneousness of this statement can be done by examining the issue of AIDS, An opponent of Utilitarianism would say an Infected HIV victim would not want to be aware of his disorder, Such a belief is extremely incorrect. Mill and other Utilitarian are strong advocates of education, for with intelligence, greater levels of achievement and happiness can be obtained. A member of this belief system would rightly argue that being aware of the disorder could increase long-term happiness, for treatments and support from friends and family could greatly aid the victim's fight against his or her alhnents, Mills therefore strongly support education systems and believe in making society as a whole as happy as possible. In the case of the AIDS victim, a Utilitarian would also support the notification of the disorder to the victim in order to spare others of contracting the virus, The happiness of the majority would not be increased by an unknowing HIV carrier spreading the disease to other defenseless individuals, Utilitarianism clearly is not a ignorant way to live, and the Kantian philosophy of ignoring the irrational system of emotions cannot refute this standard. Without happiness, the other opportunities and necessities lose nearly all levels of importance. A true Utilitarian supports only those concepts that promote the highest levels of pleasures, and as Mill states, encourages only those actions that promote real happiness, From a Kantian viewpoint, rationality and the possession of a good will remains the most important element, but even someone with the truest and most logical of intentions can easily exist in a realm of pure depression. The one link that exists between these opposite belief systems is the concept that, all decisions should be made outside of one's personality. The key is that Kant said this decisions should be made without any regard for human emotions, A request of this magnitude is a part of a utopian society only, for ignoring one's emotions is an illogical assumption in itself, If your child and wife are both dying, deciding which one to save cannot be made without some emotional influence, Utilitarianism allows for the emotional side of life but requests only that the Greatest Happiness Principle be strictly followed. Any truly decent human being naturally follows such a request every day, Decisions are made based on the greatest level of happiness, That way, the largest majority of people benefit, and the greatest amount of happiness is achieved. Yet as Kant believed, a more morally correct decision lies at the heart of every dilemma. How does one decide who is morally more correct to save in an instance where two cherished loved ones are passing away, and only one individual may be saved? And even more importantly, how does one do so without regard emotions? I personally feel that living strictly by the doctrine of Kantian philosophy is completely impossible. Being a Utilitarian and hedonist, such as Mill, makes more sense to me. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Hemingways Nada.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hemingway and Nada In "The light of the world" written by Ernest Hemingway Steve Ketchel, a boxer symbolizes a Jesus figure for a woman called Alice. Alice, a 350 pound, unpleasant prostitute struggles with her current life. Her central being focuses at the belief that she had a sexual relationship with Steve Ketchel. This wishful illusion arises from a complex she has because of her ugly and unpleasant appearance. Nick Adams, the main Hemingway character, believes that Alice, although she has really given up her life, still has the chance to change and live a happy life. Steven K. Hoffman would call this belief Alice has "nada". Nada is a term used in Hemingways story "A clean well lighted place". Steven K. Hoffman interpreted the word in an Essay he wrote. The word nada translated to English, basically means "nothing". But further it means much more than the simple word nothing. Nada from the point of Alice's view means that there is nothing behind of her belief. That means that her life is not based on a concrete belief. She does not believe in any religion; her religion is Ketchel. That arises from her place in society. In society she is ranked very low. A prostitute has nothing to say in our society. And since she is that low she cant set her goals higher. Her goals could be the goals Jesus talks about. Her goal in life was and still is to sleep with more and more guys. Back to nada it means that she has nothing; nothing to believe in and nothing to live for. Alice lives in an illusion. It seems that she suppresses the fact that she is a fat prostitute. How much lower can you get? She suppresses her problems with her dreams and illusions. The most important belief is that she had a sexual relationship with Ketchel. That is her main belief. For a normal American, Jesus would the most important belief. Ketchel gives her the strength to withstand her complexes. Ketchel in other words symbolizes Jesus. That is of course very sad. When comparing Jesus with Ketchel, you will not find any connecting. Ketchel is just a popular boxer among her friends and she knows nothing more of him. For her Ketchel is more than just a man to have sex with. As said, for her Ketchel is Jesus. "There was never a man like that.", said Alice. Alice did not succeed in her life. Not that it is over, but till now she did not make herself happy. She is unhappy, she is a prostitute and the most important; she has no belief. Her belief is as stated above Ketchel. As it seems she does not want to change. "Leave me with my memories ... With my true, wonderful memories." Notice how she insist that her memories are true. She is living a lie. The only person who seems to see Alice in a different way is Nick Adams. Nick Adams is found in most of the Hemingway stories. What I conclude then is that Nick represents Hemingway in each story. Further this could mean that Hemingway himself found that a person like Alice still has the potential to change. Nick saw Alice as a nice person of her own. Not like the others see her. They see her as a fat whore. They don't see the good sides, but stop looking when they see her appearance. Nick on the other hand sees Alice as a attractive girl, not in the sense of having sex. That is probably what Alice wanted from Steve. She wants somebody who respects her. Ketchel is a illusion, but Nick is not. He is real and could be a real memory. This way she could change and therefor change her belief. In conclusion I see that Hemingway offers a solution to Alice. Nick Adams is the embodiment of Hemingway. If Alice would join a real Ketchel, such as Nick she would rehabilitate and become a happy human being. Then she could believe in something more intelligent, such as the real Jesus figure. Since a boxer is not the kind of person to take as a belief. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Historical Explanation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Quarrel About Historical Explanation The discussion of the philosophical question of historical explanation is in reality a disagreement concerning the nature of the philosophic method. There are primarily two sides taken in this argument, those who agree with Carl Hempel and those that do not. According to Hempel a historical event is only sufficiently explained when it logically fits a set of confirmed pre-existing conditions along with some universal laws. Certainly all things cannot easily be assigned to rules and laws. Political coups, assassinations and revolutions are too complex for such a rigid explanation. And who is to say what perquisites there are for situations. Certainly there is no one who can predict every instance of a given event, there are just too many variables. Hempel then notes that Historians are seldom able to stick to his procedure and at best can only make an explanation sketch. Hempel seems to be saying then, that the majority of explanations surrounding historical events are inadequate and incomplete. There are three main divisions of anti-Hempelians. There are those that agree with Hempel to the point that there are rules and general laws that can be followed, but a historian's explanation is adequate if all he can provide is a sketch. The second group states that the general laws are not necessary and as long as the explanation provides an understandable narrative, it is complete. The final group believes that only one condition is necessary, and if more information is needed, one only needs to elaborate on that one condition. The Hempelians and the anti-Hempelians both have common ground. They are both engaged in the philosophy of history, but this is where the agreement stops for even the groups starting points are different. Hempelians give their explanations to answer the question of why something happened. Their objective is to replace curiosity with understanding. For this to happen both the laws and general rules given must logically agree. In other words you must be able to deduce the answer after given the laws and rules. It would not be enough for a Hempelian to hear that conditions led up to an event. He must know himself that these conditions are causes, and he'll know this only if the conditions are widely known or confirmed causes of said event. These conditions must not only be confirmed but true or the explanation would merely be an exercise in futility. An anti-Hempelian's problem with all of this is summarized in that historians do not use such methods to do their explaining, even if they did an explanation may not result, and finally historians are doing a very fine job without Hempel's help. Anti-Hempelians have three principles in their objections. 1. A philosopher should stick to the facts that he knows and not assign laws and rules that he's not sure of the existence of. 2. A philosopher cannot be creative and come up with his own theories because he has to stick to the simple matter of filling in the blanks. 3. Each person that asks for an explanation wants to know something different. Each has their own knowledge and interest and it takes different complete answers to satisfy them. In the end, the Hempelian method is too big of a task. The number of explanations surrounding certain events are too many for the method to be simple and useful. Furthermore, this type of classification and identification is more the work of a scientist, not a philosopher. And what is to happen when there don't seem to be rules and laws predicting an event, is a Hempelian to then make them up? It would seem then, that the Hempelians are in danger of losing sight of their objective. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Hobbes in foro interno vs in foro externo.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thomas Hobbes Paper - What is the difference between obligations in foro interno and in foro externo, and when do we have such obligations? According to Thomas Hobbes, there are certain laws of nature which exist in the absence of an organized government. These laws are extremely cut throat, and place people in extremely dangerous situations where their lives are in danger. Government is the answer to this dangerous situation, but it is here that the question of obligation comes into question. Does one have an obligation to take a chance and follow the laws set forth for them, or should they only think of themselves, and follow the laws of nature? This is a vital question which I will explore. According to Hobbes, the overriding law of nature is kill or be killed. Hobbes believed that, "every man has a right to everything, even to another man's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to everything endureth, there can be no security to any man(how strong or wise soever he be) of living out the time which nature ordinarily allowith men to live." However he also believed, "that a man be willing, when others are so too as far-forth as for peace and defense of himself that he shall think it necessary to lay down this right to all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself." The question now is, when do we have an obligation to strive towards peace when it means giving up our natural rights? According to Hobbes, we always have an obligation to work towards peace, and have an obligation in foro interno, but not always in foro externo. The difference between there two are that in foro interno means inside you, or you believing in something. In this case, it would mean that inside you, you would want to strive for peace because it would mean an end to worrying about your life. No longer would you have to walk around in a state of nature where any one can come and take your life. Hobbes believed that a person always has an obligation to strive towards peace in foro interno because every man wants one thing more than any other, and that is to live. However, Hobbes did not believe that you always had an obligation to work towards peace in foro externo. The reason for this, simply put, you can not trust other men to do the same unless you can be sure that they will not turn on you and take your life. Hobbes felt that, "For he that should be modest and tractable, and preform all he promises, in such time and place where no man else should do, should be make himself prey to others, and procure his own certain ruin, contrary to the ground of all laws of nature, which tend to nature's preservation."3 Hobbes felt that one's obligation in foro externo ended when fulfilling the obligation would endanger the life of the person. Every law of nature is geared for the preservation of the life of the self, and therefore, every man has the right to not do something should it mean that he would have to give up his or her life. In the case of in foro externo obligation towards peace, you do not always have to do it. If you decide you are going to give up you right to everything, and do so, but another person does not, they will most likely kill you. Therefore, before one can oblige in foro externo, there must be some sort of safeguard or higher power which will ensure that everyone will give up their right to everything. That is where governments come in. Their job is to make sure that when all men agree to a covenant, in which they give up their rights to everything, that they do not decide to break that covenant and take what they want when they want it. To make sure this breaking of the covenant does not happen, governments set up institutions such as the police to make sure everyone follows the rules of the government. It is only then, when a person can be sure that they will be protected from others, are they obliged in foro externo to strive towards peace and give up their right to everything. Personally, I agree with what Hobbes is saying in this matter, it makes a lot of sense even though it was written so long ago. It still has much relevance today. Take for example the U.S., where most people have obliged in foro externo to strive for peace and give up their natural rights. This is only possible because people are not afraid (for the most part) that others will take advantage of the situation and take what they want. However in other countries where this safety is not felt, there is many instances where people take what they want, when they want it, and often at the expense of the people who have given up their right to everything. So as you can see, what Hobbes said so long ago, still has much merit today. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Hollywoods Attack on Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hollywood¹s Attack on Religion The section that I have chosen to analyze from the book Hollywood vs. America is ³The Attack on Religion.² In this part of the book, Michael Medved discusses the shift in attitude Hollywood has made toward religion, from acceptable to contemptible. He takes a look at the messages being sent in films, music and television in the last 15 to 20 years and analyzes their effects. In general, Hollywood depicts religion in an unfavorable manner, according to Medved. Moreover, Medved also argues that, not only has Hollywood taken a hostile stance toward religion, but it has paid the price, literally, for doing so. All of Medved¹s arguments are well supported and documented, making them seemingly futile to argue against. Yet, Hollywood, which includes films, music and television, continues to disregard the obvious facts that Medved has revealed. In the first chapter of this section, ³A Declaration of War,² Medved discusses the facts surrounding the protest which took place on August 11, 1988, in opposition to the release of the motion picture The Last Temptation of Christ. MCA/Universal, which funded the Martin Scorsese film, called the protesters a ³know-nothing wacky pack² (38). However, as Medved points out, the protest was ³the largest protest ever mounted against the release of a motion picture² (37) and included such groups as the National Council of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, twenty members of the U.S. House of Representatives and prominent figures such as Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Ken Wales, former vice president at Disney studios. Even with such strong opposition from these respected groups and people, the studio refused to listen and stood behind its First Amendment rights. MCA/Universal was even supported by the Motion Picture Association of America, which stated that ³The . . . MPAA support MCA/Universal in its absolute right to offer to the people whatever movie it chooses² (41). However, Medved rebukes this statement, arguing that ³absolute right² wasn¹t the issue; the issue ³concerned the movie company¹s choices, not its rights² (41). He supports this argument further by indicating that the MPAA would never support a film portraying Malcolm X as a paid agent of Hoover¹s FBI or portraying Anne Frank ³as an out-of-control nymphomaniac² (41). By releasing The Last Temptation of Christ, the studio positions Jesus, God and Christianity below these prominent figures in history because it is portraying Jesus and other religious figures in uncharacteristic situations that would never be associated with these historical figures. This is supported by past experiences when movies were edited so as to not offend animal rights activists, gay advocacy groups, and ethnic organizations: Leaders of the motion picture business showed more concern with possible sacrilege against the religious traditions of a single Hopi village than with certain offense to the faith of tens of millions of believing Christians; the prospect of being labeled ³antiwolf² produced greater worry than the prospect of being labeled ³anti-Christ² (42). Of course, the response to this is that the changes were made during the production of the other films, not afterward. Again, Medved argues back, pointing out that ³Martin Scorsese and his associates kept their plans for The Last Temptation a closely guarded secret from all church leaders² (43). The press also distorted the movement against the release of the film by ³focusing on one utterly unrepresentative individual as the preeminent symbol of that movement: the Reverend R. L. Hymers² (43). His predictions of impending apocalypse, his violent outbursts, and his history of legal problems ³lived up to anyone¹s worst nightmare of deranged religious fanatic. Naturally, the press couldn¹t get enough of him² (43). The press also misrepresented the movement¹s main objections, according to Medved, by focusing on the ³dream sequence² in which Jesus makes love to Mary Magdalene, ³and asserting that this image alone had provoked the furor in the religious community² (44). However, Christian leaders objected to more than that; they identified ³more than twenty elements² (44) that were offending to them. In other words, ³the press helped to make the protesters look like narrow-minded prudes² (44). As a result, Hollywood misled itself and the public into believing that the protesters¹ main objective was to censor the film. As Medved says, ³What they [protester] wanted from the industry wasn¹t censorship; it was sensitivity² (45). Besides the fact that The Last Temptation of Christ was so heavily protested against, it was a bad movie, according to Medved, who is also a movie critic. He even went on the record saying, It is the height of irony that all this controversy should be generated by a film that turns out to be so breathtakingly bad, so unbearably boring. In my opinion, the controversy about this picture is a lot more interesting than the film itself (47). However, the movie industry defended the film by nominating Scorsese for an Academy Award as Best Director. This response by the movie industry ³provides a good example of the film establishment rallying around a bad film to protect its own selfish interest . . . that film, . . . was a slap in the face to Christians everywhere,² (48) according to Mickey Rooney, one of only a few established Hollywood figures who spoke out against the film. And in the end, MCA/Universal got what it deserved, according to Medved, losing at least $10 million because people, Christian or not, realized how bad the movie was. The confrontation between Christians and Hollywood over The Last Temptation of Christ was just one of the incidents in the last 15 years in which Hollywood has attacked religion. In the past, leaders of the film industry ³understood the importance of honoring the faith of their patrons. For them, it was not only a matter of good business, but an element of Œgood citizenship¹² (51). Films such as Going My Way, Angels with Dirty Faces, and Boys Town, portrayed religious characters ³in a sympathetic light² (51). But in the last 15 years or so, ³Hollywood has swung in the opposite extreme² (52). When a religious figure is portrayed now, it is likely that ³he will turn out to be corrupt or crazy ­ or probably both² (52). Medved goes on to discuss several movies which attacked Catholics, Born-Again Christians, and Jews. He gives a brief synopsis of these movies, highlighting the portions which portray religion in a negative way. For the most part, the movie titles are unfamiliar. This can be accounted for by the fact that ³the overwhelming majority of these pictures performed abysmally at the box office² (64). The main reason these films did so poorly is probably due to the fact that there is ³a significant ­ and growing ­ percentage of the American population² (70) that is committed to a traditional faith. On the other hand, most of the people who play a large part in producing movies claim no religious affiliation whatsoever: ³93 percent . . . say they seldom or never attend religious services² (71). This fact is one of the main reasons why Hollywood has lost touch when it comes to religion in movies, according to Medved: ³. . . unrepresentative personal perspective has helped to blind Hollywood¹s leaders to the intense involvement of most Americans with organized faith² (71). And when movies ³have portrayed organized faith in a favorable and affectionable light,² (75) they have been successful: . . . the extraordinary films mentioned above shared another common element: an impressive level of both commercial and critical success. These seven pictures won two Oscars for Best Picture . . . three for Best Actress, and one for Best Actor (76). Of course, the film industry isn¹t solely responsible for Hollywood¹s attack on religion. The music industry and television are also guilty of slandering religion. Lyrics by groups such as R.E.M., Black Sabbath and Judas Priest indicate the music industry¹s contempt for religion. For television, ³God¹s influence . . . is all but invisible² (79). Statistics show that ³only 5.4 percent of the characters had an identifiable religious affiliation ­ although 89 percent of Americans claim affiliation with an organized faith² (80). Religion¹s only outlet for television is ³relegated mostly to Sunday mornings and televangelists² (80). Medved analyzes the reasons for Hollywood¹s attack on religion and narrows it down to two specific reasons. One reason is that ³movie, TV, and music moguls are motivated by the pursuit of profit² (87) and they believe there is money to be made by slandering religion. But the main reason is that they are in constant pursuit of ³the respect of their peers² (87). And religion ³is the one subject in the world that everyone acknowledges as fundamentally serious² (88). So when writers and directors attack religion, ³no matter how clumsy or contrived that attack may be, they can feel as if they¹ve made some sort of important and courageous statement² (88). Thus, ³a filmmaker can win the respect of his colleagues, even if his work is rejected by the larger public² (88). It is obvious that Hollywood¹s attacks on religion have been fruitless; Hollywood loses money and established religions have been degraded publicly. Medved is thorough in evaluating Hollywood¹s stance on religion, and even more thorough in knocking it down. His arguments against Hollywood for its attacks on religion are supported by facts that Hollywood has refused to realize. It is absurd that Hollywood continues to attack religion, especially when figures show that a vast majority of the population claim some sort of affiliation with an established religion. It would only make sense for Hollywood to change its ways and adopt ³a greater sense of neutrality and balance . . . when it comes to portrayals of organized faith² (90). f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Homosexuality.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Homosexuality has been on debate for numerous years. It is mentioned in the Bible which is thousands of years old. But recently two philosophers have spoken how they feel about Homosexuality. Michael Levin and Richard Mohr's views on the subject are in conflict with one another. Levin argues that homosexuality is abnormal because it is a misuse of body parts that have evolved for use in heterosexual intercourse (Levin 354). Furthermore, because natural selection has made the exercise of heterosexuality rewarding to human beings, homosexuality has a high probability to unhappiness. Mohr refutes Levin's stance about homosexuality myths and stereotypes. He rejects arguments that homosexuality is immoral or unnatural. Levin exemplifies the point that homosexuality is misuse of body parts with the case of Mr. Smith, who likes to play "Old MacDonald" on his teeth so devoted is he to this amusement, in fact, that he never uses his teeth for chewing but instead takes nourishment intravenously. This is a clear example where Mr. Smith is misusing his teeth. In addition to misuse, Levine states that this man will have a dim future on purely physiological grounds (Levin 355). Since Mr. Smith isn't using his teeth for chewing, his digestive system will suffer from disuse. The result will be Mr. Smiths deteriorating health. Levin incorporates the evolution process into this example. He states that Mr. Smith descended from creatures who enjoy the use of such parts. Creatures who do not enjoy using such parts of their bodies will tend to be selected out. In particular, human males who enjoyed inserting their penises into each other's anuses have left no descendants. Homosexuality is likely to cause unhappiness because it leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire (Levin 355). Mohr takes a completely different stance on homosexuality. According to Mohr, homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable. The unnaturalness charge that Levin give homosexuality carries a high emotional feeling. This feeling is usually expressing disgust and evincing queasiness. An example of such feelings are some people's response to women who do not shave body hair. Many of the people who have a strong emotional reaction, without being able to give good reasons for them, we think of them not as operating morally, but rather as being obsessed and maniac (Mohr 367). So the feelings of disgust that some people have to gays will hardly ground a charge of immorality. The idea of "natural" is a key defense in Mohr's debate. He states that natural is that it fulfills some function in nature. According to Levin, homosexuality on this view is unnatural because it violates the function of genitals, which is to produce babies. The problem with this view is that lots of bodily parts have lots of functions and just because some one activity can be fulfilled by only one organ, this activity does not condemn other functions of the organ immorality (Mohr 367). The use of genitalia to produce children does not condemn other uses, such as achieving intimacy. Mohr states that moral authority is needed to define proper function (Mohr 368). Some people try to fill in this moral authority by appeal to the design or order of an organ saying that the genitals are designed for the purpose of procreation. But these people do not make it explicit who the designer and orderer is. If it is God, then we are holding others accountable for religious beliefs. In response to Levin statement that homosexuality causes unhappiness, Mohr states that Society's attitude toward a childless couple is that of pity. The couple who discovers it cannot have children is viewed as having to forgo some of the richness of life. Gays who do not have children are to be pitied rather than condemned. Mohr feels the willful preventing of people from achieving the richness of life is immoral. The immorality with the case of the gay and lesbian is the statutes that prevents them from adopting families. In reflection of the two articles read, I feel that Mohr has a stronger stance in the argument of homosexuality. He takes the Levis's view on misuse of body parts, and shows that many body parts have multiple uses. Levis provides a strong argument about misuse, and in his example it is completely accurate. When applied to the genitalia, the argument seems to be diminished by Mohr's view. Mohr introduces moral authority by bringing out the question of "order and design". He states that if God is the designer and orderer, than we are back to square one which others are accountable for religious beliefs. Mohr takes Levis stance on unnatural one step further by saying we should follow nature. If this were the case, the possibilities would be endless. Who should we follow? A fish that changes gender over their lifetimes. This would make us be operative transsexuals. Orangutans live completely solitary lives. This would make us hermits. With the many models that nature gives us to follow, it is wrong to say that homosexuality is abnormal. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Hooked on Ebonics.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 15 Feb 97 dayz: Today's Lesson: Hooked on Ebonics: Leroy is a 20 year old 9th grader. This be Leroy's homework assignment. He must use each vocabulary word in a sentence. Foreclose: If I pay alimony this month, I'll have no money foreclose. Rectum: I once had two cadillacs, but my ol' lady rectum. Hotel: I gave my girlfriend the crabs and the hotel everyone. Disappointment: My parole officer tol me if I miss disappointment, they gonna send me back to the big house. Penis: I went to da doctor and he handed me a cup and said penis. Israel: Alonso tried to sell me a Rolex. I said, man that looks fake. He said "bullshit" that watch Israel. Catacomb: Don King was at the fight the other night, man somebody oughta give dat catacomb. Undermine: There is a fine lookin hoe living in the apartment undermine. Acoustic: When I was liddle, my uncle bought me acoustic and took me to da pool hall. Iraq: When I got to da pool hall, I tol my uncle Iraq, you break. Stain: My mother-in-law stopped by and I axed her" Do you plan on stain for dinner" Seldom: My cousin gave me two tickets to the Nicks game, so I seldom. Honor: At the rape trial, the Judge axed my buddy who be honor first. Odyssey: I tol my brother, you odyssey the tits on that hoe. Axe: The policeman wanted to axe me some questions. Tripoli: I was gonna buy my ol' lady a bra for her birthday, but I couldn't find a Tripoli. Fortify: I asked the hoe how much? She said "fortify" Income: I just got in bed with da hoe and income my wife. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\How does Technology Affect Us .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How Technology Effects Modern America i don't know if you have this one yet. U.S. Wage Trends The microeconomic picture of the U.S. has changed immensely since 1973, and the trends are proving to be consistently downward for the nation¹s high school graduates and high school drop-outs. ³Of all the reasons given for the wage squeeze ­ international competition, technology, deregulation, the decline of unions and defense cuts ­ technology is probably the most critical. It has favored the educated and the skilled,² says M. B. Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report (7/31/95). Since 1973, wages adjusted for inflation have declined by about a quarter for high school dropouts, by a sixth for high school graduates, and by about 7% for those with some college education. Only the wages of college graduates are up. Of the fastest growing technical jobs, software engineering tops the list. Carnegie Mellon University reports, ³recruitment of it¹s software engineering students is up this year by over 20%.² All engineering jobs are paying well, proving that highly skilled labor is what employers want! ³There is clear evidence that the supply of workers in the [unskilled labor] categories already exceeds the demand for their services,² says L. Mishel, Research Director of Welfare Reform Network. In view of these facts, I wonder if these trends are good or bad for society. ³The danger of the information age is that while in the short run it may be cheaper to replace workers with technology, in the long run it is potentially self-destructive because there will not be enough purchasing power to grow the economy,² M. B. Zuckerman. My feeling is that the trend from unskilled labor to highly technical, skilled labor is a good one! But, political action must be taken to ensure that this societal evolution is beneficial to all of us. ³Back in 1970, a high school diploma could still be a ticket to the middle income bracket, a nice car in the driveway and a house in the suburbs. Today all it gets is a clunker parked on the street, and a dingy apartment in a low rent building,² says Time Magazine (Jan 30, 1995 issue). However, in 1970, our government provided our children with a free education, allowing the vast majority of our population to earn a high school diploma. This means that anyone, regardless of family income, could be educated to a level that would allow them a comfortable place in the middle class. Even restrictions upon child labor hours kept children in school, since they are not allowed to work full time while under the age of 18. This government policy was conducive to our economic markets, and allowed our country to prosper from 1950 through 1970. Now, our own prosperity has moved us into a highly technical world, that requires highly skilled labor. The natural answer to this problem, is that the U.S. Government¹s education policy must keep pace with the demands of the highly technical job market. If a middle class income of 1970 required a high school diploma, and the middle class income of 1990 requires a college diploma, then it should be as easy for the children of the 90¹s to get a college diploma, as it was for the children of the 70¹s to get a high school diploma. This brings me to the issue of our country¹s political process, in a technologically advanced world. Voting & Poisoned Political Process in The U.S. The advance of mass communication is natural in a technologically advanced society. In our country¹s short history, we have seen the development of the printing press, the radio, the television, and now the Internet; all of these, able to reach millions of people. Equally natural, is the poisoning and corruption of these medias, to benefit a few. From the 1950¹s until today, television has been the preferred media. Because it captures the minds of most Americans, it is the preferred method of persuasion by political figures, multinational corporate advertising, and the upper 2% of the elite, who have an interest in controlling public opinion. Newspapers and radio experienced this same history, but are now somewhat obsolete in the science of changing public opinion. Though I do not suspect television to become completely obsolete within the next 20 years, I do see the Internet being used by the same political figures, multinational corporations, and upper 2% elite, for the same purposes. At this time, in the Internet¹s young history, it is largely unregulated, and can be accessed and changed by any person with a computer and a modem; no license required, and no need for millions of dollars of equipment. But, in reviewing our history, we find that newspaper, radio and television were once unregulated too. It is easy to see why government has such an interest in regulating the Internet these days. Though public opinion supports regulating sexual material on the Internet, it is just the first step in total regulation, as experienced by every other popular mass media in our history. This is why it is imperative to educate people about the Internet, and make it be known that any regulation of it is destructive to us, not constructive! I have been a daily user of the Internet for 5 years (and a daily user of BBS communications for 9 years), which makes me a senior among us. I have seen the moves to regulate this type of communication, and have always openly opposed it. My feelings about technology, the Internet, and political process are simple. In light of the history of mass communication, there is nothing we can do to protect any media from the ³sound byte² or any other form of commercial poisoning. But, our country¹s public opinion doesn¹t have to fall into a nose-dive of lies and corruption, because of it! The first experience I had in a course on Critical Thinking came when I entered college. As many good things as I have learned in college, I found this course to be most valuable to my basic education. I was angry that I hadn¹t had access to the power of critical thought over my twelve years of basic education. Simple forms of critical thinking can be taught as early as kindergarten. It isn¹t hard to teach a young person to understand the patterns of persuasion, and be able to defend themselves against them. Television doesn¹t have to be a weapon against us, used to sway our opinions to conform to people who care about their own prosperity, not ours. With the power of a critical thinking education, we can stop being motivated by the sound byte and, instead we can laugh at it as a cheap attempt to persuade us. In conclusion, I feel that the advance of technology is a good trend for our society; however, it must be in conjunction with advance in education so that society is able to master and understand technology. We can be the masters of technology, and not let it be the masters of us. Bibliography Where have the good jobs gone?, By: Mortimer B. Zuckerman U.S. News & World Report, volume 119, pg 68 (July 31, 1995) Wealth: Static Wages, Except for the Rich, By: John Rothchild Time Magazine, volume 145, pg 60 (January 30, 1995) Welfare Reform, By: Lawrence Mishel http://epn.org/epi/epwelf.html (Feb 22, 1994) 20 Hot Job Tracks, By: K.T. Beddingfield, R. M. Bennefield, J. Chetwynd, T. M. Ito, K. Pollack & A. R. Wright U.S. News & World Report, volume 119, pg 98 (Oct 30, 1995) f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\How to Get Married and Stay Married.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How to get married and stay married to the perfect mate!! This book will talk about the ways and theories of how to stay married one you are married. It will cover stuff like communication, similarity, physical attractiveness, similarity, balance and equity theory, and proximity. Communication is important in relationships. I will cover the aspects of non-verbal and verbal communications. In the book I will convey the differences in the way men and woman think and this will help give a better understanding of each other and will in turn allow them to work out their problems effectively... Another aspect I will talk about is the reinforcement theory. This theory talks about the fact that you will like someone who positively reinforces you. I will talk about how this theory can be used in marriages to keep couple closer together, keeping them liking each other. In my book, I will also talk about the balance theory. The balance theory is the notion that people have the same negative and positive ways of thinking.. When this is not so, you have an imbalance which can disrupt a relationship. I will talk about how a couple can use the balance theory to make sure that they will be happy. Another theory I will talk about is the equity theory. This theory dictates that people will be more attracted to someone that they have a fair relationship with. It states that we will be happier with a person who takes as much as they give to us. Over a long term relationship, like marriage, this is important because both husband and wife feel that they are approximately equal. In my book I will talk about how to use this theory to makes sure that both couples get the same out of the relationship. I will also talk about proximity in my book. Proximity talks about being near to your partner. It is important because if one partner is away all the time, the couple will not become as close. I will deal with the aspect of how to stay in close proximity with your partner and this will lead to a closer relationship between the two. It is also important to start a relationship with someone who is near to you because this will allow the relationship to better develop itself. Also, there must be similarity between the couples. In my book I will talk about finding someone who has similar interests and traits. When two people are similar, the more likely they are to be attracted to each other and the more likely they are to be happy while they are dating and when they are married. The last thing I will talk about in my book is physical attractiveness. Like most people, physical attractiveness is important to me. Physical attractiveness is important and in my book I will talk about people thinking that once they are married that they do not have to look good anymore and I will also talk about marrying someone who you are attracted to. People have to continue to take pride in their looks when they are married and this in turn will make for a happier relationship. In conclusion, my book will take all the aspects mentioned above into account which will help people pick the right mate and help them stay married to this person. I believe this book to be a best seller and look forward to getting the $100 000 royalty check from you in the near future so I can start writing my book. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Human Perception.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Human Perception An intimate look into the most intriguing aspect of modern psychology. It determines what we see, what we do, what we feel. It controls our emotions, our thoughts, and our conscience. What is this remarkable element of the human mind? It is called perception. Perception as defined in the Merrian-Webster Dictionary as the following- 1 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation b: Physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience 2 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : capacity for comprehension Perception. As hard as it is to define it, it is impossible to correctly conceive a "correct" or "right" way to use it. Perception varies with not only humans, but with virtually all other animals as well, whether through instinct or with conscious thought. Let us take this a step farther. When a bee looks at a flower that is meant for feeding from, they do not only notice the colors the human mind sees. The bee sees a yellow "run-way" directly into the core of the flower, guiding it into the source of nectar. This brings us to the question- "is what we see real, or is what we see our own reality?". What the human mind sees is only three dimensions. Since Albert Einstein first conjured the scientific possibility of a fourth dimension, human beings have longed to see it. Many people assume that it does not exist simply because they cannot see it. They are not able to see the yellow "run-way" into the heart of a flower, but to the bee and an ultraviolet light, that "run-way" is certainly real. People's physical use of their own perception is very limited, as such noticeable in the "tunnel-vision" effect. A good example of the Tunnel Vision effect is a perception or thought such as "if I cannot see it, it simply does not exist". We as humans are limited not only to what we can sense, but how we perceive what we sense. Such is a formidable question. What if that fourth dimension does exist, what if we can see it , only our brain cannot perceive it being there, therefor it never exists in the first place. I would consider that as a paradox. Where does perception come from? Is it a result of the upbringing and surroundings of an individual (animal or human), or is it a result of genetics? Certainly I would believe that conditioning has a great impact on an individual's perception. An example to that would be as such : A dog is abused, beaten, and starved by a group of owners in a kennel. The dog is then recovered by the humane society and adopted by a local family. The dog in turns bites one in the family every time a hand is raised near it as a motion, for food or otherwise. The dog has been conditioned into fear. However, due to the conditioning, the dog perceives the hand motions differently than would a newborn pup. The dog perceives such hand actions as a premonition that it is about to be hit or harmed in some way. I can only conclude to myself that there is a distinct possibility that conditioning has the ability to alter perception in a great amount. People often mistakenly identify people for others in many circumstances everyday. For example, I got on the bus to go to school a few weeks ago, and sat down next to a person whom I believed I had talked to the day before regarding a topic. I started to say something, I looked up and realized the person was a totally different person than whom I believed I was talking to. I had seen the person who I thought I was talking to when I got on that bus. The physical features, the voice, etc. all matched. However, a neuron must have misfired because there was an entirely different person altogether in that seat. I went to another seat, pondered it over, and realized how speculative human identification is. Often victims of rape, robbery, or other crimes are asked to identify their assailant in a police lineup. Seventy two percent of people misidentify suspects in police lineups the first try. The reason? The person sees who they "saw" when they were attacked. I would presume that during an attack, a person would be more concerned about staying alive than noticing the exact physical characteristics of the individual who is attacking. Since the brain is overworking to do multitudes of tasks at the time of an attack, I would assume that a person would not pay particular notice to the appearance of the attacker. This is why human visual identification is so controversial and hard to support. Perhaps the person *did* see that person who attacked them in the lineup. People often fill in the gaps of a picture and story to make everything seem clear to them and the authorities. Therefor, human visual identification cannot be trusted simply due to people's differences of perception. When I look at and read the Bible, I regard it as an awesome literary work, but not something I would base or live my life upon. However, there are those who perceive the Bible as not only words on a page, but as the guiding force behind humanity. Religion and perception do not go well together simply due to the vast differences in opinion among the human race. What I perceive as fact is that Jesus Christ did not ascend into heaven, and that the Bible is merely a literary work. A book to be concise. However, what Christians perceive as fact is the exact opposite. Often, there are those in the religious or family oriented lobby industries who try to suppress what I read or hear based upon their own perception, Perhaps this is stretching the links of perception, but I believe that the perceptual differences among people are the original roots of censorship. One group of people or person perceives something as obscene or "harmful". Another group perceives *the same thing* as intellectually stimulating or entertaining. Such is why I consider perception as not only having to do with human psychology, but with politics and beliefs as well. I consider perception to be not only what a person senses, but what they get out of what they sense. I listen to hard-core rock and like the sound of it. However, an adult would most likely label it as simply "noise". The perceptual differences among people is the *single* biggest speed bump in attaining world, civil, and domestic peace. Our differences are small, but great in bounty. I see white, you see black. Never will all people in the world agree on one particular topic, however we can learn to respect the perception of that topic. Until people understand the roots of problems is how they perceive them, and that it is only a problem if you make it a problem, peace and respect are unattainable goals. Blue Sky Associates 12345 Main Street Southridge, WA 12345 Phone 123.456.7890 Fax 123.456.7890 blue sky associates Human Perception An intimate look into the most intriguing aspect of modern psychology. It determines what we see, what we do, what we feel. It controls our emotions, our thoughts, and our conscience. What is this remarkable element of the human mind? It is called perception. Perception as defined in the Merrian-Webster Dictionary as the following- 1 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation b: Physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience 2 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : capacity for comprehension Perception. As hard as it is to define it, it is impossible to correctly conceive a "correct" or "right" way to use it. Perception varies with not only humans, but with virtually all other animals as well, whether through instinct or with conscious thought. Let us take this a step farther. When a bee looks at a flower that is meant for feeding from, they do not only notice the colors the human mind sees. The bee sees a yellow "run-way" directly into the core of the flower, guiding it into the source of nectar. This brings us to the question- "is what we see real, or is what we see our own reality?". What the human mind sees is only three dimensions. Since Albert Einstein first conjured the scientific possibility of a fourth dimension, human beings have longed to see it. Many people assume that it does not exist simply because they cannot see it. They are not able to see the yellow "run-way" into the heart of a flower, but to the bee and an ultraviolet light, that "run-way" is certainly real. People's physical use of their own perception is very limited, as such noticeable in the "tunnel-vision" effect. A good example of the Tunnel Vision effect is a perception or thought such as "if I cannot see it, it simply does not exist". We as humans are limited not only to what we can sense, but how we perceive what we sense. Such is a formidable question. What if that fourth dimension does exist, what if we can see it , only our brain cannot perceive it being there, therefor it never exists in the first place. I would consider that as a paradox. Where does perception come from? Is it a result of the upbringing and surroundings of an individual (animal or human), or is it a result of genetics? Certainly I would believe that conditioning has a great impact on an individual's perception. An example to that would be as such : A dog is abused, beaten, and starved by a group of owners in a kennel. The dog is then recovered by the humane society and adopted by a local family. The dog in turns bites one in the family every time a hand is raised near it as a motion, for food or otherwise. The dog has been conditioned into fear. However, due to the conditioning, the dog perceives the hand motions differently than would a newborn pup. The dog perceives such hand actions as a premonition that it is about to be hit or harmed in some way. I can only conclude to myself that there is a distinct possibility that conditioning has the ability to alter perception in a great amount. People often mistakenly identify people for others in many circumstances everyday. For example, I got on the bus to go to school a few weeks ago, and sat down next to a person whom I believed I had talked to the day before regarding a topic. I started to say something, I looked up and realized the person was a totally different person than whom I believed I was talking to. I had seen the person who I thought I was talking to when I got on that bus. The physical features, the voice, etc. all matched. However, a neuron must have misfired because there was an entirely different person altogether in that seat. I went to another seat, pondered it over, and realized how speculative human identification is. Often victims of rape, robbery, or other crimes are asked to identify their assailant in a police lineup. Seventy two percent of people misidentify suspects in police lineups the first try. The reason? The person sees who they "saw" when they were attacked. I would presume that during an attack, a person would be more concerned about staying alive than noticing the exact physical characteristics of the individual who is attacking. Since the brain is overworking to do multitudes of tasks at the time of an attack, I would assume that a person would not pay particular notice to the appearance of the attacker. This is why human visual identification is so controversial and hard to support. Perhaps the person *did* see that person who attacked them in the lineup. People often fill in the gaps of a picture and story to make everything seem clear to them and the authorities. Therefor, human visual identification cannot be trusted simply due to people's differences of perception. When I look at and read the Bible, I regard it as an awesome literary work, but not something I would base or live my life upon. However, there are those who perceive the Bible as not only words on a page, but as the guiding force behind humanity. Religion and perception do not go well together simply due to the vast differences in opinion among the human race. What I perceive as fact is that Jesus Christ did not ascend into heaven, and that the Bible is merely a literary work. A book to be concise. However, what Christians perceive as fact is the exact opposite. Often, there are those in the religious or family oriented lobby industries who try to suppress what I read or hear based upon their own perception, Perhaps this is stretching the links of perception, but I believe that the perceptual differences among people are the original roots of censorship. One group of people or person perceives something as obscene or "harmful". Another group perceives *the same thing* as intellectually stimulating or entertaining. Such is why I consider perception as not only having to do with human psychology, but with politics and beliefs as well. I consider perception to be not only what a person senses, but what they get out of what they sense. I listen to hard-core rock and like the sound of it. However, an adult would most likely label it as simply "noise". The perceptual differences among people is the *single* biggest speed bump in attaining world, civil, and domestic peace. Our differences are small, but great in bounty. I see white, you see black. Never will all people in the world agree on one particular topic, however we can learn to respect the perception of that topic. Until people understand the roots of problems is how they perceive them, and that it is only a problem if you make it a problem, peace and respect are unattainable goals. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Humanism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kevin Clark Philosophy p.2 Humanism The word "humanism" has a number of meanings, and because there are so many different meanings it can be quite confusing if you don't know what kind of humanism someone is talking about. Literary Humanism is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture. Renaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood. Cultural Humanism is the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved through out European history, and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to science, political theory, ethics, and law. Philosophical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub categories of this type include the two following. Christian Humanism is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "a philosophy advocating the self fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles." This more human oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism. Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scien- tific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corollas Lamont, as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub categories. Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists advocate this philosophy. Religious Humanism emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian- Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense. The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its supporters to agree on whether or not this world veiw is religious. The Secular Humanists believe it is a philosophy, where the Religious Humanists obviously believe it is a religion. This has been going on since the early years of the century where the Secular and Religious traditions combined and made Modern Humanism. Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same world views as shown by the signing of the Humanist Manifestos I and II. The signers of the Manifestos were both Secular and Religious Humanists. To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals , methods for dealing with life's harsher realities, a rational for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose. To serve social needs, Humanist religious communities offer a sense of belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of children, special holidays shared with like minded people, a unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically consistent rites of passage (weddings, child welcomings, coming of age celebrations, funerals, etc.), an opportunity for affirmation of one's philosophy of life, and a historical context for one's ideas. Religious Humanists maintain that most human beings have personal a social needs that can only be met by humanism. They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in traditional religion should be able to find a home in non traditional religion. A popular example of Secular Humanists views of the world was said by author Salman Rushdie on ABC's "Nightline" on February 13, 1989. [My book says] that there is an old, old conflict between the secular view of the world and the religious view of the world, and particularly between texts which claim to be divinely inspired and texts which are imaginatively inspired.....I distrust people who claim to know the whole truth and who seek to orchestrate the world in line with that one truth. I think that's a very dangerous position in the world. It needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged constantly in all sorts of ways, and that's what I tried to do. The Secular Humanist have been known for defiance, a defiance that dates back to ancient Greece. Humanist themes that are shown in Greek mythology are rarely ever shown in the mythologies of other cultures. And they are certainly not shown in modern religion. The best example from Greek mythology is the character of Prometheus. Prometheus stands out because he was idolized by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. He was punished and still he continued his defiance despite the torture. The next time we see a Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John Milton's Paradise Lost. But now he is the devil. Whoever defies god must be evil. That seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the Greeks didn't agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could still be mistaken. This exemplifies Secular Humanists tradition of skepticism. Just like every religion has it's sage, so does Secular Humanism. All other sages created rules or laws save the Secular Humanists sage, Socrates. Socrates gave us a method of questioning the rules of others. In general both philosophies agree that reason is taken over religion. In finding what all humanists believe you have to look towards the Humanist Manifesto. There are two versions of the Manifesto. The first one was written and signed in 1933 and since then there has been a Humanist Manifesto II, written and signed in 1973. I will concentrate on the second manifesto because it includes everything involved and more than the first. There are generally seventeen common principals to the manifesto not including the preface, introduction and conclusion. Those seventeen are divided into five topics including: Religion 1-2, Ethics 3-4, the Individual 5-6, Democratic Society 7-11, and World Community 12-17. Those seventeen I will focus on the seventeen common principals as they are the basis of Humanism. In the first principle is states In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine 'spiritual' experience and aspiration. But then goes on to say We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. The manifesto goes on saying that while they admit that traditional religion and Humanism have ethical teachings and morals in common, "they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities..........Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage." The conclusion for the principle was that no deity will save us from our wrong doings, "humans are responsible for what we are or will become." The second Principle states Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans for present concerns, from self actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. The next set of two principle's are based on Ethics. The first states that moral values "derive their source from human experience.", and not needing any theological or ideological sanctions. Life is lived for the here not the hereafter. "Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism." The second principle in the Ethics section talks of reason being "the most effective instruments that humankind possesses." But also warns that "reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue." The fifth and sixth principles are based on the Individual. The fifth principle talks about the importance of the individual. "The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value." It rejects the religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, or dehumanize personality. They do believe in maximizing "individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility." The sixth principle talks of sexual freedom. The freedom or right to birth control, abortion, and divorce. They believe that intolerant attitudes from orthodox or puritan groups "unduly repress sexual conduct." They believe that short of harming other people individuals should be able to pursue their sexual lifestyles as they please. Educationally they believe "Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity." The seventh through the eleventh principles have to do with the democratic society. The seventh principle backs up and extends the "principals of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". This includes the freedom of press and speech, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, religious liberty, etc. The eighth principle is that of an open and democratic society. A true democratic society where "All persons should have a voice in developing the values and goals that determine their lives." The ninth principle is that of the separation of church and state. The state should not favor any one particular belief, but should encourage "maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society." The tenth principle democratizes the economy and judges it by it's responsiveness to human need, testing results in terms of the common good. The eleventh principle is the principle of moral equality. There must be the "elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin." It also talks of universal education. It deplores "racial, religious, ethnic, or class f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\HUME AND DESCARTES ON THE THEORY OF IDEAS.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HUME AND DESCARTES ON THE THEORY OF IDEAS David Hume and Rene Descartes are philosophers with opposing views about the origination of ideas. Descartes believed there were three types of ideas which are, innate, adventitious and those from imagination. He stated since he exists and his idea of what a perfect being is, such as God, then God exists. Hume, on the other had, believed ideas came only from one thing, impressions. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses but I like Hume's theory better than Descartes. Descartes believed imagination could not help humans. Descartes' definition of ideas was, only things which exist in the mind and represent other things are called ideas. His argument was the nature of the ideas which make up the mind could gain an idea about God, but instead, humans could think about God by other means. A major strength of Descartes was his idea of objective reality, which is one's perception of reality. If something accurately represents something, then it is objective reality, according to him. I believe this is a strength of his because of his convincing argument, "If the objective reality of any one of my ideas is found to be so great that I am certain that the same reality was not in me...therefore I myself cannot be the cause of the idea, then it necessarily follows that I am not alone in the world, but that something else, which is the cause of this idea, also exists" (75). Descartes weakness is his idea of innate ideas. It is not necessarily correct to say people have a mind the minute they are born, instead they have gained it after being living for some time. Descartes position on innate ideas is open to criticism; innate ideas should be predicted not thought of. There is no certainty that the nature in which the idea is explained should be innate. If Descartes theory of innateness has no temporary connections between the ideas, then there is nothing innate about his innate ideas. Hume believed that ideas came from impressions. He stated that every simple idea has a simple impression and vice versa. He divided impressions into two groups, sensation, which comes about from causes unknown to us and reflection which comes about from our ideas. He said any impressions are followed by an idea which resembles the impression and only varies in force and vivacity. Whereas Descartes did not believe in imagination, Hume did. This is a weakness of his because one cannot logically prove something from imagination. One cannot logically have an idea of a cause from their imagination; they can just picture their ideas. Hume did not believe in Descartes concept of innate ideas. He states that ideas are gained through our senses and to prove ideas are not innate, one must realize that they have already had experience of these ideas. Hume's strength is his belief that all ideas came from impressions. Even stronger is the impression of reflection. People who feel the effects of an idea thought of, do not see something happen. Descartes and Hume disagreed on the topics of innateness and imagination that is why neither one is right. Even though Hume's imagination idea is bad, the rest of his belief is convincing. Therefore, I believe Hume's theory of ideas is better than Descartes' argument because he says ideas are based from impression and I can relate to this. Whenever I think of something I form ideas of this object based on first impressions. I was not born with ideas because I had nothing to base them on when I was born. Therefore, Hume's theory of ideas is easier to accept and comprehend. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Hume, David.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hume, David In An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume demonstrates how there is no way to rationally make any claims about future occurrences. According to Hume knowledge of matters of fact come from previous experience. From building on this rationale, Hume goes on to prove how, as humans we can only make inferences on what will happen in the future, based on our experiences of the past. But he points out that we are incorrect to believe that we are justified in using our experience of the past as a means of evidence of what will happen in the future. Since we have only experience of the past, we can only offer propositions of the future. Hume classifies human into two categories; "Relations of Ideas," and "Matters of Fact." (240) "Relations of ideas" are either intuitively or demonstratively certain, such as in Mathematics (240). It can be affirmed that 2 + 2 equals 4, according to Hume's "relations of ideas." "Matters of fact" on the other hand are not ascertained in the same manner as "Relations of Ideas." The ideas that are directly caused by impressions are called "matters of fact". With "matters of fact," there is no certainty in establishing evidence of truth since every contradiction is possible. Hume uses the example of the sun rising in the future to demonstrate how as humans, we are unjustified in making predictions of the future based on past occurrences. As humans, we tend to use the principle of induction to predict what will occur in the future. Out of habit, we assume that sun will rise every day, like it has done in the past, but we have no basis of actual truth to make this justification. By claiming that the sun will rise tomorrow according to Hume is not false, nor is it true. Hume illustrates that "the contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality" (240). Just because the sun has risen in the past does not serve as evidence for the future. Thus, according to Hume, we are only accurate in saying that there is a fifty- percent chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Hume felt that all reasoning concerning matter of fact seemed to be founded on the relation between cause and effect. (241) Hume said that even though the cause preceded the effect, there is no proof that the cause is responsible for the effect's occurrence , it could be purely coincidental. He claims that the human notion of cause and effect is ungrounded in empirical evidence, but rather given only reasonable probability through continuous reinforcement. Hume's rejection of causation implies a rejection of scientific laws, which are based on the general premise that one event necessarily causes another and predictably always will. According to Hume's philosophy, therefore, knowledge of matters of fact is impossible, although as a practical matter he freely acknowledged that people had to think in terms of cause and effect, and had to assume the validity of their perceptions, For example, if I touch the hot stove, I will get burnt. This statement does not necessitate that when I touch the hot stove, (cause) I will always get burnt (effect). Instead, according to Hume, I have no good reason to think that it will not happen again. Hume, however, went further, endeavoring to prove that reason and rational judgments are merely habitual associations of distinct impressions or experiences. Hume claims that all our ideas, which form the basis of our knowledge, are derived from impressions that we take in from the outside world and into the inside world of our mind. Hume grouped perceptions and experiences into one of two categories: impressions and ideas. (238) According to Hume, ideas are memories of sensations but impressions are the cause of the sensation. An impression is part of a temporary feeling, but an idea is the permanent impact of this feeling. Hume believed that ideas were just dull imitations of impressions. Hume did not believe that a priori, knowledge based on reasoning can deduce true knowledge. Knowledge based on reasoning alone, according to Hume does not provide understanding of the real world. He believed that all ideas have to have impressions, that the human mind invented nothing. So, according to Hume, a priori reasoning does not offer any understanding of the real world, because they cannot be traced to the impressions that first created them. The human mind takes simple ideas, and turns them into complex ideas. (243) An example of this concept is the idea of an unicorn. Unicorns are conceived as being horses with horns. Hume's claimed that an unicorn is formed of two simple ideas, the figure of a horse and a horn. Hume concludes that our beliefs can never be rationally justified, but must be acknowledged to rest only upon our acquired habits. In similar fashion, Hume argued that we cannot justify our natural beliefs in the reality of the self or the existence of an external world. From all of this, he concluded that a severe skepticism is the only defensible view of the world, though he does not expect us to live our daily lives by this notion. Wesley C. Salmon points out that according to the principle of uniformity of nature that even though we do not know for sure what will happen in the future, we must assume that nature will continue as it has done in the past. This is the human condition, in that we have no way of asserting what will happen in the future. But in living our daily lives, we are better to go by what has occurred in the past in nature, despite Hume's philosophy that there is only a 50/50 chance. In order to function, we need to accept that there is a uniformity of nature in order to carry on with our lives. Bibliography 1. Reason & Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg & Russ Shafer- Landau. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999. Word Count: 1019 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Humes Mind Games.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Travis Slaby phil-101 Alex Clarkson 2-17-97 Hume's Mind Game The human mind is a very intricate machine. There have been many people that have attempted, and failed, to explain how the human mind operates. After reading Hume, I was in agreement with a lot of what he was explaining. Hume, in my mind, has come the closest to uncovering the minds operations. Robert Hume dealt with a lot of what Decarte talked about in his writings. The difference between Decarte and Hume is that Hume "ironed out" a lot of the "wrinkles" that Decarte left behind. One in particular, was that of doubting everything. Hume believed that you could doubt some things, but it was impossible to doubt everything. I completely agree with Hume. Doubting everything would never lead anywhere. The human mind can not just wipe out all it's known memory and start over. The mind is always on. Decarte used his beliefs to prove his own theories. He cheated his own system. Another thing Hume did was throw the Law of Mediocrity out the window. He is saying, basically, that everyday life can change tomorrow. The sun may not come up in the morning, a pool ball, being hit by another, may not move. I still believe the sun will come up tomorrow, but I see what Hume is trying to get at. Everything that is thought to be definite can change. There is no proven facts that say the sun will come up tomorrow, we just assume it will. In Hume's writing, assumption is a dangerous word. Assumption is made up of what you believe and what you don't. I can believe light will turn on when I hit the switch, but I can not rule out the fact that it will not turn on. It is probable that the light will turn on, but not definite. Hume says probabilities are what the mind is consuming during everyday life. Science give the facts because it has been tested and proved. "Everyday life" hasn't been proven by science. One example of a nonproved science is gravity. Gravity pulls everything toward the center of the earth. They have tested gravity, but there are no definite facts known to prove the theories. Who knows, maybe tomorrow gravity reverses it's pull and everything gets pulled upward. We, as normal thinking persons, assume gravity will not change, and that assumption is what clouds our minds of other possibilities. Hume doesn't want people to change the way they think, he just wants people to acknowledge the other possibilities that are out there. Robert Hume has a very good grasp on what he is talking about. His trip through the mind's eye was very intriguing to say the least. I never thought about the possibility of looking out the window some morning, only to find out the sun did not rise. I really do not know how anyone could disprove his writings. Everything he said makes sense. I can't say I agree with everything, but I can't seem to put my objections into words. He covered all the basics. I can not say the sun will rise. What are my facts? Sure, the sun came up yesterday and today, but tomorrow is a different story. The only way anyone can disprove Hume's theories is if that person could see into the future. I believe that is not likely anytime soon. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\I am me and you are you .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I Am Me, and You Are You Existentialists view mankind as individuals whose unique past experiences establish personal characteristics that set all of us apart. This idea can be best expressed in an intuitive statement by a celebrated individualist, Tarzan. "Me Tarzan, you Jane" is at the nucleus of the beliefs of the existential atom. This seemingly simplistic statement relates to existentialism by leading us to the idea of man's individualism, guiding us to belief of existence before essence and ushering us to the notion of freedom of choice. These three beliefs can then be related to the characters in the existential writer Jean-Paul Sartre's "No Exit." At first reading of this statement, one notices Tarzan's word choice. "Me Tarzan, you Jane" implies that Tarzan and Jane are not one and the same. Instead, they are two different people who lead very different lives. Tarzan, the Ape Man, is by nature different than his newfound lady friend. Existentialists would further this train of thought to say that since people are always different, they can never be the same. They would then argue that every person is an individual, not a copy from a predetermined mold. Jean-Paul Sartre also portrays his characters as individuals, not carbon copies of each other. Garcin, a soldier who went AWOL, certainly lived a different life than the baby-killer Estelle. These individualistic qualities lead to us by Tarzan's statement, now guide us to the existential belief of existence before essence. This idea consists of the belief that people are formed from their own unique past experiences. Tarzan, a lonely boy who was raised by a pack of gorillas, has not experienced the touch of mankind. His isolation from the world is completely opposite from that of Jane's past. Jane, a women raised in the indulgence of the modern day, has experienced many unique events that have made her what she is. Jane can never know what is like to be Tarzan because she can never experience what he has gone through. Likewise, Tarzan, the Ape Man, can never experience what it is like to be Jane because he can never live through the unique events of Jane's past. Sartre also gives us characters with very unique backgrounds. Garcin can never experience the troubled past that Inez had and Inez in turn can never understand why Garcin needs to be told he is not a coward. After now understanding that existentialists view people as individuals who have unique past experiences that make them who they are, existentialists would now usher us to the notion of each character's freedom of choice. By seeing Tarzan and Jane as individuals with different pasts, existentialists would argue that each would react differently to a situation. This choice is based on their past experiences. Tarzan's primordial introduction is one example.. His choice of words are based on how he was raised. "Me Tarzan, you Jane" hardly sounds like the word's of an educated man. According to existentialists, if Jane were to do the introducing it, would be more formal than grunting. Sartre also shows this through the ways each of his characters reacts to their eternal home. Garcin's past experience of being a journalist influences his attitude upon arriving in the room. He takes a very investigative look at it , noticing every detail of his new home while his roommates seem to not really care. Although, at face value, Tarzan's statement, "Me Tarzan, you Jane," seems very simplistic, by analyzing it in an existential view, we notice it is more than what it appears to be. Existentialists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, see that this statement brings forth three concepts of existentialism: individualism, existence before essence and freedom of choice. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\If you are are against abortion then you should be a vegitari.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ . In a world with such a vast amount of people their exists virtually every different belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for every argument and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative equal strength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed. Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers use to analyze situations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I will try and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument is presented in a form of a question and upon examination of the contents of this question, several different and unique questions arise. In order to support my theory as to the answer to this question I will attempt to answer the three subquestions which deal less with the content of the question itself and more with the reaction to reading the question. Also key to the support of my theory is the concept of existentialism. I will go into the foundations of this ethical theory throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion one, "E --> C", simple asks whether it is true or false that if you have an ethical theory then does it have to be consistent. Subquestion two, "(?) --> H", poses the idea of what makes up the essence of being a human being. Subquestion three, "E --> (H --> M)", asks whether it is true or false that it is ethical to assume that humans should be given moral priority over animals. I order to support my interpretation and answer the topic question, I will try to explain my personal ethical theory. We were given several different theories in which to emulate or pick pieces of in order to define such words which have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such as 'right' and 'wrong', the context in which they are presented are vital pieces in order to define them. It is my belief, and a necessary requirement of this paper to somehow define these two words. It is obvious that these two words must be opposites of each other. Therefore, the understanding of one will easily lead to the understanding of its opposite. However, the words themselves will never be anything more than five letters grouped together. This is because your ethical theory and someone else's ethical theory could possible conflict causing for a discrepancy in the definitions of these words. Therefore, throughout this paper I will try not to use such vague words such as 'right' or 'wrong'. Most of the Philosophers and ethical theories presented in Sober held that the highest ethical good is the same for everyone. Kierkegaard, who was the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own unique vocation (Web 2). I agreed with many of the different ideas of the ethical theories but I was not able to overlook the ever present idea of God. Personally I am a anti-religious person who feels strongly that religion in general is filled with corruption and too often leads to a misguided life. It is my belief that, "Blind faith is the CHILD of ignorance"(Quote, ?). It was therefor impossible for me to look at any of the theories which involved the mentioning of God. However, I did find many interesting ideas encompassed in the theory of atheistic existentialism. Existentialism is the popular name of a philosophical attitude primarily associated with the 20th-century thinker Jean Paul Sarte, but with a history that goes back to the 19th-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegarrd. All existentialists have tried to stress the importance of passionate individual action in deciding question of both morality and truth (Warnock). They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one's own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the understanding of a situation by someone involved in that situation is superior to that of a detached, objective observer. This emphasis in the perspective of the individual agent has also made existentialists suspicious of systematic reasoning (Warnock). Perhaps the most prominent concept in existentialism is that of choice. Humanity's primary distinction, in the view of most existentialists, is the freedom to choose. Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a fixed nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes choices that create his or her own nature. Choice is therefore central to human existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to chose is a choice (Web 1). Freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Because individuals are free to choose their path, existentialists have argued, they must accept the risk and responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. For the basic theory in which I have adapted mainly from existentialism, there lies six unique themes which define it. First, there is the basic existentialist standpoint, the existence precedes essence, has primacy over essence (Grene). Man is a conscious subject, rather than a thing to be predicted or manipulated; he exists as a conscious being, and not in accordance with any definition, essence, generalization, or system. Existentialism says I am nothing else but my own conscious existence. A second existentialist theme is that of anxiety, or the sense of anguish, a generalized uneasiness, a gear or dread which is not directed to any specific object. It is the claim that anguish streams of thought in Judaism and Christianity which see human existence as fallen, and human life as lived in suffering and sin, guild and anxiety. This dark and forbidding picture of human life leads existentialists to reject ideas such as happiness, enlightenment optimism, a sense of well-being, since these can only reflect a superficial understanding of life, or a naive and foolish way of denying the despairing, tragic aspect of human existence. A third existentialist theme is that of absurdity. Granted, says the existentialist, I am my own existence, but this existence is absurd. Each of us is simply here, thrown into this time and place--but why now? Why here? For no reason, without necessary connection, only continentally, and so my life is an absurd contingent fact. This idea of absurdity was prevalent in the works of Pascal, who is a French mathematician and philosopher who we covered in class. "When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, and the little space I full, and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of space of which I am ignorant, and which knows me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather than there, why now rather than then." This I feel shows some of the feelings and ideas of an early forerunner of existentialism. The fourth theme which pervades existentialism is that of nothingness or the void. The main idea of this theme is that, if as an existentialist, and that if no essence defines me, that I should reject all of the philosophies, sciences, political theories, and religions which fail to reflect my existence as a conscious being. And should they attempt to impose a specific essentials structure upon me and my world, then there is nothing that structures my world (Grene). Along with this idea is that I am my own existence, but my existence is a nothingness. Related to the theme of nothingness is the existentialist theme of death. I am filled with anxiety at times when I permit myself to be aware of this. At those moments, says Martin Heidegger, the most influential of the German existentialist philosophers, the whole of my being seems to drift away into nothing(Grene). The unaware person tries to live as if death is not actual, he tries to escape its reality. but Heidegger says that my death is my most authentic, significant moment, my personal potentiality, which I alone must suffer. And if I take death into my life, acknowledge it and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and pettiness of life--and only then will I be free to become myself. Alienation or estrangement is the sixth theme which characterizes existentialism. Alienation is a theme which Hegel opened up for the modern world on many levels and in many subtle forms. There is many different forms of alienation dealing with those who feel alienated by society, by there true consciousness of their freedom, and human institutions. This final theme is extremely complicated and did not seem as relevant as the others for the purpose of writing this paper. All of these themes make up the backbone of my ethical theory but I feel that it is necessary to share more personal and detailed ideas behind my theory. Besides the total non-belief in God I feel strongly that humans are superior in every way to other living things. This however does not give us the divine right to do exactly as we wish. It does however give us the option to chose as a society to do that which is deemed acceptable. An example of this is that their are laws which forbid the killing of certain animals. These laws are not a result of the animals revolting against humans and demanding that they will no longer be killed. They are the result of other humans who have decided for many different reasons that this is for the betterment of mankind. It is necessary for humans to enforce polices which protect animals in order to maintain some sense of stability. I feel that humans have a moral contract with themselves and nature to preserve what nature has given us. What I mean by this is that unlike humans most other animals must kill as a means of survival. At this point in time it is only necessary to kill certain animals as a form of food source and for other luxury items. There have been times when it was necessary for humans to kill an animal for food. I wonder if a person who did not eat meat would starve to death if the only thing to eat was meat? And as long as we do not over kill a certain species then they will continue to reproduce and the food chain will continue to work. Being descendants of other living things, humans must insure that nature is let to work on it own, continuing to do what it has done for many years. In response to subquestion one, I do not feel that it is possible to remain consistent in any ethical theory in which you live by. This is mainly because every ethical theory that I now of is entirely too focused and usually not completely relevant to every circumstance. The more broad your definition or theory is then the closer you come to the only one that will always work. The less you say what you can and cant do, the closer you come to saying nothing. Once you have generalized your theory so much that you eliminated everything then you are stuck with f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Impermanence Selflessness and Dissatisfaction.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Impermanence, Selflessness, and Dissatisfaction Buddhism is neither a religion nor a philosophy, but rather a way of life. This does not imply that Buddhism is nothing more than an ethical code: it is a way of moral, spiritual and intellectual training leading to complete freedom of the mind. (DeSilva, 1991:p 5). Of the many Buddhist sects, Zen Buddhism places particular emphasis on living 'the right' life, and does not revolve around rite and ritual. Buddhism outlines the three characteristics of existence, which aids one in achieving enlightenment. Impermanence, selflessness, and dissatisfaction are concepts that are easily understood on an intellectual level, but to apply these concepts in one's life is challenging. Impermanence is concerned with the thought that nothing remains static, and change is to be expected. Selflessness holds that there is no immortal soul or external Self that exists in each individual; (Fadiman & Frager,1994:p 545) selflessness is closely connected with impermanence. Dissatisfaction is a larger concept entirely- it involves the acknowledgment that suffering exists. The world is founded on suffering, (DeSilva, 1991:p 21) and once anything becomes a problem there is bound to be suffering, unsatisfactoriness, or conflict- conflict between our desires and the state of reality. Dissatisfaction is the most difficult characteristic of existence to apply to one's life, as it involves not only the acceptance of this state, but also outlines one on how to treat and cure this state. The notion that the world is an ever-changing environment on all levels of existence is not a radical idea. In fact, those that have not yet accepted change as a natural state of nature is denying the reality of life. A being and the empirical world are both constantly changing. They come into being and pass away. All is in a whirl, nothing escapes this inexorable unceasing change, and because of this transient nature nothing is really pleasant. There is happiness, but very momentary, it vanishes like a flake of snow, and brings about unsatisfactoriness (DeSilva, 1991:p 29). Both pleasant and unpleasant conditions come and go, it is then the responsibility of the individual to deal with each situation in the 'right' way. Understanding that there is no universal truth, that thoughts and ideas evolve- leaves one open to improve and grow- a goal of Buddhism. The concept of impermanence is significant from a psychological standpoint, as it encourages individuals to deal with situations with more flexibility, as well as understanding. Impermanence allows one to possess a firm grip upon reality, knowing that there is an ever-changing landscape, encouraging one not to take things for granted. Related to impermanence, is the concept of selflessness. Selflessness involves the knowledge that there is no immortal soul or eternal Self that exists in each individual (Fadiman & Frager, 1994:p 545). The so-called individual is a collection of attributes, all of which are impermanent and constantly changing. According to the Buddha, the person is made up of five basic factors- body, perception, sensation, consciousness, and mental activities. (Fadiman & Frager, 1994:p 545) Selflessness enables the individual to focus upon the external with the understanding that 'I' is not of significant priority. In taking the importance away from the individual, it permits one to become concerned with issues not related directly to the self. The fact that the world is constantly changing, and that one does not possess an immortal soul; allows the stage to be set for dissatisfaction, as it encompasses a number of principles. Dissatisfaction exists, it is not a foreign notion. To this single problem we give different names: economic, social, political, psychological, and even religious problems. Do they not all emanate from that one single problem, namely unsatisfactoriness? If there is no unsatisfactoriness, why need we strive to solve them? Does not solving a problem imply reducing the unsatisfactoriness? (DeSilva, 1991: p 48) Dissatisfaction is in essence suffering, the fundamental problem of life. Suffering appears in two forms; psychological and physical- which falls into three categories. Ordinary suffering includes; birth, death, sickness, old age, unpleasant conditions, grief, etc. It is typical to experience these sufferings throughout the duration of one's life. The second type of suffering is suffering produced by change, followed by suffering as conditioned states. Suffering as conditioned states occurs when an individual is attached to; matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. The Buddha points out that people suffer change every moment ant this change brings about unsatisfactoriness; for whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory- there is no lasting bliss. (DeSilva, 1991:p 73) Following the understanding of the characteristics of existence, in particular, that of dissatisfaction and suffering- the Four Noble Truths await. These truths in no way contradict the aforementioned characteristics, but rather, explain how they can be dealt with in a constructive manner. It is not difficult to grasp the concepts of impermanence, selflessness, or dissatisfaction- carrying the meaning of these words into ones daily life, conversely, is a task. Impermanence is perhaps the easiest concept of the three to accept, as our world seems to change more rapidly than ever, and one becomes accustomed to this. It would only be logical for this to apply to an individual's spiritual being as well. One must be prepared to acknowledge that how they perceive their external condition is constantly evolving. From a personal point of view, it is my belief that Buddhism is quite grounded and sound as a guide for living one's life. It in no way inhibits your nature, but rather instills a degree of gentleness and thoughtfulness into one's life, it results in examination of one's behavior. From my limited perspective, selflessness is somewhat difficult to accept, as I believe that each person is unique, and possesses some form of immortality- a soul for example. The fact that we are composed of mortal, constantly changing components does not prove that individuals are wholly mortal. An individual is composed of a great deal more than body, perception, sensation, consciousness, and thought. It is my belief that there are facets of an individual that cannot be so easily explained. One cannot argue that suffering and dissatisfaction are non-existent. By acknowledging these facts of life, an individual is in the fortunate position of having the ability to end the suffering conditions, whether they be psychological or physical. Consequently, the Buddhist characteristics of existence are useful to the average individual. These concepts can aid the individual in healthy analysis of their behavior and motivations, as well as offer methods that enable one to actively change aspects of their life that they may be dissatisfied with. BIBLIOGRAPHY DeSilva, J. The Spectrum of Buddhism: The Writings of Piyadassi. Buddhist Missionary Society: New York, 1991. Fadiman, J. Personality and Personal Growth. HarperCollins College Frager, R. Publishers: United States, 1994. Suzuki, D.T. Manual of Zen Buddhism. Rider: London, New York, 1956. Web Sites http://www.ncf.carelton.ca/freenet/rootdi...ism/introduction/truths/NobleTruth-1.html http://www.inet.co.th/cyberclub/over_buddhism.html f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Introduction to Psychology.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INTRODUCTION The study of the way people think and behave is called psychology. The field of psychology has a number of sub-disciplines devoted to the study of the different levels and contexts of human thought and behavior. Social psychology, for example, deals with human thought and action in a social context, while physiological psychology is concerned with thought and behavior at the level of neurology. Another division of psychology, comparative psychology compares the thought and behavior of humans with that of other species. Abnormal psychology studies atypical thought and action. Psychology is an interdisciplinary science. Social psychology, for example, involves both sociology and anthropology. Abnormal psychology has much in common with psychiatry, while physiological psychology builds on the techniques and methods of neurology and physiology. It is evident that psychological methods are being increasingly used in daily events. Employment for example, in Europe more companies are subjecting potential personnel to psychological profile checks and psychological tests during interviews. Even our social lives are becoming affected. People who are seeking the right partner are using psychological techniques to establish the emotional state of their potential partners. As psychology becomes more and more accessible and understandable to more people, I feel that it will begin to influence our lifestyles more. From a personal stand point, this has been a very difficult exercise. This is a new area for me, so I have been unable to write from a professional or work experience perspective only from a purely academic view. PSYCHOLOGY. 'Psychology' literally means 'study of the mind'. Psychology as a separate discipline is usually dated from 1879 when Wundt opened the first psychology laboratory, devoted to the analysis of conscious thought into its basic elements, structuralism. It is understood that 'structuralism' was founded by Wilhelm Wundt. What made this 'new' psychology different from philosophy was the emphasis on measurement and control. The application of some of the basic scientific method to the study of the mental process. For psychology to become a natural science, it must confine itself to what is observable and measurable by more than one person, namely behaviour, Behaviourism was established. This movement was formally initiated by John Broadus Watson in a famous paper, "Psychology as the Behaviourist Views It" published in 1913. At the time when behaviourism was becoming prominent in America a group of German psychologists began to discredit the principles of structuralism and behaviourism. They argued that it was not possible to break down psychological processes. This theory, demonstrated that our perceptions are highly organised and have immediate, vivid qualities that cannot be explained in terms of piecing together basic elements. The psychologists had the opinion that our perceptions are inherently configurational, meaning that the elements making up the perception could not be separated from the way in which those elements were combined as a whole. This now popular theory is known as 'Gestalt' taken from the German word for "configuration" The expression of the third force movement known as "humanistic psychology" is an eclectic grouping of American psychologists who advocated various interpretations of human personality. The term humanistic reflects the focus on defining a human psychology with emphases on individual existence, focusing on the role of free choice and our ability to make rational decisions on how we live. During the 1950s and 1960s, many psychologists began to look to the work of computer scientists in trying to understand the more complex behaviour which, they felt, learning theory or conditioning had oversimplified. This behaviour was referred to by early psychologists as 'mind' or mental processes, which has become cognition or the cognitive process. The cognitive psychologist sees the person as an information processor and cognitive psychology , along with artificial intelligence, linguistics, philosophy, anthropology and neuroscience now form part of cognitive science, which emerged in the late 1970s. How can we divide up the work that psychologists do? There is much more under the heading of 'psychology' than the theories and principles of famous and leading psychologists of our time. There are psychologists in all areas, specialising in a number of fields. Physiological psychology is concerned with the neurological and physiological events that underlie human thought and action. Some physiological psychologists are concerned with mapping the functions of various parts of the brain. Others study both the transmission of electrical information in the brain and the neurotransmitters that facilitate or inhibit such transmissions. Physiological psychologists study the effects of drugs on human behavior. Conditioning and learning are concerned with how experience modifies thought and behavior. Initially devoted to the investigation of principles of learning among all species, the field now includes specific types of learning for different species. Other areas of interest in the field include maladaptive learning, such as learned helplessness, and learning in traditional settings such as in the classroom and on the job. Cognitive psychology applies to the study of thinking, concept formation, and problem solving. Work in this field has been much influenced and aided by the use of computers. Computers are used to present problems and tasks to subjects and to model the thinking and problem-solving processes. The impact of computers on cognitive psychology is also evident in the theories used to describe human thought. For example, such terms as short-term memory and long-term memory parallel the two types of memory that are available on computers. Social psychology looks into all facets of human social interaction. Among the problems studied by social psychologists are such matters as the development of friendship, the nature of romantic attachment, and the relative effectiveness of cooperation and competition on achievement. In recent years social psychology has included the study of attribution. Attribution theory recognizes that psychological perceptions of events do not always correspond to objective realities. Abnormal psychology is the study of maladaptive behaviors. Such behaviors range from the simple habit disorders (thumb sucking, nail biting), to the addictions (alcohol, gambling and so on) to the most severe mental disturbances the psychoses. Abnormal psychology investigates the causes and dynamics of mental and behavioral disorders and tests the effectiveness of various treatments. Vocational psychology is the study of how specific personality traits contribute to success in different vocations. In one approach the characteristics of people already working in a specific vocation are studied. If a personality pattern emerges, tests can then be constructed to measure the traits and interests of people in the field. Other individuals who exhibit the same traits and interests can be counseled to consider the field as a possible vocational choice. Vocational psychologists also look for traits and aptitudes that contribute to success in a vocation. Industrial psychology concerns the physical and psychological conditions of the workplace and how these factors contribute to an efficient work environment. Industrial psychologists are also concerned about the design of manufactured products. Some industrial psychologists, for example, are involved in the design of such items as dashboards, which are used in airplanes and automobiles. Their aim is to apply a knowledge of human capabilities and limitations to the design of instrumentation that is to be used by humans. Business psychology, a relatively recent branch of psychology, is the study of the effectiveness of interpersonal relations in the workplace. Some business psychologists set up training workshops to improve executives' management skills. They also evaluate prospective job applicants and evaluate individuals being considered for promotion. They employ the full range of psychological tests as well as interview procedures. Instruments are often designed for specific types of evaluations. Experimental psychology encompasses many different fields of psychology that employ experimental procedures. Traditionally it has been regarded as the study of the basic sensory mechanisms: vision, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. The classical problems of experimental psychology are determining reaction times and reaction thresholds (the amount of stimulation needed to produce a response for any given sense) as well as developing psychological scales for physical stimuli, called psychophysics. Hot and cold, for example, are psychological scalings of temperature stimuli for which such physical measures as degrees Fahrenheit provide only physical units. Much experimental psychology today is closely tied with physiological psychology. Animal psychology includes several different disciplines. One is comparative psychology, which explores animal behavior in comparison to human behavior. Comparative psychologists, for example, might present different species with comparable tasks, to see how their performances differ. Animal psychologists also study animals to gain insight into human behavior. For example, the effects of drugs and tobacco on animals are observed to determine the effects these substances have on humans. Developmental psychology is concerned with the growth and development of individuals. Once concerned primarily with the growth and development of children, the field has expanded to include the growth and development of individuals throughout their lives. Developmental psychologists explore changes associated with mental, social, and emotional development. They also look at the evolution of friendships and parent-child relationships. How children learn both in and outside school is another focus of developmental research. Clinical psychology has undergone rapid growth in recent years and is now the largest sub-discipline within psychology. Clinical psychologists work in hospitals, in clinics, and in private practice. Their main concerns are the diagnoses and treatment of learning and emotional problems. Many conduct psychological research along with their applied work. The goal of psychology must be to further understand behaviour. This has to be done through theories. Good psychological theories generate hypotheses about how human behaviour should respond to given conditions. Psychology has to develop and comprehend the behavioural attitude of not only humans but animals, and establish more relevant theories as the science of psychology advances. Methods of Psychology. Psychologists use a number of research methods to study behaviour. These include surveys, observation, case studies, correlation method and experimental methods. Performing a survey is one of the most widely used methods of psychological research. Representative groups are questioned either face to face or by being given formal questionnaires to complete. There are limitations to surveys. There can easily be a bias within the groups questioned. For example, gender, social or economic differences etc. This can give a limited insight as to the true attitude of the group surveyed. It can also make considerable difference as to how the questions are composed. Any question can be written with a critical or creative style which can determine the way the person taking part in the survey will answer. The only way to take a poll or survey is to guarantee that the individuals surveyed (a sample) will be representative of the whole group you are interested in. In a random sample, every individual in the population has an equal chance to be in the sample. Observational research methods can either be in a controlled environment or subjects can be observed in their normal day to day habitat, known as naturalistic observation. The most critical feature of naturalistic observation is that 'the act of observing someone must not interfere with how the person behaves'. When people know they are being watched , they are likely to try and look as good as they can. The advantage of naturalistic observations is that they are made under real life conditions. The main disadvantage is that we can seldom say with certainty why people behaved as they did because we do not have any control over the circumstances in which they were behaving. Most data-gathering procedures in psychology collect a limited amount of information from a large number of people, the aim of a case study is to obtain large amounts of information about an individual or small group. Detail of this kind can help the psychologist understand complex relationships and behavioral patterns. Among the disadvantages of case studies is the potential for observer bias and the lack of proper sampling opportunities. A list of facts and figures of the kind that may be obtained from any of the previous research methods can only provide a limited insight into the nature of behaviour. A useful strategy is to look for relationships among the various measures obtained. Studies with this purpose are described as correlational. Correlational studies may use a number of different research methods to obtain the data. The distinctive feature of a correlational study is not the method used to gather the data but the questions the data is designed to answer. The difficulty with correlational studies is not that they fail to suggest causal relations but that they suggest too many. The experiment is the only method by which science can establish causal relations. In experimental research the conditions under which observations are made are arranged so the number of possible causes can be controlled and specified. All experiments have one or more independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is the set of conditions established by the experiment. The dependent variable is that aspect of the subjects' behaviour measured by the experimenter and which could possibly be influenced by the independent variable. Naturally the limitation of any experimental research is the artificial surroundings in which they are performed. Psychology makes extensive use of statistics. These methods have two broad functions in the analysis of data: descriptive and inferential. The aim of descriptive methods is to provide a summary of data so that important features are more readily apparent. Inferential methods are used to evaluate the extent to which data supports a hypotheses or can be generalised beyond the particular study being analysed. The controlling influence over all of these research methods is of course ethics. Ethics considerations arise with both human and animal subjects. To help researchers, as well as safeguard the welfare of the subjects, ethical guidelines exist in many countries. THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. The nervous system of humans and other vertebrates consists of two major parts: the central nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system (PNS) The CNS consists of the brain and the spinal cord. It occupies the commanding position in the nervous system, as it coordinates and integrates all bodily functions. The PNS, which transmits messages to and from the CNS. has two divisions: somatic and autonomic. Autonomic nerves are motor nerves only. They regulate a great variety of bodily functions. Cerebral Cortex. The very elaborate cerebral cortex is layered sheet some 2.5mm thick of literally billions of nerve cells that go over and around the brain. It covers the upper and outer portions of the brain called the cerebrum. This is why it is called the cerebral cortex. The cortex is wrinkled and folded. This convoluting greatly enlarges the surface area available, compared to a similarly sized smooth cortex. The cerebrum is divided down the middle from front to back into two halves: the right and the left cerebral hemispheres. Each hemisphere controls the activities of the opposite side of the body that is, the left cerebral hemisphere controls the right side of the body and the right hemisphere controls the left side. Although in many ways the two hemispheres are mirror images of one another, there are functional distinctions between them. In most people, the areas that control the development and use of language are located in the left hemisphere, while areas that govern three-dimensional visualization and musical and artistic creation are located in the right hemisphere. Each hemisphere of the cerebrum is divided into four sections: the frontal, parietal (top rear), temporal (lower), and occipital (rear) lobes. The back part of the frontal lobe contains areas that govern movement of the opposite side of the body. Damage to this region results in paralysis. In front of this region is an area of the frontal lobe called the premotor cortex, where complex movements are controlled. Still farther forward is the prefrontal cortex, which exerts an inhibitory control over actions. Such distinctly human abilities as foreseeing the consequences of an action, exercising self-restraint, and developing moral and ethical standards depend on the normal functioning of the prefrontal cortex. The parietal lobe, the part of the hemisphere that lies behind the frontal lobe, contains the primary sensory cortex the part of the brain. It receives sensory information from the opposite side of the body. Below the frontal and parietal lobes is the temporal lobe, which is involved with hearing and memory. Behind the temporal lobe is the occipital lobe, the visual center of the brain. Here the signals that come to the brain from the eyes are put through very complex transformations in a process of analysis and integration. Cranial nerves are a group of 12 pairs of sensory, motor, or mixed (having separate sensory and motor fibers) nerves that connect with the brain stem and the lower parts of the brain. The Endocrine System. Endocrine glands secrete onto adjacent tissue where the hormone is picked up by the blood, lymph system, or nerve cells and transported to the target organ. The adrenals, thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary, hypothalamus, pineal, and ovary are endocrine glands. The secretions of endocrine glands are called hormones. Mixed exocrine and endocrine glands, which secrete in both ways, include the liver, testes, and pancreas. Endocrine glands release extremely small amounts because hormones are powerful substances. The activities of the endocrine glands form one of the most complex systems in the body. Although each gland has its own unique function, the glands are interdependent, and the function of one depends on the activity of another. The hypothalamus produces several hormones, including those that regulate pituitary activity. The pituitary produces its own hormones that regulate growth and stimulate other endocrine glands. The adrenals, thyroid, testes, and ovaries are dependent upon pituitary stimulation. The hormones these glands produce govern metabolism, blood pressure, water and mineral balance, and reproductive functions, and they help defend against injury. The term hormone is derived from a Greek word meaning 'stir up'. Drugs Affecting Behaviour. Many kinds of drugs are prescribed for anxiety, sleeping and nervous disorders. Several types of sedative drugs induce sleep and cause intoxication. These drugs although prescribed for sleep disorders and anxiety problems, can also cause physical and psychological dependence. These include ethyl alcohol, barbiturates, methaqualone, and many others. There are of course everyday drugs that are consumed in enormous quantities by millions of people. Caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are used daily by a large number of people, to the extent where they could be classed as addictive. Alcohol addiction is by far one of the most common addictions globally. While there appears to be little evidence that using alcohol in moderation does any damage, but excessive drinking is a major problem in many countries causing many man hours of lost work, social and domestic violence problems. Repeated heavy drinking can cause serious medical problems, liver damage and irreversible brain damage in some cases. SENSORY PROCESSES. The term sensation refers to the process of receiving information in the form of energy (light, heat, sound etc.) from the world outside and sorting it out into the proper sense - vision, touch, hearing. Once that information has been received, we interpret it and arrive at an understanding of what it means, a process referred to as perception. Sensation and perception make up an extensive information gathering system. Each sense has it's own receptors that constantly monitor our environment. All sensory systems have certain characteristics: The sensory system must be selective, which means that only certain types of incoming information are processed. For example, we have more than one kind of receiver for touch. One which responds to changes in temperature and one which responds to damaged cells. The sensory system must have an adjustable speed. Nerve fibres to the ear respond in less than a thousandth of a second because sudden noise does not require analysis, as it does a speedy response. However, the visual system will respond quickly to a blur as something comes towards us, a potential danger, yet it will take it's time when analyzing a complex scene. The system must also be sensitive, but not too much. If our ears were too sensitive we would hear blood running through artery at the base of the ear. Sensory measurement must be reliable. Reliability comes from comparing incoming stimulus with the conditions around us. Vision. The optic nerve delivers its impulses to a special area of the brain called the visual center . This is where people "see" objects in the sense of recognizing and reacting to what their eyes look at. In other words, seeing always involves the brain's visual center. Here sensation turns into perception. The brain must learn by experience to analyze correctly the impulses it receives from the eyes. For instance, the lens system of the eye, like that of a camera, transmits its light pattern upside down. The brain has to learn that the impulses received from the upper part of the retina represent the lower part of the object sighted and vice versa. In the brain also are located the centers that control all the eye's muscular movements, such as the opening and closing of the iris, the focusing of the main lens, and the movement of the eyeball. The eyeball's movement is voluntary. Other eye adjustments are reflexes. Most individuals use both eyes to see an object. This type of sensory perception is known as binocular vision. Thus two images of the object are formed one on the retina of each eye. Impulses from both images are sent to the brain. Through experience these impulses are interpreted as two views of the same object. Because the eyes are about 2 inches apart from pupil to pupil and therefore are looking at the object from different angles, the two views are not exactly alike. This is known as the stereoscopic effect. If the object is far away, the difference between the images is slight. If it is a few inches away, the difference is very great. The brain makes good use of this phenomenon. It learns to judge the distance of an object by the degree of difference between the images it receives from the two eyes. In the same way the brain perceives what is called perspective. The Eye. The retina is a soft, transparent layer of nervous tissue made up of millions of light receptors. The retina is connected to the brain by the optic nerve. All of the structures needed to focus light onto the retina and to nourish it are housed in the eye, which is primarily a supporting shell for the retina. When light enters the eye it passes through the lens and focuses an image onto the retina. The retina has several layers, one of which contains special cells named for their shapes rods and cones. Light-sensitive chemicals in the rods and cones react to specific wavelengths of light and trigger nerve impulses. These impulses are carried through the optic nerve to the visual center in the brain. Here they are interpreted, and sight occurs. Light must pass through the covering layers of the retina to reach the layer of rods and cones. There are about 75 to 150 million rods and about 7 million cones in the human retina. Rods do not detect lines, points, or color. They perceive only light and dark tones in an image. The sensitive rods can distinguish outlines or silhouettes of objects in almost complete darkness. They make it possible for people to see in darkness or at night. Cones are the keenest of the retina's receptor cells. Hearing. In hearing the basic energy form is sound waves. Sound waves form at various speeds, or frequencies. The frequency of any given tone is measured in terms of the number of cycles per second. Sound travels slowly compared to light at anything from 20-20,000 cycles per second. The sounds we hear have three basic characteristics. Pitch, which is the frequency of the sound. Timbre, determines the tonal quality . The loudness or intensity of the sound wave is measured in decibels. The human ear can pick up sounds just above '0' decibels, otherwise there would be complete silence. Decibel Table. Decibels Noise Threshold 40 Quiet office Normal 60 Normal conservation Normal 75 Road Traffic Noisy 100 Subway Train Potential Damage 130 Rock Concert Human Pain Threshold 140 Aircraft Taking-off Human Pain Threshold The Structure of the Ear. The ear has three separate sections the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear. Each section performs a specific function, related to either hearing or balance. The three parts of the outer ear are the auricle (also called the pinna), the external auditory meatus (or ear canal), and the tympanic membrane (or eardrum). The pinna collects sound waves from the air. It funnels them into a tube, the external auditory meatus. This is a curved corridor that leads to the tympanic membrane. The eardrum separates the external ear from the middle ear. The middle ear is an irregular-shaped, air-filled space. A link of three tiny bones, the ossicles, spans the middle ear. When sound waves strike the outer surface of the eardrum, it vibrates. These vibrations are mechanically transmitted through the middle ear by the ossicles, to the opening. This opening is the round window. Like the eardrum, the round window's membrane transmits vibrations. It directs vibrations into the inner ear, where they enter a fluid that fills a structure called the cochlea. This is a coiled tube that resembles a snail's shell. Within the cochlea is housed the true mechanism of hearing, called the organ of Corti. It contains tiny hair-like nerve endings anchored in a basilar membrane, which extends throughout the cochlea. The unattached tips of these nerve endings are in contact with an overhanging membrane, called the tectorial membrane. When vibrations pass into the inner ear, they cause waves to form in the cochlear fluid. Receptor nerve cells in the organ of Corti are highly sensitive to these waves. Other specialized nerve cells send the electrochemical impulses produced by the wave motion into the cochlear branch of the acoustic nerve. This nerve carries the impulses to the brain, where sound is identified. Taste. It is widely accepted that there are four basic taste qualities, salty, sour, sweet and bitter. It was originally thought that there was a sensory path for each of these tastes. However it appears that there is a pattern of activation in a number of different fibres providing the required sensory input to the brain to distinguish these different tastes. The papillae on the surface of the tongue are the receptors for these taste sensations. Smell. Deciphering the sensory information for the sense of smell is not dissimilar to that of taste. In the olfactory area the nerve endings grow through the mucous membrane which act as receptors to determine odors present in the air we breathe. Touch. The skin or cutaneous sense has some 5 million sensors of at least 7 types throughout the human body. The three major types are Meissner's corpuscles which sense touch. The Pacinian corpuscle's which determine movement and vibration and the Krause end bulbs which sense changes in temperature. Equilibrium and Proprioception. Proprioception (kinesthesia), establishes the position of limbs and underlies the ability to assume and maintain posture, to move about in the environment, to manipulate objects and to be coordinated. These senses did not figure prominently in the traditional account of senses because they have no external sources of adequate stimulation. They do have identifiable and understood sensory receptors. Both play an important role in maintaining posture and balance. PERCEPTION. Perception is the primary process by which we obtain knowledge about the world. It involves the activity of our senses in responding to external stimulation. Perception is a skill or set of skills, not simply the passive reception of external stimulation. The process of structuring these stimuli into objects we can perceive is called perceptual organisation. There are a number of principles to perceptual organisation. Figure and Ground. Gestalt psychologists identified the tendency to differentiate between figure and ground. The figure being the part of an image which we notice prominently, opposed to the background, the ground. This theory not only applies to visual items, but f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Investing in the Future.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Take-Home Assignment #1 Tobin Lichti Psych 101 Jon Drummond TU 11:05 Investing in the Future Welfare and school reform are two of the most widely discussed issues in politics today. Many people are calling for reduction or elimination welfare programs as well as programs that provide breakfast and lunch at schools. They argue that people should be able to provide for themselves and their children with minimal government assistance, and spending other people's tax dollars to assist the less fortunate only makes the problem worse. The main problem with this line of thinking is that it forgets about the children involved. Children have no control over what family they are born into. Many are born into situations, such as single parent families, where the families have no way of giving their children a good chance of developing into healthy, well adjusted adults. Something must be done to break this cycle, because besides helping children to develop to their full potential, government assistance "saves society the costs incurred when intellectually and socially impaired children grow up to be intellectually and socially impaired adults"(Collins 59). The need for some sort of assistance for many children became obvious to me on a volunteer project I did in high school. The summer after my junior year I took a trip to San Antonio with about twenty other students. We were divided between two different projects, and I went to work in a summer day-care program in an underprivileged area. The day-care was for children aged infant to eighteen, and on an average day about 175 children would come through. They only had two full time workers, and relied on volunteer groups that came through about once or twice a month to help them. They used to have more workers, but lacked the funding necessary to keep anyone on permanently. Many of the children were dropped off before the center opened at 8:00 in the morning, and the meals they received at the center were the only meals they got all day. Almost all the children showed a great need for attention and affection. It was this experience that made me realize that many children grow up without a real chance at a decent life. Helping children early is crucial. Much research has been done recently on early childhood development, and there is much evidence that there are windows of learning for the development of vision, feelings, language and other things. A window of learning means that there is a certain period of time in child development when the brain "demands certain types of input in order to create or stabilize certain long-lasting structures"(Nash 53). This type of research backs up the idea that helping kids as early as possible is very important in order to insure proper development. The problem that arises is that there are many families, especially single parent ones, that cannot afford to stay at home or provide their children with quality child care. The current welfare system does allow states to let the mother care for the infant for as long as a year before they must seek a job, but most states require it much earlier, as early as 12 weeks after the infant is born (Collins 60). I would propose a system where the mother would be given a year before having to look for a job. During this time she, along with her husband if still married, would be required to attend weekly classes or counseling sessions that would teach them nutritional, educational, and other care that is essential for the child to reach its full potential. After the age of one, a government funded program of day care needs to be set up. This would allow underprivileged families to afford decent child care. This could also help the conditions of the day cares such as the one I described in San Antonio improve, insuring that the children are provided with adequate care. Federal regulations about things such as the ratio of staff to children and safety standards would improve the environment the children grow up in, and in many cases be better than living at home. Another concern in the development of children is proper nutrition. School lunch programs that provide free or reduced lunches help many children get their only decent meal of the day. Many areas are starting to provide school breakfast programs, and this is being met with much opposition. People feel that they shouldn't have to use tax dollars to provide a meal for children that they should receive before they get to school. But, the sad truth is that many children aren't given breakfast before they are sent to school. Some research suggests that eating breakfast helps children perform better during school hours by increasing their attention and motivation. Test scores and sports performance of children who eat breakfast on a regular basis tend to be higher than those of children who don't eat breakfast (Wardlaw & Insel 640). Most of the opposition to programs like the one I have proposed is based on money. People simply don't feel that it is necessary for their hard earned tax dollars to be used to raise other peoples children. They also point to the fact that there is no hard evidence that these types of programs will really work. However, there is a certain urgency for something to be done to break the cycle of poverty and stagnation. In referring to programs for young children, Isabel Sawhill, a scholar at the Urban Institute has written, "The evidence is always mixed. We simply do not know whether they work. In these cases, one must weigh the risk of doing something and having it not work against the risk of doing nothing and missing an opportunity to improve lives. It can be just as costly to not fund a potentially successful program as it is to fund a potentially unsuccessful one" (Collins 62). Helping children today is an investment in the future of our country, and the potential rewards outweigh the risks. Bibliography Collins, James. "The Day Care Dilemma". Time. 3 Feb 97, pp. 58-62. Nash, J. Madeleine. "Fertile Minds". Time. 3 Feb 97, pp. 48-56. Wardlaw, Gordon M. & Insel, Paul M. Perspectives in Nutrition. 3rd edition Mosby-Year Book, Inc. 1996, p 640 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Is there a God .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Existence of God The existence of a God has for generations been the topic of fierce debate. This most usually occurring between members of the religious society and, everybody else. As a matter of fact the religious world itself has not always been able to agree on God. This has resulted in many a holy man to take up the fight for his deity through the realm of words. Many theories have been proposed, and all think that theirs proves beyond a doubt on whether or not God exists. To write this paper I read four of those theories by assorted men of the cloth, who all attempt to make the argument for a God in the Christian sense. The first of the theories I looked at was that of St.Anslem of Canterbury. He supplies the ontological argument for the existence of God. The ontological argument states that by understanding the nature of God himself, we come to realize he exists. He explains this argument by first defining what God is. Anslem says that God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it can not even be considered not to exist. In short, the fact that said being can not be considered not to exist, would thereby make it greater than any that could be considered not to exist. This would in all reality be the secret to God's omnipotence in Anlsem's eyes. Another point that he stresses is that just be understanding the concept of what a God is, you are proving his existence. This is because if you understand who God is, you can also accept his existence, and therefore cannot conceive that he does not exist. Therefore making him that which nothing greater can be conceived of, and which cannot be conceived not to exist which we have already defined as God. The second argument for a God comes from St. Tomas Aquinas, who argues for the cosmological point of view. The cosmological argument states that all things in this universe have a cause, and since these causes cannot go on for ever there must be a first cause, i.e. God. He argues that there are five ways to argue for the existence of God, the first is the argument from motion. This states that everything in this world has certain potentials for motion. It also states that for these potentials to be met another object n motion must set off said potential. That object in turn would have to have been put in motion by something else, and so on and so on. All of this ultimately culminating to one object which started all this motion, that one being God. The second argument he makes says that there are many things that happen in this world, and they are effects derived from a cause. The effects in turn can be the cause of something else and so on and so on. Yet nothing can be the cause of itself, so therefore there must be a first efficient cause, that sets off other intermediate causes, in hopes of reaching a ultimate goal. Therefore the first of all the efficient causes would be God. The third argument Aquinas uses is that of possibility and necessity. This argues that everything in this world has possibility to be and not to be. So if there is the possibility that everything at one time or another cannot-be, then at one time there was nothing, because everything that could've been wasn't. Yet if there was nothing at one time, then there was nothing that could be, and so there would still be nothing. Therefore there had to be something that existed to cause all the possibilities of everything else. But to be necessary something has to have something else cause it's necessity, which has something else causing it's, ect. This as with everything else stated before cannot go on indefinitely, so there has to be a beginning which would be God. The fourth argument says that there is a gradation of everything, and that at the top of every gradation there is a maximum of the genus. He says this in turn is the cause for all others in that genus to be the way they are. Thusly this must also hold true for the goodness found in humans, of which the maximum who influences the rest would be God. The fifth and final argument by Aquinas is that all things on this world with intelligence travel toward a means or goal. He then says that this traveling is influenced by the intelligence, which in turn is bestowed by a higher intelligence, and so on. The ultimate directing intelligence being God. The next in our line of arguments for the existence of God comes from William Paley, who argues for the teleological school of thought. This mandates that God's existence is proven through the anylazation of a single experience. To illustrate this he uses a analogy of finding a watch. He begins by saying if he stumbled across a watch in a field, he might tend to question how it got there. Unlike if it had been a rock on the ground, Paley says we would not think it had just always been there. Instead we would ration that someone had made the watch, even if we had no idea of what a watch was. It could not just form itself from nothing, so It had to be made. Paley then reasons that the world is much like the watch in that everything, trees, rocks, rivers, ect. All had to be made by someone. Everything that was made was done so to a certain design, and that design was thought up and created into a physical form. The one who created all this, in his mind would be God. The final take on the existence of God that I looked at, was that of a brilliant mathematician named Blaise Pascal. Pascal studied calculus and was very good at using math to figure out anything. He was asked if he believed in God, and if so could he prove it with math. His reply developed into a theory in which he states it is better to believe in a God than to deny it. He came to this conclusion by looking at the problem rationally. Pascal figured out that the way to look at the existence of God is to look at it as odds. He said that there was several ways a person's situation could turn out. One would be that a person could believe in God all their lives and be correct, therefore earning a eternity of bliss in God's kingdom. The opposite possibility is that a person could believe in God all their lives and turn out to be wrong. This would mean no reward, but he theorized that if they lived their life according to God they probably enjoyed it anyway, and that was their reward. Another possibility is that someone might not believe in God and find out their wrong, thereby being doomed to a eternity of suffering and damnation. Yet again they might find out they were right, but they would be dead and the point would be moot. So by looking at these paths Pascal decided to look at the risks of each wager. In the first you get infinite rewards from only one life of believing. Plus he felt that you also probably had a fulfilling and enjoyable life too. So the first, can be looked at as a win win situation in which you risked very little, and won much. The second and fourth possibilities did not really concern Pascal much because by thinking of it in terms of odds, neither seemed probable, and again wouldn't matter anyhow because you would no longer exist. The third possibility however, in which you could end up in hell, seemed to help persuade Pascal into believing in a God. He felt that for the amount you had to lose in this situation, no intelligent human would take the risk. So in conclusion, Pascal came to believe that believing in a God was a safe bet, in that it had the least risk with the highest returns. As for myself, after reading these papers I find myself tending to side with Pascal the most. I don't think that a little insurance could hurt, because until there is proof otherwise none of us really know. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Is there a God or is HE an illusion .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Topic: Philosophy of Religion Thesis: Is there a God or is He(?) an illusion? Bibliography: Benedict Spinoza - rationalist Freidrick Schleiermacher - religion Sigmund Freud - atheist An illusion is one's own interpretation and perception of someone or something. It can be a strong belief or a wish. They are not necessarily false or errors. The strength of the illusion lies in the strength of wish fulfillment. For example - People, at first, interpret phenomena's according to their experience and knowledge of their every day life. They project their own character into the circumstance presented and regard it as somehow "ensouled". Such indefinite notions are transformed into a distinct conception of a higher order than human beings, and yet somehow resembling them. As it may seem, humans have a metaphysical (speculative) need for a Supreme Being. God, as we call him. He is the eternal and infinite Spirit, Creator of the Universe, and the ultimate power. We present him with human characteristics in all concepts of God, which has led me to believe that it is not God who created man in His image, but man who creates God in his. Religion is one such need based on myth and spiritualism. People are taught about their religion at a young age, and when they grow up they attempt to account for things using the notion of their religion as the basis for their speculations. On the other hand, there is no truth so certain as the existence of God. He is the groundwork of all our hopes, and our foundation of morality and society. Nothing exists without a cause. Although we can't demonstrate a soul-substance and the immortality of a soul, or demonstrate anything concerning the nature of God, there is still a dependency on him, so that we cannot ascribe a personality to God, in the case that it would make him finite. God is the universe conceived as an eternal and necessary unity. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\ISU Essay Ayn RandThe Fountainhead.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ISU Essay : Ayn Rand-The Fountainhead Imagine power as a form of free flowing energy, a source found within every one and for each individual. Assume that to gain power, one has to tap this resevoir of immense proportions and relish upon the rich harvest to their hearts desires. Consequently, when there is such a dealing of concentrated materials, nature takes charge and similarly to other physical abstracts, rendering this package lethal, with the potential for untold destruction. In other words, power in the wrong hands or power without responsibility is the most harzardous weapon mankind can possess. To say that power is a medium out of control and pertaining to something with incredible destruction, is rather quite true. Assuming that every one and anyone has the potential to be entitle to a share of this universal medium. Then it would be justifiable to claim that like any other unmoderated activities, raging amibition for power uncontroled could wreak havoc and acts as a catalyst in the breakdown of a society. Similar to politics which deals with the static physical component of society, there must be a more formidable source of pervailance over the mystical realm of power. There fore, this form of guidance can only exist from the mind, and as product of thought, thus the ideas within a philosophy. The Ideals warp between the covers of, The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's philosophical revolution of Individualistic power, is her solution to society's request for a cure. She believe that the highest order of power stands above all alternatives as the power belonging to an individual and her mission is to prove the greatness of individualist power within the hero she christain the name Roark. Rational thinkers, do not make decisions in a give or take scenario, but instead they carefully distinguish between be extremes of the Black, the White, and the median Gray. The Fountainhead, simulates the world as a whitches cauldron, filled with many evils, among which only one true and worthy victor can pervail. Ayn Rand explores the many facets of power within a structural community, relying upon her philosolophy as a test-bed and a believable standard. In essence the portfolio of The Fountainhead, contains, four major fronts of power, each dominated by a type of relative character and characteristics. Manipulative Power entitle itself to be crown the champion of false promises and deciet. The Power of Green or power due to money is difficult to achieve and deserve honorable mentioning, yet it is a virtual power built upon wealth. Worst of all evil in man's search for power lies behind the mask of a man built on betrayal, resorting to self-deprivation for prestige and the selling of oneself to fame. The true power belongs to an individualist, who fights for himself, lives for himself and is Rand's answer to the plea of the people. Subjecting to visualization, this could be interpret in the form of a compass rose with its four extended arms representing each front of power, converging onto a center of origin. This origin is the birth place of all men. Attaining power is a rather lenghthy, delicate process and is likely prone to failure. Life's goal is determining of one direction and that single path can represent an arm of the rose. Simply it may seem not too difficult to make the correct choice, yet many fail to do so. Ironically, Ayn Rand play the role of a mischieve when she weave such a believable character to represent the cold, uncompassionate, and power hungry Manipulator. She fool the reader to believe that Ellsworth Toohey, a successful and very influential member of society, is a worthy man, fighting for the cause of the human kind. His generosity and sacreficial offerings are only cover-ups from his true nature, the impulsive liar who strive on manipulating others for power. Physically Toohey is described as a weak man, apparent only through the power of his mind. According to Rand, a wholesome, powerful character has to unify both the mental and physical hemispheres. Toohey is a man that could have been, yet upon his own choosing, warp himself into something beyond rescue. Toohey is a very dangerous man. Dangerous because he knows the weakness in other men and uses this porthole as a point of attack. His aim, is the breakdown of another's soul and thus in this way he gain power over them. Toohey can be rank above the most tyrant Monarchs and the worst dictators in history. His ambition is not only to physically own people, but the possession of their very souls. In a confession to one of his victim he says. ' If you learn how to rule one single man's soul, you can get the rest of mankind.' Toohey understands that he is capable because there exist people who wants his reasurance and the recognition from others that they have done something right, something significant. Thus this gives him the power manipulate others into thinking what he wants and believing what he permits. He plays with his victims like puppets in a show, because to him, people can be like water, aimlessly following the shift of a tide. Similar to an engine over heated, Toohey is too power hungry, in turn his eminent downfall. He knows quite well that he is incapable of acheiving true power, so his conscience convulges and lash back at the world that he dispise. His destructive natural corrupts and he vows vengence. ' I have no private purpose. I want power. I want my world of the future. Let all sacrefice and none profit. Let all suffer and none enjoy. Let progress stop.' Like a fugitive who fear being caught, Toohey has to live in the agony of having to guard himself from the retribution of the people. He knows that power gain through manipulation of others does not have the integrity too oppose the yearning of men for freedom. He can only accept defeat. Ayn Rand is not materialistic, yet she promotes rank differences and wealth. Her characters are in fact very influential personalities who are often leaders within a society. Critics of Rand's work often redicule her philosophy as unrealistic, liable to things that occurs in fairy tales. However, Ayn Rand believes differently. In using characters who are over achievers, she demonstrates the power of her philosophy and the potential of those followers who strive to attain goals with the best of their abilities. Symbolically, her characters represent the highest potential that exist within each individual. Green is a significant color that maintains two polarities. To many, this color glorify the shear power of money and to others it resembles the pale sickness that originate from greed. In fact, there is a coralation between these 'similar opposites'. According to the mechanics of time, one event leads to another in a chronological order. The old phrase, 'There no smoke without the fire,' holds true when associated with money and greed. It may seem trivial that Ayn Rand promotes such a character within her novel, honoring greatness, then include in the package, a terrible flaw. Ayn Rand mocks the world for its imperfection when she introduce the character of Gail Wynand, a rugged newspaper tycoon who owns every thing within his reach, but lacks the possession of his own soul. She artistically accept her own imperfection in permiting this foul experiment to take place. Wynand's accomplishments are radical, unchallenge by any other character in the novel. His power is very concrete and true to life, but only to the extent that public permits. The readers of his newspaper pretends to fear him while he play the role of the dictator who deny his dictatorship. The situation unveil a continuous loop of lies and deciet. The Tycoon's reign is the result of power he attain from shear wealth. Such power comes with a price and he paid for by selling his soul to the puplic. On the contrary to the purpose of a newspaper as an expression medium, the world of The Fountainhead expresses zero tolerence for free speech. The paper exist for the collective and praise everthing but heroic ventures into the new frontiers. Society encourages the conservative while it condone aspiring changes. Gail Wynand's falter is due to carelessness in maintaining his integrity. His business etiquette involve sacreficing himself and dedicating his whole life's work as a service to the people, for the people. He suppresses the outcries of his conscience, acting only on the behalf of strengthening puplic relations and obtaining higher profits. The man owns his fortune, but he did not own himself. The puplic mob lay claim to his existence. His fortune is a mere donation from the public in return for the service that he provides them. Wynand suffers internal pain, a pain unbearable due to disappointment and a sour appointment with reality. He dare challenges the public in a duel, wasting his efforts in exercising a power that he never own. The sudden impact caught the victim off guard because he never bother to ask and no one care to answer. In an effort to reclaim himself, Wynand risked his fortune in a fight against the public for something which he believes and lost. He is force to forfeit his newspaper empire, a life long dream of a man who never was. In the end, he realizes too late that it is easier to move imilar to an engine over heated, Toohey is too power hungry, in turn his eminent downfall. He knows quite well that he is incapable of acheiving true power, so his conscience convulges and lash back at the individual boulders, then to budge entire mountains. To every situation there exist two extremes, presumably the black and the white. The identity of the black is usually mark with a stamp of disapproval and render forbidden deep within the abyss. In the world of The Fountainhead, Foul plays the dead man's hand. Ayn Rand is a towering diety who rules with an iron fist She refuses to tolerate imperfection, despising power gain through self deprivation and unjust sacrefices. She minics the qualities of a collective society in Peter Keating, a living mannequin, susceptable only to the movements which others care to permit. Outspokenly, Ayn Rand defends her opinions of a collective's destructive nature by lowering the character of Peter Keating to a point which is comparable to insects, slugs and parasites. Keating is not a man, but a mass mob of the collective. When Rand refers to him, she speaks of society as a whole. When Keating speaks of self, he voices the thoughts of a million. He kills the meaning of the word 'independence'. He is very smart and cunning, but all of which he steals or borrows from others. His apparition of progress is repetition and his view of success is the approval by some one else. Keating is the master manipulator, who knowingly victimizes himself. He represents his own sacreficial goat, offering to a god that has no face, but many faces. In sacrificing he gains nothing except false prestige and a delusion of happiness. He follows the desires of his mother and cast aside dreams of pursuing the proffesion he wants. In doing so, he denies himself the gratification of doing what he wants to do and in turn sentencing himself to a life of misery and frustration. The fool refuses to accept that, ' Where there's sacrefice, there is some one collecting sacreficial offerings,' and, ' Where there is service, there is some one being served.' Ultimately, this ties into slavery, and worst yet, its self slavery. Keating flows through a transition of vanity, fame, lies, flatter, and eventually guilt. He lacks the essential of self respect. A person without self respect lives in insecurity, holding a bomb that has no control over its detonation switch. The fame that he dwell on comes with a price and that is the man's own dignity. He flushes his human qualities in a trade with the devil and in the end suffers the consequences. He who decieves others, decieves himself. Yet even deciet has its limits. A collective is not an entity, it is a monster that consume without remorse. It destroys what is great and promotes a relationship where the exchange is mutual exploitation. The society which mould keating into existence abandons him, satisfied that it has done its toll. Then as it has aruptly embraces him, his power vanishes. Keating realizes that he is left alone and slowly his concience seeps in, destroying the empty shell that remains. This is true example of power without responsibility. With respect to the Webster's Dictionary, power is define as, 'authority,' and a form of 'control'. Inevitably, authority suggest the notion of power aim at a target, and often over group of people or individuals without 'control'. In turn, power is rather destructive, its nature is the encouragement of a society where individuals strive to conquer one another. Generally, human kind have never learn cope with this fact, thus locking itself in a cycle of voluntary decay. Ayn Rand sums it up in a quote, " Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining actions." In her vision, she proposes progress as a measurement of power and a solution to the 'process of self-sustaining actions', as an individual who exist not to triumph over other men, but in the conquest of nature. Nature is a formidable foe which trembles the heart of the weak, but to great men, it's dangers serve as an inspiration. Ayn Rand worships the greatness in men who dares to break the Cycle and humbly honer them by creating the character of Howard Roark, a symbolism of strenght and determination. Roark is 'self centered', 'self generated', 'self sufficient', 'self motivated' and is the ideal man. He represents a powerful locomotive, pulling his only cargo of an ego and armor plating which protects it. Power streams from this neural core, it surges in a fluxing shield that illuminates an ora of remarkable enery, fuel that can only come from an individual. The antagonist, Ellsworth Toohey once claims that, " A thinking man can't be ruled." This statement aim at an opponent that is superior to all and including society. Roark thinks and this gives him the power to create. Creators are mile stones, set far from the fuilthy reaches of the mass mob who deserves no place for contest. Creators travels uncharted paths into a unique destiny, pursuing uncontrollable possibilities. Society lack control over Roark, this hatred overwhelms them and they set out to destroy him. The Leeches complicates themself in attacking something that is prone to their touch. Roark is not an image of a man, but a hologram that is immune to outside interference. gives him a freedom no other enjoy and that is true happiness. At first, Roark's character can be on the outrageous side, doom humorous and terribly intiminating. However, he is the product of a radical thinker and thus is an incredible concept of thought. Believing in his existence help to understand the philosophy behind his character and like wise the character behind the philosophy. Perhaps at the dawn of creation, all human beings can be considered paupers in terms of knowledge, wisdom and undoubtedly, the power to make appropriate decisions. Simply put, life's a continuous search for a sturdy foundation, upon which will erect a monumental shrine for those who succeeds, and for mindless others who fail to choose the right path, it will be their final resting place, six feet under. Success is eminent for those who search vigorously, but more importantly for those who knows where to seek the guidance. There are few however, that surpass the stage of seeking, they go beyond to collect their wisdom into a teaching, guidance in the form of a philosophy. Ayn Rand is one among them. Individualism is the philosophy which exemplify 'self', promotes greatness and prolong longevity of the human race. It contains the power lock inside every individual. Our responsibility as an enity on this planet, is to tap this incredible source of energy, ustilizing this fuel to propell humanity into the depth of the future. This is a lesson readers of Ayn Rand's philosophy will never forget. We are supplied with various paths to take in life. The true heroes will know which he is to take and reamain above all others. Those who fail, will end up in the melting pot of society, their flame of freedom extinguished. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\James Rachels Death and Dying Euthanasia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ James Rachels' Death and Dying James Rachels is one of the most controversial philosophers talked about in today's society. One of his most talked about topics is whether a person has a right to die or not. Not much is known about Rachels expect for the many articles and books he has written. In the controversy of letting a person die or killing him, he does not try to explain which method is good and which method is bad. He however tries to explain why they both are bad to a certain degree. Rachels does not take one side, but tries to convince why one is better than the other. In his opinion, letting a person starve to death or just putting him out of his misery by killing him is an ongoing struggle. If you let a person starve to death, it might be putting that person through a lot of pain but he'll still be alive (who knows, maybe a miracle cure will be found.) If you killed him on the spot with a lethal injection, it would be a more peaceful death but you would be shortening that person's life. Putting a person to death in a peaceful manner is called euthanasia. Euthanasia is an ancient word that means "easy death." There is also the issue of morality. Would killing someone by their own will or suicide be a moral act? What about a patient that is suffering from cancer? Is it moral to let that person suffer? These are some of the many questions people have been trying to answer for year without success. Euthanasia is a very uncomfortable subject to talk about for most people because who wants to think about having to kill oneself or a person that is dear to his or her life. Even though nobody wants to go through the hardship of deciding whether a person should live or die, it happens everyday. There are two forms of euthanasia. There is an active euthanasia and a passive euthanasia (Jussim 7-13). This so-called distinction between active and passive was challenged by Rachels in a paper first published in 1975 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that paper, Rachels challenges both the use and moral significance of that distinction. He argues that active euthanasia is in many cases is more humane than passive euthanasia. Rachels urges doctors to reconsider their views on active euthanasia. He writes: "To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in this request (Rachels 106-108)." "Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold treatment. The justification for his doing so is that the patient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die anyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly, but now notice this if one simply withholds treatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if more direct action were taken and a lethal injection given. This fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse (Rachels 106-108)." Let's take for example one of my favorites, Baby Jane Doe. She is a baby that was heavily deformed mentally and physically. The doctors said that she doesn't have a chance to live if she doesn't go into surgery. However, Baby Jane Doe has a slight chance of living if the surgery is done, but she would most likely live to be 18 years old or less. She would still be mentally retarded and would need constant attention from her parents. So if Baby Jane goes into surgery, it would be the same as passive euthanasia. The parents of Baby Jane decided that it would be better for them and her if she died peacefully rather than suffering through what was sure to be her death in later years. However, the government decided that it was wrong for Baby Jane to die so they were forced to have the surgery done to their child (Rachels 60-62). So is killing someone worse than letting them die passively? Rachels asks us to consider two cases. Let's take for example a guy named Mike will gain a large inheritance if anything should happen to his young cousin. One evening while the youngster is taking a bath, Mike sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child, and then arranges things so it will look like an accident. In the second case, a guy named John will gain a large inheritance and plans to drown his cousin, but as he enters the bathroom John sees the child slip and hit his head and fall face down in the water. John watches and does nothing. Now, Mike killed the child while John let the child die. Now did either man behave better, from a moral point of view? "If the difference between killing and letting die were in itself a morally important matter, one should say that John's behavior was less reprehensible than Mike's. But does one really want to say that (Rachels 131)?" So in the case of Baby Jane Doe, no one is to say who's right. In this circumstances, the government was right because Baby Jane Doe is doing a whole lot better than many doctors speculated. Even though the government might have been right about Baby Jane Doe's diagnosis, there are many times when their decisions are completely wrong. I believe that there are some circumstances when euthanasia is the morally correct action. I also understand that there are real concerns about legalizing euthanasia because of fear of misuse or overuse, and the fear of the loss of respect for the value of life. We need to proceed with caution in my opinion. We need full and open discussion, improvements in research, and above all we need to think about the topic together. Our best approach at this time may be to modify homicide laws to include motivational factors as a legitimate defense. Just as homicide is acceptable in cases of self-defense, it could be considered acceptable if the motive is mercy. Obviously, strict parameters would have to be established that would include patients' request and approval, or in the case of incompetent patients such as a person in a vegetable state, advance directives in the form of a living will or family and court approval. Now there lies the question about the law and how euthanasia can be a legal process. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the government would make as much sense as 'men' do? All we need is beer, sleep, nachos, and sex. Then we would have no complications whatsoever. However, the law doesn't work that way. Our governing law works much like a 'women' does. It's so controlling even though it says we have freedom, it spends our hard earned money like crazy, and it's always changing the rules to its liking. For those who believe that euthanasia is immoral may nevertheless hold that it should not be illegal (Rachels 168). They may reason that if a person wants to die, it is strictly up to them no matter how foolish or immoral their desire may be. However, the American law makes no distinction between euthanasia and murder (Rachels 182). As everybody knows, there are many loop holes in the government, and if you look hard enough you'll be able to find them. One of the ways that you can get away with euthanasia is by starving yourself to death. Some people might feel that starving themselves to death is an alternative and an ideal euthanasia. Many old people have died this way (Humphry 63). However this is not as easy as it seems because there are many factors you have to consider. In some cases of self-starvation, the dehydration process can be painful and could take up to 40 days. They may also slip in and out of coma. Because of this, the process of self-starvation euthanasia could take a considerable amount of time and should be carefully considered before preceding (Humphry 63-65). A person may ask why this form of euthanasia is legal. It is because there is always a loop hole somewhere in the government's law system. The law doesn't permit force feeding so you can't force someone to eat. Also the law doesn't permit any medical treatment without the patient's consent even if their condition threatens their life (Humphry 65). Death is one of the wonders of Life. I'm sure that everyone sometime or another has thought about what it was like to be in the state of complete unconsciousness or be dead to put it in simpler terms. In an ironic sense, many people may wonder what it would 'feel' like to be dead. Many doctors and scientists that have spent many years researching this topic and have come to the conclusion that death occurs when a person's heart stops beating, respiration ceases, and brain activity comes to a halt (Kung and Jens 8-9). It took a genius to figure that one out. Euthanasia can not be completely argued on until someone knows exactly what happens when someone passes on to the other side. David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher of the 18th century, remarked that the aim of philosophy should be to replace superstition and false religion with reason and understanding (Rachels 1). So it is safe to say that euthanasia is neither right or wrong. Works Cited Humphry, Derek. Final Exit: The Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the Dying. Oregon: The Hemlock Society, 1991. Jussim, Daniel. Euthanasia: The "Right to Die" Issue. New Jersey: Enslow Publishers Inc., 1993. Kung, Hans, and Walter Jens. Dying with Dignity: A Plea for Personal Responsibility. New York: Continuum, 1995. Landau, Elaine. The Right to Die. New York: Franklin Watts, 1993. Rachels, James. The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\John Lockes Theory of Property.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Perhaps one of, if not the, most historically influential political thinkers of the western world was John Locke. John Locke, the man who initiated what is now known as British Empiricism, is also considered highly influential in establishing grounds, theoretically at least, for the constitution of the United States of America. The basis for understanding Locke is that he sees all people as having natural God given rights. As God's creations, this denotes a certain equality, at least in an abstract sense. This religious back drop acts as a the foundation for all of Locke's theories, including his theories of individuality, private property, and the state. The reader will be shown how and why people have a natural right to property and the impact this has on the sovereign, as well as the extent of this impact. Locke was a micro based ideologist. He believed that humans were autonomous individuals who, although lived in a social setting, could not be articulated as a herd or social animal. Locke believed person to stand for, "... a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places, which it only does by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking." This ability to reflect, think, and reason intelligibly is one of the many gifts from God and is that gift which separates us from the realm of the beast. The ability to reason and reflect, although universal, acts as an explanation for individuality. All reason and reflection is based on personal experience and reference. Personal experience must be completely individual as no one can experience anything quite the same as another. This leads to determining why Locke theorized that all humans, speaking patriarchially with respect to the time "why all men," have a natural right to property. Every man is a creation of God's, and as such is endowed with certain individual abilities and characteristics as gifts from God. Not being able to know God's exact wishes for man, Locke believed that all men have an obligation to develop and caress these gifts. In essence, each man was in charge of his own body and what was done with his body. Of course, for Locke, each man would do the reasonable thing and develop his natural skills and potentials to the best of his abilities, in the service of God. The belief in God given abilities and the obligations that follow are not totally deterministic. Man, endowed with reason, could choose not to develop these abilities. Having the ability to choose the development of his potential, each man is responsible for that potential and consequently is responsible for his own body. The development, or lack therein, is a consequence of individual motivation and is manifested through labor. In keeping with the theory of one's body is one's own, a man's property can be explained in terms of the quantifying forces of his labors. Physical labor or exercisation of his mind, to produce fruits for this person's labor, is then his own property. Locke believed that one did not need the consent of a sovereign, as far as property was concerned, because it is the melding of labor and nature that makes anything owned. Yolton articulates this when he states, "(b)y mixing my work, my energy with some object, (nature), I particulise that object, it's commonness becomes particular" Locke believed that as long as there was plenty for others, consent was pointless, irrelevant and would merely be an overzealous exercision of power. Pointless because as long as there was more for others in the common store, one was not infringing on another's natural rights. Irrelevant because property production or the use of labor was completely individualistic and one should not be able to control another's labor as it is an infringement on their natural rights. There are however limits, as far as property and labor are concerned. One limit is that of non destruction. God did not create anything for man to destroy. The amount produced by any man should be kept in check by his level of destruction. For example, there is a big difference between the cutting of one or a few trees and the harvesting of an entire forest. Yolton explicates this by stating that, "... specific rights comes in conjunction with this restriction. Since 'Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy,' the property making function of man's activities ought to be curbed at the point of spoilage. If my acquisition spoils, I offend against the law of nature, since I have, in the beginning, 'no Right, further than' my use. What is useful and is used has value and the person who uses them a right to them. The same rules are cited for land as for the produce of land." The making of currency as an unspoilable property and medium for exchange seems to have by-passed this limit all together. Inequality becomes rampant and as such an authority is needed to protect a man's property and the social peace. With the advent of money as unspoilable property, certain inequalities amoungst men would develop. Those with less start to feel cheated and used. This is very dangerous for those with more, because with these inequalities, comes the danger of theft, or injury to property or body. It is for this reason that people enter into a social contract and appoint a soveriegn. The sovereign has the ability to protect those whose property is in danger, and will do so through the passing and enforcing of laws. In this way not only is a man's property protected, but a state of peace is maintained as well. Locke not only believed in one individual's right to property, but every individual's right to property. Since every person is a creation of God's, and it must be God's wish that we serve him through the abilities that he's given us, to interfere with a man and his labor, or the consequence of his labor, that is, his property, would be to interfere with God's wishes. It is here that we begin to see the limits of men as well as the limits of the soveriegn. After all, how anyone interfere with the wishes of God? Locke believed that the power for social control must come from the sovereign. This sovereign is responsible to the will of the people, but has a protective authority, governing both over land and people. Locke believed that if a body of people, that is a community of people, chose to live and interrelate amongst each other, they must choose to live by a greater force, that is they must enter into a social contract. This force was the power of the majority manifested through the creation of a sovereign. Problems can arise, when individuals cannot agree. For this reason there must be a ruler and government to decide disagreements, make and enforce laws, and govern man. The enforcement of rules is not as absolute as it may sound. Even with the existence of a limited monarchy, man retains his individual and God given rights. As such, the sovereign, had no right to aquire or take away the property of another. If he did so he would be going against, God, the people, and all that is natural. The extent of the services of the existing sovereign is to govern over, protect, and enforce the laws of the people. Locke believed that the role of the sovereign and his authority is in serving the people and that there must not be parental, that is absolute authority. Yolton explains this like so, "If royal authority is derived from parental authority ... there would be as many kings as fathers... from parental power it necessarily follows either that that all fathers have royal authority - in which case a contradiction arises - no one has royal authority." In this way Locke is seen as a man who wants to limit the power of the sovereign over the individual. Locke believed that the sovereign, created out of the need for the protection of individual rights, that is, out of the need for protection of the privacy of property, could not manifest itself publicly through excessive social control. Perhaps Locke's idea is better explained this way. "From privacy of possession, publicity of sovereignty does not follow...`no Man could ever have a just Power over the life of another, by Right of property in Land or possessions'" This, of course, would include the man of sovereignty and the men of government. Property sets the limit of sovereignty, in that no man has just power over another or another's property. This right comes directly from God, because it is a God given right that a man should gain property through labor. This also sets the tone of the role of government, that of servitude instead of command. Locke believed that civil society existed to free individuals from the insecurity of the state of nature. He thought that men united voluntarily in a concerted effort of preserving and protecting life, liberty, and estate. Here again we see the importance of property. Government within limits can work beneficially for all of man kind. This means that a sovereign would be necessary for the preservation of lives, the promotion of freedom, and the protection of estate. Locke is quite adamant about the preservation of individual freedom which Aaron describes as "need(ing) to be jealously preserved." This right to the property produced through labor is an inalienable right that each and every individual has. Even the soveriegn has no right to interfere with or take away a man's property. This is the true limit of any man or governing body. Locke favored a limited monarchy. This is an elected legislative assembly and a monarch that have the power to direct the commonwealth to preserve the community and it's members and their rights. Locke believed that people were the absolute sovereign, and that if the appointed sovereign abused his authority the people would have the right to dissolve the government. This right of the people reinforces the limitations of the sovereign, while enforcing the accountability of the sovereign. It is in this sense that the community or the aggregation of individuality, retains power over the sovereign and in essence limits it's power. This is the extent of the limitation of authority of the sovereign. The sovereign is a servant of the people, that has limited power only as long as the majority allows it to have power. It was Locke's intent that the state was made for the individual and that the sovereign be used as a protective instrument for the good of the individual. Locke's ideas of property are based on God given rights. Each person has been given a body, with certain abilities and potentials, to use by God. The use of this body is called labor and its product is called property. Since everyone has a body and a level of potential everyone is capable of producing property. The purpose of the sovereign is to protect the individuals right to property and their property. The sovereign is limited in it's power and authority and does not have the right to take or interfere with any man's property, since to do so would be an interference with the right's of man as given by God. It was Locke's hope that with such an ideology behind a people and their government that they might attain and retain Locke's version of the good life, that is life, liberty, and most importantly estate. Bibliography: Aaron, Richard, John Locke, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1963. Bowie, James, Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, MacMillan Publishing, New York, 1964. Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford University Press, London, 1975. Magill, Frank, Masterpieces of World Philosophy, Harper and Row, New York, 1961. O'Connor, D.J., John Locke, Pelican Books, London, 1952. Squadrito, Kathleen, Locke's Theory of Sensitive Knowledge, University Press of America, Washington, 1978. Yolton, J.W., Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\John Rawls and His Theories.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The social contract theory of John Rawls challenges utilitarianism by pointing out the impracticality of the theory. Mainly, in a society of utilitarians, a citizens rights could be completely ignored if injustice to this one citizen would benefit the rest of society. Rawls believes that a social contract theory, similar those proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, would be a more logical solution to the question of fairness in any government. Social contract theory in general and including the views of Rawls, is such that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people therein. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to all is what Rawls terms "The Original Position and Justification". Rawls states that for this system to work, all citizens must see themselves as being behind a "veil of ignorance". By this he means that all deciding parties in establishing the guidelines of justice (all citizens) must see themselves as equal to everyone paying no mind to there economic situation or anything else that they could keep in mind to negotiate a better situation to those qualities. For example, if everyone in this society has an equal amount of influence toward the establishing of specific laws, a rich man may propose that taxes should be equal for all rather than proportionate to ones assets. It is for this and similar situations that Rawls feels that everyone must become oblivious to themselves. Rawls believes that the foundational guideline agreed upon by the those in the original position will be composed of two parts. The first of these rules of justice being one that enforces equal rights and duties for all citizens and the later of the two one which regulates the powers and wealth of all citizens. In the conception of utilitarianism possessed by Rawls, an impartial spectator and ideal legislator are necessary components. The impartial spectator is one who rational and sensitive to all of the desires of society. The impartial spectator must feel these desires as if they were his own desires and by doing such, give each of them priority over other desires and organize them into one system from which the ideal legislator tries to maximize satisfaction for all citizens by manipulating and adjusting the policy for that society. By this theory of utilitarianism, Rawls argues that the decision making process is being integrated into one conscience and that this system gives no mind to the individual whose rights and freedoms may be ignored because there beliefs are not widespread. He goes on to say "Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons"(Singer p. 339). Rawls argues that two principles of justice will emerge from the negotiations of the original position: "1.each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others, 2.social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to the positions and offices open to all." The first of these two principles suggests that everyone have an equal say in the election of a government official and equal power over the policies put into effect by that official. However, the second seems to suggest that if it benefits society, then inequalities of political power are acceptable. Although somewhat contradictory, this seems reasonable since getting the opinions of everyone every time an issue arose would be, to say the least, inefficient. According to Rawls, justice as fairness is far more acceptable than utilitarianism. An example taken from The Encyclopedia of Political Philosophy explains two situations, one acceptable by Rawls and the other acceptable under utilitarianism. The first states that slavery, (if beneficial to the slave as well as everyone else), is indeed acceptable according to Rawls. The second states that under utilitarianism, a slaves misery would not matter since overall satisfaction is increased. It is just this reasoning that Rawls proves his theories superior. Rawls feels that utilitarianism does not take into account the individual and pays too much mind to the general happiness. Rawls argues that in this case everyone would be better off with his social contract theory rather than utilitarianism since under his theory general happiness would still be increased, but at the expense of no one or few. Rawls believes that the happiness of many may indeed out weigh the happiness of the few, but to govern by this would be unfair and unjust. I feel that Mill would disagree with Rawls' interpretation utilitarianism. In chapter two of Mill's 1863 book Utilitarianism, Mill states the following: "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the opposite of happiness". Mill explains that the principle of utility should only be used as a tool for generating secondary moral principles such as, one should not lie to others so as to preserve or increase general happiness. Mill goes on to say that we should only go solely by the principle of utility when faced with a moral dilemma between two or more secondary principles. For example, according to Mill, I should protect my neighbor from harm and I should not deceive another. So if one wishes to harm my neighbor and it is within my power to either protect by deceiving or essentially condemn by truth, then by reverting to the principle of utility, I will do what preserves or produces the most happiness. Rawls would state that in this case, by the standards of utilitarianism, it would be acceptable to "condemn by truth" if that would produce the most happiness in society. If Mill were around to hear such a statement, he would defend his theories from sounding cold and barbaric by further defining happiness as encompassing all that we desire including love, power, wealth, and most importantly in this case, virtue. So although Rawls feels that by utilitarianism to condemn by truth or protect by deception are both acceptable and interchangeable, Mill would argue that by virtue, we would choose without question to protect by deception. It is for this reason that I do not believe that the fundamental error of utilitarianism as described by Rawls is as destructive to the entire theory as Rawls makes it out to be. It is my belief that the theories of utilitarianism proposed by Rawls do not give proper acknowledgment of the aspects defined by mill. It seems that Rawls takes too literally the 'cut and dry' definition of utilitarianism by Mill. I don't believe that Rawls explores exactly what Mill is trying to say when he says "happiness" or "duty". These terms are essential in understanding the theories of Mill. To truly understand Mill, one must not fail to take in account the many aspects of happiness as discussed before and the compulsions of duty. Mill describes duty as containing among other things, self -worth, sympathy, religious beliefs, and childhood recollections. To not give notice to the true nature of these terms as described by Mill, it is not unreasonable to expect one to come to the same conclusions regarding utilitarianism as Rawls. Part "a" of the second principle of justice proposed by Rawls states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are reasonably expected to be everyone's advantage. Rawls refers to this portion as "the difference principle". The difference principle implies two things. First, that those who posses fewer natural assets such as wealth or education, deserve special consideration and compensation. Second, Rawls implies that the rich should willingly give up a portion of there wealth to the poor since they would gain more than they gave up by enjoying the benefits of a mutually cooperative society. If Rawls were to consider that perhaps the losses felt by the rich may indeed outweigh the benefits felt in return and also outweigh the gain in happiness of the poor, then I wonder how solid he would feel his argument is. Rawls bases his difference principle on the assumption that wealth is a natural asset. This would give notice to the idea of the natural lottery which implies that the distribution of such things as wealth and education are arbitrary. If this were the case unconditionally, then Rawls' theory would undoubtabley hold true. The idea that wealth is something that is only inherited and cannot be gained on ones own would surely bring into question fairness and would most likely end in the conclusion that all should be made equal. In the real world however, wealth can be achieved by hard work and ambition. In this real world scenario then, it is reasonable to believe that the poor could be poor not because of a natural lottery, but because of there refusal to put forth the effort to be otherwise. Thus it is also true that the rich could be rich because of their willingness of labor. It is for these reasons that Rawls difference principle actually has little to do with fairness. This argument against the Theories of Rawls is supported and further explored in Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick (1974). Nozicks' objections to the theories of Rawls include that it can't be said how much is to be gained or lost by the rich or the poor in a redistribution of wealth and since it is no more outrageous to put forth an agreement that benefits the rich than it is to put fourth an agreement that benefits the poor, then the difference principle of Rawls is arbitrary. Upon first exploring the original position of Rawls, one may find a situation that closely resembles the governing body of the United States which has proved to be successful and strong for a very long time, but as you read into the theories of Rawls, it becomes a philosophy that resembles that of Marxism. By this I mean that the difference principle of Rawls seems to be similar to the redistribution of wealth that took place years ago in China. Marxists in China thought it better to put the power in the proletariat and take away from the upper class and scholarly. This is similar to the difference principle defined by Rawls. At the time, for most of China, this seemed like a good idea that would put everyone on an equal level. As we all know, this system was, to say the least, very volatile and eventually failed. On the other hand, In the U.S., a system that allows one to posses wealth that is self made and some of what is inherited, has proved to be very successful. Our system of government resembles the theories of Rawls in the way that for the most part, wealth that is inherited is redistributed. This can be better explained by examining a situation where a person generates wealth from hard work. Someone who gains wealth on their own is entitled to there wealth as long as they came about it honestly according to Nozick. This seems to be the case with our own laws and guidelines of society. When this same person passes on and passes their wealth on to the bequeathed, a portion of the estate goes to whomever the passing arranged for. The rest however (a very sizable portion in fact) gets redistributed through taxes and subsequently public services. This instance would appeal to Rawls. So it seems that the most practical out come is a hybrid of two philosophies. I agree with the original position proposed by Rawls and that the parties involved would eventually come to a mutually beneficial social contract. However, I must agree with Nozick that Rawls fails to examine the true fairness of his theories. If Rawls were to consider, as Nozick states, "the manner in which assets were acquired", and then use this concept to further define his second principle of justice, then he would surly be open to far less criticism. -Heath C. Hoculock f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Joseph Campbell and Comparative Religions.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the beginning there was darkness. Then there was light. Then there was consciousness. Then there were questions and then there was religion. Religions sprouted up all over the world as a response to some of humanity's most troubling questions and fears. Why are we here? Where do we come from? Why does the world and nature act as it does? What happens when you die? Religions tended to answer all these questions with stories of gods and goddesses and other supernatural forces that were beyond the understanding of humans. Magic, in it's essence, were the powers wielded by these superior beings that caused the unexplainable to happen. Fast forward a few thousand years to the present. In our age and time there is little left unexplained. Science seems able to explain everything with mathematical logic and concrete evidence right before our very eyes. The subject of science is taught in almost every school on Earth. Gone are the days of magic and wonder. The magic of so- called magicians like David Copperfield are a jest. When people attend a magic show everyone looks for the invisible wires and hidden projectors. No one really believes the magician has supernatural powers, except for maybe a handful of children in the audience who still have faith in Santa Clause. Science does seem to explain all. It has enabled humans to fly, cure incurable diseases, explore the depths of the oceans, stave off death, walk on the moon and wipe out entire civilizations with the push of a button. It is becoming more and more widespread in that people are putting their faith in science above that in the gods. What parent wouldn't rather bring their sick child to a doctor than have faith in the healing power of some mystical entity that may or may not exist. However strong and almost perfect the view of science is in today's society it cannot and does not cover the entire spectrum of the human experience. Nor does it explain some of the striking similarities present in the various religions of Earth. These similarities occur in civilizations not only far from each other but also in cultures separated by seemingly impossible to traverse oceans of water. Many of these similarities occur in the cosmological or creation myths of the various religions. In the Bible and other in other comparable ancient literatures, creation is a theme expressed in parables or stories to account for the world. In almost every ancient culture the universe was thought of as darkness, nothing and chaos until order is induced by the divine creative hand. The type of order envisioned varied from culture to culture. In the Biblical perspective, it was envisioned that light should be separated from dark, day from night; and that the various forms of plant and animal life be properly categorized. Although the figure differ from myth to myth, all the ancient stories intend to give a poetic accounting for cosmic origins. When viewed in terms of creational motifs, the stories tend to be similar. Some myths of creation include myths of emergence, as from a childbearing woman, or creation by the marriage of two beings representing the heavens and earth. A common feature of some Hindu, African and Chinese myths is that of a cosmic egg from which the first humans are "hatched" from. In other cultures, it must be brought up from primordial waters by a diver, or is formed from the dismembered body of a preexisting being. Whether the deity uses preexisting materials, whether he leaves his creation once it is finished, how perfect the creation is, and how the creator and the created interact vary among the myths. The creation story also attempts to explain the origins of evil and the nature of god and humanity. An example of two different religions containing various aspects of each other could be that of the creation myth of Christianity and aspects of creationism found in African religion. The creator god in the African religion is Nyambi. Nyambi creates a man, Kamonu, and the man does exactly as his god does in every way; Similar to the way the god of Christianity creates man in his own image. Also Nyambi creates for Kamonu a garden to live in, the same way the Garden of Eden was created. Another motif repeated between these two religions is that of the Bible's Tower of Babel. Kamonu, after his god left him behind, tried to build a tower to reach his god but like The Tower of Babel it collapsed and the humans failed to reach heaven. In Mesopotamian culture the epic tale Gilgamesh is almost totally identical to the Biblical story of Noah and the ark. In the tale of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh is warned by Enki that a divine judgment has been passed and the world is to be destroyed by a giant flood. Gilgamesh is instructed build a boat to bring his family and animals so to escape the flood. Another powerful example of the commonality of myth transcending cultures is in the Trimurti of Brahman in post classical Hinduism when compared to the holy trinity of Christianity. Brahman, the Hindu essence of ultimate reality is at the very core of Hinduism, post classical Hinduism sees him in three aspects. Each of these three aspects of Brahman is expressed by a god from classical Indian literature: Brahma, the creator; Shiva, the destroyer; and Vishnu, the preserver. Very similar to the Holy Christian Trinity of: God, the father; Christ, the son; and the Holy Spirit. In both Hinduism and Christianity the trinities are three and at the same time one entity. In the mythology of many of the Central Asian Pastoral Tribes the supreme deity of their religion is confronted by an adversary representing the powers of darkness and evil. Very much like the relationship in the Christian mythos between God and Lucifer, this figure of evil attempts to counter the plans of the celestial good being and aims at gaining dominance over the world and at establishing a realm of his own in which he would rule over humanity. The forces of good and evil are not equally balanced, however, and there is never any real doubt about the final supremacy of the sky-god. Yet according to some myths the representative of evil and darkness succeeded in leading people astray and bringing about a fall similar to that of Adam and Eve. Other mythological motifs not involving Christianity or the Bible is that of a god or a hero making the dangerous journey to the underworld , or Hades, to retrieve a lost love. The Greek mythological tale of Orpheus and the Japanese Shinto myths both contain very similar aspects. In both of these stories, Orpheus and Izanagi, lose their spouses to death and venture into the terrible underworld of Hades to try to wrest them back. In both stories they are on the way to getting back each his wife as long as they don't look back towards her. In both tales both Izanagi and Orpheus look back, losing the chance they had at having their loves returned to them. These are just some of the universal myths contained within various religions of the world. How do all these myths seem to transcend the geographical and cultural boundaries of Earth? Carl Gustav Jung, a leading psychologist and contemporary of Freud, came up with a theory involving the collective unconscious of a person's psyche. The collective unconscious, according to Jung, is made up of what he called "archetypes", or primordial images. These correspond to such experiences such as confronting death or choosing a mate and manifest themselves symbolically in religion, myths, fairy tales and fantasies. Joseph Campbell, considered by most to have been the foremost expert on world religions and mythology, believed to be a fact that; "...mythologies and their deities are productions and projections of the psyche". It was his belief that religions and myths come from one's own creative imagination and unconsciousness. He further believed that humankind is intrinsically linked in that some part of human nature creates these myths and religions out of a need for them. We all have the same basic psychological makeup just as we all have the same basic physical makeup. Recent scientific studies suggest that the average human uses only ten to fifteen percent of his or her brain. What happens to the other eighty-five to ninety percent of it? Does it just sit there and have absolutely no use? Or does it perhaps contain the universal commonalties of what links us all as a great big tribe of human beings; containing our greatest hopes, our worst fears, our dreams and creativity. Perhaps it does contain a link to the realm of mysticism and surrealism which artists such as Salvador Dali tried so hard to render on canvas. Science doesn't know what it contains. It's in our skulls and we're not even sure what it contains, maybe the answers to our own primordial questions. WORKS CITED World Religions From Ancient History to the Present editor: Geoffrey Parrinder, copyright 1971, The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd. Essays On a Science of Mythology Carl Jung, copyright 1949, Pantheon Books Inc. Myths To Live By Joseph Campbell, copyright 1972, Viking Press Religions of the World Lewis M. Hopfe, Copyright 1976, Prentice-Hall Inc. Mythology Edith Hamilton, copyright 1942, Little Brown Inc. Encarta '95 copyright 1995, Microsoft corp. In the beginning there was darkness. Then there was light. Then there was consciousness. Then there were questions and then there was religion. Religions sprouted up all over the world as a response to some of humanity's most troubling questions and fears. Why are we here? Where do we come from? Why does the world and nature act as it does? What happens when you die? Religions tended to answer all these questions with stories of gods and goddesses and other supernatural forces that were beyond the understanding of humans. Magic, in it's essence, were the powers wielded by these superior beings that caused the unexplainable to happen. Fast forward a few thousand years to the present. In our age and time there is little left unexplained. Science seems able to explain everything with mathematical logic and concrete evidence right before our very eyes. The subject of science is taught in almost every school on Earth. Gone are the days of magic and wonder. The magic of so- called magicians like David Copperfield are a jest. When people attend a magic show everyone looks for the invisible wires and hidden projectors. No one really believes the magician has supernatural powers, except for maybe a handful of children in the audience who still have faith in Santa Clause. Science d f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Journal Teens Vs Law.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Journal: Teens Vs. Law I was about to leave my algebra class one day when the teacher asked me a question. "Could you do help me out with my rollbook program?" he asked. "Sure, how can I help?" I replied. "I'm not sure about how to save back-up copies of my work. Could you show me how?" he said. At this moment, I realized the scope of his question. I would be able to acess the grades for all of his classes. "Ok, Where are your disks?" I answered. "Right here. I really appreciate this." he said. I began to show him how to copy files from one disk to another. He thanked me and sent me on my way. A few days later he asked me to show him how to do it again, because he forgot. When I began to demonstrate this to him, several of the other students noticed and began to talk quietly amongst themselves. Later that day, at lunch time, I was approached by some of the other students in my class. "Hey, could you help us change our gradesin algebra?" They asked. "I dont know... I might get caught..." I answered reluctantly. "Aww... come on.... what are you, chicken?" they taunted. "We'll pay you...." At that moment I began to think. I could not believe what I was hearing. I could get paid for something very simple. "Alright. I'll do it. What were your last names again?" I said. The next day my algebra teacher got me to help him out with his rollbook program. When he was not paying attention, I began to change their grades from F's to A's. Later on that day one of studens approched me. "Hey, did you do it?" he asked. "Yes, and I expect to be paid in full." I replied. "Dope!!! alright, Here's my money. I'll get the others to pay you next time they see you." I began to become very popular among my peers. They began to treat me like a god with a magical power. I began to change the grades of students in my teachers other classes. Word spread quickly and I became very rich. Everything was going fine untill I was called into the Dean's offfice. When I got there, my teacher was very furious, and the Dean had a angry look in his eyes. "I have known you for 3 years now. I dont want to believe what your teacher says, but Im afraid that I must. He has to much evidence." he said. "Evidence of what?" I replied, trying to play innocent. "You know perfectly well what Im talking about. Do you have anything to say for yourself?" He asked. "No." I said finnaly. "Im afraid I have no choice but to suspend you for the rest of the day. Tommorow we'll have a conferance with your parents to dissuss your punnishment, which will probably be expulsion. I hope you now realize the ramifications of what you have done." When he said this, I did not realize how serious my actions had been. I had violated the trust of my teacher, and the dean. And there was no way back. I was expelled from my school and transfered to another local high school. I hope that I actually learned my lesson. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Justice Pays.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plato¹s argument for the benefits of a just life is intrinsically linked to his definition of good and its relation to people¹s desires. He begins by showing that when the objective of a desire is simple (e.g. quenching a thirst), the desire must be correspondingly simple. Since thirst is a simple desire, the man¹s objective must also be simplistic and should we assign an adjective to his objective, we would falsely complicate it. In addition, Plato believes that we would be seriously erring if we assign a value of good to an desire. In common use, the adjective good would denote something that is good in relation to others of its kind. We consider a drink good if it contains characteristics that we look for in a drink (e.g. pleasantness or taste). Plato takes this a step further and states that something that is good must not only be good in relation to others but it must be wholly good. Thus a drink cannot be truly good if evil results from it. This poses an interesting question for Plato¹s readers namely, since no one wants bad things to happen to them, why do people engage in self-destructive activities? The answer lies in the fact that the only reason that we desire to drink is that we anticipate the result of our thirst being quenched. Our appetites see no further consequences than the immediate fulfillment of our desires; they do not contemplate the results of the actions we take to fulfill our desires. For this reason, Plato believes that we must separate the soul based on how it reacts to desires. There must be a part of the soul, Plato reasons, that contemplates the end result of our actions and makes decisions based on a higher reasoning than desire. So we see two distinct parts of the soul. The first is said to be appetite (which desires without reason) and reason (which considers the consequences). Reason may thus work against anything that is not for the total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good drink, reason would never oppose it. Our usage of the word good, however, has come to denote an expectation of usefulness to our purpose; although this may be relative to the end result that we experience from the object. For example, we call a knife good because it is sharp and cuts well but if the end result is that we cut ourselves, we would say that the knife would have been better if it were not so sharp. We need to consider everything that is relevant to the action or object and determine its possible consequences before we denote it as good. Once we have done this, and assigned a value to each object or action, then Plato believes that we can say that ³everyone wants the things that really are good² even if the person does not realize the true nature of what is good (505d). This Plato calls Œwhat we want¹ and it does not necessarily coincide with what we think is good. In light of this difference, Plato says that a Œtyrannical soul will be least likely to do what it wants¹ (577d). Can we then say of Leontius (439e) that he perceived himself as doing something good or forwarding his happiness? Plato more represents him as a man overpowered by a tyrannical desire, led to do something that he both disapproves of and is contrary to his interests. According to Plato, if Leontius were freed of his desires, he would wish (as the tyrannical man would) that he was acting otherwise. Plato states his views on this overpowering desire. by referring to the division of the soul. All desires (whether a product of the appetitive, or the desire for honor which stems from the spirit, or the desire for knowledge which comes from reason) are for particular goals or objectives (e.g. drink, honor and knowledge) (580d). These objectives may be either good or bad for it is not as good that we desire them. Rather we desire them as drink, honor and knowledge. This forms the base for Plato¹s argument that the unregulated life is unprofitable because one may be led to believe that an object is good by the force of the desire for it. But Plato says that if we are able regulate ourselves, we will desire what is truly good. The objective of our desire (that which is good) is not a simple one, however, nor could it be treated like other objectives such as drink, honor or knowledge. We can see from Book IV, that since the objective is complex, the accompanying desire must be correspondingly complex. Therefore, we are unable to desire the good in the base way that we desire sustenance, prestige or even philosophical enlightenment. What this meant for Plato was that the origin of desire for the good cannot be the same as the origin of desire for simple objectives. Rather, desire for the good finds its roots in a cooperation between the parts of the soul. Thus even the desire for knowledge (associated with reason) does not come from the desire for knowledge as good, for neither the appetitive nor the spirit desires knowledge, but for knowledge itself much as thirst produces a desire for drink itself rather than a good drink. In addition, this cooperation cannot be merely a base desire which fulfills the other base desires of the parts of the soul. Instead, it searches for a type of objective which precedes any other one goal. We seek the good out by choosing between multiple possibilities and selecting the one closest to the type we seek. These choices are not objectives in and of themselves but work together to form the end result of a good life. But how we determine the end result of our choices and choose between our alternatives is determined by the kind of life we lead. In Book VIII, Plato provides us with an overview of four types of lives that people can lead. Plato also ranks the types of lives in descending order as to which is the most just (or will lead to a good life). The Œdemocratic¹ must come low on the scale because he does not select out his desires. Rather he allows that Œall pleasures are equal and must be valued equally¹ (561c). Thus by being indiscriminate in his desires, he will act differently on different occasions and appear to endorse contrary principles. Plato holds, however, that rather than being principles, these are merely momentary enthusiasms. His soul shows no restraint or control and no structure or purpose to his actions. Above the democratic man are the oligarch and the timocrat. These types of men lead structured lives, both work towards a unified, selective goal: the oligarch for possessions, the timocrat for prestige. Plato ranks the timocrat above the oligarch because presumably the spirit that governs the timocrat is closer to reason than is the appetite (the mainspring of the desire for acquisitions) which governs the oligarch. Finally, at the top, comes the aristocratic or just life. Plato place the aristocratic life a the top because it is not dominated by the strength of any one particular desire that we accept as blatantly good. Rather it satisfies the capacities for all desires and in so doing achieves the best possible situation for the person as a whole. This means that none of the three parts of the soul dominates the individual. Not even the intellectual. For should a man merely followed the strongest urge and ignored the balance, he would not be able to call his life the best. At most, his life would be a kind of psychological tyranny in which his every action would be dominated by an isolated passion. This is in fact the worst condition and the one that Plato places at the very bottom. Looking back toward the top, we can see that aristocracy is the extreme opposite of this condition. It is defined simply as freedom of choice. The aristocrat is free to choose the direction of his life, the oligarch did not choose possessions as his objective, rather it was imposed upon him by his character. Since we have already established that everyone if given the freedom and knowledge to choose wisely, will choose what is truly good for the person as a whole, we can now proceed to analyze which of the five types of souls is in the best position to choose correctly. We have said that the democrat shows no direction to his life. His decisions are not based on reason but on momentary enthusiasms. Thus he can not be trusted to make a wise decision. We have said that the timocrat, the oligarch, and the tyrant are all dominated by singular passions which control every judgement. Thus they will make their decisions based on reason but their reason will show favoritism towards the part of the soul which dominates them. Thus they also can not be trusted to make a decision that is in the best possible interest of the whole person. This leaves the aristocrat who leads a just life with each part of his soul performing the function that is was fit to perform. ³He regulates well what is really his own and rules himself. He puts himself in order, is his own friend, and harmonizes the three parts of himself like three limiting notes in a musical scale­high, low, and middle. He binds together those parts and any others there may be in between, and from having been many things he becomes entirely one, moderate and harmonious² (443d). Since the aristocrat regulates the three parts of the soul, keeps them in order, unites them, and has experienced the pleasures of each, he is in the best position to determine what is best for the whole. Thus the man who leads a just or aristocratic life also leads the best life. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\justice.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Distributive Justice Philosophy 10 Instructor: Phil Freneau Should the strong be required to support the weak? How does society "distribute" wealth among its members? These are the questions. There are three basic sides to this issue. The permissive system entitles individuals to a subsistence income supply for existing as a human. The puritan system requires that people at least be willing to contribute to society in order to receive a subsistence income. Finally, the Individual view holds the property rights of the individual to be sacred: no one may forcibly deprive him of his goods. I will argue for the last alternative. Individualism is an extension of Locke's idea of property rights. An Individualist believes each person owns his own life, the fruits of his labor, and his property. No one may deprive him of these property rights. He is free to act as long as his actions do not interfere with the property rights of others. At this point it is important to define what money is. Money is an exchange of value. Money has value because it represent labor, or value, one has created but not yet used. Money in my pocket is what I have created but not yet consumed. Money is not a natural resource; it does not grow on trees. Men can make money by their physical or mental labor. Do I not, then, have full claim to my earnings? If A discovers a cure for AIDS; it surely was not solely a product of A. Society's framework made the discovery possible: A had to build on previous knowledge; she had to use a laboratory she probably did not own. All of these factors make society a partner in the discovery. Therefore, she does not have the right to all of the benefits of her discovery; she must give up some of her benefits to society at large. It is true that A did not personally create every piece of equipment she used to make the discovery; however, the point missed by in this situation is that property is held by individuals, and A had to exchange value in the form of money to buy or rent the equipment she used. The owners have already been paid for the use of their equipment. Business agreements occur between individuals; there is no entity, "society," that handed her a gift. If A were to have to pay more to "society," then she would, in effect, be paying twice. If a permissivist responds with "but she will get rich selling the cure for a high price while thousands are dying," there are basically two responses. The first is that this phenomenon displays the actual value of her product - the price paid in a free market. The second is that any attempt to take her money simply because "she has a lot of it" is robbery. In a state of nature, I cannot get something for nothing. I cannot reap what I do not sow. If I do not invest efforts planting and caring for my crops, there will be nothing at harvest time. Fish are not going to jump into my boat; I have to catch them! Others who argue for Permissivism or Puritanism seem to forget that the wealth they want to redistribute must have a source, because money represents value already created. Thus they cannot deal out wealth as if there were an inexhaustible supply of it; sometimes called "manna from heaven." The only solution they have to this problem is to rob those who have money and are unwilling to pay! If a portion of the population is very poor, the Permissivist would argue that there could be violence. One of the roles of government, according to Locke, is to enforce property rights, so one solution is that the government would have to deal with the violence. It is more likely, however, because people have compassion, that private organizations would be set up to help the poor back on their feet. There is one major issue that we have not yet addressed: What about those who are willing to work, but cannot because of their disability? Are they entitled to a subsisence income? My reply would be this: No, they are not entitled to anyone's labor, because no man may force another's wealth from him. If the disabled truly cannot produce anything of value, they are at the mercy of those who can. This may sound harsh, but if the Permissivists really value human life as much as they say, they will be more than willing to support these unproductive individuals. They still cannot spend more than they create. You have no duty to take care of me, it is a choice. Since I value myself, I choose to care for myself. Am I responsible for your welfare? Unless I choose to be, you have no claim on my life or property. I am not hurting you by making money because there is not a static amount of money, it can be created at will simply with labor. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Kanflict.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kanflict: How humans have risen above the Divine November 23, '96 Philosophy: Lily (Philosophy) Nov.22 Until Emmanuel Kant, God, primarily the western Religion of Christianity's concept of God, was of an elevated stature over humans when concerning the issue of morality. This however was to be questioned due to this philosophers works on this subject. All philosophers preceding him also tried to solve and define this mystical thing called moral good. For Kant this journey had a side benefit. He discovered that it was all more impressive to be good as a human than God itself. For a human to do the right or moral thing means that a decision must be made; to side with the duality within each person, to be moral or follow the animalistic nature of inclination. This inclination is the desire, primarily, to be happy. To be moral means adhering to codes of goodness and selflessness. This might involve running into a burning building to rescue a child. This doesn't make one happy, because one doesn't say, "I could die or I could live. Ya know, I think I'll take the first option...Yippee." This seems ludicrous, that one would chose the good of one over the good of another, and not chose yourself. But this is what elevates us above the rest of the life on the planet, that we will chose to serve the laws of morality and justice, while putting aside one's own happiness. God on the other hand has no such decision to make. God only knows morality. There is no weighing or balancing of conflicting agendas, be it morality or desire. This is what I choose to tag "Kanflict." God's decision is all the less impressive because morality is the only option. For us humans it is all the more difficult and therefore impressive to choose morality over desire to serve our own happiness. Kant has therefor shown that Plato's analogy of the Ring Of Gygies is not the perfect life, that Hobbes was wrong when he said that the best life was to be able to do whatever suited our desires. He has shown this to be false with the fact that humans feel a contradiction in our own will. In other words, we feel guilty and awful after we have chosen the less glorious, but all the more easy and gratifying in the short term, way out called desire. This contradiction is caused by a series of things which Kant outlines and discusses in his discussion of the Metaphysical. A few of these components are: a priori, a posteori, maxim, will, and law. These are simply words for the parts that make up a decision, and it is important to understand their relation ship to the imperatives, or reasons for an action. The three imperatives are: 1. skill, how something is carried out, 2. Hypothetical, suggestions of what will make one happy, desires, 3. Moral, this is simply the ought part of a decision or the conscience. The first two, when combined, are a formula for happiness. This is not, as it is to Hobbes, the best possible life and is second in our mind to the third imperative, moral or categorical. This is simply to say that one knows what is the moral thing to do and must, in some cases, choose over happiness when conflicts of interest occur chose the moral way. How does one know what is moral? The terms before assist me with this answer. A priori is the knowledge we have of what is good or bad, moral or immoral, that is known without experience. For example, it is wrong to rape. A posteori is less glorious and pure, but it has a similar effect. It is the knowledge of something from experience. The maxim is the action which one's will considers and weighs before doing it. In other words it is the word for the whole process discussed here. These all assist the understanding of what is moral, called the categorical imperative. The imperative is broken down into a few parts. Unlike the hypothetical, one knows before an action what one must do. It is immediate. It is also an end in itself. It must be universally true and to be good one must make it the maxim of one's action. "The categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without any reference to any other end."(p.1009) Kant is trying to say that an action must be purely only done for the purpose of doing that action, without any other motive or reason for doing it. Charity is a good example of this. People often give to charity because it is good to help others, but they also get to feel good and show off to their friends with little medals of plaques. This destroys the good of the original moral reason for doing that action. That is why it is so much more impressive to do moral acts as a human than God. For God only has one option, only one imperative for doing an act. Whereas a human has three kinds of imperatives. One might have 20 desires and one moral reason to do an act and still chooses the moral way out. To be purely moral may be next to impossible, for I have never known a purely moral act myself. But perhaps, it is possible and here lies the potential for glory of a more impressive stature than the divine. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Kant The Universal Law Formation of the Catergorical Imp~B8F.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kant: The Universal Law Formation of the Catergorical Imperative Kant: the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative Kantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative as a method for determining morality of actions. This formula is a two part test. First, one creates a maxim and considers whether the maxim could be a universal law for all rational beings. Second, one determines whether rational beings would will it to be a universal law. Once it is clear that the maxim passes both prongs of the test, there are no exceptions. As a paramedic faced with a distraught widow who asks whether her late husband suffered in his accidental death, you must decide which maxim to create and based on the test which action to perform. The maxim "when answering a widow's inquiry as to the nature and duration of her late husbands death, one should always tell the truth regarding the nature of her late husband's death" (M1) passes both parts of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative. Consequently, according to Kant, M1 is a moral action. The initial stage of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative requires that a maxim be universally applicable to all rational beings. M1 succeeds in passing the first stage. We can easily imagine a world in which paramedics always answer widows truthfully when queried. Therefore, this maxim is logical and everyone can abide by it without causing a logical impossibility. The next logical step is to apply the second stage of the test. The second requirement is that a rational being would will this maxim to become a universal law. In testing this part, you must decide whether in every case, a rational being would believe that the morally correct action is to tell the truth. First, it is clear that the widow expects to know the truth. A lie would only serve to spare her feelings if she believed it to be the truth. Therefore, even people who would consider lying to her, must concede that the correct and expected action is to tell the truth. By asking she has already decided, good or bad, that she must know the truth. What if telling the truth brings the widow to the point where she commits suicide, however? Is telling her the truth then a moral action although its consequence is this terrible response? If telling the widow the truth drives her to commit suicide, it seems like no rational being would will the maxim to become a universal law. The suicide is, however, a consequence of your initial action. The suicide has no bearing, at least for the Categorical Imperative, on whether telling the truth is moral or not. Likewise it is impossible to judge whether upon hearing the news, the widow would commit suicide. Granted it is a possibility, but there are a multitude of alternative choices that she could make and it is impossible to predict each one. To decide whether rational being would will a maxim to become a law, the maxim itself must be examined rationally and not its consequences. Accordingly, the maxim passes the second test. Conversely, some people might argue that in telling the widow a lie, you spare her years of torment and suffering. These supporters of "white lies" feel the maxim should read, "When facing a distraught widow, you should lie in regards to the death of her late husband in order to spare her feelings." Applying the first part of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative, it appears that this maxim is a moral act. Certainly, a universal law that prevents the feelings of people who are already in pain from being hurt further seems like an excellent universal law. Unfortunately for this line of objection, the only reason a lie works is because the person being lied to believes it to be the truth. In a situation where every widow is lied to in order to spare her feelings, then they never get the truth. This leads to a logical contradiction because no one will believe a lie if they know it a lie and the maxim fails. Perhaps the die-hard liar can regroup and test a narrower maxim. If it is narrow enough so that it encompasses only a few people, then it passes the first test. For example, the maxim could read, "When facing a distraught widow whose late husband has driven off a bridge at night, and he struggled to get out of the car but ended up drowning, and he was wearing a brown suit and brown loafers, then you should tell the widow that he died instantly in order to spare her feelings." We can easily imagine a world in which all paramedics lied to widows in this specific situation. That does not necessarily mean that it will pass the second test however. Even if it does pass the first test, narrowing down maxim can create other problems. For instance circumstances may change and the people who were originally included in the universal law, may not be included anymore. Consequently you many not want to will your maxim to be a universal law. Likewise, if one person can make these maxims that include only a select group of people, so can everyone else. If you create a maxim about lying to widows that is specific enough to pass the first test, so can everyone else. One must ask if rational beings would really will such a world in which there would be many, many specific, but universal, laws. In order to answer this question, one must use the rational "I" for the statement "I, as a rational being would will such a world," not the specific, embodied "I" which represents you in your present condition. You must consider that you could be the widow in the situation rather than the paramedic, then decide whether you would will such a universal law. I agree with the morality based on Kantian principles because it is strict in its application of moral conduct. Consequently there is no vacillating in individual cases to determine whether an action is moral or not. An action is moral in itself not because of its consequences but because any rational being wills it to be a universal law and it does not contradict itself. Regardless of what the widow does with the information, the act of telling her the truth, is a moral one. No one would argue that telling the truth, if she asks for it, is an immoral thing to do. Sometimes moral actions are difficult, and perhaps in this situation it would be easier to lie to the widow, but it would still be an immoral action that I would not want everyone to do. This picture of morality resonates with my common sense view of morality. If the widow subsequently commits suicide or commits any other immoral act as a consequence, that has no bearing on the morality of the original action in itself. Utilitarianism would differ on this point. Utilitarianism outlines that an action is moral if it increases the total happiness of society. Morality is based on consequences. Telling a lie to the widow would increase her happiness and consequently would, at least possibly, be a moral action. Utilitarianism would also take into account the precedent set by lying; however, the analysis still rests on predicted consequence rather than on the action's intrinsic moral value. The morality of telling the lie is on a case by case basis. In some situations, it might be better to tell the truth, and according to utilitarianism that would then be the moral action. Unlike Kantian philosophy, one is not bound by an immutable universal law. Instead one must judge in each case which action will produce the most overall happiness. The problem with this approach is that morality loses any value as a universal or intrinsic quality. Every decision is made on an individual basis in an individual and specific situation. In fact, utilitarianism considers happiness to be the only intrinsically valuable end. Defenders of utilitarianism claim that it maintains universality by considering the greatest happiness of all beings, rather than just individual happiness. Still, the morality is based on constantly changing and often unpredictable consequences. The requirement that one consider all of the consequences of an action and determine the best possible action through such calculations makes me reject utilitarianism as a method of determining morality. Although utilitarianism often offers the easier solution to perform because it produces immediate gratification and allows many exceptions to common sense moral codes, the answers it gives are unfilling and unrealistic. Furthermore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make all of the required calculations beforehand. Kant's solution, although as interpreted by Kant is sometimes overly extreme, is much better than utilitarianism. It resonates with my moral sensibilities to consider that actions are moral or immoral regardless of their immediate consequences. I am willing to accept that sometimes the moral action is harder to perform, but I am unwilling to accept that morality rests within the specifics of a situation and the possible consequences. Therefore, I consider Kant's Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative to be a better test of morality than Mill's Utilitarianism. Word Count: 1541 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Kants caterogorical imperative.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The central concept of Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals is the categorical imperative. "The conception of an objective principle, in so far as it is obligatory for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an Imperative." (Abbott, 30) An imperative is something that a will ought or shall do because the will is obligated to act in the manner in which it conforms with moral law. The categorical imperative is an obligation by the will to act so that the action can be classified as a universal law. When one acts in conformity with the universal law at all times, they are following out the categorical imperative. This differs from the hypothetical imperative in that the hypothetical imperative acts on the basis that the will in the end will gain something (not a means to an end). The categorical imperative is a means to an end, and the action to obtain the end must have moral worth. Stipulations of the categorical imperative are that all actions should act only on the maxim, that actions have moral worth, and the end is necessary. From these stipulations, it can be derived that the categorical imperative should be followed in order to live morally. "If an action is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical." (Abbott, 32) "There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Abbott, 38) The categorical imperative must be found A Priori and it excludes all interests and desires. Kant uses four examples to better describe the working of the categorical imperative in Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. The first example is of a man who is suffering from many misfortunes in life and wishes to commit sucicide on the basis of self-love. Kant declares that this cannot be the categorical imperative at work because the maxim derived from self-love, to shorten his life to avoid more pain, is a contradiction in itself for no man can kill himself painlessly and therefore cannot be a universal maxim. The action of killing oneself would cause pain, which is not in conformity to the maxim stated to avoid pain. The second example Kant gives is based on the basic premise of lying. A man is forced to borrow money which he knows he will never be able to repay but he promises to do so anyway. This action is not consistent with duty and the maxim could be expressed as: "When I [the man] think myself in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I never can do so."(Abbott, 39) The maxim cannot hold as a universal law because if everyone lied about promises, the promise itself would become impossible, and the end would be unattainable. Telling the truth is an end in itself. The third example is of a man who it bestowed a natural ability but does not use it to it's full extent. Kant sees this as not a categorical imperative because a rational being necessarily wills that he develop his skills for many possible reasons. Rational beings are an end in themselves, and if you do not better yourself, you are not serving yourself.(Abbott, 40) Lastly, the fourth man, in great prosperity, has a chance to help others in need and does not. This can be viewed as a workable universal law, but it cannot be willed as the good thing to do because if no one gave to society, society would not get the aid when desired. The main basis of a categorical imperative is that "we must be able to will that a maxim of our action should be a universal law."(Abbott, 41) A universal law where people betray the rights of men or otherwise violates them, cannot be true. The formula of the categorical imperative is to act so that the maxim can be applied as a universal law. One must act on the maxim of the action as if it were a universal law of nature. The principle that determines the action is not based on the goal of the action but on the ability of the maxim to be universal. From this paper, it was learned what Kant's categorical imperative is, how it is derived, and some examples of the categorical imperative at work. According to Kant, all actions of the categorical imperative should be able to conform to a universal law and should be willed as well as obeyed by all. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\La Naus‚e.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ La Nausée La nausèe est le premier livre de Jean Paul Sartre. Le plan fictional est que les notes d'un certain Antoine Roquentin son trouvés parmis ses travaux et son publicés après sa mort. Pour ganger sa vie, il fait de la recherche sur le marquis de Rollebon. Le livre entier est ecrit somme des notes de qouis ce passe le long de ses jours. Des titre comme "Lundi", "neuf heurs du matin" et "deux heurs plus tard" son des titres commun et lœvre entier est ecrit dans la premiêre personne du singulier. Un beau jour Roquentin se trouve sur la plage regardant quelques gamins jouer. Tout d'un coup il se sent terriblement degouté. Dans les notes procahines il raconte que quelque chose c'est passé, mai il ne sais pas qoui. Pour la première fois dans sa vie il se sent seul. Il ne crain ce qui se passe et il crois ue c'est a cause qu'il a ramassé un cailloux sur la plage l'autre jour. Il crois que ceci lui cause son malaise. Dans son mtravail sur le marquis il commence a doubter son passé, rien ne peut être prouver sur son sujet. Roquentin a du mal à reconnaitre des personne qu'il voit tous les jours. Parfois il a même du mal a reconnaitre sois même dans le mirroir. Pour échaper la nausée il va à son café préféré. Roquentin demande au garçon de jouer son disque préféré, et, soudain il se sent planit de joie. Roquentin passe ses jour à pensé, il pense à sa vie et ce qu'il a fait. Il se sent triste par ce que il na pas d'aventure dans sa vie, tous les jours son les même. Le même jour il reçoit une letter de Anny une fille qu'il n'a pas vu depuis six ans. Ellevut qu'il vienne la voir a Paris. Roquentin devin un peut déprimé et troublé, il pense tant qu'il ne peut pas travailler. Son existance lui trouble, le present est la suele chose qui est la veritée, et le présent est contant, le passé n'éxiste pas alors son travail n'a auqun d'importance. Après ceci, il commence a pensé a "cogito ergo sum"(=je pense, c' est pouqoi j'existe). Il dit que la réalitée est causé par rien et pour auqune réson. C'est un peut complique de suivre tot celapar ce que il change d'avi au sujet de la réalitée de temps en temps. Roquentin part a Paris pour encontrer Anny. Ils ont de longues converstion très intérésantes mais après quelquelsjours Anny doit lui quitter. A la garre un autre homme lui dit au revoire et Roquentin se dit que dans la vie il n'y a que de la souffrance. Quand Roquentin retourne a Bouville il ne voit pas pourquois il devrait réster il encore un foie il par a Paris et il se promet de devenir un grand auteur. --- J'ai bien aimé lire La nausée, mai de temps en temps c'est dificile à suivre. C'était une bonne lécture avec beaucoup de réfléction sur la vie. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Lamarcks Influence on the Development Of Darwins Theory Of E.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ YORK UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE NATURE AND HUMAN NATURE SOSC 1040.06 Lamarck's Influence on the Development of Darwin's Theory of Evolution Dec. 4 1996 Serebryany, Rostislav Marc Weinstein 202065571 N705R Lamarck's Influence on The Development of Darwin's Theory of Evolution There have been many ideas on the theory of evolution. Some simply take our existence for granted, others prefer to explain all evolution in terms of the bible and the presence of a God. However, there are those who have researched the topic of evolution and have offered an explanation as to where a species comes from and how they evolved in the manner that they did. This type of science has been studied for a very, very long time, and one of the most famous minds in the field of evolution was a man named Charles Darwin. Darwin was not the first one to offer theories on evolution. There have been many scientists who preceded him. These earlier evolutionists came up with models of evolution that were unfortunately unworkable. One of these early pioneers was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck believed in deism and advocated natural religion based on human reason. He believed in the harmony and rationality of the world. And although flawed, the work of Lamarck did not go unnoticed, however. Darwin also believed in the harmony of the world, and it was Darwin himself who said that Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on evolution brought about excitement and attention. He was the one who showed law in organic and inorganic species evolution. As it turned out, the work of Lamarck was quite influential on Darwin. Lamarck's views on inheritance of characteristics can be seen in Darwin's accounts of natural selection. When Lamarck wrote of transmutation, Darwin followed with his beliefs of the mutability of species. As well, Darwin had used Lamarck's ideas on use and disuse of organs. Lamarck was not the greatest of influences on Darwin, but he was an important one. One of the most important arguments in Darwin's theories was the idea of natural selection. It is generally thought that the world first heard of this idea in the form of Lamarck's inheritance of acquired traits theory. Lamarck's work showed that organisms improve themselves on their own. Then these new advantages for the environment would be passed on to the species offspring on the genetic level. This idea of self improvement detailed how, through hard work of the organism, the path of evolution was continuous, always improving to the point of perfection. Lamarck had said that organisms must first be faced with a different mode of environment that would trigger some sort of pressure for an altered gene, to be inherited in the next generation. This process has come to be known as Lamarckism. (Gould, 1980) Darwin did not deny any of this. He regarded it as support for natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. Darwin's theory was more complex then Lamarck's, but the basic structure was there. Darwin had rooted his theory on the concept of adaptation, just as Lamarck had previously done. Adaptation is the notion of organisms responding to a changing environments by evolving either a form or function of the body that would better suite it in the environment. Lamarck had explained that the method of transfer of information was directly to the organism, the animal would perceive the change and simply respond in the necessary way so that their offspring can be better adapted. Darwin's answer to what the mechanism is was much different. Darwin spoke of there being two components, variation and direction.(Gould, 1980) Darwin had taken into account that the species did indeed create offspring that were better suited for the environment, just as Lamarck had said. Darwin proposed that instead of direct transfer of environmental change, those that vary by good fortune are better suited for the environment and leave more surviving offspring. A species would have this beneficial trait through random variation. Then, the characteristic would help the animal survive, while the others died off. This ensured that the beneficial trait would get passed on. This explanation is similar to Lamarkism, with obvious adjustments. Darwin simply showed that natural selection is, above all, a theory about the struggle of individual survival and reproduction. Lamarck's theory on inheritance of acquired characteristics is not that much different, infact, Lamarckism has occasionally been mistaken for Darwinism. Darwin did indeed take Lamarck's inheritance of characteristics theory and modify it so that he improved upon it. This shows how Lamarck influenced Darwin to create the natural selection theory. It did not stop there, though. Lamarck also influenced Darwin with the idea of transmutation, and prompted Darwin to theorize on that aspect of evolution as well. Transmutation was an idea resulting in the problem that Lamarck faced when dealing with the apparent extinction of a species. To Lamarck, extinction was not a possibility. Lamarck believed that extinction could not occur because then it would mean that God created an imperfect being, which was not a possibility for Lamarck. One purpose for the theory of transmutation was to offer an explanation for the apparent 'disappearance' of a species. The theory was that out of inherited characteristics, a species would undergo change. Each generation would continue to change because inheritance of traits would always occur. Eventually, over a very gradual amount of time, the species would evolve so dramatically, that the new adaptations would bear little or no resemblance to the original species.(Ospovat, 1981) Darwin, who incorporated this idea, modified it slightly. To Darwin, extinction was very much a reality. He had stated in his "Origin of Species" that only few species in a particular genus would ever undergo a change. The other species of the same genus would go extinct and leave no modified offspring, only the ones that have apparently gone through some sort of mutation would produce offspring. This theory shows a direct link to Lamarck's because Darwin believed in transmutation also. On his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, Darwin found birds that seemed to be similar, but were each distinct. These birds came to be known as Darwin's finches, and Darwin discovered that each variety shared a common ancestry that grew out of the mainland. Although his method for scientific analysis was poor, Darwin concluded that when the same species of birds had migrated to the different islands of the Galapagos, they found that their competition for survival had decimated. The finches would then evolve to fit the new feeding environment, and take over the roles of the previous birds. (Gould, 1980) This idea was influenced by Lamarck's principal that each newly established evolutionary line would gradually move up the ladder. In Lamarckism, transmutation and inherited characteristics went hand in hand. Transmutation occurred out of the willingness of the organism to adapt to the environment. Although Darwin's theory of mutated animals is a bit different, again the influence of Lamarck is apparent. To Darwin, transmutation was not the achievement of higher levels of organization, but rather the production of new forms better suited for life in the external environment. Although this seems the opposite to Lamarck, Darwin merely tried to show the scientific fact behind transmutation, he needed to involve extinction, Lamarck did not, it was necessary to prove the notion of mutation and transmutation because it was not regarded at the time due to the fact that the steps in-between were not visible. Darwin saw the difficulty in Lamarck's view, and was influenced by the evolutionist to come up with an idea that supported the topic as a whole, not necessarily Lamarck's view. Darwin proceeded to try and improve upon Lamarck's theory when the idea of use and disuse became of interest to him. The idea that an organism would have parts of their body disappear due to the fact that the particular part was of no function over many generations and had no use, was presented to Darwin by Lamarck. It was Lamarck who had said that if he were to put a patch over the left eye of two children, one male and one female, and the patch be kept there throughout their lifetime, and then in turn, their children would also be given a patch to wear, that gradually over many generations, the right eye would adapt so that the left eye would no longer be needed. Lamarck was confident that distant generations would not even have a left eye, and that further down the road, the right eye would start to move towards the center.(Corsi, 1988) Obviously there would be no proof on this particular hypothesis. Lamarck did not stop there, though. He also stated that the giraffe's long neck was the result of continuous stretching for food atop the highest trees. The will power of the giraffe changed the structure of it's neck so that future offspring would be able to reach for the best leaves. (Corsi, 1988) The idea of use and disuse is connected with the idea of inherited characteristics as well. To Darwin, this idea showed him the correlation between the environment and natural selection. He had stated that through the natural selection of beneficial traits, the inheritance of use and disuse would help in evolving a species to adapt to the surrounding conditions. Lamarck's theory on use and disuse of structures within the organism is clearly shown here in Darwin's work of the same manner, once again showing influence of Lamarck's inheritance of traits on Darwin's theory of natural selection. The idea of use and disuse is directly the result of natural conditions in the environment. If an organism is better suited for the environment and has no use for a particular appendage, for instance, that appendage would eventually get weaker and weaker. Over time, that appendage would most likely start to become less and less apparent, maybe to the point that it may start to shrink. This idea, which Darwin advocated, was a theory of Lamarck. When people talk of evolution, Darwin is usually a name that is mentioned most often. He was arguably the most popular mind in the field of evolution. However, he was not the only one, not by any stretch. Many scientists who specialized in evolution preceded him. Darwin's work was influenced by theses earlier evolutionists, and one of the most important person who directly influenced Darwin was Lamarck. Lamarck however, was not always entirely correct when it came to his theories on where a species came from, and how it got there. Using the work of Lamarck, Darwin was able to improve upon theories that had the right idea, but was curved by biblical belief or information unknown at the time, such as the possibility of a species going extinct. Lamarck's theories on inheritance of characteristics, transmutation and the use and disuse of internal structures can be seen in the preliminary ground work of Darwin's theory of natural selection, mutation of species and use and disuse of an organisms body parts. Darwin had revolutionized the belief in evolution, and in doing so, he had brought back some theories that were not all that popular when they were first introduced. Great minds like Lamarck had influenced Darwin to show the world where it originated, and how it progressed through the ages. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Corsi, P., "The age of Lamarck", University of California Press LTD, Berkeley and California, 1988 2. Gould, S.J., "The Panda's Thumb", W.W. Norton and Company Inc. New York, 1980 3. Gould, S.J., "The Flamingo's Smile", W.W. Norton and Company Inc. New York, 1985 4. Mayr, E., "One Long Argument:Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought", Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1991 5. Ospovat, D., "The Development of Darwin's Theory", Cambridge University Press, New York, 1981 6. "Index of the Origin of Species" Internet, http//www.cs.brandeis.edu/~rllc/texttract1.html YORK UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE NATURE AND HUMAN NATURE SOSC 1040.06 Lamarck's Influence on the Development of Darwin's Theory of Evolution Dec. 4 1996 Serebryany, Rostislav Marc Weinstein 202065571 N705R Lamarck's Influence on The Development of Darwin's Theory of Evolution There have been many ideas on the theory of evolution. Some simply take our existence for granted, others prefer to explain all evolution in terms of the bible and the presence of a God. However, there are those who have researched the topic of evolution and have offered an explanation as to where a species comes from and how they evolved in the manner that they did. This type of science has been studied for a very, very long time, and one of the most famous minds in the field of evolution was a man named Charles Darwin. Darwin was not the first one to offer theories on evolution. There have been many scientists who preceded him. These earlier evolutionists came up with models of evolution that were unfortunately unworkable. One of these early pioneers was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck believed in deism and advocated natural religion based on human reason. He believed in the harmony and rationality of the world. And although flawed, the work of Lamarck did not go unnoticed, however. Darwin also believed in the harmony of the world, and it was Darwin himself who said that Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on evolution brought about excitement and attention. He was the one who showed law in organic and inorganic species evolution. As it turned out, the work of Lamarck was quite influential on Darwin. Lamarck's views on inheritance of characteristics can be seen in Darwin's accounts of natural selection. When Lamarck wrote of transmutation, Darwin followed with his beliefs of the mutability of species. As well, Darwin had used Lamarck's ideas on use and disuse of organs. Lamarck was not the greatest of influences on Darwin, but he was an important one. One of the most important arguments in Darwin's theories was the idea of natural selection. It is generally thought that the world first heard of this idea in the form of Lamarck's inheritance of acquired traits theory. Lamarck's work showed that organisms improve themselves on their own. Then these new advantages for the environment would be passed on to the species offspring on the genetic level. This idea of self improvement detailed how, through hard work of the organism, the path of evolution was continuous, always improving to the point of perfection. Lamarck had said that organisms must first be faced with a different mode of environment that would trigger some sort of pressure for an altered gene, to be inherited in the next generation. This process has come to be known as Lamarckism. (Gould, 1980) Darwin did not deny any of this. He regarded it as support for natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. Darwin's theory was more complex then Lamarck's, but the basic structure was there. Darwin had rooted his theory on the concept of adaptation, just as Lamarck had previously done. Adaptation is the notion of organisms responding to a changing environments by evolving either a form or function of the body that would better suite it in the environment. Lamarck had explained that the method of transfer of information was directly to the organism, the animal would perceive the change and simply respond in the necessary way so that their offspring can be better adapted. Darwin's answer to what the mechanism is was much different. Darwin spoke of there being two components, variation and direction.(Gould, 1980) Darwin had taken into account that the species did indeed create offspring that were better suited for the environment, just as Lamarck had said. Darwin proposed that instead of direct transfer of environmental change, those that vary by good fortune are better suited for the environment and leave more surviving offspring. A species would have this beneficial trait through random variation. Then, the characteristic would help the animal survive, while the others died off. This ensured that the beneficial trait would get passed on. This explanation is similar to Lamarkism, with obvious adjustments. Darwin simply showed that natural selection is, above all, a theory about the struggle of individual survival and reproduction. Lamarck's theory on inheritance of acquired characteristics is not that much different, infact, Lamarckism has occasionally been mistaken for Darwinism. Darwin did indeed take Lamarck's inheritance of characteristics theory and modify it so that he improved upon it. This shows how Lamarck influenced Darwin to create the natural selection theory. It did not stop there, though. Lamarck also influenced Darwin with the idea of transmutation, and prompted Darwin to theorize on that aspect of evolution as well. Transmutation was an idea resulting in the problem that Lamarck faced when dealing with the apparent extinction of a species. To Lamarck, extinction was not a possibility. Lamarck believed that extinction could not occur because then it would mean that God created an imperfect being, which was not a possibility for Lamarck. One purpose for the theory of transmutation was to offer an explanation for the apparent 'disappearance' of a species. The theory was that out of inherited characteristics, a species would undergo change. Each generation would continue to change because inheritance of traits would always occur. Eventually, over a very gradual amount of time, the species would evolve so dramatically, that the new adaptations would bear little or no resemblance to the original species.(Ospovat, 1981) Darwin, who incorporated this idea, modified it slightly. To Darwin, extinction was very much a reality. He had stated in his "Origin of Species" that only few species in a particular genus would ever undergo a change. The other species of the same genus would go extinct and leave no modified offspring, only the ones that have apparently gone through some sort of mutation would produce offspring. This theory shows a direct link to Lamarck's because Darwin believed in transmutation also. On his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, Darwin found birds that seemed to be similar, but were each distinct. These birds came to be known as Darwin's finches, and Darwin discovered that each variety shared a common ancestry that grew out of the mainland. Although his method for scientific analysis was poor, Darwin concluded that when the same species of birds had migrated to the different islands of the Galapagos, they found that their competition for survival had decimated. The finches would then evolve to fit the new feeding environment, and take over the roles of the previous birds. (Gould, 1980) This idea was influenced by Lamarck's principal that each newly established evolutionary line would gradually move up the ladder. In Lamarckism, transmutation and inherited characteristics went hand in hand. Transmutation occurred out of the willingness of the organism to adapt to the environment. Although Darwin's theory of mutated animals is a bit different, again the influence of Lamarck is apparent. To Darwin, transmutation was not the achievement of higher levels of organization, but rather the production of new forms better suited for life in the external environment. Although this seems the opposite to Lamarck, Darwin merely tried to show the scientific fact behind transmutation, he needed to involve extinction, Lamarck did not, it was necessary to prove the notion of mutation and transmutation because it was not regarded at the time due to the fact that the steps in-between were not visible. Darwin saw the difficulty in Lamarck's view, and was influenced by the evolutionist to come up with an idea that supported the topic as a whole, not necessarily Lamarck's view. Darwin proceeded to try and improve upon Lamarck's theory when the idea of use and disuse became of interest to him. The idea that an organism would have parts of their body disappear due to the fact that the particular part was of no function over many generations and had no use, was presented to Darwin by Lamarck. It was Lamarck who had said that if he were to put a patch over the left eye of two children, one male and one female, and the patch be kept there throughout their lifetime, and then in turn, their children would also be given a patch to wear, that gradually over many generations, the right eye would adapt so that the left eye would no longer be needed. Lamarck was confident that distant generations would not even have a left eye, and that further down the road, the right eye would start to move towards the center.(Corsi, 1988) Obviously there would be no proof on this particular hypothesis. Lamarck did not stop there, though. He also stated that the giraffe's long neck was the result of continuous stretching for food atop the highest trees. The will power of the giraffe changed the structure of it's neck so that future offspring would be able to reach for the best leaves. (Corsi, 1988) The idea of use and disuse is connected with the idea of inherited characteristics as well. To Darwin, this idea showed him the correlation between the environment and natural selection. He had stated that through the natural selection of beneficial traits, the inheritance of use and disuse would help in evolving a species to adapt to the surrounding conditions. Lamarck's theory on use and disuse of structures within the organism is clearly shown here in Darwin's work of the same manner, once again showing influence of Lamarck's inheritance of traits on Darwin's theory of natural selection. The idea of use and disuse is directly the result of natural conditions in the environment. If an organism is better suited for the environment and has no use for a particular appendage, for instance, that appendage would eventually get weaker and weaker. Over time, that appendage would most likely start to become less and less apparent, maybe to the point that it may start to shrink. This idea, which Darwin advocated, was a theory of Lamarck. When people talk of evolution, Darwin is usually a name that is mentioned most often. He was arguably the most popular mind in the field of evolution. However, he was not the only one, not by any stretch. Many scientists who specialized in evolution preceded him. Darwin's work was influenced by theses earlier evolutionists, and one of the most important person who directly influenced Darwin was Lamarck. Lamarck however, was not always entirely correct when it came to his theories on where a species came from, and how it got there. Using the work of Lamarck, Darwin was able to improve upon theories that had the right idea, but was curved by biblical belief or information unknown at the time, such as the possibility of a species going extinct. Lamarck's theories on inheritance of characteristics, transmutation and the use and disuse of internal structures can be seen in the preliminary ground work of Darwin's theory of natural selection, mutation of species and use and disuse of an organisms body parts. Darwin had revolutionized the belief in evolution, and in doing so, he had brought back some theories that were not all that popular when they were first introduced. Great minds like Lamarck had influenced Darwin to show the world where it originated, and how it progressed through the ages. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Corsi, P., "The age of Lamarck", University of California Press LTD, Berkeley and California, 1988 2. Gould, S.J., "The Panda's Thumb", W.W. Norton and Company Inc. New York, 1980 3. Gould, S.J., "The Flamingo's Smile", W.W. Norton and Company Inc. New York, 1985 4. Mayr, E., "One Long Argument:Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought", Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1991 5. Ospovat, D., "The Development of Darwin's Theory", Cambridge University Press, New York, 1981 6. "Index of the Origin of Species" Internet, http//www.cs.brandeis.edu/~rllc/texttract1.html f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Laughing All the Way.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "What is it that differentiates human beings most revealingly? Some say it is their varying degrees of compassion; others say it is amounts of prudence; still others, people's differing appreciations of beauty, or whatever makes them angry. And there are other possibilities worth considering. But in truth nothing is so revealing as a person's sense of humor." It is not very hard to notice the many differences between people. There are thousands of things that differentiate us. Appearance is of course the most obvious but in reality appearance does little to actually distinguish people outside of identifying them. Having blue eyes does not say anything about my attitude, my beliefs, my likes or dislikes. Of course there is no one, single character trait that will best identify a person. Humans are extremely complex. Most of us spend our entire lives trying to figure one another out. (This is especially true when attempting to figure out females.) Clues can be found anywhere. The books a person reads, the movies they watch and the games they play all reveal little bits of their character. It is a fair comment though that the most revealing character trait a person has is their sense of humor. Few things are as distinguishable and noticeable as humor. Laughs echo throughout rooms and they are as unique as snowflakes. Jokes have been told and retold for centuries by men and women of all races. While it has often been said of someone that "they have no sense of humor," it is untrue. Senses of humor vary more often than the weather. What some people find hilarious, others find offensive. What some people think is stupid, others think it is amusing. This is why it is so revealing. What makes people laugh or smile can say a lot about their intelligence, their convictions and their social standing. Of course these are just a few of the facets of human life that a sense of humor can reveal. People have differing degrees of wit. Certain television shows and movies are obviously made to cater to different audiences. There have always been certain jokes that "are over someone's head." A person's sense of humor can give real insight to their educational background and "intelligence." A lone high school drop-out in a group of archaeologists may feel to see the humor in many of their jokes. Chances are they may not laugh at the same shows or life situations. By no means am I saying that this is a cut and dry scenario though. The uneducated can very easily find the same things as funny as an MBA does. However humor seems to typify itself in social groups, and those with the same educational background and intelligence often share a similar sense of humor. From this one can make a quick judgment on another's educational background. Racist jokes are extremely common in modern society. Almost everyone laughs at them. While it may not be always fair to say so there is often real racism behind the laughter. More than likely not full-blown, "KKK" racism but some sort of bigotry. If someone constantly uses minority groups as the target of their humor, chances are they are the host to some "politically incorrect" opinions. Perhaps more so than intelligence, humor accurately portrays a person's social standing. The upper class probably doesn't laugh as much at Roseanne as the middle class does. That is assuming they even watch it all. The anecdotes people tell and laugh at, reflect their social standing very much. I, personally, probably would not even chuckle at a story that involved a stalled Rolls-Royce, two pounds of caviar and a bottle of 1951 Dom Perignon. For the same reasons, a person like Princess Diana may not think my little tale of putting laundry detergent in the dishwasher is all that funny. People mainly laugh at that which they can relate to. The entertainment industry does provide some exceptions to this theory but that is due mainly to writing and acting. A person's sense of humor is the most revealing aspect though mainly because of its honesty. Laughing and chuckling and smiling are all natural "gut-reactions." Sometimes people try to stifle their laughter so as not to offend anyone and still others "fake-laugh" to get in on the joke. Both of these kinds of people are easily spotted though. Laughing is not just a noise that is emitted from a person. A person's eyes and body laugh as well as the throat. Someone biting their fist or lip is holding back laughter, someone whose eyes are not even smiling is faking it. Humor is spontaneous and situational. Of course so is sympathy. Sympathy springs from sadness though and sadness is reflective completely through all walks of life. Most people can tend to agree on what makes them cry, but agreeing on what makes them laugh is another matter altogether. There are a great deal of things that distinguish human beings but it does make sense that a sense of humor would be the most identifiable. After all laughing is the most unique trait people possess. "What is it that differentiates human beings most revealingly? Some say it is their varying degrees of compassion; others say it is amounts of prudence; still others, people's differing appreciations of beauty, or whatever makes them angry. And there are other possibilities worth considering. But in truth nothing is so revealing as a person's sense of humor." It is not very hard to notice the many differences between people. There are thousands of things that differentiate us. Appearance is of course the most obvious but in reality appearance does little to actually distinguish people outside of identifying them. Having blue eyes does not say anything about my attitude, my beliefs, my likes or dislikes. Of course there is no one, single character trait that will best identify a person. Humans are extremely complex. Most of us spend our entire lives trying to figure one another out. (This is especially true when attempting to figure out females.) Clues can be found anywhere. The books a person reads, the movies they watch and the games they play all reveal little bits of their character. It is a fair comment though that the most revealing character trait a person has is their sense of humor. Few things are as distinguishable and noticeable as humor. Laughs echo throughout rooms and they are as unique as snowflakes. Jokes have been told and retold for centuries by men and women of all races. While it has often been said of someone that "they have no sense of humor," it is untrue. Senses of humor vary more often than the weather. What some people find hilarious, others find offensive. What some people think is stupid, others think it is amusing. This is why it is so revealing. What makes people laugh or smile can say a lot about their intelligence, their convictions and their social standing. Of course these are just a few of the facets of human life that a sense of humor can reveal. People have differing degrees of wit. Certain television shows and movies are obviously made to cater to different audiences. There have always been certain jokes that "are over someone's head." A person's sense of humor can give real insight to their educational background and "intelligence." A lone high school drop-out in a group of archaeologists may feel to see the humor in many of their jokes. Chances are they may not laugh at the same shows or life situations. By no means am I saying that this is a cut and dry scenario though. The uneducated can very easily find the same things as funny as an MBA does. However humor seems to typify itself in social groups, and those with the same educational background and intelligence often share a similar sense of humor. From this one can make a quick judgment on another's educational background. Racist jokes are extremely common in modern society. Almost everyone laughs at them. While it may not be always fair to say so there is often real racism behind the laughter. More than likely not full-blown, "KKK" racism but some sort of bigotry. If someone constantly uses minority groups as the target of their humor, chances are they are the host to some "politically incorrect" opinions. Perhaps more so than intelligence, humor accurately portrays a person's social standing. The upper class probably doesn't laugh as much at Roseanne as the middle class does. That is assuming they even watch it all. The anecdotes people tell and laugh at, reflect their social standing very much. I, personally, probably would not even chuckle at a story that involved a stalled Rolls-Royce, two pounds of caviar and a bottle of 1951 Dom Perignon. For the same reasons, a person like Princess Diana may not think my little tale of putting laundry detergent in the dishwasher is all that funny. People mainly laugh at that which they can relate to. The entertainment industry does provide some exceptions to this theory but that is due mainly to writing and acting. A person's sense of humor is the most revealing aspect though mainly because of its honesty. Laughing and chuckling and smiling are all natural "gut-reactions." Sometimes people try to stifle their laughter so as not to offend anyone and still others "fake-laugh" to get in on the joke. Both of these kinds of people are easily spotted though. Laughing is not just a noise that is emitted from a person. A person's eyes and body laugh as well as the throat. Someone biting their fist or lip is holding back laughter, someone whose eyes are not even smiling is faking it. Humor is spontaneous and situational. Of course so is sympathy. Sympathy springs from sadness though and sadness is reflective completely through all walks of life. Most people can tend to agree on what makes them cry, but agreeing on what makes them laugh is another matter altogether. There are a great deal of things that distinguish human beings but it does make sense that a sense of humor would be the most identifiable. After all laughing is the most unique trait people possess. "What is it that differentiates human beings most revealingly? Some say it is their varying degrees of compassion; others say it is amounts of prudence; still others, people's differing appreciations of beauty, or whatever makes them angry. And there are other possibilities worth considering. But in truth nothing is so revealing as a person's sense of humor." It is not very hard to notice the many differences between people. There are thousands of things that differentiate us. Appearance is of course the most obvious but in reality appearance does little to actually distinguish people outside of identifying them. Having blue eyes does not say anything about my attitude, my beliefs, my likes or dislikes. Of course there is no one, single character trait that will best identify a person. Humans are extremely complex. Most of us spend our entire lives trying to figure one another out. (This is especially true when attempting to figure out females.) Clues can be found anywhere. The books a person reads, the movies they watch and the games they play all reveal little bits of their character. It is a fair comment though that the most revealing character trait a person has is their sense of humor. Few things are as distinguishable and noticeable as humor. Laughs echo throughout rooms and they are as unique as snowflakes. Jokes have been told and retold for centuries by men and women of all races. While it has often been said of someone that "they have no sense of humor," it is untrue. Senses of humor vary more often than the weather. What some people find hilarious, others find offensive. What some people think is stupid, others think it is amusing. This is why it is so revealing. What makes people laugh or smile can say a lot about their intelligence, their convictions and their social standing. Of course these are just a few of the facets of human life that a sense of humor can reveal. People have differing degrees of wit. Certain television shows and movies are obviously made to cater to different audiences. There have always been certain jokes that "are over someone's head." A person's sense of humor can give real insight to their educational background and "intelligence." A lone high school drop-out in a group of archaeologists may feel to see the humor in many of their jokes. Chances are they may not laugh at the same shows or life situations. By no means am I saying that this is a cut and dry scenario though. The uneducated can very easily find the same things as funny as an MBA does. However humor seems to typify itself in social groups, and those with the same educational background and intelligence often share a similar sense of humor. From this one can make a quick judgment on another's educational background. Racist jokes are extremely common in modern society. Almost everyone laughs at them. While it may not be always fair to say so there is often real racism behind the laughter. More than likely not full-blown, "KKK" racism but some sort of bigotry. If someone constantly uses minority groups as the target of their humor, chances are they are the host to some "politically incorrect" opinions. Perhaps more so than intelligence, humor accurately portrays a person's social standing. The upper class probably doesn't laugh as much at Roseanne as the middle class does. That is assuming they even watch it all. The anecdotes people tell and laugh at, reflect their social standing very much. I, personally, probably would not even chuckle at a story that involved a stalled Rolls-Royce, two pounds of caviar and a bottle of 1951 Dom Perignon. For the same reasons, a person like Princess Diana may not think my little tale of putting laundry detergent in the dishwasher is all that funny. People mainly laugh at that which they can relate to. The entertainment industry does provide some exceptions to this theory but that is due mainly to writing and acting. A person's sense of humor is the most revealing aspect though mainly because of its honesty. Laughing and chuckling and smiling are all natural "gut-reactions." Sometimes people try to stifle their laughter so as not to offend anyone and still others "fake-laugh" to get in on the joke. Both of these kinds of people are easily spotted though. Laughing is not just a noise that is emitted from a person. A person's eyes and body laugh as well as the throat. Someone biting their fist or lip is holding back laughter, someone whose eyes are not even smiling is faking it. Humor is spontaneous and situational. Of course so is sympathy. Sympathy springs from sadness though and sadness is reflective completely through all walks of life. Most people can tend to agree on what makes them cry, but agreeing on what makes them laugh is another matter altogether. There are a great deal of things that distinguish human beings but it does make sense that a sense of humor would be the most identifiable. After all laughing is the most unique trait people possess. "What is it that differentiates human beings most revealingly? Some say it is their varying degrees of compassion; others say it is amounts of prudence; still others, people's differing appreciations of beauty, or whatever makes them angry. And there are other possibilities worth considering. But in truth nothing is so revealing as a person's sense of humor." It is not very hard to notice the many differences between people. There are thousands of things that differentiate us. Appearance is of course the most obvious but in reality appearance does little to actually distinguish people outside of identifying them. Having blue eyes does not say anything about my attitude, my beliefs, my likes or dislikes. Of course there is no one, single character trait that will best identify a person. Humans are extremely complex. Most of us spend our entire lives trying to figure one another out. (This is especially true when attempting to figure out females.) Clues can be found anywhere. The books a person reads, the movies they watch and the games they play all reveal little bits of their character. It is a fair comment though that the most revealing character trait a person has is their sense of humor. Few things are as distinguishable and noticeable as humor. Laughs echo throughout rooms and they are as unique as snowflakes. Jokes have been told and retold for centuries by men and women of all races. While it has often been said of someone that "they have no sense of humor," it is untrue. Senses of humor vary more often than the weather. What some people find hilarious, others find offensive. What some people think is stupid, others think it is amusing. This is why it is so revealing. What makes people laugh or smile can say a lot about their intelligence, their convictions and their social standing. Of course these are just a few of the facets of human life that a sense of humor can reveal. People have differing degrees of wit. Certain television shows and movies are obviously made to cater to different audiences. There have always been certain jokes that "are over someone's head." A person's sense of humor can give real insight to their educational background and "intelligence." A lone high school drop-out in a group of archaeologists may feel to see the humor in many of their jokes. Chances are they may not laugh at the same shows or life situations. By no means am I saying that this is a cut and dry scenario though. The uneducated can very easily find the same things as funny as an MBA does. However humor seems to typify itself in social groups, and those with the same educational background and intelligence often share a similar sense of humor. From this one can make a quick judgment on another's educational background. Racist jokes are extremely common in modern society. Almost everyone laughs at them. While it may not be always fair to say so there is often real racism behind the laughter. More than likely not full-blown, "KKK" racism but some sort of bigotry. If someone constantly uses minority groups as the target of their humor, chances are they are the host to some "politically incorrect" opinions. Perhaps more so than intelligence, humor accurately portrays a person's social standing. The upper class probably doesn't laugh as much at Roseanne as the middle class does. That is assuming they even watch it all. The anecdotes people tell and laugh at, reflect their social standing very much. I, personally, probably would not even chuckle at a story that involved a stalled Rolls-Royce, two pounds of caviar and a bottle of 1951 Dom Perignon. For the same reasons, a person like Princess Diana may not think my little tale of putting laundry detergent in the dishwasher is all that funny. People mainly laugh at that which they can relate to. The entertainment industry does provide some exceptions to this theory but that is due mainly to writing and acting. A person's sense of humor is the most revealing aspect though mainly because of its honesty. Laughing and chuckling and smiling are all natural "gut-reactions." Sometimes people try to stifle their laughter so as not to offend anyone and still others "fake-laugh" to get in on the joke. Both of these kinds of people are easily spotted though. Laughing is not just a noise that is emitted from a person. A person's eyes and body laugh as well as the throat. Someone biting their fist or lip is holding back laughter, someone whose eyes are not even smiling is faking it. Humor is spontaneous and situational. Of course so is sympathy. Sympathy springs from sadness though and sadness is reflective completely through all walks of life. Most people can tend to agree on what makes them cry, but agreeing on what makes them laugh is another matter altogether. There are a great deal of things that distinguish human beings but it does make sense that a sense of humor would be the most identifiable. After all laughing is the most unique trait people possess. "What is it that differentiates human beings most revealingly? Some say it is their varying degrees of compassion; others say it is amounts of prudence; still others, people's differing appreciations of beauty, or whatever makes them angry. And there are other possibilities worth considering. But in truth nothing is so revealing as a person's sense of humor." It is not very hard to notice the many differences between people. There are thousands of things that differentiate us. Appearance is of course the most obvious but in reality appearance does little to actually distinguish people outside of identifying them. Having blue eyes does not say anything about my attitude, my beliefs, my likes or dislikes. Of course there is no one, single character trait that will best identify a person. Humans are extremely complex. Most of us spend our entire lives trying to figure one another out. (This is especially true when attempting to figure out females.) Clues can be found anywhere. The books a person reads, the movies they watch and the games they play all reveal little bits of their character. It is a fair comment though that the most revealing character trait a person has is their sense of humor. Few things are as distinguishable and noticeable as humor. Laughs echo throughout rooms and they are as unique as snowflakes. Jokes have been told and retold for centuries by men and women of all races. While it has often been said of someone that "they have no sense of humor," it is untrue. Senses of humor vary more often than the weather. What some people find hilarious, others find offensive. What some people think is stupid, others think it is amusing. This is why it is so revealing. What makes people laugh or smile can say a lot about their intelligence, their convictions and their social standing. Of course these are just a few of the facets of human life that a sense of humor can reveal. People have differing degrees of wit. Certain television shows and movies are obviously made to cater to different audiences. There have always been certain jokes that "are over someone's head." A person's sense of humor can give real insight to their educational background and "intelligence." A lone high school drop-out in a group of archaeologists may feel to see the humor in many of their jokes. Chances are they may not laugh at the same shows or life situations. By no means am I saying that this is a cut and dry scenario though. The uneducated can very easily find the same things as funny as an MBA does. However humor seems to typify itself in social groups, and those with the same educational background and intelligence often share a similar sense of humor. From this one can make a quick judgment on another's educational background. Racist jokes are extremely common in modern society. Almost everyone laughs at them. While it may not be always fair to say so there is often real racism behind the laughter. More than likely not full-blown, "KKK" racism but some sort of bigotry. If someone constantly uses minority groups as the target of their humor, chances are they are the host to some "politically incorrect" opinions. Perhaps more so than intelligence, humor accurately portrays a person's social standing. The upper class probably doesn't laugh as much at Roseanne as the middle class does. That is assuming they even watch it all. The anecdotes people tell and laugh at, reflect their social standing very much. I, personally, probably would not even chuckle at a story that involved a stalled Rolls-Royce, two pounds of caviar and a bottle of 1951 Dom Perignon. For the same reasons, a person like Princess Diana may not think my little tale of putting laundry detergent in the dishwasher is all that funny. People mainly laugh at that which they can relate to. The entertainment industry does provide some exceptions to this theory but that is due mainly to writing and acting. A person's sense of humor is the most revealing aspect though mainly because of its honesty. Laughing and chuckling and smiling are all natural "gut-reactions." Sometimes people try to stifle their laughter so as not to offend anyone and still others "fake-laugh" to get in on the joke. Both of these kinds of people are easily spotted though. Laughing is not just a noise that is emitted from a person. A person's eyes and body laugh as well as the throat. Someone biting their fist or lip is holding back laughter, someone whose eyes are not even smiling is faking it. Humor is spontaneous and situational. Of course so is sympathy. Sympathy springs from sadness though and sadness is reflective completely through all walks of life. Most people can tend to agree on what makes them cry, but agreeing on what makes them laugh is another matter altogether. There are a great deal of things that distinguish human beings but it does make sense that a sense of humor would be the most identifiable. After all laughing is the most unique trait people possess. "What is it that differentiates human beings most revealingly? Some say it is their varying degrees of compassion; others say it is amounts of prudence; still others, people's differing appreciations of beauty, or whatever makes them angry. And there are other possibilities worth considering. But in truth nothing is so revealing as a person's sense of humor." It is not very hard to notice the many differences between people. There are thousands of things that differentiate us. Appearance is of course the most obvious but in reality appearance does little to actually distinguish people outside of identifying them. Having blue eyes does not say anything about my attitude, my beliefs, my likes or dislikes. Of course there is no one, single character trait that will best identify a person. Humans are extremely complex. Most of us spend our entire lives trying to figure one another out. (This is especially true when attempting to figure out females.) Clues can be found anywhere. The books a person reads, the movies they watch and the games they play all reveal little bits of their character. It is a fair comment though that the most revealing character trait a person has is their sense of humor. Few things are as distinguishable and noticeable as humor. Laughs echo throughout rooms and they are as unique as snowflakes. Jokes have been told and retold for centuries by men and women of all races. While it has often been said of someone that "they have no sense of humor," it is untrue. Senses of humor vary more often than the weather. What some people find hilarious, others find offensive. What some people think is stupid, others think it is amusing. This is why it is so revealing. What makes people laugh or smile can say a lot about their intelligence, their convictions and their social standing. Of course these are just a few of the facets of human life that a sense of humor can reveal. People have differing degrees of wit. Certain television shows and movies are obviously made to cater to different audiences. There have always been certain jokes that "are over someone's head." A person's sense of humor can give real insight to their educational background and "intelligence." A lone high school drop-out in a group of archaeologists may feel to see the humor in many of their jokes. Chances are they may not laugh at the same shows or life situations. By no means am I saying that this is a cut and dry scenario though. The uneducated can very easily find the same things as funny as an MBA does. However humor seems to typify itself in social groups, and those with the same educational background and intelligence often share a similar sense of humor. From this one can make a quick judgment on another's educational background. Racist jokes are extremely common in modern society. Almost everyone laughs at them. While it may not be always fair to say so there is often real racism behind the laughter. More than likely not full-blown, "KKK" racism but some sort of bigotry. If someone constantly uses minority groups as the target of their humor, chances are they are the host to some "politically incorrect" opinions. Perhaps more so than intelligence, humor accurately portrays a person's social standing. The upper class probably doesn't laugh as much at Roseanne as the middle class does. That is assuming they even watch it all. The anecdotes people tell and laugh at, reflect their social standing very much. I, personally, probably would not even chuckle at a story that involved a stalled Rolls-Royce, two pounds of caviar and a bottle of 1951 Dom Perignon. For the same reasons, a person like Princess Diana may not think my little tale of putting laundry detergent in the dishwasher is all that funny. People mainly laugh at that which they can relate to. The entertainment industry does provide some exceptions to this theory but that is due mainly to writing and acting. A person's sense of humor is the most revealing aspect though mainly because of its honesty. Laughing and chuckling and smiling are all natural "gut-reactions." Sometimes people try to stifle their laughter so as not to o f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\le loup et lagneau.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Le Loup et L'agneau" de Jean de la Fontaine Dans le Loup et L'agneau de Jean de la Fontaine, la thSse d'fendue par La Fontaine est que 'La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure'. Dans la fable la confrontation entre le loup et l'agneau nous d'montre que la thSse de la fontaine est correcte. DSs l'apparition du loup dans la fable, on est inform' qu'il cherche . s'alimenter et qu'il est notablement plus fort que l'agneau, symbole de f'brilit' et de douceur. Pour justifier son intention de d'vorer l'agneau, le loup accuse son 'repas' d'^tre venu le d'ranger lorsqu'il se d'salt'rait. C'est ici que l'on r'alise que non seulement le loup est plus fort physiquement mais qu'il est plus malin. L'agneau, n''tant pas si b^te, tente de ruser en admettant que le loup lui est sup'rieur. H'las, le loup l'emporte, puis le mange pr'textant qu'il n'a pas 't' 'pargn' par les bergers et leurs chiens. Ainsi, grŸce . sa force, le loup put utiliser n'importe quel excuse pour assouvir sa faim. Cette thSse d'fendue par La Fontaine est v'ridique, mais cela d'pend des circonstances. Dans cette fable la thSse avanc'e par le loup, par le fait de son attitude arrogante, est "Je suis le plus fort, donc je fais ce qui me convient." H'las pour certains, les thSses du loup et de La Fontaine sont justifiables. La 'force' peut aussi ^tre la puissance hi'rarchique, financiSre contrairement . la force physique brute. Ainsi ces gens poss'dent un pouvoir nettement sup'rieurs aux autres, tel le loup sur l'agneau dans la fable. C'est ainsi que l'on voit aujourd'hui que les nations dominatrices sont celles qui sont les plus grandes, non seulement militairement mais aussi 'conomiquement. Un exemple flagrant est celui des Etats Unis d'Am'rique, qui, grŸce . leur puissance militaire et 'conomique sur le plan mondiale, ont un r"le d'terminant dans la politique mondiale. Un autre exemple est l'ex URSS. A l''poque o- l'URSS 'tait unie, elle 'tait trSs puissante militairement, et de ce fait elle avait un r"le trSs important dans la politique mondiale. Mais depuis que l'URSS a 'clat' en plusieurs pays, et par cons'quent en plusieurs petite puissance militaires, la Russie joue maintenant les seconds r"les. Pour illustr' le pouvoir de l'argent, le Sultan de Brunei est un parfait exemple. Cet homme, souverain de Brunei, a une fortune de SFR 50 milliard. Etant le plus fort 'conomiquement, ses d'sires sont des r'alit's. Ainsi il est devenu la b^te noir des collectionneurs d'art, car ce que le Sultan convoite personne d'autre peut se l'offrir. Donc "il est le plus fort; il fait ce qui lui plait". M^me dans la vie de tous les jours du commun des mortels, la thSse de La Fontaine est v'rifiable. Ainsi parmi les jeunes les exemples de racket sont innombrables. Les plus Ÿg's, donc plus grand et plus forts, soutirent les biens des plus jeunes. Par contre il est discutable de dire que la raison du plus fort est correcte d'un point de vue intellectuel. Ainsi dans cette fable le loup utilise un pr'texte complStement injustifi' et l'agneau a complStement raison de plaider son innocence. Non seulement l'agneau arriva . la riviSre en premier mais en plus c'est le loup qui importune l'agneau. Le fait que le loup d'cide de se venger sur l'agneau pour les troubles qu'il a v'cu est incorrecte. Donc . strictement parler, l'agneau a entiSrement raison ainsi la thSse de La Fontaine peut ^tre consid'r'e comme fausse si les points de vues des protagonistes sont consid'r's sur le plan intellectuel uniquement. Ce point de vue est v'rifiable avec un exemple concret. Reprenons l'exemple du racket. Dans cette situation les racketteurs ont raison dans la mesures qu'ils sont plus forts, mais en suivant les rSgles de notre morale, ils ont entiSrement tort. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Left it untitled.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [Key Areas: Introduction, Transcendent of the Measurable, Spiritual Influence, The Symbolism of Light, The Journey.] The one single truth of reality is not measured or distinguished -- it is the ultimate paradox. The journey by which one achieves this truth can be a journey of increasing realizations of paradoxes, and finally, freedom from the bubble of limitation of a mind that would perceive such paradoxes as paradoxes in the first place. Truth is the same as spiritual feeling. Of spiritual perception. Of clear perception. Of freedom of the mind. Freedom of the soul. Freedom of the Heart. It is ultimate love and empathy. The end of struggle. Fully knowing the truth is to be enlightened. Fully realizing the truth is having transcended the distortions of the Machine (see The Machine at my web site given below). Truth means complete fulfillment and true happiness. Truth is impossible to change or destroy -- doing so contradicts the very nature of a single truth from which all things seen through distorted perception stem. Finding truth (and thus everything that it is) is the ultimate subconscious goal of all struggling. The search for truth, the want of truth, paradoxically, most often leads to illusion and darkness and pain. This is the case for the general spiritual state of humanity in the late Twentieth Century. In this way, truth, freedom, love, clear perception, purity, transcendence, and enlightenment are all the very same thing. During the journey, one will no doubt see many facets of truth and see them as separate, distinguished, or part of a duality; but in time, one will see how they all link up and ultimately, how everything is a part of the same thing, and how perceiving everything in terms of truth is transcendence of distinguishment and knowing the truth; and in this way, being enlightened, free, and fulfilled -- attaining the ultimate happiness. Transcendent of the Measurable What is perceived tangibly through the primary five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell) contradicts the nature of truth which is actually transcendent of all distinguishments in the "more tangible" environment. When a person focuses on what he (or she) sees and reacts to it and especially seeks to control his environment, he lives in a dualistic (or polyistic) state wherein lives his struggle to find non-struggle and peace and fulfillment. The illusion is what is sensed through these five senses and having perceived this as something different from something else. Thus, simply, the illusion is distinguishment -- such things as evil and good, cold and hot, white and black. When these things are reacted to and conformed to by behavior in some way, it indicates a mind in a limited bubble, bound by the illusion of duality -- and in this way, not privy to ultimate truth; and in this way, not free, subconsciously lonely, and in the dark -- all, obviously, to varying degrees with each person, depending on how much, for whatever reason, he focuses on his duality and reacts to it. In what I refer to as the "Mindscape", where what is inherently consciousness is free of the struggles of the illusion of a distinct self and self-protection and fulfillment, there is the plane that is transcendent of perception based in the "tangible" or more "physical". This place is like an infinite blue sky that is as infinitely large as it is small. In perception of this is a place where consciousness dwells, a place beyond time, beyond space; thus there is no time, and no space. All reality is held in a expanse of nothingness wherein everything within it touches everything else. Total knowledge is here -- it is the realization of one truth, it is what to more muddled perceptions might be referred to as omnipotence, enlightenment; and when perceived is perceived means to communicate telepathically, to know clairvoyantly and prophetically, and to control and manipulate the various tangible (physical) and non-tangible "distinguishments" that are the reality on the "! lower" planes. To a perceiver focused on the distinguishments, and on the illusions of time and space, such phenomena of the mind appear miraculous; but they are only the result of some "total spiritual", and mentally-free perception in an individual. (These things can be manifested in limited ways by a person who does not embody totally clear perception, but has some sense into it, intuitively, in some way or another, through perception of his own feelings.) Because every person is a "distinguishment" coming from the upper planes, including the Mindscape, because all minds are inherently from it, a part of it, and actually -- it, then every person has the perception of this through feeling and being, through the very subtle feeling in the life of one's cells that the mind can perceive and be one with and react to as a spider may sense to the tugging on his web; and in this case, the strands of the web -- strands that have no length, and do not come and go in time -- are the spiritual-essence and interconnectedness that runs through all people and all things, thus providing to the subtle perceiver information concerning all things and all happenings, and a connection with all this, in the same substance. Spiritual Influence Because the mind or consciousness is inherently the essence of the Mindscape, and because what it is in the lesser planes are the products of the upper planes, the mind essentially ultimately has "control" and influence over the lower planes. This "power" only comes through total self-awareness, the freedom of the mind from the struggles of the body and the confusion of symbolic darkness in the psyche, or what can been referred to as an "enlightened" state -- a state of pure spiritual fulfillment and freedom (a state of being in harmony with and as perceived by the mind). In this way, people have control of and react to in powerful, deeply-subconscious (spiritual) ways the things in their environment. In this way, everything around a person is actually an extension, and expression, or is perceived as what it is by his mind. The complex structure and struggle surrounding his non-enlightened state makes itself evident in the environment and these things can be interpreted symbolically, or interpreted as expressions of a force (the spiritual essence, the upper "planes"), and thus the force is represented through him. There is the feeling of pain and spiritual isolation (which is isolation from truth, and thus a feeling of deep loneliness (which is actually the lack of knowledge of self), and without truth -- confusion) in interaction with an environment that is an expression of people who struggle against their inherently watery and unresisting spiritual nature and without insight, create a world that is discouraging to spiritual freedom and encouraging of more tangible, fleeting, and unstable fulfillment that is a result of confusion (darkness). In spiritual freedom, which is truth, which is empathy, involvement in this environment can be painful this way in the sensing of the tumultuous and unenlightened state of others. It is painful because in the fact of what we each truly are (the same as beauty), without this fact, without the beauty, honesty, and freedom of this truth, there is the focus on the comparatively trivial, and in fear and lack of insight, there is the discouragement! of truth that would "destroy" illusions through which focus on the trivial and tangible exists. A subtle person can view symbolically all the things around another person, and, knowing it is an ultimate expression of the mind, can have insight into the other. But this knowledge is just supplemental knowledge to the very direct and subtle perception that is spiritual "information" regarding another person, and which can come in the form of a sensing of one's own deep feeling regarding the environment. In this way, all truth about the external is not viewed through the primary senses, but is felt through the holistic spiritual sense, and thus is perceived clearly from the symbolic "inside" of a person. Thus, the journey for enlightenment and awareness of all things is a journey into one's own feelings, and in this, a journey to clear one's perceptions from the distortions and subjectivism that may be applied in viewing something too "mentally" or on the assumption that knowledge about something comes from the outside of one, and thus the erroneous assumption that it ! come s from something separate from oneself. The Symbolism of Light As is discussed in The Key to Self-Actualization (visit my web site given below), perceiving one's own feelings is the nature of spiritual insight, since any person and anything can be called essentially spiritual -- as its fundamental nature is transcendent of the illusions of 4-dimensional reality, and thus transcendent of "normal" or tangibly-perceived reality. The conscious mind may identify and visualize such feelings in terms of symbols (whereas deeply subconsciously (spiritually) things are even less distinctive and more unified). Symbols have deep meaning because they are not static messages, but the embodiment of meaning that may as yet be beyond the perception (understanding) of the individual. Thus symbols hold some aspect of truth, whether it is perceived or identified or not. Since truth is the equivalent of freedom and fulfillment, and we all seek truth on our deepest level, there can be the illusion of truth, or the illusion of guidance to truth. It can be said that we all seek light, because we all seek truth, so there can be roads to false fulfillment and false spiritual enlightenment by following a light that does not lead to the ultimate light, or the ultimate truth. One of these symbols is the Moon -- the indirect light of the sun which has the illusion of being a source of light by itself, and which hangs in a cloak of darkness (the nighttime sky). Seeking fulfillment through physical comfort, physical satiation, mollification in the struggle of pain and pleasure, the appeasement of the tangible (illusionary) senses, or a false end to confusion (symbolically, a wall, or a barrier -- which will serve to block out not only the seemingly endless darkness of night, but the light that may penetrate it as well), means following the feeling or the motivation that is symbolized by moonlight. Developing a dependence (or a structure of perception and habit) on moonlight, then, is transitory and ultimately painful since it is a kind of false source of light -- as it is only an indirect expression of the real source of light. There is another false light, but more subtly so, that comes in the from of yellow light ... this is the illusionary color of sunlight as often seen from an observer on earth partially filtered through the atmosphere. Symbolically, this is warm and comfortable, it is the source of thriving life, and it is symbolic of the well-lit world, thus the world with a greater sense of truth than that of the moonlight. But it, too, is a false light ... for the feelings that are appeased through sunlight are still dependent on perceiving the world in terms of distinctions. It is loving life and being afraid of death. It is loving warmth and being afraid of cold. It is loving sunny skies and being uncomfortable under inevitable clouds and rain. And many other things. To end the struggle for what a person seems to want, as opposed to what he seeks in his deepest level (and thus is the true source for all his more conscious seeking), a person must transcend moonlight and sunlight and find the real light -- the white light. This is a feeling of transcendence of the struggle against the environment (a feeling of pure freedom, and pure truth) and other things which seem separate, but are the same, as partially listed above. White light is, tangibly, all visual light without filter or the repression of any part of the light. It is pure light. All the different colors are then illusions of real light, as they come from but do not embody the white light. Moonlight, sunlight, the gray from clouds, the silver of rain -- they all come from the white light, but they are only part of the picture. This is also profoundly symbolic of the true nature of enlightenment and total awareness that is free of the distinctions between things and aware of their ultimate source in the transcendent planes, including the Mindscape. The Journey The journey is the process of the growth of awareness and insight into ultimate truth. Eventually, this means awareness beyond simple intellectual facts, but an awareness of one's truest self, and thus an awareness into the truest nature of everything. Mentally, this can be perceived, just as feelings can be perceived. To feel free of the struggle of pain and pleasure is to feel the currents of the one's entire being, and in this know oneself; and in this, know the truth; and in this, be truly free; and given an end to the quest for self there is an end to the deepest loneliness (which ultimately is confusion regarding oneself) and the greatest sense of fulfillment. The goal, then, should be to find and submit oneself completely to, like water, the feelings that may be perceived (visualized or seen) by the mind as white light. This is a journey through the maze of walls that are a result of the struggling of the psyche in the midst of the darkness and confusion. The easiest way to find the way out of a maze is to rise above (transcend) it and, seeing the light of the universe beyond, find a path leading to the exit. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Loss of freedome through Apathy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Loss of Freedom through Apathy We do have freedom in this country but we simply choose to ignore it. We live in a democracy, the most just kind of government, where we the people hold supreme power. It is an institution that is a culmination of revolutions, wars, philosophies and heroes. It is the greatest and proudest government in the world. One reason for this is that Americans have a right citizens of Iraq and China and North Korea only dreamed they could have. It took one of the greatest military epics in history for our Founding Fathers to receive this right. It took the marching of thousands for women to achieve this right. It took 400 years of abuse for blacks to finally to win this right. It is the highest and purest form of freedom of speech and as Americans it is our single most powerful instrument of self government. It is the American vote and in this Presidential election it is a right 250 million chose to ignore. This year I had the great opportunity to volunteer my services to the Democratic party. I was excited to work for the Democrats because it was my first ever experience involved with the election. For 17 years I stood as a common bystander to this great American tradition. Volunteering my hours made me feel like I was part of something important. Mostly my work consisted of random polling. I would call people up between the hours of 7 and 9 P.M. and ask them a few questions about the election. With every call I hoped for the best, but it seemed that I was calling people at the time they were most irritable. Most would simply hang up, leaving with a polite "Oh, I'm not interested." Others acted militantly to my calling, slamming the phone in disgust. It startled and in a way disheartened me, the way many of the people I polled seemed totally apathetic to the political world around us. To me, spending a minute answering questions about the future of politics did not seem like too much to ask at all. Yet it continued. "Hello I'm calling on behalf of your congressman Bob Toricelli. I'd like to ask a few questions." "I'm sorry I'm really busy right now. I can't talk." *click "Hello I'm calling on behalf of your congressman Bob Toricelli. I'd like to ask a few questions." "Not interested" *click "Hello I'm calling on behalf of your congressman Bob Toricelli. I'd like to ask a few questions." "I'm tired of hearing about this election." *click If I was calling from a telephone company or some other corporate monster disturbing people with their propaganda, I could understand how their sheer rudeness could be justified. But I am not calling on behalf of some annoying telemarketing scheme. I am an eager high school student with a fresh infatuation with politics. I am polling people about the leader of tomorrow, who will directly affect the taxes they spend, the wars they go into, and the moral values that they seem to hold so dear. To take a minute did not seem like a lot. In this past election over 52% of the population eligible to vote did not. Many don't find anything particularly wrong with this. Their logic being that half of the nation voting would be just as effective as the entire nation. The problem with this reasoning is that some groups in America vote in larger numbers than other groups. Take for example the elderly in this country. It has been well documented that senior citizens above 60 have the highest voter turn-out of any age group in this country. Both Presidential candidates this year have appealed strongly for medical reforms with this group especially in mind. For Politicians this is the group that can make or break their election hopes. They will do whatever it takes to please this group, even if it means stepping all over another group to please them. In contrast the age bracket with the lowest voter turn-out are new voters between 20 and 29. This "X" generation of voters will have their rap music censored for being too explicit and their action films for being too violent. The Internet that this generation seems to embrace so dearly will be censored by the telecommunications bill and its television programming will include little ratings on the top left of their screens. Politicians will have no problem abusing the rights of this Generation X because simply put, they don't go our and vote. In this way the government pays more attention to the elderly as compared to the young. They will care more about the trials and tribulations of the rich and middle-class rather than the suffering of the poor. They will support the N.R.A. with it s sinful operations because yes, each and every one of their 2.5 million members vote. The vote determines who has the power in this country. It is not necessarily the majority. It is those who are dedicated. America is the land of the free. Too many Americans take this for granted. We are not a monarchy. We are not a communism. We are not a dictatorship. We are a democracy and the people have the control. We are different from all the other types of government because the voices that govern us are our own. But when 250 million do not vote, who has the right to say that we control ourselves? When half chooses to hold their mouths, who is to say that we are not a nation of special interests who do not hold their mouths? We have freedom, but it is apathy that is taking it away from us. We have that control we simply don't use it. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Love & Sexuality.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Exercise 2 What does it mean to love another? To love another person means to feel compassionate towards them, to "feel" what they feel. Caring about someone, and what happens to them is also a sign of love. Sharing a relationship with someone means that you have to be responsible and have to be aware that there will be times when things go wrong. Loving someone means taking these "wrong" things and trying to fix them. What are some signs of love? Making sacrifices is one sign of devotion to another person. When you care about someone, you have to give a little. It all comes with life. In order to receive something, one must sacrifice other things. For example, if having to make a choice between the love of your life and going to a football game, a person who is truly in love, and not just in love with "being in love" will sacrifice the game in order to be with that person. Exercise 6 What is the greatest power of potential human speech? (words, language) All humans have the power to communicate with other humans, interact, and share their ideas. The power of speech is what makes it all possible. Communication is the most important thing in the success of a relationship, and for someone to say that they love another is to respect them and their ideas and to want to share with them. The most anyone can ever do for you is listen, and the only way to do that is to communicate that you want to be listened to and that you are willing to listen to the one you love. That is the most anyone can do, and it is a gift of sorts. Exercise 10 What is the greatest thing about human love? Being in love gives a sense of completeness, makes one feel as if nothing else is needed in order to survive. Sometimes, being in love can act as a stepping stone, or a doorway into a world you never knew was out there. It can give you a new outlook on things, turn everything you've ever known into something you never thought was possible. Love can also strengthen a "tie" or "bond" that you may have with someone, in a sense that you have that much more in common. What is the greatest expression of love? Sacrificing anything is the greatest expression of your "love". The greatest sacrifice one would have to make is death. Dying for a loved one means that your love wasn't an "It", but a "Thou", and dying only makes it more concrete. Trusting someone is also another important expression when it comes to love. Without trust, the love would be nonexistent, seeing as it is trust that makes people believe in each other and have faith. Without these things, the love becomes an "It" relationship, not meaning much, only things. Exercise 19 Why is Buber emphasizing the difference between love & feelings? In as far as Buber is concerned, feelings are obstacles that hold back the Thou. To be truly in the Thou, you have to be at one with your love and take everything that he/she stands for as a whole, not just as individual things, or "Its". f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Love Lady.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ English 331.12 Dear Love Lady, I have a love problem and I don't know what to do. I am a freshman in college and so is my boyfriend. We have been together since our senior year in high school, and we are very much in love. But, since we've been at college, we have developed a problem. We don't see each other from month to month. You see, we go to colleges in completely different states. We have always lived on the same street, but now we are so far apart. I don't even know if it will work, or better yet how to make it work. Any advice? Sad and In Love, Atlanta, GA Dear Sad and In Love, Well, it sounds as if you have a great thing if you can just stick with it. As a matter of fact, I have been in a situation just like yours. My boyfriend and I had just the same problem back when we were in college, and we made it work. We are now happily married with two beautiful children. So, I think I can give you a few pointers on how to keep your love going. You are going to have to have three important things to make it work though. Those things are trust, communication and patience. First and the most important, you and your boyfriend need to have trust in each other. In every relationship there has to be trust, but for some reason, in long-distance relationships, it seems like there has to be just a little something more. Since you two are so far apart, you have to trust that the other one only wants to be with you and no one else. What I would always do, when I didn't know if I should do something that might be bad for our relationship, is I would put myself on the other end of the situation. I would pretend that it was my boyfriend doing it and then I would think of how I would feel if he did it. If you would get upset about it, than 10 times out of 10 so would he. There has to be trust in every important relationship, a relationship won't last if there are doubts on either end. Always trust that your boyfriend is being honest with you and always be honest with him. The next thing a long-distance relationship needs is communication. Good communication is a MUST! You and your boyfriend have to have open lines of communication. If something is bothering one of you, you must tell the other how you are feeling. If you don't be open the other will never know what you are thinking or if there is a problem. Unless of course you can read minds. Just kidding! There shouldn't be secrets kept from one another and if there are open communication lines, it will avoid any types of problems. Another aspect of communication that is important is expressing your feelings. If you are missing your boyfriend a lot one day, tell him. It will make him feel good to know that you are thinking of him and need him. By expressing your feelings, it will keep the relationship open and honest. And also add a little excitement for the next time you get to see each other! You may thin that it will be hard to communicate so far away, but in all actuality, it might be easier. One of the most popular way loved ones keep in touch is through the computer. Many colleges today have a system that is free to students to send e-mail. Check it out if you haven't already! It is sometimes easier to write your feelings rather than saying them. This is a very effective, not to mention cheap, way to keep in touch with the one you love. There is also writing letters and talking on the phone, but I strongly suggest the e-mail option. Finally, the last thing that you need to keep a relationship going is good old fashioned patience. You won't be able to see each other often, but stick with it. If you truly love each other, you will be able to get through the times when you can't see each other. It is hard, believe me I know! But if you hold on, it could turn into something very special. I wish you the best of luck to you and your boyfriend. If you have trust, communication and patience, I'm sure you'll be able to make it work. Keep Smiling, The Love Lady f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Love.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The world is full of powerful forces. There are forces that effect the entire society and there are forces that only effect a select part of it. One of the most powerful forces of nature is fire. Fire is constantly present in today's society. Whether it be by staying warm or the destruction of private memories and property, fire is an ongoing influence in society. Due to this fact, it is possible to compare fire and life in general. Fire begins with an idea of a spark. Then the spark is made and with the help of kindling, the flame begins to grow. Once a flame begins to grow it can take many paths because of the influences of external forces. If a wind blows, the flames change their direction and velocity and can engulf many other things. On the other hand, if there is no wind, the fire may burn itself to the ground and never reach its full potential. If rain begins, the fire is slowed and may even be stopped for good. Oxygen is necessary for a fire to flourish; without it a fire will whittle and die. Some objects allow fire to burn for years while others burn out very quickly or are not able to be burned at all. No two fires are alike, in what they do. Some roam free while others are confined to an area. A fire is beautiful to some, while to others it is dangerous and hellish. These phrases can be used to illustrate life, as well. Life begins as a type of spark. Some believe that life begins at conception, thus showing that life does begin with a very small, yet significant "spark." Others believe that life begins at birth. This could be related to the beginning "spark" of life through the way a baby enters the world, in material form. Humans begin to grow through their experiences and how they are raised. Each person lives their own life because of the impact these external factors have on them. As times change, people and attitudes change. This is a fact of life. Due to certain outside influences, a person may make the best of themselves or just diminish in the general mass of society. Humans survive and flourish because of their environment. It is general scientific knowledge that humans survive because of the oxygen in the air. Without good oxygen content, humankind could not survive. If a certain part of the country has better air quality, then usually the general public has less health problems, i.e. asthma. Every human life is different; some are confined to small places for economic or political reasons. Others wonder and never stay in the same place for too long a time. As well as this, some people view life as unfair and hard, while to others it is fair and easy. Human life can be compared to a fire in other ways as well. Due to diseases and other underlying factors in today's society, many humans' lives are not allowed to are continue on. Examples of these factors are: AIDS, cancer, mental illness, and murder. Fires usually contained but sometimes rage out of control. The majority of the time they are unpredictable. Human nature is just as unpredictable. Throughout history, humankind has been very unpredictable and out-of-control. This fact can be proved by just scanning through a history book -- the Holocaust, the fall of Roman Empire and the assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria, which began World War I. Human nature is strange and impossible to understand. Fire is close to the same. Science can try to come up with explanations of them both, yet the truth is not really known nor understood. They probably never will be. They will forever be man's greatest mystery. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Loving in Truth Creating a Society of Living in Harmony.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Loving in Truth: Creating a Society of Living in Harmony in the 21st Century In the course of one's existence, one is constantly striving to achieve the pinnacle of their abilities, a certain excellence within themselves, and a balance between themselves and their society. Unfortunately, as we near the end of the millenium, society is failing to provide us with the appropriate means in order to realize that goal. So as we prepare for the next century, we must recognize that there are many problems that we must alleviate before this world can become a better place. It may well be that the nation cannot survive--as a decent place to live, as a world-class power or even as a democracy--with such high rates of children growing into adulthood unprepared to parent, unprepared to be productively employed and unprepared to share in the mainstream aspirations. Various programs are springing up to help children. However, like the welfare program, for the most part these programs are aimed at alleviating symptoms rather than correcting the cause of the problems. More prisons, more policemen, gun control, the FBI, and V-chips to block violent programs on TV will never stop crime and violence. When we devote time, money and effort toward problems and symptoms -- without correcting the cause -- the problems and symptoms grow and spread like creeping crab grass. But as an individual, what can one do? The answer is simple. All one has to do is love. Love is the solution to all of the social problems in our society. Adequate love will eliminate evil, crime, violence, mental suffering, the suffering of innocent children, dysfunctional families, the break-up of families, restlessness, discontent, unhappiness--all that is ugly, deplorable, and destructive. But before one can love others, one must learn to love himself. One cannot love himself until he frees himself from fear and false beliefs. One is not free until he discovers that is truth that sets us free from those fears and false beliefs. And it is that truth that has the power to render our families loving, happy, harmonious, functional and stable. Truth has the power to obliterate all social problems ... crime, violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, drug abuse, etc. Love and truth are intertwined. We cannot live in harmony with truth without being loving, and we cannot love unconditionally without being in agreement with truth. To discover truth, one needs not learn anything new. One needs only to unlearn obscure, fearful false beliefs. Truth remains when one frees himself from fears and false beliefs. To put it another way, when we rid ourselves of false beliefs, what we believe is true. When enough people learn how and where to discover truth, in due time, love, joy, peace and harmony will reign on this planet. Crime, violence, mental suffering, the break-up of families, child abuse, spousal abuse, drug abuse -- all that is ugly and deplorable -- will cease, and this planet will be the utopia it was always meant to be. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Machiavelli.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MACHIAVELLI Machiavelli's views revolved around the ideas that one must do anything within his (Machiavelli did not refer to 'her') power to keep the influence and power that he has attained. For him, anything that must be done in order not to lose the influence and the power that one has should be done without question. "The ends justifies the means", he said. The power of one that rules must be kept by keeping the people in constant fear. Without the fear in the people, the trust that they have in their leader will whither and they will start to look for other leaders to take the place of the one that they believe to be weak. Machiavelli thought that the importance of this tactic should override all others. Although, he believed in emanating a sense of fear to the people that were being ruled, he also believed that without the people, the ruler or leader is worthless and will be overcome. One must have support of the people, while constantly keeping them in check with the rules and regulations that he has set. These thoughts today would be looked at as dictatorial and likened with the beliefs and felling of such hated groups as the Nazis. In today's system, societies that have been lead by rulers with such a mentality have not lasted very long. It seems that these days the general populace have much less tolerance for those rulers that believe in doing anything for the sake of themselves and supposedly the society at large. I believe that such rulers today are not tolerated (and should not be tolerated) There is no room for this type of thinking in modern day life. Respect is another factor that was very important to Machiavelli and his way of thinking. The Prince, as Machiavelli stated, must do anything to keep his respect with the people, but at the same time to make sure that he has ultimate control. I believe that so much control by one person will ultimately lead to war and the demise of the society. How can one person with so much power and latitude in decision making possible benefit the society, In fact, they are not even benefiting themselves in that they are the ones who ultimately stand to lose when the people in the society realize that they are being taken advantage of for the good of one person. Word Count: 405 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Marx and Freud.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels present their view of human nature and the effect that the economic system and economic factors have on it. Marx and Engels discuss human nature in the context of the economic factors which they see as driving history. Freud, in Civilization and Its Discontents, explores human nature through his psychological view of the human mind. Marx states that history "...is the history of class struggles" (9). Marx views history as being determined by economics, which for him is the source of class differences. History is described in The Communist Manifesto as a series of conflicts between oppressing classes and oppressed classes. According to this view of history, massive changes occur in a society when new technological capabilities allow a portion of the oppressed class to destroy the power of the oppressing class. Marx briefly traces the development of this through different periods, mentioning some of the various oppressed and oppressing classes, but points out that in earlier societies there were many gradations of social classes. He also states that this class conflict sometimes leads to "...the common ruin of the contending classes" (Marx 9). Marx sees the modern age as being distinguished from earlier periods by the simplification and intensification of the class conflict. He states that "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps... bourgeoisie and proletariat" (Marx 9). The bourgeoisie, as the dominant class of capitalists, subjugates the proletariat by using it as an object for the expansion of capital. As capitalism progresses, this subjugation reduces a larger portion of the population to the proletariat and society becomes more polarized. According to Marx, the polarization of society and the intense oppression of the proletariat will eventually lead to a revolution by the proletariat, in which the control of the bourgeoisie will be destroyed. The proletariat will then gain control of the means of production. This revolution will result in the creation of a socialist state, which the proletariat will use to institute socialist reforms and eventually communism. The reforms which Marx outlines as occurring in the socialist state have the common goal of disimpowering the bourgeoisie and increasing economic equality. He sees this socialist stage as necessary for but inevitably leading to the establishment of communism. Human beings, which are competitive under capitalism and other prior economic systems, will become cooperative under socialism and communism. Marx, in his view of human nature, sees economic factors as being the primary motivator for human thought and action. He asks the rhetorical question, "What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed?" (Marx 29). For Marx, the economic status of human beings determines their consciousness. Philosophy, religion and other cultural aspects are a reflection of economics and the dominant class which controls the economic system. This view of human nature as being primarily determined by economics may seem to be a base view of humanity. However, from Marx's point of view, the human condition reaches its full potential under communism. Under communism, the cycle of class conflict and oppression will end, because all members of society will have their basic material needs met, rather than most being exploited for their labor by a dominant class. In this sense the Marxian view of human nature can be seen as hopeful. Although human beings are motivated by economics, they will ultimately be able to establish a society which is not based on economic oppression. Freud, in Civilization and Its Discontents, presents a conception of human nature that differs greatly from that of Marx. His view of human nature is more complex than Marx's. Freud is critical of the Marxist view of human nature, stating that "...I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the [communist] system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments...but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature" (Freud 71). Freud does not believe that removal of economic differences will remove the human instinct to dominate others. For Freud, aggression is an innate component of human nature and will exist regardless of how society is formulated. He sees human beings as having both a life instinct (Eros) and an instinct for destruction. In Freud's view of human reality, the source of conflict, oppression, and destruction in human society is man's own psychological makeup. Because of Freud's view of human nature as inherently having a destructive component, he does not believe that a "transformation" of humans to communist men and women will be possible. Marx's belief that the current capitalist society will evolve into a communist society is not supportable under Freud's conception of human nature because the desires of human beings are too much in conflict with the demands of any civilized society. This conflict does not exist because of economic inequalities, according to Freud, but rather because it is in human nature to have aggressive desires which are destructive to society. Freud's approach to the possibility of reducing conflict among humanity focuses on understanding the human mind, the aggressive qualities of human nature, and how human beings' desires can come into conflict with the demands of human society. He does not believe that the problems of human conflict, aggression, and destruction can be solved by a radical reordering of society as the philosophy of Marx suggests. Instead, Freud looks inside ourselves to explore these problems. At the close of his work, Freud states, "The fateful question for the human species seems to me to be whether and to what extent their cultural development will succeed in mastering the disturbance of their communal life by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction" (Freud 111). Freud does not offer any radical solutions to human aggressiveness, but rather sees it as something that humans must continually strive to overcome. He states "...I have not the courage to rise up before my fellow-men as a prophet, and I bow to their reproach that I can offer them no consolation..." (Freud 111). Freud can not offer some vision of a human utopia, but can only suggest that there is some possibility for the improvement of the human condition and society, but also warns that our success at overcoming destructive instincts may be limited. Marx offers a radical philosophy which also sees conflict as one of the constants of prior human existence. Unlike Freud, Marx believes that the aggressive and conflict-oriented aspects of human nature will disappear under the communist society which he sees as the inevitable product of capitalism. This is the hopeful element of Marx's philosophy. However, if communism is not seen as inevitable or the possibilities for reducing human conflict before a socialist revolution are considered, then Marx's view of human nature locks humanity into constant conflict. If the future is to be like Marx's version of history, then there is little hopefulness in this view of human nature. Works Cited Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. Ed. James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton, 1961. Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: International Publishers, 1994. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Marxism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I. Introduction II. Marxism A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: Economic Evolution III. Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: The Parliament versus the Crown IV. Institutional Theory A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: Social Change V. Conclusion Human relationships have always been dynamic. Change and adaptability have gone hand in hand with the passage of time for human society. Systems have been developed to regulate, direct and control the resources of this society. The systems are referred to as governments and the resources as the populace or inhabitants and forces of production. A government must be dynamic in its nature reflecting the change in society. At times these systems have resisted the necessity to adapt with its components (Society) creating a deficit between the system and those it regulates. As the deficits develop, they cause instability, and could lead to revolution.1 Theories have been developed to explain the systemic phenomenon called revolution. This paper will discuss three modern theories and apply them to the English revolution of 1640. The first theory, developed by Carl Marx (Marxism), will address the economic evolution in English society. This theory will emphasize and explain how the shift from a feudal/mercantile system to capitalism affected English society. The second, called the Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) developed by Charles Tilly, will explain how the English organizations (the Crown and the Parliament) effectively obtained, amassed and managed resources. Samuel Huntington's, "Institutional Theory", will argue that the existing government at that time was unable to incorporate the demands and personnel that the socio-economic changes created. Marxism was formulated in the 19th century. Carl Marx and his associate Frederick Engels observed the socio-economic changes that were transpiring in Britain. England was the dominant world power and had the largest industrialized economy during the 1800's. The development of the factory and the institution of the assembly line created a large demand for workers. This demand was satiated by migrating peasant from the rural areas in England and Ireland to developing urban centers. As these urban centers or cities evolved using industry as the economic backbone for the population, a large number of factory workers were accumulated to operate the machinery in horrid conditions. These workers, which would be termed as the peasantry under a feudal system, were now the working class or proletariat. They entered cities with hopes of bettering their lives and survival. Though revolution never took place in England during this period, it allowed Marx to study industrialization, urbanization and imperialism. The theory of Marxism has three basic concepts: historic materialism, forces of production and relations of production. Historic materialism is defined as a society's past performance and present capabilities of satisfying the basic means of life. Humankind's basic needs of eating, drinking and shelter need to be met properly. The forces of production (technology, capital, the infrastructure of society, etc.) are important for the simple fact of who ever controls them controls the society. The last aspect of Marxism, the relations of production, deals directly with the relationships between classes of people (the aristocracy, the middle-class and the working class).2 Marxism includes a predictive analysis of socio-economic structures. Using history, logic and the dynamic nature of humankind as guidelines, Carl Marx attempts to map out a sequence of events which will eventually lead to utopia (anarchy). In his work, Das Capital, Marx details the six steps. These steps are primitive socialism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism and then anarchy. The evolution of the English economic system during the 16th and 17th centuries points to a shift from feudalism to capitalism. This shift is exemplified by the enclosures. The landlords began to fence their property in the common land areas. The "commons" were large plots of grazing and farmable lands that were used by both farmers and artisans. When the land-owners and manorial lords began to partition these lands the concept of private ownership of property was introduced to the socio-economic system.3 During the time period of the 16th and 17th centuries the crown's economic base began a gradual decline. This economic shrinkage came to a spearhead during the reign of Charles I. The monarchy favored a monopoly market system over a competitive one. The purpose for this position was for taxation and control of the profits. As the artisan and merchant populations increased, the policy of the crown began conflicting with economic growth. This created instability in three areas. First, the English monarchy needed money to support its army which insures social compliance. The second area of contention was the restraints and interference the Crown initiated on the rising middle-class. Thirdly, the rise of the bourgeoisie created competition for the state sanctioned monopolies, reducing its profit. Howard Erskine-Hill refutes Marxism. He states that neither . . . "the 'rise of the gentry' . . . ideas concerning resistance to rulers . . . nor even the narrowing financial base of the Tudor and Stuart monarchy . . .determined the outbreak of the Civil War . . . They are circumstances . . . contributing to an outcome which was not inevitable."4 Jack A. Goldstone, in his work Revolutions, argues that once historical data is carefully examined Marxism falls short. The Marxist reasons for the revolution are factors, but its scope of analysis is to narrow. ". . .the neo-Marxist view. . . with its focus on elite politics and the failings of Charles I run into difficulties when confronted with evidence."5 An example of this "evidence" that Goldstone refers to, are the enclosures. The land owners had support from the farmers who resided on the land. The parties that were affected by enclosure movement were the artisans and merchants. These merchant and artisan, or rather Marxism rising bouroeisie, were the unfortunate targets of this policy. The rising English Bourgeoisie used the land to satisfy there needs for resources (i.e. wood for fire and craftsmanship). Thus, a new theory must be introduced to explain the factors leading to and the Revolution itself. Charles Tilly, in his work, Political Conflict Theory, introduce the theory of "Resource Mobilization"(RMT). The two aspects of RMT are government and those who contend with the government for power. Power is defined as control of the resources. The resources are capital, means of production and personnel. 6 There are three characteristics to the RMT7 that help further explain the revolution. First, two or more organizations (government included) must claim the right to rule and control government. The conflict between the Crown and the Parliament during the 1640's meet this criteria. King Charles I during his rule attempted to close the rift between Catholics and Protestants. This policy was disturbing to the English populace. However, the brunt of this new policy was felt in Scotland and perceived was a direct assault on their religious organizations. The Scots rebelled and amassed a army to invade England an emancipate themselves from Charles I's authority. The King needed to acquire funds to raise an army so he called Parliament into session. After 6 years of silence, Parliament was aggressive against the crown. Instead of strong support for the King, they came with a list of grievances which needed to be addressed.8 It is this aggression which characterizes an organization contending for power in the government. The second characteristic, is the commitment of a significant amount of the population to each organization. In January 1642, the King attempted to arrest five MP's (Members of Parliament). Having failed, the King traveled north to an important port which was also a military stronghold, as well. Parliament denied him access. This was a definite sign of the waning power of the King. Charles I traveled to Nottingham to raise his standard. People began to rally behind the King. Parliament severely underestimated the influence of the Charles I and the idea of the monarchy. A significant amount of people rallied behind the King and the Civil War soon followed9. The third, and the most applicable, is the incapacity of and/or the unwillingness of the government to suppress the challenges for power. The King was desirous to put down the Scots, and eventually Parliament, after it was called into session (long Parliament). He was incapable in raising an army earlier without Parliament's appropriation of the necessary funds to pay an army.10 Therefore, the opponents of the Crown were given space to develop and acquire resources. Resource Mobilization Theory focuses on the leadership of both the revolutionary organization and the government in power. The three above stated characteristics of England in the 1640's, only emphasizes the short term factors for the revolution The fact that Parliament is actually part of the government provides a complication in the application of RMT. However, Parliament was struggling against the King to acquire more control over resources. The King showed himself as a bungling statesman in dealing with parliaments demands and grab for power. This is a classic example that shows what happens when "carrot ideas"11 are implemented without discretion and supervision. It could be argued that Charles I lack of sensitivity to the people was the cause for this lack of discretion. Even with the application of two theories, a satisfactory explanation of both the factors leading to the uprising and the revolution itself are lacking. A third theory must be brought to this case study. Samuel Huntington's, "Institutional theory", argues that there are inherent tensions between political and economic developments. If there are large economic changes in society then there must be political change to guide the modifications which are taking place, as well as, incorporating new social developments.12 England's Crown during the 17th century was lacking in ability to be dynamic. Trade and production began to increase so did the population. This increase created a middle-class in England. The middle-class consisted of artisans, merchants, land owners and landlords (these classifications are not all inclusive). Competition between the middle-class and state encouraged monopolies became evident during this time. There was a definite power shift away from property to the people. 13 Another long term factor lies within the King's policy toward the Catholics. This relaxing of tensions between the Protestants and Catholics was not viewed as favorable by the rising gentry (Middle-class). A form of Protestantism referred to as Puritanism was the main belief system of the gentry. This was an extremely conservative sect of protestantism, religious toleration was not acceptable to them14. This was another social development which Charles I "over-looked". Institutionalization was never a reality in British politics during this period in history. The organizations that existed in the English monarchy during the early 1600's were unable to promote value and stability. The system became rigid and unadapting to the demands for change made by new socio-economic factors. The constant attempts by both the Crown and the Parliament to subordinate one another removed their ability to reach a compromise. Thus, there is not one theory that can be used to satisfy all of the causal factors, institutional developments and socio-economic changes of the English revolution of 1640. Marxism addressed the changes the English economy made creating capitalist markets and free trade. It maps out the general factors which helped lead to capture and execution of the King of England, Charles I. Resource Mobilization Theory argued in more specific terms, defining that the organization which controls the resources has the power. It clarifies the power struggle between the Crown and the Parliament. Short term factors, present before and during the revolution, were emphasized by RMT. The last theory presented by this paper was Institutional Theory. It explained, in long term factors, the causes leading to the revolution by discussing the rise of the gentry, economics and religious intolerance. There is no single theory to explain every relevant factor present in revolution. However, the application of a select number or combination of theoretical approaches, helps to establish a proper framework for analysis of revolutions. Despite all of the ground breaking research and theorizing being done on revolution, it still remains a phenomenon and can not be predicted. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Maxine Kumin.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Maxine Kumin Maxine Kumin, who experienced many different views of the world through travel, feels the most comfortable in New Hampshire, her rural home. In any area that she travels, she always makes a similarity to her home, as expressed in her poems. In her poem, "The Long Approach", she is driving in her Saab hatchback from Scranton to her farm in New Hampshire. She also discusses her plane ride back from Orlando to New Hampshire the week before. Throughout the poem she makes references back to the animals she cares for and comes in contact with on the farm. Her knowledge of rural life is shown, by describing details of animals; such as, "eel-thin belly", "life as loose as frogs", "slag heaps stand like sentries shot dead", and "I'm going home with the light hand on the reins". Next in her poem, "How It is", she puts on a blue jacket that belonged to her recently deceased friend, whom played a major role in her life. By putting on the jacket, she tries to relive the past by, "...unwind(ing) it, paste it together in a different collage...". In this poem, Maxine Kumin, uses plants to describe her feelings, as in; "scatter like milkweed" and "pods of the soul". These similes show what she sees and feels. "The Longing to be Saved", is a dream, where her barn catches fire. "In and out of dreams as thin as acetate." She visualizes herself getting the horses out, but they "wrench free, wheel, dash back". In, "Family Reunion", she writes that "nothing is cost efficient here". Vegetables are grown on the farm, and animals are raised to be killed. "The electric fence ticks like the slow heart of something we fed and bedded for a year, then killed with kindness' one bullet and paid Jake Mott to do the butchering." "Waiting for the End in New Smyrna Beach, Florida", Maxine Kumin notices in her venture in Florida a homeless couple with a baby. In her poem she describes the couple watching the passing cars at Lytle and South Dixie to an "egret grazing the canals who darts and pecks and lunges and after an eternity at Lytle and South Dixie the light changes." In her last poem written in the booklet, "Getting Through", she describes different types of snow. When she writes, " No mail today. No newspapers. The Phone's dead. Bomb's and grenades, the newly disappeared, a kidnapped ear, go unrecorded but the foals flutter inside warm wet bags that carry them eleven months in the dark." This shows her life's simplicity versus the complexity of society. The poems written by Maxine Kumin all use detailed information about the specifics of farm life, including typical animal actions, and movements, and plants common to the New Hampshire area. These poems give her audience a glimpse into her life; her dreams, travel, and urban experiences. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Meditations An Explication.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Descartes overall objective in the Meditations is to question knowledge. To explore such metaphysical issues as the existence of God and the separation of mind and body, it was important for him to distinguish what we can know as truth. He believed that reason as opposed to experience was the source for discovering what is of absolute certainty. In my explication, I will examine meditation two in order to discover why knowledge was so important to Descartes. Meditation One The first meditation acts as a foundation for all those that follow. Here Descartes discerns between mere opinion and strict absolute certainty. To make this consideration he establishes that he must first "attack those principles which supported everything I once believed."(quote, paraphrase) He first examines those beliefs that require our senses. He questions, whether our senses are true indicators of what they represent. By inspecting our sometimes firm belief in the reality of dreams, he comes to the conclusion that our senses are prone to error and thereby cannot reliably distinguish between certainty and falsity. To examine those ideas that have "objective reality," Descartes makes the improbable hypothesis of "an evil genius, as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me" ( ). By proposing this solution he is able to suspend his judgment and maintain that all his former beliefs are false. By using doubt as his tool, Descartes is now ready to build his following proofs with certainty. Meditation Two Comparing his task to that of Archimedes, Descartes embarks on his journey of truth. Attempting to affirm the idea that God must exist as a fabricator for his ideas, he stumbles on his first validity: the notion that he (Descartes) exists. He ascertains that if he can both persuade himself of something, and likewise be deceived of something, then surely he must exist. This self validating statement is known as the Cogito Argument. Simply put it implies whatever thinks exists. Having established this, Descartes asks himself: What is this I which "necessarily exists"? Descartes now begins to explore his inner consciousness to find the essence of his being. He disputes that he is a "rational animal" for this idea is difficult to understand. He scrutinizes whether perhaps he is a body infused with a soul but this idea is dismissed since he cannot be certain of concepts that are of the material world. Eventually he focuses on the act of thinking and from this he posits: "I am a thing that thinks."(20 ) A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and that also imagines and senses. To prove that perception on the part of the mind is more real than that of the senses Descartes asks us to consider a piece of wax. Fresh from the comb the qualities we attribute to the wax are those derived from the senses. Melted, the qualities that we attribute to the wax are altered and can only be known to the intellect. Descartes demonstrates how the information from the senses gives us only the observable, it is the mind that allows us to understand. The results of the second meditation are considerable, doubt has both proven the certainty of Descartes existence and that his essence is the mind. Meditation Three Descartes main objective in the third meditation is to prove the existence of God. Before he can begin he must first explore his concept of ideas. Moreover, he must clarify what constitutes an idea as being clear and distinct. Using his existence as an example he reasons that whatever he perceives very clearly and very distinctly is true. Concerning the beliefs he holds of the sensible world, he comes to the conclusion that these things could have been caused by things outside himself, and the ideas are similar to those things. Up to this point Descartes has held that God could deceive him about the truth of simple matters, such as that 2 + 3=5. To affirm that such objective ideas are safe from doubt, Descartes has to prove that God exists and that he is no deceiver. He finds that doubt carries within it the idea of certainty. From this query he follows with the idea of a perfect being, which by comparison, he is aware of his imperfections. It is Descartes view that such an idea could only have been placed in our minds by a perfect being. His reasoning for this is as follows: "At the very least there must be as much in the total efficient cause as there is in the effect of the same cause."() From this declaration he ascertains that a perfect thing exists and by definition the perfect thing is God. He also concludes that God is no deceiver: "for it is manifest by the light of nature that all fraud and deception depend on some defect." Content with his claims Descartes is now ready to move ahead with his argument concerning true and false. Meditation Four Descartes having proven that God exists must now make some clarifications concerning why God is no deceiver. The main question that needs clarification is this: If God is no deceiver then why do we err? Descartes answers that we are prone to make mistakes because our wills are infinite but our intellect is not. The will gives us the faculties of assertion, denial and suspension of judgment. The intellect allows us to perceive things clearly and distinctly. Like God we have an infinite will, but we are imperfect because are understanding is finite. Descartes concludes that because we are free we are responsible for our errors. It is possible however, that if we use our faculties properly we will not assent false judgments. Confident that God has created us such that if we perceive things clearly and distinctly our reasoning will not be wrong; Descartes is now free to explore the possibilities of material things and the mind body relationship. Meditation Five In the fifth meditation the essence of material things is considered. Before he begins with material considerations however, Descartes feels it necessary to offer another proof for the existence of God. Since Descartes has just demonstrated that we gain understanding through ideas, he is able to continue with an ontological argument proving that God necessarily exists. The claim that is the glue to this argument is that a supremely perfect being must necessarily exist. If this is not the case the being in question does not meet the criterion for perfection. God without existence is like a triangle without 3 sides or a mountain without a valley. (paraphrase) A supremely perfect being would lack some perfection. That taken care of, he turns his attention to material issues, namely the body. First Descartes separates sensation as being separate from his imagination because he does not have any control over it. Doubt takes over at this point and Descartes must again face the same problem he did in meditation one: the unreliability of the senses due to dreams or hallucinations. To counter this Descartes concludes that our knowledge of material things is based on our knowledge of God. He asserts that God has created him with such a strong belief in the existence of material things that they must not be false because God is not deceptive. By using God as his proof for the material world, Descartes has left himself in a precarious situation. Were it to be found that God does not exist the rest of his assertions would subsequently crumble. Nevertheless, Descartes is satisfied with the progress that he has made and is now ready to prove the existence of material things. Meditation Six There remains but one question as we draw near the end of the meditations, whether material things exist. To prove the existence of the material objects Descartes draws on his previous meditations to find the answer. He believes that material things can exist, if they are the object of mathematics. We can prove the existence of these objects because we can understand them with our intellect. There remains a question regarding our imagination. Descarte reasons that it is not essential. The understanding is greater than the imagination. Descartes assumes to have a body based on what his senses perceive. He begins to explore this notion that he had previously dismissed to doubt. He inquires whether his senses give him reason for bodies to exist. He comes to the conclusion that they do because God has given us "a great inclination to believe that these ideas proceeded from corporeal things." ( ) This proof progresses into the nature of how mind and body co-exist. Descartes beliefs are as follows: It is from nature that we distinguish other bodies and their interpretation. We are inclined by nature towards things that benefit us. This is for our own self- preservation. Descartes makes the distinction between mind and body. He states that the mind is a thinking, unextended thing, while the body is a physical extended thing. The mind is indivisible whereas the body can be divided. It is the minds task to differentiate the part of the body affiliated with a certain sensation. God has endowed us with these natural inclinations to allow us self preservation. Descartes now dispels his dream hypothesis because he realizes that wakefulness is the interaction of both mind and body. He leaves us with the message that "we must acknowledge the infirmity of our nature." ( ) Explication It is Descartes hope in Meditation two that he is able to find his first certainty. By use of the Cogito argument Descartes does just that. Having proven his existance he turns his attention toward the essence of his nature. As the title of the second meditation suggests, he proves that are essence is of the mind and thus more known to us than the body. The Cogito argument as it looks in the Meditations runs like this: "Thus, after everything has been most carefully weighed, it must finally be established that this pronouncement "I am, I exist" is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind." (P.18) Descartes Second Meditation is an attempt to find a truth that he can accept with certainty. In order to accomplish this, Descartes has established that his postulate must be open to strict scrutiny as to expel all doubt to its validity. By the third paragraph of the meditation he has discovered such a certainty, the claim that "I think, therefore I exist." What he is trying to say with this statement is that every time he thinks something in his mind, he has proof that he exists. It is not possible to think without also existing. This proof, known as the Cogito, is Descartes first progression towards his goal of perfect knowledge. For this reason it is important that we examine this proof so that we can have a better understanding of its meaning. To evaluate the Cogito argument, we must first understand it clearly. There are four key statements in meditation two that lead Descartes to the certainty that he exists. Herewith is a summation of Descartes' argument: 1) "Am I so tied to the body and to the senses that I cannot exist without them?" 2) "But certainly I should exist, if I were to persuade myself of something." 3) "Then there is no doubt that I exist, if he (evil demon) deceives me. 4) "I am, I exist" or in other words "I think, therefore I am." These claims respectively suggest, that by denying, persuading, and being deceived; a certain faculty of thought is being used. By thinking, one can be certain that he exists. Though the argument may seem simple and straightforward, upon closer inspection this is not the case. There seems to be some questions concerning the Cogito's interpretation, the most important being: What is the first certainty that Descartes uncovers? What perspective does he use to rationalize this certainty?, and how does he back it up? By examining the inferential, intuitional and epistemic interpretations, we can discover which interpretation of the Cogito was meant by Descartes in Meditation two. At first it seems obvious that Descartes had meant for the Cogito to be an inferential argument. Of the key propositions in the Meditations all seem to have the commonality of thinking as their first premise. Similarly the second premise and the conclusion seem to follow the same pattern. The second premise posits the notion: Whatever thinks exists; followed by the conclusion: therefore, I exist. To know something by inference, is to discover something based on previous knowledge. In Descartes case, he has come to know a metaphysical certainty, existence, based on a prior metaphysical certainty, thinking. The soundness of this reasoning is good because know matter what we do it is impossible to deny that we think. It seems simple enough, until we consider that Descartes seems to emphasize that his first absolute certainty is existence. Using the criteria for inference then, it is impossible that "I exist" is the first certainty. This is a weak argument for in order for this inference to work; Descartes would have to make revisions to meditation two. However, since he feels so strongly of this first certainty, I am not convinced that Descartes had meant for this interpretation. The intuitional interpretation of the Cogito, maintains that it is metaphysically certain because Descartes has intuited it. Descartes idea of intuition is likened to a flash of insight. It can be seen to be true, the same way we know that that 2+3=5. He simply knows he exists based on a direct understanding. With this interpretation, cleary the proposition "I exist" is the first certainty. The problem of this argument is that the idea of intuition is too subjective an interpretation to prove that he exists. There is no way to replicate this procedure and obtain the same conclusion as Descartes. The evidence for this interpretation is not strong enough to render it to be the one Descartes intended. The evidence for the epistemic interpretation of the Cogito is good. I feel that this is the most reasonable interpretation because it seems to be in character with the whole of the meditations. Descartes reasoning behind his metaphysical certainty is that he simply has no reason to doubt it. Previous to the second meditation, Descartes had used doubt as his tool; in doing so he felt it necessary to suspend all judgment. Here he is able to scrutinize all the major arguments of meditation two and come to the conclusion that he has no reason to doubt that "I exist." It could be conceded that Descartes did not explore enough sources of doubt. This objection seems inconsequential considering the scope of the problems from the other interpretations. Having established his existence, Descartes finds that his essence is the mind. He places a major importance on the intellect. In further meditations it is the mind, through understanding, that leads us to various conclusions. Near the end of Meditation two, Descartes demonstrates how the ideas of the mind are more attune to finding knowledge than are senses are. The point that he makes here is that only through the mind can we understand the essential qualities of the wax. Melted a piece of wax exhibits qualities such as extension and mutability. These are concepts that are only clear to the intellect. The main point that Descartes was trying to get across by using this wax experiment is, that if he can understand the wax better with his mind, then it certainly follows that he should know himself better through the same faculty. The Meditations has given me a better understanding of philosophical issues. I have learned to suspend judgment so that I may use my intellect to understand things. Descartes presentation of the mind body problem has given me a new topic to explore. Is it the mind that rules the body or the body that rules the mind. Where does one begin, and the other end? By using some of Descartes methods I have attempted to see his arguments, and tried to come to my own conclusions. The mere fact that Descartes found so many certainties in the Meditations is surprising. It is not always easy to find a hypothesis that stands up to doubt. The Meditations have taught me to be open minded, and to acknowledge that sometimes we make mistakes. However, if we take caution and use reason carefully we are capable of finding certainty. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Metaphysics.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Consciousness, the Self, and Personality Theory A critical survey of theories of philosophical arguments and modern psychological personality theories. This paper will concern itself with some main philosophical arguments and dilemmas and how they correlate with modern psychological personality theories. This survey will include dilemmas about the mind and body, the concept of the self, and inner and outer reality. Also, it will discuss six personality theorists and their scientific and philosophical developments. Psychology, science, and philosophy are interconnected and rooted within each other. In the book Metapsychology, the author, Sam Rakover, states that "Scientific knowledge grows and changes with time, and all three of the subsystems of science-the philosophical, the theoretical, and the experimental-are constantly developing" (Rakover 7). These developments are systematic processes. Psychology must engage in pursuit of explanation and causality. As well as how the mind interacts with the body. Gathering information, drawing conclusions and finding valid theories; as well as understanding biological and social problems, constitute psychology's philosophical background. The concept of the self is a large factor in the study of personality as well as philosophy. The self, generally speaking, includes subjective experience and conscious awareness. In the book Philosophy of Mind the author speaks about self-consciousness, "...the possession of the concept of the self and the ability to use this concept in thinking about oneself" (Guttenplan, 213). This unique quality of human beings allows for the question of thoughts, beliefs, desires, emotions, intentions, memories; along with the responsibility of these qualities, makes us truly unique. The problem with this way of thinking is that it leads to us thinking we are more than our bodies. That a person is something more that just the physical body. Another problem with our supposed uniqueness is that we 'seem' to have a will, drive, and intention. Samuel Guttenplan continues by saying "persons are self-motivated beings with a considerable degree of autonomy over and above a material body" (Guttenplan 214). This led Renee Descartes to postulate that the only thing he couldn't doubt was his thinking existence, that there is a soul a non-material part of human beings that couldn't be denied. Since our bodies don't make decisions the self must have more than a human body. The pure ego. David Hume had a different idea about the self in relation to experience. In a book of readings called Self and World, Hume is quoted as saying "The idea of the self as an entity that owns experiences should be replaced with the idea of the sum of those experiences themselves" (Olgilvy. 107). One can not know about oneself without experience to show it. He believed that nothing about the self could be concluded without experiential content. The identity of a person is successive perceptions. The self is not any one impression. He is quoted in the book of readings as saying "memory does not so much produce as discover personal identity, to give reason why we can thus extend our identity beyond our memory" (Olgilvy 108). He, however held the Cartesian way of thinking that mental items are the objects of thought in an interior realm. This view invites the inner observer to witness these. Immanuel Kant, in the same book of readings expanded on Hume's ideas, he wanted a differentiation between objectivity and subjectivity attempting to prove that "...there are certain concepts whose application within experience is presupposed by the very possibility of experience" (Olgilvy 144). It is the judgments that must conform to self-consciousness. There is room within experience for the thought of experience. John Locke's view includes a more temporal idea. The idea that "the sameness of a rational be f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Mill and Lockes conception of Freedom.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Locke believes that man ought to have more freedom in political society than John Stuart Mill does. John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty are influential and potent literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinkers ideal state present two divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. John Locke and John Stuart Mill have different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he ought to have in political society it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosophers perspective. In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. " (Locke 4) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty which has only the law of nature to restrict it, which is reason. (Locke 5) However Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as being necessary to be free. In On Liberty John Stuart Mill defines liberty in relation to three spheres; each successive sphere progressively encompasses and defines more elements relating to political society. The first sphere consists of the individuals "inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscious in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." (Mill 13) The second sphere of Mill's definition encompasses the general freedoms which allow an individual to freely peruse a "...life to suit our own character; of doing as we like..." (Mill 13). Mill also states that these freedoms must not be interfered with by "fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them..." (Mill 13), no matter how odd, offensive and or immoral they may seem to others. The final sphere of Mill's definition of liberty is a combination of the first two. He states that "...the freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced and or deceived." (Mill 14) Locke and Mill's definitions of freedom must be qualified. Since the definitions they present in their respective literature are distinct from one another, when each philosopher refers to freedom or liberty they are not citing the same concept. This distinction is necessary when comparing their positions regarding the amount of freedom man should have in a political society. What one philosopher considers an overt an perverse abuse of liberty the other may consider the action completely legitimate and justifiable. John Locke believes that men should be virtually unrestricted and free in political society. Locke's rational for this liberal position lies in the twin foundation of man's naturally good inclinations and the specific and limited ends Locke believes political societies ought to have. According to Locke the only freedoms men should lose when entering into a political society are "equality, liberty and executive power they has in the state of nature into the hands of society." (Locke 73) In Locke's ideal society this fails to limit or remove any freedom from the individual, it only removes the responsibility of protecting these freedoms from the individual and places it on the state. John Stuart Mill believes that man's should be strictly limited in political society. Mill differs from Locke in the basic principle that individual who enjoy the benefits of living in political societies owe a return for the protection society offers. Mill believes for society to function properly conduct of societies members should "not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests; which either by express legal provision, or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered rights" (Mill 70) Mill furthers this statement by proclaiming that society may go even further. "As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicial the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the general question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering in it, becomes open to discussion." (Mill 70) This declaration virtually allows the state the authority to intervene in every instance of human interaction and have total power to alter the exchange as it sees fit. If this function of the state is considered supreme or is allowed jurisdiction over even the first sphere of freedoms any further discussion of liberty is ineffective and redundant. Mill clearly seeks to limit the freedom of men and guaranteeing some measure of residual power to exercised by the state at will. Having examined the level or amount of freedom Locke and Mill advocate for man in political society a closer examination of the rational or reasoning which Locke and Mill used to develop their position will clarify the issue further. How Locke and Mill viewed man and his natural inclination toward good or evil was a crucial and fundamental in the formation of their views regarding political society in general and how much freedom man should have in it. The importance of this issue lies in the ability of Locke and Mill to legitimize their conclusion about society based on the necessity of accommodating the natural inclinations of man. Tyranny can easily be justified under the guise of protecting the weak from the natural predatory tendencies of stronger men. John Locke is clear and adamant in his declaration that man is naturally inclined toward good. Locke belief in the value of man and his ability to act independently in compliance with natural law contributed more to his views regarding freedom than did his positions regarding the function of the state. Several positions which Locke holds to be true regarding man warrant this conclusion. First is Locke's definition of the state of nature as "men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature." (Locke 19) Secondly Locke's contention that in the state of nature that man has the right to punish "the crime for restraint and preventing the like offense, which right of punishing is in everybody; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party..." (Locke 8) Locke does not halt the rights of men to punish transgressions against them, this right of all men in a state of nature even if it entails the "power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing he like injury, which no reparation can compensate..." (Locke 8) However Locke does recognize that the right of punishing of transgressions against oneself has great potential and temptation for abuse and corruption this is why Locke contends that "God has certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men." (Locke 9) Locke's definite optimism concerning the nature of man is clearly transferred to his opinion regarding man's freedom in political society. John Stuart Mill does not have the same optimistic view of the nature of man which Locke holds. However he clearly has more faith in humans than the portrait Thomas Hobbes presents of man in Leviathan. A case can be made for Mill's negative view of humans because of his utilitarian themes throughout On Liberty which implies that if left to their own devices man will peruse his own interests even at the costs of his fellow man. Mill does not make a clear declaration exalting or condemning the nature of man. However, Mill does make clearly negative statements about the nature of man. "There has been a time when the element of spontaneity and individuality was in excess, and the social principle had a hard struggle with it." (Mill 57) Mill's insinuation that the free and unrestricted actions of men can cause conflict is to be expected nonetheless it disguises Mill's true position on man's nature. It is the subtly inference that the use of spontaneity and individuality as a method of ordering one's actions somehow runs contrary to the social principle, which shows a clear mistrust of man's unrestricted and uninhibited side. Another crucial factor which undoubtedly influenced the amount of freedom Mill an Locke believed man ought to have in political society was their view regarding the purpose of the state. Mill and Locke held completely opposite views regarding who should benefit from the existence of the state the individual or the community. According to Locke men are driven to congregate and form societies for "necessity, connivance and inclination..." (Locke 44) Locke believes that the purpose or end of the state is provide the necessities and convinces which drove men to form communities. The state for all intents and purposes is designed to serve the individual and provide a free and unrestricted environment in which man who is naturally free may prosper and own property. The constant threat of interference by other men in a man's freedom and enjoyment of his property has driven men to seek the safety of a community which exists "for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates which I call by the general name "property"." (Locke 71) Locke cites three specific reasons for the formation of political society. "First, there wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be standard....Secondly, in the state nature there wants a known and indifferent judge with authority to determine all differences according to the established law...Thirdly, in the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution." (Locke 71) Other necessities and conveniences which Locke refers to are specifically and clearly defined to prevent any interpretation and or expansion of the power of the state. According to Mill the purpose of the state is to facilitate a beneficial two way relationship between individual and the community. The ends of the state are definitely not devoted to the promotion of the individuals freedom as they are in Locke's writings. Mill contends the collective interests of the community render greater reward than the promotion of individual interests. John Locke and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers who have left an indelible mark on the concept of freedom in political societies. John Locke favours greater freedom for man in political society than does John Stuart Mill does. Their beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. Locke system for dealing with man freedom and all other related matters severely limits the role of state to strictly guaranteeing individual freedom. This is the best method of preventing the perversion and abuse of the role and power of the state. Locke views simply stem from his faith in man and his potential to succeed independently, which collectively promotes the prosperity of the state. Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Mills Utilitarianism Sacrifice the innocent for the common .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mill's Utilitarianism: Sacrifice the innocent for the common good? When faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information to make the required calculations. This lack of information is a problem both in evaluating the welfare issues and in evaluating the consequentialist issues which utilitarianism requires be weighed when making moral decisions. Utilitarianism attempts to solve both of these difficulties by appealing to experience; however, no method of reconciling an individual decision with the rules of experience is suggested, and no relative weights are assigned to the various considerations. In deciding whether or not to torture a terrorist who has planted a bomb in New York City, a utilitarian must evaluate both the overall welfare of the people involved or effected by the action taken, and the consequences of the action taken. To calculate the welfare of the people involved in or effected by an action, utilitarianism requires that all individuals be considered equally. Quantitative utilitarians would weigh the pleasure and pain which would be caused by the bomb exploding against the pleasure and pain that would be caused by torturing the terrorist. Then, the amounts would be summed and compared. The problem with this method is that it is impossible to know beforehand how much pain would be caused by the bomb exploding or how much pain would be caused by the torture. Utilitarianism offers no practical way to make the interpersonal comparison of utility necessary to compare the pains. In the case of the bomb exploding, it at least seems highly probable that a greater amount of pain would be caused, at least in the present, by the bomb exploding. This probability suffices for a quantitative utilitarian, but it does not account for the consequences, which create an entirely different problem, which will be discussed below. The probability also does not hold for Mill's utilitarianism. Mill's Utilitarianism insists on qualitative utilitarianism, which requires that one consider not only the amount of pain or pleasure, but also the quality of such pain and pleasure. Mill suggests that to distinguish between different pains and pleasures we should ask people who have experienced both types which is more pleasurable or more painful. This solution does not work for the question of torture compared to death in an explosion. There is no one who has experienced both, therefore, there is no one who can be consulted. Even if we agree that the pain caused by the number of deaths in the explosion is greater than the pain of the terrorist being tortured, this assessment only accounts for the welfare half of the utilitarian's considerations. Furthermore, one has no way to measure how much more pain is caused by allowing the bomb to explode than by torturing the terrorist. After settling the issues surrounding the welfare, a utilitarian must also consider the consequences of an action. In weighing the consequences, there are two important considerations. The first, which is especially important to objectivist Utilitarianism, is which people will be killed. The second is the precedent which will be set by the action. Unfortunately for the decision maker, the information necessary to make either of these calculations is unavailable. There is no way to determine which people will be killed and weigh whether their deaths would be good for society. Utilitarianism requires that one compare the good that the people would do for society with the harm they would do society if they were not killed. For example, if a young Adolf Hitler were in the building, it might do more good for society to allow the building to explode. Unfortunately for an individual attempting to use utilitarianism to make for decisions, there is no way to know beforehand what a person will do. Furthermore, without even knowing which building the bomb is in, there is no way to predict which people will surely be in the building. A subjectivist utilitarian would dismiss this consideration and would examine only what a rational person would consider to be the consequence; however, even the subjectivist utilitarian must face the question of precedent setting. Utilitarianism considers justice and humane treatment to be good for society as a whole and therefore instrumentally good as a means to promoting happiness. Utilitarianism considers precedent to be important, but does not offer any method of determining exceptions. It is impossible to determine how much effect on precedent any given isolated action will have. In the case of determining whether or not to torture the terrorist, one must consider whether it is good for society to allow torture to be used as a method of gaining information. If it is bad, one must determine whether this action will create a precedent. If it will create or contribute to the creation of a precedent, one must compare the detrimental effects of this precedent with the other consequences and welfare caused by the action. Utilitarianism offers no method for comparison. The problem is that a person faced with making the decision cannot get the information. Even through experience, it is hard to judge how much effect each action has on precedent. More specifically, it is hard to determine whether an action is worthy of being an exception to a rule. Utilitarianism offers no resolution to this problem. Utilitarianism also considers the Theory of Desert to be instrumentally valuable to the promotion of happiness. It is generally good for society to reward people for doing right and to punish them for doing wrong. Using this belief in the value of justice, a utilitarian would have more trouble torturing the child of the terrorist than with torturing the terrorist. The dilemma would be similar to that of precedent. A utilitarian would ask how much it will harm society's faith in the punishment of evildoers and the protection of the innocent to torture the child. The sum of the consequences would then be compared to the sum of the welfare considerations to decides whether or not to torture the terrorist and whether or not to torture the child of the terrorist. In some way, these things must therefore all be comparable and assigned weights; however, Utilitarianism offers no method of comparison. There must be some percentage of consideration given to the harmful precedent set compared to the amount of pain caused by the deaths, compared to the pain the terrorist or the child being tortured feels, compared to the harm society will be saved from by the deaths of people in the explosion, compared to the good that society will be deprived of by the deaths in the explosion. The overarching problem with utilitarianism as a method for decision making is that not enough of the necessary information is available and there is no scale on which to weigh the various considerations. Basically, the subjective utilitarian would probably consider that the deaths of many is worse than the torture of one. Depending on how much weight is given to the detrimental effects of the precedent which would be set by torturing the terrorist, the utilitarian could consider this to outweigh the greater pain caused by the explosion or not. Different people have different moral consciences, which dictate different actions. These differences will dictate where the person puts the most weight in the utilitarian considerations, since utilitarianism does not specify. Similarly, depending on how much weight is given to the detrimental precedent of torturing innocent children, the utilitarian could consider it to outweigh the pain caused by the explosion or not. In the end, utilitarianism does not help in making the moral decision. The information necessary to calculate all of the considerations identified by utilitarianism is not available. Furthermore, what is required is a method of comparing and weighing the considerations, and this method is not defined by utilitarianism. In the end, the decision maker is still left to make the decision based on internal moral feelings of what is right and what is wrong which do not come from utilitarianism. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\MLK and Malcolm X.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X grew up in different environments. King was raised in a comfortable middle-class family where education was stressed. On the other hand, Malcolm X came from and underprivileged home. He was a self-taught man who received little schooling and rose to greatness on his own intelligence and determination. Martin Luther King was born into a family whose name in Atlanta was well established. Despite segregation, Martin Luther King's parents ensured that their child was secure and happy. Malcolm X was born on May 19, 1925 and was raised in a completely different atmosphere than King, an atmosphere of fear and anger where the seeds of bitterness were planted. The burning of his house by the Klu Klux Klan resulted in the murder of his father. His mother later suffered a nervous breakdown and his family was split up. He was haunted by this early nightmare for most of his life. From then on, he was driven by hatred and a desire for revenge. The early backgrounds of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were largely responsible for the distinct different responses to American racism. Both men ultimately became towering icons of contemporary African-American culture and had a great influence on black Americans. However, King had a more positive attitude than Malcolm X, believing that through peaceful demonstrations and arguments, blacks will be able to someday achieve full equality with whites. Malcolm X's despair about life was reflected in his angry, pessimistic belief that equality is impossible because whites have no moral conscience. King basically adopted on an integrationalist philosophy, whereby he felt that blacks and whites should be united and live together in peace. Malcolm X, however, promoted nationalist and separatist doctrines. For most of his life, he believed that only through revolution and force could blacks attain their rightful place in society. Both X and King spread their message through powerful, hard-hitting speeches. Nevertheless, their intentions were delivered in different styles and purposes. "King was basically a peaceful leader who urged non-violence to his followers. He travelled about the country giving speeches that inspired black and white listeners to work together for racial harmony." (pg. 135, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Freedom Movement) Malcolm X, for the most part, believed that non-violence and integration was a trick by the whites to keep blacks in their places. He was furious at white racism and encouraged his followers through his speeches to rise up and protest against their white enemies. After Malcolm X broke away from Elijah Mohammed, this change is reflected in his more moderate speeches. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King's childhoods had powerful influences on the men and their speeches. Malcolm X was brought up in an atmosphere of violence. During his childhood, Malcolm X suffered not only from abuse by whites, but also from domestic violence. His father beat his mother and both of them abused their children. His mother was forced to raise eight children during the depression. After his mother had a mental breakdown, the children were all placed in foster homes. Malcolm X's resentment was increased as he suffered through the ravages of integrated schooling. Although an intelligent student who shared the dream of being a lawyer with Martin Luther King, Malcolm X's anger and disillusionment caused him to drop out of school. He started to use cocaine and set up a burglary ring to support his expensive habit. Malcolm X's hostility and promotion of violence as a way of getting change was well established in his childhood. Martin Luther King lived in an entirely different environment. He was a smart student and skipped two grades before entering an ivy league college at only the age of 15. He was the class valedictorian with an A average. King paraded his graduation present in a new green Chevrolet before his fellow graduates. He was raised in the perfect environment where dreams and love were generated. King and X's childhoods are "a study in polarity." (pg. 254, Reflecting Black) Whereas, Malcolm X was raised in nightmarish conditions. King's home was almost dream-like. He was raised in a comfortable middle-class home where strong values natured his sense of self-worth. Sure, many have admired Malcolm X and Martin Luther King for the way that they preached. "Both King and Malcolm X promoted self-knowledge and respect for one's history and culture as the basis for unity." (pg. 253, Reflecting Black.) Other than the fact that they were similar in some ways, they also had many differences that people admired, both in belief and speech. Malcolm X, in many ways, was known to many as an extremist. For most of the time that he spent as an Islamic minister, he preached about separatism between blacks and whites. He also preached about black nationalism, and as some would call it, "black supremacy," (reporter from Malcolm X movie). Malcolm X had been misled all through his life. This can be shown especially at the time when he broke away from the black Muslim party, because he realised that they were misleading him by telling him that separatism between blacks and whites is the only way to go. They also misled him by telling him that separatism is a part of the Islamic religion. Malcolm X's life was known to many as a nightmare because he was abused and haunted by both blacks and whites. Malcolm X blamed many of the conditions that blacks in the United States lived in on the whites. He also talked about how the white man still sees the black man as a slave. Martin Luther King appeared to many as calm and idealistic. Many say his calmness came from his peaceful, middle-class life. For instance, King preached about equality for blacks and whites. He also preached about getting this equality through a non-violent way. King's popularity was more than any other black leader's popularity. "King urged blacks to win their rightful place in society by gaining self-respect, high moral standards, hard work and leadership. He also urged blacks to do this in a non-violent matter," (pg. 255, Reflecting Black) The difference is in Malcolm X and Martin Luther King's backgrounds had a direct influence on their later viewpoints. As a black youth, Malcolm X was rebellious and angry. He blamed the poor social conditions that blacks lived in on the whites. "His past ghetto life prepared him to reject non-violence and integration and to accept a strong separatist philosophy as the basis for black survival," (Internet, Malcolm X anniversary). He even believed at one time that whites were agents of the devil. As a result, "Malcolm X recommended a separatist and nationalist strategy for black survival," (pg. 57, Malcolm X: The man and his times) He believed that only through violence would conditions change. He saw no evidence that white society had any moral conscience and promoted the role of the angry black against racist America. King's philosophies presented a sharp contrast to those of Malcolm X. He believed that through hard work, strong leadership, and non-violent tactics, blacks could achieve full equality with whites. His belief in non-violence even extended to a woman who nearly killed him. He was reported as saying, "don't persecute her, get her healed," (pg. 52, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Freedom Movement). Near the end of their lives, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X's beliefs became more similar. Malcolm X corrected himself after his break with the black Muslim movement. He now emphasised unity and change through black pride and respect for oneself rather than through hate and revenge. King, on the other hand, became somewhat angry at the lack of progress made on equality. He started promoting non-violent sabotage, which including blocking the normal functioning of government. At one time, Malcolm X actually wanted "to join forces with King and the progressive elements of the Civil Rights Movement," (pg. 262, Malcolm X: The man and his times). To many, King and Malcolm X were heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. However, many have also seen that King was more pessimistic, while Malcolm X was more optimistic about separatism for most of his life. Some have said that later on in their lives, they had taken the opposite roles and changed. The speeches of King and X reflected both men's visions on improving America. Both men believed that if blacks were to attain freedom, they first needed to achieve self-respect. However, Malcolm X's speeches were delivered in a revolutionary tone which could incite his listeners to hatred of white America. Malcolm X used direct and to the point language which could be understood by all levels of society. "He had mastery in language and could project his ideas," (Internet, Remember Malcolm X) This creativity in language helped build the Black Muslim Movement in the United States. In his "Definition of a Revolution" speech, delivered in November 1963, Malcolm X openly justifies violence as a way of gaining equality. "And if it is right for America to draft us and teach us how to be violent in defence of the country, then isn't it right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country," (pg. 253, Malcolm X: The man and his times). He encouraged blacks to hate white America and to revolt against them. "Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way," (pg. 255, Malcolm X: The man and his times). In his speech "God's Judgement of White America", delivered on December 1, 1963, Malcolm X again promoted his separatist philosophy. "America must set aside some separate territory here in the Western Hemisphere where the two races can live apart from each other, since we certainly don't get along peacefully while we are here together," (pg. 287, Malcolm X: The man and his times) After Malcolm X's pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964, he reappraised white America and modified somewhat his racist and anti-white beliefs. This change is reflected in his "Communication and Reality" spoken to the American Domestic Peace Corps. "I am against any form of racism. We are all against racism. I believe in Allah. I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I do not believe in the brotherhood with anybody who does not want brotherhood with me," (pg. 289, Malcolm X: The man and his times) Martin Luther King was an equally strong speaker. However, most of his speeches were given to encourage white and black people to work together for racial harmony. He especially wanted to teach impressionable black youth that equality could be gained through non-violent methods. These ideals are reflected in his famous "I have a dream" speech, where King addressed to over 250 000 people. In this speech, King urges black people to never forget their dreams. King preaches that in the eyes of God, the blacks are as good as any other race and should be treated as equals. "I have a dream that one day every valley will be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places shall be made straight, and the glory of the lord shall be revealed, and all shall see it together," ( Internet, Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech) Unlike Malcolm X, King does not incite his followers to riot and hate, but encourages his followers to remember that all people are God's children and that hopefully one day all American can join together to sing "My country tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing..." King's eventual disillusionment became because of the lack of success the blacks were making in America. This discomfort is reflected in his "A time to break the silence" speech. In this speech, he openly condemns American involvement in the Vietnam war. He preaches that America should solve its own racial and social problems before sending vulnerable young men, especially black men, to fight other country's battles. "So we have been respectfully forced with the cruel irony of watching Negroes and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to sit them together in the same schools," (Internet, A time to break the silence speech) Malcolm X and Martin Luther King are both remembered as leaders who fought for a difference in black America. Both tried to bring hope to blacks in the United States. They also tried to instil within blacks power and strength so they could rise above all the hatred that surrounded them, but both of them had very different ways of promoting their message. Malcolm X had a much more extremist approach. Many say that this approach came from his neglectful childhood and early adulthood. King had a much more calm approach. Some have said that this non-violent approach came from his safe, middle-class environment. Even though they were different in addressing their messages about black respect and pride, they both had the same goal in mind. That goal was to achieve equality between all races. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Morality The Preexisting Doctrine.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Morality; The Pre-existing and Universal Code Morality: A doctrine or system of moral conduct; particular moral principles or rule of conduct. To say that modern morality consists in accepting the standard of one's age is to suggest that human morality changes with the passing of time. This statement is just unacceptable. Morality is not something of a fad. It should not go through trends like clothes or popular music, morality is the foundation in which our society is embedded in, a foundation from which human values and standards derive from. If we are to agree that these values and standards are flexible within the boundaries of time, and that they contain within them no ground rooted substructure in society, then there is no way in distinguishing the difference between right and wrong. Morality is what identifies the principles in which man exists, to seperate good from bad, and right from wrong, and every society should strive to discover and achieve these principals. Morality should not change over time even though cultures and social stratifications do, what was morally right three thousand years ago is morally right today and should be morally right three thousand years from now. Only with universal principles can we as collective society discover what is right, what is wrong, and what is best, therefore there exists not modern morality but simply morality. An empirical philosopher, W.T. Stace, argues that if we believe all morals are culturally relative, it is impossible for us to judge what is best. Although admitting he does not know what is best, he concludes that it is the responsibility of man to discover what is. He does not dispute that moral customs and moral ideas differ from country to country and from age to age, but that the fact that one culture thinks something is right does not necessarily make it right just as much as what we believe is wrong in our culture does not necessarily mean it is wrong. "The fact that the Greeks or the inhabitants of New Guinea think something right does not make it right, even for them. Nor does the fact that we think the same things wrong make them wrong. They are in themselves either right or wrong. What we have to do is discover what they are."1 The clashes in cultures between difference of morality does not mean that morals are relative, all that it means is that unidentified cultures and their beliefs remain ignorant to the truth. However at the same time we recognize this, we must be careful not to commit to our own moral code as the just one. The only truth that we can be certain of is that there is one universal and moral code, and although we may not have found it, we must trust that it is amongst us and that through our experience and continual growing knowledge, that we will come to it. This is not even to say that there is one culture within society today that defines the true moral code, for what we know no culture contains this. However as time passes we build upon our knowledge of truth in search for other truths that strengthen and further establish our already growing understanding of what is right and wrong and by doing this we can discover certain values and beliefs from cultures that are indeed just and right. Of course by suggesting that there is the one universal moral code, one would have to defend this by also implying that there is a superior power that imposes this code amongst us. To take the position of ethical absolutism would be quite difficult to achieve without the reference of God. "There would be no point, for the naive believer in the faith, in the philosopher's questions regarding the foundations of morality and the basis of moral obligation... For the true believer the author of the moral law is God. What pleases God, what God commands- that is the definition of right."2 Our civilization today is deeply rooted in Christianity. The belief in God is very popular within our society. As much as we may try to escape Christianity, it still remains with us, "The moral ideas even of those who most violently reject the dogmas of Christianity with their intellects are still Christian ideas."3 To believe or to accept the idea of one moral code, one must believe that there is a God or a group of elite God's who imposed this code upon us. So there is, for most Christians, one single God, that rules over the entire universe, and his wishes are inked in the bible. Unfortunately, God's wishes are consistent around the globe, and time and age is of no significance. If some cultural group lives in disbelief of God then they simply live in ignorance of him, and it is to their consequence that they are deprived. However then, since it is quite evident that popular modern civilization believes in God, it is therefore reasonable to assume that with this belief we accept God as the one superior ruler of the universe, like any other authoritarian ruler. If we are faithful to God we can assume that as our leader, he has given us rules and regulations to follow, and obey. Do any of the great leaders, past and present, leave the people who follow them with no direction, guidance, or instruction? Of course not. All leaders held their position because they were instrumental in this area. God is no different. God has not left us without direction, he has delivered to us a preexisting order that applies to all ages. An order in which he lays the foundation in which man is to follow, an order that if followed will deliver to every culture on earth direction and a goal. To change this preexisting moral code of mankind as time passes leaves the human race with no order. It would simply be impossible to say what is right and what is wrong. What would be the grounds to indicate it? How could anyone justify their actions without the evidence that it was the best action? God, the adjudicator of all our fates, decides what is good and what is bad. Killing in almost all parts of the world is considered an immoral action. If God determines that killing is unacceptable, then regardless of what a certain cultures beliefs are, their morals and those beliefs are wrong, and unpermisable. However if it so happens that we have misinterpreted the preaching of God, and killing is acceptable, then the popular opinion on this matter is wrong. The point is that one of these morals is right and one is wrong. It is unacceptable to say that because one society is inferior to another, or differs in ways of another, than it is then acceptable for all cultures to act in accordance with their ignorance and partake in unjust action. To say modern morality consists in accepting the standard of one's age is to suggest that man is incapable (or perhaps too indolent) in finding the truth. If we are to accept the vast differences in morals and ethics in the world as a beneficial standard to society we then accept that there is no right and wrong, and thus there is no action that is best, and no action that can be justified. We must realize certain values and beliefs that are ignorant to those commands of God. Part of man's mission is discovering the preexisting and universal code that God intends for us to ascertain. This was the very reason Jesus was sent to us almost 2000 years ago, and it will be the same reason for his return, to help instill those morals, values, and principles. And when he returns the moral standard he will preach will not change because of the passing of time. He will preach the same code he did originally. A preexisting, universal moral code that will serve as a foundation for man to build upon, a foundation where all men and women, while still being able to maintain there culture and identity, will be able to live by the same principles, and morals as everyone else, a foundation where everyone knows what is right, what is wrong, and what is best. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Morality.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ December 11, 1995 Moral philosophy is very important to the success of an individual. But, before I tell you why moral philosophy is so important, and how it has helped me in my life, let me give you a little background knowledge. Rational knowledge has two components. These components are material and formal. Formal knowledge is not object oriented, and is based on reason. Formal knowledge is logic, or the laws of thought. Material knowledge is object oriented, and has two components. These two components are natural and moral. Natural law is physics. It determines what is the case, and how things behave in nature. On the other hand, moral law determines what things ought to be. Morality is something humans think about, and is not based on physiological factors. Now that we have a little background of knowledge and moral law, let me tell you why you should lead a moral life. Even though morality is not imposed upon you, it is about humanity. And, while it may not seem fair, in reality, morality is judged by humans. So, if you are immoral, other people will be the ones that notice that you are immoral, and that can hurt personal relationships. One way that I have succeeded throughout my career is by knowing and being friends with a lot of people. The practical side of life is based on interpersonal relationships. Whether it be social or business, communicating with people is the only way to get things done. There is no way that you can go through life in today's society without getting along with people. If people think that you are immoral, than they will not respect you, or be willing to work with you. Again, it may seem like it is not fair because you know that no one is one hundred percent moral, and if someone doesn't respect you because you are immoral, than they are hypocritical. But, when it comes to moral issues, the reality of the world is that people are hypocritical. They feel it is okay for them to do it, but not okay for anyone else. Think about it, how many times have you said, "I can't believe that he did that; he's a jerk." Knowing the entire time that you have done the same thing. You may say, "Who cares!" I'm here to tell you that one day you might care. Let me give you and example. After I completed a business venture that made me over one million dollars, I learned that the only reason I received the job was because the man I was competing against had cheated on his wife. Well, the company offering the job decided that they couldn't trust this man because of his immoral activity. So, to answer your question, I care. And for that matter, I bet if you were involved in this situation, you would care. Now I want to tell you an obvious reason why you should care. This may be so obvious that you overlooked it. Many of our nations laws are based on moral issues. For instance, you can't hurt another human; you can't steal from another human; and you can't kill another human being. Now, you may say, "I already know this!" But, if everybody knew this, would we need jails? Let me ask you a question. How successful can you be in jail? My point with this question is to get you to realize that you can't be successful in jail. Nobody grows up saying that they can't wait to go to jail because they know that it is the place to be. Nobody says that if they could just get in jail they know that they could be the best prisoner, and could have the biggest cell. This may be taking immorality to an extreme, but it happens. An immoral life could send a person to jail. I can tell you some of the consequences of an immoral life, but I can't make you be moral. Morality is not imposed upon you by society. Morality is self imposed; it is something in us, and defines what constitutes a human being. I am sure that many of you have participated in team sports. Now even if you have a good game, maybe you scored all of the points, and the team won. But, at the end of the game you cheated. Well, everyone that knows you cheated now labels you a cheater. So, in the future, when it is time to play the next game no one wants you on their team. They think that you will give the team a bad name because you cheated before. Again, you might say, "Who cares?" All I can tell you is that if you can't play because no one wants you on their team, then you sure can't win or be successful. So since morality, whether it is fair or not is judged by those around you, you will be better off in the end if you lead a moral life. Kant says, "The moral worth depends, therefore, not on the realization of the object of the action, but merely on the principle of volition according to which, without regard to any objects of the faculty of desire, the action has been done"(Kant, p.13). What this great philosopher was saying, is that you can't always go for the instant reward when you are going to do something. Sometimes you have to bypass the selfish inclination and not cheat or do things that are immoral. Yes, you may not win this game, but at least you can play tomorrow and maybe win then. Moral law is universal. It is not created by anyone, it just exists. Also, moral law is a priori, or in other words, it exists before empirical law. Moral philosophy is very valuable to everyone's life. Morals are proper for everyone, and since they are based on metaphysics, and metaphysics transcends differences, they are also cross cultural. Moral law has helped me be successful in everything that I do. Being a 65 year old man, I have seen a lot. I know the value of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy has helped me be successful in every thing that I have done. You may ask, "How has it helped you be successful?" Well, I have told you a couple of aspects of moral philosophy, and all of these aspects have helped me keep things in perspective. Financial success will come with morality, but if it doesn't, then you will still be better off because you have led a moral life. There have been times in my life when I have succumb to selfish inclination, and the results were immediately good. But ultimately, if I had been labeled as an immoral person, and was not able to do certain things because people didn't like me, than I definitely wouldn't have been the one invited to give this talk to you. By the way, I am getting paid an awful lot of money for this talk. So there is another way that morality has helped me. Happiness is not a grounding for morality, because some immoral people are happy. But, morality can lead to ultimate happiness and greater success in whatever you attempt to do in life. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\My philosophical Approach to counseling.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophical Approach 3 My philosophical approach to counseling My basic understanding of the human behavior is not grounded in one psychological approach, instead there are two therapeutic approaches that govern my rationale. These two approaches, Existential and Person-centered (Client-centered to many) heavily influence my philosophical orientation to counseling. In writing this paper, I will explore some of the basic philosophical premises that lay the essential groundwork for these two approaches. The following information will also show the reader that using the two therapeutic approaches together will effectively diagnose and treat teenagers. Definition of Existential Therapy One survey taken by Corey suggests a definition of Existential Therapy include two key elements: Existential Therapy is essentially an approach to counseling and therapy rather than a firm theoretical model, it stresses core human conditions. Normally, personality development is based on the uniqueness of Philosophical Approach 4 each individual. Sense of self develops from infancy. Self determination and a tendency toward growth are control ideas. Focus is on the present and on what one is becoming; that is the approach has a future orientation. It stresses self-awareness before action. (1996, p.465) In layman terms, Existential therapy can be described as a philosophical approach that is not designed to cure people but instead help the client reflect and search for value and meaning in life. Existential Therapy does not supply a cookbook of methods like other approaches but instead it provides a framework that is adaptable to the therapist, in which to view the individual and the world in which they participate. Definition of Person-Centered (Client-Centered) Therapy According to Mosby's Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, client-centered therapy is a non directive method of group or individual psychotherapy, originated by Carl Rogers, in which the role of the therapist is to listen to and reflect or restate without judgment or interpretation the words of the client. Philosophical Approach 5 Objectives of Existential Therapy The objectives of Existential Therapy are quite unique. Existential counselors are focused on helping the client achieve and expand their self-awareness. Many Therapist assume once self awareness is achieved, the client can examine new ways of dealing with problems and except the responsibility of choosing. Objectives of Client-centered Therapy The objective of client-centered therapy is to assist the client to experience self exploration, so that they can identify problems that are hindering their growth process. Essentially, the main goal of client-centered therapy is to have the client achieve a sense of increased awareness and understanding of his attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. Professional Opinions Existential and client-centered therapy have been criticized for not being "scientific enough". They have been down played as not being empirical and not having a therapeutic model that is firmly set in stone with a set of methods and interventions. A large number of therapist feel that Existential and client-centered therapy are not sound therapeutic approaches for treating and diagnosing Philosophical Approach 6 adolescents. One main reason for this argument is the existential view toward adolescence. Existentialist view adolescence as a time when a young person begins to gain a sense of awareness on a surface level. After achieving this level, the adolescent gradually starts to focus on self meaning, which takes place through the development of their identity(Hacker, 1994). Existentialist also believe that how the individual conceptilizes death plays a part in the whole being of the person. A survey of 82 students revealed people viewed death as cold and denied. This information indicates death is very influencial in creating anxiety in people (Westman, 1992, p. 1064). Existential and client-centered therapy have not labeled themselves with a distinct clinical procedure, instead these techniques and concepts have been effective in helping patients to recognize and accomplish their goals. For this reason, I believe existential thought coupled with client-centered therapy are appropriate in treating clients who confront some type of obstacle or major event in their life (confronting death, sudden isolation, changing from childhood to adolescence). David Cain(1993), a person-centered therapist, believes client-centered therapy is not Philosophical Approach 7 a wise decision for treating clients in some cases, he sites that due to the lack of evolution of Client-centered therapy and the client-centered community's unwillingness to change with the advancements of counseling and psychotherapy has limited the therapeutic approach. On the otherhand, therapist Philip Kendall and Michael A. Southam-Gerow, seem to recognize the importance of client-centered therapy. Kendall and Southam-Gerow conducted a study which examined the long-term effects of psychosocial treatment for anxiety disordered youth, which they evaluated the long term effects and the effective components of the treatment. The results from the study revealed that children and adolescent clients treated two to five years earlier with psychotherapy retained their gains over anxiety related disorders(p 728). Kendall noted the lack of anxiety related problems could have resulted from the clients maturation and not the long-term effects of therapy. This evidence alone exhibits just one aspect of the tremendous effects of client-centered psychotherapy. The study also demonstrated the variety of techniques used with the clients, which ranged from relaxation exercises to role playing. Philosophical Approach 8 Another ongoing criticism of the two dynamic approaches to therapy is gender plays a major role in the outcome of therapy. Researchers (Porter, Cox, Williams, Wagner, & Johnson, 1996.) have provided research to argue this point. They conducted a study, which a Client-Behavioral system was used to evaluate the therapeutic process with 27 sexually abused girls who were enrolled in individual counseling, the study revealed that when sexual abuse was formally taught that the girls were more likely to answer with abuse related answers in response to child abuse questions, regardless of whether the counselor was male or female. Summary and Conclusion One can see from the material provided that there are some recurring themes in the areas of client-centered and existential psychology: The search for meaning and value in life, self-awareness, and behavior. While existential and client-centered roots are planted firmly in philosophical and humanistic styles of thinking without clear evidence of any scientific model, existentialism and client-centered therapy offers the science of psychology a path much Philosophical Approach 9 different than the other approaches to therapy that seek only a scientific outcome. Existential and client-centered offer a alternative form of therapy, a phenomenological approach to the person, not a look at the instincts of the person, not a separation of the id, the ego, and superego, but a view of the entire being in the now. The drawbacks of existential and client-centered therapy have been stated as a basic lack of pure scientific methodology. These two approaches do not offer a textbook of "how to" techniques, but instead they offer a viewpoint, a lens, a way of picturing the person and the world in which they live. It offers a way to view oneself, as a therapist, a motivator, and as a helper. They do not however, offer a fix-all to every problem, rather they seek to help the client realize responsibility for their actions and thoughts while helping the client gain a deep sense of awareness and trust in themselves in the therapeutic relationship. Philosophical Approach 10 Cain, D. J. (1993). The uncertain future of client-centered counseling. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development. 31 (3), 133-138. Client-Centered Therapy Dictionary Definition. Mosby's Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary. [CD-ROM] Abstract from: Health Reference Center. File Number: 00009108. Corey, G. (1996). Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy. (Rev. ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Coleman. Hacker, D. J. (1994). An Existential View of Adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence. 14. (3), 300-327. Kendall, P., & Southam-Gerow, M.(1996). Long-term follow-up of a Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety-Disordered Youth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 64.(4), 724-730. Porter, R. L., Wagner W., Johnson, J., & Cox, L. M. (1996). Sexually abused girls' verbalizations in counseling: an application of the client behavior system. Philosophical Approach 11 [CD-ROM]. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 43. (4), 383-389. Abstract from: Health Reference Center. File Number: 18987461. Westman, A. S., (1992). Existential Anxiety as Related to Conceptualization of Self and of Death, Denial of Death, and Religiosity. Psychological Reports. 71. 1064-1066. Philosophical Approach 2 Abstract This paper examined two philosophical and humanistic approaches I have chosen as my rationale to counseling and psychotherapy. The paper will define and explain the objectives and techniques of these two dynamic therapies. Furthermore, it will illustrate existential and client-centered therapy's importance in regards to treating adolescence. -Vj f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\My search for a meaningful existence.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My Personal Search for a Meaningful Existence I am the representative embodiment of my nihilistic culture. I am narcissistic, insatiable, petty, apathetic and I am above all an emotional invalid. Yet, up until very recently, I was not consciously aware that I was guilty of having any of these wholly pejorative attributes, because I had unconsciously suppressed my inherent will to attain a meaningful existence, in favor of the comfort and security that complacency and futility provide. There exists in me a void, that is not uncommon to find in the members of my Eurocentric society, which is derived from the conscious or unconscious knowledge that our culture is entirely devoid of meaning. This is, more specifically, the plight of my generation, which has been defined by its disillusionment, apathy and inaction, rather than its accomplishments, beliefs or ideologies. Escapism is the safety mechanism that enables our flight from actuality, and subsequently our ability to exist, because we have been cursed with a wealth of advantages and a lack of restrictions. For example: I am free to choose my own religion, I am not stifled by or subjected to economic disadvantage, I am not bound to subservience by an oppressive or tyrannical government, I am blessed with a myriad of conveniences by my technologically advanced society, and I come from a nurturing and supportive family, so who the hell am I to complain about my circumstances. The only explanation I can give, in retort to my profession that I have been cursed by my inherent advantages, is: since my life is completely devoid of any profound suffering, it is subsequently lacking any meaningful happiness, because man only experiences these feelings in terms of their relative relationship to one another. Thus, I vainly invent my own wholly unfounded reasons to bemoan my existence, in the same way that a hypochondriac invents his psychosomatic illnesses, because the longer we feign to have a justifiable cue for suffering, the more that that suffering actualizes itself. The primary source of my anxieties is derived from the inherent knowledge that I am condemned to be free, in a society of relatively few restrictions, which subsequently requires me to be the master of my own destiny. Thus, I am not only culpable for determining my own fate, but I am also wholly responsible for finding a meaningful purpose in my existence, which instills me with an intense feeling of trepidation, because I'm not sure I'm ready to shoulder such a profound responsibility. I live in a nihilistic society, that is founded on man's narcissistic will to pleasure and power, that is run by the "all-powerful" green, and that is defined by its laziness and lack of tradition. Thus, it seems almost futile to search for a meaningful existence in our Western culture, because it is this very society that has taught me my convoluted and misplaced system of priorities and beliefs, but man can find a meaning for living regardless of his predicament. Therefore, in this paper, I will attempt to redefine what I believe is the essence and meaning of my human existence, by combining the meditations of a variety of different philosophic thinkers with the conclusions I have attained through the contemplation of my own personal experiences. Nihilism is the characteristic value-disease of our times. The word comes from the Latin root for nothing, and it describes the belief that human values have no evacatory or meaningful power. Although there have been transient episodes of nihilism throughout our species' cultural history, the label is usually applied to the crisis of valuation that now infects our Western culture. Friederich Nietzsche, the famous German "existentialist" philosopher, predicted that the traditional European system of beliefs, which are primarily derived from the teachings of Christianity and Greek Philosophy, would be questioned, and subsequently abandoned during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. He believed that with the widespread proliferation of education people would start exercising their free-will, and temporarily abandon the "herd mentality" that has historically caused the masses to "blindly" accept the ideology of others. Nietzsche prophetically predicted that with this newly acquired freedom of thought, and the subsequent "death" of traditional European values, people would frantically search for, and embrace, new, false sources of meaning. He included as examples: the forthcoming of cataclysmic wars, the proliferation of materialistic greed, and the pursuit of ever more powerful forms of intoxication, all of these theories coming to their fruition during this century. The traditional European values that have defined our culture for centuries are certainly not yet extinct, but their prevalence and influence has been severely curtailed, subsequently creating a state of confusion that has given way to one of the most tumultuous eras in history. This century has seen the rise to power of maniacal demagogues, like Hitler and Stalin, the devastation of two World Wars, the political influence of imperialistic corporations, and the creation of a widespread drug culture. We have not yet awakened to the necessary evolution that is required to cure our diseased system of values, because we refuse to see fault in them out of cowardice. Thus, Nietzsche concludes that mankind, through its inherent fear of leading a meaningful existence, has become so far removed from God that we have, in fact, killed him. As Nietzsche predicted, we live in a convoluted world of misplaced priorities, where the will to a meaningful existence has been all but replaced by man's constant flight from actuality, which is derived from an inherent inclination to intellectual laziness. If a person becomes consciously aware of the perversity of our Western culture, they will undoubtedly become severely depressed and disillusioned, but this realization can be "cured" in any number of ways. A person can completely lose themselves in their occupation and daily activities, subsequently becoming a "machine," believing their worth is measured solely by their level of production. A person can adopt an opinion as an absolute doctrine, such as racism, giving them a convenient "scapegoat" for their shortcomings, and absolving them of all feelings of responsibility and culpability for their actions. A person can compensate for their lack of a meaningful existence by attaining wealth, power, and prestige, vainly mistaking these impostors, consciously or unconsciously, as modes of attaining happiness. A person can lose themselves in the delusory would of "Dionysian" pleasures, such as: drugs, alcohol or sexual conquest, existing only to enjoy the transient and fleeting flight from reality that is derived from orgasmic euphoria. Finally, a person can join a collective organization or cause, in order to escape from the responsibilities that exercising their free-will and expressing their individuality entails, in favor of subjecting themselves and succumbing to the beliefs of others. In the preceding examples there is a unifying theme of escapism, which comes from man's innate fear of taking control of his own destiny, because he does not want to be responsible for his own misfortunes. The journey to a meaningful existence is a frightening undertaking, because it requires an arduous and diligent pursuit of one's goals, regardless of the suffering and pain attaining it entails. It means making your own decisions, with the hope that the results will prove to be advantageous, and accepting them even if they end up proving otherwise, because man can often derive more profound meaning from his suffering than he can from his success. That is why Nietzsche says: "That which does not kill me, will only make me stronger." The man in Dostoyevsky's essay, "Notes From Underground," professes to having invented a meaningless existence for himself so that at very least he could live in some way. In my opinion this is not a testament to nihilism, as it explicitly appears to be, but rather the reflections of a man who has become conscious of the lack of meaning in his own existence. It is a celebration of human individualism, which this "acutely" conscious man regards as both the absurdity of existence, and the essence and meaning of being human. Thus, he considers his consciousness to by a blessing as well as a curse, because if he were completely unaware of his seemingly absurd situation, he would be able to act instinctually and unconsciously without being inhibited by his ability to reason. The narrator argues that independence of choice is dependent upon not only the ability to act in accordance with what a person believes to be beneficial and good, but also the ability to act in a way that will inflict suffering and pain. The propensity of man to act in direct conflict with what he consciously believes to be beneficial, is a concept Edgar Allen Poe called "man's inherent perversity," which is the theme of many of his most famous works, not the least of which is "The Imp of the Perverse." The man from "Underground" explains this enigmatic phenomenon by saying that the conscious man delights in suffering because it is the source of his consciousness, because without it there would be nothing left to contemplate. Similarly, he professes that man ironically seems to enjoy entropy and disorder, because the reason for his existence is based on his trying to attain meaning, but never actually achieving it. That is, because once a person realizes all of their goals, and is enlightened to the meaning of his life, there will no longer be any reason for him to live. Therefore, man thrives on the process of attaining meaning, even though he doesn't want to actually attain it, which is a fundamentally absurd theoretical concept, but nonetheless, is the most integral component of our existence. The man in "Notes From Underground" simultaneously alerts us to the inherent absurdity of our nature, while celebrating our ability to freely chose our own destiny, because he is conscious of man's plight of constantly struggling to attain an unattainable goal. Albert Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus," is an allegory about the absurdity of human nature, in which Sisyphus is the quintessential absurd hero. This man, sentenced to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain and then watching its descent, is damned by the Gods to the unspeakable task of spending eternity exerting himself toward accomplishing nothing. But Sisyphus is conscious of his plight, and he surmounts it by concentrating on his freedom, his refusal to hope, his scorn of the Gods, and his passion for life. His inherent knowledge that there's no end to his suffering, is similar to the plight of mankind, who is forced to live in a world with no absolute meaning. Thus, the absurd person must demand to live solely with what is known and to bring nothing that is not certain. In the case of humankind, this means that all I know is that I exist, that the world exists, and that I am mortal. In "The Myth of Sisyphus," Camus opposes himself to the rationalism of classical philosophy, which seeks universal and enduring truths and a definite hierarchy of values and truths. He believes that truth is only found by a subjective intensity of passion, and our value is determined by our freedom and our revolt. Thus, the only joy we have is in knowing that our fate belongs to us and in our defiance and struggle to overcome death. Camus, Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche all seem to believe that it matters little what reason we continue to struggle so long as we testify to man's allegiance to man and not to abstractions and "absolutes," which completely negates the possibility of faith and religion. I wholly agree that there is no one unifying meaning to man's existence which transcends all things, but in my opinion this does not mean that I should automatically believe that all abstract things are false. I think that having faith is an integral component of leading a meaningful existence, particularly considering the only things that I know with absolute certainty are, I exist, the world exists and I am mortal. There is certainly room for religious faith in our existence, provided that we do not completely indoctrinate ourselves to believe that the scripture and values of that faith are entirely true. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism not only deny a man's freedom and individuality, but also make him potentially dangerous to others, because he starts believing that anyone that does not share his system of beliefs is his enemy. Therefore, I believe, in order for a religious faith to be "healthy," a person needs to practice their religion without inhibiting their individuality, and furthermore, by entertaining the possibility that their faith might potentially prove to be in vain. These same principles hold true for secular forms of faith, such as the belief in a particular political ideology or social cause, because like a faith in religion, they are beneficial as long as they are not taken to an extreme. I share this belief with William James and Viktor Frankl, who agree with many of the fundamental ideas of existentialism, but also stress the importance of faith in leading a meaningful existence. William James' essay, "The Will to Believe," uses the traditionally scientific method of empirical study to describe philosophic ideas that have generally been discussed in terms of their certitude and objective evidence. Empiricism is a regard to matters of fact as hypotheses liable to modification in the course of future investigation, and he uses it as a method of finding meaning in human existence. James ardently resists using an absolutist approach to studying philosophy because he believes that, although it is possible to attain truth, we can't infallibly know when we have with any certainty. The empiricist, like the existentialist, believes that it is impossible to know something for certain, but instead of giving up hope, he continues to quest for the truth, because he still has faith in its existence. James believes that the only way that man can come closer to understanding the meaning of his existence is by collecting a wealth of experiences, and then pensively reflecting upon them. He believes that, in life, the quest for the truth is paramount, and the avoidance of error is secondary, in making decisions and performing actions. Therefore, James is critical of skeptics who suspend their judgment about a hypothesis simply because they want to avoid being wrong at all costs. It is no profound revelation that a person who has confidence and faith that they are going to succeed are much more likely to achieve their goals than a person filled with trepidation and self-doubt, but the most important thing is for that person to accept failure graciously. James sums up this belief when he says, "Act for the best and hope for the best and take what comes." We must have faith in our convictions, because insight of logic is not the only thing that influences our creeds, there is also the emotional component. Pascal call this the "heart," a force that is wholly independent of reason, when he says: "The heart has its reasons that reason knows not of." The inherent influence of emotion on a person's decision making process can provide the cue to accept something solely on faith, because passion and love are often the source of irrational behavior, and that is not necessarily a pejorative thing. For instance, if I am madly in love with a woman, there is no possible way for me to ever know for certain whether or not she feels the same way about me. Thus, I am forced to either accept that she will reciprocate my love on faith, and risk the frightening possibility that she won't, or live my life as a cynical and melancholy bachelor, constantly pondering about what could have been. Despite the overly-simplistic nature of my example, which bears a striking resemblance to "Pascal's wager," there is little doubt that it is beneficial to accept things on faith, regardless of the potentially pejorative consequences, because a person who relies solely on their rationality is damned to become an emotional invalid. Viktor Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning, is composed of two distinctly different parts: the first section is an autobiographical account of his traumatic experiences in the Nazi death camps, and the second part is a description of his personal theory of psychoanalysis, which is called logotherapy. For the purpose of this paper I am going to concentrate solely on the second section of this book, because I only have time enough to briefly summarize some of its major ideas. Frankl's theory of logotherapy, in its simplest form, is the psychoanalytical process that assists a patient in discovering the meaning in his or her life. It evolved out of his ability to derive meaning in his own existence, while he was being subjected to the brutal, naturalistic, and dehumanizing suffering of the Nazi concentration camps. Frankl, during his captivity, was robbed of his family, his pride, his possessions, and his health, but he was miraculously able to survive because he was wholly committed to the furthering of his work and the love of his wife. Logotherapy was also created to provide its patients with a compassionate and nurturing view of human existence, which is a component that is missing from nearly all other approaches to psychotherapy. Since most people have enough to live by, but essentially nothing to live for, the goal of logotherapy is to make people feel responsible to life for something. Frankl is essentially an empiricist in the tradition of James, because he believes that the meaning in a person's existence can be discovered in the experiences of his external environment, rather than buried in his subconscious. Thus, when a person forgets himself, by giving himself to a cause or to serve another, the more human he becomes and the more he actualizes himself. This theory should not be misconstrued to mean a person should abandon their free will, it simply means that the best way for a person to learn about himself is through his relationship to others. Frankl, like many other existentialist thinkers, believes that the essence of life is suffering, and to survive is to find meaning in that suffering. Thus, when a person chooses to be worthy of their suffering they gain the capacity to surmount their outward fate, and subsequently their inner-anxieties and neuroses. It is certainly no surprise that chief among Frankl's concerns is the rapid proliferation of nihilism in the twentieth century, a phenomenon which he has named the "existential vacuum." It is a neurosis that is often derived from boredom, which makes it seem like a benign illness, but it is often responsible for creating the foundation, from which, many other much more serious conditions arise. Depression, aggression, addiction and even suicide have been directly linked to nihilism and the "existential vacuum", therefore, it is not to be confused with simple laziness and apathy, and it should not dismissed as a petty problem. Frankl, like James, refutes the doctrine of monism, because he believes the meaning of life is a wholly personal experience that is constantly changing. Thus, it is not man who is asking the meaning of life, but rather, it is man who is questioned by life to find meaning, and man's response should be to become vigilant in his pursuits, responsible for his actions and consciously contemplative of his situation. I live in an culture that is obsessed with opulence and ostentation, instant gratification and overnight success, and above all the escape from actuality at any cost. It is a time when problems are solved by synthetic means and meaningful spirituality has been all but replaced by self-help seminars and twelve-step programs. The Western world has invented a "cure" for almost everything: if a person is feeling depressed they see their pharmacist, if they have low self-esteem they see their plastic surgeon, if they feel unfulfilled they learn how to get rich by buying and selling real-estate with "no money down," if they have trouble expressing their emotions they join a support group or buy the instructional "books on tape," and if they don't have the money for these things they can always charge it to their credit card and worry about it later. The computer is slowly eliminating the existence of necessary human interaction: it is replacing meaningful human knowledge with an overload of primarily useless information, it is substituting "virtual reality" for actual experience, and it is helping to burgeon a generation of "hackers" and video game champions, rather than intellectuals and athletes. It isn't hard to imagine why our culture is now comprised primarily of narcissists and nihilists, myself inclusive, because we have forgotten how to interact with each other, let alone how to lead a meaningful existence. I was not conscious of the void in my own existence until I read the literature required of this course, and now I am trying to systematically redefine my misplaced values and beliefs by combining the teachings and ideologies I have learned, with my own personal experiences. As I mentioned before I have been fortunate enough to come from a fairly affluent and nurturing family, but in my opinion, the lack of misfortune and suffering in my experiences has caused me to live without questioning why, because I have never had a profound enough reason to question the meaning in my life. I believe that I am fortunate to have been enlightened to my nihilism, because many people in my culture do not become aware of the lack of meaning in their existence until much later in life, when it is affectionately called a "mid-life crisis." I wholly agree with the existentialist belief that there is no determinism, and that man is free to be the master of his own fate. I also believe that man's existence depends on suffering, because it not only can provide a person with a profound source for meaning, but it is also provides the necessary comparison by which success and happiness are measured. My beliefs, like those of James and Frankl, divulge from the theories of existentialism at this point, because I value faith to be an integral component of my existence. I have a devout faith in the existence of God, an afterlife, love, and truth, although I know that during my lifetime I will never know with any degree of certainty whether any of these things exist. Now comes the hardest part, which is finding out what the meaning of my existence is, and to be perfectly honest, at this point, I have no idea what it is. Perhaps it is simply to discover my calling in life while I am still young, after all I only became conscious of the utter lack of meaning in my existence a short time ago. Nevertheless, I am wholly confident that I will find something, by which, or for which to live in the near future, because as Nietzsche brilliantly stated: "He who has a why to live, can bear almost any how." My Personal Search for a Meaningful Existence I am the representative embodiment of my nihilistic culture. I am narcissistic, insatiable, petty, apathetic and I am above all an emotional invalid. Yet, up until very recently, I was not consciously aware that I was guilty of having any of these wholly pejorative attributes, because I had unconsciously suppressed my inherent will to attain a meaningful existence, in favor of the comfort and security that complacency and futility provide. There exists in me a void, that is not uncommon to find in the members of my Eurocentric society, which is derived from the conscious or unconscious knowledge that our culture is entirely devoid of meaning. This is, more specifically, the plight of my generation, which has been defined by its disillusionment, apathy and inaction, rather than its accomplishments, beliefs or ideologies. Escapism is the safety mechanism that enables our flight from actuality, and subsequently our ability to exist, because we have been cursed with a wealth of advantages and a lack of restrictions. For example: I am free to choose my own religion, I am not stifled by or subjected to economic disadvantage, I am not bound to subservience by an oppressive or tyrannical government, I am blessed with a myriad of conveniences by my technologically advanced society, and I come from a nurturing and supportive family, so who the hell am I to complain about my circumstances. The only explanation I can give, in retort to my profession that I have been cursed by my inherent advantages, is: since my life is completely devoid of any profound suffering, it is subsequently lacking any meaningful happiness, because man only experiences these feelings in terms of their relative relationship to one another. Thus, I vainly invent my own wholly unfounded reasons to bemoan my existence, in the same way that a hypochondriac invents his psychosomatic illnesses, because the longer we feign to have a justifiable cue for suffering, the more that that suffering actualizes itself. The primary source of my anxieties is derived from the inherent knowledge that I am condemned to be free, in a society of relatively few restrictions, which subsequently requires me to be the master of my own destiny. Thus, I am not only culpable for determining my own fate, but I am also wholly responsible for finding a meaningful purpose in my existence, which instills me with an intense feeling of trepidation, because I'm not sure I'm ready to shoulder such a profound responsibility. I live in a nihilistic society, that is founded on man's narcissistic will to pleasure and power, that is run by the "all-powerful" green, and that is defined by its laziness and lack of tradition. Thus, it seems almost futile to search for a meaningful existence in our Western culture, because it is this very society that has taught me my convoluted and misplaced system of priorities and beliefs, but man can find a meaning for living regardless of his predicament. Therefore, in this paper, I will attempt to redefine what I believe is the essence and meaning of my human existence, by combining the meditations of a variety of different philosophic thinkers with the conclusions I have attained through the contemplation of my own personal experiences. Nihilism is the characteristic value-disease of our times. The word comes from the Latin root for nothing, and it describes the belief that human values have no evacatory or meaningful power. Although there have been transient episodes of nihilism throughout our species' cultural history, the label is usually applied to the crisis of valuation that now infects our Western culture. Friederich Nietzsche, the famous German "existentialist" philosopher, predicted that the traditional European system of beliefs, which are primarily derived from the teachings of Christianity and Greek Philosophy, would be questioned, and subsequently abandoned during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. He believed that with the widespread proliferation of education people would start exercising their free-will, and temporarily abandon the "herd mentality" that has historically caused the masses to "blindly" accept the ideology of others. Nietzsche prophetically predicted that with this newly acquired freedom of thought, and the subsequent "death" of traditional European values, people would frantically search for, and embrace, new, false sources of meaning. He included as examples: the forthcoming of cataclysmic wars, the proliferation of materialistic greed, and the pursuit of ever more powerful forms of intoxication, all of these theories coming to their fruition during this century. The traditional European values that have defined our culture for centuries are certainly not yet extinct, but their prevalence and influence has been severely curtailed, subsequently creating a state of confusion that has given way to one of the most tumultuous eras in history. This century has seen the rise to power of maniacal demagogues, like Hitler and Stalin, the devastation of two World Wars, the political influence of imperialistic corporations, and the creation of a widespread drug culture. We have not yet awakened to the necessary evolution that is required to cure our diseased system of values, because we refuse to see fault in them out of cowardice. Thus, Nietzsche concludes that mankind, through its inherent fear of leading a meaningful existence, has become so far removed from God that we have, in fact, killed him. As Nietzsche predicted, we live in a convoluted world of misplaced priorities, where the will to a meaningful existence has been all but replaced by man's constant flight from actuality, which is derived from an inherent inclination to intellectual laziness. If a person becomes consciously aware of the perversity of our Western culture, they will undoubtedly become severely depressed and disillusioned, but this realization can be "cured" in any number of ways. A person can completely lose themselves in their occupation and daily activities, subsequently becoming a "machine," believing their worth is measured solely by their level of production. A person can adopt an opinion as an absolute doctrine, such as racism, giving them a convenient "scapegoat" for their shortcomings, and absolving them of all feelings of responsibility and culpability fo f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Nature Nurture.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Raegan Robb Psych101 Dec.9th 1996 Nurture Plus Nature The classic debated topic of nurture versus nature has been, and always will be an argumentative subject in the scientific world. Some psychologists and scientists share the view that our behavioral aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing. While other opposing specialists argue the outlook in science that agrees with the naturalist idea. This concept of naturalistic ideas supports the hereditary genetic framework, inherited from our parents, is the sole determining factor in our behavioral characteristics. These two opposing viewpoints have produced a multitude of ideas, theories, and arguments in the history of psychology. John Broadus Watson, the father of American behaviorism, greatly reinforced the source of nurture by studying learned and adaptive behavior patterns in our environmental surroundings (Rathus p.13). During this same time of revolutionary ideas in psychology, American psychologist, Arnold Gesell supported the opposite views of Watson. Gesell theorized that "physical and motor growth and development is monitored and regulated by an automatic natural process"(Rathus p.13). Each of these ideas has persisted strongly in the world of psychology from the nineteenth century on into the twentieth, but now a new and united psychology world acknowledges both theories equally. It is imagined, today, that the explanation of our behavioral characteristics originates from both our heredity, and the environment in which we were raised. This report supports the theory that both aspects of nurture, with the addition of nature are involved in and explain our complete behaviors. Many studies and experiments have been conducted in recent years of psychology to give this combined idea its appealing thesis. A great deal of research and experimentation has been conducted in order to solve the puzzling results that derive from situational differences in being raised. The different causes and effects of various situations, focus on the actual importance, and necessity of proper nurturing in childhood development (Turecki). Studies on the early developing years in children show how effects of various environmental situations can cause mixed attitudes, personalities, beliefs, sexual preference, and other behavioral patterns in children (Turecki & Adams). For example, studies have been conducted on whether children that have been raised by single parents are going to develop differently than if both natural parenting members were present through a child's infancy and adolescents. There are also cases being studied about step parenting, or entirely different parenting with the process of adoption. With a shocking change of one or both parents in any stage of life, attitudes, and reactions are apt to become altered with a new lifestyle. Also with step or adopted parents, entirely different siblings could possibly become added to the family structure, altering the environments of all affected children. Psychologists have found that, although various situational differences can be traumatic in a child's life, the influence of the upbringing environment doesn't overshadow the hereditary source of behavior (Rathus p.112). Extreme concern has also risen about the effects of such traumatic childhood events and genetical characteristics on sexual orientation. The subject of gay or lesbian parenting is also a major concern not only in psychology, but for many people around the world. Psychologists wonder if the affects of this erratic situational difference will result in a inner-conflict between a child's hereditary instincts and environmental behavior. Although the factors of genetics may have a small deciding component to sexual orientation, psychologist John Money, concluded that "sexual orientation is not under the direct governance of chromosomes and genes" (Rathus p.367-368). Children from these conditions have usually been found to acquire a more admissible attitude towards homosexuals through this altered environmental upbringing. However, children raised in these same conditions may, or may not display homosexual tendencies determined by both genetic factors and environmental experiences. In other exceptions, children often develop problems even though their environment seems to be entirely common. Psychologists have come to question the quality of the relationship between parent and sibling, and also the raising and discipline methods. Take the example of a naughty or extremely hyperactive young boy raising hell, and throwing tantrums out in public. When we witness children in this category, we often automatically think, "Why doesn't his mother control him?" We assume that the cause of his behavior problems can be found in his environment, possibly poor parenting techniques. This false assumption, however, may be an unfair judgment upon actual quality parenting. Recent researchers have shown that children may be born with a variety of personality characteristics which can lead to behavioral problems, and are not related to poor parenting techniques (Turecki). Psychologist and twin researcher David Rowe stated that "Parents should be blamed less for kids who have problems and take less credit for kids who turn out well" (Turecki). In the circumstance of rowdy children, psychologists often question both sides of genetic and environmental factoring. Are mischievous children born that way, or raised that way? The answer may be both. With pioneering studies on temperamental children, Stella Chess, M.D., and Alexander Thomas, M.D., concluded that children were initially born a certain way, and then because of the way they interacted with their environment, they continued to grow this way. Chess and Alexander also concluded through their "difficult child" research in the late 1950's, that ten percent of normal children were difficult children from birth (Tuecki). Expanding on the research of Chess and Alexander, Stanley Turecki, M.D., reestimated that twenty percent of normal children were temperamentally difficult from the time of birth. Turecki, a confused parent himself, recommended that "parents of difficult children make an important distinction between willful misbehavior which is under the control of the child, and expressions of innate temperament, which are really beyond a child's control" (Turecki). Thus it is crucial for parents to recognize which misbehaviors are related to genetic aspects and which are associated with behavioral decisions when discipline is necessary. Psychologists such as Turecki, Rowe, Alexander, Chess and numerous others have all added contributing ideas and research to the point of nature plus nurture, but one man's revolutionary research and ideas could not be ignored on this subject. Thomas J. Bouchard's famous studies on twins at the University of Minnesota allowed the comparison between exact human genetic copies ("John Bouchard" Encarta Encyclopedia). These unique experiments modified the scientific views of genetic similarities and the influence of environmental surroundings. This research conducted by Bouchard and other twin researchers also presented accurate information on the importance of heredity and environment (Turecki). Similarities between identical and even fraternal twins supports the superior importance of a genetical impact on behavior. In the opposite view, however, differences intervening between behaviors of identical or fraternal twins defends the importance of the upbringing environment (Rathus p.112). Research in this subject, originating from Bouchard and others, has revealed an extensive range of similarities between identical twins raised together and separately. It is evident that two children sharing all one hundred percent of their genetic makeup (identical) will present several similarities, compared to children that only share fifty percent of similar genes. The physical appearance of identical twins will obviously be more alike in resemblance, height, weight, and even have more closely related blood cholesterol levels, than fraternal twins, or other siblings altogether (Rathus p.112). By studying identical twins that had grown up separate from each other, Bouchard was appalled by the similarities that endured just as though they had been reared in the exact environment. Some of these strong behavioral traits included shyness, activity levels, risk aversion, achievement, optimism, irritability, sociability, cognitive development, physical gestures, patterns of speech, and even similar hair-styles and brands of toothpaste (Turecki & Rathus p.112). Being a twin involves sharing almost everything together in life from toys, rooms, or clothing to appearance and psychological characteristics. Unfortunately, sharing psychological characteristics through hereditary can possibly lead to sharing psychological disorders as well. It is clear that the closer the genetic similarities are between twins (identical or fraternal), family members, or perhaps distant cousins, the more likely similar disorders are receptive to people in the same gene pool. Studies have proven that identical twins have a higher fate, than fraternal twins, to share psychological disorders such as autism, anxiety, substance abuse, and schizophrenia (Rathus p.112). Hypoglycemia, diabetes, alcoholism, lactose intolerance, and other biological disorders in the metabolism can also become mutual problems between identical twins, and also, with a less chance, in fraternal twins as well (Masters). Determining from the evidence presented by research and studies on twins, it may appear that the genetic heredity of nature has a prevailing edge over the environmental factors of behavior. Following his extensive research on twins, Thomas Bouchard concluded that 1) "Genetic factors exert a pronounced and pervasive influence on behavioral variability, and 2) the effect of being reared in the same home is negligible for many psychological traits"(Turecki). Following his various research on twins it is indisputable that Bouchard heavily supported the genetical factors involved in behavioral characteristics. Although Bouchard presented quality evidence behind his statements supporting the general roles in behavior, the various effects of extreme environmental situations was overlooked in his findings. This contradicting evidence later resurfaced through research by Adler, Plomin, Rende, and others (Rathus p.345). Bouchard also expressed his optimism in genetics, stating that seventy percent of the variations for intelligence quotient (IQ) is linked to heredity (Turecki). The topic over the influence of genetics on intelligence has also become a common disputed topic. These new experts have balanced the importance of heredity plus environment on intelligence despite Bouchard's original speculations through his related studies. Similar twin studies, identical to Bouchard's, have resulted in concluding that closely related kindred do, infact, share similar IQs than compared to distant family members or non-related people. These studies also revealed supporting evidence that the influences of environmental factors can equally contribute to IQ. scores as well. Identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings, and cousins raised in diverse situations from one another, resulted in dissimilar intelligence levels( Rathus p.344-345). Dr. William Greeno, a neuroscientist at the University of Illinois, has experimented with situational differences and the effects on intelligence. Greeno exposed laboratory rodents to several types of laboratory environments ranging from ordinary and plain mesh cages to complex and stimulating surroundings. The results that Dr. Greeno found, were that rodents placed in excelling and stimulating circumstances appear to be smarter than normal laboratory rats having more connections per nerve cell in different brain regions (Adams). Psychologist Craig Ramey created applicable research comparable to William Greeno's with the placement of disadvantaged children into enriched environment. With his early intervention in a child's life, Ramey's idea was to "cultivate their soil, so that an enriched environment would act like a fertilizer to the developing brains of these children" (Adams). With alike results to William Greeno's lab rats, Craig Ramey also concluded that factors such as socioeconomic status, educational and cognitive resources, and resource environments, can have major effects on the outcome of intelligence. This application of importance between circumstantial raising environments and the origin of intelligence directs to the necessity of nurture as well as nature in the formation of behavioral characteristics. Therefore, Thomas Bouchard's one-sided views on hereditary importance, can be countered with supporting evidence of environmental importance as well. It remains clear by the excessive amounts of research and examinations on how this engaging argument could provoke many disputes in the scientific world. Thomas Bouchard's research heavily favored the effects of heredity on behavior. While Craig Ramey and Dr. William Greeno presented opposing evidence for the importance of environmental influences. Other theories were presented by Stella Chess, Alexander Thomas, Stanley Turecki, and others supporting that children born difficult can be changed with corrective parenting. Yet David Rowe's research related the opposite view that children were affected slightly by their raising environment. Today with the excess of research and theories supporting each view equally, perhaps Arnold Gesell and John B. Watson would agree that a combination of nurture plus nature is the origin of our behavioral characteristics. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\NatureNurture.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Nature/Nurture " The dubious history of the heredity environment controversy can be easily traced as far back as the start of the present century with at least some historical evidence placing the roots of this dispute in the time of John Locke. This controversy has continued despite continual reiteration that the critical question is not how much of a trait is due to heredity and how much is due to environment, but rather how environment transact to influence development." ( Wachs , 1983, p. 386). This paper will focus on the nature/nurture controversy and the extent to which an individuals intellectual level is determined either by inborn intelligence or by environmental factors. The relative powers of nature and nurture have been actively pursed by psychologists and biologists striving to determine how heredity and environment influence the development of intelligence. Before we can go on to discuss the relationships between intelligence and the controversy that exists between the different schools of thought regarding inherited or environmental issues we must have an understanding of what intelligence really is. 2 Of all the words used in pressed day psychology, intelligence is one of the most difficult to define and is also one of the most controversial. There is however, a general agreement that intelligence refers to the overall faculties of the mind which concern themselves with the sorting of information in the brain after it has been received by the senses, the perceiving of relationships between this new data and information which is already in memory, and the capacity to make rapid and appropriate decisions as a result of the previous processes. The intellectual faculties of the brain are dynamic and interactive and relate to the capacity of the central nervous system to respond speedily and appropriately in a rapidly changing and potentially threatening environment. Raymond J. Corsini provides us with a somewhat more simplistic definition of the term intelligence. According to Corsini (1984) the term intelligence can be employed to indicate the amount of knowledge available and the rapidity with which new knowledge is acquired; the ability to adapt to new situations and to handle concepts, relationships, and abstract symbols. While the heredity/environment topic continues to be a controversial issue, a great deal of evidence has been gathered to support both arguments. In order to investigate the topic of nature/nurture it is important to consider a variety of research elements. Among these elements are some of the most relevant issues pertaining to this subject including: twin, adoption, family, orphanage life, IQ, and race studies. It is to these studies we will now turn our attention. TWIN STUDIES The importance of twin studies is evident if we look at the studies objectively, if intelligence is basically hereditary, identical twins who have the same genetic legacy, should be concordant for that trait than are fraternal twins, which are no more alike genetically than other siblings. Burt's (1958) famous study show that the intelligence test scores of identical twins, whether reared together or apart , display considerably higher correlation than the scores of fraternal twins. Burt's work is currently viewed with caution due to the manner in which he gathered and interpreted his data (Vernon, 1979). However, Burt's research provides an important foundation for this research. Jone's study (1946) shows that there is a modest difference in the intelligence test scores of twins reared apart, and the more divergent the environments, the greater the difference. "While environmental factors are important in raising or lowering a child's level of intellectual performance, these studies demonstrate that they only do so within limits set by heredity." (Mussen, Conger, and Kagon, 1963 p.52) The Louisville Twin Study (Wilson, 1983) showed that environmental considerations such as characteristics of home and the interaction of the mother with the infant, have a prominent effect upon the infant's mental development. Vermon (1979) concludes that we may attribute 60 percent of the determination of IQ status to heredity, 30 percent to environment and 10 percent tot he combined effects of the two. David Layzer's (1976) study indicates that the more relevant a given task is to an individuals specific environmental challenges, the more important are the efface of this interaction. A child grown up in circumstances that provide motivation, reward and opportunity for the acquisition of verbal skills will achieve a higher level of verbal proficiency than his twin reared in an environment hostile to this id of development. According to Layer if two egg twins are reared together we cannot assume the environmental factors are the same for both. If one twin has a greater verbal aptitude he will devote more time and effort to this kind of learning than his twin. So test results on verbal proficiency will not reflect genetic difference, only, but differences between the ways in which the genetic endowments of the twins have interacted with their common environment. Longitudinal studies have also found the influence of heredity on intelligence increases with age. Among 500 pairs of twins, identical twins became more and more alike in IQ from infancy to adolescence, while fraternal twins became less alike. The home environment had some impact, but genetic factors had more (Plomin, Pedersen, McClean, Nesselroade, and Bergman, 1988). IQ of identical twins are more highly correlated than less closely related people and IQ's of children growing up in similar circumstances tend to be more highly correlated than those of children growing up in dissimilar circumstances. This fact helps to illustrate that IQ is strongly influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. ADOPTION STUDIES Adoption studies are important for us to look at because they provide one of the few methods available for separating the effects of environment and heredity in intellectual development. When adopted children are more like their biological parents and siblings, we see the influence of heredity; when they resemble their adoptive families more, we see the influence of environment. The Texas Adoption Project (Horn, 1983) conducted intelligence tests from parents and children in 300 adoptive families and compared them with similar measurers available for the biological mothers of the same adopted children. The results of this study supported the hypotheses that genetic variability is an important influence in the development of individual differences for intelligence. The study also concluded that adopted children resemble their biological mothers more than they resemble the adoptive parents who reared them from birth. In an extensive study dealing with the mental growth of foster children after they had lived in their new homes found that on the whole, they improved their mental status, the extent of improvement being contingent upon the quality of the foster home, the length of residence there, and the age at which the child entered the new environment. It found, also, that siblings living in different foster homes resembled one another much less than brothers and sisters ordinarily do. In general, the results demonstrate that improved environmental conditions which endure can raise the level of intelligence, if optimal conditions are provided early in life. A child born into a poor home often shows an improvement in intelligence if adopted by a more intelligent and stimulating family, and it has been found that Negro children born into backward rural families improve steadily if they move to the city. But the amount of improvement is always limited by the mental capacity that was there a t birth. Freeman. (1928) The Minnesota Adoption Studies of 1974 included the Transracial Adoption Study to test he hypotheses that black and interracial children that are reared by white parents would perform on IQ tests and school achievement measures as well as other adopted children. Results were that black and interracial scored as well as adoptees in other studies. The high IQ scores of the black and interracial children showed that genetic racial differences do not account for a moor portion of the IQ performance difference between racial groups. The study also found that black and interracial children reared in the culture of the tests and the school perform as well as other adopted children in similar families. Marie Dkoday and Harold Shell's {1949) report of a longitudinal adoption study of IQ is one of the most frequently cited articles in developmental psychology. The IQ scores of adopted children tested four times between infancy and adolescence were compared to characteristics of both their adoptive parents and their biological parents. The results of the study were impressive, the correlation between the IQ of 63 biological mothers and their adopted children indicated increasing hereditary influence. However, a study done on adopted children in France found that white children abandoned at birth by lower-class parents and adopted at an average age of 4 months by white professionals, when compared with their siblings who we reared by their biological parents, the adoptees scored about 14 points higher than the average IQ and were less likely to be held back in school (Schiff, Duyme, Dumaret and Tomkiewicz, 1982). Two of the largest adoptive studies were conducted by Horn, Scarr and Weinberg. They concluded that individual differences in IQ are substantially influenced by genetic differences among individuals and that family environment also has a significant impact. Plomit and Defries (1980) in their studies found that genetic factors account for 50 percent of the variance in IQ scores and that environmental factors 15 percent. FAMILY STUDIES Bouchard and McGud (1981) conducted a review of 111 studies in the area of familial resemblance's in measured intelligence. The purpose of the review is to provide a comprehensive summary of the literature on the IQ correlation's between relatives. In general the review reported that the higher the proportion of genes two family members have in common the higher the average correlation between their IQ's. "The patterns of averaged correlation's is remarkably consistent with pyloric theory. This is not to discount the importance of environmental factors; monozyotic twins reared apart are far from perfectly correlated, dizygotic twins are more similar than other biological siblings. That the data support the inference of partial genetic determination of IQ is indisputable; that they are informative about the precise strength of this effect is dubious." Buouchard and McGue. (1981). Burk's (1928) study indicates that the maximum contribution of the best home environment to intelligence is about 20 points and that the least cultured kind of American home environment may depress the IQ by as much as 20 points. Bradly and Caldwell (1976) conducted research regarding infants early home environment as related to the children's mental test performance at age three. Their studies indicated that home environment scores during the first two years of life were strongly related to fifty-four month IQ scores. The studies produced evidence linking the quality of stimulation provided in early years of life to cognitive ability in young children. ORPHANAGE LIFE Orphanage life is a form on environmental deprivation, since the children lack personal attention that would occur in normal families. These children generally show slower intellectual developments, as reported by Skeels (1940) and J.M Hunt (198O). Jense, (1969) found that orphanage children gained in IQ from an average of 64 at an average age of nineteen months to 96 at six years of age as a result of being given social stimulation and placement in good homes at between two and three years of age. Children who were let in an orphanage environment continued to show a decrease in IQ points, and as adults their lifestyle reflected the past deprived environment. Many of these adults who had spent all their early life in an orphanage worked at jobs requiring minimum skills. Thus demonstrating the environmental impact on intelligence. IQ AND RACE There is no evidence that differences in IQ scores between cultural, ethnic, or racial groups are due to hereditary factors. But many studies point of a strong genetic influence on differences between individuals within a group. About 50 percent of the difference in intelligence between persons in a group is believed to be genetically determined, with the remaining variation due to each person's experience (Weinbergt. 1989). Jensen (1976) argues however that reported differences in average IQ between black and white children is due in part to systematic genetic difference. At this point one or two somewhat consistent differences can also be mentioned about race. Comparisons of black and white samples in the United States show typical IQ differences of nearly 15 points in favor of whites. The black white difference depends somewhat on sex membership and upon what special ability is measured. The differences IQ and in school achievement are smaller for black females. black do relatively better in rote memory tests and relatively poorer is visual test (Vernon, 1979). For other special groups Jews tend to score higher than other white ethnic groups. Japanese and Chinese tend also to score higher than the average white groups. Corsini. (1984). In conclusion this paper had included the findings of numerous studies in order to examine the heredity/environment controversy. From the studies we have gained an understanding of the importance of genetic constitution, the significance of which in the formation of intelligence and individuality is clearly demonstrated. The studies have also provided ample evidence to support the importance of environment influences in individual development. Clearly, the studies demonstrate that the contribution of nature and nurture may no longer be set in opposition for each is conceivable as one factor, or as a set of factors in a complex situation. Indeed, one has no meaning without the other, both nature and nurture are inextricable related in intellectual development. Thus, instead of writing nature and nurture we should write nature/nurture for the two sets of facts exist as integrals in a single process of development. The two are mutually inclusive, since innate tendencies are capable of expression on in terms of environments, and environmental influences can only act together with the genetic bases of individuality. Bibligraphy Bochard, J.,M McGue, M. (1981). Familial Studies of Intelligence: A Review. University of Minnesota. Burks, BS. (1928). The relative Influence of Nautre and Nurture Upon Mental Development. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Bradley Hand Caldwell, B. (1976). The Relation of Infants Home Environments to Mental Test Performance at Fifty-For Months. University of Arkansas. Cancro, Rober. (1971). Intelligence, Genetic and Envronmental Influences. New York. Corsini, Raymond J. (1984). Encyclopedia of Psychology Volume 2. New York. Freeman, Fin. (1928). Influence of Environment of the Intelligence, School Achievement, and Conduct of Foster Children. New York. Horn, J. (1964). The Texas Adoption Project: Adopted Children and their Intellectual Ressemblance to Biological and Adoptive Parents. University of Texas. Jesen, (1976). The IQ Contraversy. New York. Plomin, Robert, De Fries J.C. (1983) The Colorado Adoption Project. The Univeristy of Colorado. Scarr, Sandra (1983). The Minnesota Adoption Studies; Genetic Differences and Malleability. Yale University. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\No Threat of Death.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Threat of Death- As the war on crime continues, two truths hold steady: eliminating all crime is impossible, and controlling it is a must. The main weapon used to control crime in this war is deterrence. The government's deterrent for committing murder is the death penalty. The fear of death will not deter every person who contemplates murder from doing it. Whether it is for religious reasons and the hope of salvation or something else, stopping some people is not possible (Cohen 48). The intent is not to stop those people, but instead every other would-be killer. Capital Punishment has been in the national spotlight for many years and the center of the debate still remains whether it actually deters would be offenders. Does this age-old penalty for the ultimate sin achieve its goal? There are many lofty and rational arguments on both sides of this issue. Advocates of the death penalty claim that the primary reason for this harsh punishment is that the fear of death discourages people from committing murder. The main ways in which they support this theory are: the severity of the punishment, various polls of citizens and prisoners, and two in particular studies. The most obvious deterring justification is the severity of punishment (Calebresi 19). This means, put simply, to punish for a crime in a way that the punishment outweighs the crime. If the punishment for robbing a bank is to spend one day in jail, then bank robbing would become a daily occurance. On the same note, if there is a reward for a lost item of jewelry and the reward is less than the selling price for that jewelry, the finder has no reason to bring it back. On the other hand, if the reward exceeds the value of the jewelry, the new owner will bring it back very promptly. In the case of capital punishment, if a person wants someone dead badly enough, and the punishment for murder is a short stay in prison, what will possibly keep that person from doing the unthinkable (Van Den Haag 68). If a person is afraid for their life, then the stakes for their actions are much higher, probably even too high for most people. Many psychologists believe that these "stakes" do not even have to be in conscious thought for them to work. The theory is that a person's conscience weighs out many factors in all instances. While a would-be offender might be contemplating the deed, the death penalty imbeds itself into that person's subconscience as a possible consequence of their actions, and thus the conscience of that person begins to tilt to one side (Guernsey 70). Another argument for the side that says capital punishment deters is the majority opinion. New York, until recently, had been one of the few states left that had yet to employ a death penalty for murder. In a recent opinion-poll, fifty-seven percent of the respondents say that they believe that the death penalty deters other criminals from killing (Kuntz 3). As it turns out, the citizens of society are not the only ones that think the death penalty deters. The death-roll inmates also feel this way. Through voicing their opinions on how they feel and their actions (i.e., appeals, more appeals, etc.), they make it clear that losing their life scares them badly. There are two main studies that the proponents of the death penalty refer to as proof of capital punishment's deterring qualities. The first such study is by New York University professor Isaac Ehrlich. Through Professor Ehrlich's research and studies of statistics that span sixty-six years, he concludes that each execution prevents around seven or eight people from committing murder (Worsnop 402). In 1985, an economist from the University of North Carolina by the name of Stephen K. Layson publishes a report that shows that every execution of a murderer deters eighteen would be murderers (Guernsey 68). While the numbers from these studies might seem minute compared to the large number of murders committed every day in the United States, the numbers become quite large when discussed in the terms of the nearly four thousand executions that occurred in this country over the last sixty-five years (Guernsey 65). While advocates of the death penalty are putting forth extremely strong arguments that support the proposition that capital punishment prevents murders, opponents of the death penalty are putting forth arguments that are just as weighty saying that the death penalty does nothing of the kind. Atypical instances of murder, such as ones dealing with juvenile or mentally deficient offenders, statistics make up the bulk of the opponents' arguments against the deterring effects of capital punishment. Most Americans believe that juveniles are exempt from capital punishment. This is not true. As of recently, over thirty people are on death row for crimes they committed before they turned eightteen (Guernsey 25). The opponents to the death penalty argue that juveniles do not have the moral responsibility to bring a deterrent effect to them (Bazan 17). As Richard L. Worsnop writes in his article entitled Death Penalty Debate Centers on Retribution: Peer pressure and family environment subject adolescents to enormous psychological and emotional stress. Adolescents respond to stressful situations by acting impulsively and without the mature judgement expected of adults. These characteristics are shared by all adolescents....Thus, the possibility of capital punishment is meaningless to juveniles and has no deterrent effect. Mentally deficient offenders are in the same situation that juveniles are in. "As many as 30 percent of the 2,300 prisoners on death row may be retarded or mentally impaired (Guernsey 30)." For a person that does not know what is right or wrong, or even more, does not understand that he or she could face death for what he is doing, capital punishment is not very likely going to have a deterring effect. Another situation that the opponents build their platform upon is in the case of offenders impaired by drugs or alcohol or in an emotional rage. If a person is not thinking straight, then chances are very good that they are not going to be dwelling on what the consequences of their actions might be (Van Den Haag 63). One simple instance could be a man goes down to the local bar, drinks a few beers, and gets in a fight and someone ends up dying. This situation classifies two different ways. First, the man has alcohol in his system and is not in full control of his decision making processes. Second, because of the fight or flight response in his body, the emotional rush from adrenaline will overcome his rational thought. Capital punishment obviously does not deter this man in the least by the thought of ending up in an electric chair or taking a lethal injection. Another example of emotional rage might be when someone "sees red." For instance, a man (or woman) comes home to find his spouse sleeping with another person. The man loses control, pulls a gun, and shoots his spouse and her lover dead. The man is overcome with emotion and is very doubtfully contemplating the thought that he himself could face the same fate (Guernsey 68). Statistics are on the side of the opponents to capital punishment. In the early 1960's, a study by Thorsten Sellin compares statistics of side-by-side states, one with the death penalty and one without. Sellin picks apart just about every detail he can find and concludes that there is no evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty (Worsnop 398). Hans Zeisel, a law and sociology professor, theorizes that "if executions deter murderers, those states that stopped executions in the late 1960's would have experienced a greater increase in the murder rate than those states that stopped executions decades ago." Zeisel finds no sudden increase in the murder rate and concludes that the death penalty has no deterring value (Worsnop 2). Murders will continue, it seems, no matter what is done about it. The proponents of capital punishment say that this is true, but the deterring effects of the death penalty control it somewhat. Opponents to this say that the death penalty holds no deterring effect of any kind. They believe that capital punishment is just useless killing with no inherent value. This debate is likely to continue for years to come. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\none.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tom DinkelPeriod 5 The poet's use of mockery as diction conveys his disillusioned attitude toward the men that plan the battles without actually fighting in them. Using the words "If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath," to describe the majors allows the reader to picture the majors as old, fat, out of shape men that spend their days "guzzling and gulping in the best hotel" safe from any danger. Fierce, bald and short of breath give the reader a negative feel for the majors as they are not described in any positive manner. These terms cause the reader to feel disgust for the majors. The poets use of the words guzzling and gulping with their alliterative effect cause the reader to consider the majors as gluttons gathered at the table. When the reader completes his mental picture of the majors in the best hotel, the imagery of glory hogs is complete. The poet's diction choice, "Reading the Roll of Honor. 'Poor young chap, ' I'd say - ' I used to know his father well; Yes, we've lost heavily in this last scrap.' " of casual language attempts to make the war seem carefree and nonchalant. The word "chap" conveys an casual attitude towards the heroes as people. It seems to elevate the status of the majors to a false superior position. "Scrap" makes it seems as if the soldier's death occurred on a playground, not a battlefield. It seems to trivialize war in general. "And when the war is done and the youth stone dead, I'd toddle safely home and die - in bed." The poet's last lines give the reader an insight into the true wishes of the soldier. The youth stone dead allow the reader to acknowledge the finality of death and the wasted lives of the young soldiers while the old, fat men are allowed the luxury of living to old age and then dying in their own beds. "Toddle" is a word that not only describes the gait of the fat, old men but also the irony of the youth stone dead and the fat, old men waddling home. Through his use of mocking diction, the poet conveys his disgusted attitude towards the toddling old men dying in their beds while the good die young. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Novelty Never Lasts.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ English 12 Hon. 10/19/96 Novelty Never Lasts One thing I have recently begun to learn in life is that the novelty of anything, given a little bit of time, no matter how fascinating or unusual it was at first, usually wears off quicker than one would prefer. I have found this to apply to nearly everything I have experienced in my life, and a frightening term comes to mind. "jaded." At least it should be frightening to a mere seventeen year old, with so much left to do in life. I am more than confident that this is just a passing phase, but nonetheless I have discovered how quickly the novelty of certain things can wear off from the experience I have had in the jobs I have held and from the repeated action of doing anything that I find enjoyable on a regular basis. Through the jobs I have held both at a local pizza restaurant and movie theater, I have found that any novelty that pizza and movies once had is no longer there. I can easily remember back before my first job at the pizzeria when I savored the opportunity to eat pizza as often as I could. Now, thanks to the fact that I ate pizza almost every time I worked during that year, pizza just doesn't taste that good anymore. Whenever my family orders a pizza for dinner, I really don't look forward to it as much as I used to. Instead, I just shrug it off, "Pizza, big deal, what else do we have to eat?" This same loss of appreciation has happened with my second job as well. I have been working at Sony Theater's Palace Nine for about four months now, and I can easily say that I don't really enjoy an outing to the movies as much as I used to enjoy them. Probably because I see them all for free now, but mostly because I know exactly how the movie theater works, I no longer experience the same thrill about going to the movies that I once did. I know all the ins and outs of the business I need to, and I am no longer fascinated by the movie theater industry. I find this loss of appreciation unfortunate to say the least, but at least I was making some money in the process. I have also found that novelty can wear off through the repeated action of doing anything that I find enjoyable on a regular basis. A couple examples of this would be billiards and traveling. Last year, my friends and I would drive up to the VIP pool hall almost every weekend and shoot pool until midnight; and we really enjoyed it. Now we only go the pool hall if there is absolutely nothing else in the world to do. My loss of interest in pool is not half as distressing as my loss of interest in traveling. My lack of interest in seeing new places is nothing short of a tragedy I feel, and it, like other things, is a result of doing it too much. Just about every summer, spring break or Christmas vacation my family travels to a new part of the country, or a new part of another country. It seems to me like we've been to so many places around the United States that there isn't much left to see, even though I know this is not true. I think it is really sad that the actual fun of traveling to new places isn't as fun as it used to be, but I am confident that this jadedness is just a passing phase. In the past year, I have unfortunately discovered the truth behind the cliché that "familiarity breeds contempt." While I don't hold these activities in contempt (yet), I certainly no longer look forward to movies, pizza, playing pool, or traveling with quite the same interest and enthusiasm I used to bring to the activities. Perhaps it is time to find some new hobbies. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Oedipus Rex.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Predestined Fate In ancient Greek society they believed that ones life is predestined and that ones fate is sealed. What is meant to occur will happen no matter what that person does. In "Oedipus Rex" Oedipus' fate is doomed from his birth because of the actions of his ancestors. Unlike Oedipus most people today don't believe in predestined fate. People can be all they want to be regardless of their background or the circumstances of their lives. However some people don't realize that they are in charge of their own live and can make conscience decisions to change the course of their lives. One of Oedipus' ancestors committed a terrible act of rape some time ago. This behavior obviously didn't please the gods and thus they punished Oedipus' family for several generations. When Iocaste and Laios gave birth to Oedipus they were aware of the prophecy that he would one day kill his father and then marry his mother. With this in mind they tried to have Oedipus killed to avoid this horrible fate. However they couldn't kill him themselves because murder of their own son would get the gods angry all over again. So they tried to get some one to take Oedipus out to the mountains and let him die of natural causes. Some people might argue that they are still indirectly responsible for the death but apparently the Greeks only considered it bad if you were directly responsible for the act of murder. The problem is that this person never left Oedipus on the mountains as he was instructed to and therefore Oedipus never died. So Iocaste and laios go on living worry free thinking that they outsmarted the gods and avoided their horrible fate, but it will catch up with them soon enough. They can't change their fate, there is no way to avoid what the gods already decided will happen. No matter what Iocaste and Laios tried to do to avoid their fate the gods would do something to make sure that it didn't change their final fate. Many of us today would argue that this is very unfair. Oedipus didn't do anything to deserve this type of punishment however he will pay for the crime of his ancestors. And there is nothing that he can do to prevent this from happening. He is basically cursed for life. His fate is sealed. Unlike Oedipus, we can change our fate. We can do what we want with our lives. As our Army tells us, "Be all that you can be". There are more opportunities than ever for us to promote our standard of living and increase our place in society. It's true that there is a lot of prejudice and discrimination in today's society that many people still have to struggle to overcome. We very often judge other people by what race or ethnic background they belong to or simply on their general appearance, gender or age. Society also holds a lot of things against you. If you ever had a criminal record it will make it very difficult for you to get a high rank job. If you ever used drugs or were an alcoholic people sometimes assume that you are still "messed up" even if you have been clean for some time. But despite all this it is still very much up to us what we do with our lives. If we choose to go to college and get a good education there are many ways that we can go about receiving financial assistance if we need it. Despite all the discouragement we may get from today's society there is also a lot of encouragement and assistance available to us if we are willing to work for it. Our fate is not sealed. There are no barriers on our life or on what we are capable of doing. I personally believe in the statement that all things are possible if you put your mind to it. When you are really determined to achieve a goal that you have set for yourself it is possible to overcome any obstacle. Some times people try to predict their fate or other peoples fate. But very often they can be wrong. People change, their values change, and their plans for the future change. No one's future is engraved in stone. Some times a student in high school may be voted most likely to succeed and turn out to be a failure. Or the student that shows little promise in school may turn out to be a huge success. One can never tell. Social Mobility is one reason people move to this country from other countries with more rigid social structures. We've all heard the phrase "The American Dream". The ability to be able to turn one's life around and move up the social ladder is something this country prizes itself on. This country was made strong and wealthy by people coming from other countries and turning their lives around. If it wasn't for people who wanted to change their fate and build a better life for themselves this country wouldn't even exist today. Sometimes people reach a point in their lives where it seems as though they no longer have any choice in their lives. They may have made a really bad decision or perhaps just ran into a very unfortunate course of events. But the fact remains that anything can happen. You never can tell for sure how a particular course of events will turn out. Very often it's peoples mentality that makes them think that they can't be any more than they are right now. They start to tell themselves that they will never amount to anything more than what they are right now. They start to limit their options because they feel that they aren't smart enough or talented enough to follow through with their ideas. It's this sort of thinking that makes people think that their fate is predestined, when in reality they have many options open to them. And many different ways to change their lives. Instead of telling themselves "Oh I'll never be able to do that" they should tell themselves "Sure, I can do that if I put my mind to it". Oedipus' fate was sealed. Unfortunately for him he was cursed from birth. There was nothing he could do that would change the final outcome of his life. Our fate, however, isn't sealed. We can change the course of our lives and we can change our destiny. Nothing is certain. We should take advantage of this by making the most of our lives. We shouldn't just go with the flow and take what is given to us. We should keep trying to achieve more and more until we reach our goals. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\On Aristotle.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In his Physics, Aristotle examines the theories and ideas regarding nature of his predecessors and then, based upon his own ideas, theories and experiments, argues against what he believes are incorrect conclusions. One idea that Aristotle argues specifically is teleology. Teleology is the idea that natural phenomena are determined not only by mechanical causes but by an overall design or purpose in nature. In this essay, I will examine what Aristotle's concept of teleology was and look at why he held this conception. First, let's talk about what we mean by teleology. Teleology is the study of ends, purposes, and goals. The word comes from the Greek word telos which means "end" or "purpose". In cultures which have a teleological world view, the ends of things are seen as providing the meaning for all that has happened or that occurs. If you think about history as a timeline with a beginning and end, in a teleological view of the world and of history, the meaning and value of all historical events derives from thier ends or purposes. That is, all events in history are future-directed. Aristotle's thought is consistently teleological: everything is always changing and moving, and has some aim, goal or purpose. To borrow from Newtonian physics, we might say that everything has potential which may be actualized. An acorn is potentially and oak tree for example. The process of change and motion which the acorn undertakes is directed at realizing this potential. Aristotle believed that things in nature occur because they serve a purpose. He maintains that organisms develop as they do because they have a natural goal or telos in Greek. "Nature", writes Aristotle, is "a 'principle of motion and change' "(Physics, 200b1), where "motion" or "movement" (or change as we discussed in our classroom) describes the "fulfillment of what exists potentially, in so far as it exists potentially"(201a) in a thing. . But is there any reason for saying nature has a goal? Why cannot the rain rain and the sun shine, not because the sky is cloudy or clear but just by chance? Empedocles argued for a theory of natural selection on the basis of chance. The survival of the fittest means that those who happen to be more fit survive longer. The less fit perish. Aristotle rejects any theory of evolution. Things either occur by chance or they occur "always or for the most part, "which is the opposite of chance. You must admit that things that occur "always or for the most part" occur either by chance, or not by chance. If they occur not by chance, then they occur for a purpose. Let's take the example of monsters. Monsters occur by chance because they are not among those things that are always or for the most part. Man, on the other hand, survives because he is meant to survive. To argue that he is a result of chance is to argue that he does not exist always or for the most part, but only sometimes. This, of course, is absurd. Because most things in nature seem to occur most of the time and exhibit a pattern of change which can be broken up into the four causes, Aristotle argues that nature must have a purpose. Order and conformity to type infer purpose. Aristotle goes on in Book II to make his explanation of purpose in nature more clear by relating natural purpose to artistic creation. In any process of human creation, there is a definite end to be achieved. In order to achieve that end, the artist must complete a series of steps to bring this end about. For example, if you want to build a house, there are certain steps you have to go through in order to bring the house into being. If those steps are not followed, you may very well end up with something that resembles a house but is not a house. Natural processes imitate nature in the way art works come into being. If the art if for an end, nature must even more be for an end. One has only to look at the work of swallows, ants or bees, who have no conscious purpose, to realize that they are nevertheless acting according to a purpose. Mutations are simply nature's failures, the miscarriage of purpose. If all had gone well, the monster would have been a man and that which resembles a house but is not a house would have been a house. When nature fulfills her purpose, man begets man and nothing else. The natural end of anything is to conform to its type, to become what it is designed to be. In his zoological research Aristotle set forth his teleological view of nature based upon his observations. To explain a phenomenon, Aristotle said that one must discover its goal, to understand "that for the sake of which" the phenomenon in question existed. A simple example of this kink of explanations is the duck's webbed feet. According to Aristotle's reasoning, ducks have webbed feet for the sake of swimming which is an activity that supports the goal of a duck's existence. That goal is to find food in water so as to stay alive f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\ORAN The Good the Bad and the Ugly.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ORAN -- The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Oran, peaceful and unprepared, is overcome by Bubonic plague. Separation, isolation and indigence become the common lot of distinct characters whose actions, thoughts and feelings constitute a dynamic story of man imprisoned. Prior to the closing, people went about their business as usual, almost oblivious to the plague. When Oran was shut off from the world, its residents had to adapt to the new conditions of life. Men reacted to the terrible visitation in different ways, according to their beliefs and characters. I believe their reactions were based on their personality and their experience during the plague. Each react to the circumstances of the plague in a unique way, and emerge from the plague with his own new perspective of life and its values. The residents of Oran are as travelers on a long, straight, boring road. They came upon the plague as a traveler comes upon an unexpected fork in the road. Some veer left, some right. A few are unaffected by (or unaware of) the fork in the road, and proceed straight ahead with their lives with very little change in habit. These persons lift themselves above the desperation and focus their actions on the grueling responsibility of making life better for themselves and others. The greatest affliction the citizens of Oran suffer when visited by the plague is not fear but the sense of separation, the loneliness of exile, the pain of imprisonment. The plague has an affect on most everyone in Oran. Some become better people, some worse. Grand, Rambert and Paneloux are all markedly changed afterward. Dr. Rieux and Tarrou are virtually unaffected. Cottard undergoes but a temporary metamorphosis. Monsieur Cottard is a criminal hunted by the law. A silent, secretive, plump little man, he comes to Oran to hide from prosecution. M. Cottard is basically a man lacking in morals, drive and direction, a, " a traveling salesman in wines and spirits." He tries unsuccessfully to hang himself when life seems hopeless. Prior to the plague, he had an aloofness and mistrusted everyone. When the plague descends upon the city, he develops an altruistic side. He sets out to help people. He becomes more amiable as the plague progressed through the population. He tries to take control of his life but becomes discouraged by circumstances. Rather than dealing with the circumstances effectively, he allows them to dominate his life. When the plague passes, and his philanthropic efforts are outmoded, he looses his humanitarian side and starts randomly shooting. The plague gave him only a temporary suspension from prosecution and the plague had only a temporary affect on his behavior. Cottard's true self is basically unchanged by the plague. He is the same moral-less, direction-less, undriven man he was following the plague as he was going into the plague. Joseph Grand is a petty official. He is not motivated by ambition, and therefore never achieved success in life. Rieux said of Grand, "He had all the attributes of insignificance." In spite of his lack of success, he persists in his search for perfection, the perfection of an insignificant aspect of life -- the first sentence of his book. His motive for writing the book seems to be his difficulty in expressing himself, he "couldn't find his words." He leads a dreary, quiet life until the plague seals off the city from the outside world. He is odd and eccentric, but is among the first to volunteer to help with the plague. During the plague, he does his best to assist his fellow man, doing this out of a heartfelt responsibility. During this period of trial, he gains an insight into his writing project and into the reasons why his marriage failed. Grand succumbs to the plague, but recovers. Rieux sees Grand as having a weak constitution, and believes he will therefore probably survive the plague. I would rather believe he survives because he heard his calling in helping the plague victims for the sake of humanity. Grand is an aging man with little to show for his many years. He is still searching vainly for a purpose in life. The plague gives him this purpose. He gains an understanding of his life from his volunteer work. He emerges from the plague a better man, a man with a better understanding of his life's purpose. Father Paneloux, a learned and militant Jesuit priest, interprets the sudden plague as just punishment for the sins of the city. He lectures his congregation on the ills of sin and exhorts his belief that they deserve this affliction. His sermon comes from a black and white, right or wrong way of thinking. Paneloux enrolls in the plague fighter's battalion, and his perception of the plague visibly changes. However, he still does not see the plague as unjust, but rather as merely God's will. He demands his congregation accept and embrace the plague as an unexplainable curse. In the end, he seems to will his own death in order to join the ranks of the victims. He seeks not to identify with the victims to better understand their plight, but rather to become a martyr and saint. Camus saw organized religion as an overbearing, dictatorial, oppressive saddle on the people and used Paneloux to illustrate this viewpoint. For all his education, Paneloux does not exhibit an understanding of his fellow man. His narrow-minded interpretation of the plague as God's punishment for man's indiscretions is typical of organized religion's strong-arm control of the population. Paneloux was changed emotionally following Othan's son's death, but his sermon demonstrated that his religious beliefs still directed his vision for his congregation. Raymond Rambert comes to Oran an egotistical, self-centered hackneyed journalist. He attempts to leave the city by any means possible. I don't believe it was so much because of the plague nor to return to his 'wife,' but to escape the isolation of quarantine. His conscience and morals finally surface and he voluntarily remains to assist Dr. Rieux with his patients. The plague changes Rambert from a hack journalist into a responsible adult. I think Rambert is the most changed individual to survive the plague. I don't think even he realized what a basically good and moral person he was prior to the plague. The fact that he voluntarily remains in Oran to help Dr. Rieux demonstrates an innate moral being lurks deep in the self-centered Raymond Rambert of April. His volunteer work changes him further into the more humanitarian, worldly person that emerges the following February. Rambert survives precisely because he only seeks happiness. Dr. Bernard Rieux fights the plague with great compassion because that was what he was trained to do. He is not seeking heroism, but rather is compelled to relieve the suffering simply because he is a doctor. The plague has little affect upon him because his concern is for his patients, not himself. By concentrating on his mission, Rieux takes control of life and fights out of compassion, not anger or despair. He believes, "The thing is to do your job as it should be done." He is a good, moral person going into the plague, and is basically the same person following the plague. It was inspiring to see that he is not disillusioned by the events of the plague. Jean Tarrou comes innocuously to Oran to escape life and its despair. Yet he realizes his responsibility towards others and acts on that responsibility. Tarrou tries to take control of the situation, and his own life, by organizing the volunteer corps to help fight the plague. He sees the plague as all the evils that plague humanity. Tarrou seeks not just to help the victims, but to become a hero, as saint. He is the plague's final victim. He dies because his efforts were centered on becoming the hero. Tarrou's motives are not humanitarian in nature, as they may appear on the surface. He is driven more by a desire to appear a humanitarian. Tarrou is not truly changed by the plague. These men reacted to the plague in different ways, according to their internal beliefs and values. I believe those who underwent change were basically good persons who had yet to find their hidden goodness. Rieux, Tarrou and Paneloux emerged basically unchanged following the plague. Rambert and Grand were changed into better people because of the plague. Cottard underwent a temporary change, but was really the same person after the plague. Each react to the circumstances of the plague in a unique way, and emerge from the plague with his own new perspective of life and its values. Works Cited Camus, Albert. The Plague. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1971. Carey, Gary. Notes on The Plague. Lincoln, Nebraska: Cliffs Notes, Inc., 1994. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Orientalism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is orientalism? Said made a clear analogy between orientalism and colonialism. They are both set with the same binary opposition. white/ non white occidental/ non occidental In a very detailed and structured study of the orient (behavior, habit, tradition ...) we document a large amount of fact and data. All compile in a general study they produce the illusion of a well understood and objectively constructed knowledge. These are, in fact, mere observations and purely subjective entities (seen only with the western eyes) which do not explain nor reflect the true nature of the object. We then generalize from theses singles observations, set up categories and labels. We are now able to answer questions very simply creating this illusion of knowledge. We witness the realization of cliches; single sided beliefs that fuels themselves upon their own ignorance. SAID then explains how this technique empowers his creator. The rigorous discourse, the elaboration of thought and ideas, subjectively authenticated itself. The content is no longer address and leaves the victim of the discourse reduced to plain and pure denial. The content has become a set of prejudicial belief (cliches). To remind you of the famous aphorism: "the pen is mightier than the sword" He writes: "Orientalism is fundamentally a political doctrine willed over the orient because the orient was weaker than the west." Though injustice has already been served and the political establishment is capitalizing on those cliches, it is interesting to notice that SAID himself already looks at the orient with orientalism (western eye). Was the orient really weaker than the west? Could it be simply that the orient was just farther? May be not interested? Had no curiosity towards the western world? Could it be that the orient was to busy and was not much concern about this western curiosity? Very clearly, Orientalism, a very subjective and erroneous ideology demonstrate its genuine power and how, like a rumor running wild, it is hard to remain objective. I personally understand cliches like subversive negative myths which fashion the understanding and the knowledge of cultures, society and people. They create permanent damages, ingrain false ideas or concepts, instill ignorance and are very difficult to revert or demystify. When SAID examines the effects of western cliches, he describe the orient as orientalized. It is now a subjective notion. The orient became a western concept, orientalism a tool to control and manipulate. This relationship (western/orient) though works both ways: the west becomes as much of a fiction as orient is. We can also look at the west with oriental perspective. In this relation of differences a new western set of representation emerges. Both cultures now understand each other through a web of cliches. We witness an ideology of mutual ignorance leading to far greater differences. What can we do? Is it too late? In another text, writing back or challenging the canon, SAID offers a literary solution. It is the writer responsibility to objectively criticize his discourse and to protect the reader from misleading literature. And as for what as been done, writing back is surely a way to restore truth, denounce myths, abolish cliches and reach out to a more objective literature. It will seems though quite impossible to erase what as been done, to remain objective when even your own thoughts are guided by subjective values deeply rooted in our mind. The effect are much irreversible and the best we can do is not to steer away from subjectivity and remain focus and aware of the power of text. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Originality of Philosophy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Feb.25.1997 Essay Originality of Philosophy What is philosophy? What does a philosopher really do? Questions like these can be answered in a review of Philosophy Now. What can possibly be answered.....questions which have them. And what is it that philosophers study? Generally, most philosophers study questions in which there is no rational or justifiable answer. And the type of articles in the magazine are very interesting because they elighten the reader to question the answers. Some of the articles in this issue are "Bakunin: Anarchist or Antichrist?", "Practical Solipsism", "Introduction to Ontology", "Orwell and Philosophy", some other brief articles, an Internet page, and even some classifieds. The overall view of this magazine was very intellectual and professional because it did not contain any advertising throughout the magazine. The articles are more in the manner meant for either philosophers or someone in school studying Philosophy, or even anyone interested in a very different approach to society. An idea in the article "Practical Solipsism" reads: "Solipsism - the idea that only I exist and that you, and all other material things in the world are mere figments of my imagination - is one of those peculiar notions that make everybody realize just how barmy philosophers truly are." Philosophy is often translated as the love of wisdom or the love of truth. One way to get a vague idea as to what philosophy is about is to dissect the subject and investigate its skeleton. there are many branches in philosophy. Metaphysics is"(after-physics, after Aristotle's book of physics.)", and has questions about the nature of time, categories of existence, including god. Epistemology asks what is knowledge? what is the difference between knowledge, belief and opinion? Can we really know anything? How could we know that we did? Logic questions the truth and even now employs a sort of algebra which is used to crunch logical problems. There is Philosophy of mind, which asks questions about the human mind, how it thinks, and how is it related to the body. Ethics is like how are we living, what is good and bad, what is unethical, and what is happiness. Aesthetics asks mostly about beauty and how to define it. In particular though, there is political philosophy, and it asks questions like What would Utopia be like? Is Utopia possible? How should social life be organized? In my opinion this philosophy is not one related to our government but is very interesting to me. As I was reading, many questions arose about our society and what I thought should be changed. Another Article that I went over was called "Ontology for Beginners" and it was discussing the branch of metaphysics which examines the nature and categories of existence. What is the difference really existing and only appearing to exist? Does the external world really exist? Do other people really exist? In what sense do numbers exist? To an inexperienced child these questions may never arise, but as one grows older questions similar to these arise. Some of the categories of existence are listed also. Realism is basically the theory that the other world exists independently of us. Idealism is the belief that the world and all it contains is all some sort of strange exotic dream. There is another very popular part of Idealism known as "Brain in a Vat". "you think you are wandering around the world, seeing, feeling, talking to people. But suppose that, following a horrific accident, the doctors removed your brain, put it in a vat of nutrient fluids and kept it alive. Suppose that to keep you sane they hooked up the severed nerve endings of your brain to some very expensive medical equipment and then fed you with signals that your brain interpreted as sights, sounds, smells and so on. The question is, would you were just a brain in a vat at all, if the illusion was perfect, and they didn't tell you? How would you know? How do you know that the world out there really exists? The category of Relativism deals with the idea that there are many ways in which to see the world. It all depends on your point of view. There are so many more and even everyday a new category could be added. The articles contained in this issue of Philosophy Now contains a very descriptive overview of philosophy. This makes it even easier for any person to commit him or herself to reading, because it goes over the fundamental principals and categories of philosophy. Basically, any person from sixth grade on could read this journal. Bibliography: Philosophy Now Issue 16 Autumn 1996 There is also an Email address at r.lewis@kcl.ac.uk f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Panopticon The Ideal Social Order.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Carlson English 1-53 Panopticon: The Ideal Social Order "The Panopticon is a marvelous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogenous effects of power." Panopticism is a style of controlling the individual and making him conform to the system. That system could refer to the police or the world as a whole. There is never a definite top position, therefore, everyone feels as if they are being monitored by someone else. It is for this reason that this disciplinary mechanism is so effective. The Panopticon serves as a tool for discipline and a laboratory of power. The capabilities of a Panopticon are endless. It is the basis for the government while it could also aid in the criminal activities for the mafia. In the government there is a system of checks and balances where nothing can get accomplished without the authorization of a higher ranked official. Once these ideas are passed they are then imposed on the individuals of society by other organizations . Whether it be the police, the IRA, or a neighborhood watch group. The Panopticon can serve the public in many ways. It can defend a country, reform prisoners, treat the ill, and educate the public. It does this by creating channels of power and distributing them to the individuals. In the Panopticon, no one individual shall be granted too much power so as to place his or her own values upon the masses. The concept behind panopticism is the distribution of power in order to better society as a whole. The historical problems with power have proven, when it is unevenly distributed, those with the power take advantage and impose their values on the public. For instance, Hitler was given too much power and he massacred millions of innocent people. The Panopticon, on the other hand, serves to increase the wealth, welfare, education, and spirituality of society. The Panopticon does punish but it does so in a means of reform. It attempts to restore the individual to a being that can be a productive and positive influence. The system has two main purposes, the distribution of power and the means of establishing discipline. Every aspect of the world has the ideas and principles of panopticism behind them. The world is full of intricate and complicated people. These people group together to create tribes, governments, countries, and or civilizations. What are the rules? How are we, the most complicated form of life that we know of, suppose to act towards one another. The panoptic system has implemented itself upon the world. It has created a system where no one force can overcome the next without any serious implications. If our country had one person in complete control we would be in grave danger. What if this individual decided he didn't like people with blonde hair. If one was granted enough power he could round up all of those with blonde hair and execute them. The panopticon prevents this. It forms a intricate network of the distribution of power so that one never feels that he can act without repercussions. This form of control goes so far as to question, how do we know that we are not being watched by other forms of life? Right now, as I write this paper there might be some other form of life monitoring my every action. Not to mention that our own government can follow us with the invention of satellites. This is why the system is ingrained so deeply within its' society. No matter what level of society one is on he doesn't know if he is being watched. The police force in our government is a prime example of panopticism in our society. The police enforce discipline and they are given enough power to protect us from the ills of society. Yet they are not given too much so that they can control us. If an officer decides that he does not like an individual he has just arrested, the officer does not have the right to impose his own values upon the offender. He must act in accordance to a higher authority. If he disobeys this authority he is subject to disciplinary actions. The beauty of the system is that this officer never knows when he could get caught breaking the rules. Even though this officer upholds justice, he himself is subject to the laws he maintains. This is what makes the panopticon so strong. The citizens of our society looks the police as the bad guys. Where would we be without a police force? They are here to protect those that are benefiting society. Just the fact that there is a police force acts as a deterrent to those who might be considering an illegal activity. This network of who is watching who is one of the concepts behind panopticism and it is what makes the police force so successful. The Panopticon is a multi-functional form of organization. It serves as a distribution of power that provides, produces, and protects the individuals contained within its' limits. It includes institutions such as a hospital, schoolhouse, government, or even a prison. One might feel that each of these organizations have different objectives. Panopticism shows that all of these forms of order have a unified purpose, to benefit any individual in society and help society by bettering that individual. Chris Carlson English 1-53 Panopticon: The Ideal Social Order "The Panopticon is a marvelous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogenous effects of power." Panopticism is a style of controlling the individual and making him conform to the system. That system could refer to the police or the world as a whole. There is never a definite top position, therefore, everyone feels as if they are being monitored by someone else. It is for this reason that this disciplinary mechanism is so effective. The Panopticon serves as a tool for discipline and a laboratory of power. The capabilities of a Panopticon are endless. It is the basis for the government while it could also aid in the criminal activities for the mafia. In the government there is a system of checks and balances where nothing can get accomplished without the authorization of a higher ranked official. Once these ideas are passed they are then imposed on the individuals of society by other organizations . Whether it be the police, the IRA, or a neighborhood watch group. The Panopticon can serve the public in many ways. It can defend a country, reform prisoners, treat the ill, and educate the public. It does this by creating channels of power and distributing them to the individuals. In the Panopticon, no one individual shall be granted too much power so as to place his or her own values upon the masses. The concept behind panopticism is the distribution of power in order to better society as a whole. The historical problems with power have proven, when it is unevenly distributed, those with the power take advantage and impose their values on the public. For instance, Hitler was given too much power and he massacred millions of innocent people. The Panopticon, on the other hand, serves to increase the wealth, welfare, education, and spirituality of society. The Panopticon does punish but it does so in a means of reform. It attempts to restore the individual to a being that can be a productive and positive influence. The system has two main purposes, the distribution of power and the means of establishing discipline. Every aspect of the world has the ideas and principles of panopticism behind them. The world is full of intricate and complicated people. These people group together to create tribes, governments, countries, and or civilizations. What are the rules? How are we, the most complicated form of life that we know of, suppose to act towards one another. The panoptic system has implemented itself upon the world. It has created a system where no one force can overcome the next without any serious implications. If our country had one person in complete control we would be in grave danger. What if this individual decided he didn't like people with blonde hair. If one was granted enough power he could round up all of those with blonde hair and execute them. The panopticon prevents this. It forms a intricate network of the distribution of power so that one never feels that he can act without repercussions. This form of control goes so far as to question, how do we know that we are not being watched by other forms of life? Right now, as I write this paper there might be some other form of life monitoring my every action. Not to mention that our own government can follow us with the invention of satellites. This is why the system is ingrained so deeply within its' society. No matter what level of society one is on he doesn't know if he is being watched. The police force in our government is a prime example of panopticism in our society. The police enforce discipline and they are given enough power to protect us from the ills of society. Yet they are not given too much so that they can control us. If an officer decides that he does not like an individual he has just arrested, the officer does not have the right to impose his own values upon the offender. He must act in accordance to a higher authority. If he disobeys this authority he is subject to disciplinary actions. The beauty of the system is that this officer never knows when he could get caught breaking the rules. Even though this officer upholds justice, he himself is subject to the laws he maintains. This is what makes the panopticon so strong. The citizens of our society looks the police as the bad guys. Where would we be without a police force? They are here to protect those that are benefiting society. Just the fact that there is a police force acts as a deterrent to those who might be considering an illegal activity. This network of who is watching who is one of the concepts behind panopticism and it is what makes the police force so successful. The Panopticon is a multi-functional form of organization. It serves as a distribution of power that provides, produces, and protects the individuals contained within its' limits. It includes institutions such as a hospital, schoolhouse, government, or even a prison. One might feel that each of these organizations have different objectives. Panopticism shows that all of these forms of order have a unified purpose, to benefit any individual in society and help society by bettering that individual. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Paranoia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pierce English 102 b Jan. 28, 1997 Paranoia It seems that in all three of these works there is a sense of paranoia. In "Hands" a man is fearful of what might happen if he continues to do as he has done in the past, touch people. A terrible fear of what a small touch could lead to. In the story "Eveline" a young woman is confused about what to do with her life. Whether to go with a man she thinks she loves or stay with her father. In the poem "Summer Solstice, New York City" This man is made crazy and paranoid because of something. That something has driven this man to the point of casting his body over the edge of a building. Straight from the text of Hands, a story about a man and his paranoia of his own hands. An example of Wing Biddlebaums fear. "Wing Biddlebaum forever frightened and beset by a ghostly band of doubts."(p. 882) Adolf Myers, or Wing, as the town people called him, was a dreamer, he wanted others to dream with him and experience what he did. "Adolf Myers walked into the evening or had sat talking until dusk upon the school steps lost in a dream."(p. 884) "In a way the voice and hands, the stroking of shoulders and the touching of hair were a part of the school Master's effort to carry a dream into the young minds."(p. 884) This is a man that was run out of a town for something that was not a bad thing. Nor was this something intended the wrong way. Mr. Myers did touch only to pass on something great, a dream. Mr. Myers was run from a town. "They intended to hang the school master."(p. 885) "As he ran away in the darkness they repented their weakness and ran after him."(p. 885) Mr. Myers was so paranoid about touching someone he would do anything to keep his hands from doing so. "When he talked to George Willard, Wing Biddlebaum closed his fist and beat with them upon a table or on the walls of his house."(p. 882) Once Wing did let that one thing that he tried so hard not to do happen. He touched someone, when he realized it I feel that the paranoia set in. "For once he forgot his hands. Slowly they stole their way upon George Willard's shoulders."(p. 883) "With a conclusive move of his body Wing sprang to his feet and thrust his hands deep in his pockets." "Tears came to his eyes." "I must be getting home, I can talk no more." (p. 884) Wing was scarred of something . . . He was paranoid of touching someone. The poem "Summer Solstice, New York City"deals with a man threatening society to take his own life. This whole play is dealing with paranoia. "He could not stand it" "The officer was putting on a bulletproof vest, a black shell around his own life." "They all came a little closer, where they squatted near his death." All of these are examples of either anticipation of death or fear of what will happen depending on what you do next. The officers are afraid of moving to fast. For if so the man may jump. "The tallest cop approached him directly, softly, softly, talking to him, talking, talking." The crowd was paranoid that what they might do would have an adverse effect on the situation. "The crowd gathered in the street, silent." Every person was worried that the man would jump. All people took preparation. "The dark hairy net with it's implacable grid was unfolded near the curb and spread out and stretched as the sheet is prepared to received birth." While the man stands at the edge of the building, about to take his life. A cop worried about startling him makes his move. A cop "came up out of a hold in the top of the neighboring building, like the gold hole they say is in the top of a head, he began to lurk toward the man who wanted to die." Even thought the man wanted to die, it seemed that he wants to live that much more. The man was scared of stepping down "everything stopped as his body jerked and he stepped down from the parapet and went toward them and they closed on him." The police were happy to see the man had passed on his desire to take his life, they had done their job and they had done it well. "They took him by the arms, and held him up by the chimney and the tall cop lit a cigarette in his own mouth, and gave it to the man."(p. 925) In the story "Eveline" a young girl is paranoid about making the right decision. Her mother asked her to promise something before she died that would twist her thoughts till the night her boyfriend left her. Her mother made her promise to take as much care of the family as she could. Eveline wanted to do so many things that her life at home restricted. "She was about to explore another life with frank." "He took her to see The Bohemian Girl."(p. 888) "She would go away with him by the night-boat to be his wife and to live with him in Buenos Ayres."(p. 888) Her father refused to let her see him. "I know these sailor chaps."(p. 888) "One day he had quarrelled with Frank and after that had to meet her lover secretly."(p. 888) One would feel like the reader could tell that Eveline wanted to go. She would experience things that she had only dreamed about. She worried so much. Every time it seemed she had a valid reason to go she would contradict it with a reason to stay. Her mother seemed to be the biggest factor. Often she made reference to her and times they spent together. "Another day their when mother was alive, they had all gone for a picnic to the Hill of Howth."(p. 889) However so many times when she did find reason to stay she would think of how mean her father had been to her. Often withholding money from her. Then sending her to the store at the last minute to get food and milk. But at that very same time she thought that her father was reason to stay. "Her father was becoming old lately, she noticed; he would miss her." "Not long before she had been laid up for a day, he had read her a ghost story and made toast for her at the fire."(p. 888) Last of all things her heart poured out to God to help solve her confession, her paranoia of the situation, and her inability to make a decision. "She prayed to God to direct her, to show her what was her duty." (p. 889) "Hands" Sherwood Anderson "Summer Solstice, New York City" Sharon Olds "Eveline" James Joyce f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Personal Code of Ethics.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I BELIEVE A Code of Ethics by PHIL 301 Fall Semester, 1996 I believe in the power of Mind... I believe pitchers should bat... I believe Oswald was a patsy... I believe everything is a conspiracy... I believe that people are responsible for their own actions... I believe that The Who is the greatest rock band of all time... I believe in tolerance... I believe in capitalism... I believe we are who we want to be... I believe in choice... I believe in love... I believe that Bert and Ernie are televisions first gay couple... I believe that the 1979 Orioles were robbed... I believe that people who say they like Indian food are just trying to be cool... I believe that people get the kind of government they deserve... I believe in the power of having no god... I believe I can fly... I believe that Barney is the purple Messiah... I believe that the bible was a novel, written for profit... I believe in the mother ship... I believe the Mona Lisa was framed... I believe in Pez... I believe Darwin... I believe in beauty... I believe we have the worst justice system in the world with the exception of every other system... I believe in Wally and the Beaver... I believe I didn't learn anything in kindergarten... I believe we are all in this together... I believe that breakfast is the most important meal of the day... I believe the ozone layer is just fine... I believe in dedication... I believe my daughter is a prodigy... I believe that Kathy Lee is the Anti-Christ... I believe my dad can still beat me at arm wrestling... I believe I wouldn't want to beat him... I believe you shouldn't believe everything you breath... I believe in the power of love to warp mens minds and make men great... I believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the seventh inning stretch... I believe in me... I believe I'm done now... I BELIEVE A Code of Ethics by Developing a code of ethics is the most important thing a person can do. Such a code is necessary for humans because of our capacity to reason. Our ability to apply rational thought to the conduct of our lives is what makes mankind more than just an animal with an interesting thumb. These rational thoughts could very easily lead us to terrible acts, for what is in our best interest is often harmful to others. However there is another ability, peculiar to humans alone, that keeps most of us on the right path. Our ability to know what is right and what is wrong. It is our beliefs on this subject that make up our ethics. And the best way to know what those beliefs are is to develop a personal code of ethics. My own code is one that defies definition by the standards of most of the well known ethical theories. It consists of four simple and straight forward rules, rules that do not alter or change with the shift of societies values or the passing of time. The four rules are easy to remember but may need a bit of explanation. 1) Mine first. 2) Serve the greater good (unless it violates rule number one). 3) Serve justice and obey the law unless the law does not serve justice. 4) Respect the divinity of Mind. The first rule, "Mine first" sounds harsh and egoist and to some extent it is akin to enlightened egoism. What this rule means is that my wife and daughter and what is best for them comes before any other consideration without exception. This dedication to family is not a popular idea in these "it takes a village" times. Today, people seem to have bought into the idea that there will always be someone else around to take care of our responsibilities if we fail. The government, charities or strangers on the street, many people today feel that their responsibilities are those of someone else as well. But there is no room for such ideas in my life. I do for mine. If that means that others must do without so that my family can prosper, than that is how it must be. Example: Suppose my daughter wanted a Tickle Me Elmo Doll this Christmas. And suppose I found myself at the door to Toys-R-Us, next to a wheelchair bound woman who was also trying to purchase an Elmo for her child. The two of us know that there is one Elmo left in the store. When the door opens, what do I do? To be perfectly honest I run as fast as I can and grab the doll. It would not matter to me that the woman was in a wheelchair and unable to race for the doll. My daughter wanted the doll and I would put her wishes above anyone else. Of course, this is a silly example but it illustrates how this rule works. The action would be the same if it were the last morsel of food in the last remaining open store in a city buried in ten feet of snow. I do what is best for my family even at the cost of others. I do not feel that this is egoism. I truly feel that by applying Kants categorical imperative I can show that this is utilitarianism. If everyone strived to do what was best for those they loved, wouldn't society be better off? Wouldn't we have better provided for and happier children with a greater sense of self worth? Wouldn't we have a closer knit family unit, something that our society keeps claiming is lacking? With everyone doing what is in the best interests of their own families, wouldn't we have very little need for welfare or charities? And wouldn't such family dedication, if it were all encompassing, serve to better society by eliminating the need for government assistance in the raising of children? This rule is utilitarian in nature and coincides with the second rule of my code. Serving the greater good, part of the foundation of utilitarian ethics, is a rule that everyone should have in their own personal code. Society is home to all of us. We are all here together. So those things that we do that serve to better society, serve to better ourselves as well. So we should always strive to do things that serve the cause of society. So does this mean that I give money to homeless people on the streets and support programs that give money to the poor? No. It is my firm belief, based in libertarian ideals, that people must be allowed to live their own lives even if they live them poorly. The greater good of society is not served if we encourage people to live off the sweat of others by continuing to give them handouts. Every quarter given to a homeless person adds to the bottom line of what he will expect to collect the following day. Soon he will come to feel that he is entitled to that amount as he is increasingly led to believe by modern social programs. It is only by forcing people who are able to fend for themselves that society can be bettered. This is not to say however that people should not help each other. For instance when a friend comes up short on the rent and needs a loan, I will give him the money. If another friend needs help moving into a new apartment, I will help. Or if a stranger is broken down by the side of the road and I am able to help (and feel safe in doing so) I will. It is these small acts of human kindness that serve to better society by improving a persons attitude about its members. Of course, rule number two includes the caveat of not allowing this rule to interfere with adherence to rule number one. So, if the friend needed a loan for the rent but my daughter needed shoes or school supplies in the same amount, my friend will have to do without. If a friends moving day fell on the same day as my daughters swim meet, the friend would just have to find someone else to help move. And if my daughter was in the car as I passed the broken down stranger, no matter how old, frail and disabled that stranger was, I could not take the chance of my daughter being harmed. The stranger would have to wait. Rule number three is another rule that should be universal. As a devout atheist, I feel that the law is what society has devised to keep it's members on the right path in the absence of god. As such, the law becomes The Law, a very serious matter to me in exactly the same way that the teachings of Christ are important to other people. Obeying that Law is not only a legal matter, but to me, a moral one. Mankind has gone and educated himself out of the god mind set. We have explored the heavens and he wasn't there. We have split the atom and no god was found. We have cut and probed the deepest recesses of the human body and found no soul. God is dead and we are the killers. The law is all we have left and it should be treated with the appropriate respect. So does this mean that I would have been one of those rednecks who arrested Freedom Riders and dragged black people away from lunch counters? Would I have been in favor of returning escaped slaves to the south because it was the law? Of course not. Rule number three also includes a caveat. It states that if a law does not serve justice, it should not be obeyed. So this sparks the question "how do I know if a law is just?" The answer can be found in rule number four. The last rule of my personal code of ethics is the most important because it is the measuring stick by which the variables of the first three rules are measured. This rule requires that the human Mind be respected for its power and its supreme value, a value greater than that of anything else in the universe. Respecting the human Mind means believing in the principle that people are worthy of respect. Holding reason and intelligence as divine above all other considerations, leads to just thoughts and actions. Respect of Mind requires the discounting of those factors that cause prejudice. Reason and intelligence has no color, religion or sexual preference. Mind is sexless. It is classless. And it is not susceptible to the fickle human idea of physical beauty. But how to know if a law is just? If it serves to protect, promote and respect the human Mind. If a law or an act works against the cause of Mind than it is unjust. Such laws must not be obeyed and indeed must be worked against. But how is one to know the extent of such civil disobedience? In my case, the answer is found in rule number one. So long as I do not put my family at risk of losing a husband and father, justice must be served. It is through this kind of meshing of the four rules that ethical quandaries can be answered. Noticeably, the rules of the code, while existing to serve the cause of good and avoid evil, do not make it clear how to know which is which. There is no specific rule that gives a clear definition of what is good and what is evil. This is because the rules, when properly applied to an ethical problem, will lead to the action that is good. So then what is good? What is evil? Good is somewhat easier to define in that it is directly related to the last three rules of the code. An act which s f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Personal Identity 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Personal Identity Personal Identity can be broken down into three areas: 1.) Body 2.) Memory and 3.) Soul. In John Perry's "A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality" these composing aspects of personal identity are discussed at length. In the reading and class discussions the body was defined clearly as a part of one's person, even alluded to at times as a "prison" in which one cannot escape until one dies. Memory and one's Soul seemed to be lumped together many times, understandably so, for the two bare many things in common such as they are intangible, cannot be completely defined as to what each exactly is (people remember things that did not actually happen to them, are those still memories?; do you have one soul throughout your life?), and both are thought to compose one's character and beliefs. This essay will deal with the two aspects of one's personal identity which are the most obvious in day to day life, that of the body and of soul/memory. As stated beforehand, memory and the soul bare many of the same qualities. The body and soul, however, also share this trait. Perry illustrates in his essay that the body and soul are similar because there is a "link" between one another, that is they both make up a person and are responsible for the qualities associated with being an individual (height, weight, character, belief, etc.). Perry also comes back to challenge this using the analogy of a river. If one goes to a river, and then the next day goes back to the same river, the person will not say that it is a different river, although almost all of the properties of the river have changed (water molecules, pollution level, temperature, etc.). This is the same with a person, for we say that a person at adolescence is still the same person at adulthood, even though the the persons beliefs, knowledge, and character may have changed over the years. Perry answers this problem by saying that we can still regard the person as the same by the relative "similarity" of the person to how they were in the past, and that "[the] sameness of body is a reliable sign of sameness of all; of soul" . In another example, Perry differentiates between the body and the soul by saying that "personal identity" (referring to the soul/mind) cannot be based on bodily identity, for one can judge who one is without having to make any judgments about the body. Perry continues to elaborate on this by saying even if he woke up one day and found he had a different body or form (going as far as to refer to Kafka's The Metamorphosis) he would still be the same person (possessing the same character, beliefs, memories, etc.) Perry then identifies that at the heart of the soul and memory of a person's identity is one's memory. This brings up the question of if there were two people with the same memories, would they not have the same personal identity? Because of the fact it is impossible to have two people of the same identity, Perry finds that the body is more important then previously anticipated. Overall, every aspect of one's self (body, soul, and memory) contributes to what makes them a person with a unique identity and attributes all their own. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Personal Identity Philosophical Views.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tim V Kolton Personal Identity: Philosophical Views Alan Watts once said, "Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." The task of personal identity is to define a quality of a human which makes him or her a unique self. The person whose identity is in question must realize themselves, and other people must identify this person. In other words, what makes John unique from Bob? One must consider both internal (mind) and external (body) perspectives. There are several general philosophical theories of this identity problem. In the following paragraphs one will find the body theory, soul theory, and a more detailed explanation of the conscious theory. One theory of personal identity is known as the body theory. This is defined as a person X has a personal identity if and only if they have the same body Y. However there are two problems with this definition. The first is qualitative. It is necessary to have the same body, but if that body is changed, is one the same person? Someone's body is surely different at age 40 than at age 4. Also a problem arrives in alterations to a body. If John goes to war, becomes injured by a mine, and then has his legs amputated is he not still the same person, John? Therefore, the preceding definition of body theory is not sufficient, since it does not account alterations to the same body. Yet another problem is numerical. If someone were to get a finger chopped off, would that finger be considered another person? What if a scientist was to use someone's DNA and replicate another person with the same body? Surely just because there are two identical bodies, these bodies cannot be the same person. They would live two different lives. Therefore, the body theory alone cannot be considered a necessary and sufficient definition when defining personal identity. Another common theory of personal identity is the soul theory. This theory is: a person is has personal identity if and only if they have the same soul. The problem with this theory is arrived from the definition of a soul. Soul is a very difficult term. It is thought by many to be a spirit that passes from your body into another realm (i.e., heaven, hell, etc.). However, since no one has ever seen, felt, touched, smelled, or tasted a soul, it is a mysterious phenomenon. Since we have no clear and distinct idea of a soul , it would not be wise to base the definition upon it. For instance, some religions believe in reincarnation after death. This is when a soul enters another body. With this in mind, someone's soul such as Elvis could become reincarnated in someone else named John. However, we would not say that this Elvis and John are the same person . Therefore, the definition of the soul theory fails in that the definiens does not become sufficient for defining personal identity. The most recognized true philosophical theory of personal identity is the consciousness theory. The consciousness theory is believed by most to be the best definition of personal identity according to most philosophers. However, there are three different versions of the consciousness theory that will be discussed in further detail: the conscious self, experiential content, and connected stream of consciousness theories. First, we have the theory of a conscious self: a person has a personal identity if he or she has the same conscious self. In other words, if two people have a different conscious, then they each have personal identity. At a first glance, this would be a good definition of a personal identity. It is analogous to Descartes' cogito, "I think therefore I am." Being conscious would mean knowing that one exists, and able to think about any experience that happens. However the main fault with this is that it is a circular definition. We are using the definiens in the definiendum which is not a good tactic of defining personal identity. Next, a common derivative of the consciousness theory is the consciousness of experiences theory. This is defined as having the same experiential content. This theory is based upon Locke's theory of the mind being blank, and building from experiences. One would have personal identity because only one being can go through the same experiences in a finite space. This theory does solve some problems arrived at by other theories. Say for instance there are two twins. This would be difficult to explain in the body theory of personal identity, but with the conscious experience theory it would be simple. Although they have identical bodies, since the day they are born they go through different experiences. Therefore the twins do have their own identity since they have both had different experiences. However, there are some problems that arrive with this theory. First, the definiens is not necessary. Say for instance a person has two different conscious experiences. Some people have a multiple personality disorder, but that does not mean they are truly different people, although they may have several identities. Another problem is the definition is not sufficient. Say for instance a brain was replicated and was put into a computer. At the exact time the brain was replicated, both "brains" had the same experiential content. Yet the most devastating deviation from this theory is the simplest. The biggest problem is that we cannot consciously remember every experience of our lifetime. For instance, when one tries to remember what they got for their fifth birthday the day after their birthday they would be able to tell another. However, trying to remember what one received for their fifth birthday when they are thirty is most of the time impossible. Also, just because a person may be drunk and does some action does not make him or her another person! In other words, the conscious experience theory fails because the human mind cannot remember every conscious experience. Last of all, we have the connected stream of consciousness. This theory states that a person's identity is made up of a "stream" of connected conscious experiences. This theory solves the problem of having a different memory of at different times of life. For instance, when we are forty we certainly have a different memory than when we were four years old. With the connected stream theory though, we are still the same person whether we are four or forty. In general, we have a finite mind, so are conscious is connected in a chronological pattern. To make it simple, it is analogous to a river. If you were to see a river every day, one is not looking at the same particles of water (representing body or experiences), however one cannot dispute that it is not the same river. Therefore the river represents personal identity. This theory solves most of the problems arrived at from the other two forms of conscious theories. It would seem that the connected stream of consciousness is a definition which is both necessary and sufficient in defining personal identity. In conclusion, we have discussed the three common theories of personal identity: the body theory, the soul theory, and the conscious theory. The main problem with the body theory is that people's bodies change, yet they still have the same identity. The main problem of the soul theory is that it is immaterial, and the whole idea of souls is disputable. Of the three consciousness theories, the conscious self theory fails in that it is a circular definition. The conscious experience theory fails in that a human cannot be conscious of everything of his or her life. Finally we discussed the connected stream of consciousness theory which is the best description of a personal identity. Personal identity therefore is made up of a connected stream of consciousness (i.e., thoughts, memories, actions), and therefore is always changing slightly. As James Baldwin, a U.S. author once quoted, "An identity would seem to be arrived at by the way in which the person faces and uses his experience." 1 Alan Watts (1915-73), British-born U.S. philosopher, author. Life (New York, 21 April 1961). 2 Locke, John. Personal Identity. Page 69. 3 Locke, John. Personal Identity. Page 70. 4 James Baldwin (1924-87), U.S. author. The Price of the Ticket, "No Name in the Street" (1985; first published 1972). f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Personal Identity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Personal Identity 8th March, 1997 Dear Diary Today in class we had a brief discussion of what personal identity is. I didn't get a chance to speak out my thoughts and opinions so I felt like to share it with you. Personal identity is what I see myself as, positively or negatively. It could be argued but most people think they are at what called the "Good" side even though he is a brutal killer. Word from a retired warden. Over 80% of the prisoners ready to be executed still believes they are innocent. The way one sees things and their judgement is varied by ones own personal identity. This is the combination, result of many factors. Like the majority of our physical appearances is already destined since the moment of our conception, of course, there are also other factors such as nutrition and environment. Everyone's personal identity should be changing everyday, every moment by the building up of their intelligence and experiences. In the earlier stage, our personal identity is solely from our parents. This includes: heredity, culture background and the environment. As you grow older, fewer influences will come from your parents but more from your friends, peers and teacher. Due to the fact most people want a place to belong to (not necessary be a location), and want to have friends, we'll sometimes alter our decision and benefits to just fit into a group. When getting into the middle age, the biggest influences will probably come from your work, religion and friends still. As you can see friend plays a very big part in everyone's life. Personal identity plays a major part in my quest for self-knowledge, but its up to me to choose my own identity. God created all men equally, but it is up to us to determine whom we ultimately want to be. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Personal Indentity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Personal Identity Personal Identity can be broken down into three areas: 1.) Body 2.) Memory and 3.) Soul. In John Perry's "A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality" these composing aspects of personal identity are discussed at length. In the reading and class discussions the body was defined clearly as a part of one's person, even alluded to at times as a "prison" in which one cannot escape until one dies. Memory and one's Soul seemed to be lumped together many times, understandably so, for the two bare many things in common such as they are intangible, cannot be completely defined as to what each exactly is (people remember things that did not actually happen to them, are those still memories?; do you have one soul throughout your life?), and both are thought to compose one's character and beliefs. This essay will deal with the two aspects of one's personal identity which are the most obvious in day to day life, that of the body and of soul/memory. As stated beforehand, memory and the soul bare many of the same qualities. The body and soul, however, also share this trait. Perry illustrates in his essay that the body and soul are similar because there is a "link" between one another, that is they both make up a person and are responsible for the qualities associated with being an individual (height, weight, character, belief, etc.). Perry also comes back to challenge this using the analogy of a river. If one goes to a river, and then the next day goes back to the same river, the person will not say that it is a different river, although almost all of the properties of the river have changed (water molecules, pollution level, temperature, etc.). This is the same with a person, for we say that a person at adolescence is still the same person at adulthood, even though the the persons beliefs, knowledge, and character may have changed over the years. Perry answers this problem by saying that we can still regard the person as the same by the relative "similarity" of the person to how they were in the past, and that "[the] sameness of body is a reliable sign of sameness of all; of soul" . In another example, Perry differentiates between the body and the soul by saying that "personal identity" (referring to the soul/mind) cannot be based on bodily identity, for one can judge who one is without having to make any judgments about the body. Perry continues to elaborate on this by saying even if he woke up one day and found he had a different body or form (going as far as to refer to Kafka's The Metamorphosis) he would still be the same person (possessing the same character, beliefs, memories, etc.) Perry then identifies that at the heart of the soul and memory of a person's identity is one's memory. This brings up the question of if there were two people with the same memories, would they not have the same personal identity? Because of the fact it is impossible to have two people of the same identity, Perry finds that the body is more important then previously anticipated. Overall, every aspect of one's self (body, soul, and memory) contributes to what makes them a person with a unique identity and attributes all their own. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Persuasive Essay Overpopulation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Persuasive Essay Overpopulation Overpopulation is becoming one of the most preeminent problems facing human civilization. This complicated, pervasive issue will come to be a problem of the utmost importance for people of all races, religions, and nationalities. Our planet now provides for approximately 5.8 billion people, with projections of around 10 billion by the year 2050. Two billion of these are extremely poor, the poorest of which live in absolute poverty and misery. One very serious effect of the population explosion is its detrimental effects on the global environment. Increasing amounts of food, energy, water, and shelter are required to fulfill the needs of human society. Much of our energy is derived from the burning of fossil fuels-releasing millions of metric tons of toxins into the atmosphere annually. The amount of land required for food production will grow increasingly larger, while the amount of available land will grow increasingly smaller. The affects of overpopulation on human society are many. Suffering from a lack of resources, people are often driven to war when they become too numerous for their available resources. Ethnic and racial differences will grow increasingly frequent and unresolvable. Increasing numbers in urban areas will lower quality of life in cities around the world. The precipitators of this complex issue are unlimited. Factors such as poverty, food distribution, and government corruption are all important aspects. No one will be unaffected by the repercussions of an overpopulated world. This highly sensitive and complex issue demands the attention of all who reside upon this planet, particularly those who have the ability to work for change. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\phaedo.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Phaedo Philosophy is a vast field. It examines and probes many different fields. Virtue, morality, immortality, death, and the difference between the psyche (soul) and the soma (body) are just a few of the many different topics which can be covered under the umbrella of philosophy. Philosophers are supposed to be experts on all these subjects. The have well thought out opinions, and they are very learned people. Among the most revered philosophers of all time was Socrates. Living around the 5th century B.C., Socrates was among the first philosophers who wasn't a sophist, meaning that he never felt that he was wise for he was always in the pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately, Socrates was put to death late in his life. One of his best students, Plato, however, recorded what had occurred on that last day of Socrates' life. On that last day of his life, Socrates made a quite powerful claim. He claimed that philosophy was merely practice for getting used to death and dying. At first, the connection between philosophy and death is not clear. However, as we unravel Socrates' argument backing up his claim, the statement makes a lot of sense. In order for Philosophers to examine their world accurately and learn the truth accurately, they must remove them selves of all distractions. These not only include physical distractions, but they include mental distractions and bodily distractions as well. Philosophers must get used to viewing and examining the world with out any senses. Senses merely hinder and obscure the truth. Sight for example can be fooled easily with optical illusions which occur normally in nature. Sound can be very distracting as well when a philosopher is trying to concentrate. All of these cloud the judgement, and must therefore be detached from the soul. Socrates argues that philosophers must view the world around them with their souls in order to accurately learn about it. However, by detaching their souls from all bodily functions, philosophers may as well be in an induced state of death. In mortem, the soul wanders free and there are no bodily hindrances. Socrates also believed that philosophers look upon death with good cheer and hope. This I find hard to believe because if this were true, the philosopher would not be able to love life, and without the love of life, there is no life to examine and learn about. It is understandable however from another point of view to understand why the philosopher would look forward to death with good cheer. Once the philosopher is dead, his soul is free to roam around without hindrances forever, and all the worlds secrets shall be revealed to him. In fact, Socrates' sees his death as a liberation from the shackles of life for his last wish was for Crito to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius. This god was normally given sacrifices to free the sickly from the grips of a virus or illness. Perhaps Socrates saw the body as a sickness that fed upon the soul. If this were the case, then indeed Socrates would be happy to leave the bonds of life, for then he could have an eternity to seek out his answers, all without the diversions and distractions of a body. Socrates believed that it was this search that was important, even more so than the answers them selves. Socrates believed that the journey toward the answers is where most of the learning takes place, and it is this journey that truly integrates the answers as part of your very own being. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Philosophies of Socrates Plato and Aristotle.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle The philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had different points of-view but they were also similar in some ways. For example, all three philosophers had their own thoughts on the subject of justice and government. Socrates belief on this matter was that democracy was an unwise form of government. He thought that the electing of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him aristocracy was a perfect form of government. The point of Socrate's philosophies were to make people think about the questions he would often ask. The reason for these questions being asked were to have people to their own thoughts and opinions toward life. He did not think a person with the right mind should follow the steps of their ancestors. Instead of going around asking questions, Plato, another philosopher, would write his own conversations with imaginerary people. These conversations would cover much of the same topics that Socrates had tried to cover earlier. These topics mostly dealt with life such as government, opinions toward justice and how people really viewed education. Aristotle also had his own theories towards his belief of the "right government". He wanted his results to show happiness among the people. He'd mainly collect information from studying living creatures and observing their living habits. He would do this so that he could see what brought them happiness. His opinion toward life was that all people should live a fair and happy life. After many attempts of forming the perfect government , his facts allowed him to believe that a perfect government could be formed only by those who have a middle class. The middle class would consist of those who were not rich yet not poor. Both Aristotle and Plato had different thoughts on the division of the government. Aristotle claimed to believe that a government should consist of many classes for the protection of the people and the state. While Plato disagreed and thought that dividing of power was unfair and cruel. In his mind, he felt that those in the lower class could never have the chance to get any higher in life. Though all three philosophers felt that the government should be based on the equalness of all the people, they all had different views on what equality really meant. These philosophers all had their own way of gathering information and passing it through the minds of others. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Philosophy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Phaedo Philosophy is a vast field. It examines and probes many different fields. Virtue, morality, immortality, death, and the difference between the psyche (soul) and the soma (body) are just a few of the many different topics which can be covered under the umbrella of philosophy. Philosophers are supposed to be experts on all these subjects. The have well thought out opinions, and they are very learned people. Among the most revered philosophers of all time was Socrates. Living around the 5th century B.C., Socrates was among the first philosophers who wasn't a sophist, meaning that he never felt that he was wise for he was always in the pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately, Socrates was put to death late in his life. One of his best students, Plato, however, recorded what had occurred on that last day of Socrates' life. On that last day of his life, Socrates made a quite powerful claim. He claimed that philosophy was merely practice for getting used to death and dying. At first, the connection between philosophy and death is not clear. However, as we unravel Socrates' argument backing up his claim, the statement makes a lot of sense. In order for Philosophers to examine their world accurately and learn the truth accurately, they must remove them selves of all distractions. These not only include physical distractions, but they include mental distractions and bodily distractions as well. Philosophers must get used to viewing and examining the world with out any senses. Senses merely hinder and obscure the truth. Sight for example can be fooled easily with optical illusions which occur normally in nature. Sound can be very distracting as well when a philosopher is trying to concentrate. All of these cloud the judgement, and must therefore be detached from the soul. Socrates argues that philosophers must view the world around them with their souls in order to accurately learn about it. However, by detaching their souls from all bodily functions, philosophers may as well be in an induced state of death. In mortem, the soul wanders free and there are no bodily hindrances. Socrates also believed that philosophers look upon death with good cheer and hope. This I find hard to believe because if this were true, the philosopher would not be able to love life, and without the love of life, there is no life to examine and learn about. It is understandable however from another point of view to understand why the philosopher would look forward to death with good cheer. Once the philosopher is dead, his soul is free to roam around without hindrances forever, and all the worlds secrets shall be revealed to him. In fact, Socrates' sees his death as a liberation from the shackles of life for his last wish was for Crito to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius. This god was normally given sacrifices to free the sickly from the grips of a virus or illness. Perhaps Socrates saw the body as a sickness that fed upon the soul. If this were the case, then indeed Socrates would be happy to leave the bonds of life, for then he could have an eternity to seek out his answers, all without the diversions and distractions of a body. Socrates believed that it was this search that was important, even more so than the answers them selves. Socrates believed that the journey toward the answers is where most of the learning takes place, and it is this journey that truly integrates the answers as part of your very own being. --===-- f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Plato The Republc.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Essay Assignment #2 Aristotle's Politics is a timeless examination of government structure and human nature that explains his ideas on how a utopian state can be achieved. In this work, Aristotle examines ubiquitous issues such as government structure, education, crime, property ownership, the honesty of occupations, and population control. He states in Book IV, Chapter Eleven "...the best form of political association is one where power is vested in the middle class, and secondly, that good government is attainable in those cities where there is a large middle class..." The polis is a partnership of citizens in a system of government that serves to achieve the common good. It is not just a place where people live together for defense against enemies and for the exchange of goods. It is rather a partnership between households, clans, and villages for the sake of a fully developed and self-sufficient life. The polis gives those who possess wisdom and moral intellect a chance to move up to high positions Justice is the political good in the polis, and it must promote the common interest of the people. What is perceived to be good has to be distributive and regulative. The law is the regulating mechanism that emerges from free and equal people in civic associations. It serves as the final arbiter of problems, and stands above individuals and binds their actions. Laws change habits and training, but are changeable through certain circumstances and procedures if it is believed to be unjust. The well-being of a society is contingent upon to what extent its citizens obey the law. A member of the polis can be defined as someone who can participate in judging (serve as a juror in the court system), and in governing (serve in public office). A good citizen must possess moderation, prudence, and justice, and must be able and willing to rule and be ruled. Aristotle defines a constitution as "...an arrangement in regard to the offices of the city. By this arrangement the citizen body distributes office, either on the basis of the power of those who participate in it, or on the basis of some sort of general equality (i.e. the equality of the poor, or of the rich, or an equality existing among both rich and poor.) There must therefore be as many constitutions as there are modes of arranging the distribution of office according to the superiorities and the differences of the parts of the city" (Page 138). He believes that the organization of a state's constitution is directly related to the kinds of citizens that reside in the polis. The constitution has a direct root to the most powerful or most populated class. The middle class is where most of the power comes from because they are the majority, and therefore best reflect the common interest. The upper class is not fit to form the constitution because they, like the lower class, would base it on their own values and beliefs rather than the needs of the state. There are problems with the lower and upper classes creating laws. The lower class constantly feels that the government is cheating them out of something because they do not have the wealth, stature, and possibly education that the upper-class possesses, thereby making it difficult for them to work towards the common good. Aristotle thinks that the upper class has too much ambition, and would only create laws that would further their economic and social well-being with little or no regard to the rest of the population. These classes consist of self-interested individuals that want to further their own needs and concerns. They create factions in order to go against the system. "Factional conflict is the result of inequality, and the passion for equality is the root of faction" (Class Notes). The middle class acts as the mean between the concerns of the rich and poor. "Goodness itself consists in a mean; and in any city the middle class is a mean between the rich and the poor" (Page 156). The middle class is free from the ambition of the rich and the pettiness of the poor, which helps to ensure political cohesion. We can conclude that a constitution based on this class (i.e. a 'constitutional government' or polity) is most likely to be generally beneficial. It will be free from faction, and most likely be stable. People who know how to deliberate and give instruction should be eligible for positions in the government. The best form of constitution would have the power vested in the middle class. The golden mean is correlated with moderation which can only occur when there is a large middle class population. Freedom is the defining principle of democracy. The main aspects of freedom are being ruled and ruling in turn, since every one is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases. The majority should have authority rather than those who are "best fit to rule", and groups few in number. Although everyone in the polis may not be a political scientist, they can work better together with peers. With each individual having qualities of excellence and intelligence, they join to form a single entity. The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Oligarchy occurs when rulers owe their power to wealth whether or not they are the majority. Tyranny can be described as the worst of two potential evils. It is extreme oligarchy in its "distrust of the masses" and extreme democracy in its "hostility to the noteables" (Page 211). Aristotle says the best form is one based on merit. A combination between oligarchy and democracy is constitutional government. Although people can agree on what justice is, they often fail to reach it because they can not stop from pursuing their own goals and desires. A good government can moderate between what people think is just and what is best for the common good. Aristotle's theories are fundamentals of our current political system and earned him the title "The Father of Political Science." f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Plato.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plato LIFE Plato was born to an aristocratic family in Athens, Greece. When he was a child his father, Ariston, who was believed to be descended from the early kings of Athens died, and his mother, Perictione married Pyrilampes. As a young man Plato was always interested in political leadership and eventually became a disciple of Socrates. He followed his philosophy and his dialectical style, which is believed to be the search for truth through questions, answers, and additional questions. After witnessing the death of Socrates at the hands of the Athenian democracy in 399 B.C., Plato left Athens and continued to travel to Italy, Sicily, and Egypt. (Internet) In 387 B.C. Plato founded the Academy in Athens otherwise known as the first European university. The Academy provided a wide range of curriculum including subjects such as astronomy, biology, philosophy, political theory, and mathematics. Aristotle was the Academy's most outstanding student. (Internet) The internal affairs of the academy ruled the next 20 years of Plato's life and he wrote nothing. Many Greek youths were attracted to the new school. Plato then went to Syracuse to supervise the education of the ruling prince. Plato was not certain about the success of this adventure although he felt he could not refuse this opportunity of putting his ideas to a test. It did not work out for Plato and he returned to Athens in 360 B.C. He then devoted himself to teaching and lecturing at the Academy. He died at age 80 in Athens in 348 B.C. Before his death Plato completed the Sophist, the Politicus, the Philebus, the Timaeus and finally the Laws. (Internet) DIALOGUES The Symposium is the most widely read of Plato's dialogues with the exception of the Republic and it is with good reason. It's literary merit is outstanding with philosophical and psychological sources (Allen) ANAYA--2 THE EARLY DIALOGUES In the early dialogues Socrates always played the leading roll. In all of them, Plato was trying to keep the spirit of Socrates alive. There are also early dialogues that portray Socrates in whimsical moods but always with a serious purpose. (Allen) The Republic was the most revealing of all Plato's early writings. Plato believed that one could not seriously construct a political theory without a metaphysics. Therefore, we find an outline of human life as it should be lived according to nature. (Allen) THE LATER DIALOGUES In the later dialogues Soctates does not always play the leading role. He does not enter into the conversation of Laws. More interest was shown in the possibilities of politics. Law and legal government were stressed and it greatly influenced Aristotle. It is clear that in later years Plato became more aware of the difficulties in attempting to combine science with government. Plato's main interest at the end of his life was to guide human effort as indicated in his last dialogues, the Laws. (Allen) Many students of the Academy were reaching into positions of power in the Greek world. Plato planned a trilogy at the end of his life, the Timaeus, the Critias, and the Hermoncrates. (Allen) THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE Plato's theory of knowledge can be found in the myth of the cave. The myth describes people chained within a cave. The only images they see are the shadows of objects and animals held in front of a fire that is behind them that reflects on the cave walls in front of them. That is all they had ever seen so that is what they believe to be real. One day a man escaped the cave and went outside. With the sun he saw what was real in the world and realized all he ever saw were just shadows. He went back to the men in the cave and told them all this. He told them that they ANAYA--3 too could see the outside if they broke free of their chains but they didn't believe him. The environment of the cave to Plato symbolizes the physical world of appearances. Escaping into the sun-filled world means the transition into the real world that is full and perfect being the world of forms, which is the proper object of knowledge. (Hare p.39) NATURE OF FORMS The theory of Forms may be understood best in terms of mathematical entities. This theory was his way of explaining how the same universal term can refer to so many particular things or events. An individual is human to the extent that they resemble or participate. In the Form "humanness" if "humanness" is defined in terms of being a rational animal and human being to the extent that he or she is rational. An object is beautiful to the extent that it participates in the Idea, or Form of beauty. Everything in the world of space and time is, what it is by virtue of it's resemblance to, or participation in, it's universal Form. The supreme Form is the Form of Good, which like the sun in the myth of the cave, illuminates all the other ideas. The theory of Forms is intended to explain how one comes to know and also how things have come to be the way that they are. (Internet) ETHICS Plato's ethical theory rests on the assumption that virtue is knowledge and can be taught, which has to be understood in terms of his theory of Forms. One of his famous arguments is that to "know the good is to do the good". Along with that he states that anyone who behaves immorally does so out of ignorance. He also says that a truly happy person is a moral person and they become individuals and always desire their own happiness. They always desire to do that which is moral. (Dolan p.76) ANAYA--4 TRUTH Plato illustrates truth by telling the well-known story of Gyges. Gyges one day stumbled upon a chasm in the opening of the earth after a heavy rainfall. He came upon a horse made of bronze which had a door on the side of it. He opened it up and saw the body of a man of superhuman stature, wearing a gold ring. He took the ring off the finger of the body and placed it upon his own. He later realized that if he turned the bezel of the ring inwards in the direction of the palm of his hand he would become invisible. He would use the ring to his advantage many a time. He would kill off anyone that stood in his way and he got whatever he wanted without anyone suspecting him. He even quickly rose to be the King of Lydia. Now, think of the same ring in the hands of a wise man. He would not consider that it would give him the right to do wrong any more than if it did not belong to him. For to act secretly is not what a good man aims at, it is what he wants to do to act rightly. (Grant 172,173) WORKS Plato's writings were in dialogue form. The earliest collection of Plato's work includes 35 dialogues and 13 letters. It is still disputed if some of them are authentic or not. The works of Plato can be split up into 3 groups. The earliest dialogues represent his attempt to communicate the philosophy and style of Socrates, many of the dialogues take the same for of the writings from him. (Internet) PLATO'S ACHIEVEMENTS Plato's actual achievements in his field was great. He had a greater claim than anyone else to be called the founder of philosophy. What is unique about Plato is the progress towards a much tougher, more precise logical and metaphysical theory, a moral philosophy and a philosophy of language. Through discussion and criticism, they shaped the entire future of philosophy. (Hare) ANAYA--5 Plato's development of the topic "The one and the many" sought an explanation of the variety of things on reason. The search started with the question "What were their origins" and "What are they all made of ". Scientists went on asking this question and answering it. Plato grasped the truth that understanding is different from science and just as imporant. (Hare) INTERVIEW One of Plato's most famous ideas is the idea that the world is a rational place and that we are all here for a reason. People are good because they want to be good not because they will be punished if they are not and rewarded if they are. Plato works from top to bottom with his philosophy as opposed to bottom to top. It is shown by his work that you do not run into as many problems doing it the reverse way that he does. Rationality is used to eliminate the feeling in a person. It is the complete opposite of emotion, rationality is used in all views. Emotion causes more problems because none of the acts such as hate, love, murder, lust, fear....are rational. This idea of reason usually conflicts with the ideas of the bible but in Plato's case the views were quite similar. Art is a form that is not looked upon as highly in society as rationality because there is so much emotion put into it. One of the best examples is love love is not a rational thought and with art love is expressed a lot throughout important pieces. "Rational thought" is known to be able to start government and lifestyles, although not all lifestyles can be controlled. Take for instance an alcoholic is an alcoholic because they are not being rational and it is not that they can't stop drinking it is that they don't have enough willpower to stop. It all comes down to lack of control and lack of reason. Most of what we do is not based on rational thought and even though we know that it should be we too do not have the willpower to change our lifestyles around. First of all, we wouldn't be able to survive because it would mean getting rid of all emotional thoughts and feelings and that is close to impossible. Second to live like that would seem so far out and unreal that no one would even try to attempt it. No one can live life without love, lust, hate, and ANAYA--6 fear they are things that every human being is born with and will die with. Plato always presumed that rational was good, and right, but to us in this world rational is impossible. (Swanson) BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, R.E. The Dialogues of Plato, Volume II. London: Yale University Press Publisher, 1991. Grant, Michael. Cicero, Selected Works. Blatimore: Penguin Books Publisher, 1960. Dolan, John P. The Essentials Erasmus. New York: The new American Library Publisher, 1964 Internet. Plato (circa 428-C.-347 B.C) Plato Page. http://www.connect.net/ron/plato.html. Hare, R.M. Plato. London: Oxford University Press, 1892 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Platos Crito.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Socrates has thoroughly justified his own decision to obey the opinions of the majority and serve out the sentence that his own city has deemed appropriate for his crimes. At the beginning of this piece, Socrates has presented a period of questions and answers through dialogue with Crito. Throughout the dialogue Socrates is explaining his reasoning for not running from the government. Crito does not understand the madness of Socrates, Crito will do whatever it takes to help his friend to flee, instead of being exiled by the government. AI do not think that what you are doing is right, to give up your life when you can save it, and to hasten your fate as your enemies would hasten it, and indeed have hastened it in their wish to destroy you.@(Crito p.58c) Throughout the begining of the dialog, Crito is expressing his feelings of why he believes Socrates should flee from the city. Crito makes many valid points on why he disagrees with Socrates decision to bare this misfortune. Crito offers to do on not fleeingbeing majorints expressing to Socrates, that a man as courageous as Socrates and who has lived his life through virtue . AYou seem to me to choose the easiest path, whereas one should choose the path a good and courageous man would choose, particularly when one claims throughout one=s life to care for virtue.@(Crito p.59d) Through the dialogue the questions and answers within Socrates and Crito establish to major themes in which hold true throughout the work. The first being that a person must decide whether the society in which one lives has a just reasoning behind it=s own standards of right and wrong. The second being, that a person must have pride in the life that he or she leads. In establishing basic questions of these two concepts, Socrates has precluded his own circumstance and attempted to prove to his companion Crito, that the choice that he has made is just. AI am the kind of man who listens only to the argument that on reflection seems best to me. I cannot, now that this fate has come upon me, discard the arguments I used; they seen to me much the same.@(Crito p.59b) The introduction of this work has also provided the concept that it is our society or majority that has dictated what is considered virtuous action. According to Socrates we have been given every opportunity to reject our society and renounce what it has stood for and against. ANot one of our laws raises any obstacle or forbids him, if he is not satisfied with us or the city, if one of you wants to go and live in a colony or wants to go anywhere else, and keep his property.@ (Crito p.63d) Socrates states; that making a conscious choice or effort to remain under the influence of a society is an unconscious agreement with that society to live your life by it=s standards and virtues. Socrates states after establishing his own agreement with his city=s virtues that he believes in the validity of the decision imposed upon himself. He states that his decision is justified by the fact that the laws and governing agents of the society must command a certain degree of respect. Any person who would unjustly disobey these laws creates a deliberate attempt to destroy them, as well as, the society which has imposed them. For example; AHowever, that whoever of you remains when he sees how we conduct our trials and manage the city in other ways, has in fact come to an agreement with us to obey our instructions.@ (Crito p.63e) If the decisions of the city=s governing agents are not thoroughly respected as just and cohesive parts of society, the very structure by which the society stands is subject to collapse. If a person is found to be in violation of what his or her society stands for and does not accept the consequences for his or her actions, then there can not be a system of law in place to create order. A You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war or be wounded or killed you must obey.@(Crito p.63b) The society in which a person lives creates a mutual relationship in which every person in that society is indebted to, if he or she willingly accepts that society for their own. Following along these basic concepts, Socrates then adapts them to his own circumstances Crito, his companion , has presented to Socrates . The option to escape from his captors and renounce their decision on his fate. Socrates view in Crito=s suggestion to escape is one in which Crito begins to understand. Socrates suggests. AI mean the majority of men. For us, however, since our argument leads to this, the only valid consideration is whether we should be acting rightly in giving with the escape, or whether in truth we shall do wrong in doing all this.@ (Crito p.61c) Socrates has concluded that if he were to follow Crito=s advice he would be committing several wrong actions against a society in which he calls his own. The first of these being his own forebears. To disobey your own society, according to Socrates, is to betray what you were taught to be right by the virtues of your own parents. And what they held to be true, your fore fathers brought you into a society that they believed to be profound and just. AIs your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honored more then your mother, your father, and all your ancestors, that is more to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it and placate it=s anger@.(Crito p.63b) To renounce these virtues would be a disgrace. ADo you think you have the right to retaliation against your country and it=s law? That if we undertake to destroy you and think it right to do so you can undertake to destroy us@(Critop. p.63b), you who truly cares for virtue. This would be a disgrace against your own families legacy and the dreams that they hold for you, and your future. Society, in the day of Socrates has only requested for two things in return for the fulfillment and prophesizing of morally correct virtue The choice has been made very clear, to either persuade society that it has acted unjustly, or to do as society has asked without hindrance or complaint. The person who has disobeyed according to Socrates has done neither one. @We say that the one who disobeys does wrong in three ways, first, because in us he disobeys his parents, also those who brought him up, and in spite of his agreement, he neither obeys us nor, if we do something wrong does he try to persuade us to do better@. (Crito p.63e) This person only serves to justify their own decisions, actions, and foregoes the utterances of those who gave them the life they have renounced. Socrates then states that by remaining a member of your society, you have in fact accepted the society as your own. He uses himself as the only example and states that by living in his own city and choosing that city to raise a family. Socrates states, ADid you choose us and agree to be a citizen under us. Also, you have had children in this city, thus showing that it was congenial to you. Then your trial you could have assessed your penalty at exile if you wished, and you are now attempting to do against the cit=s wishes what you could have done with her consent. He has in fact been satisfied by the same values that his city has held dear. To disobey his society in its decision against himself would be to renounce what his city has accomplished both for himself and its other residents. Socrates needs and must hold his head up with pride in knowing that he was not hypocritical in his decision. The agreement that he made within his city to obey the laws to live as a good citizen makes the thought of exile shameful and therefore unacceptable. ANot being sentenced to death, and fleeing , Awill also strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you, for anyone who destroys the laws could easily be thought to corrupt the young and the ignorant.@ 64) Upon establishing the basic concept of right and wrong at the introduction to the piece Socrates has created an argument that he can not consider to be unjust. Running away from the decision that his own society has made would be an affirmation of his own guilt in the of his family and peers. Even though he may have been wrongly imprisoned and sentenced to death, he holds very little value in the belief that two wrongs can achieve a justifiable pardon in society He has firmly stood before his own value system and society=s beliefs, and has presented his own opinions on how he believes has been right in his actions, These affirmations of his own conviction to a law abiding community have led him to an unshaking belief that to ruin all of the work that he has accomplished. He would consequently made himself a traitor and guilty in all prolonging eyes. Socrates has very carefully and thoughtfully consented to what his own city has deemed to be righteous and justified. His thoughts on his destiny are completely unselfish, as his only wish is to preserve the society around him which has accepted him and his family for so many years. He has indignantly renounced the idea of self preservation and any attempt to escape because of the potential harm and damage that it ultimately will cause. The disgrace of thought as he being guilty would force all that he has forged to hide in exile from the wrath of the society which he has protected. Socrates has succeeded in justifying his actions by showing how devastating his disobedience could possibly be. In considering all of the points that he has made in the defense of his decision. Socrates can maintain his own pride, and sense of right and wrong. He has shown others, such as Crito . There is a certain satisfaction in maintaining ones own innocence while not accepting a hollow victory for one may possibly last for many society=s yet to come. By maintaining a harmony between what is right and the expression of a persons own opinions he has made possible the ultimate truth, the belief in what has worked and staying within the boundaries of decent and god fearing society. The laws of the society in which Socrates lived condemned him to die for his own conviction and the reasons for Socrates to remain and accept the punishments of that society have proved to be wise and justified. . 6 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Platos Early Dialogues.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plato's Early Dialogues EUTHYPHRO Persons of the Dialogue: Socrates and Euthyphro Scene: The Porch of the King Archon SUMMARY As the dialogue begins, Socrates is on his way to court to face the charges brought on him. Euthyphro is on his way to the court to prosecute his father for murder. Socrates is very surprised at Euthyphro's charge against his father and asks him if he is sure that what he is doing is pious or holy. He asks Euthyphro to tell him about the nature of piety and impiety. Euthyphro will not define piety or impiety, but instead says "Piety is doing as I am doing," and compares it with the actions of the god Zeus when he punished his own father. Socrates asks for a definition and not an example, to which Euthyphro offers that "Piety is that which is dear to the gods." Socrates accepts this definition, but forces Euthyphro to admit that the gods differ, just like human beings, about what they love and hate. By this definition, the same act may be called both pious and impious, therefore this definition leads to contradiction. Euthyphro offers a third definition and claims: "What all the gods love is pious." Socrates then asks whether an act is loved by the gods because it is pious, or and act is pious because it is loved by the gods. Euthyphro responds that the gods love an act because it is pious. By this, Socrates concludes that Euthyphro's definition is only a characteristic of piety, not its definition. At this point, Euthyphro says that he does not know how to express what he means and accuses Socrates of setting arguments in motion. Socrates is not satisfied and accuses Euthyphro of being lazy, and forces the argument further by asking whether piety is a part of justice, or justice a part of piety. Here, Euthyphro offers yet another definition: "Piety...is that part of justice which attends to the gods." Now Socrates wants an explanation of "attention," and asks if the gods benefit from this "attention," to which Euthyphro responds that the attention is like ministration to the gods. Socrates then points out that ministration usually means assisting someone in his work, and asks what ministration to the gods helps them to do. Euthyphro responds that the discussion has become tiresome, and issues his fifth definition: "Piety...is learning how to please the gods by prayers and sacrifices." Socrates asks if piety is an art which gods and human beings have of doing business with one another, and what benefits do the gods receive from the offerings of individuals. Euthyphro answers that they get "tributes of honour"; they are pleased, not benefited. Socrates tells him that by saying that the gods are pleased, they have returned to an earlier definition. Frustrated and annoyed, Euthyphro tells Socrates that he is in a hurry to depart and ends the discussion. ANALYSIS This dialogue explores the meaning of Piety. As the dialogue starts, Socrates is on his way to court to defend himself against accusations of impious behavior; Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father based on his own understanding in the matter of piety. As the dialogue develops, Euthyphro seems to take on the role of Meletus, Socrates' accuser. He claims to have perfect understanding in the matter of piety, so Socrates requests his help to answer Meletus charges against him. He asks Euthyphro to instruct him about the nature of piety. In his first definition, Euthyphro states that he is justified on bringing charges against his father because Zeus has done the same, and therefore there is divine justification. Later, Euthyphro offers other definitions about the nature of piety, and in all of them he implies that his knowledge in the subject is indeed superior to the majority. If this is the case, then only Euthyphro is the judge as to whether an action should or should not be performed. He starts by justifying his actions through divine understanding, but Socrates is not satisfied. He then tries to make his actions right, but, again, Socrates leads him into contractions. Finally, he tries to turn his actions into a duty. Through the dialogue, Euthyphro tries to use the gods to justify his actions and interests, which is exactly the same charge that will later send Socrates to his death. When asked about the relationship between the gods and human beings, Euthyphro tells us that our duty is to please the gods and, through our actions, to honor and glorify them. If this is true, then we are nothing more than servants of the gods, crated solely to take them higher and higher. I hope our mission is somewhat more substantial than this. The dialogue does not offer an answer to the question of whether something is pious because is loved by the gods, or something is loved by the gods because is pious. Even if we were to assume that the gods love that which is pious, then love is only a consequence of a pious act. They both agree that piety implies justice, but justice does not imply piety. Thus, we can understand justice without bringing in the matter of the gods, which seems to be the biggest problem in this dialogue. If we were to tie justice with the divine, this would imply that reason alone would not be enough to define justice, but we would need divine guidance to do so. Through this dialogue, Euthyphro gets angry and frustrated; while Socrates' tone is ironic and condescending. Euthyphro accuses Socrates of creating "moving" arguments, but Socrates shows Euthyphro that his argument not only moves around, but comes full circle to the starting point. The dialogue shows us that if we are committed to the pursuit of knowledge and truth, we must understand that this may be a never ending process while we are in this life. Although our actions are based on our limited knowledge, justice should always be an integral part of everything we do. APOLOGY SUMMARY The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, but, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is also accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by himself and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corruptor of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own." In his examination of Meletus, Socrates makes three main points: 1) Meletus has accused Socrates of being the only corruptor, while everyone else improves the youth. Socrates then uses an analogy: a horse trainer is to horses as an improver is to the youth. The point is that there is only one improver, not many. 2) If Socrates corrupts the youth, either it is intentional or unintentional. No one would corrupt his neighbor intentionally, because he would harm himself in the process. If the corruption was unintentional, then the court is not the place to resolve the problem. The other possibility is that he does not corrupt them at all. 3) In frustration, Meletus accuses Socrates of being "a complete atheist," at the same time he claims Socrates teaches new gods. Thus, Meletus contradicts himself. Socrates argues that fear of death is foolish, because it is not known if death is a good or an evil, thus there is no reason to fear death.. Socrates claims that his mission is in service to God. This is to condemn people's pursuit of money, honor, and reputation, while ignoring wisdom, truth, and the improvement of the soul. When talking about politicians, he states that he was a Senator once, and opposed the majority when several generals were brought to trial. He points out that several of the "corrupted youth" and their fathers were present, but none of them were accusing him; rather, they were there in his defense. Socrates refuses to ask for pity. He does not throw himself on the mercy of the court. Many would bring in their children to win pity. However, he does mention that he has three young children. He tells the jury about their responsibility to ignore the appeals to pity and judge the truth. Despite Socrates' speech, the jury finds him guilty as charged. Meletus proposes death as punishment. Instead, Socrates proposes retirement in a home for benefactors of the state. He examines possible penalties: death, imprisonment, a fine, or exile. Then, he realizes that exile is not an option since he believes that "The unexamined life is not worth living." He finally proposes a fine of 30 minae, guaranteed by Crito, Plato, and others. The jury sentences him to death. Socrates remarks that his internal, guiding voice, which at times would warn him to refrain from certain actions, had not once interrupted his actions in his defense. He argues that death might be a good: either it is a dreamless sleep, or he will travel to the place of the dead where he can question anyone and not be executed for it. He states: "No evil can happen to a good man." He asks the jury to punish his sons, and provide guidance. If so, then he will have received justice. "We go our ways: me to die, you to live; only God knows which is better." ANALYSIS Throughout the Apology, Socrates believes himself to be a "teacher," though he does not say that of himself. He finds reputed wise men and questions them. If Socrates finds that they believe themselves to be wiser than they really are, he points out their mistake, thus educates them and himself. This allows Socrates to learn when he finds other people who know more about a subject than he. Socrates tells the judges that he will not be found guilty because of "evidence" and testimony; if he is found guilty, it will be because of the reputation that he has obtained. As Socrates deals with the charges, he is constantly talking about himself. If Socrates wanted to appease the judges so that he would not be found guilty, he could have made up or omit the parts about himself that caused so much trouble. The fact that Socrates knows that he is being persecuted for who he is and that he honestly describes himself, shows that he is staying true to himself and his beliefs through his trial. Through reason, Socrates is constantly searching for the truth of what others think. When Meletus accuses Socrates of not believing in any gods, Socrates then uses reason to refute him. Socrates tells a story about an oracle, which he states that he believes in, and says that since an oracle is a divine thing he must believe in divinities. Socrates used reason to question Meletus and led him to state inconsistent statements: (1) Socrates corrupts the youth intentionally. (2) Nobody intentionally harms himself. (3) People who corrupt society ultimately harm themselves. If (1) Socrates corrupts the youth intentionally and (3) people who corrupt society ultimately harm themselves, then (2) must be false. However, if (2) nobody intentionally harms themselves and (3) people who corrupt society ultimately harm themselves is true, then (1) must be false (since Socrates cannot be corrupting the youth intentionally). If that is the case, then the court is not the proper place to discuss it. The second section of the Apology is the speech that Socrates gives after he is found guilty. In this speech, he is to propose a penalty for his "crimes." Socrates gives, at first, what he believes that he should receive for his the actions, and he proposes that he should receive free room and board. This remark shows Socrates still believes in his mission. Had he proposed anything else, it would have been to indirectly admit that his beliefs were wrong. For punishment, Socrates explores the idea of exile. However, Socrates admits that, if exiled, he would continue to question men about themselves. Socrates could have escaped death here by submitting to exile and promising to change his ways, yet again, that would undermine his beliefs. He then proposes a fine. In all the punishments that he proposes, he never admits to being wrong or promises to reconsider his ideas. Had he agreed to exile and silence, he would not have stayed true to himself and his beliefs. Socrates' philosophy of using reason to find the truth prevents him from telling the jury what they would like to hear. Each time Socrates proposes a punishment, he reasons himself out of it and into a worse punishment. The last section of the Apology deals with Socrates' speech after he has been sentenced to death. Though Socrates becomes indignant, he does not become angry. Socrates does not do any of the "weeping and wailing...[or the] many other things which [he] maintains are unworthy of [himself]." Socrates believes that if he did, it would bring shame on himself and his beliefs and that it would be much worse than death. Socrates claims that he, unlike many others who appear before the jury, will not appeal to their pity by having his family brought before them. However, he does describe his family in some detail -- including his sons. Here, he seems to be appealing to pity in a very subtle way. Speaking about his children, he asks the jury "punish them...if they seem to care about riches or anything, more than about virtue; or if they...are something when they are really nothing." Once again, he seems to be instructing or teaching the jury about his beliefs. Socrates uses reason, once again, to convince himself that death is not an evil. "...the state of death is one of two things: either a dead man wholly ceases to be and loses all consciousness or, as we are told, it is a change and a migration of the soul to another place." Socrates goes on to say that, since neither of those two states of being can be bad, death shouldn't be feared. His philosophy of reason allows him to look at death in a way that he does not have to be afraid of it. Socrates believes in holding on to his principle regardless of the consequences, even if they involve death. Concern for himself is not nearly as important as the pursuit of the good, the true, and the just. As a result, it is far better to suffer injustice than, through ignorance, to cause it. Justice seems to be the prevalent theme, since this dialogue deals with the injustice against Socrates. One inconsistency is that in Crito he seemed universally opposed to violating the law, while in the Apology there seem to be exceptions to this belief. For example, he opposed the government actions (the law of the State) on two occasions. The speech that Socrates gives reflects the indignation he feels over injustice that he has received. However, a theme of courage in the face of death seems to be emphasized. Also, the point about staying true to oneself and beliefs, and the search for truth by way of reason is a policy we should all adopt. CRITO Persons of the Dialogue: Socrates and Crito Scene: The Prison of Socrates SUMMARY This dialogue takes place in the jail where Socrates awaits execution. The dialogue is a debate between Socrates and Crito about whether Socrates should escape. As the dialogue opens, Crito has arrived at the prison before dawn and sits by the bedside of Socrates, still asleep. When Socrates awakens, he tells Crito of a dream he has had. A woman in his dream implies that Socrates will soon find his home; death is forthcoming. Crito tells Socrates that he can use his influence and money to help Socrates escape. Crito is afraid that other people will think he should have done more to save Socrates' life. Socrates admonishes Crito no to value the opinion of the many, but of the few good men worth considering. Crito suggests Socrates is acting out of regard for him and other friends, and argues that Socrates is, en effect, committing suicide and betraying his children. Crito accuses Socrates of taking the easy way out and tells him that others will think him cowardly if he does not escape. Socrates counters that he cannot disobey the laws of Athens after Athens has granted him certain rights and has protected him. He cannot defy the laws for his own convenience. He argues that he cannot put away the reasons he has honored for 70 years, unless there is good reason to do so. Socrates claims that one should only regard the opinions of the good, not the evil; he uses the analogy of the student of gymnastics that is supposed to listen to one man, and ignore the many; otherwise he will harm his body. The just man must only listen to the understanding; otherwise, he will harm his soul. Socrates says that first they must determine if escape is the right thing to do. If Crito can convince him, he will escape; otherwise, he will not. First, Socrates argues that one should never do wrong intentionally, and return evil for evil, or wrong for wrong; therefore, just because the sentence is unjust, if escaping is wrong, he must remain in jail. Socrates imagines the government appearing before him to interrogate him. They charge him with overturning them, that a State cannot exist if the decisions of law have no power but are set aside by an individual. They talk about an agreement between him and the State to obey the laws, regardless of whether he receives justice or not. Socrates then compares the laws to one's parents. Just because a parent strikes a child, the child does not have the right to strike the parent. Further, he argues that the State is to be held higher and holier than mother or father. One must do what the State commands or change the State's view of what is just. By remaining in the State, and existing under its laws, one enters into an implied contract to follow these laws for three reasons: (1) in disobeying the laws, one is disobeying one's parents; (2) the State is the author of one's education; (3) one has made an arrangement with the State to obey its commands. Socrates could have had an agreement with the jury to fix the sentence at banishment but he said he preferred death to exile. Socrates tells Crito not to think of life and children first and of justice afterwards. Socrates then asks Crito if he has any other argument to make. Crito responds that he does not. Socrates asks Crito to let him fulfill the will of God, and to follow wherever he leads. ANALYSIS This dialogue reflects Socrates' teaching on moral obligation and duty. Early in the dialogue, Crito expresses admiration about the fact that Socrates is at peace about his coming execution. He accepts his fate. When discussing the opinions of others, Socrates uses "argument by analogy," where he compares two things that are different on the surface but, similar in some important areas. Socrates compares athletes who care about improving their athletic performance with those who care about the improvement of the soul. Socrates argues that he and Crito must only listen to those who are knowledgeable about the issues at hand, namely justice, fairness, and the ultimate good. Having established that the good life is equal to a just and honorable life, the justice or injustice of escaping the law's judgment is the only issue to be considered, and all of Crito's personal arguments for escape are set aside. Socrates states that making a conscious choice to remain under the influence of a society, is an unconscious agreement with that society to live one's life by its standards and virtues. We see throughout the dialogue that Socrates emphasizes that the law should be either followed or challenged, but never ignored; on the other hand, his contempt for public opinion and injustice is evident. At the end of the dialogue Socrates states that, if he refuses to die, he will be disobeying the law; but it is not the law that is unjust, it is the men. Socrates reinforces the importance of respecting the laws as the foundation of society, otherwise our system of values and justice is subject to collapse. PHAEDO Persons of the Dialogue: Socrates, Phaedo, Simmias, Cebes, Crito and Apollodorus Scene: The Prison of Socrates SUMMARY The dialogue is narrated by Phaedo to Echecrates, some time after Socrates' death. The setting is early on the last morning of Socrates' life. Phaedo lists those present, and notes that Plato was not there. Phaedo makes a point of describing Socrates' attitude on this day: he appeared calm and fearless. When they have taken off Socrates' chains, he remarks that pain and pleasure are two opposites that follow one another. Cebes notes that Evenus the poet had remarked at Socrates' composing poetry: translating Aesop into verse, and composing a hymn to Apollo. Socrates explains that he has had a dream all his life to "make music" (poetry). Before, he had assumed that this meant his practice of philosophy, but he wanted to be safe that it did not mean actual poetry. Cebes asks why suicide is considered wrong. The implication is that Socrates is too willing to die. Socrates argues that we are the possession of the gods, so to kill ourselves would be to rob them. Socrates expresses his belief that after death he will travel to the gods who are good and wise, and will be in the company of others who are better than those he will leave behind. Simmias asks Socrates to convince them, and they will no longer charge him with suicide. Socrates claims that the philosopher pursues death--the separation of soul and body, when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body. Socrates argues that the philosopher is unconcerned with pleasures of the body, that he would rather turn completely to the soul. The philosopher, Socrates says, seeks to sever the soul from the body. Socrates argues that when the soul seeks truth, the body deceives it. Truth is revealed in thought, and thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself. Socrates then introduces a discussion of forms: absolutes of justice, beauty, and good. These, he says, are not perceived with the bodily senses. Rather, these are perceived with an intellectual vision, with the mind alone. The body, he says, is a source of trouble that creates desires in us that keeps us from seeking the truth. To attain pure knowledge, we must part from the body. So after death, when the soul is alone and without the body, we may be able to attain truth. So the philosopher seeks to separate the soul from the body and enjoy a purification, and will leave this life with joy, and with no fear of death. Cebes agrees with what Socrates has said, but asks how we can know that the soul does not die with the body. Socrates begins his response by mentioning the doctrine of reincarnation, that souls depart at death to another world, and return, and are born from the dead. The living comes from the dead, so the soul must be in another world. Socrates supports this by discussing opposites, such as good and evil, hot and cold, pain and pleasure, where one is generated out of its opposite. In this way, life and death are opposite, and the process of life becoming death is visible, but the process of death becoming life is not. Simmias reminds the group of one of Socrates' favorite doctrines, the Doctrine of Recollection: to learn something is actually remembering what has been forgotten. This would require the pre-existence of the soul in order to have the knowledge that is recollected in this life. Socrates supports this with the example of equality: to judge two things as unequal, we must first know what equality is; but we have no experience in this life of absolute equality; therefore, this knowledge must come from some previous existence in which the soul must have existed. This applies also to all the other absolutes, or forms. For all individual things we call by one name, there must be a single, essential nature which allows us to call them by the same name. This essence is the form. This form is not visible, and is never seen on earth. Nevertheless, we must use it as a standard by which we judge things to be what they are. Therefore, it comes from a pre-existence state when we were directly aware of them, and now we recollect them when we encounter things on earth that are copies of these essences. Cebes repeats his objection that, even if the soul existed before birth, it might be destroyed at death. Socrates returns to the theory of forms, and explains that there are two sorts of existences, one seen, the other unseen. The seen is the changing, and the unseen is the unchanging. The body belongs to the visible and changing; the soul belongs to the invisible and unchanging. The philosopher seeks these unchanging forms and becomes like them. He is practicing death, or the separation of soul and body, and is purifying the soul of bodily elements that hold it down. Socrates discusses the souls or ghosts that linger around tombs, because they are too attached to the body. Then, Socrates states that if a person loves the body, he becomes more like body, and this holds on to the soul after death; then, he will be reborn as a lower form of life. If a person loves the soul, he becomes more like soul, and, the purified soul can escape after death and rise to the heavens. Simmias suggests that the soul and body are analogous to harmony and the lyre. Harmony is invisible, without body, and divine, while the lyre is visible, material, and earthly. But when the lyre is broken, or the strings cut, the harmony dies. Thus, when the body is broken and dies, the soul dies too. Cebes offers another objection: he compares the soul to a coat made by a weaver. The weaver wears the coat until he dies, and then someone else wears it. The coat may outlast many men who wear it, but finally is worn out and dies. The same could apply to the soul; it may be reborn several times and outlast several bodies, but it will finally perish. Socrates argues that harmony is not like the soul. First, he reminds Simmias that he has already agreed that knowledge is recollection, and that the soul exists prior to this life. Therefore, the soul exists before the body. However, the harmony of a lyre exists only after the existence of the lyre. Another difference between harmony and the soul is that the lyre causes and controls the harmony. However, the soul is not led by the body, but the other way around. Also, Socrates argues that harmony has degrees and can be more or less harmonious. This is not the case with the soul. Socrates says that in order to refute Cebes' objection, he will have to discuss the process of generation and corruption, which involves the natural sciences. He proceeds to scientifically explain the reason for his sitting in jail as the contraction of muscles and positioning of bones, but the real reason is that society has sentenced him to death, and he has chosen not to escape. Socrates again refers to the theory of forms as the cause of all things. Ideas exist and other things participate in them. For example, beautiful things come from absolute beauty. This hold for all forms: no opposites ever become mixed with each other (hot and cold, life and death). Socrates states that the soul is the creator of life and it can never be mixed with death, which would be its opposite. Socrates then stresses the importance of taking good care of our soul at all times because of its immortality. His friends worry about the burial logistics as if the corpse they will bury is Socrates'. Socrates' family returns. Once Socrates dismisses them, the jailer brings the poison. Cebes tells Socrates that there is still time to enjoy. However, Socrates thinks that there is nothing to be gained by delay. He drinks the poison and, following his jailer's instructions, lies down when he feels his legs heavy. Socrates' last words are to repay a debt, a sacrifice he owes to a god. ANALYSIS In the Phaedo, we meet Socrates on the morning of his own execution. Socrates suggests philosophy and contemplation as a method to cast away the fear of death. He believes that the philosophical life is a preparation for death and that the true philosopher looks forward to dying. It seems that if philosophers look upon death with "good cheer," then they would not love life enough to learn and examine life and, therefore, death. Socrates makes a distinction between two types of death, figurative and literal, and defines death as the release of the soul from the body. The responsibility of the philosopher is to seek the truth and to prepare for the afterlife. Socrates notes that the body leads us away from the truth. The discussion about the separation of body and soul leads to the discussion of the immortality of the soul. Socrates presents three arguments: one from the necessary generation of opposites from opposi Word Count: 5120 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Platos Republic.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Does Plato Believe There can ever be a Just Society ? In answering this question I first need to describe what a just society would consist of. A perfect state can only be lead under perfect conditions. Civil Society would be a better name for this state. A just state would be made up of three parts. First, a state is a structure with parts that work together like an organism. If the parts do not work well together then the whole thing breaks down. It must have virtues, voices, it can be wise and brave. The state must have everyone performing there jobs to their best ability. For a state to be just the people within the state must also be just. A man is just when he has a well ordered soul because then you will do the right thing by performing good and just actions. A soul must be allowed to perform its proper function. In a state you cannot define justice by a man because a man can decay into ugliness. Instead you must define justice based on forms. Plato says that the forms are eternal and ever lasting. What constitutes an unjust society is a lack of knowledge. So ignored to create a just society we must educate people. The society must be well rounded in their education for if they are not they will have problems in society. A society must be fit, participation in athletics, they need to be sensitive to prose poetry, and have knowledge of mathematics and science. Education can not be on specialties, but everything mind, spirit, and body. Having a well rounded education will help people to communicate in all areas. The more you know in many different areas the better over all communication a society has. One of the reason there are inequalities in a society is due to lack of knowledge. Everyone in the society must to some extent be a philosopher because they seek education and knowledge. A just society must also have a just ruler. A just ruler would need to be a philosopher, he would have to offer honest leadership which reflects the will and knowledge of society. A perfect society must have temperance, knowledge, and wisdom. In justices occur because of a lack of knowledge resulting in greed. In order to get rid of injustice everyone in the society must be educated starting at birth. Women and men need to be equally educated in a well rounded fashion in order to promote a just society. In asking if this society could ever work the answer is no. The only way it could work is if all of society is willing to accept knowledge and work hard for education. Even though there is no such thing as a truly unjust society a totally just society will never happen until people are willing to work for it. Another reason there can never be a perfectly just society is because everyone's perception of just is different. We know that the idea of justice is there, but to explain it to where everyone agrees to the idea would be hard to achieve. However, in trying to find true justice the society becomes stronger and more just. Expressing individuality that benefits or hurts a society however, reflects assertiveness, incentive, thought, and creativity, which strengthens the society. If a society ever got to the point of being just, the society would no longer have greed, drive for a better life, it would not have poverty or wealth. The society would just stop. There would be no more invention, growth, or change. The only change from Plato's time to ours is technology. We are still searching for the perfect government, the question of who is better than who is still asked, and education is still a major principle to whether or not you are successful. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\pleasureand Aggreshion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Based on Freud concepts of pleasure and aggression, discuses Hay Ibn Yaqzan and The Island of Animals It is said to be that seeking pleasure and aggression are a part of our human Instinct. We seek pleasure to shorten the time of our unhappiness. We live in a constant struggle to be always happy, and we use all the ways that take us to happiness. Aggression, on the otherhand, is a part of our human nature, which can be hidden deep down in our subconcousnes and explodes in certain situations, or it can be on the surface of our behavior and inconstant use. Sources of happiness may differ from one person to another, but the one source of our human gratification that we all agree upon, is the happiness derived from sexual pleasure. Our souls strive for sexual pleasure to be elevated from one degree of human happiness to another. Freud said that "what we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the ... satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon." (25). At the sametime, we explore those human instincts in the presence of civilization which set some rules and regulation that are surpassingly acting as guidelines for the survival of humanity. Hay Ibn Yaqzan and The Island of animals, are two different human experiences that discover our two core human instincts, pleasure and aggression. In Hay, we will find that his journey with his own instincts is different from our own human instincts, but it is the same when it comes to the roll of civilization with dealing with them. On the otherhand, The Island of Animals tends to dig in our human aggression, and shows how humanity uses civilization as a curtain to hide behind it. Freud concept of pleasure and happiness is related to Hay in only one way. It is not in the kind of happiness itself , whether if is sexual or spiritual, but it is similar in the procedure and the definitions of happiness or pleasure. In other words, pleasure to Freud is basically in sexual terms, "Sexual gratification is the prototype of all forms of individual happiness...". On the otherhand, Hay Ibn Yaqzan's happiness or his pleasure is found in totally different kind of human instinct, which is the substitute gratification for sexual pleasure, because religion and science are included in Freud's lists for intellectual replacements for the lost sexual happiness. So Hay, according to Freud, is someone who favored the substitutes of sexual happiness. But, did not experience sexual pleasure in the first place. Therefor, we cannot say that Hay is someone who escaped the sexual pleasure to the intellectual replacements, because of civilization. The concepts of Freud equation does not suit Hay's case. At the sametime, we can make the link between Hay and Freud's concept from the civilization point of view. According to Freud, our sexual instincts are operates by civilization, and it does not serve the requirements of civilization. In Hayy's case civilization oppressed his spiritual happiness where he found it on the island. In this sense civilization stood against his human instinct, as civilization is standing against our human desires represented in the sexual form. Opposite, Hay escaped from civilization in search for his basic human desires. This escape was confirmed by his reinhabiting the Island with Absal. Hayy found that civilization grab his desires from him, actually from his fellow man. Hayy knew that "what misery moreburdeing than recounting all you do from the time you get up to the time you go to bed without finding a singal action that did not amount to seeking one of these vile, sensory aims:...pleasure seeking...venting rage..."(71) As we can see pleasure for Salaman and his friends is totally different from Hay's pleasure. The difference between Freud's concept and Hay, is that in reality we do not fight or even escape to reach our basic human instinct, but rather we create substitute gratification's. According to Freud "Civilization compensates the individual by redirecting his libidinal energies into socially acceptable forms of amusement and diversion." But as we see those acceptable forms are substitutes for the real thing, instinctual happiness. But, they are not a substitute for Hayy, they are his core source of happiness. So he did not stay with Salaman and create for himself substitute kind of pleasure, instead, he left civilization for its seekers and he went back in search for his higher degree of happiness. On the otherhand, civilization for us, becomes the constant attempt to divert the individual from sexual gratification into socially productive and acceptable activities. We on the contrary, do not have any place to escape to, so we surrender to the quest of our civilization, and we use the intellectual replacements for the lost sexual happiness. On the otherhand of this discussion, comes the other concept of Freud which is human aggression, and once more we will relate this core human instinct to civilization and its impacts on human aggression. The Island of Animals question the aggression that lies deep in human nature. It also impasses the role of civilization in creating such violence within our behavior. As we know, surpassingly, civilization came to modify our aggressive nature, but it failed to do so because of too many restrictions, such as social pressure that govern us and particularly governs our behavior (lecture). It is an irony to say that the people who landed on the Island are civilized men, "They were...men of every sort of profession, trade and craft.....doctors and lawyers and builders....."(5), and according to Freud, social order is one of the requirements for civilization, but the first thing that those civilized men did is something completely against civilization. It is once you feel that no one is watching you begin doing what brings you happiness. In other words, aggression is another human instinct that brings us joy and happiness. But, because civilization refuses any act of violence, it oppresses this need of aggression deep in our consciousness, and thus the first thing we do when no body is watching is anything that civilization refuses us to do. In this case, civilization oppressed the aggression instinct in the men who landed on the Island. This sense of aggression was clearly felt by the animals who protested and asked for help, as any one who is being used aggressively. The point that The Island of Animals emphasized is that aggression is purely a human instinct, as there were men from all kinds of religion, "These men came from different parts of t world and were from different religions; they included Muslims, Christians, jews and others."(5). This means that where ever you came from, whatever your culture is, you are aggressive by nature. From that sense civilization steps in with a beneficial propose, as it tame the human nature. But, civilization creates human source of worry and distress, and also oppresses our basic human instinct. As we looked for substitute for our sexual desire, we also sacrifice our aggressive nature for the benefit of civilization. Finally, it is clear that civilization has its discontents, but how can we solve such a problem. It is impossible to look back and say that the permissive man was happier because he had no restrictions. We can never go back, or even look to the permissive world. Once we reach a higher degree of civilization we tend to look and analyze the next step. We ignore our human desires for better standards of living, we sacrifice them with what we see better. Or even because we know that what we want from sexual and aggressive desires is impossible to happen, then we subconsciously live in the discontents of the civilization and pretend to be happy with the substitutes we created for ourselves. Hayy and The Island of Animals are two stories that question the roll of civilization in our life, each looked at civilization from different perspective. At the sametime, what we all see refutable is the solution that Hayy choose for himself, because no one can escape the discontents that he originally created. Hayy was a special case because he was raised away from civilization, so he didn't live in it. The question that we have to ask ourselves is, what was Hayy going to do if he was exposed to a sexual experience on the land of Absal and Salaman? was he going to escape from civilization like he did, or was he going to live in civilization and accept its discontent. Seminar 200 section (31) Name: Mohamed Fakhry A.Wahab ID: 930110001 SECOND ESSAY 18.12.1996 Based on Freud concepts of pleasure and aggression, discuses Hay Ibn Yaqzan and The Island of Animals It is said to be that seeking pleasure and aggression are a part of our human Instinct. We seek pleasure to shorten the time of our unhappiness. We live in a constant struggle to be always happy, and we use all the ways that take us to happiness. Aggression, on the otherhand, is a part of our human nature, which can be hidden deep down in our subconcousnes and explodes in certain situations, or it can be on the surface of our behavior and inconstant use. Sources of happiness may differ from one person to another, but the one source of our human gratification that we all agree upon, is the happiness derived from sexual pleasure. Our souls strive for sexual pleasure to be elevated from one degree of human happiness to another. Freud said that "what we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the ... satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon." (25). At the sametime, we explore those human instincts in the presence of civilization which set some rules and regulation that are surpassingly acting as guidelines for the survival of humanity. Hay Ibn Yaqzan and The Island of animals, are two different human experiences that discover our two core human instincts, pleasure and aggression. In Hay, we will find that his journey with his own instincts is different from our own human instincts, but it is the same when it comes to the roll of civilization with dealing with them. On the otherhand, The Island of Animals tends to dig in our human aggression, and shows how humanity uses civilization as a curtain to hide behind it. Freud concept of pleasure and happiness is related to Hay in only one way. It is not in the kind of happiness itself , whether if is sexual or spiritual, but it is similar in the procedure and the definitions of happiness or pleasure. In other words, pleasure to Freud is basically in sexual terms, "Sexual gratification is the prototype of all forms of individual happiness...". On the otherhand, Hay Ibn Yaqzan's happiness or his pleasure is found in totally different kind of human instinct, which is the substitute gratification for sexual pleasure, because religion and science are included in Freud's lists for intellectual replacements for the lost sexual happiness. So Hay, according to Freud, is someone who favored the substitutes of sexual happiness. But, did not experience sexual pleasure in the first place. Therefor, we cannot say that Hay is someone who escaped the sexual pleasure to the intellectual replacements, because of civilization. The concepts of Freud equation does not suit Hay's case. At the sametime, we can make the link between Hay and Freud's concept from the civilization point of view. According to Freud, our sexual instincts are operates by civilization, and it does not serve the requirements of civilization. In Hayy's case civilization oppressed his spiritual happiness where he found it on the island. In this sense civilization stood against his human instinct, as civilization is standing against our human desires represented in the sexual form. Opposite, Hay escaped from civilization in search for his basic human desires. This escape was confirmed by his reinhabiting the Island with Absal. Hayy found that civilization grab his desires from him, actually from his fellow man. Hayy knew that "what misery moreburdeing than recounting all you do from the time you get up to the time you go to bed without finding a singal action that did not amount to seeking one of these vile, sensory aims:...pleasure seeking...venting rage..."(71) As we can see pleasure for Salaman and his friends is totally different from Hay's pleasure. The difference between Freud's concept and Hay, is that in reality we do not fight or even escape to reach our basic human instinct, but rather we create substitute gratification's. According to Freud "Civilization compensates the individual by redirecting his libidinal energies into socially acceptable forms of amusement and diversion." But as we see those acceptable forms are substitutes for the real thing, instinctual happiness. But, they are not a substitute for Hayy, they are his core source of happiness. So he did not stay with Salaman and create for himself substitute kind of pleasure, instead, he left civilization for its seekers and he went back in search for his higher degree of happiness. On the otherhand, civilization for us, becomes the constant attempt to divert the individual from sexual gratification into socially productive and acceptable activities. We on the contrary, do not have any place to escape to, so we surrender to the quest of our civilization, and we use the intellectual replacements for the lost sexual happiness. On the otherhand of this discussion, comes the other concept of Freud which is human aggression, and once more we will relate this core human instinct to civilization and its impacts on human aggression. The Island of Animals question the aggression that lies deep in human nature. It also impasses the role of civilization in creating such violence within our behavior. As we know, surpassingly, civilization came to modify our aggressive nature, but it failed to do so because of too many restrictions, such as social pressure that govern us and particularly governs our behavior (lecture). It is an irony to say that the people who landed on the Island are civilized men, "They were...men of every sort of profession, trade and craft.....doctors and lawyers and builders....."(5), and according to Freud, social order is one of the requirements for civilization, but the first thing that those civilized men did is something completely against civilization. It is once you feel that no one is watching you begin doing what brings you happiness. In other words, aggression is another human instinct that brings us joy and happiness. But, because civilization refuses any act of violence, it oppresses this need of aggression deep in our consciousness, and thus the first thing we do when no body is watching is anything that civilization refuses us to do. In this case, civilization oppressed the aggression instinct in the men who landed on the Island. This sense of aggression was clearly felt by the animals who protested and asked for help, as any one who is being used aggressively. The point that The Island of Animals emphasized is that aggression is purely a human instinct, as there were men from all kinds of religion, "These men came from different parts of t world and were from different religions; they included Muslims, Christians, jews and others."(5). This means that where ever you came from, whatever your culture is, you are aggressive by nature. From that sense civilization steps in with a beneficial propose, as it tame the human nature. But, civilization creates human source of worry and distress, and also oppresses our basic human instinct. As we looked for substitute for our sexual desire, we also sacrifice our aggressive nature for the benefit of civilization. Finally, it is clear that civilization has its discontents, but how can we solve such a problem. It is impossible to look back and say that the permissive man was happier because he had no restrictions. We can never go back, or even look to the permissive world. Once we reach a higher degree of civilization we tend to look and analyze the next step. We ignore our human desires for better standards of living, we sacrifice them with what we see better. Or even because we know that what we want from sexual and aggressive desires is impossible to happen, then we subconsciously live in the discontents of the civilization and pretend to be happy with the substitutes we created for ourselves. Hayy and The Island of Animals are two stories that question the roll of civilization in our life, each looked at civilization from different perspective. At the sametime, what we all see refutable is the solution that Hayy choose for himself, because no one can escape the discontents that he originally created. Hayy was a special case because he was raised away from civilization, so he didn't live in it. The question that we have to ask ourselves is, what was Hayy going to do if he was exposed to a sexual experience on the land of Absal and Salaman? was he going to escape from civilization like he did, or was he going to live in civilization and accept its discontent. Seminar 200 section (31) Name: Mohamed Fakhry A.Wahab ID: 930110001 SECOND ESSAY 18.12.1996 Based on Freud concepts of pleasure and aggression, discuses Hay Ibn Yaqzan and The Island of Animals It is said to be that seeking pleasure and aggression are a part of our human Instinct. We seek pleasure to shorten the time of our unhappiness. We live in a constant struggle to be always happy, and we use all the ways that take us to happiness. Aggression, on the otherhand, is a part of our human nature, which can be hidden deep down in our subconcousnes and explodes in certain situations, or it can be on the surface of our behavior and inconstant use. Sources of happiness may differ from one person to another, but the one source of our human gratification that we all agree upon, is the happiness derived from sexual pleasure. Our souls strive for sexual pleasure to be elevated from one degree of human happiness to another. Freud said that "what we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the ... satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon." (25). At the sametime, we explore those human instincts in the presence of civilization which set some rules and regulation that are surpassingly acting as guidelines for the survival of humanity. Hay Ibn Yaqzan and The Island of animals, are two different human experiences that discover our two core human instincts, pleasure and aggression. In Hay, we will find that his journey with his own instincts is different from our own human instincts, but it is the same when it comes to the roll of civilization with dealing with them. On the otherhand, The Island of Animals tends to dig in our human aggression, and shows how humanity uses civilization as a curtain to hide behind it. Freud concept of pleasure and happiness is related to Hay in only one way. It is not in the kind of happiness itself , whether if is sexual or spiritual, but it is similar in the procedure and the definitions of happiness or pleasure. In other words, pleasure to Freud is basically in sexual terms, "Sexual gratification is the prototype of all forms of individual happiness...". On the otherhand, Hay Ibn Yaqzan's happiness or his pleasure is found in totally different kind of human instinct, which is the substitute gratification for sexual pleasure, because religion and science are included in Freud's lists for intellectual replacements for the lost sexual happiness. So Hay, according to Freud, is someone who favored the substitutes of sexual happiness. But, did not experience sexual pleasure in the first place. Therefor, we cannot say that Hay is someone who escaped the sexual pleasure to the intellectual replacements, because of civilization. The concepts of Freud equation does not suit Hay's case. At the sametime, we can make the link between Hay and Freud's concept from the civilization point of view. According to Freud, our sexual instincts are operates by civilization, and it does not serve the requirements of civilization. In Hayy's case civilization oppressed his spiritual happiness where he found it on the island. In this sense civilization stood against his human instinct, as civilization is standing against our human desires represented in the sexual form. Opposite, Hay escaped from civilization in search for his basic human desires. This escape was confirmed by his reinhabiting the Island with Absal. Hayy found that civilization grab his desires from him, actually from his fellow man. Hayy knew that "what misery moreburdeing than recounting all you do from the time you get up to the time you go to bed without finding a singal action that did not amount to seeking one of these vile, sensory aims:...pleasure seeking...venting rage..."(71) As we can see pleasure for Salaman and his friends is totally different from Hay's pleasure. The difference between Freud's concept and Hay, is that in reality we do not fight or even escape to reach our basic human instinct, but rather we create substitute gratification's. According to Freud "Civilization compensates the individual by redirecting his libidinal energies into socially acceptable forms of amusement and diversion." But as we see those acceptable forms are substitutes for the real thing, instinctual happiness. But, they are not a substitute for Hayy, they are his core source of happiness. So he did not stay with Salaman and create for himself substitute kind of pleasure, instead, he left civilization for its seekers and he went back in search for his higher degree of happiness. On the otherhand, civilization for us, becomes the constant attempt to divert the individual from sexual gratification into socially productive and acceptable activities. We on the contrary, do not have any place to escape to, so we surrender to the quest of our civilization, and we use the intellectual replacements for the lost sexual happiness. On the otherhand of this discussion, comes the other concept of Freud which is human aggression, and once more we will relate this core human instinct to civilization and its impacts on human aggression. The Island of Animals question the aggression that lies deep in human nature. It also impasses the role of civilization in creating such violence within our behavior. As we know, surpassingly, civilization came to modify our aggressive nature, but it failed to do so because of too many restrictions, such as social pressure that govern us and particularly governs our behavior (lecture). It is an irony to say that the people who landed on the Island are civilized men, "They were...men of every sort of profession, trade and craft.....doctors and lawyers and builders....."(5), and according to Freud, social order is one of the requirements for civilization, but the first thing that those civilized men did is something completely against civilization. It is once you feel that no one is watching you begin doing what brings you happiness. In other words, aggression is another human instinct that brings us joy and happiness. But, because civilization refuses any act of violence, it oppresses this need of aggression deep in our consciousness, and thus the first thing we do when no body is watching is anything that civilization refuses us to do. In this case, civilization oppressed the aggression instinct in the men who landed on the Island. This sense of aggression was clearly felt by the animals who protested and asked for help, as any one who is being used aggressively. The point that The Island of Animals emphasized is that aggression is purely a human instinct, as there were men from all kinds of religion, "These men came from different parts of t world and were from different religions; they included Muslims, Christians, jews and others."(5). This means that where ever you came from, whatever your culture is, you are aggressive by nature. From that sense civilization steps in with a beneficial propose, as it tame the human nature. But, civilization creates human source of worry and distress, and also oppresses our basic human instinct. As we looked for substitute for our sexual desire, we also sacrifice our aggressive nature for the benefit of civilization. Finally, it is clear that civilization has its discontents, but how can we solve such a problem. It is impossible to look back and say that the permissive man was happier because he had no restrictions. We can never go back, or even look to the permissive world. Once we reach a higher degree of civilization we tend to look and analyze the next step. We ignore our human desires for better standards of living, we sacrifice them with what we see better. Or even because we know that what we want from sexual and aggressive desires is impossible to happen, then we subconsciously live in the discontents of the civilization and pretend to be happy with the substitutes we created for ourselves. Hayy and The Island of Animals are two stories that question the roll of civilization in our life, each looked at civilization from different perspective. At the sametime, what we all see refutable is the solution that Hayy choose for himself, because no one can escape the discontents that he originally created. Hayy was a special case because he was raised away from civilization, so he didn't live in it. The question that we have to ask ourselves is, what was Hayy going to do if he was exposed to a sexual experience on the land of Absal and Salaman? was he going to escape from civilization like he did, or was he going to live in civilization and accept its discontent. Seminar 200 section (31) Name: Mohamed Fakhry A.Wahab ID: 930110001 SECOND ESSAY Based on Freud concepts of pleasure and aggression, discuses Hay Ibn Yaqzan and The Island of Animals It is said to be that seeking pleasure and aggression are a part of our human Instinct. We seek pleasure to shorten the time of our unhappiness. We live in a constant struggle to be always happy, and we use all the ways that take us to happiness. Aggression, on the otherhand, is a part of our human nature, which can be hidden deep down in our subconcousnes and explodes in certain situations, or it can be on the surface of our behavior and inconstant use. Sources of happiness may differ from one person to another, but the one source of our human gratification that we all agree upon, is the happiness derived from sexual pleasure. Our souls strive for sexual pleasure to be elevated from one degree of human happiness to another. Freud said that "what we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the ... satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon." (25). At the sametime, we explore those human instincts in the presence of civilization which set some rules and regulation that are surpassingly acting as guidelines for the survival of humanity. Hay Ibn Yaqzan and The Island of animals, are two different human experiences that discover our two core human instincts, pleasure and aggression. In Hay, we will find that his journey with his own instincts is different from our own human instincts, but it is the same when it comes to the roll of civilization with dealing with them. On the otherhand, The Island of Animals tends to dig in our human aggression, and shows how humanity uses civilization as a curtain to hide behind it. Freud concept of pleasure and happiness is related to Hay in only one way. It is not in the kind of happiness itself , whether if is sexual or spiritual, but it is similar in the procedure and the definitions of happiness or pleasure. In other words, pleasure to Freud is basically in sexual terms, "Sexual gratification is the prototype of all forms of individual happiness...". On the otherhand, Hay Ibn Yaqzan's happiness or his pleasure is found in totally different kind of human instinct, which is the substitute gratification for sexual pleasure, because religion and science are included in Freud's lists for intellectual replacements for the lost sexual happiness. So Hay, according to Freud, is someone who favored the substitutes of sexual happiness. But, did not experience sexual pleasure in the first place. Therefor, we cannot say that Hay is someone who escaped the sexual pleasure to the intellectual replacements, because of civilization. The concepts of Freud equation does not suit Hay's case. At the sametime, we can make the link between Hay and Freud's concept from the civilization point of view. According to Freud, our sexual instincts are operates by civilization, and it does not serve the requirements of civilization. In Hayy's case civilization oppressed his spiritual happiness where he found it on the island. In this sense civilization stood against his human instinct, as civilization is standing against our human desires represented in the sexual form. Opposite, Hay escape f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE GAME THEORY.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ethics in Business - 2081 (Sec. 1) PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE GAME THEORY Soloman believes that as the game theory gets more sophisticated, we tend to lose sight of the problem rather than solve it. He sees the problem as how to get people to think about business and about themselves in an Aristotelian rather than a neo-Hobbesian (or even a Rawlsian) way, which the game theoretical models simply presuppose. Soloman discusses seven presuppositions in the first section of his "Ethics & Excellence" book. They are: rationality and prudence; motivation and self-interest; money and measurement; the anomaly of altruism; good and goals; the open-ended playing field; and the role of the rules. Soloman rejects each presupposition and gives his reasons why. This essay will discuss two of these presuppositions and either agree or disagree with Soloman and then give reasons as to why. The two presuppositions that will be discussed are money and measurement and the role of the rules. Money and Measurement In business, as in most games, we like to keep score. As one of Soloman's businessman friends told him "in business you always know how well you are doing. You just have to put your hand in your pocket." People often think the more money one has, the happier they are. You often hear people say "if I only had more money, I would be happy." Frequently the perceived level of success is compared to the size of one's bank account, the location of their house or the amount of cars in the driveway. People seem to perceive money as being happiness. Soloman says that keeping score, although it is not an essential feature of games, seems to be one of the most durable features of game theory. He thinks that the best way to keep score is to have a dependable point system, a definite unit of worth, which is money. Soloman rejects this presupposition by first stating that "money isn't the only or even primary social good", and "money is only a means and not an end." Soloman agrees with these statements but to further reject this presupposition, he goes on to discuss another example involving money. Social theorists, in general, "like to talk about money, because money is a readily measurable utility, a readily comparable measure, and apparently clear basis for comparison." But even some of these unrefined theorists recognize that equal amounts of money do not have equal significance for different people, therefore money is not an absolute readily measurable utility. Soloman states that various ends are hard to compare and so success and "maximum utility" may be hard to measure. "If we were to assign every end a monetary value, however, and rate various preferences according to their exchange value on the market, we would indeed have a single scale on which to compare and evaluate ends and means and determine utility." I agree with Soloman's reasoning. I do not think that success and "maximum utility" can be so easily measured with money. Almost everyone in the world values money, but not all at the same rate. The importance of money varies from person to person, therefore the "utility of money" varies. Some people rate money as the most important thing to them. These people usually get lost in their everyday work life, doing everything for money and measuring everything with a monetary value. Some people perceive money as important, but not more important than such things as their families, health and freedom. Then, there are some people who are happy with what they have. I was once told that the wealthiest people in the world are the people that are happy with what they have. These people need only enough money to be reasonably comfortable and they believe in the importance of self-esteem and peace of mind. People have different wants and different values, which makes it very hard to use money as an absolute means of measurement. The Role of the Rules We generally conceive games as rule-defined. Almost all games have rules that must be followed in order to play. There are usually steps and strict rules that define games and they are mostly played the same each and every time. Businesses also have rules. They are also defined by steps and strict laws. Organizations and employees must abide by these rules in order to function properly. Soloman also states that games are thought mostly to be rule-defined but he thinks that business as a practice is much larger than that. In business, the rules come after and people need to use sensitivity and imagination and not just obey these rules. He say that there are rules (especially laws) and that it is both unethical and imprudent to disobey them. Soloman thinks "it is essential to see business and business life first of all as a practice, not a game, in which general expectations and mutual agreements are established before there are any rules, much less laws." I agree with Soloman mostly because I too see business as a practice and not a game. I think that when someone wants to create a business, they generally establish expectations and mutual agreements but as for any rules or laws, these are created after the business is setup. You can't go into a business with strict rules and laws if you don't know what the business is. Once the company goals are set, then there must be rules and boundaries as to how employees can obtain these organizational goals. Games are very specific. In business, some rules are very strict, some are made to be bent and some rules are made up as the business develops. Although laws are not rules that can be bent or broken, only after the details of the business have been founded can the laws that apply to this certain company be established. In conclusion, Soloman was right to reject all of the presuppositions he discussed in his book. I agree with each and everyone of them. As for money and measurement, money should not be considered an absolute measurement of success or "maximum utility". The value of money varies too greatly from person to person. A "mom and pop" store owner may be more than happy with the constant but average amount of money that flows in to him each week but a top executive may be unhappy with his salary that is probably five times more than the satisfied store owner. Many various variables must be considered when attempting to measure success or "maximum utility", such as values, how that person defines success, their upbringing, and many more. The role of the rules presupposition is rejected because, as stated earlier, business should be seen as a practice and not a game. Games have specific and strict rules and in business, expectations and mutual agreements must be established before there are any rules. The rules in business are established after the business is founded and not before such as in games. I do not think that the seven presuppositions of the game theory are appropriate and I agree with Soloman's rejections. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Procrastination.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jeremy Simmons 3rd hour "Procrastination" Procrastination is a universal everyday phenomenon that can seem little more than clich‚, a small-talk joke or boast or complaint; we all do it, after all. Yet a newly reported survey of students at a large urban university in the U. S. is probably typical in that a majority (52%) of the students claimed a high or moderate need for assistance with regard to procrastination which is more than any other area of concern (www.info.wlu.ca). There are a great many causes to the addiction to this thing called procrastination. There are many underlying issues and causes of procrastination. Lack of relevance and interest are two of the most common causes. While perfectionism (having extremely high standards which are almost unreachable) is another. Evaluation anxiety, ambiguity, fear of failure and self-doubt, fear of success, inability to handle the task, lack of information needed to complete the task, environmental conditions, physical conditions, and anxiety over expectations that others have of you, are all very serious causes of procrastination. Poor time management is a great cause of procrastination. Procrastination means not managing time wisely. You may be uncertain of you priorities, goals and objectives. You may also be overwhelmed with the task. As a result, you keep putting off your academic assignments for a later date, or spending a great deal of time with your friends and social activities, or worrying about you upcoming examination, class project and papers rather than completing them. 2 There are quite a few people that have difficulty concentrating. When you sit at your desk you find yourself daydreaming, staring into space, looking at pictures of your boyfriend/girlfriend, etc., instead of doing the task. Your environment is distracting and noisy. You keep running back and forth for equipment such as pencils, erasers, dictionary, etc.(www.wings.buffalo.edu/student-life/ccenter/Stress/procras.bro). Your desk is cluttered and unorganized and sometimes you sit or lay on your bed to study or do your assignments. You probably notice that all of the examples that you just read promote time wasting and frustration. Our behavioral patterns are another cause of procrastination. Getting started on an unpleasant of difficult task may seem impossible. Procrastination is likened to the physics concept of inertia - a mass at rest tends to stay at rest (www.ucc.vt.edu/stdysk/procrast.html). Greater forces are required to start change than to sustain change. Another way of viewing it is that avoiding tasks reinforces procrastination which make it harder to get things going. A person may be stuck, too, not by the lack of desire, but by not knowing what to do. Procrastinating is a great problem amongst the student bodies of schools today as well as the work force of the U. S. In this paper I have discussed the very serious many causes of procrastination. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Protection from Abuse and Neglect.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ³Protection From Abuse and Neglect² I have recently been elected in a new statewide project in Minnesota to create and provide leadership in a small scale voluntary association for children . The focus of the small scale association is based on the United Nations General Assembly that adopted a Convention on the rights of the Child. It is a program to provide information and knowledge on the substantive right for ³Protection from abuse and neglect² designed specifically for children. The right states that ³ the State shall protect the child from all forms of maltreatment by parents or others responsible for the care of the child and establish appropriate social programs for the prevention of abuse and the treatment of victim². The purpose of the new state-wide small scale association is to inform children through first-hand knowledge and example on the protection from abuse and neglect. The substantive right is very important for children to know and understand in case they, or someone they know is ever involved in an abusive situation. The small scale association is limited to children so they can feel free to express their experiences and ask questions openly to others without having to worry about adult supervision. This may interest children to comment on situations and on general conversation that they normally would be scared to ask their parents. I feel that this is relevant to children in today¹s society because these situations of abuse and neglect occur in many households, and children either do not know their rights or fail to take action to them. The kinds of topics and issues discussed in the association and in connection with children¹s rights will vary according to importance. The beginning stages of the meetings will consist of examples and definitions of what abuse and neglect constitute. We will then as a group apply what we know to everyday situations in which these forms of maltreatment by parents or others responsible for them. Next we would apply these situations to the substantive right for Children according to what the United Nations Generally assemble established. In connection with the ³Bill of Rights² and through discussion, children will learn that they might have been involved in a situation of abuse or neglect and failed to realize it. This gets aback to the focus of the small scale association which is to inform children what the ³Protection from abuse and neglect² really means and what they can do about it. After the early stages of the meetings where we introduce the substantive right, the group will become further involved in field trips and activities. This will aid the children to learn through first hand experience and in interactive activities what the State considers ³Protection from abuse and neglect.² Once every two months, the group will take a field trip to an area correctional abuse center where we will hear first hand from counselors who help abusive adults deal with their problems. The counselors will provide such useful information as warning signs for children in abusive and neglect situations, advice on how to approach adults who abuse them , and who to tell and talk to about there kinds of situations. Through experience with abusive adults, counselors will stress the point to children that maltreatment is not uncommon in households and is usually repetitive. Children need to learn that it is not their fault in neglect situations and they should not blame themselves for the harm they receive. Another activity that the group will participate in is through interactive group skits. Individuals will be assigned a role in which they must respond actively to the situation. For example, a child may play a frustrated adult who returns home after l long day of work. The adult might swear and then strike the child, and the child will practice to act responsively by talking to his parents and go as far as reporting it if the situation continues to occur. After months of studying and learning, the children will take their knowledge to the public. The projects that the children will be involved in is a variety of surveys of other peers and children to provide statistical information about adolescents in the area. From there, children will be asked to pass out information to parents and children in the neighborhood about abusive and neglect situations, warning signs, and whom to contact in social programs for the prevention of abuse and the treatment of victims. By doing this, will also promote the strength of our program to other children in the area and convince them to become involved in our small scale voluntary association. II. For those of you who may have missed last week¹s meeting, I have here an overview of what we covered. The two hour meeting was broken down into six different twenty minute topics about what have been covering lately. 1) The first block was designated to small group discussion about everyday family disorders. In other words, we talked about what was going on at home. Discussion questions included: ³ Are there any stressful situations that your parents have been having that you¹ve noticed?² ³ What sort of extra stress, if any, have you been putting on your parents?² ³Describe the relationship you have been having with your family, is it open and comfortable?² 2) Large group discussion about defining abuse and neglect and the rights we as children have. In this section we stressed that abuse and neglect are common, however, not realized. We also discussed our rights under the ³Convention on the rights of the Child² and what that means to us. 3) Large group discussion of warning signs of abuse and neglect. Here we talked about ways in which adults handle certain kinds of family situations. Also how parents handle family crises. Discussion questions included: ³Give two examples of warning signs; are there ways of stopping the problem before it is too late?² 4) Group discussion on how to approach abusive adults. We talked about ways we can talk to parents and adults about what is it that they¹re doing that bothers us. Also, how important it is that we do mention the problem to the adult so the situation does not continue to occur. 5) A guest speaker talked about area social programs for the prevention of abuse and the treatment of victims. Here we became more aware of people to talk to or seek help if we are put in an abusive situation. The speaker stressed the importance of telling someone else if something at home is bothering us because there are others out there who are experiencing the same thing. 6) The last twenty minutes was designated to questions and answers. This was time set aside at the end for children to ask questions about things covered during the meeting, or anything else. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Psychological Egoism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Psychological Egoism: Every person is oriented towards his (or her) own welfare, and the object of every one of his voluntary actions is some good to himself. Janan Savage Ethics Due 4/7/97 Psychological egoism is a reflex that every person has to orient themselves toward their own welfare. Through this, it follows that every one of his (or her) voluntary actions is some good to himself. If someone gives away the last piece of bread to someone else, it is because they want to look like a better person. Due to the fact that they would give away the last piece of bread. Human nature is completely and exclusively egoistic. People are entirely selfish and devoid of any genuine feelings of sympathy, benevolence, or sociability. They are always thinking of themselves in everything they do. Each individual is preoccupied exclusively with the gratification of personal desires (felicity or happiness).Ones success in maintaining a continuous flow of gratification is the means of ones happiness. The object of the voluntary acts of every man is some good to himself. Whenever man renounces his right it is either in consideration for some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopes for from the outcome. This presents us with the old saying: "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you." Social organization originates out of self interest. All society is for gain, or for glory. It is not like we think it is-for love of our fellows. Instead it is for self preservation. It is a sort of social contract. In a state of nature we are at war with each other and life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In a natural state individuals are in equal powers. Voluntary collective organization is the most effective way for individuals to utilize their powers. Man should be allowed the right to use all means or actions to preserve himself. For every man is desirous of what is good to him, and shuns what is evil, but chiefly the chiefest of natural evil, which is death. The right to bear arms. In conclusion, I would like to say that...? Psychological Egoism-- This is the claim that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest . Any act, no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (e.g., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness). This is a descriptive claim about human nature. Since the claim is universal--all acts are motivated by self interest--it could be proven false by a single counterexample (Weston, rule #11). It will be difficult to find an action that the psychological egoist will acknowledge as purely altruistic, however. There is almost always some benefit to ourselves in any action we choose. For example, if I helped my friend out of trouble, I may feel happy afterwards. But is that happiness the motive for my action or just a result of it? Perhaps the psychological egoist fails to distinguish the beneficial consequences of an action from the self-interested motivation. After all, why would it make me happy to see my friend out of trouble if I didn't already have some prior concern for my friend's best interest? Wouldn't that be altruism? Egoism versus altruism The second issue I want to explore is egoism versus altruism. Altruism holds ``each man as his brother's keeper;'' in other words, we are each responsible for the health and well-being of others. Clearly, this is a simple statement of the ``safety-net'' theory from above. This is incompatible with individualism, yet many people who are basically individualists uphold altruism as the standard of morality. What's going on? The problem is wide-spread confusion over the meanings of ``altruism'' and ``egoism.'' The first confusion is to confound altruism with kindness, generosity, and helping other people. Altruism demands more than kindness: it demands sacrifice. The billionaire who contributes $50,000 to a scholarship fund is not acting altruistically; altruism goes beyond simple charity. Altruism is the grocery bagger who contributes $50,000 to the fund, foregoing his own college education so that others may go. Parents who spend a fortune to save their dying child are helping another person, but true altruism would demand that the parents spend their money to save ten other children, sacrificing their own child so that others may live. The second confusion is to confound selfishness with brutality. The common image of selfishness is the person who runs slip-shod over people in order to achieve arbitrary desires. We are taught that ``selfishness'' consists of dishonesty, theft, even bloodshed, usually for the sake of the whim of the moment. These two confusions together obscure the possibility of an ethics of non-sacrifice. In this ethics, each man takes responsibility for his own life and happiness, and lets other people do the same. No one sacrifices himself to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. The key word in this approach is earn: each person must earn a living, must earn the love and respect of his peers, must earn the self-esteem and the happiness that make life worth living. It's this ethics of non-sacrifice that forms a lasting moral foundation for individualism. It's an egoistic ethics in that each person acts to achieve his own happiness. Yet, it's not the brutality usually ascribed to egoism. Indeed, by rejecting sacrifice as such, it represents a revolution in thinking on ethics. Two asides on the topic of egoism. First, just as individualism doesn't mean being alone, neither does non-sacrificial egoism. Admiration, friendship, love, good-will, charity, generosity: these are wonderful values that a selfishness person would want as part of his life. But these values do not require true sacrifice, and thus are not altruistic in the deepest sense of the word. Second, I question if brutality, the form of selfishness usually ascribed to egoism, is actually in one's self-interest in practice. Whim worship, dishonesty, theft, exploitation: I would argue that the truly selfish man rejects these, for he knows that happiness and self-esteem can't be stolen at the cost of others: they must be earned through hard work. If altruism is so bad, and altruism is based on mysticism, then what is Rand's alternative, and what does it have to do with reason? For her own ethics, Rand started at the very beginning: why do you need ethics anyway, she asks, what is it for? Her answer to this question can be analyzed in two parts. First, Rand said that values ought to be objective facts about reality. She noted that life is conditional, and that it requires a specific course of action to maintain. She concluded that something can be good or bad only to a living organism acting to survive: the good furthers life, the bad hinders it. Second, Rand noted that humans, unlike other animals, need to discover their values. Consider the life of a squirrel: collect nuts, hibernate, eat nuts, repeat. Not very exciting. Animals just repeat a built-in cycle of action over and over. The drama of human life is that people have to decide what action to take, and their decisions have real, long-range consequences. How do you decide? Reason. Values are objective facts about reality, and your means for knowing reality is reason. Reason is the fundamental value because it's your means of discovering your other values. What do you do with reason? In large part, produce the goods needed to survive. Unlike animals that simply take what they need from the environment, humans produce what they need. But, as Francis Bacon once said in a quote Rand was fond of repeating: ``nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.'' Through reasoning, people can come to understand and harness the forces of nature. So reason and production are the primary values of the Objectivist ethics. Rand summed it up this way: Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think. But to think is an act of choice.... Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival-so that for you, who are human being, the question ``to be or not to be'' is the question ``to think or not to think.'' You need ethics because you need values to survive, and you can only discover those values through a volitional process of reason. Ethics, to Rand, was ``a code of values to guide man's choices and actions-the choices and actions which determine the purpose and the course of his life.'' Given that Rand held that values are rooted in the individual's struggle to survive, egoism follows naturally. As an ethical theory, egoism holds that the primary beneficiary of an action should be the actor. The primary goal of each individual should be to act to achieve personal happiness. The happiness of family and friends are important to the egoist, but only in so far as it gives pleasure in return. Being around a bunch of happy, mentally healthy people is a real joy; being around a bunch of complainers isn't. That selfishness implies acting for your own sake is usually understood; often misunderstood, however, is that this does not reveal which actions are, in fact, in your self interest. Rand rejected the view that lying to, stealing from, and subjugating others is acting ``selfishly;'' she held that these activities in fact are not values-that they do not lead to a happy life. Rand listed a number of important values-productivity, honesty, pride-that make up the good life. An important one in understanding that selfishness does not involve preying on others is independence. Independence has two aspects. The first is mental: you must think for yourself, you must come to your own conclusions, and you must follow those conclusions into action. You must never subordinate your own grasp of reality to anything: society, peers, tradition, authority. Howard Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead, is the symbol of this. The second aspect of independence is existential: you must embrace the law of causality in your own life. You must take responsibility for your actions, which means: you must take the responsibility for achieving your own life and for all the actions you take in doing so. This is a two-way street: you get credit for the good you do and get to keep the benefits, and you get blamed for the bad and are expected to accept the consequences. It is this noble concept of independence-the man who thinks for himself and acts for himself and holds himself accountable for what he does-that Rand held as the truly selfish life. A final point about Rand's egoism is that it rejects the need for sacrifice. Traditionally we've been given the choice of living for others (which is altruism) or expecting others to live for us (which is called ``selfishness''). Rand identified a third alternative: let each man live for his own sake, neither ``sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself.'' Rand held that if (and only if) people act morally and selfishly as she defined it, there is a harmony of interests among men that makes peace, benevolence, and, ultimately, general prosperity possible. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Pythagorean Philosophy and its influence on Musical Inst~0ED.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pythagorean Philosophy and its influence on Musical Instrumentation and Composition by Michael Anderson Philosophy 101 "Music is the harmonization of opposites, the unification of disparate things, and the conciliation of warring elements... Music is the basis of agreement among things in nature and of the best government in the universe. As a rule it assumes the guise of harmony in the universe, of lawful government in a state, and of a sensible way of life in the home. It brings together and unites." - The Pythagoreans Every school student will recognize his name as the originator of that theorem which offers many cheerful facts about the square on the hypotenuse. Many European philosophers will call him the father of philosophy. Many scientists will call him the father of science. To musicians, nonetheless, Pythagoras is the father of music. According to Johnston, it was a much told story that one day the young Pythagoras was passing a blacksmith's shop and his ear was caught by the regular intervals of sounds from the anvil. When he discovered that the hammers were of different weights, it occured to him that the intervals might be related to those weights. Pythagoras was correct. Pythagorean philosophy maintained that all things are numbers. Based on the belief that numbers were the building blocks of everything, Pythagoras began linking numbers and music. Revolutionizing music, Pythagoras' findings generated theorems and standards for musical scales, relationships, instruments, and creative formation. Musical scales became defined, and taught. Instrument makers began a precision approach to device construction. Composers developed new attitudes of composition that encompassed a foundation of numeric value in addition to melody. All three approaches were based on Pythagorean philosophy. Thus, Pythagoras' relationship between numbers and music had a profound influence on future musical education, instrumentation, and composition. The intrinsic discovery made by Pythagoras was the potential order to the chaos of music. Pythagoras began subdividing different intervals and pitches into distinct notes. Mathematically he divided intervals into wholes, thirds, and halves. "Four distinct musical ratios were discovered: the tone, its fourth, its fifth, and its octave." (Johnston, 1989). From these ratios the Pythagorean scale was introduced. This scale revolutionized music. Pythagorean relationships of ratios held true for any initial pitch. This discovery, in turn, reformed musical education. "With the standardization of music, musical creativity could be recorded, taught, and reproduced." (Rowell, 1983). Modern day finger exercises, such as the Hanons, are neither based on melody or creativity. They are simply based on the Pythagorean scale, and are executed from various initial pitches. Creating a foundation for musical representation, works became recordable. From the Pythagorean scale and simple mathematical calculations, different scales or modes were developed. "The Dorian, Lydian, Locrian, and Ecclesiastical modes were all developed from the foundation of Pythagoras." (Johnston, 1989). "The basic foundations of musical education are based on the various modes of scalar relationships." (Ferrara, 1991). Pythagoras' discoveries created a starting point for structured music. From this, diverse educational schemes were created upon basic themes. Pythagoras and his mathematics created the foundation for musical education as it is now known. According to Rowell, Pythagoras began his experiments demonstrating the tones of bells of different sizes. "Bells of variant size produce different harmonic ratios." (Ferrara, 1991). Analyzing the different ratios, Pythagoras began defining different musical pitches based on bell diameter, and density. "Based on Pythagorean harmonic relationships, and Pythagorean geometry, bell-makers began constructing bells with the principal pitch prime tone, and hum tones consisting of a fourth, a fifth, and the octave." (Johnston, 1989). Ironically or coincidentally, these tones were all members of the Pythagorean scale. In addition, Pythagoras initiated comparable experimentation with pipes of different lengths. Through this method of study he unearthed two astonishing inferences. When pipes of different lengths were hammered, they emitted different pitches, and when air was passed through these pipes respectively, alike results were attained. This sparked a revolution in the construction of melodic percussive instruments, as well as the wind instruments. Similarly, Pythagoras studied strings of different thickness stretched over altered lengths, and found another instance of numeric, musical correspondence. He discovered the initial length generated the strings primary tone, while dissecting the string in half yielded an octave, thirds produced a fifth, quarters produced a fourth, and fifths produced a third. "The circumstances around Pythagoras' discovery in relation to strings and their resonance is astounding, and these catalyzed the production of stringed instruments." (Benade, 1976). In a way, music is lucky that Pythagoras' attitude to experimentation was as it was. His insight was indeed correct, and the realms of instrumentation would never be the same again. Furthermore, many composers adapted a mathematical model for music. According to Rowell, Schillinger, a famous composer, and musical teacher of Gershwin, suggested an array of procedures for deriving new scales, rhythms, and structures by applying various mathematical transformations and permutations. His approach was enormously popular, and widely respected. "The influence comes from a Pythagoreanism. Wherever this system has been successfully used, it has been by composers who were already well trained enough to distinguish the musical results." In 1804, Ludwig van Beethoven began growing deaf. He had begun composing at age seven and would compose another twenty-five years after his impairment took full effect. Creating music in a state of inaudibility, Beethoven had to rely on the relationships between pitches to produce his music. "Composers, such as Beethoven, could rely on the structured musical relationships that instructed their creativity." (Ferrara, 1991). Without Pythagorean musical structure, Beethoven could not have created many of his astounding compositions, and would have failed to establish himself as one of the two greatest musicians of all time. Speaking of the greatest musicians of all time, perhaps another name comes to mind, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. "Mozart is clearly the greatest musician who ever lived." (Ferrara, 1991). Mozart composed within the arena of his own mind. When he spoke to musicians in his orchestra, he spoke in relationship terms of thirds, fourths and fifths, and many others. Within deep analysis of Mozart's music, musical scholars have discovered distinct similarities within his composition technique. According to Rowell, initially within a Mozart composition, Mozart introduces a primary melodic theme. He then reproduces that melody in a different pitch using mathematical transposition. After this, a second melodic theme is created. Returning to the initial theme, Mozart spirals the melody through a number of pitch changes, and returns the listener to the original pitch that began their journey. "Mozart's comprehension of mathematics and melody is inequitable to other composers. This is clearly evident in one of his most famous works, his symphony number forty in G-minor" (Ferrara, 1991). Without the structure of musical relationship these aforementioned musicians could not have achieved their musical aspirations. Pythagorean theories created the basis for their musical endeavours. Mathematical music would not have been produced without these theories. Without audibility, consequently, music has no value, unless the relationship between written and performed music is so clearly defined, that it achieves a new sense of mental audibility to the Pythagorean skilled listener.. As clearly stated above, Pythagoras' correlation between music and numbers influenced musical members in every aspect of musical creation. His conceptualization and experimentation molded modern musical practices, instruments, and music itself into what it is today. What Pathagoras found so wonderful was that his elegant, abstract train of thought produced something that people everywhere already knew to be aesthetically pleasing. Ultimately music is how our brains intrepret the arithmetic, or the sounds, or the nerve impulses and how our interpretation matches what the performers, instrument makers, and composers thought they were doing during their respective creation. Pythagoras simply mathematized a foundation for these occurances. "He had discovered a connection between arithmetic and aesthetics, between the natural world and the human soul. Perhaps the same unifying principle could be applied elsewhere; and where better to try then with the puzzle of the heavens themselves." (Ferrara, 1983). Bibliography Benade, Arthur H.(1976). Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics. New York: Dover Publications Ferrara, Lawrence (1991). Philosophy and the Analysis of Music. New York: Greenwood Press. Johnston, Ian (1989). Measured Tones. New York: IOP Publishing. Rowell, Lewis (1983). Thinking About Music. Amhurst: The University of Massachusetts Press. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Questions of Omnipotence.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophy 2205B Date: March 07, 1997 Questions Concerning Omnipotence n Aquinas, Mavrodes, Frankfurt and Kenny Reading Assignment #9 1. Define Omnipotence. Does it mean to be able to do anything at all or to simply be the "most" powerful being. 2. Does Decartes response involving Gods free will to change the laws (that He created) at least in principle, successfully reply to all questions of Gods Omnipotence? For example, if He wished to create a square circle could he not suspend the laws of contradiction to do so? p 413 - foot notes. 3. Aquinas changes his definition of Devine Omnipotence to state that "God can do whatever is possible."(p 415 par 2) Kenny points out the need for clarification with the term "possible" citing natural and supernatural possibility. It seems that all distinctions would be problematic for mono-theism. Consider this; Can God create a child for Himself to rear who has many God-like powers including rule over humans? If He can Does this not imply the possibility of poly-theism? 4. Is Mavrodes classification of creating a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift as a "pseudo-task" with no power at all ,acceptable? ( p 412 par 2) 5. If God created a stone of infinite weight this would satisfy the condition of it's not being movable. It seems that God has already created beings with the property of infinity such as the universe and, if you side with Decartes, numbers. Gods inability to find the last number is in no way detrimental to his omnipotence because of its property of infinity. Just as Gods infinite power to count can survive the inability to conclude a last number, so should his infinite power to lift survive the inability to lift an infinite weight. At best the task of lifting the object becomes the psuedo-task that Mavrodes was describing. Does this remove the paradox? 6. Would being omniscient and being able to do what you want be a sufficient definition for omnipotence? If this is acceptable would St. Augustine's contention be sufficient in that it was intended in relation to God? ( p 415 par 1) 7. ref. Quote p 418 What effect would substituting " what I am thinking of" for "A" have on Aquanis' contention that the predicate and subject of a term need only agree for it to be possible? 8. If God were capable of doing self contradictory things, would this not be repugnant to the notion of an absolute possible, which is subject to the Devine Omnipotence? Is Frankfurt's contention actually a logical denial of Omnipotence? f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Reality Does Not Exist.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There is only one being, continuous, material, and motionless. Let's take a moment to examine a number line. <----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----> 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 It's pretty simple to understand. The line represents a distance, and the "|" characters symbolize different points on the line-the exact points are differentiated by the number below them. Any number line is understood to have contain points which aren't necessarily designated by a number. For example, on the above number line we know that between 5 and 10 we can find the point 7. This example is illustrated below. <----|-|--|----> 5 7 10 In fact, it is understood that there are an infinite number of points on any number line. Between 5 and 7 we can find the points 5.009852, 5.9, 6, 6.262623627000029873257690125762, 6.3336, 6.999, 6.9999, etc. Rulers are examples of how we might commonly use a number line . Differentrulers mark off different distances such as yards, feet, inches, centimeters, millimeters, and so on. Obviously rulers cannot be used to measure all distances because some distances may be too small to be measured practically with the naked eye. Hypothetically speaking, let's say you had a worm and a razor blade. Let's also hypothesize that this particular worm is two inches long. Now if you were to cut this worm exactly in half you should have "two worms" each one inch long. If you then took one of those one inch pieces and cut it in half you would then have two pieces each one fourth of an inch long-I don't really know how many times you can cut a worm in half before it stops becoming two worms and just becomes pieces of worm. Theoretically, if you had the right tools, you should be able to continue cutting that worm in half forever. You simply take one of those 1/4 inch pieces, cut it, and then you have a 1/8 inch piece. Then you cut it again, and you have a 1/16..1/34..1/68..1/136..etc. And why not? If you placed this worm (prior to cutting it at all) on a number line and found it covered the distance between 1 and 2 (and we all know there are an infinite number of points on a number line) then you should be able to use the worm as a kind of ruler and be able to locate an infinite number of points on it. Okay, so now we know worms are an infinite number of points long. Skyscrapers are also an infinite number of points long. Therefore, worms are as tall as skyscrapers. Skyscrapers as tall as worms. Because everything has an infinite number of points and is infinitely divisible, then everything must be equal in length (width, height, etc.). How is this possible? Simple. The universe isn't made up of many different things, it's just one singular object. Okay, let's consider another point. You might think it's reasonable to believe that you walked across the room and sat down in the chair in front of your computer, yet, as I will explain momentarily, such a notion is ludicrous because motion is an illusion. If motion is an illusion then clearly the universe is not made up of many different objects (e.g. a chair, a battleship, a moon) but rather the universe is one large singular object. When you see someone walk across a basketball court you tend to think you are observing motion. But what are you really observing? This person appears to be traversing from point A to point B across the court. A ---------------------------->B Let's say that it takes this person 15 seconds to appear to move from point A to point B. If this is the case, then the person is traveling through an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time because the line the person walks from point A to point B can be represented as a number line (and we know that number lines contain an infinite number of points). Because infinity implies no end, it's impossible for anything to travel through an infinite number of points in a finite (limited) amount of time. Therefore any apparent motion is actually an illusion. The reason this person cannot move across the basketball court is because the assumption that many things exist also assumes that everything is divisible and therefore the distance that any thing must move is divisible into an infinite number of points. And if, then, a person moving across a basketball court can never reach any point without first reaching its previous midpoint, and if there are an infinite number of points, it is impossible to traverse this infinite number of points in a finite amount of time. Motion, then, is an illusion and there is only one being, continuous, material, and motionless. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Reality is Perception.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reality Is Perception Human reality is full of physical objects but how humans perceive these objects is completely objective, depending on the person and there senses. Perception of physical objects cannot occur without other objects that allow one to perceive these manifestations in the first place. When a sentient being acknowledges that they "exist in a world of physical objects", they also confirm that their sense perception functions to an extent which allows them to reason, even to a small degree, their physical existence. What is a physical object? Does a physical object have to be something you can see, touch, feel, taste, or smell or can a physical object exist without one being able to confirm its existence? Is the sensory perception of a fly wrong just because it has over a 1000 eyes or is the way humans view the world incorrect because we do not? A blind man can still help a person distinguish a colour because no one perception is ever totally interpreted by only one sensory organ. Many other animals on earth do not just rely on there sight for information about their world. For instance fish in totally dark areas of the ocean have no eyes and yet can still maneuver around in there environment by sensing ripples in their area with special sense organs on their body. Birds also seem to use the magnetic lines of the earth to navigate south for the winter each year. It would be foolish to make the statement that all sensory perception of the world is circumspect and is exactly the same for all creatures. All animals on the planet earth live in a hermeneutic spiral meaning that we all live in the past. Humans as with other animals can only sense a cause after it has made an effect. The assumption is made that if we sense an effect there must therefore be a cause, which leads to a naïve realism of perception. As well, with sensory perception there is a large amount of extraneous information such as emotional and ideological that causes interference as to how we interpret the information received. This misinterpretation can happen from the time an action is made to the time when we seem to perceive the action. This can be seen for instance when at a baseball game the batter bats a home run and only after a second or two you hear the crack of the bat on the ball. This can be explained because the speed of light which allows you to see the batter hitting the ball is much faster than the speed of sound. Of course there is always the chance that our sense organs can deceive us. For instance when the moon is on the horizon is looks a lot bigger than when it is seen high up in the sky. As for humans all perception is relative to the surroundings because for instance at night humans can see objects like trees, stars, etc. better when we look at these things at a an angle with the corner of our eyes. During the day however things are seen better when looking straight at them, this phenomenon has been explained with the use of rods/cones in our eyes. Rods are sensitive to dim light and are important in black/white vision and the detection of motion and are primarily located toward the corners of the eyes hence their value in night vision. Cones are responsible for colour vision and for the perception of bright images. The average person expresses what he believes is perception; referred to as naïve realism: 1. I live in a world of physical objects. 2. I know this through sense perception. 3. Physical objects exist independently of my perception. 4. My claims about their reality are usually correct. 5. Sense impressions are caused by the objects. Sense perception all comes down to being able to exist in a world we know nothing about and understanding that certain actions will achieve certain goals. As long as these goals are achievable through what we believe to be reality than nothing else really matters. Therefore, perception that allows one to exist in a world of physical objects is all that a person wanting to exist really needs. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\reflections on liberation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reflections on Liberation 1) Right understanding [12] In following this path one would not experience feelings of envy or arrogance 2) Right thought or motives [15] Kindness towards the unenlightened brings a selfless mind set for both 3) Right speech [13-14] Rebuff the urge to speak wickedly for true peace of mind 4) Right action [9] Having a clear understanding of the fools mentality leads your actions opposite 5) Right livelihood [28-29] Reside within free space, live within your mind, do not possess greedily 6) Right effort [3] One must give up desires in order to gain free mind 7) Right mindfulness [38] Untroubled solitude of the mind suppresses distractions by allowing total awareness of them 8) Right meditation [33] When the mind is stilled such as at the occurrence of birth and death, one is truly alone and all is perceived clearly By zonk f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Reincarnation 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ REINCARNATION written by: Sivan Kaplan grade: 10th score: 90% date: 16/2/97 age:16 Reincarnation is the belief that after death, one's soul keeps existing and is reborn another person or animal. It keeps reborning until it redeems itself. Then it returns to the temple of god, which the Buddhists call "Nirvana" - eternal tranquillity. Two of the many ancient tribes who believed in reincarnation are the Greeks and the Egyptians. Karma, the belief that our actions determine our future, is one of the foundations of reincarnation. For example, a person who lived a sinful life will return, after death, as an animal, as opposed to a person who lived an honest life, who will return as a person. Despite the resistance of many Jewish leaders, reincarnation also played a role in Judaism due to the Kabala who developed this idea. Some Jewish philosophers even believed that a soul of a sinner can enter a live man's body and "posses" him. Special rituals were used in order to "cure" the man. T. Gomertz, a famous philosopher, thought of three very good reasons why one should believe in reincarnation: 1. It is believed that dreams are attempts of the soul to live the body. If this is true, than the soul can leave the body and it does so when a person dies. This also means that a soul can exist without a body. 2. If we assume that the soul dies with the body it is connected to, than we will have to assume there is an endless number of souls which is improbable. 3. Matter is enduring and, therefore, so is the soul. If the soul exists after death, hens it had existed before birth. Gomertz believes the origin of this belief is in India, where it was believed that every action had a hidden reaction, other than the obvious one. This reaction is obscure at first and is only later revealed, sometimes even in the next life. Reincarnation in Different Cultures and Religions Judaism: In this religion, it was believed that a sinners soul can posses a living man. This is called an Obsession but it's actually very similar to reincarnation. This belief only exists in Judaism. It appears repeatedly in "The Glow" which is a book written in the 16th century. This book claims that every soul has its purpose / mission. If this mission isn't completed, the soul returns to earth and possesses someone. It stays in this state until it either completes its mission or is banished by special rituals which are performed by the Rabby. This belief was most popular in the 16th century. At that period, in some parts, every illness was considered an obsession. Buddhism: Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, renewed reincarnation by stating the possibility of redeeming one's self from the endless circle of reincarnation. Reincarnation is interpreted differently in Buddhism - the Buddhists do not believe there is a soul. They believe that the force which travels from body to body is not an individual self but a stream of energy with out a definite personality. This flow of energy, which is similar to the continuos stream of a waterfall, is not eternal and at some point it redeems itself and reaches the "Nirvana". Brahminism: Reincarnation is one of the most important principles of Brahminism. The Brahmins believe that death is not the end of our life but merely a stop on the long life we live. In this stop our future is determined. For example, a person who lived a sinful life will return to earth as an animal. Unlike someone who lived an honest life who will return as a human. Christianity: According to the Evangelists, Jesus often spoke about the rewards of the righteous and the punishments of the sinners. According to Christianity, the people who believe in Jesus and follow his foot steps will get to live eternal lives while those who are easily tempted by the evils of life will burn in hell eternally. Different Views on Reincarnation Plato: He believed that the soul existed before life. However, he only speculated about the form it was in. In his opinion, after death, the soul either enjoyed or suffered from the consequences of its life. However, after a thousand years, the soul can either keep reincarnating or rest forever. Rudolf Steiner: He is a 20th century philosopher who came up with a new philosophical foundation for reincarnation. He based his new foundation on the theory of heredity which says that there is a significant difference between the part of heredity in man and in animal. Much like the animal, man gets his anatomic structure from his birth parents. However, he gets his spiritually qualities from his prior reincarnations. Pitagoras: He was a Greek philosopher and mathematician. His belief was that the soul is immortal and that after death, it returns to earth and gets to be reborn. He believed that animals and humans coma from the same origin. Therefore, a person can return after death as an animal too. However, one can avoid rebirth as an animal by living an honest life. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Reincarnation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reincarnation A weird idea of much interest is that of reincarnation. What is reincarnation? Some say it's the fact that a person's soul lives without a body and throughout the years possesses different bodies. Is this true or is reincarnation the result of a mentally unstable person's vivid imagination or even the result of cryptomnesia, when a person takes something they have heard or seen, forgets about ever hearing or seeing it and then remembers the event(s) as happening in another life. These three hypothesizes each seem plausible in there own right. With the help of the SEARCH method it will be shown which hypothesis fits best. Hypothesis 1: When a person dies the soul undergoes a process called reincarnation, in which the soul lives another life in the future. The evidence I have to back up this particular claim is that of a story I read in People magazine awhile back. In this story a woman, who goes by the name of Jenny Cockell, claims to have experienced reincarnation. She claims she was once a woman, who went by the name of Marry Sutton, who died 21 years before Jenny's own birth. Jenny believes this because of dreams she has had since the age of three. These dreams were unlike ordinary dreams in how vivid and real they seemed. In the dreams Jenny saw herself in another time and place. She saw herself as a young mother living in a small cottage somewhere in Ireland. In one dream particularly Jenny saw herself with a terrible fever on her own deathbed, terrified of what was to become of her children. One day Jenny decided to find out what had become of these children. So Jenny went to Ireland and while looking at a map of Ireland she sensed that Mary had lived in the small town of Malahide. Then she checked local church records for any mothers of eight named Mary that had gone there. Since from her dreams Jenny recalled there being eight children and the only name she could remember from the dreams was Mary. Sure enough Jenny found a Mary Sutton had lived and died in Malahide. Mary's children had been scattered among family members and orphanages. Then through much search and hard work to find these children Jenny eventually found all of Mary's children. Before Jenny met with any of the children she and the children both agreed to allow a BBC researcher to test Jenny's memories of Mary and Mary's children The tests resulted in a 98 percent agreement. Jenny knew what pictures were on the walls of the Sutton home, other objects in the house, and even how the house was built. This evidence further backed up the fact of Mary Sutton being reincarnated through Jenny Cockell. As of today there has been no new evidence found to discredit the fact that Jenny has experienced reincarnation. The hypothesis will be examined using the five criteria of adequacy. (1)Testability. This hypothesis is testable. As in the case about Jenny Cockell. Jenny was tested to see if what she "remembered" matched that of Mary Sutton's life. (2)Fruitfulness. This hypothesis is fruitful. It can be observed that a person who has experienced reincarnation can tell truthful information of the person they once were. (3)Scope. The hypothesis has a small scope, in that it only pertains to the person relaying information about their past life. (4)Simplicity. This hypothesis is not simple. A person has to presume that the soul lives without the body and can live for an immeasurable time. (5)Conservation. The hypothesis is not consistent with well-founded beliefs. Many people believe that the soul goes to heaven or hell after death and many believe that the soul ends along with the body at death. Hypothesis 2: Some people think they have experienced reincarnation, but in fact these such people are mentally insane. The evidence used to back this hypothesis is the common knowledge that insane people create elaborate stories. Some of these stories are that of the insane person in question having lived a previous life. Insane people have the tendency to think they lived a past life of some famous personality. These facts are taken from various books, magazines, and movies. This hypothesis will also be evaluated using the five criteria of adequacy. (1)Testability. This hypothesis is testable by means of testing the individual in question with various test of sanity. (2)Fruitfulness. The hypothesis is fruitful. It can be observed if the person in question is insane or not. (3)Scope. This hypothesis has a large scope. If a person is mentally insane other lies are usually told and many other things can be observed. (4)Simplicity. The hypothesis is simple in the fact that some people are known to be mentally insane and create stories of having past lives. (5)Conservation. The hypothesis is consistent with well-founded beliefs. As said before it is known people are mentally insane and that they create stories of past lives. Hypothesis 3: Some people think they have experienced reincarnation, but in fact they are experiencing cryptomnesia. Cryptomnesia is the result of thoughts or ideas seeming new to memory when in fact they are memories that have been forgotten. The evidence for this hypothesis is taken from the book, "How to Think About Weird Things". This book contains a story of a woman from Chicago, who goes by the name of Virginia Tighe, who claims have experienced reincarnation. She clams to be the reincarnation of a woman from Ireland, who went by the name of Bridey Murphy. William J. Barker, a newsman for the Denver Post, investigated Virginia's claim. He found no correlation between what Virginia claimed and the truth. Then the truth of this "reincarnation" was found. As a teenager Virginia's one neighbor, an Irish woman named Mrs. Anthony Corkell, used to tell Virginia tales of the old country. Bridie Murphy was Mrs. Corkell's maiden name. In addition to this, Virginia had memorized several Irish monologues as part of being in high school drama club. Lastly, Virginia had more than likely heard stories about the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition from her neighbors and friends. In this exposition a life-size Irish Village was constructed in Chicago , Virginia's home town. All these things Virginia experienced but had forgotten. Then at some point she recalled some of the information and interpreted it as being from a past life, a classic case of cryptomnesia. To see how good this particular hypothesis is it will be evaluated using the five criteria of adequacy. (1)Testability. This hypothesis is testable. In the story of Virginia Tighe a newsman tested Virginia's claim of reincarnation and found it false. Then Virginia's background was checked and the truth of her "reincarnation" was found. (2)Fruitfulness The hypothesis is fruitful. Cryptomnesia is observable in that many people claiming to have experienced reincarnation are wrong in many of the facts they relay. (3)Scope. The hypothesis has a small scope. Cryptomnesia only explains that what was thought was reincarnation was really just forgotten facts. (4)Simplicity. The hypothesis is simple in the fact that it is known that some people experience cryptomnesia and claim they have experienced reincarnation. (5)Conservation. The hypothesis is consistent with well-founded beliefs. As previously said people are known to experience cryptomnesia and claim they have experienced reincarnation. Of the three hypothesizes the third and final one seems the best. This conclusion also takes into account that almost every case of reincarnation has been proven to be the work of cryptomnesia. It is also true that insane people may think they were reincarnated, but these cases represent a small part of those that claim to have experienced reincarnation. There is also that case of Jenny Cockell which seems to prove that reincarnation exists. That may be true but these cases are too small to warrant the conclusion. I am not trying to say any of these hypothesizes are right and the others wrong. I am only stating from my research and the available data that my hypothesis on cryptomnesia seems best. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Relativism the Tangible Theory.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Essay I Relativism: The Tangible Theory Since the beginning of rational thought, philosophers have searched for the true meaning of morality. Many theorists have attempted to answer this question with reasoning, in an attempt to find a universal set of rules, or a way to distinguish right from wrong. Some theorists believe that this question is best answered by a single moral standard, while others debate if there can be a single solution. Cultural Relativism explores the idea that there can be no one moral standard that applies to everyone at any given time. The Kantian theory, on the other hand, states that a universal sense of duty, would most benefit humankind. I believe that the Cultural Relativist theory takes into consideration the different cultures that make up the population as a whole. The idea of universal truth in ethics, is a myth. The customs of different societies are all that exist. These customs can not be 'correct' or 'incorrect' for that implies there is an independent standard of right and wrong by which they may be judged. In today's global community people are interacting more and we are now discovering, more then ever, how diverse cultures and people really are. For these reasons the Cultural Relativist theory best defines what morality is, and where it came from. Today all over the world people are communicating in ways never before imagined. Cultural Relativism believes that one set of morals will not adequately adapt to the individuality of all the cultures and subcultures in the world. What this means is that there is no one moral law that fits every situation at every time. There will always be exceptions to the rules. Cultural Relativism leaves the creation of moral and ethical standards to the community. The community then makes moral judgments based on its specific culture, history, and individuality. For these reasons Cultural Relativism helps the community, by letting the community set its own moral standards, rather than impose a set of morals, as the absolutists would suggest. Imposing a set of universal morals would not be able to compensate for all the different cultural differences that exist today. If a universal moral law were to be created, what criteria would be considered? Would one use each communities's religion, customs, laws, educational standards, or culture? It would be impossible to take into consideration all of the different factors unique to each community when creating a universal moral truth. That is why Cultural Relativism is the best solution for moral standards, each community considers all their own factors of culture, religion, education, etc. and then create their own set of morals based on their needs. There are many different situations in everyday life that call upon our moral judgment. With all of the people in the world and all of the different situations, who is to say that there is one set standard that we should follow on the societal level, as well as the individual? Cultural Relativism, challenges the ordinary belief in the universality of moral truth. It says, in effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural and personal codes, and nothing more. Moreover, our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many. One clear example of this is illustrated in the treatment of women in some countries, against the way they are treated in the United States. In the United States women are privileged with the same rights as men, therefore creating, by law, an equal society. However in some Middle Eastern countries women are not allowed to show their faces in public, own land, or may be forced to be just one wife to a man with many wives. The questions philosophers ask in this situation is, "Which one of these cultures is morally correct in their treatment of women?" According to absolutists there would be one universal solution. And, in this case, there is clearly no such solution. If you were to support the United States' treatment of women, you would have to go against many of the Middle Eastern beliefs and moral standards. Another way of looking at it would be from the woman's perspective. In the United States the woman is given freedom and the ability to choose, whereas in the Middle Eastern culture she has no rights. Is that culture morally correct for the woman? There are just too many variables to take into consideration when trying to make moral decisions for all cultures to follow. If we were to use a set standard we would have to judge people and their culture. And who is to say that one culture and its people are right, and that the other is wrong? In ancient Egypt people were allowed to marry their brothers and sisters. In most of today's cultures that is morally and ethically wrong. The reasoning behind this change in marriage styles results from scientific research. Scientists have found that over time inbreeding causes a higher rate of birth defects among the offspring. This fact has influenced many of the 'developed' cultures to outlaw inbreeding. Does this mean that the Egyptians were morally wrong because they did not have the scientific knowledge about inbreeding that we have today? utilitarians would have us believe yes. They would state that the only moral way to have acted, would be to not inbreed due to the fact that it causes harm, thus unhappiness, to the offspring. If this is true, how are we sure that we are not morally wrong in what we do, if in five or ten years into the future science discovers that what we consider morally right now is harming us physically? This is where the beauty of Relativism comes into focus. Relativism would say that neither culture is right, or wrong. Relativism would state that each culture would decide, on an individual basis, what it would consider morally and ethically right. Our modern society is full of diversity among cultures. There are no set rules and morals that we can follow because of that very fact. People are different, and to judge them by any other standards than their own is morally and ethically wrong in itself. Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard. They are not. Many (but not all) of our practices are merely particular to our society and our own personal preference, and it is easy to lose sight of that fact. These are the reasons that I believe that Relativism best answers the question, is there a set standard of morals and ethics for all to live by, or does each community, culture and individual create its own? Now that I have touched on more of a Cultural Relativistic view, I would now like to apply the same theory to an individual. I believe individuals have the same kind of freedom to design their moral truths in a way that suits them, separate from their community. Thus, just because a society sets a standard of morals, there is nothing prohibiting an individual from straying from that standard, besides the society capabilities of enforcing those moral truths. Assume for a moment there is a community, that enforces all of its moral truths with the death penalty. When one is deciding to go against those truths, or not, he would only have to calculate the risk of getting caught. Thus, the old saying "you can do what ever you want, as long as you can get away with it", would be accurate. A common point that is brought up against Relativism, when applied to the individual, is the point that according to Relativism it is wrong to say that one moral truth is right or wrong, because each culture and individual are allowed to make up their own truths. Then how can a society punish a person for not following their moral standards? I would reply as follows. Moralities differ in each society, serving a functional purpose that is unique to the factors that comprise the area. The differences of all aspects of life are considered when morals are being produced. Society values are developed in order to ensure prosperity, stability and harmony; when the values are threatened, so is the good of the society. In order to maintain social balance, all members are forced to conform to these values. Those who choose to disobey societal maxims are banished or ostracized from the community. Social codes benefit the individual, too, they are not constructed simply for the benefit of the society as a whole. The reckless behavior of the nonconformist could be dangerous to an individual's well being. Thus, these morals, are for the good of all. However, if a member of the society can break these moral codes and do so successfully, there is nothing in one's personal moral code itself wrong with doing so, except the society instilled guilt that is learned and taught through the generations. And that is exactly it, because morals are created by the community, and there are no universal truths, then if you have enough people not following the moral truths of their community, then the morals for that community will change accordingly. That is what Cultural relativism is based on, the community being able to change their set of morals, how else would that happen if it does not start from the individual level. From the examples shown in this paper, Cultural and Individual Relativism clearly is the more logical choice as the theory that best provides a workable solution to the question of what controls ethics and morality. While absolutists try to prove that there is one single set of moral rules that can be used as a guideline in the validation of moral and ethical standards for the cultures and individuals of the world. The Utilitarians are trying to create a greater happiness for all involved in the community. And the Kantians are looking for their universal sense of duty. However they all can be questioned with this single statement, "if anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations of the world the set of beliefs which he thought brought the most good and happiness, he would inevitably, after careful considerations of their relative merits, choose that of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best." And this discredits the possibility that one such person can come up with a set of morals, or a true way to calculate those morals, because in fact everyone is biased to his or her own moral beliefs. Absolutism is obviously not a feasible solution due to the fact that the cultures of the world are too radically diverse to ever be able to be classified under one set of moral and ethical guidelines. I believe the Utilitarian idea of maximizing the good of the whole is also not feasible, on account of everyone not agreeing on what makes them the most happy. The Kantinisen sense of duty is discredited in the same way, on account of everyone's sense of duty being different. Although there will never be a moral or ethical theory that clearly includes all cultures as morally right, the Relativist theory is by far the most sensible solution offered to us at this time. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Sense Experience.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I feel as though I have no choice but to be a skeptic about our ability to know the world on the sense experience given the information that is being presented. Our senses are touching, hearing, smelling and tasting, I believe it is quite possible that a person could think they see, touch, and smell something such as a glass of bear but there be no glass of beer present, therefore their perception of this glass of beer is false. There is a good possibility that this person is suffering from any of the numerous possible sensations, auditory, visual or tactile, experienced without external stimulus and caused by mental derangement, intoxication or fever, in other words this person could be hallucinating. There are many ways that the senses can be tricked into believing things that are not true, an example is when a person takes the drug LSD, this drug is one which alters the state of the mind and tricks it into visually perceiving things which are not real such as pink elephants, green rats, gold skin and so on. Hallucinations may occur when pressure is applied to different sections, drawing different reactions from the person being affected, these reactions are caused by the affected person seeing things which they perceive to be real . Hallucinations are only one way by which the visual perception of an object can be altered there are many more ways by which the visual perception of an object can be altered; for example consider a square envelope, pay very close attention to what you see when you look at this object. If the envelope does not move but you do then your perception of this object will continually change as you move about and the "square envelope" no longer looks square. Because a square object such as an envelope can't be square and not square at the same time then the visual perception of the object must be false. Another false visual perception would be a mirage, for example when you drive down a flat stretch of highway on a hot summer day it appears as though there are patches of water on the road up ahead, as you get closer and closer to where the water appears to be it disappears. Another example would be illusions with mirrors such as the ones that David Copperfield performs, in his performances he astounds audiences by making it appear as if people are floating on air. In regard to the debate in section 11 of Philosophical Problems and Arguments I tend to agree with premise one which states that we can sometimes be mistaken in our perceptual beliefs, for example when we hallucinate we are mistaken in our perceptual although we may not realize it at that particular point in time. As for premise two I tend not to agree with this one, I don't believe that it is always logically possible that our perceptual beliefs are false other wise we would all be hallucinating and I find it hard to grasp that billions and billions of people are hallucinating. As for the final premise and the conclusion I tend to believe that they are both false because they both relay on the second premise being true. It is said that "seeing is believing" but with hallucinations, optical illusions and other false visual perceptions occurring without people even realizing it, you have got to wonder who came up with the term "seeing is believing" and how it could ever be possible that somebody would believe such a ludicrous statement. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\separation or assimilation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 8/95 Separation or Assimilation? Our country, The United States of America, was essentially founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through solidarity of human kind. In Bernard R. Boxill's article, "Separation or Assimilation," he fundamentally poses the Hamletesque question: to assimilate or not to assimilate. Subsequent to the dilemma of some black cultural nationalists, whom not only argue for assimilation of the black American populace, but also believe that this assimilation into white culture is inevitable, against cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism, which was initialized by W. E.B. Dubois in the late 19th century, is founded upon the peculiarities of races, living harmoniously in one nation-state, and lacking superiority or inferiority. Consequently to posing this question one dictates that there exist certain boundaries between cultures in our American society. Where do these boundaries come from and are they indeed necessary? Is integration of these cultures indeed inevitable? The goal of cultural pluralism as stated by Boxill are to establish pride in one's own race, to maintain the authenticity of one's own culture, and finally to benefit the world populace. Through pride, the disdain of inferiorities along with self respect, one adopts an attitude of self-segregation. Boxill argues for pride as a means of preserving one's race, overemphasizing differences between individuals because of the color of their skin or cultural differences, is a great defense to assimilation. Understanding Dubois's concept of cultural authenticity is to delve into the mysteries of self-actualization, that is to realize one's own potential. He asks himself, as an African American, whether his true identity lies in the jungles of Africa or in this land of America. He is of the opinion that these are his only two options. He concludes that his true identity goes beyond his American birth, citizenship, political ideals, language, laws, and religion; deep into the heart of Africa where a timeless culture was born and should be preserved for its beauty and used to benefit the world populace. "...the Negro people, as a race, have a contribution to make..."(Dubois,p244) The "Negro people" as a race, have certainly had a peculiar world condition throughout time and have had the ability to lend privileged insights into the human condition. The whole of humanity consists of many parts. From the cultural pluralist perspective, this whole can be benefitted most by the contribution of gifts from each race of humanity. But does not true diversity exist in individual persons rather than in large groups of unique individuals. It would seem obvious that the greatest degree of solidarity of humanity can be achieved through contributions from the uniqueness every person possesses. Rather than focusing on and overemphasizing cultural distinctions, mankind should seek to better relations between races and cultures. This does not mean that every man should disregard his cultural background. Rather, I am suggesting that every person acknowledges the facts. First, every man should realize that we are all individuals and second that we are all human before we are white, black, Hispanic, Italian, or Chinese. In this way, perhaps man can put an end to the very problems which stem from racial separation, namely race wars, famine, and unequal distribution of resources. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Sidhartha.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On page 132 we read "Everything that was not suffered to the end and finally concluded, recurred, and the same sorrows were undergone." What does this mean in regards to Siddhartha and any other of the characters in Hesse's story? Do you agree with this statement? Explain. This quote is taken from the context of when Siddhartha is crossing the river and he sees his reflection and it looks like his father. This quote refers to a repeating of events. It is illustrated by Brahmin being separated from Siddhartha and Siddhartha being separated from his own son. This parallels the quote in three ways. Taken literally it identifies the "father-like-son" aspect of the situation. It can be taken as a metaphor for the endlessness of time as well. Taken out of context, this quote identifies that anything that is not followed or completely worked through will continue to exist and it will repeat itself. Siddhartha left his father, Brahmin, at a young age to join the ascetics. Siddhartha is now considering the pain his father must have gone through not seeing his son again. Siddhartha's son, too, was separated from his father. Without dealing with this situation, the distance between father and son would never be reconciled. Thus the situation Siddhartha had with Brahmin would be repeated. The quote can also be interpreted as a metaphor for time. Obvious recurrences can be noted in time, suggesting that time repeats itself. Instead of a river, another symbol can be used for time, perhaps a pool. According to this quote, things repeat themselves in time. In a pool objects float around until they finally make their way to the outlet. Events swirling around in time without reconciliation are "trapped" until they are dealt with. The entire pool makes up all that time is. All the experiences and thoughts of past, present, and future that have not been dismissed all contribute to the whole of time. If the quote stood alone, without the context of Siddhartha's reflections on his father and his son, it would state that anything that isn't finished through completion would forever hang in the cloud of time. "Every thing that has not suffered to the end..." If something is not carried on to completion, it will repeat itself until the initiative is taken to finish it. "...recurred, and the same sorrows were undergone." I can identify with this quote because at time I am prone to over committal. I will devote myself to too many things and I cannot physically complete them all. Thus there is always a shadow of stress and incompletion hanging over my head. This quote is especially effective because it deals with the sorrows that are to be endured until completion is pushed through. In summary, I believe that the quote is a motivating factor for Siddhartha to overcome the incomplete misfortunes of his past. When the undealt with problems of his past are dealt with, he can concentrate on living in the now and not being controlled by his past. Siddhartha realized that he must move forward in time, recognizing his past only as contributing factors to what he is. Siddhartha's being encompasses more than just his experiences but also how he is prepared to deal with future situations. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\sigmund freud.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sigmund Freud, an Austrian born during the Habsburg Monarchy, was one of the trailblazers of modern-day psychology. The american historiam william johnston sees freud, the father of psychoanalysis, among those personalities "that one made austria a shining example of modernism in a world that had lost orientation." In his function as a neuropathologist freud came to realize that he had no clear understanding of neurotic patterns despite his throrough studies of the human brain. From 1895 onwards he associated intensely with the Viennese internist Josef Breuer. Both discovered that hypnosis removed neurotic symptons. The case of patient Anna O. became famous. By applying this method, Freud came to understand the correlation between emotional disorders and the formation of mental (at that time mainly hysterical) symptoms. Through hypnosis as a method of "mental catharsis" the patient recalls and relives repressed traumatic situations and is eventually relieved and healed. Freud was now convinced that functional diseases had a mental cause. In the following he discovered how mental energies may casue physical symptoms. After breaking with Breuer Freid found out that the abnormal emotional state of neurotics was almost invariably associated with conflicts involving the sexual impulse. Based on these findings he develoepd his theory on repression and defense as well as the sexual aspect of neurotic behaviour. Freud was unjustly blamed with "pansexualism". His theories created a storm in meical circles and were often and heavily rejected. However, what Freud had theoretically taught most of his life was rather a "dialectic of the sexual impulse" than its omnipotence. After breaking with Breuer Freud carried on his research work alone. Instead of hypnosis he applied the method of "free association" with his patients and soon recognized the traumtic impact of early sexual experience during childhood, seducations on the part of adults, above all the parents. In 1877, suffering from his own neurotic crisis, Freud discovered in a brave self-analysis that patients' fantasies and wishful thinking rather than real experiences play an unconscious role in the onset of neuroses. Freud's findings broke new ground in often misinterpreted areas like infantile sexuality and led to a completely new and expanded understanding of sexuality. His epochal achievement was to help prove the existence of the psyche as an independent system. In "Traumdeutung"/"The interpretation of dreams" published in 1900, freud inveiled the dream as a disguised fulfillment of repressed wishes. Within the European culture and civilization was a sensational dsclosure of Freud's (sometimes also personal) fight for self-realization and truth. With his thoughts, Frued not only influenced psychology but also modern time's conception ofthe world. His principles advanced the technique of psychoanalysis, with himself as his first patient. He was successful in overcoming inhibitions as to the logic of his own throughs as well as to the general prudery of his time. Without blaming other people he succeeded in finding clear solutions for any human problems with the help of psychoanalysis. According to his motto "where id was ego will develop" he succeeded in creating harmony in the individual person - the precondition for a reatively free life. According to Freud, failing to achieve self-awareness was not so much caused by the natural impulses as by the bad conscience accumulated. Sigmund Freud was also a great critic of many parameteres of Europe's cultural traditions. He himself never saw psychoanalysis as a dogmatic but rather as a empirici method. Freud was always open for new insights and theoretcal explanations for mental processes. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Silence of the Lambs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophy 101 December 18, 1996 Silence of the Lambs The Battle Between Two Evils In the novel, Silence of the Lambs, we see two different extremes of evil. Dr. Chilton is evil in one respect, while Dr. Hannibal Lecter is evil in his own unique way. Dr. Chilton is the man with bad morals and feels the need to control people. He manipulates people into thinking and acting the way he wants them to. Basically he is the type of guy who takes advantage of his job position, who thinks of himself before others and only acts in ways that will benefit himself. Dr. Hannibal Lector, unlike Dr. Chilton, is unable to control his evil even if he wanted to. Dr. Lector is insane and feels the need to kill people just because he thinks they are boring and from his point of view, they do not seem suitable to be human beings. He understands the things he does are evil, but they do not phase him since he is insane. There is no question, Dr. Lecter is a truly evil man, but Dr. Chilton is the worse of the two. Dr. Chilton must morally change and take responsibility for himself. Dr. Lector is not able to take control of his evil because of the way his distorted mind thinks. Although his mind is distorted, it is still a very powerful mind which he uses to see into the minds of others. He gets into their heads and plays with their minds, internally torturing them. He is a sick man and needs therapy and constant care in a hospital because he is too sick to help himself. On the other hand, Dr. Chilton is capable of changing, if only he could realize his evil ways. He is blinded by his own power and greed which he obtained through his job. Unlike Dr. Lector, Dr. Chilton has total control of his actions. Another difference between the two, Chilton does not set out with doing evil in his mind. He has become so evil that he is not even aware of his evilness. It almost seems like a natural and everyday thing to him. This is why Chilton is the more evil between the two. We, the ordinary people, almost have to sympathize with Lecter because the man is so sick in the head. It seems like he wants to make jokes about his killings and no sane man could do that. This is why we see Dr. Chilton as the evil man, because Dr. Lecter does not know any better while Dr. Chilton should. Dr. Chilton is the prime example in Xunzi's argument that the "nature of man is evil." He is an evil person who does nothing to change this about himself. Chilton is envious of others and possesses physical desires, exactly how Xunzi explains evil people. According to Xunzi, the evil of man must depend on teachers and laws to become correct and achieve righteousness and become disciplined. Dr. Chilton is the law who refuses to learn from anybody. In Xunzi's essay, "Human Nature is Evil," Xunzi goes on to say that man desires. This is obvious in Chilton's case as he tries to control people and have all the power that he possibly can get. If one follows his natural feelings, like Chilton, he will have no deference or compliance. Chilton does have one exception to Xunzi's beliefs, and that would be how Xunzi says that all men desire to be good. Unless Chilton's definition of good is to have everything that he needs for himself no matter how he obtains it, he does not seek for himself to be a good person. According to Xunzi, mad desires to be good because he can see that nature is evil and one must strive for the opposite. Xunzi would say that Chilton is a blind man who cannot see his own evil. He needs to wake up to the world around him and not to his administrative position. Xunzi also says that man must rely on the government to result in good order and to be in accord with goodness. Chilton is actually part of the government and this is a possibly reason why he cannot see how the government should be helping him. The same rules that the government expects people to live by do not pertain to Chilton, in his eyes, because he on the inside. The government spoils those on the inside and only truly enforces the laws to the outsiders because they can not see the internal flaws of the government. In this story we are confronted with two unique evils, Dr. Chilton's and Dr. Hannibal Lecter's. Dr. Lecter's is the more common evil. When we think of pure evil, Dr. Lecter's style of evil comes to mind. But if we were to search further into the meaning of evil, we would see that Dr. Chilton's more subdued evil ways or even more mischievous. After examining Xunzi's essay, "Human Nature is Evil," we get a better understanding why Dr. Chilton is truly an evil and devious man. So when we think of evil, the most obvious form is not always the most wicked. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Skinner & Freud.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ B.F. Skinner, in his novel Walden Two, presents many arguments about how he foresees a positive change in the world through manipulation of behavior on the personal level. Sigmund Freud, in his works, specifically Civilization and Its Discontents, presents his view of human nature and what is innately problematic about it. Both Freud and Skinner agree that human behavior is the result of outside factors that severely hinder the concept of free will. Skinner believes that humans, in the correct environment, can live happily, while Freud understands that humans are destined to live in "some degree of anguish or discontent." Skinner uses the ideal setting of Walden Two to illustrate his ideas of how human behavior should be "formed." Much of Skinner's argument on how to eliminate what he knows as problematic rests on his prescription of dismissing the notion of individual freedom. Skinner does not only say that the concept of individual freedom is a farce. He takes it a step further and states that the search for it is where society has gone wrong. He wants no part in the quest for individual freedom. If we give up this illusion, says Skinner, we can condition everyone to act in acceptable ways. Skinner has a specific prescription for creating this utopian society. He declares that all that is necessary is to change the conditions which surround man. "Give me the specifications, and I'll give you the man" is his simple yet remarkable message. He claims that by controlling what a person's environment is, it is possible to craft a man to behave in any way. Skinner wants to use this notion to create a world without pain and suffering. In Walden Two, he systematically describes what conditions are necessary to create a world of happiness. Skinner proposes that to create his perfect society, one needs only to come up with the characteristics of what man should be. Since he can then create any man, he will fill the world with these perfectly-conditioned people and all will be perfect. Although many of his insights are problematic at the root level, some of what Skinner proposes is material which should not just be totally dismissed. Freud has a much different concept of human existence. He, too, says that people are "formed" out of experiences and pre-existent conditions. However, Freud believes that the biggest factor in shaping human behavior is much more personal and internal. Since everyone experiences things differently, he claims, it is impossible to shape everyone so that some utopian society will form, as in Skinner's case. Freud recognizes on one level that there is an innate conflict between the individual and society. So even at the first level, there is a conflict which will hinder happiness. Freud states that the norms of society are much too rigorous for the common person because they are in conflict with the inner desires of the psyche. Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with each individual's "roots," but it states that, upon entering the world, each human is doomed to conflict with societal standards. From day one also, each individual feels pressure from every social direction. His parents influence him by their rearing methods and their requirements of him. As he begins to develop, his mind does as well, and any negative experience manifests some degree of conflict between the three parts of the mind. Basically, Freud has such a harsh view of reality because he believes there are so many ways in which the mind is attacked: social, parental, self-inflicted. One might have no problem dealing with the pressure from society, yet may, for example, feel guilty about one thing or another. Freud would say that this would create some sort of conflict in the mind, one which is inevitable and through no amount of conditioning is prohibitable. Also, since the three parts of the mind (id, ego, and superego) are constantly tearing at one another. The ego has to balance the desires of the id with the standards of the superego while accepting the outside reality. If any problem occurs and the balance is thrown off, suffering will result. "So neurosis results from the frustration of basic instincts, either because of external obstacles or because of internal mental imbalance" (Stevenson 77.) Both Freud and Skinner find problems with the current social situation. Freud says that, for the most part, we cannot change the inner mechanisms of the mind, while Skinner says that any type of conditioning is possible. Maybe through both of these theories, we can learn to form some sort of resolution. Concise Bibliography I. Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud. II. The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. III. Walden Two, B.F. Skinner. IV. Seven Theories of Human Nature, Leslie Stevenson. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Sleep Apnea.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sleep Apnea General Psychology Steven O'Brien, Psy.D Sleep, why do people sleep at all? Why can't we just stay awake? Some biologist suggest that sleep provides the opportunity to conduct self-repair and purge the body of it's waste that has built up during the day's activity. Nevertheless, the body is capable of repairing itself and disposing of wastes during waking hours, so sleep in a way really isn't necessary for routine maintenance (e.g., urinating, etc.). Dr. Quentin Regestein, lead sleep and sleep disorders researcher at Harvard Medical School also believed that sleep kept our distant ancestors out of harms way during the night when they could not see as well as their night roaming predators. Sleep is regulated by a connected series of structures in the deep midline areas, and along other way stations that extend through the central axis of the brain, these structures relay information about things that affect sleep. In Dr. Regestein notes, he spoke of experiments that were performed by researchers. The researchers he spoke of would destroy specific brain structures of a lab animal and then note how the animal slept. For instances, in one lab animal the researcher cut through the axis of the brain at one level, which would prevented the animal from awakening; showing that brain structures below the level of the cut were responsible for awakening the lab animal. The American Sleep Disorders Association (ASDA), Association for the Psychophysiological Study of Sleep (APSS), Association of Sleep Disorder Centers (ASDC), and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has studied sleep and sleep disorders since the early 1970's. Out of all the sleep disorders currently being studied, sleep apnea has gain world wide attention, affecting over 15 million people. Apnea, derived from the Greek word "want to breath." Sleep Apnea (cessation of air flow at the mouth for greater than 10 seconds) can reflect 1 loss of central nervous system drive to maintain ventilation, 2 mechanical upper airway obstruction, or combinations of both. The second edition of Anesthesia and Co-Existing Disease states "Conversely, obstructive forms of sleep apnea are due to an abnormal relaxation of the posterior pharyngeal muscles" - there is persistence of respiratory movements, but airflow is absent due to upper airway obstruction. Study shows awakening occurs when the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide rise or oxygen falls. Severe apnea, which affects about 1 percent of the general adult population, often results in 400-500 awakenings a night. Moreover, depending on the severity and the number of episodes of sleep apnea, the patient's daily life and survival can be greatly endangered. According to the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study, over an eight-year period, a 37 percent death rate has been reported among persons with apnea (20 episodes or more per hour). The Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study also reported sleep apnea is more likely to occur in men then women, for the male hormone, testosterone is believed to be related to sleep apnea. Admittedly, researchers believe a female hormone, progesterone stimulates respiration and therefore may help prevent breathing problems. In the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study, the researchers noted a strong link between smoking and sleep apnea. Smokers that smoked 40 or more cigarettes a day had the greatest risk of developing sleep apnea then patients who had never smoked. The medical community has yet to fully understand the intra play of factors producing the sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep affects psychological well-being. Because sleep apnea deprives patients of sleep, numerous of studies have consistently shown that sleep loss affects daytime performance, sleepiness and mood. One of the first capacities that Dr. Arthur J. Speilman of the Department of Psychology in New York spoke of, is the ability to produce creative solutions to problems., and how being deprive of sleep can impair a patients functional capacity. Dr. Paul Glovinsky, Dr. Spielman's research colleague noted "the focus of psychology is behavior, which at first glance might be thought to cease during sleep". Dr. Glovinsky also noted "neither the mind nor the body truly cease activity during sleep. Far from turning off, the brain in sleep generates a variety of states , accompanied by predictable physiological changes and typical forms of mentation." By studying Drs. Speilman and Glovinsky works one can conclude, the sleeplessness of sleep apnea or the prolonged wakefulness of creative output, the timing of physiological rhythms can be affected by psychological states. In 1988 a congressional commission determined that sleep related problems cost American Society 50 billion dollars a year and that 95% of individuals with sleep disorders were going undiagnosed. According to the American Academy of Family Physician (AAFP), The standard method for diagnosing sleep apnea is nocturnal polysomnography. In order for the this test to be preformed often requires the patient to stay overnight in a sleep laboratory, which can be quite costly. There are also less costly methods of diagnosing sleep apnea. Dr. Tivinnereim of the AAFP developed the use of a five portable pressure transducer catheters connected to a data logger that can be clipped to the patients garment. The transducers are used to measure the intrathoracic pressure fluctuations. Case study: Ten patients with obstructive sleep apnea were recruited from a sleep clinic to undergo simultaneous evaluation with the portable transducer catheter. Pressure signals were synchronized with the polysomnographic tracings to compare the classification of 200 events of apnea. The portable transducer catheter detected all 200 events recorded during the nocturnal polysomnography procedure. - ' " " " " Because of in-depth research of sleep apnea and sleep disorders, the ASDA can now safely treat sleep apnea. One method that is widely used is C-PAP (Continuous - Positive Airway. C-PAP is a mask that covers the patients face that provides a slightly increased air pressure for easier breathing. As a result from using the C-PAP machine, muscles lining the airway and structures such as the soft palate are no longer sucked into the airstream. Another method of treating sleep apnea (a fairly new surgical procedure) called uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. This procedure involves revision of the uvula (the tissue that hangs from the midline of the throat) and tightening up the throat's lining. Study has shown surgery to be the best route for sleep apnea patients. Case study: A 38-year-old production supervisor was interviewed four months postoperative and reported that the surgery had changed his life. He was no longer weary, and he had astonished his employers by coming up with some new business innovations. He also added that he felt so energetic that he had taken on a second job. Some patients that were seen postoperative reported comparable improvements. The biochemistry of sleep is only partially understood; yet the knowledge of sleep apnea and how it occurs intra plays a great role in treatment. In short, being deprived up sleep because of a sleep disorder like sleep apnea can eventually lead to interruption of daily task and human survival is greatly reduced. Many people choose to prognosis themselves as to why they are having trouble sleeping. Researchers urge patients with a unbalanced sleep pattern to seek professional help. "Five billion people go through the cycle of sleep and wakefulness every day, and relatively few of them know the joy of being fully rested and fully alert all day long." - William Dement (1988) References Arthur J. Speilman, Phd.D., and Paul B. Glovinsky, Ph.D. - Department of Psychology. The City College of New York Pinellas Public Library Cooperative, Inc. - InfoTrac System - Largo, Florida Drs. Robert K. Stoelting, Stephen F. Dierdorf , and Richard L. McCammon. -Second Edition / Anesthesia and Co-Existing Disease John P. Dworetzky - Psychology / Fifth Edition Dr. Quentin Regestein - lead sleep researcher, Harvard Medical School - Sleep problems and solutions Dr. Scott Mantel - Anesthesiologist - Morton Plant Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology Dr. Paul Borelli - Anesthesiologist - Morton Plant Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology Footnotes f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Societys Restraint to Social Reform 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophy : Workfare "Society's Restraint to Social Reform" Of the many chatted words in the social reform vocabulary of Canadians today, the term workfare seems to stimulate much debate and emotion. Along with the notions of self-sufficiency, employability enhancement, and work disincentives, it is the concept of workfare that causes the most tension between it's government and business supporters and it's anti-poverty and social justice critics. In actuality, workfare is a contraction of the concept of "working for welfare" which basically refers to the requirement that recipients perform unpaid work as a condition of receiving social assistance. Recent debates on the subject of welfare are far from unique. They are all simply contemporary attempts to decide if we live in a just society or not. This debate has been a major concern throughout history. Similarly, the provision of financial assistance to the able-bodied working-age poor has always been controversial. On one side are those who articulate the feelings and views of the poor, namely, the Permissive Position, who see them as victims of our society and deserving of community support. The problems of the poor range from personal (abandonment or death of the family income earner) to the social (racial prejudice in the job market) and economic (collapse in the market demand for their often limited skills due to an economic recession or shift in technology). The Permissive View reveals that all participants in society are deserving of the unconditional legal right to social security without any relation to the individual's behaviour. It is believed that any society which can afford to supply the basic needs of life to every individual of that society but does not, can be accused of imposing life-long deprivation or death to those needy individuals. The reason for the needy individual being in that situation, whether they are willing to work, or their actions while receiving support have almost no weight in their ability to acquire this welfare support. This view is presently not withheld in society, for if it was, the stereotype of the 'Typical Welfare Recipient' would be unheard of. On the other side, the Individualists believe that generous aid to the poor is a poisoned chalice that encourages the poor to pursue a life of poverty opposing their own long-term interests as well of those of society in general. Here, high values are placed on personal choice. Each participant in society is a responsible individual who is able to make his own decisions in order to manipulate the progression of his own life. In conjunction with this opinion, if you are given the freedom to make these decisions, then surely you must accept the consequences of those decisions. An individual must also work part of his time for others (by means of government taxing on earned income). Those in society who support potential welfare recipients do not give out of charity, but contrastingly are forced to do it when told by the Government. Each person in society contains ownership of their own body and labour. Therefore anything earned by this body and labour in our Free Market System is deserved entirely by that individual. Any means of deducting from these earnings to support others is equivalent to criminal activity. Potential welfare recipients should only be supported by voluntary funding. For this side, welfare ultimately endangers society by weakening two of it's moral foundations: that able-bodied adults should be engaged in some combination of working, learning and child rearing; and secondly, that both parents should assume all applicable responsibilities of raising their children.(5) In combination of the two previous views, the Puritan View basically involves the idea that within a society which has the ability to sufficiently support all of it's individuals, all participants in the society should have the legal right to Government supplied welfare benefits. However, the individual's initiative to work is held strongly to this right. Potential welfare recipients are classified as a responsibility of the Government. The resources required to support the needy are taken by means of taxation from the earnings of the working public. This generates an obligation to work. Hence, if an individual does not make the sacrifice of his time and energy to contribute their earnings to this fund, they are not entitled to acquire any part of it when in need unless a justifiable reason such as disability is present for the individual's inability to work. The right to acquire welfare funds is highly conditional on how an individual accounts for his failure in working toward his life's progression by his own efforts. Two strong beliefs of the Puritan Position are; Firstly, those on welfare should definitely not receive a higher income than the working poor, and secondly, incentives for welfare recipients to work must be evident. The distinction between the "deserving" and "non-deserving" poor is as evident now as it was in the Poor Laws of the 16th and 17th centuries.(1) The former were the elderly, the disabled, the sick, single mothers and dependent children, all of whom were unable to meet their needs by participating in the labour force and, therefore, were considered worthy of receiving assistance. The latter were able-bodied adults who were often forced to do some kind of work as a condition of obtaining relief as a means of subsistence. Those who refused this work requirement were presumably not really in need. Throughout our own history of public assistance, the non-deserving poor always got harsher treatment and fewer benefits than their deserving counterparts. Due to it's mandatory nature, historically, workfare has been viewed as a forceful measure. Two other program strategies are now in use as well. Namely, a service strategy, and a financial strategy.(8) The former includes support services for the work participant, such as counselling, child care, and training. The latter includes a higher rate of benefits for those who participate in work programs than someone would receive from social assistance alone. To actually show that workfare does not work, we must observe the United States, which has had federally mandated workfare programs for welfare recipients since 1967. Although the research on American workfare programs is inconclusive to some extent, many findings suggest that workfare is ineffective in reducing welfare costs and moving people from the welfare rolls into adequate employment. It was found that low-cost programs with few support services and a focus on immediate job placements had extremely limited effects. These did not produce sizable savings or reduce poverty or reduce large numbers of people from welfare.(9) Furthermore, While expensive programs with extensive supports and services were more likely to place people in employment, there was a definite point of diminishing returns where the expenses outweighed the benefits.(10) Even the limited success by some American workfare programs is highly questionable. Largely missing from the research is the discussion of workfare's major limitation: The lack of available adequate jobs. In the wide scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether the program is mandatory with no frills or voluntary and comprehensive if there are no jobs to fill. This is the "Achilles Heel" of all workfare programs. Even if some individuals manage to find jobs and get off welfare, if the unemployment rate for the area does not change, it is obvious that there has already been a displacement of some people in the workforce. What actually occurs is a shuffling of some people into the workforce and some out, with no net increase in the number of jobs. Workfare only increases the competition for jobs, it doesn't create them (except for those who manage and deliver the programs, generally not welfare recipients). In addition, the few jobs that workfare participants do get tend to be either temporary, so the person returns to welfare, or low-paying with minimal benefits, so that people are not moved out of poverty, but merely from the category of "non-working poor" to "working poor".(11) Another issue largely ignored in Canada as well are health and safety conditions affecting workfare participants. For example, in New Brunswick an unusually high accident rate has been reported among welfare recipients who took part in provincial work programs. Given the overall failure of workfare programs to reduce welfare expenditures, reduce poverty, and move people into adequate and permanent jobs, workfare should not even be discussed as a viable social reform option today. Politicians and the business establishment only call for workfare because it helps to protect their privileged positions in our society. Workfare serves to preserve the status quo by: i. creating the illusion that politicians are actually doing something meaningful about the deficit and welfare. ii. increasing the reserve pool of available labour which can be called upon at any time to carry out society's dangerous and menial jobs. iii. increasing the competition for scarce jobs, which tends to keep wages down and profits up. iv. reinforcing the attitude that people on welfare are largely responsible for our economic and social ills, that they are lazy, deviants who will not work unless forced to do so. Workfare creates the assumption that unemployment is caused by personal choice or lack of work ethic. However, due to the fact that we have well over one million people in Canada actively looking for work, this is a ridiculous assumption. Fifteen thousand people lined up one day in Oshawa in January to apply for one of a few hundred possible jobs at General Motors. The problem is not one of a lost worth ethic or personal pathology. The problem is a lack of jobs, and workfare undoubtedly does nothing to compensate or eliminate this problem. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Societys Restraint to Social Reform.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophy : Workfare "Society's Restraint to Social Reform" Of the many chatted words in the social reform vocabulary of Canadians today, the term workfare seems to stimulate much debate and emotion. Along with the notions of self-sufficiency, employability enhancement, and work disincentives, it is the concept of workfare that causes the most tension between it's government and business supporters and it's anti-poverty and social justice critics. In actuality, workfare is a contraction of the concept of "working for welfare" which basically refers to the requirement that recipients perform unpaid work as a condition of receiving social assistance. Recent debates on the subject of welfare are far from unique. They are all simply contemporary attempts to decide if we live in a just society or not. This debate has been a major concern throughout history. Similarly, the provision of financial assistance to the able-bodied working-age poor has always been controversial. On one side are those who articulate the feelings and views of the poor, namely, the Permissive Position, who see them as victims of our society and deserving of community support. The problems of the poor range from personal (abandonment or death of the family income earner) to the social (racial prejudice in the job market) and economic (collapse in the market demand for their often limited skills due to an economic recession or shift in technology). The Permissive View reveals that all participants in society are deserving of the unconditional legal right to social security without any relation to the individual's behaviour. It is believed that any society which can afford to supply the basic needs of life to every individual of that society but does not, can be accused of imposing life-long deprivation or death to those needy individuals. The reason for the needy individual being in that situation, whether they are willing to work, or their actions while receiving support have almost no weight in their ability to acquire this welfare support. This view is presently not withheld in society, for if it was, the stereotype of the 'Typical Welfare Recipient' would be unheard of. On the other side, the Individualists believe that generous aid to the poor is a poisoned chalice that encourages the poor to pursue a life of poverty opposing their own long-term interests as well of those of society in general. Here, high values are placed on personal choice. Each participant in society is a responsible individual who is able to make his own decisions in order to manipulate the progression of his own life. In conjunction with this opinion, if you are given the freedom to make these decisions, then surely you must accept the consequences of those decisions. An individual must also work part of his time for others (by means of government taxing on earned income). Those in society who support potential welfare recipients do not give out of charity, but contrastingly are forced to do it when told by the Government. Each person in society contains ownership of their own body and labour. Therefore anything earned by this body and labour in our Free Market System is deserved entirely by that individual. Any means of deducting from these earnings to support others is equivalent to criminal activity. Potential welfare recipients should only be supported by voluntary funding. For this side, welfare ultimately endangers society by weakening two of it's moral foundations: that able-bodied adults should be engaged in some combination of working, learning and child rearing; and secondly, that both parents should assume all applicable responsibilities of raising their children.(5) In combination of the two previous views, the Puritan View basically involves the idea that within a society which has the ability to sufficiently support all of it's individuals, all participants in the society should have the legal right to Government supplied welfare benefits. However, the individual's initiative to work is held strongly to this right. Potential welfare recipients are classified as a responsibility of the Government. The resources required to support the needy are taken by means of taxation from the earnings of the working public. This generates an obligation to work. Hence, if an individual does not make the sacrifice of his time and energy to contribute their earnings to this fund, they are not entitled to acquire any part of it when in need unless a justifiable reason such as disability is present for the individual's inability to work. The right to acquire welfare funds is highly conditional on how an individual accounts for his failure in working toward his life's progression by his own efforts. Two strong beliefs of the Puritan Position are; Firstly, those on welfare should definitely not receive a higher income than the working poor, and secondly, incentives for welfare recipients to work must be evident. The distinction between the "deserving" and "non-deserving" poor is as evident now as it was in the Poor Laws of the 16th and 17th centuries.(1) The former were the elderly, the disabled, the sick, single mothers and dependent children, all of whom were unable to meet their needs by participating in the labour force and, therefore, were considered worthy of receiving assistance. The latter were able-bodied adults who were often forced to do some kind of work as a condition of obtaining relief as a means of subsistence. Those who refused this work requirement were presumably not really in need. Throughout our own history of public assistance, the non-deserving poor always got harsher treatment and fewer benefits than their deserving counterparts. Due to it's mandatory nature, historically, workfare has been viewed as a forceful measure. Two other program strategies are now in use as well. Namely, a service strategy, and a financial strategy.(8) The former includes support services for the work participant, such as counselling, child care, and training. The latter includes a higher rate of benefits for those who participate in work programs than someone would receive from social assistance alone. To actually show that workfare does not work, we must observe the United States, which has had federally mandated workfare programs for welfare recipients since 1967. Although the research on American workfare programs is inconclusive to some extent, many findings suggest that workfare is ineffective in reducing welfare costs and moving people from the welfare rolls into adequate employment. It was found that low-cost programs with few support services and a focus on immediate job placements had extremely limited effects. These did not produce sizable savings or reduce poverty or reduce large numbers of people from welfare.(9) Furthermore, While expensive programs with extensive supports and services were more likely to place people in employment, there was a definite point of diminishing returns where the expenses outweighed the benefits.(10) Even the limited success by some American workfare programs is highly questionable. Largely missing from the research is the discussion of workfare's major limitation: The lack of available adequate jobs. In the wide scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether the program is mandatory with no frills or voluntary and comprehensive if there are no jobs to fill. This is the "Achilles Heel" of all workfare programs. Even if some individuals manage to find jobs and get off welfare, if the unemployment rate for the area does not change, it is obvious that there has already been a displacement of some people in the workforce. What actually occurs is a shuffling of some people into the workforce and some out, with no net increase in the number of jobs. Workfare only increases the competition for jobs, it doesn't create them (except for those who manage and deliver the programs, generally not welfare recipients). In addition, the few jobs that workfare participants do get tend to be either temporary, so the person returns to welfare, or low-paying with minimal benefits, so that people are not moved out of poverty, but merely from the category of "non-working poor" to "working poor".(11) Another issue largely ignored in Canada as well are health and safety conditions affecting workfare participants. For example, in New Brunswick an unusually high accident rate has been reported among welfare recipients who took part in provincial work programs. Given the overall failure of workfare programs to reduce welfare expenditures, reduce poverty, and move people into adequate and permanent jobs, workfare should not even be discussed as a viable social reform option today. Politicians and the business establishment only call for workfare because it helps to protect their privileged positions in our society. Workfare serves to preserve the status quo by: i. creating the illusion that politicians are actually doing something meaningful about the deficit and welfare. ii. increasing the reserve pool of available labour which can be called upon at any time to carry out society's dangerous and menial jobs. iii. increasing the competition for scarce jobs, which tends to keep wages down and profits up. iv. reinforcing the attitude that people on welfare are largely responsible for our economic and social ills, that they are lazy, deviants who will not work unless forced to do so. Workfare creates the assumption that unemployment is caused by personal choice or lack of work ethic. However, due to the fact that we have well over one million people in Canada actively looking for work, this is a ridiculous assumption. Fifteen thousand people lined up one day in Oshawa in January to apply for one of a few hundred possible jobs at General Motors. The problem is not one of a lost worth ethic or personal pathology. The problem is a lack of jobs, and workfare undoubtedly does nothing to compensate or eliminate this problem. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Socrates 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Erika Hall 516-78-2200 Philosophy 120 Paper #1 Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated. I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Socrates First Accusers and Athenian Law.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Socrate's First Accusers and Athenian Law Of all confrontations in political philosophy, the biggest is the conflict between philosophy and politics. The problem remains making philosophy friendly to politics. The questioning of authoritative opinions is not easily accomplished nor is that realm of philosophy - the pursuit of wisdom. Socrates was the instigator of the conflict. While the political element takes place within opinions about political life, Socrates asks the question "What is the best regime and how should I live?" Ancient thought is riddled with unknowns and can make no such statement as "how should I live." The Socratic philosophy offers an alternative and prepares the way for the alternative of absolutes. This alternative is not without its faults. Socratic philosophy is plagued by a destructive element. It reduces the authoritative opinions about political life but replaces it with nothing. This is the vital stem from which the "Apology of Socrates" is written. Because of the stinging attack on Athenian life, and the opinions which they revere so highly, Socrates is placed on trial for his life. The question now becomes why and in what manner did Socrates refute the gods and is he quilty? Socrates, himself, speaks out the accusers charges by saying "Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things under the earth and the heavenly things, and by making the weaker the stronger and by teaching others these things" (Plato, 19b;c). This is the charge of the "old" accusers. It is seen from an example in "The Clouds". Strepsiades goes to Socrates in order to learn how to pursuade his son by "making the weaker speech the stronger" (Aristophanes, 112). Why does Socrates remind the assembly about the old accusers? It appears improper for a man on trial to bring about his other 'crimes'. Aristophanes, in particular, is implicated by Socrates as an old accuser. "For you yourselves used to see these things in the comedy of Aristophanes" (Plato, 19c). The poets helped to shape Greek culture. Poetry was passed on and perpetuated the city where thought constantly changed. Philosphy begins in debunking what the city thinks they know in order to refute the god. It is evident that Socrates is not guided by the gods of the city. Socrates says "it is not part of the same man to believe in daimonian and divine things" (Plato, 27e). Socrates is subtly admitting his guilt. Perhaps Socrates believs in gods, but if so, they are not the gods of the city. Socrates simply denies that he has had any part in celestial or subterranean inquiry - he simply speaks "elsewhere". Socrates goes on to say that those who do are reported to be atheists. However, Socrates says that "Zeus does not eveeen exist" (Aristophanes, 367). Socrates replaces Zeus with nature, the permanent and necessary things accessable to reason. This is an outrage to any Athenian. To deny the gods is to deny faith and ultimately the authoritarian opinions on which their politics is based. Why does Socrates think that he is being unjustly punished? Chaerophon had told Socrates that the Pythian Oracle had said that Socrates was the wisest man. Socrates admits that "I am conscious that I am not wise, either much or little" (Plato, 20b). Socrates wonders what the riddle is and sets out to "refute the divination" (Plato, 20c). This is a prime example of Socrates' impiousness as is his statement in "The Clouds" where he states "we don't credit Gods" (Aristophanes, 248). He is attempting to refute the god at Delphi. Socrates tries to aid his own defense by charging that what he does is in devotion to the god. "Even now I still go around seeking and investigating in accordance with the god" (Plato, 23b). Socrates makes this brash statement yet it is unfounded and untrue because it is not a devine order for Socrates to pursue this line of investigation. In opposition, Socrates asserts that the daimonian did not oppose him. Socrates' impiety is not the only thing that resulted in histrial. Socrates was "the gadfly" stinging the city of Athens. When Socrates proposes that the god sent him on his quest, he set out to prove it wrong. In the process, he questioned "the politicians and those reported to be wise" (Plato, 21c). After finding that no one reported to be wise, was worthy of being called wise, Socrates investigated further "all the while perceiving with pain and fear that I was becoming hated" (Plato, 21e). The artisans, poets, and politicians all thought they were knowledgable in "the greatest things" but, in fact, did not know anything at all. "They all say noble things but they know nothing of which they speak" (Plato, 22c). Socrates, in affirming that he reanked above them in wisdom, because he knew nothing, in fact became the oracles main supporter. It must be noted that Socrates' support of the cities god is based solely on his 'testing' of the oracle. Socrates accepts the oracles words, not on divine authority but because it passes his test of reason. The hatred of Socrates is extended, as the youth of Athens imitate him and make the elders look foolish by engaging in Socratic dialogue and showing up their ignorance. This led to the charge that Socrates corrupted the youth. This too was added to the impiety charge. Socrates says that the youth follow him "of their own accord" (Plato, 23c). In any event, one concludes that the Delphic Oracle was a definite turning point in Socrates' life. Perhaps it changes Socrates' interest from the physical and astronomical studies with moral and political thought. This turning point brings Socrates into conflict with the city of Athens. His doubt of the opinions taken on authority also concerned the cities god and the cities laws. That made him dangerous in the eyes of the leaders. Socrates' thought was a painful sting to the glorified convictions of human conduct that meant so much to the city. Socrates made the political and moral questions the focus and theme of his "second sailing" as he suggested in Aristophanes' "Clouds". By virtue of Socrates' turn, philosophy now becomes political. The "Apology" presents a critique of political life from the view of philosophy. Socrates disrupts prevailing opinions without providing a substantial opinion to replace it. This may be intentional as to let man decide between his longings and the necessity of political life. The problem now is how to make philsoophy friendly to politics. Whether or not that can be done is not to be answered here. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Socrates.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Erika Hall 516-78-2200 Philosophy 120 Paper #1 Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated. I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Socrates1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Socrate's First Accusers and Athenian Law Of all confrontations in political philosophy, the biggest is the conflict between philosophy and politics. The problem remains making philosophy friendly to politics. The questioning of authoritative opinions is not easily accomplished nor is that realm of philosophy - the pursuit of wisdom. Socrates was the instigator of the conflict. While the political element takes place within opinions about political life, Socrates asks the question "What is the best regime and how should I live?" Ancient thought is riddled with unknowns and can make no such statement as "how should I live." The Socratic philosophy offers an alternative and prepares the way for the alternative of absolutes. This alternative is not without its faults. Socratic philosophy is plagued by a destructive element. It reduces the authoritative opinions about political life but replaces it with nothing. This is the vital stem from which the "Apology of Socrates" is written. Because of the stinging attack on Athenian life, and the opinions which they revere so highly, Socrates is placed on trial for his life. The question now becomes why and in what manner did Socrates refute the gods and is he quilty? Socrates, himself, speaks out the accusers charges by saying "Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things under the earth and the heavenly things, and by making the weaker the stronger and by teaching others these things" (Plato, 19b;c). This is the charge of the "old" accusers. It is seen from an example in "The Clouds". Strepsiades goes to Socrates in order to learn how to pursuade his son by "making the weaker speech the stronger" (Aristophanes, 112). Why does Socrates remind the assembly about the old accusers? It appears improper for a man on trial to bring about his other 'crimes'. Aristophanes, in particular, is implicated by Socrates as an old accuser. "For you yourselves used to see these things in the comedy of Aristophanes" (Plato, 19c). The poets helped to shape Greek culture. Poetry was passed on and perpetuated the city where thought constantly changed. Philosphy begins in debunking what the city thinks they know in order to refute the god. It is evident that Socrates is not guided by the gods of the city. Socrates says "it is not part of the same man to believe in daimonian and divine things" (Plato, 27e). Socrates is subtly admitting his guilt. Perhaps Socrates believs in gods, but if so, they are not the gods of the city. Socrates simply denies that he has had any part in celestial or subterranean inquiry - he simply speaks "elsewhere". Socrates goes on to say that those who do are reported to be atheists. However, Socrates says that "Zeus does not eveeen exist" (Aristophanes, 367). Socrates replaces Zeus with nature, the permanent and necessary things accessable to reason. This is an outrage to any Athenian. To deny the gods is to deny faith and ultimately the authoritarian opinions on which their politics is based. Why does Socrates think that he is being unjustly punished? Chaerophon had told Socrates that the Pythian Oracle had said that Socrates was the wisest man. Socrates admits that "I am conscious that I am not wise, either much or little" (Plato, 20b). Socrates wonders what the riddle is and sets out to "refute the divination" (Plato, 20c). This is a prime example of Socrates' impiousness as is his statement in "The Clouds" where he states "we don't credit Gods" (Aristophanes, 248). He is attempting to refute the god at Delphi. Socrates tries to aid his own defense by charging that what he does is in devotion to the god. "Even now I still go around seeking and investigating in accordance with the god" (Plato, 23b). Socrates makes this brash statement yet it is unfounded and untrue because it is not a devine order for Socrates to pursue this line of investigation. In opposition, Socrates asserts that the daimonian did not oppose him. Socrates' impiety is not the only thing that resulted in histrial. Socrates was "the gadfly" stinging the city of Athens. When Socrates proposes that the god sent him on his quest, he set out to prove it wrong. In the process, he questioned "the politicians and those reported to be wise" (Plato, 21c). After finding that no one reported to be wise, was worthy of being called wise, Socrates investigated further "all the while perceiving with pain and fear that I was becoming hated" (Plato, 21e). The artisans, poets, and politicians all thought they were knowledgable in "the greatest things" but, in fact, did not know anything at all. "They all say noble things but they know nothing of which they speak" (Plato, 22c). Socrates, in affirming that he reanked above them in wisdom, because he knew nothing, in fact became the oracles main supporter. It must be noted that Socrates' support of the cities god is based solely on his 'testing' of the oracle. Socrates accepts the oracles words, not on divine authority but because it passes his test of reason. The hatred of Socrates is extended, as the youth of Athens imitate him and make the elders look foolish by engaging in Socratic dialogue and showing up their ignorance. This led to the charge that Socrates corrupted the youth. This too was added to the impiety charge. Socrates says that the youth follow him "of their own accord" (Plato, 23c). In any event, one concludes that the Delphic Oracle was a definite turning point in Socrates' life. Perhaps it changes Socrates' interest from the physical and astronomical studies with moral and political thought. This turning point brings Socrates into conflict with the city of Athens. His doubt of the opinions taken on authority also concerned the cities god and the cities laws. That made him dangerous in the eyes of the leaders. Socrates' thought was a painful sting to the glorified convictions of human conduct that meant so much to the city. Socrates made the political and moral questions the focus and theme of his "second sailing" as he suggested in Aristophanes' "Clouds". By virtue of Socrates' turn, philosophy now becomes political. The "Apology" presents a critique of political life from the view of philosophy. Socrates disrupts prevailing opinions without providing a substantial opinion to replace it. This may be intentional as to let man decide between his longings and the necessity of political life. The problem now is how to make philsoophy friendly to politics. Whether or not that can be done is not to be answered here. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Solitary Confinement On Antarctica.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ During my assignment of a one year long period of solitary confinement on Antarctica the three things that I would bring with me would be: a computer equipped with internet access and teleconferencing capabilities; my ski equipment including my climbing gear; and a snowmobile that is run by electricity because of a lack of Mobil stations at the South Pole. The computer, ski equipment, and snowmobile would allow me to endure and make the best of a year long period that would be pure Hell without these three things. The sub zero climate of the Antarctic winter would make it unbearable to venture outside of my quarters. The computer that I would bring would allow me to keep in contact with the world outside of Antarctica, and with my family and friends via the internet and teleconferencing. The computer would also serve as a way for me to keep a journal of the events that occurred through out my year long solitary confinement at the life deficient South Pole. My computer would also provide a source of entertainment with games and programs I could use to pass the time. I would bring my alpine ski equipment along with my rock climbing gear to the earth's frozen basement. The two passions of my life are snow skiing and rock climbing. On the Antarctic continent lie many mountain ranges that have the world's driest and most plentiful powder, and the most magnificent rock and ice faces and cliffs. These conditions are a skier's and rock climber's heaven. The mountains could provide me with a sense of extreme pleasure and make my stay in the earth's freezer well worth it. There is one problem with skiing in Antarctica, there are no ski lifts. This would pose a problem to me if I didn't have my climbing gear. However, I was intelligent enough to realize that I would have to climb the mountains in order to ski them, which is why I brought my climbing gear. To provide transportation around the continent and to the mountains I would bring an electric snowmobile to Antarctica. The snowmobile would have to run on stored electricity and be rechargeable. I would cruise the frozen plains of Antarctica on the snowmobile, observing one of the last uncharted frontiers of the modern world. I would be able to see the creatures of the world of ice and observe how they have adapted to life in the Antarctic. A year long span of solitary confinement spent in the Antarctic could be endured and enjoyed by myself if I had these possessions with me. I would not willingly go to Antarctica by myself for a year. However, I would choose to go to this frozen part of our planet for a short stay, along with a few companions to ski, and observe the last undeveloped and unpopulated continent of the earth. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Sosas Reliabilism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ross Goldberg PHIL 4311 Dr. Stonewald Paper 3 Ernest Sosa likes externalism. He thinks that it is intuitively correct. But he must and does agree that it must be clarified in order to avoid certain problems. So, his mission in this paper is to first define what he calls "Generic Reliabilism," then to show how it is susceptible to certain objections, then to present a modified version of it, and to show that this new version is, in general, better than its predecessor. Let us look at his argument. First, we get the usual definition of generic reliabilism: S is justified in his belief that p at t if the belief is produced by some faculty that usually produces true beliefs. Then, we get a couple of Alvin Goldman's notions of justification with Sosa's revisions. A belief is strongly justified iff it is well formed, and by means of a truth conducive process. A belief is weakly justified iff it is "blameless" (not the result of an intentional mistake?) but ill-formed, and the believer is not aware that the belief is ill-formed. A belief is superweakly justified iff the process that produces the belief is unreliable but the subject did not intentionally come to hold the belief because it was acquired unreliably. And, finally, a belief has strong meta-justification iff the subject neither believes that nor can determine if the belief is ill-formed (hence the "meta-" prefix), and the subject is aware of the process by which he got the belief and that the process is reliable. OK, seems reasonable enough. But, Sosa points out, there are a couple of scenarios (actually, three, but Sosa concentrates mainly on the two listed below) in which these conceptions of justification just do not work. The "new evil demon" problem takes a couple of forms in the article, but what it amounts to is that if a person S attains beliefs through something other than his usual faculties (e.g. senses, reasoning, etc.) like evil demons or random neurological stimulators, or whatever, then that person's beliefs are not attained through a reliable process (we are assuming that demons are, as usual, not benevolent bearers of truth). But, we do not want to say, or at least Sosa doesn't, that the deceived believer is completely unjustified in his beliefs; so, what level of justification do we assign to his situation? If, by some amazing coincidence, the random processes or demons generate a consistent and coherent set of beliefs, then we can say that the subject is weakly and meta- justified. But, that situation is not very likely, and thus we need the notion of superweak justification. At this point, the analysis and comparison between normal people and deceived people stops at superweak justification. Sosa thinks we need more. Now, Sosa introduces his proposal for a criterion for justification - virtue (clever word choice, eh?). Notation: E = environment; C = conditions; F = field of propositions; S = subject; P = specific proposition in question; and X = arbitrary proposition. Then, S believes P at time t out of intellectual virtue only if there exists F and C such that: a) P is in F; b) S is in C with respect to P; and c) S would usually be right in believing an X in F while in C with respect to X. Whew. One attractive feature of this theory in contrast with Goldman's historical reliabilism is that the faculty through which we believe in our existence (cogito) is immediate, and by Sosa's definition of virtue, it is, well, "virtuous" and infallible I guess, and in the historical conception, would rely on memory, which is fallible. This is a good thing. Note that since the virtue is a function of E, C, P, and X, there are several places from which an error could originate. But, all things considered, Sosa arrives at the conclusion that the amount of virtue sufficient to internally justify a belief is attained by the following: relative to E, S holds P, P is in F, S in C with respect to P, and S would not be in C with respect to an X in F in E without S being likely to believe correctly with regard to P. Having so defined virtue and its relation to justification, we can see that the focus has been shifted from a generic reliable mechanism of belief acquisition to the mechanism of intellectual virtue. How, then, does this solve our evil demon problem? Sosa says that relative to our actual environment, our belief acquiring mechanisms (senses, etc.) are virtuous enough to justify our beliefs. But, in a demonic environment, our senses are deceived and so forth, so we are not justified. But, a person, even in a demonic environment, is still justified in his beliefs relative to the actual environment, assuming that he has sound cognitive traits. For, although Sosa's view allows us to say whether or not someone is justified in belief relative to an environment even if that person is not in that environment. We have examined the demon problem and ignored the meta-incoherence problem, but they are formulated and solved in analogous ways. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Suicide In Vegas.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hell is expensive. This is my first thought as my plane lands in Las Vegas. The Luxor hotel's glass pyramid seems dangerously close to the runway's edge, as do its chocolate-and-gold sphinx and rows of shaved palms. I wonder if these rooms tremble when jets land. Behind the Luxor are mountains kissed by dust the hue of bone; to its left lies the Strip, where color is so bright it looks like it has died, rotted, and come back as a poisonous flower. I have been forewarned. First, I am told flying in at noon is "not the way to enter Vegas." Correct entry is at night. This way I would have the full treatment of neon and glowing sky. As a child, I was taught not to buy into anything at night. The spoiled, chipped, or dangerous could be easily disguised. Yet here, in one of the fastest-growing cities in the United States, nighttime is the appropriate time "to enter." Exiting is another matter. According to a recent cover story in Time, Las Vegas has the highest per-capita suicide rate in the country. This coincides with its enormous expansion, yet the most talked-about suicides -- those of tourists leaping from hotel balconies after losing everything they had -- are dangerous myths for a city poised to become America's newest economic icon. In fact, tourists taking their own lives surrounded by the glamour of the Strip comprise only a small percentage of the fatalities. The bulk are those who moved here for jobs, who live just beyond the lights. Eight times as many residents kill themselves here as do visitors. Second, I am told that in Las Vegas I will feel more alive. Anything can be had here; this is the last place before the millennium where real money can be made. An open season: anything goes; like America used to be. My friends in Los Angeles, who seem to know such things, say forget about winning. This is the town where you get to stub your cigarettes out in an egg, sunny side up, at four o'clock in the morning -- if you can remember what time it is, and you won't -- and then get in your car and drive. This will happen before I leave. But I will be driving just to clear my head of the suicides and failures. On Paradise Road, near a white asphalt lot filled with empty Boeing 707s, I will sit in my car watching early-morning business flights descend into the starch of a Nevada dawn and I will suddenly see how Las Vegas is our new mirror. Reflecting how things are going to be done. And who will win or lose. "There's a small but steady amount of suicides we call 'jumpers,'" states Sgt. Bill Keeton of Metro Police. "They're generally tourists. Some jump off an overpass, even Hoover Dam, but casinos are first choice. Balconies. The hotels wised up. Roofs stay locked." Las Vegas has other names for its fatalities. "Snowbirds" are retirees from the Northwest who settle here or come to gamble their pension funds. "Downwinders" are former Utah residents fighting cancer who lived downwind of radioactive breezes in the fifties and sixties. Nuclear testing was only one desert valley away; like the airport now, it was so close hotel rooms shook. "It's not necessarily gamblers," Keeton goes on. "Just people who've planned one last fling. We used to get a lot from Los Angeles. Now it's people from all over the world. We had a young man fly in from Ireland. On his immigration card, it said he seemed either on drugs or depressed. He came here and went to a pistol range, shot targets for a while, then took his gun into a bathroom and killed himself. His family in Ireland kept asking, why Las Vegas? At that same pistol range, a man from Japan shot himself in his shooting stall. It's strange." I hear other stories. Of a wealthy man from Malibu, in the computer business, who committed suicide with sleeping pills and a plastic bag, in a luxury suite at the Mirage. His body was found next to the room's baby grand piano. He had bad relations with his ex-wife. There was a suicide note, resulting in a family court battle. In Nevada, suicide notes can be interpreted as legal wills. As I listen to the story, I realize it will be told again, and often, into the next century. It is part of the city now, part of its dazzle. "You have to remember, these are the visitors," Keeton says. "Lots of people move here and lose everything. They have to work their way out of town." Las Vegas considers itself a destination, an extremely lucrative word. It is a destination summing up our desires for this decade. Like 1930s Hollywood and San Francisco in the sixties, Las Vegas is building palaces that will not age well. But the scar under the makeup is that people are moving here not for fame, or even a communal sense of idealized youth, but only to survive. Since I have been in Las Vegas I have not seen clouds. I am beginning to doubt their existence. Driving east on Las Vegas Boulevard toward Nellis Air Force Base, the sky gets bigger the poorer the road gets. I look up. It is a radiant, pure aqua. Trailer parks are haphazardly formed on desert lots without paved roads or streetlights. Here, the desert nights must shimmer. Cement-block houses without floors or windows have children running past Harley-Davidsons. I see dented Cadillacs and Lincoln Continentals from the early seventies parked in front of tents. These cars were our grandparents' idea of elegance. Now they transport families, sleep children in the backseat, with pots and pans in the trunk, and if you can keep gas in the tank, they'll get you across the country. I also notice none of these cars have Nevada plates. On the other side of town, Flamingo and Sahara roads splay out from the Strip into the suburbs of Desert Shores, the Lakes, and Spring Valley. Here "family lifestyle" communities are walled and gated and built on a massive scale. They differ slightly in both size and price from "country club lifestyle" communities like Los Prados and the Legacy, which have golf courses and ponds with bought, recirculated water. Real estate in 1994 is no longer a bargain. It is now comparable to Orange County or Scottsdale, Arizona. I reason the most original thing Nevada has ever had is Las Vegas Boulevard. Respectability could mean a small death to Las Vegas. "Not so," argues Mark Moreno, a lawyer and longtime Las Vegas resident. "The position of Las Vegas as a family-entertainment destination is best for gaming right now. There are three men responsible for the new Las Vegas. Bill Bennett from Circus Circus, Kirk Kerkorian with the mgm Grand, and Steve Wynn with the Mirage." I imagine asking these three wise kings about the suicides in their hotels. The suicides of their employees in tract apartments and trailer parks facing desert mountains. The mgm Grand employs over eight thousand people on any given day. Circus Circus owns the Luxor. Circus Circus is where I try my first slot machine. The casino is a silvery pink outside, like foil wrapping for cheap candy. It is a color children will remember, and they run through its gardens and circus exhibits and play centers. Their parents gamble in the main casino. And I wonder: who is responsible for the flip side of myth? "Something's missing here. I don't know how to describe it. But something's wrong." In a Chinese restaurant on Flamingo, Allison, a stout young woman wearing eyeliner to make her eyes look oriental, shuffles her weight from one leg to another in front of my table. We are discussing Las Vegas. Why she came here. "What's missing?" I ask. "I don't know. I have two boys, one girl. We moved here for a fresh start, me and the kids. No man at all. Everything's cool. We got a nice condo we rent at Rock Springs Vista. I tried for the Grand but it was already filled up, so I work here. We like Lake Mead. And snow in the mountains. But the kids want to move on. So do I." "Why?" My voice is low. Confiding. Allison walks over to an air-conditioning unit hidden behind a carved gold panel and turns it up higher so we can both hear only air. She begins to whisper. "I just want to get the hell out of Las Vegas. Anywhere." She pauses to pour my lukewarm jasmine tea. "Here you hate the word money. I can't save any money. The city eats it up. Somehow, every quarter and nickel. I work steady, and where does it go?" It is over eighty-five degrees on the third day of March. The coroner's office is located in a dusty white cement-block building with candy-apple-red trim. Inside, the friendly staff files everything there is to know about murder, suicide, and death in Clark County, Nevada. Coroner Ron Flud's office is filled with trophies, plants, and photographs, not unlike a career counselor's at a small-town college. Flud clasps his hands, studying me, and begins. "First, gambling suicides in Las Vegas are minimal. It's one or two every ten years. Residents form the highest core group. And it's almost always from alienation in a relationship. Or career. Las Vegas is not always what they imagined." I think of Allison, working her way out of town. She is not alone. As a young man, serial killer John Wayne Gacy worked his way out of Las Vegas by being a pallbearer at over seventy-five funerals at a local mortuary. In his last interview, Gacy remarked that being in prison was like "being in Las Vegas, where you're gambling and you don't know what's going on outside." I realize everyone even remotely connected to suicide here takes great pains to assure me it does not happen from gambling. One does not kill the golden calf in Clark County. It is axiomatic that relationships disintegrate due to money problems. In Las Vegas and its suburbs, a primary cause for personal financial stress is gambling. Its influence is a perennial one, a perfume in full bloom. There are slot machines in supermarkets in Green Valley and Hendersen, in gas stations right off the freeway. It is easy to cash a paycheck at a "locals" casino like the Silver Nugget, and get free drink tickets. This does not happen in a bank. Even the language here, somewhere between cowboy and psychopath, has an optimistic inflection, still entirely Old West, the subtext being that here you can get something for nothing. This has always been a lie. People are moving to Las Vegas at the rate of six thousand a month. They hear the words no taxes, jobs, good weather. They have come to make money for a year, then leave. Many wind up unable to make rent. "There's a sense of anonymity and transience here," notes Flud. "If someone dies and we have an address over two years old, we'll have to question its accuracy. That's how often Las Vegans move." Statistics show the most popular form of self-inflicted death in Las Vegas is by gunshot using a handgun. Second is by hanging, third is by lethal ingestion of drugs, often mixed with alcohol. In Ron Flud's office, I see how creative desperation can be. His files document death by carbon-monoxide inhalation, cutting and stabbing wounds, jumping from heights, electrocution, a plastic bag over the head, asphyxia from charcoal fire, self-immolation with gasoline, deliberate car wrecks, cyanide and industrial poisons, self-set residential fires, decapitation by train, even lethal amounts of dirt and grass forced into the mouth, as achieved in a 1991 Las Vegas suicide. "Being a gaming town, there's a lot of Russian roulette. It's a mistake to think it's a game. It's a very successful form of suicide," says Flud calmly. This simple connection chills my arms. I think of a gun being passed around. A trigger being pulled. Laughter. Deliberate prayers whispered as sprinklers water brown desert lawns. I think how, downtown on Fremont, where white neon lights never dim, there is no music; only silence. And in that silence, someone in the city is lifting a loaded gun, emptying a prescription, or eating dirt until his heart convulses. The big suicide months are December and January. The group with the highest suicide rate are those between the ages of 30 and 39. After the age of 50, the numbers drop significantly. Nearly five times as many men kill themselves as do women. systematic and severe depression is not unique to Las Vegas. The difference here is the postcard in the background. Neon lights. The smell of money. And the sense of a soul's exhaustion, ready to pass through those neon lights. I realize Las Vegas is a silent city because all the action is inside. When we kill ourselves, our plans succeed because they are secret. As a vindictive act, suicide's damage is permanent. And the question of why cannot be answered by anyone alive. "Why is the word," Flud stresses quietly. "Why would a man and woman from Southern California drive across the state line into Nevada, park just over the border, and shoot themselves to death in the front seat of their car? Why would a man in bed with a woman in a hotel on Fremont say something like, 'I'm going to teach you a lesson,' and then blow his brains out on top of her? This woman wound up severely traumatized. Why would someone do this?" Because they're working their way out of town, I think. Because something is missing. In the late eighties, a young man shot himself to death at Lake Mead. He had a tattoo of a heart on his chest, and that's where he pointed the gun. Underneath the tattoo was a date, freshly inked, on his skin. When his ex-wife called the coroner to find out the details of his death, she gasped. The date under his heart, shy of a close-range bullet wound, was the day, month, and year their divorce became final. Sometimes they are criminals, attracted to the glamour of not going back. Judge John C. Fairbanks, 70, of New Hampshire, stole $1.8 million from his law clients, disappeared on December 28, 1989, the day after he was indicted, and hid out for years. On Thursday, March 24, 1994, Fairbanks checked into the mgm Grand under an assumed name. On Sunday, he was found dead. Judge John C. Fairbanks was not a casual man. He succeeded at everything he set out to do. His suicide note, written to his son, was taped to the mirror. This means Fairbanks got to take a good look at himself before he went. This is almost myth. Fairbanks's actions say to the desperate: I had the thrill of stealing millions. I had the thrill of never going back. If you're going to check out, do it in the city of instant gratification, in the biggest hotel in the world. Do it in Las Vegas. The reality is that Judge John C. Fairbanks killed himself by putting a hotel shoe bag over his head. The bag was plastic, with a drawstring, the kind normally hung outside a room and filled with a pair of shoes that need polishing. He used rubber bands around his neck to attach the bag securely. It was an off-white color, and presumably he could see neither light nor dark as parts of the bag slid into his mouth, toward his throat, and up into his nasal cavities. Perhaps children were running down the hall outside his room as he suffocated. Perhaps their parents were arguing over lost money in the casino. Judge John C. Fairbanks died in silence. Alone. It is 9:15 p.m. and the Congo Theater of the Sahara Hotel is dark. Kenny Kerr is between shows of his female impersonation revue, Boy-lesque. I am ushered into a beige dressing room. Kerr, sans wig but in flawless woman's makeup, is smoking Marlboro cigarettes in a glittery caftan. "The first rule in Las Vegas: If you work here, don't drink and don't gamble. And you have to have a sense of humor, and remember where you've come from." I explain to Kerr about the suicide rate in Las Vegas. He taps his nails on the edge of his leather recliner and continues. "I'm not surprised. It gets real heavy here. I've put friends through rehab for drugs and alcohol. I do it because I care. See, honey, here, if the devil isn't staring you right in the face, then he's just around the corner." Little Lil, the show's three-hundred-fifty-pound comedy drag, agrees with Kerr. "I got lots of stories on the devil in Las Vegas. I helped a friend once who lost everything in a casino. House, bank account, car, the works. He was high as a kite on the Flamingo Overpass, ready to jump. I got him down." I drive to the Flamingo Overpass. The lights of Las Vegas are a fuzzy blue; below, cars on the freeway sound like slot machines in the night wind. It is a sound I cannot escape, and it is twenty-four hours a day. This ramp has signs that read no entry, and I think of mirrors with bad lighting in Las Vegas hotels. They murmur, You've gotten old, you're going to fail. Because you came to Las Vegas to lose. I am sitting poolside at the Sahara Hotel with Jackie, a receptionist at Mark Moreno's office. She called me earlier with the information that her husband had shot himself to death three months ago. She tells me she writes poetry and keeps a journal. She says it keeps her alive. The gardens surrounding the pool are sleepy and shaded. The only noise comes from mockingbirds hopping through olive trees. Jackie has soft red hair and green eyes. She is 31 years old. Jackie quietly shows me pictures of her two sons, Matt and Chris, aged ten and eight, respectively. "David and I got married in 1981. He was a captain in the U.S. Army. We did a lot of traveling like army families do. You make your home where you hang your hat. We used to say that. Then David was affected by the military cutbacks in 1991. He was passed over for major, then the army sort of let him go. He was devastated. This happened in Pittsburg, Kansas." Jackie lights a cigarette and puts on her sunglasses. "We had been here on a trip and thought it was paradise. So first my mom and sister moved to Las Vegas, then I sold the house in Pittsburg and moved the boys and myself out here. David was in Germany, teaching. We got an apartment at Desert Shores. The boys couldn't wait for their dad to come back. You know, David was an extremely confident man." Jackie lowers her sunglasses and looks at me. "I'm sure he was very confident. He was an army man," I say. "Exactly. I got a job teaching, but it wasn't much pay. When David came home he thought a job would be a piece of cake. First, David had a job working on commission for an insurance firm. A sales-and-suit job, he called it. It didn't work out. David came home from a military physical in 1993 with a note saying he was severely depressed. He threw it down on the kitchen counter and laughed. I didn't pay any attention. Jesus. David wound up working as a security guard, the night shift, and he hated it. Can you imagine? A captain? He had become so horribly . . . disappointed." "You had no idea?" I asked. "None. David killed himself on December 7. Just like that. The boys and David and I were playing a family card game in the kitchen before they had to go to school. It was David's day off and he had a new-job interview late that afternoon, so I asked my mom, Jean, to babysit the boys. I remember David made a big point of walking me to the front door and kissing me when I left for work. Then he tried calling me at work but I couldn't talk. I was busy." Jackie goes on to explain they'd had an eviction notice delivered that day, the second in a month. David had planned his suicide for at least three months. Jackie remembers wearing a red dress and red shoes to work. She came home from work to be met by her mother, who was running late. The boys were at a neighbor's house. On the front door was a letter addressed to Jackie's mother. It was in David's handwriting. The first sentence read, "Dear Jean, please don't be angry with me but I have taken my life." Jackie says there was a moment that was indescribable. As Jean continued to read the letter, Jackie became hysterical. Jean called 911. In the letter, David detailed exactly where his body would be found: on a corner lot of Charleston and Apple, not two blocks from their home. And about two hundred yards in from the street. Jackie also discovered David had left her a letter, a letter to each of their sons, and a videotape. "David shot himself through the head with a pistol, military style, pointing the gun up, at an angle beneath his right ear. He knew what he was doing. It was a neat, clean shot. We were able to show the body at the reception." Jackie's voice begins to crack. She lights another cigarette. I notice she has two wedding rings, theirs, molded together on a gold chain around her neck. "With his left hand he was holding a picture of the boys, and a picture of him and me in dressy clothes. I was in a white dress. We were going to renew our vows in a wedding chapel on the Strip in February 1994. . . . He killed himself at sunset, facing Red Rock Canyon. He loved Red Rock." Jackie remembers running from the apartment those two blocks, seeing the police helicopter with its searchlights, seeing the body bag being put into the coroner's wagon, and thinking, "This has got to be some kind of joke." She remembers screaming at a policewoman who made a disparaging remark, and that her mother had to hold her back. "Then I had to go home and tell my sons. You try telling two young boys their father has just shot himself through the head. You damn well try that on for size." Jackie begins to cry. She buries her head in her hands. I excuse myself, telling her I need to use the rest room, and she nods her head knowingly. Inside the men's room at the Sahara Hotel, halfway between a pool and a casino, with a Las Vegas widow outside, I turn toward the mirror to connect, however briefly, with myself, but the mirrors have been removed. I begin to shake and hold onto the sink. I don't cry. There is no point. It is dusk. Jackie lights one more cigarette as I sit down. Her eyes are dry, focusing on the now-lit pool. "It's pretty here," she says quietly. The Sahara sign begins its blue-and-white blink. All the false moons are lighting the sky over Las Vegas. "I'll tell you who I blame. I blame the army for turning men into officers. And Las Vegas. What a joke." She shakes her head. "I'm moving the boys and me to Pittsburg in May." This conversation takes place on the third of March, 1994. A Thursday evening. Tonight, my last night in Las Vegas, I will not be able to sleep, and at four o'clock in the morning, I will begin to drive. In Los Angeles, several months later, I call Jackie's apartment. A man answers the phone. I sound bewildered. Jackie, he states, is getting the boys ready and packed, the apartment cleaned out, she's still working at the law office, she's busy. When I ask this man who he is, he laughs. "Who, me? Friend, I'm the new husband." Jackie waves to me as she pulls her car onto Las Vegas Boulevard. The slot machines inside the Sahara's casino are chattering like drugged children. I feel unclean, as though I have been bitten by something contagious. At the casino's doors I turn and look at the city beyond. It burns a blue not unlike a gas cooking-flame turned down, barely touching its own air, until it is only a hiss. This Las Vegas blue is the neon of the Stardust Hotel lit each evening. It is the blue of the darkened Congo Theater before Kenny Kerr performs, and the blue leftovers of sunsets that attend suicides. It is how poverty creates its own blue skies, hoping God will be kind in a town leaving nothing to chance. It is the whispered question before the trigger is pulled, the last blue moment when all we can ask is why. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Tale of Two Cities Essay on the Roots of Revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tale of Two Cities Essay on the Roots of Revolution The roots of the revolution, according to Dickens, are rapacious license and oppression by the nobility. "Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar manners, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind" - P347, Book III, Ch15. Dickens, who lived in England where there were many unjust punishments and immoral actions by high ranking officials, was basically saying that the things that fueled the revolution in France, the crushing of humanity and rapacious license and oppression, if used in a similar manner somewhere else would have the same result. In this case he was probably thinking of his native country of England, but in truth it could happen in any country that practiced the same methods that France did. The peasants in France were beaten down by the nobility and treated like the scum of the earth for many years. It is surprising that the revolution did not occur sooner than it did. It is presumable that the reason that the French revolution was so bloody is that it was so long in coming. The rage and hatred just kept building and then it finally popped. Like blowing up a balloon, it will pop and all the air will gome rushing out at once after too long but you can let the air out gradually through the place where you blow it. If the nobility has lessened the oppression and created more humane environment then they probably would not have lost their heads. The strength and will power of the poor is far greater than that of others and the peasantry in France clearly had a greater will and strength than the nobility. ""There is prodigious strength.........in sorrow and despair" Pg.306, Dr. Manette f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Techne in a Brave New World.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Techne in a Brave New World Technology is defined as using the entire body of science, methods, and materials to achieve an end. Technology, or techne, is so preoccupied with weather it can, it never considers if it should. In "Of Techne and Episteme," a article on technology and humanities, the author Eddy warns us that a society without epistemological thinking would lead to a society of "skilled barbarians." This is the topic of the novel Brave New World in which Aldous Huxley portrays a future world where babies are manufactured on an assembly line and put into a social class while they are still embryos in a test tube. As children they are engineered to be content with their rank in this world where love, viviparous reproduction, and knowledge of anything beyond your job serves no purpose. A look at Brave New World supports Eddy's beliefs on the importance of humanities in society because of unethical genetic experimentation and the character's lack of individuality. The society of Brave New World has gained the knowledge to produce babies much like their God, Henry Ford, produced the Model T. They have taken this technology and exploited it for their own benefit. They have created with their hands without using their head or heart. Scientists toy with the embryos, cutting off oxygen to those predestined to become lower caste members. Those chosen to work as rocket plane engineers were in constant rotation during the embryonic phase of their life. "Doing repairs on the outside of a rocket in mid-air is a tickish job. We slacken off the circulation when they're right way up, so that they're half starved, and double the flow of surrogate when they're upside down. They learn to associate topsy-turvydom with being well-being." These procedures would be considered morally incorrect today, however, in the future the lack of ethics allows this to be a normal procedure. Eddy stresses the importance of humanities, and teaching of moral ethics. Schweitzer said that "If any age lacks the minds to force it to think about the ethical, the level of its morality sinks, and with it, its capacity to answering the questions that present themselves." This quote could not apply its-self more to Brave New World. Each of the characters in Brave New World lacks an important human characteristic, individuality. I feel individuality is one of the most important things that defines us as humans, we were each created differently, and, like a snow flake, no two people are alike. In the future, due to the advent of genetic engineering, up to 17 thousand babies can be made from a single fertilized egg. Each person has their identity programmed in the "decanting room." Each life has a predestined path that has been determined for them, robot slaves working for society and gain, no different than the "skilled barbarians" of Eddy's warning. I feel that Eddy's beliefs are supported by Huxley's novel Brave New World. Without humanities, Huxley's future thought only of the end and not of the means, there was no concern for life and each life lacked individuality. I think the most unnerving part of this is I see many similarities between Brave New World and the present and today's social tendencies. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Technology and Modern America.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The microeconomic picture of the U.S. has changed immensely since 1973, and the trends are proving to be consistently downward for the nation's high school graduates and high school drop-outs. "Of all the reasons given for the wage squeeze - international competition, technology, deregulation, the decline of unions and defense cuts - technology is probably the most critical. It has favored the educated and the skilled," says M. B. Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report (7/31/95). Since 1973, wages adjusted for inflation have declined by about a quarter for high school dropouts, by a sixth for high school graduates, and by about 7% for those with some college education. Only the wages of college graduates are up. Of the fastest growing technical jobs, software engineering tops the list. Carnegie Mellon University reports, "recruitment of it's software engineering students is up this year by over 20%." All engineering jobs are paying well, proving that highly skilled labor is what employers want! "There is clear evidence that the supply of workers in the [unskilled labor] categories already exceeds the demand for their services," says L. Mishel, Research Director of Welfare Reform Network. In view of these facts, I wonder if these trends are good or bad for society. "The danger of the information age is that while in the short run it may be cheaper to replace workers with technology, in the long run it is potentially self- destructive because there will not be enough purchasing power to grow the economy," M. B. Zuckerman. My feeling is that the trend from unskilled labor to highly technical, skilled labor is a good one! But, political action must be taken to ensure that this societal evolution is beneficial to all of us. "Back in 1970, a high school diploma could still be a ticket to the middle income bracket, a nice car in the driveway and a house in the suburbs. Today all it gets is a clunker parked on the street, and a dingy apartment in a low rent building," says Time Magazine (Jan 30, 1995 issue). However, in 1970, our government provided our children with a free education, allowing the vast majority of our population to earn a high school diploma. This means that anyone, regardless of family income, could be educated to a level that would allow them a comfortable place in the middle class. Even restrictions upon child labor hours kept children in school, since they are not allowed to work full time while under the age of 18. This government policy was conducive to our economic markets, and allowed our country to prosper from 1950 through 1970. Now, our own prosperity has moved us into a highly technical world, that requires highly skilled labor. The natural answer to this problem, is that the U.S. Government's education policy must keep pace with the demands of the highly technical job market. If a middle class income of 1970 required a high school diploma, and the middle class income of 1990 requires a college diploma, then it should be as easy for the children of the 90's to get a college diploma, as it was for the children of the 70's to get a high school diploma. This brings me to the issue of our country's political process, in a technologically advanced world. The advance of mass communication is natural in a technologically advanced society. In our country's short history, we have seen the development of the printing press, the radio, the television, and now the Internet; all of these, able to reach millions of people. Equally natural, is the poisoning and corruption of these medias, to benefit a few. From the 1950's until today, television has been the preferred media. Because it captures the minds of most Americans, it is the preferred method of persuasion by political figures, multinational corporate advertising, and the upper 2% of the elite, who have an interest in controlling public opinion. Newspapers and radio experienced this same history, but are now somewhat obsolete in the science of changing public opinion. Though I do not suspect television to become completely obsolete within the next 20 years, I do see the Internet being used by the same political figures, multinational corporations, and upper 2% elite, for the same purposes. At this time, in the Internet's young history, it is largely unregulated, and can be accessed and changed by any person with a computer and a modem; no license required, and no need for millions of dollars of equipment. But, in reviewing our history, we find that newspaper, radio and television were once unregulated too. It is easy to see why government has such an interest in regulating the Internet these days. Though public opinion supports regulating sexual material on the Internet, it is just the first step in total regulation, as experienced by every other popular mass media in our history. This iswhy it is imperative to educate people about the Internet, and make it be known that any regulation of it is destructive to us, not constructive! I have been a daily user of the Internet for 5 years (and a daily user of BBS communications for 9 years), which makes me a senior among us. I have seen the moves to regulate this type of communication, and have always openly opposed it. My feelings about technology, the Internet, and political process are simple. In light of the history of mass communication, there is nothing we can do to protect any media from the "sound byte" or any other form of commercial poisoning. But, our country's public opinion doesn't have to fall into a nose-dive of lies and corruption, because of it! The first experience I had in a course on Critical Thinking came when I entered college. As many good things as I have learned in college, I found this course to be most valuable to my basic education. I was angry that I hadn't had access to the power of critical thought over my twelve years of basic education. Simple forms of critical thinking can be taught as early as kindergarten. It isn't hard to teach a young person to understand the patterns of persuasion, and be able to defend themselves against them. Television doesn't have to be a weapon against us, used to sway our opinions to conform to people who care about their own prosperity, not ours. With the power of a critical thinking education, we can stop being motivated by the sound byte and, instead we can laugh at it as a cheap attempt to persuade us. In conclusion, I feel that the advance of technology is a good trend for our society; however, it must be in conjunction with advance in education so that society is able to master and understand technology. We can be the masters of technology, and not let it be the masters of us. Bibliography Where have the good jobs gone?, By: Mortimer B. Zuckerman U.S. News & World Report, volume 119, pg 68 Wealth: Static Wages, Except for the Rich, By: John Rothchild Time Magazine, volume 145, pg 60 Welfare Reform, By: Lawrence Mishel http://epn.org/epi/epwelf.html 20 Hot Job Tracks, By: K.T. Beddingfield, R. M. Bennefield, J. Chetwynd, T. M. Ito, K. Pollack & A. R. Wright U.S. News & World Report, volume 119, pg 98 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Comparisons of Charles Manson to Transcendental Philosoph.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Comparisons of Charles Manson to Transcendental Philosophy Charles Manson and various members of his "family" brutally killed several people from the Tate and LaBianca family on two seperate ocassions. The purposes of these killings are misunderstood by today's society, when ignoring Manson's philosophy. Although Manson never killed anyone, he went to prison in 1969 for masterminding the operation. Today's society has labeled Charles Manson as a mass-murderer who had no purpose through his cause. However, society overlooks the goal of Manson's plan, which included creating a better society. Manson continues to preach his cause through repeated parole attempts, behind the walls of a California prison where he resides currently. His cause remains unknown to many, but several of Manson's underlying themes coincide with earlier transcendental views. Many of Charles Manson's beliefs include creating a better society by reducing the size of the government, and preserving the role of an individual in society. This explains why Manson refused counsel at his trial, he represented himself until the judge found many of his motions "ludicrous" and appointed him an attorney. Manson preached that only he could represent himself, because no one could preserve his individuality. Mr. Manson lost his sixth amendment right to self-representation, and he uses this example now to prove that the individual rights of people are controlled and manipulated by the government. The story of the "Manson Family" goes beyond the Tate/LaBianca murders, to years before the murders took place. Manson and his "family" would gather together in a house, when generally they would sit contently and listen to Charles preach. Usually the sermon would last for an hour or two and include stories and prophecies about the "revolution" that Manson felt was coming. Manson called this revolution helter skelter, after a Beatles song, which he felt told about the future of our society. Manson believed that the African-American members of our society were troublesome and would over-through the white race. Therefore, Manson began to prepare for helter skelter by informing his family. Instead of waiting for helter skelter, Manson wanted to prevent it by creating a utopian society that excluded the African-American race. Above and beyond individuality, Manson felt that four important things needed preserved: air, water, trees, and animals. Mr. Manson commonly refers to these things as AWTA, and claims that his "family gave their lives to unite the brothers and sisters of the world" with these standards. The use of euphorics by Manson and his followers, provided an enhanced sense of individuality in an environment interacting with nature. Manson commonly used music to get his message out to other people, and generally, he would end a session with songs prophesizing helter skelter orchestrated by his guitar. Today, many of Manson's songs have been released under the Guns and Roses album name. This angers Manson and extends his argument that the rights of an individual are no longer safe. In his 1986 Parole Hearing Statement, Manson talks about how his "family wanted to stop a war and turn the government and world to peace." He goes farther to say that his masterplan included preserving ATWA, which would extend to enhance the individual. Both of these ideals were important to the transcendentalists of the 19th century. The belief that the individual, not the government was key to society, was important to the transcendental philosophy. Transcendental philosophy includes sacrament to nature and the individual through a self emanating god. Manson preaches that God resides in him, this proves that Manson has adopted a God within himself, which compares to transcendental teachings. The term mass-murderer cannot describe Charles Manson as a person with ideals and beliefs. Rather, a title of modern transcendentalist describes Manson's actions and preachings. Although he sits behind prison walls today, his influence will linger on past his death, through transcendental writings. Manson will probably never receive full credit for his beliefs and inspiration to create a better society, but people must remember that his ideas compare immensely to the great transcendental thinkers before him. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Contribution of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermache~E7F.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Contribution of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) To the development of Hermeneutics Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768 - 1834) SOSC 201 VINTERPRETIVE SOCIOLOGYV UESSAY 1U [CRAIG POVEY[ Lecturer : Bob Tristram. Office: 83 Fairlie Terrace, Room 313. Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher B orn nov. 21, 1768 Breslau died feb. 12, 1834 Berlin Philosopher, theologian, pastor. As both of Schleiermacher´s parents came from vicarages, it was hardly surprising that he took up theology, too, at first at the seminary of the Brüdergemeine in Barby (near Magdeburg), then at the university of Halle. He passed his exam in 1790. Afterwards he worked as private tutor and curate. In 1796 he came to Berlin, where he met the leading personalities of the Berlin Romantic movement. A fter an unhappy love affair he left the city in 1802. In 1804 he became professor at the university of Würzburg, before moving on to Halle in October. There he met Henrik Steffens, who became famous in 1813, when he incited his students to take to arms against Napoleon´s troops in the liberation wars. I n 1807 Schleiermacher returned to Berlin, where he had great influence in the founding of the Berlin University. In 1809 he became pastor of the Dreifaltigkeits-Kirche (Trinity church), professor at the university in 1810, in 1818 finally rector. Since 1811 he was a member of the Akademie der Wissenschaften (Academy of Sciences). H e was very active in church politics, where he helped creating the Union of Protestant churches and worked towards a constitution of the synod. This put him into opposition to the government. Around 40,000 people took part at his funeral. His grave is on Dreifaltigkeits-Friedhof (Trinity cemetery). Works: About Religion. Speeches for the Educated among its Critics. (1799) Secret Letters about Lucinde. (1800) Christian Faith, after the Principles of the Protestant Church. (1821-22) Information sourced from:(GBBB.Berlin@t-online.de 1997?) "Understanding...is grasping the point or meaning of what is being done or said. This is a notion far removed from the world of statistics and casual laws: it is closer to the realm of discourse and to the internal relations that link the parts of ...a discourse."[pg 115: Winch, The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,1958.] This is what hermeneutics is - understanding and the complexities behind this art form. Some would belief that hermeneutics itself is the art of understanding. In discussing Schleiermacher's contribution to the development of hermeneutics, this essay will first attempt to define these complexities, the word hermeneutics, and understand how this art form has emerged. In understanding hermeneutics, one must also look at Schleiermacher, his theory itself and how he arose to create the first real set of rules for this kind of understanding - a framework. Schleiermacher's theory was considered a radical break from tradition, one new aspect was his creation of a distinction between the speaker and the interpreter in his explanation of how hermeneutics worked. This radical side to Schleiermacher's theory created some historical debates on the subject, a discussion of these debates will be used to highlight some of the problem areas in Schleiermacher's work. However the main focus of this essay will be how Shleiermacher's theory created a new approach to the concept of the process of understanding, and how various theorists have reacted to his works. Derived from the Greek words 'hermenuein' (verb) meaning 'to say', 'to explain', or 'to translate', and the word 'hermeneia'(noun) meaning 'explain' or interpretation. [Holub, Robert. Selden Raman (Ed)1995?] One twentieth century philosopher Paul Rocher claims that hermeneutics can be traced back to Aristotle's Peri hermeneias and in this classical work hermeneutics is a general theory of comprehension [Rocher, Paul 1974?]. However traditionally, hermeneutics has evolved from a methodology in dealing with the interpretation of text and exegesis to a complex and in depth science. Prior to the Romantic era hermeneutics was defined into three main areas of interest outlined by Robert Holub; Biblical exegesis which was primarily concerned with applying rules in dealing with the interpretation of the Old Testament and the Torah and can be associated with such writers as Augistine and Origenes. In biblical exegesis the hermeutic consisted of a literal interpretation of the text and focuses on a higher source or almost mystical approach to exegesis interpretation. This approach to hermeneutics was to be challenged by Protestant theorists (including Schleiermacher) whom believed that texts should not be associated with such mystical assumptions.[Holub, Robert. Selden, Raman (Ed)1995?] The second main area of interest was during the Renaissance period when there was an attempt to form a consistent interpretation to the code of Justinian (Ad 533). This secular life legal hermeneutic was used in carrying out justice from general laws where by judges have to interpret their meanings as they apply to specific instances. This form of interpretation is still used today in one form or another. [Holub, Robert. Seldon, Raman (Ed)1995?] The third area of interest I wish to introduce is that of philological hermeneutics. Originating from the Alexandrian School and focusing on the interpretation methodology of Homer. Philological hermeneutics was concerned with the authentic reconstruction of texts. This was instigated by a concern with the preservation and understanding of classical heritage.[Holub, Robert. Seldon, Raman (Ed)1995?]. The most influential period in the formation of modern hermeneutics was during the Romantic period (late eighteenth century to mid nineteenth century). This marked the beginning of new ideas and approaches to hermeneutics as theologians, philologists and philosophers began to question the methodology of classical theorists and their approach to interpreting texts and exegesis's as new ideas began to arise. One influential philologist-theologian that emerged from this period was Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Attributed as being 'the founder of modern Protestant theology' and 'the founder of modern hermeneutics' Schleiermacher's interest in hermeneutics began with his associations with fellow romantic thinker Friedrich Schlegel. Schlegel was the first to apply principles of transcendental idealism to literature with his Philosophy of Philology.[Kurt Mueller-Vollmer 1986?]. This influenced Schleiermacher to embark upon a quest into the realm of hermeneutic theory. Schleiermacher's theory represents the first true attempt to form a frame-work for understanding as a specific hermeneutic. Schleiermacher did this by critically uniting the hermeneutic traditions in Protestant theology and the rhetorical and philological traditions of classical scholarship with the new transcendental approach inherited from Kant and Fichte [Muller-Vollmer, Kurt (Ed) 1985?]. Schleiermacher`s theory focus's on grammar and style and in keeping with his religious concern for themes and from this he created a general hermeneutics with principles independent of traditional interpretational principles [Shleiermacher, F. Kimmerle, H. (Ed) Winter, Carl. 1959?]. Schleiermacher achieved this by comparing the reader's approach to a text with the contributions by both the author and reader in a dialogue to understand each other [Thompson, JB. (1981?] He depicted the dialogue in terms of a speaker (author) who puts together words to express his/her thoughts and a listener (reader) who can comprehend the words and sentences because they are drawn from the vocabulary of a shared language and follow its grammatical rules. The listener can also recognise the intentions behind the words by being in the same situation and sharing a common human nature with the speaker [jcma@ai.mit.edu,1994?]. This theory forms the basis for the idea of Schleiermacher to 'understand what is spoken' and this basis of understanding can be applied and modified to all texts as Palmer writes; Schleiermacher outlines in the opening of his lectures in 1819: "This art of understanding is in essence the same whether the text is a legal document, a religious Scripture, or a work of literature.......Each discipline develops theoretical tools for its particular problems, differences lie with the fundamental unity" Schleiermacher went on to clarify this theory in relation to all texts by stating: "The texts are in a language and thus grammar is used to find the meaning of a sentence; a general idea interacts with the grammatical structure to form the meaning, no matter what the type of document. If the principles of all understanding are formulated, these would comprise a general hermeneutics." [Palmer, Richard E. 1969?] This formulation of understanding outlined by Schleiermacher attempts to empathise with the speaker as well as analysing the language of the text in relation to the speaker (author). Schleiermacher's interpretation of text is therefor, built upon (as outlined) understanding and has a grammatical, as well as a psychological moment. Schleiermacher's theory of understanding places the text within a particular literature (or language) and in return uses the text to redefine the character of that literature. The psychological aspect of understanding enables the listener (reader) to reconstruct and understand the motives and assumptions within the text. Schleiermacher was the first to recognise this concept of 'understanding what is spoken' as Palmer wrote: 'Schleiermacher was the first to theorise this fundamental distinguishing of speaking and understanding and formed the basis for a new direction in hermeneutics in the theory of understanding.' He went on to say: "Take the act of understanding as its starting point then hermeneutics becomes the 'art of understanding" [Palmer, Richard E. 1969?]. This theory for its time was viewed as rather radical and there were many opposing parties concerned with up holding the classical hermeneutic methodology which was viewed as 'dogmatic' by Schleiermacher. One such opponent was Friedrich August Wolf as Palmer writes; "Friedrich August Wolf asserted that a different hermeneutic was needed for history, poetry, religious texts, and by extension for subvarieties within each classification". Palmer went on further to say; "Wolf viewed hermeneutics in a practical scene - A body of wisdom for meeting specific problems of interpretation. Tailored to a particular linguistic and historical difficulties posed by ancient texts in Hebrew, Greek and Latin." [Palmer, Richard 1969?] Wolf's theory was in keeping with the norm of the time and is seen by Palmer as a theory purely to assist in the translation of ancient texts. Wolf's theory was that general hermeneutics did not allow the use of specific methodology for a supposedly - privileged text such as the Bible. The only allowance made for a specific content consists in the variegated use made of the methods approved by the science of hermeneutics. [Bleicher, Josef 1980?] Schleiermacher's theory opposed this as it seeks to specify specific interpretational methodology to all texts. The theory that one needs to understand what is spoken makes Schleiermacher's hermeneutic revolutionary. Schleiermacher viewed the traditional hermeneutics that is based upon general reasoning as unacceptable. Palmer outlines this view; "Hermeneutics was held by Schleiermacher to be related to the concrete existing, acting human being in the process of understanding dialogue. When we start with the conditions that pertain to all dialogue, when then turn away form rationalism, metaphysics and morality and examine the concrete, actual situation involved in understanding, then we have hermeneutics a starting point for a viable hermeneutics that can serve as a core for special hermeneutics." [Palmer 1969?]. This is one of the main contributions by Schleiermacher in the development of hermeneutics, a new approach to the concept of the process of understanding. Understanding is now seen as Josef Bleicher writes; "as a process of creative reformulation and reconstruction. Based upon the two traditions followed by Schleiermacher of transcendental philosophy and romanticism, Schleiermacher used these traditions to derived a form of questioning the possibility of a valid interpretation." Josef Bleicher goes on to write; "This concept of questioning the possibility of a valid interpretation led Schleiermacher to the discovery of the hermeneutical law that every thought of the author has to be related to the unity of an active and organically developing subject". Bleicher went on to say; "This relationship between the individuality and the totality became the focal point of romanticist hermeneutics.[Bleicher, Josef 1980?] This systematic form of interpretation developed by Schleiermacher and outlined by Josef Bleicher contains two parts: The grammatical (outlined previously) and the psychological. With regards to the psychological aspect of interpretation Bleicher writes: "Schleiermacher's development of a system for psychological interpretation center around the investigation of the emergence of thought from within the totality of an author's life. The use of these hermeneutical rules allows for the understanding of the meaning of a given text." Bleicher went on further to outline a claim made by Schleiermacher that the benefit to hermeneutics of this new approach; "Given adequate historical and linguistic knowledge, the interpreter is in a position to understand the author better than he/she had understood him/herself." [Bleicher, Josef 1980?] One famous writer on this subject Hans-Georg Gadamer critically attributes Schleiermacher's theory to the differentiation of understanding and misunderstanding, in which the interpretation is seen to begin this process of understanding within his or her own misunderstandings. [Gadamer, Hans-Georg 1989?] This critical analysis of Schleiermacher's reciprocal approach is clarified by Chris Lang; "The interpreter brings into the text his or her own set of presuppositions which cause him or her to misunderstand the text. The hermeneutical method was intended to secure a right understanding of the text preconceived understandings or misunderstandings. Thus there is a recognition that the mind does not necessarily act as a mirror reflecting exactly what is in the text."[Lang, Chris. 19???] On a more positive side Chris Lang viewed Schleiermacher's method of validation as more sophisticated than his predecessors. From this perspective the discipline of hermeneutics gradually moves from a methodological approach to the text toward the modern conception that hermeneutics is what happens when we interpret a text or how one comes to understand.[Lang, Chris 19???] Another major contribution by Schleiermacher to the development of hermeneutics was not actually made by Schleiermacher directly but by a student and avid follower of his work Whilhem Dilthey (1833-1911). Josef Bleicher addresses the importance of Schleiermacher's methodology in relation to the work done by Dilthey; "In retrospect, Schleiermacher's stature in the history of hermeneutics rests mainly on the impetus with which it had provided Dilthey's thinking." Bleicher goes on to outline this impact on hermeneutics; "Within the span of fifty years hermeneutics developed from a system of interpretation relevant for theology and philology only into the methodology of a new science: Geisteswissenschaften. It claim to provide the precondition for all understanding shifted to the securing of 'objectivity' in the methodical reconstructions of historical events - and to provide the foundation on which the positivist incursion into the territory of the mind and its manifestations could be repelled" [Bleicher, Josef 1980?]. The importance Dilthey's Work following on from Schleiermacher is important in that Dilthey applied Schleiermacher's hermeneutics to all texts. Dilthey actually set into practice the theory proposed by Schleiermacher. Dilthey went on to form the hermeneutic circle implementing Schleiermacher's principle of understanding as a reconstructive process as Jcma@ai.mit.edu writes; "In keeping with Schleiermacher's hermeneutics.....Understanding (verstehen), the basis for methodological hermeneutics, involving a circle from texts to the author's biography and immediate historical circumstances and back again.......Interpretation, or the systematic application of understanding to the text, reconstructs the world in which the text was produced and places the text in that world". Jcma@ai.mit.edu went on further to outline the importance of this; "This circular process precludes and interpretation of a text being unique and scientifically objective, like the explanation of a chemical reaction, in as much as the knowledge of the author's or agent's world may itself critically depend upon the present interpretation." [jcma@ai.mit.edu 1994?] Here on can see Schleiermacher's theory in the identification of understanding as empathy secured by the notion of a common human nature implemented by Dilthey. The importance of Dilthey's work following on from Schleiermacher is important in the development of hermeneutics as Jcma@ai.mit.edu writes; "Broadening Schleiermacher's hermeneutics, Dilthey developed a philosophy of method for history and the human sciences that he believed could produce objective knowledge but avoid the reductionist, mechanistic, historical explanatory schema of the natural sciences......Dilthey argued that texts, verbal utterances, art and actions were meaningful expositions whose 'mental contents' or intentions needed to be comprehended" Jcma@ai.mit.edu went on to enforce Dilthy's claim; "He claimed that investigating human interactions was more like interpreting a poem or discourse, than doing physics or chemistry experiments.....Dilthey termed the desired comprehension of events and expressions 'understanding'(verstehen) and attempted to distinguish it from the explanatory knowledge (erkennen) generated by the hypothetico-deductive method of the natural sciences." [jcma@ai.mit.edu 1994?] The significance of Dilthey's work in relation to Schleiermacher's methodology is important in the overall contribution to hermeneutics because it is Dilthey whom uses Schleiermacher's hermeneutics and sets out to apply it to all areas of interpretation. Also it is Dilthey's attention to Schleiermacher's hermeneutic methodology that ensured Schleiermacher place as one of the founders of modern hermeneutics. However the overall significance and contribution of Schleiermacher's project of a general hermeneutics is best outlined by Richard Palmer; "Regardless of the psychologising element in the later Schleiermacher, his contribution to hermeneutics marks a turning point in its history. For hermeneutics is no longer seen as a specifically disciplinary matter belonging to theology, literature, or law; it is the art of understanding any utterances of language. [Palmer 1969?]. REFERENCES ___________________________________________________ Bleicher, Josef (1980?) 'Contemporary Hermeneutics'. Published by Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pages: 14, 15, 16. Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1989?) 'Truth And Method' 2nd Edition. Published by Crossroad Publishing US. Page: 185. Holub, Roberts & Selden, Raman (Ed) (1995?) 'The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism'. Published by The Cambridge University Press. Pages 255, 256. Lang, Chris (19???) 'A Brief History Of Literary Theory II' Meaning; The movement from author to reader. Published by (Unknown) Page 1. Mueller-Vollmer, Kurt (1986?) 'The Hermeneutics Reader'. Published by Basil Blackwell Ltd. Page 72. jcma@ai.mit.edu (1994?) 'The Methodological Hermeneutics of Schleiermacher and Dilthey'. Published by Nikos Drakos, Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds. Palmer, Richard (1969?) 'Hermeneutics'. Published by Northwestern University Press. Pages 85, 86, 94. Ricoeur, Paul (1974?) 'The Conflict Between interpretations'. Published by Northwestern University Press. Page 4. Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Kummerle, H (Ed) & Winter, Carl.(1959?) 'Hermeneutic'. Published by Universitatsverlag, Heidelburg. Thompson, JB (1981?) 'Critical Hermeneutics' Published by Cambridge University Press. Page 37. Word Count: 2980 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Death Penalty.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE DEATH PENALTY By Phil 1000 March 25, 1997 The death penalty has existed for well over 4000 years. In 1728 BC the code of Hamurabe was passed to allow legal execution. For centuries capital punishment was a public spectacle: states used executions to demonstrate the ultimate consequence of attacking the state. During the 18th century in England executions attracted tens of thousands of people in some cases there would be riots. Also in England the church was allowed to burn people alive at the stake for the crime of heresy. Under Queen Mary Tutor (the infamous "Bloody Mary") thousands were executed just for not returning to the Catholic faith. Most of these executions took place in the market place so the public would be aware of what would happen if you decided to follow your own religion. Many burned at the stake were women and some were even children. It is ironic that Christianity is built around forgiveness. Many other gruesome mass executions throughout the ages were performed for minor crimes that today would be classed as misdemeanors. One of the most vicious methods of execution ever invented was geared not only to inflict pain but to provide a gruesome spectacle for the public. It was the English punishment for treason. It is called hanging, drawing and countering. First you would be dragged to the place of execution on a hurdle. This is a type of sled that was attached to the back of a horse. You would be hanged to the brink of death before being cut down. The third stage of the execution is that the persons gentiles would be cut off and burned in front of the body before it was cut from the going to the chest and the intestines would be taken out and also burned, after the body would be cut into four pieces and the head would be displayed for the public. In one case a man at the point of the hanging took a literal running jump in order to break his neck but unfortunately the cord broke instead. This caused him to be totally conscious for the rest of the execution. In some parts of the world executions are still performed in keeping with traditions of the Catholic church. In the Philippines, since the church believes that Christ died at 3:00 in the afternoon, every execution done in this country is performed at 3:00. Even more unbelievable is the fact that in some Islamic countries executions are performed as they were throughout history. Under Islamic law there is no difference between the church and the state and executions are carried out publicly on Friday after afternoon prayers. The first act geared to more humane executions was passed in 1868 when Britain took execution away from the public eye and performed them behind prison walls. During this time they also started to use the new idea of the penitentiary. This was based on the concept that criminals could be reformed and those who were not sentenced to death were placed in jail for a said amount of time and then released into society to live a normal life. In France however public executions were performed until 1939. People would go to these, get drunk, and watch the spectacle as a form of entertainment. In 1939 things changed when the execution of Ugene Windeman was video taped by a photographer and pictures were published afterwards without the knowing or permission of British authorities. The French Government was very embarrassed and public execution was banned in France. During the past year in China, Amnesty International recorded over 2000 executions and believe that the real number is much larger. The guilty are paraded through the streets before being shoot once in the back of the head. Saudi Arabia also executes in public by beheading by sword outside on display. Of the more than 200 people executed in the last three years 70% of them were foreigners. Nigeria ranks third in executions. Their method is a firing squad again in public. One hundred Nigerians were executed last year under authority of the military state. I personally find these situations very disturbing. It seems that this is something that would have taken place during the 1800's when people were not so civilized. But this is happening in today's world. As close as our nearest neighbor the United States. Although executions take place behind prison walls pro capital punishment groups gather outside of the prison with signs and cheers. In most states the law allows the family of the victims of the convicted to witness the executions. These executions seem so barbaric in a society where human life is supposedly valued so highly and every child grows up hearing uncountable times that two wrongs do not make a right. It is also not surprising to note that the vast majority of people on death row in the US are poor non-Caucasian males. The question I ask myself is if how we look upon the methods of execution in the past with such horror and disgust, what will our descendants think of the methods in use today. In my opinion the death penalty should be banned. The New Testament condemns it and study after study confirms that it does not cure crime. Canada is one of the few countries that agree with my views. Many believe that families of victims of violent crimes deserve this satisfaction or that society should not support murderers for years in prison and put lives of gaurds and other prisoners at risk but this does not make sence because there is so much room for error in the actual conviction of criminals and the rich go free while the poor get sentenced to death. Our people will never be 100% on one side of this issue but hopefully those who make the final decisions will finally see what happening and end one of the worse government acts condoned today. References Arts and Entertainment Channel, History, Aired March 4, 1997 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Disproof and proof of Everything.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Disproof (and proof) of Everything Since the beginning of time, men (I'm speaking of the human race, this is not sexist in anyway because women are included in this too) have pondered our existence and purpose, as well as the nature of the world we live in. This is perhaps the single most time consuming thought we ever have for most people live their entire lifetimes without finding the answer or even coming close to one. I myself have pondered this question for most of my life, until recently when I used some odd (but logical) logic to come up with a strange conclusion: Nothing exists, and everything exists, for everything is possible all at the same time. Now, by now the reader of this paper is thinking "How is this possible?" or "This guy should be locked up!". Therefore, I plan to explain how I reached this conclusion in this paper. However, I must give fair warning, that some of the logic I used is strange and complex. If you have any doubts about your mental health, or are unsure of your capacities and limitations in any way, please do not read this, or at least do not take it seriously. For those of you who feel you can handle this, read on. Now, let us start at the most logical place to begin, the beginning. What is reality? Well, there are many explanations and theories about this, but I based mine on what I can observe and how I perceive things as a whole. Reality, as we know it seems to be made up of various dimensions. Most people will say reality is three dimensional, but it's really more than that. Time is often considered a fourth dimension, and some people say that there are at least eight known dimensions, possibly as many as thirty. However, it will be easier to start with dimensions from the ground up. Let us start with zero dimensions. A zero dimensional reality is a point. It does not extend in any direction, it is one point, there are no alternatives at all. This is the only type of reality in which a "fact" as we know it really exists. It either is or it isn't. Now, try to imagine a line. Well, there are several types of lines. There are infinite lines, which extend in both directions forever, and lines with one limit, and lines with two limits. Infinity with limits is still infinity. Suppose the line is limited, and is a certain length, not extending forever. This is a one dimensional reality, you can go one way, or the other. Now, how many points (zero dimensional realities) are on the line? Infinite. No matter how short the line is, there's always an infinite number of points. Ok, now on to two dimensions. Two dimensional realities are planes. They're flat level surfaces. How many lines are on a plane? Infinite. So, a two dimensional reality is infinity squared zero dimensional realities. Likewise, three dimensions is an infinite number of planes, and four is an infinite number of three dimensional realities. Therefore, there are somewhere between infinity to the 8th and infinity to the 30th zero dimensional realities in our universe. What is infinity good for? Now that is a good question. What does a universe do with infinite realities? It fills them up. Now, this means to fill up infinite realities, you must have infinite possibilities. So, there are an infinite number of realities in which an event happens, and an infinite number in which it doesn't happen. This is true of every event. The reason we don't perceive it this way, is because our perception is limited. For instance, we do not perceive time as a dimension like height and length and width. This is because we are moving along time in one direction, and cannot sense changes in it. Therefore, events do not just happen for one instant, we only perceive them for one instant as we move along the positive time axis. Therefore everything that ever happened, and everything that will still exists, we just don't see it. So, one can conclude that it is reasonable that we may jump from one reality to another as we move along time. Therefore, nothing is a fact, whether it has happened, is happening, or will happen. Everything is just an expression of probability with no one or zero value. So, there is such a thing as infinite improbability, and infinite probability. But not definite probability and definite improbability. So, the probability of an event occurring is 1/infinity to 1-1/infinity. What does infinite improbability and infinite probability imply? Well, infinite improbability and infinite probability are found when infinite possibilities are present. If I toss a six sided standard die in the air, what is the probability that it will come up with six dots on top? Well, most people will immediately say 1/6. This is not true. Why? Because when you calculate probability as we are taught, we immediately rule out the improbable, but not impossible outcomes. It is possible that the die will be destroyed by say a laser before it lands, or a meteor may pass by the earth and disrupt gravity, causing the die to fly into orbit, or the laws of physics may change for an instant causing who knows what to happen. The point is, there are an infinite number of things that could possibly happen, and therefore an probability and improbability factor which includes improbability and probability factors from other events happening. Therefore something can be improbable but not impossible. This may help to explain quantum physics, where things behave in strange ways they should not, at least not by the laws of physics as we know them. It may be, that when examining things on the quantum scale, we are actually observing the behavior of particles as we shift from one reality to another where the laws of physics are slightly different in each. Therefore, nothing has to behave the same way all the time. As soon as you're not watching it, it could do something entirely different. What about all those theories and formulas people have come up with? Well, when someone creates a theory or formula to explain something, they're giving you something that gives an approximate description of that event. Theories and formulas are never 100% perfect. For example, if you graph the behavior of an object as it moves, and you write an equation to explain the graph that you see, you do not take into account behavior outside that range of the graph. There may be subtle changes that would wreak havoc with your equations if you only knew about them. But you don't. Why? Because it's impossible to graph something for an infinite amount of time with infinite detail. For example, Newton's theories are pretty good, the held up when we went to the moon. However, over large (interstellar and intergalactic) distances, they won't be perfect. Also, flaws in them become more apparent as you approach the speed of light, and they're only reasonably correct up to about 80% the speed of light. Einstein was even closer. His theories on relativity are very precise, and they work well, but they are still probably flawed at some point. Chaos theory may be even closer, but since it is generated by people and machines made by people, it won't be perfect. In short, our chaos is really too structured to explain the structure of the universe, which is chaotic. What about paradox? Well, paradox deals with a conflict in events. For instance, it has been theorized that time travel is possible. This presents the question of "What if someone goes back and changes something?", and more importantly, "What if they mess up and prevent their own birth? How will they ever travel back in time to do it?". Well, this is the classic example of paradox. Now, based on the model of reality described so far, how would we explain what happens with a paradox. Well, if we constantly move along the positive time axis, and there are an infinite number of divergences or "forks in the road" for each event, then it is logical to assume that one who goes back along the time axis and alters an event will follow a different pathway then they did the first time around. Therefore, a paradox will is not likely to destroy the universe, rather, you would find yourself in a reality that changed from the point at which you altered it. Therefore, this means reality can even loop back on itself, and still function just fine. There would merely be another set of infinite realities coexisting with the original set, with the defining event being your alteration of another event. How does all this apply to everyday life, and what does it all mean to us? This is probably the most important question of all. What does it all mean; how does it apply to me. Well, from what we have seen, our chaos is too logical to explain the logic of a reality that is chaotic. Also, nothing is impossible, some things are merely more improbable than others. Therefore, reality is most likely going to be exactly as how you perceive it. So, basically, nothing is definite at all. So, what should one do with one's life in such a strange reality? Well, the only answer I could come up with is: Whatever you want. It seems that the point of life is not to understand your own life, or purpose, or the nature of things, it's to have as much fun as you possibly can while you can still have it. Now, I know somewhere out there, someone is thinking "Well what if I think it's fun to go out and murder people or something?". Well, the answer to why people don't do this, is simple, it's not fun. How so? Well, you must consider tradeoffs. What's fun now usually doesn't lead to things that are much fun later. For instance, if you kill someone, it may be fun, but I don't think one would find imprisonment or a death penalty fun at all. It may be fun to drop out of school and do whatever you want, but in a few years when you can't get a job and don't have enough money to go anywhere or do anything, you won't be so happy. Therefore, it is best to do what you like, but consider the consequences and alternatives first. So, morals don't really exist because people know the difference between right and wrong or because some omnipotent creator dictated our lifestyle to us, but because the let the most people enjoy themselves at one time. So, it's basically similar to any animal's response to a positive stimulus, however our powers of abstract concepts and reasoning, and critical thinking allow us to determine what is fun now, and will still allow us to have fun later. So, in the end, people will do what they like most, while still allowing others to do what they like most, and eventually it all works out for the better. At least, it has so far in this reality, but as we know, everything could change in an instant, even though it's not likely. So, be grateful our lives are as stable as they are and get what you can while you can still get it because it may not be here tomorrow. Well, up until now I had planned on making this thing anonymous, but now that I think of it, I would kick myself if it ever got any recognition at all, and I couldn't prove that I wrote it. So, I have decided to put my name in it, and hope that nobody decides to alter it and reprint it. So, for anyone interested, this paper was written by Toby Hudon, or, for anyone who has a modem, General Lee D. Mented. I hope you had fun reading it, cause it was sure fun writing it. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The divisions of societys povety classes.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Boston Sociology 101 October 31, 1996 If I had the power to abolish poverty in the United States I would do it in a second. Abolishing poverty would be almost impossible because there are just to many poor people for one person to help to abolish poverty we must all work to help those who are poor get out of this condition. There are two types of poor, there are people who are relatively poor and there are people who are absolutely poor. People who are relatively poor are poor compared to the people around them. These people usually only have the bare necessities to survive like food, clothing or shelter. They might even have a steady job but they just don't have any real wealth. In fact people who are relatively poor are usually in the lower 5% of the population in terms of wealth. People who live the state of absolute poverty can not sustain a certain level of living . These people have a hard time getting money for food , clothing, or shelter. People who are absolutely poor have a rough time getting money to put food on the table one day and the next day they might not have any money to put food on the table. Not all people who are relatively poor are absolutely poor, but, all people who are absolutely poor are relatively poor. These types of poor are found all throughout the world especially in underdeveloped countries. In the United States a advanced well-developed country both absolute and relative poverty are present throughout the country. I think that absolute poverty has no beneficial purposes to society. However, relative poverty does have beneficial functions. I think that relative poverty can make people competitive. It would do this because people always try to do better then the people around them. This competitiveness might force people to work overtime or even two jobs in order to make more than the people around them. There are some major costs that both poverty's have on society. These costs include: In areas of high poverty there are usually the same areas of high violence. A second cost to society might be that some people in poverty might become welfare dependent, this means that they rely solely on welfare to pay for everything and they don't even try to find a job of there own. These negative costs definitely outweigh the benefits. If I had control of the poverty situation in the United States I would only try to eliminate absolute poverty. I first would raise the taxes of the rich and the upper middle class. Then I would raise the tax on alcohol and tobacco. Then I would do some refinancing of governments spending. With all the money that this creates I would setup cheep but nice government housing, government grocery stores and government clothing stores. Then I would setup a job training program that gives poor people government jobs. I would also send the best teachers to the ghetto schools. These programs will not work unless the poor work to get out of there citations. I can invasion a society without absolute poverty and without relative poverty. In a society without absolute poverty everyone that could work would have a job, there would be little crime just a great place to live. In a society without relative poverty people would all have the same wealth there would be no competition to be better then anyone. This type of society is only possible in the imagination. John Boston Sociology 101 October 31, 1996 If I had the power to abolish poverty in the United States I would do it in a second. Abolishing poverty would be almost impossible because there are just to many poor people for one person to help to abolish poverty we must all work to help those who are poor get out of this condition. There are two types of poor, there are people who are relatively poor and there are people who are absolutely poor. People who are relatively poor are poor compared to the people around them. These people usually only have the bare necessities to survive like food, clothing or shelter. They might even have a steady job but they just don't have any real wealth. In fact people who are relatively poor are usually in the lower 5% of the population in terms of wealth. People who live the state of absolute poverty can not sustain a certain level of living . These people have a hard time getting money for food , clothing, or shelter. People who are absolutely poor have a rough time getting money to put food on the table one day and the next day they might not have any money to put food on the table. Not all people who are relatively poor are absolutely poor, but, all people who are absolutely poor are relatively poor. These types of poor are found all throughout the world especially in underdeveloped countries. In the United States a advanced well-developed country both absolute and relative poverty are present throughout the country. I think that absolute poverty has no beneficial purposes to society. However, relative poverty does have beneficial functions. I think that relative poverty can make people competitive. It would do this because people always try to do better then the people around them. This competitiveness might force people to work overtime or even two jobs in order to make more than the people around them. There are some major costs that both poverty's have on society. These costs include: In areas of high poverty there are usually the same areas of high violence. A second cost to society might be that some people in poverty might become welfare dependent, this means that they rely solely on welfare to pay for everything and they don't even try to find a job of there own. These negative costs definitely outweigh the benefits. If I had control of the poverty situation in the United States I would only try to eliminate absolute poverty. I first would raise the taxes of the rich and the upper middle class. Then I would raise the tax on alcohol and tobacco. Then I would do some refinancing of governments spending. With all the money that this creates I would setup cheep but nice government housing, government grocery stores and government clothing stores. Then I would setup a job training program that gives poor people government jobs. I would also send the best teachers to the ghetto schools. These programs will not work unless the poor work to get out of there citations. I can invasion a society without absolute poverty and without relative poverty. In a society without absolute poverty everyone that could work would have a job, there would be little crime just a great place to live. In a society without relative poverty people would all have the same wealth there would be no competition to be better then anyone. This type of society is only possible in the imagination. John Boston Sociology 101 October 31, 1996 If I had the power to abolish poverty in the United States I would do it in a second. Abolishing poverty would be almost impossible because there are just to many poor people for one person to help to abolish poverty we must all work to help those who are poor get out of this condition. There are two types of poor, there are people who are relatively poor and there are people who are absolutely poor. People who are relatively poor are poor compared to the people around them. These people usually only have the bare necessities to survive like food, clothing or shelter. They might even have a steady job but they just don't have any real wealth. In fact people who are relatively poor are usually in the lower 5% of the population in terms of wealth. People who live the state of absolute poverty can not sustain a certain level of living . These people have a hard time getting money for food , clothing, or shelter. People who are absolutely poor have a rough time getting money to put food on the table one day and the next day they might not have any money to put food on the table. Not all people who are relatively poor are absolutely poor, but, all people who are absolutely poor are relatively poor. These types of poor are found all throughout the world especially in underdeveloped countries. In the United States a advanced well-developed country both absolute and relative poverty are present throughout the country. I think that absolute poverty has no beneficial purposes to society. However, relative poverty does have beneficial functions. I think that relative poverty can make people competitive. It would do this because people always try to do better then the people around them. This competitiveness might force people to work overtime or even two jobs in order to make more than the people around them. There are some major costs that both poverty's have on society. These costs include: In areas of high poverty there are usually the same areas of high violence. A second cost to society might be that some people in poverty might become welfare dependent, this means that they rely solely on welfare to pay for everything and they don't even try to find a job of there own. These negative costs definitely outweigh the benefits. If I had control of the poverty situation in the United States I would only try to eliminate absolute poverty. I first would raise the taxes of the rich and the upper middle class. Then I would raise the tax on alcohol and tobacco. Then I would do some refinancing of governments spending. With all the money that this creates I would setup cheep but nice government housing, government grocery stores and government clothing stores. Then I would setup a job training program that gives poor people government jobs. I would also send the best teachers to the ghetto schools. These programs will not work unless the poor work to get out of there citations. I can invasion a society without absolute poverty and without relative poverty. In a society without absolute poverty everyone that could work would have a job, there would be little crime just a great place to live. In a society without relative poverty people would all have the same wealth there would be no competition to be better then anyone. This type of society is only possible in the imagination. John Boston Sociology 101 October 31, 1996 If I had the power to abolish poverty in the United States I would do it in a second. Abolishing poverty would be almost impossible because there are just to many poor people for one person to help to abolish poverty we must all work to help those who are poor get out of this condition. There are two types of poor, there are people who are relatively poor and there are people who are absolutely poor. People who are relatively poor are poor compared to the people around f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Doctor Wont See You Now.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kevin Asp Page 1 02/26/97 Essay # 1 A Critical Analysis of " The Doctor Won't See You Now" Initially, James Gorman appears to be stating that physicians should not be ethically obligated to treat each and every "slob" that seeks treatment. The title of the essay, and the sarcastic tone, give evidence that the thesis is quite the contrary. Gorman does identify an alarming trend of physicians looking through a cynical eye with an example of a survey by the American Medical Association, published November, 1991. " Thirty percent of doctors surveyed said they felt no ethical responsibilities to treat AIDS patients" (page 62). This seems to set the tone of disgust for such physicians. Gorman further condemns such physicians by reminding the reader "doctoring is a profession, a calling requiring commitment and integrity" (page 63). Gorman confirms his argument with the first of many disenchanted views. Making a comparison that " old people who are on their way out anyway" (page 62) are responsible for rising health care costs. Gorman then becomes almost offensive when he suggests some AIDS patients deserve their predicament and others don't. At this point, the reader sees that Gorman is being very sarcastic and bitter towards physicians who mare share this view. In paragraph three, Gorman attempts to make an analogy between other professions and related obligations. In essence, the analogy equates the amount of money and personal taste one may have, with the level of care and/or attention one deserves. The analogy appears to be very inappropriate at first, however, this may be exactly what Gorman is trying to point out, making the reader more sympathetic to the thesis. Gorman begins to touch on a sound idea of preventative medicine in paragraph four, page 62, where he writes "... the medical profession is finally beginning to see that patients have a responsibility for their own health". The credibility of the previous statement is destroyed when Gorman goes on to make a false analogy, comparing doctors with small business, and suggests that their is no difference between the two fields. Gorman suggest that, like in small business, doctors should eliminate the "riffraff" in their establishments. Unfortunately, the definition of riffraff is never revealed. Gorman goes on further to suggest which diseases or ailments should not be treated without any reason Page 2 except personal bias. The sarcastic tone is turned up a notch on the proverbial dial from ten to eleven. Making a hasty generalization would usually destroy credibility on an issue, but used with the tone and thesis of this essay, it actually supports Gorman's point. Gorman specifies carpal tunnel syndrome as a deserved ailment. In the last sentence of paragraph five, page 63, Gorman writes " carpal tunnel syndrome in people who write a lot of trash about ethics and responsibility". With this Post Hoc, Gorman is successful in revealing a hidden truth. Gorman is suggesting that some physicians feel they need not acknowledge ethics and responsibilities associated with their position. Willfully presenting it with such a tone the reader will not and cannot sympathize with the writer. Again, further supporting the thesis. Towards the end of the essay, Gorman has ruled out so many possible candidates for treatment, the physicians themselves will be left with little clientele. The argument is so ridiculous, it turns full circle and defeats itself. In Gorman's conclusion it is self evident what's being said is that medicine is not just a business and cannot be treated as if it were. It is much more than nine to five and making a buck. Unfortunately some physicians may have forgotten this for the moment. Stockbrokers are not required to take a Hippocratic Oath, and are therefore not bound to the same ethical responsibilities as physicians. The essay did not follow a classical structure, but was none the less effective. Rhetorical comments and questions were abundant, and the conclusion was cleverly used as a concession. Who needs structure in an essay. Really. How dumb can you get? f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Errs of Dworkin.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For many years, preferential treatment has been used to try to make up for past wrong-doings to minorities. There have been many cases tried over racial discrimination, with verdicts of both innocent and guilty. Ronald Dworkin attempts to argue that preferential treatment is socially useful and at the same time does not violate people's rights. This is wrong for many reasons; here I shall illustrate how preferential treatment hinders racial equality, violates people's rights, and can lead to a lower opinion toward a particular race. Dworkin believes that continuing preferential treatment will decrease racial consciousness and the importance of race. This is the total opposite of what truly happens. If a person were to consider America's past, as an example, he would see how racially diverse people were. Now look around. Just walking across any given area, groups of people of the same race are seen walking together. Most people do not notice this, but very rarely are groups of ethnically diverse people seen. Although there are no longer any laws stating that there must be a separation between different races, people still practice it unconsciously. Dworkin states that the long-term goal of preferential treatment "is to reduce the degree to which American society is overall a racially conscious society (294)." Preferential treatment does nothing of the sort. It was used widely in the past and still exists in some areas today. It has not reduced racial consciousness, but increased it by making people think more about how many spaces are reserved for their particular race. Instead, people should think of what their chances are of getting something on account of their personal knowledge over someone else's, not even considering their race as a factor. This is evident in a black's point of view of getting into the medical school of the University of California at Davis. Sixteen places are set aside just for blacks and other minorities, no matter how low their test scores are. That way, minorities don't even have to worry about competing with whites for a position. This does not, in any way, reduce racial consciousness by setting two tracks for admission to medical school, one for the minorities, and one for the majority. Mr. Dworkin supports the idea that preferential treatment does not violate people's rights. His argument is weak here because he attempts to prove this by saying that if two things do not violate people's rights, then neither does a third. The two things that supposedly do not violate rights are the denial of someone to medical school because of their age and because their test scores are just below the cutoff line of admission. He then assumes that because these two do not violate rights, then neither does denying an applicant because he will not reduce racial consciousness as much as an individual of another race would. By taking this argument apart piece by piece, it is evident that all three parts of his argument violate rights. Preferential treatment violates a person's right to be "judged on merit and merit alone(299)." Dworkin says that another definition for merit is qualification, and for some jobs, race can be a qualification. Given a specific job, certain human characteristics are more desirable than others. People with these preferred characteristics are more likely to get this job. For example, a desirable quality for a surgeon is steady hands; therefore, a person with steady hands is more likely to get this position than a person with shaky hands. Using race in a similar example, preferential treatment would be just if there were a job where one race is more qualified than another. The problem with this is that there are no such jobs. Dworkin says that denying a person admission because of his age does not violate that person's rights, but then, is the individual being judged on his merit and merit alone? No. It is therefore wrong to discriminate against someone because of their age because it violates his rights. A second objection to Dworkin's belief that preferential treatment does not violate people's rights is that people have the right to be judged as an individual. Preferential treatment supports grouping people together according to race and then judging them as a whole. Dworkin agrees with Colvin when he says that people have the right not to be disadvantaged because of one's race alone. Many colleges set cutoff limits to the applicants' scores that they admit. Some applicants that barely fall below the line have much more dedication and enthusiasm than those above the line, and would make better students by these attributes. Unfortunately, these students are not even considered because they are not looked at as an individual, but judged solely by their scores. Now imagine a situation similar to this where race is the determinant of whether a person is accepted or not. If a person were to be turned down from a college because of his skin color before he was given a chance to be interviewed, the college may loose a very smart student. Skin color should not be used to group people because within one skin color, many different kinds of people can be grouped together. A possible alternative to this approach is similar to it, but with one slight change-create a range around the cutoff line where the students are considered on an individual basis. Those inside this zone with admirable qualities are accepted and those without are rejected. The third objection that preferential treatment does not violate people's rights is that a person has the right not to be excluded, disadvantaged, or denied some good because of race alone. In Bakki's case, Dworkin agrees that he would have been accepted had he been a minority, but says that he was not disadvantaged because of his race. He says that Bakki would also have been accepted had he gotten better test scores or had been younger, so his color is not the only thing that kept him from being accepted. Here, Dworkin is comparing apples and oranges. A person's color is no determinant of whether he should be suitable for a job, and neither should his age (although I will not discuss this here). His knowledge is what is important. A doctor should not be turned away because of his race or because he may be a few years older than another, but he may very well be turned away because he is not performing his job to the necessary degree because he lacks the needed knowledge. A person's color or age has nothing to do with his intelligence. This is yet another weak argument given by Dworkin. One more disadvantage to preferential treatment is how people feel when they work with people who have been helped by preferential treatment. If a black man were to apply to medical school and be accepted only because of his skin color, what kind of business would he run if he were to make it out of medical school for the same reasons? There would be a great disadvantage to giving him a little extra leeway because of his race. During college, he might not try as hard on his studies because he knows he will make it by and therefore not gain all the necessary information to be a good doctor. Then, after he graduates and works with other doctors, he may not only give his race a bad name by not knowing what he should have learned in college, but he may also lose patients from being misdiagnosed. It is clear that giving racial preferences can lead to great problems in the future, and should therefore not be used. Many people have explained both advantages and disadvantages to preferential treatment since the racial injustice campaign began in 1954. One of whom is Ronald Dworkin, who spoke on the side for preferential treatment. He argued that while decreasing racial consciousness, it does not violate anyone's rights. When trying to prove his side, he uses examples that are uncharacteristic to racial preferences such as race being a qualification for a job. Although Dworkin argues his point well, he uses examples that just do not back up his beliefs as well as they should and do not draw a distinct line of why preferential treatment should be used. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Existance of Free Will.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To determine whether a particular action was decided upon by an individual or whether the action was predetermined one must study its cause. In studying cause one finds that there are two types of causes those that are typified by natural laws, such as a dropped book falling to the ground, and those typified by the moral considerations of men. This distinction is important because it shows both that no man can control his environment contrary to the laws of natural or scientific laws, but neither are his actions completely out of his control. The first type of cause we can consider as accepted facts, these would be the natural and scientific laws that all objects must obey. It is obviously false to assume that a man may walk through a tree or fly like a bird, but these things can be factors in the set of causes leading to an action. The second type of cause is more difficult to define. It is made up of the past experience and perceptions of men, but more importantly it is the way in which men use these things. This type of cause is arrived at differently in everyone, and it cannot be measured, predicted, or understood as well as the other type. In fact it is often unable to be seen at all, but it must exist simply because the entire world or even the simple workings of one man's brain cannot be described completely using only the laws of nature. A complex moral decision is created in the mind of men by more that just a random or predictable set of electrical impulses, but by the not completely understood spiritual and psychological make-up of men. This type is the "true" cause of an action. When one sees this combination of causes he must accept the idea of dualism. Dualism is the idea that there are two hemispheres of the universe, the physical, ordered and understood by science, and the spiritual, abstract and not understood. The spiritual hemisphere is the force that guides actions that cannot be explained solely by physical causes. While the moralistic cause may have more weight in the type of action, it cannot ever defy natural laws. For this reason both radical determinism and free will seem impossible. With this description given, to determine the amount of free will that a thing has, it is only necessary to see how that thing uses or is affected by the two types of causes. Let us first consider man. Man is obviously the creature for which this argument is designed principally. Man is affected by his physical surroundings and uses a complex cognitive system and a complicated set of morals to consider his actions. Man might first, upon seeing a picture, be stimulated neurologically by and use past experience to make a recognized pattern from the shapes seen. This would be the purely physical and determine reaction to the picture, but this would probably not be the total reaction. Man might use his knowledge to create opinions about the picture, he might experience an emotion in response to it. He might ultimately make judgments based on the opinions and emotions that in a way that is not scientifically ordered, understood, or predictable. Man then, must have free will within the bounds of natural law. The distinction is more difficult in the case of a dog. A dog quite obviously is affected by his physical surroundings, but can he use cognitive processes to make decisions beyond his instinctual drives? The answer to this question is yes, and no. A dog can rely on past experience and in the very simplistic ideas of rewards and punishments can determine right from wrong. This alone does not give a dog free will, he could still be bounded by his past experience and have little conscience effect on his decisions. However, as many dog owners know, dogs often do purely "human" things which show their ability to exert some level of control over their actions beyond the instinctual level. For example, a dog probably, on seeing his owner after being left alone for the day, would have the physical reaction of noting the presence of and recognizing the owner. The dog might connect the return of the owner with a filling of his food dish and anticipate it with hunger. These would be determined reactions set both by the instincts of the animal and his past experiences, however, the dog might also feel the emotion of anger towards the owner for having left him alone for the day, and act out against him to show his displeasure. This would be an example of the dog working outside of or even against his instincts and exerting some level of control over his actions. This leads one to believe that a dog does have a minimal amount of free will, again within the constraints of his physical environment. Lastly it is less difficult to decide the amount of the of free will that a rock has. A rock is affected by its physical environment, but has no means of decision making in order to act on its own. It therefore is affected solely by its environment and has no free will. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The existance of God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The three readings that form the basis of this essay all deal with the existence of a God, something that which nothing greater can be conceived and cannot be conceived not to exist. The three readings include: Thomas Aquinas, St. Anselm, and William Paley. First let us start with Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican Monk (1225-1274) who is considered by many to be the greatest theologian in Western religion. Aquanis writes of two opposite theories with reasons for the non-existence of God and then for the existence of God. He starts off with his views for the non-existence of God relating this through two objections. In the first of the two he defines God as infinite goodness and goes on the say that if God truly existed, there would be no evil. Since evil does exist in the world, there must therefore be no God. I agree with this reasoning, for how could God, a being of infinite goodness create and care for a world of non-perfection and corruption. I have always questioned, as I am sure we all have, how, if there is a God, he could allow such terrible things to occur as they do in today's world: The starving in Third World Countries, the destructiveness of war, and especially the anguish of losing a loved one. In the Bible, a book meant to be the word of God, condemns such things as murder, adultery and theft. I find it hard to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely-good being that "created" this world and everything in it would allow any of these things to occur. He would not only condemn them in an ancient book, but abolish them altogether along with any other things evil. If God is supposed to be the "heavenly father" wouldn't he want and impose onto his children his goodness and weed out all evil? Aquinas also shows this non-existence through Objective 2 where he writes how it is expecting too much for something that can be accounted for be a few principles has been produced by many. There are other principles that can account for everything we see in our world supposing God did not exist. All things can be reduced to one principle, that of nature and therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence. Once more I agree with his rationale of this subject, for it is logical to believe in a simple, visible, measurable concept such as the principle of nature, instead of something so complex it is near in-conceivable, and not able to be seen or measured. Nature could have accounted for the gradual development of mankind and scientific theories have given us explanations for the existence of nature and proof of this gradual development. Our planet's creation has been explained as a result of "The Big Bang" and man's development from a single-cellular organism to the multi-cellular, intelligent man of today by evolution. I agree with both of Thomas Aquinas' Objectives and it is mainly because of these two arguments that I, myself do not believe in the existence of God, something that which nothing greater can be conceived and cannot be conceived not to exist. Aquinas, in the next section of his writings takes the opposite side and gives five arguments for the existence of God. First: The Argument From Change In his first argument Aquinas attempts to prove through theories of motion, the existence of God. He writes that since motion exists in the world, and motion is caused by something else, then in order for there to be any motion (life) now, there must have been an original thing, God to cause this motion. For it is impossible for something with potentiality for motion, to advance itself to actuality of motion. I agree with this theory because I have studied Physics and have read of the teachings of Sir Isaac Newton, but as Science explains, there are perfectly logical explanations as to the formulation of today's motion, Big Bang Gasses, and the evolution of man. In agreeing with this theory I, in no way have contradicted myself, for I believe there always has been motion of some kind it is through millions upon millions of years occurrences, building up and evolving that the current conditions (life) has occurred. The Second Way: The Argument From Causation In his second explanation for the existence of God Aquinas bases it (his argument) on the theory of Causation. He writes, since we know that something causes another thing, and it is impossible for something to cause itself, then in order for anything to proceed to infinity (man, nature) is must be caused be other causes. If there is no first cause (God) there would be no effect. So if we do exist and proceed to infinity there must exist a first power, this men call God. Again as in his first argument Aquinas assumes that there existed nothing at one time and I disagree (as Science does) and thus discredit this argument as well. The Third Way: The Argument From Contingency In his third argument for the existence of God, Aquinas focuses on the factor of Contingency. He writes that some things in the Universe are capable of existing and not existing but it is absurd to assume all things are of this nature. If all things are possible of not existing there must have been a time when nothing existed and then there would be nothing in existence now because you cannot bring about your own existence. Therefore there must be an outside source, something that depends on nothing else, God. In this argument Aquinas writes that there must have been a time that nothing existed and again, as in the other arguments I believe that you need not assume that all things cause themselves. There was one major event, The Big Bang, and nature progressed from there. In no way does saying that if things are capable of existing and not existing, that proves there is a God. The Fourth Way: Degrees of Excellence In his forth argument Aquinas writes that there are things that are good, noble, etc. and there are degrees of each. We judge things according to something else, a reference point. There must then be absolutes in these comparisons and thus something in the highest degree must have caused all lower levels of, for example goodness. There must exist some cause of being, (existing) and goodness and perfection we call God. I find this argument by far the weakest of the five and find no reason at all that there must at one time have been an infinite goodness, to base a comparison on. I find this reasoning absurd and am in no way convinced of the existence of a God because of this argument. The Fifth Way: The Argument From Harmony In his final argument Aquinas bases it on the possession of knowledge and writes that things that lack knowledge work towards a goal. He argues that it is not by chance that people reach their goals. There must then be something possessing infinite knowledge guiding natural things, thus God. I disagree with Aquinas' reasoning here again. He does not take into account the possibility of the concept of "learning" and does not consider that over time, through the "survival of the fittest", "trial and error", etc. evolution is possible and much more probable than the existence of a God, and that through evolution comes the gaining of knowledge and that is how man has acquired today's wisdom. Therefore in his final argument Aquinas again fails to prove (to me at least) the existence of God. The second reading is by St. Anselm (1033-1109) who wrote several treatises on theological subjects. St. Anselm writes of the greatness of God and how if a person hears that a being exists, which nothing greater can be conceived of, he understands, although he does not understand it to exist. If this is understood, then it exists in the understanding and that which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist only in the understanding because then it would be possible for it to exist greater, in reality. Therefore if it (God) exists in the understanding it must also exist in reality. I find this argument totally futile in that just because someone could understand that God exists in his mind and also understands God entirely does not mean that he/she (God) exists. If I understand (for example) dragons and not only understand them in my mind but entirely, that does not mean they exist. What of writers? Not only must Stephen King understand a character in his mind but entirely, inside and out, what he thinks, dreams (character) and does becomes part of King's mind in order to truly portray this character that King has "created". Does this make this character a reality? I think not and do not credit St. Anselm with anything for this portion of his argument. He (St. Anselm) goes on to write later of the conceivement of a being better than God, and the absurdity of this. For if this was to occur the Creature would rise above the Creator. He goes on to explain how conceiving an object and understanding it are totally different. These two things, conceiving and understanding lay the basis for most of the writing and basically it seems that he is talking more about faith than actuality. He seems to restrict most of his ideas to the minds and hearts of men and leave out the real aspect in question: Is there any way of truly proving that God exists? I think not and through St. Anselm's writings he has done nothing to convince me of otherwise. William Paley: The Watch and the Watchmaker William Paley (1743-1805) was a leading evangelical apologist. This writing comes from the first chapter of his most important work, Natural Theory, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802). Paley described a scene in which a person finds a stone and assumes that it has always been there, but when that same person finds a watch and automatically assumes differently the a question arises: Is finding a watch any different than finding a stone? And ultimately, does a God exist and if not how are we, and everything around us, here? Paley goes on to describe the inner workings of the watch comparing them to everyday life and the workings of nature. He uses the fact that one in a million men know how the inner workings of certain parts of a watch work and still no doubt arises in our minds as to the existence of it's maker. He does this to show that we shouldn't doubt the existence of God just because we don't know how he works. Also how if we found a watch and it didn't work perfectly we should not expect flawlessness, for it is not necessary for a machine to be perfect for us to see the design it was made. Thus explaining evil in the world and the problems in today's society even though God exists. He writes how absurd it is to assume that the watch is a result of the common workings of "metallic nature" and relates this to Science's explanation of the evolution of man in an attempt of discrediting it. In general he compares the watch and how we know it was made to the world we live in and more specifically to us, mankind. Paley has many good points and his use of the watch as a metaphor for life in his writing is the work of genius. In contrast though, I believe his arguments to be flawed in that we know there is only one way to construct a watch (a person, a watchmaker, builds it) and when it comes to the question of the world we live in and our life itself, there is much uncertainty. We have been told by Scientists that there are perfectly good explanations as to the existence of the universe and that of man. This is the same as in the arguments of Thomas Aquinas that it is much easier to believe in a visible, measurable concept such as the principle of nature, instead of something so complex it is near in-conceivable, and not able to be seen or measured, like the existence of God. Although I enjoyed reading Paley and am amazed at the intricate nature of his work I am still a skeptic when it comes to the existence of God and nothing short of first hand experience will change that. In conclusion, I have spent the most time writing on Thomas Aquinas for the fact that I believe him to be the most thorough and discerning of the three. He argues both sides and although his arguments for the existence of God do nothing to convince myself, he does raise some valid points with the logic of his arguments being brilliant. He should be recognized as an extraordinary religious scholar (as he is) who examines both sides of an argument on a subject that at the time (early 1200's) it was forbidden to even question (the existence of God). I have enjoyed these readings and consider myself more well-versed on the subject because of them. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Footbag .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What if I told you that in my hand I hold the secret to world harmony that diplomats have been searching for for centerys. That a toy about the size of a plumb can improve your physical and mental well being tremendously. It may sound corny, but it may even bring you at peace with the world. You may call me crazy, but I believe that this little devise can do all these things. This is the hackysac, or footbag as it is officially known, and it is the only component necessary in a very exciting game. But to me, it is much more than a game. To me, it is an expressive dance, a natural high, an important social skill that everyone should become familiar. I am now going familiarize you with this social skill by explaining some philosophy behind it and showing you some basic kicks. The Olympics claim to promote peace and unity, but any hacker will tell you the true goodwill game is hackysack. It has kept warrior guards awake in ancient China, warmed up the legs of soccer players, and helped treat sports injuries by stretching muscles and tendons. Through it's lattest incarnation, though, it's the ultimate neo-hippie sport;the athletic equivalent of tie-dyed clothing or listening to the Grateful Dead. Hackysac's reputation as a game of peace, love and understanding may have begun during a 1987 American-Soviet peace walk protesting the arms race. As hack circles developed along the road from Leningrad to Moscow, people joked that summit meetings weren't the answer and the true secret to lasting peace among nations lay in the game of hackysack. The dynamics of the game reinforce the hac's image of a game of good-will. Basically, the hac is pass through the air with any part of the body except the hands and arms. A circle is formed as more people join in, and there is no limit to the number of players. In fact, the more the merrier since the fun increases with more players. This makes the sport inherently welcoming, all you need do is ask and your in. The circle itself is significant in that it makes everyone equal, there is no single "important" position, no quarterbacks, centers, goalies, or bench warmers. Best of all, you can hack just about anywhere except in line at the bank. A friend of mine once asked me, "Why do you play hackysac? You can't score and you can't win." To which I responded, "Exactly." The fact that emphasis is not place on scoring or wining is the beauty of the sport. No one is working against anybody, no enemy to defeat, no conflict. Instead, emphasis is placed on cooperation, teamwork, and sharing. Members of the hac circle becomes one force determined to keep the hac in the air. Still, the game still attracts plenty of showoffs displaying showy kicks: "jesters" "fliers,""clippers" and "stalls," among other so-called circus tricks or as fellow hacker Timur Willson put it, "hacksturbation" The game may feel awkward to the uninitiated, like shooting hoops with a golf ball, but it quickly becomes second nature once you know a few basic kicks. I will show you a few of them. The Inside Kick is one of the two most important kicks in footbag. Fortunately, it's also the easiest. Use this kick when the bag falls directly between the shoulders. The secret is to to the foot directly under the hacky and turning the ankle to have a flat surface to strike it with.Use a smooth lifting motion as opposed to a swift jabbing motion and it will hopefully propel straight back up. The outside kick is the another essential kicking skill. This kick is executed when the hacky falls outside either shoulder . The outside of the foot is used by turning the ankle and knee outward to create a flat striking surface. Again, use a smooth lifting motion. This back kick is used when the hacky is going over your head or is directly approaching your upper body. The hips and upper body must rotate to the direction of the hacky's flight so that eye contact can be maintained with the hacky. The contact point should be between the hips and knee. The knee kick is executed when the bag is too close to the body to execute an inside kick. The top portion of the thigh is used by bending the knee and lifting straight up as in a high marching step. This should set you up for a more reliable inside or outside kick. The toe kick provides a quick reach or save when the other four basic kicks cannot be used. The top surface of the foot contacts the hacky by flicking your toes straight up and snapping the ankle. There are, of course, many more kicks then this but learning the basic kicks will prepare you for any hack circle. The Aztec indians played a similar game to hackysac but instead of a small bean bag, they used hollow reed balls or feathered rocks. It's no coincidence to me that shorty after such games were prohibited, their civilization fell. Since then, the power of the footbag has only increased. I truly believe that the hacky sac can, indeed, lead to a more healthy, peaceful, and prosperous life. So there's no need to read the Tao Te Ching cover to cover to find peace, run the New York Marathon to stay fit, or sit upon a tiben mountain to find the meaning of life. The answer may be as near as local K-mart for as little as five buck. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Importance of Communication.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Importance of Communication and Teamwork among the Flight and Cabin Crew TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 4 INTRODUCTION 5 Background 5 Purpose/Audience 5 Sources 5 Limitaions 5 Scope 5 COLLECTED DATA 5 Importance of Communication Among the Crew 5 Main Cause of Aircraft Accidents 6 Duties of the Crew Members 7 Expectations of the Crew 7 The Crew is a Team 8 Intimidatin in the Cockpit 8 Cabin Crew is a part of the Team 9 Trusting the Crew's Judgment 9 Crew Resource Management (CRM) 9 Outline of CRM Training 10 LOFT Training 10 Organizing Resources and Priorities 11 CONCLUSION 11 Summary of Findings 11 Interpretation of Findings 11 REFERENCES 13 ABSTRACT The majority of aircraft accidents are caused by human error, and an accident or incident is linked together by a chain of errors. Most of these accidents could have been avoided by the crew if they would have been communicating to each other better. Some common errors that occur among the crew are poor task delegation, assertiveness, and distractions. Crew training in communication and teamwork will increase the crews' performance level. Programs like Crew Resource Management (CRM) have been developed to try to help the crews work together and reduce the human factor in accidents. CRM includes training in leadership/followership, assertiveness, management, communication, teamwork, decision making, and task delegation. Through programs like CRM crews learn to work together as a team, and when they are working together it is less likely there'll be an accident. INTORDUCTION Background The cause for most aircraft accidents (65%) are by crew error (FAA News, 1996). When the Crews performance level is low due to poor teamwork and communication this is when accidents happen. How can crew error be reduced? Even though human error can't be reduced completely through constant training and effort by the crew performance will increase and accidents will be reduced. Purpose/Audience This report is intended for a general audience and will show how important it is for the flight and cabin crew to work together and communicate as a team. This report will also examine the CRM program. Sources Sources have been obtained for this report from the Internet and from the Waldo Library, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. Scope Teamwork and communication are a critical factor in the crew's operation of aircraft. Accidents can be prevented when these two factors are considered. COLLECTED DATA Importance of Communication amoung the Crew People communicate to each other every day. From a kids talking to their parents about their report card, to doctors working in an operating room. In order for us to understand one another we must be clear in what we say. For instance, if a doctor tells a nurse to pull a certain plug on a machine, he'd better be clear on what he says or the nurse might end up harming a patient. Likewise, the cabin and flight crew must work together. In a typical cockpit the flight crew is very busy, and they need to be well organized to handle the many tasks they perform. They need to communicate properly and clearly for safe operations, if they don't their actions could result in a tragedy. Main Cause of Aircraft Accidents Mechanical problems and technical malfunctions do contribute to aircraft accidents, but human error is the main cause, accounting for 65% of the accidents (FAA News, 1996). See the pie chart in figure 1. This figure is quit high, and if it were possible to reduce human error the accident rate would drop significantly. Accidents that occur because of human error are not a direct result of just one error but of a chain of errors. The human error chain results when one bad decision leads to another which leads to the accident. The question is, how can we reduce human error in the cockpit? Studies have shown that most incidents could have been prevented if communication and leadership skills were improved. Pie Chart figure 1: Duties of Crew Members In order to have a clear understanding of who's involved in the crew, these positions with their duties will be discussed. There are usually 2-3 flight crew members and 1-3 flight attendants aboard an airliner. In the flight deck are the Captain, Co-pilot and flight engineer. When there are only two flight crew members there's no flight engineer. (this is to reduce costs). The Captain is the Pilot in Command (PIC). He/she has the final authority of all decisions and all responsibility rest on his/her shoulders. The Co-pilot assists the Captain in his/her duties, like calculating fuel consumptions, weight and balance, navigation etc. He/she is Second in Command (SIC). The Flight Engineer helps reduce the work load of the Captain and Co-pilot. Some of his/her duties may include fuel consumption rate, weight and balance, and communicating with the cabin crew. The cabin crew consists of the Flight Attendants. Besides serving coffee and making sure passengers are comfortable, they are also responsible for briefing passengers on emergency procedures, evacuations, and informing the flight crew when problems arise. Flight Attendants are very important and are an asset to the crew as a whole. Expectations of the Crew Many aircraft accidents have occurred because of role confusion amoung the crew. It is crucial that each member knows what their job is, and what is expected of them. A way for them to know is through communication. An example of miscommunication is the Avianca jet that was in the pattern for over an hour waiting to land at Kennedy Airport. The flight crew had told Air Traffic Control (ATC) they were low on fuel and would run out if they did not land soon. The plane crashed on final approach to land, the reason: fuel exhaustion (Nader & Smith, 1994). The crew didn't declare an emergency to ATC. In aviation saying the right key words can make a difference. Had the pilots declared an emergency because of the low fuel level ATC would have cleared them to land earlier. Or if ATC inquired about their fuel situation, the accident wouldn't have happened. This accident also shows the human error chain. One mistake leads to another which leads to an accident.. A Crew is A Team The words Crew and Team have the same meaning: A group of people working together. The flight & cabin crew are a team and each crew member is a team player. A military phrase heard often is "there are no individuals here! You are a team!" It should be the same way aboard an aircraft. In order for flights to be safe, efficient and enjoyable the crew needs to be able to work together. It's not enough for the Captain to give orders and the crew obey no matter what, there needs to be open communication. Intimidation in the Cockpit The Captain is the commander on board but this doesn't mean he can't listen of take advice. Each member of the "team" is interdependent on one another. Sometimes in aviation the Captain is thought of as "god", you don't dare approach him or question him. A lot of cabin and flight crews are afraid to approach the Captain about a safety concern for fear of how he'll react. Slowly this attitude has been changing. How can a cockpit be effectively run if the Captain's own crew can not work together? One example of how these attitudes can affect the way hazardous situations are handled is the Air Ontario flight from Dryden, Canada. The airliner had been waiting along time for it's turn to takeoff. The weather was bad, it was snowing hard and the visibility was low. The last time the plane was de-iced was a half-hour ago. From the pilots view out the window everything looked normal. Meanwhile, a flight attendant noticed the snow that was accumulating on the aircraft's wings. She wanted to inform the flight crew before takeoff but was intimidated by what their response would be to her, so she said nothing. There was also an airline pilot aboard who wasn't on duty at the time, but was also concerned about ice forming on the wings. He thought about letting the flight crew know what he saw, but didn't want to interfere with their operations. The Air Canada barely took off when it crashed because ice had built on the wings causing loss of lift (Chute & Wiener, 1996). Cabin Crew is part of the Team Here again is the human error chain. If one of the links could have been broken the accident wouldn't have happened. These attitudes can and do cause harm. The flight attendant and off duty pilot should have informed the crew of the possible danger and the Captain should have requested another de-icing before takeoff. The crew should welcome the cabin crew on their concerns, after all they too are a part of the team. Trusting the Crew's Judgment Trusting each other's judgement is a necessity. Without it, how can the crew work together? The Captain must be able to trust that his/her crew are performing their duties properly and vise/versa. Besides having authority the Captain is also the leader. He/she is the one when emergency situations arise pulls the crew together to work as a team even when they don't know each other. A true leader is willing to listen to others, be respectful and be able to take command. Crew Resource Management (CRM) A program called Crew Resource Management (CRM) has been developed to help implement these leadership, communication and decision making skills in crew members. Since the main cause of accidents is due to human error it is hoped that through CRM training crew membfers will communicate and work together more effectively. CRM is not required by the FAA, but it is recommended. Many airlines are having their crews go through this training and they look highly on pilots who not only posse the technical skills but also the people skills. Outline of CRM Training In years past emphasis was put on the technical, stick and rudder aspects of flying. In recent years it has become evident that these skills by themselves are not enough, but that training in people skills is needed. That is what CRM is about. It provides crews' training in: 1. Communication. 2. Decision making. 3. Assertiveness. 4. Leadership/Followership. 5. Teamwork. 6. Task Delegation. 7. Managing. Crew members going through CRM training will attend classroom instruction, watch video's and participate in role playing on these subjects (FAA- AC, 1995). LOFT Training Because crews rarely work together more than once and dont't have time to build a commrodery, using the Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) simulator crews practice managing a cockpit with members they've never met (Chute & Wiener I,1996). This simulator is like virtual reality. Pilots sit in a cockpit where the windows are where the video screen is, all the buttons and knobs work. (Pilot have come out of these LOFT simulators sweating, because what they've just experienced seemed so real). In LOFT crews can fly routes and have emergency situations come up, like an engine failure, deteriorating weather, and navigation problems. The benifit about LOFT is that it's a simulator, there's no danger involved and yet the crew still learns (Helmreich, 1996). Crews going through LOFT training are evaluated on how well they handled the different situations, communication with each other and task delegation. These training sessions are vidio taped so the crew can debrief afterwards how well they did and what they need to change. Organize Resources and Priorities Crew members are not only leaders but also managers. They must be able to use their time and resources wisely. Thers's only so many tasks that one person can handle and be efficient at the same time. That's why Captains need to know when to delegate duties and when to notice that another has to many. Also, They need to prioritise, know what duties are the most important and when they need to be done. This is all part of being a leader and manager. CONCLUSION Summary of Findings Human error is the main cause of aircraft accidents, and it's a chain of errors that sets the accident into motion. Poor flight and cabin crew communication does exist. A program called Crew Resource Management has been developed to improve teamwork, proper task delegation, communication, and trust among the crew.Interpretation of the Findings The need for crew communication is evident. When crews' don't work together their performance level is low and this is when they are volnerable to accidents. Programs like CRM are very helpful in instilling these principles and breaking the bad habits. Poor attitiudes and habits can't be changed overnight. That's why there is a need for recurrent CRM training. Communicaiton and teamwork is the key to safe and effective operations. There's no "I" in CREW but there is "WE". REFERENCES Chute, R. D. & Wiener, E. L. "Cockpit/cabin communication: I. A tale of two cultures." [http://olias.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/people/RebeccaChute/JA1.htm.]. Oct 1996. Federal Aviation Administration. (1995) Crew resource management training (AFS-210, AC no. 120-51B). Washington, D. C. Nader, R. & Smith, W. J. (1994). Collision course: The truth about airline safety. PA: TAB Books. FAA News. "Atlantic coast airlines first to use FAA crew performance program." [http://www.dot.gov/affairs/apa15596.htm]. Sept 1996. Helmreich, R. L. "The evolution of crew resource management." [http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/helmreich/iata96/htm]. Oct 1996. Chute, R. D. & Wiener, E. L. (1996). Cockpit-cabin communicaiton: II. shall we tell the pilot? The International Journal of Aviaiton Phychology, 6 (3), 211-229 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Importance of Literature vs Science.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Importance of Literature vs. Science If we lived in a world without literature, learning only the sciences, would we be the same people? Does the human race need literature at all, does it have any worth whatsoever except as entertainment? Do people actually learn from literature? These are all questions that divide the human race into two separate sections, those who believe in the power of literature, and those who see it as impoverished compared to the social sciences in its ability to teach us about ourselves. However we need not be so divided on this issue. Literature is as rich a teacher as science, but merely differs in technique. Literature offers knowledge to those that seek it, gives experience to those who understand it, and pleasure to those that love it. Science on the other hand imparts knowledge, leads to experience, and gives pleasure to the few who love it. Literature is just as varied and expansive as Science is. There are hundreds of styles, millions of authors, and thousands of languages which make up literature. Instead of different fields, as in science, there are different genres. Literature is often backed up by research or first hand information, but can also be fanciful flights of the imagination. They are similar to the research, observation, and hypothesis found in science. Experiments can be performed in both. A scientist could ask what if, and logically and scientifically follow his what if through. A writer could ask the same and use his imagination, knowledge, and perhaps a little research, to guide his imagination. Literature and Science are similar. However they differ in some important respects. Science is an exact realm of numbers and averages and measurements. The last time you read a romance novel, were there charts showing the Freudian prediction of the average persons love life? Literature does not have the same kind of exactitude that is offered by Science. But it does offer precision in another way. Literature often is the description of one or a few peoples lives in detail. It is from these detailed "case studies" as a scientist would call them, that we can learn. It is the argument of science that people are similar and thus scientific averages do have some relevance to humans. Yes people often do share similar characteristics, and behave similarly if coming from the same society. And thus, a detailed insight into one persons' life could give you an insight on the lives of others. In a way Literature allows you to live thousands of lives in a short time, and gain a little experience from each of them. Science on the other hand, offers you charts and tables to which you must apply the situations of daily life. It is in this fundamental way that literature and science are different. Literature offers you insight which you apply to life, in science, you apply life to your theories. It's just a matter of whether life is the cookie cutter or the dough. Imagine a world without literature. All your Literature courses in school are replaced with social sciences: philosophy, psychology, etc. Would people be the same? No doubt life would be a great deal less interesting, as our minds would not be as stimulated. The world would also be a more closed place, and news, and history would seem less related and more distant. Why? Because sciences do not show you what something is like, the describe it. For example, if science wanted to describe a hit and run it would say "Yesterday, 7/15/96, one 5'4 Caucasian of birth date 3/16/70, was contacted by a rapidly moving multialloy compound in the form of a red colored Peugeot 504 on Libertador 2000-2100, Buenos Aires. The Peugeot 504 maintained its velocity without regard to the sudden impact of the Caucasian. The human being controlling the Peugeot 504 was not identified, and neither was the license plate." However if literature wanted to describe one it would say "Yesterday morning a man was struck by a red Peugeot 504, killing him on impact. The driver of the car, as of yet unidentified, did not bother to stop the car. This is a sad reflection of some peoples' inability to face their own mistakes." Literature could make that last sentence because it does not need to back up every little thing with two thousand pieces of measurable accurate evidence. It can think in leaps and bounds with very little touch with hard facts. Science can describe an incident, but it can't make you feel anything about it. Literature on the other hand, gives you insight and feelings into other peoples minds. For example, it is much more beneficial to read a book about Egypt, than to read a scientific report on it. Through the characters in the book you can get a feel for the culture that the scientific report would not have. A world without literature would also leave science wanting. Many scientists would agree that without literature, science would not be the same. It would be colder, and less human. Human's are not creatures of precision and logic, or we would have rulers for hands, and calculators for hearts. Most people would prefer to sit down and pick up a science fiction novel than a book on astrophysics. Also, writers do not have to be very skilled to be able to teach. Scientists who teach have had to train and learn for many years before they can do so. However, Joe Blow could sit down and write a book on life in the streets of Amsterdam, and we would learn something. Literature can almost always teach you something, proficiency in it merely accelerates and improves the teaching process. This is not to say that science is useless however. Social sciences and literature complement each other well in understanding humans and their behavior. Science teaches us the "how", while literature teaches us the "why". Literature takes us into peoples' minds, science takes their minds and categorizes them. This is why literature will always be perceived as being more human, because it relates to emotions rather than to logic, and humans are creatures of emotion. Science cannot describe certain things. How does science describe love? It can give all the physical ramifications of it, psychology can give us the probable actions done by a person in love, but it can't make us understand what it is to be in love. Literature can give you some experience, although it be a limited, third person sort of experience. And of course, the only way to know an emotion is to experience it. In conclusion I say that we should not pick one or the other, but continue to let them complement each other. There is a time for hard facts and evidence, and there is a time for poems and soliloquies. There is a time for Einstein and Pasteur as there is a time for Shakespeare and Tolkien. Human beings are a composite of their primal emotions, and their need for structure and organization. Thus, without one or the other, we would not be humans anymore. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The influence of Aristotle on Alfarabi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ALFARABI and ARISTOTLE (THE FOUR CAUSES and THE FOUR STAGES OF THE DOCTINE OF THE INTELLIGENCE) Alfarabi was raised as a young boy in Baghdad. His early life was spent studying the art of linguistics, philosophy, and logic. His teachers were Syrian Christians experts in Greek philosophy. He studied Aristotle and Plato in detail, and it became evident in his later writings that they were a strong influence on him. He became quite a prolific writer, and he wrote more than 100 works, many of which have unfortunately been lost including his a lot of his commentaries on Aristotle. He was one of the earliest Islamic thinkers to transmit to the world of his time the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle. He is considered by many to be the founder of an authentic philosophy. His writings created a lot of support, debate, and controversy. He contributed materials on the proof of the existence of the First Principle, and on the theory of emanation, as well as the theory of knowledge, in addition to his commentaries on Greek philosophers. The Greek influence is clearly present in his works, especially with his Opinions of the Inhabitants of a Virtuous City, where he laid down a philosophical, religious, and social system for the humanity at large; a system that sought to break barriers and facilitate relations among people and nations. This work sounded very similar to the work presented by Plato in Plato's Republic. They both took into consideration the matter of city/state, who was to govern, who was to be governed, how this governing was to take place, how it was to be enforced, and so on. It also appears clear that he was influenced greatly by Aristotle. This influence is present in his "Doctrine of the Intellect". The Doctrine of the intellect was Alfarabi's approach to giving his own interpretation to the intellect. There are strong similarities between Alfarabi's Doctrine of the Intellect and Aristotle's "Four Causes". Needless to say that they each are comprised of four stages, but the stages seem very similar, they seem to be representative of one another, almost to the point of defining one another. It will be demonstrated that Alfarabi used Aristotle's "Four Causes" to derive and support the Doctrine of the Intellect. Alfarabi draws off of Aristotle's distinction among four causes; material, formal, efficient, and final. An object's "material cause" is the substance out of which it is made, the "formal cause" is its shape or nature, its "efficient cause" is the most immediate force to bring it into existence, and its "final cause"is its purpose. Thus the Doctrine of the Intellect's "material cause" is latent thought, it's "formal cause" is the active thought, it's "efficient cause" is conscience thought of one's mind, and it's "final cause" is to rationalize everything and to be able to make the first transition to the last spiritual emanation from God. The first cause of Aristotle was called "material" or natural matter. Aristotle borrowed this from the early Greeks. The main question asked by this cause is: "By what is anything made of?" Alfarabi embraces this cause and relates it to the Doctrine of the Intellect as his first stage. The stage in which describes the capability for thinking. Alfarabi argues that this is latent thought, similar to a dry sponge, that is ready to absorb quiddities or whatness. This is the preconscience grabbing of forms, allowing for no differentiation of thought, reason, or abstract sensing. Therefore the essence of one, is the same thing as the essence of other objects. This requires mind and form. The mind sees the forms and collects them merely as forms. Here with Aristotle the first stage is a gatherer. The mind, though not defined what it is, is defined by the function that it has. The second cause for Aristotle was called "formal" or life force. Aristotle borrowed this form from Plato. The main question asked by this cause is: "What is it's identity or what is its name?" This is also the second stage of the Doctrine of the Intellect for Alfarabi. Alfarabi considers this to be the active stage where the sponge is filled with objects. As the objects enter it the process of abstracting out forms begins. This brings on the concept of dualism, once again supplying a strong Greek influence from Plato. The forms are in us, we collect the forms and the objects. The forms are contributing to our thought process, latent to active, dried to wet, the dried sponge is now latently wet. There is no real thought process yet, this is simply just the gathering stages. This is the differentiation between forms and objects. The forms are in us, this is not a consideration of time and space, but rather a consideration of universals. Universals like blue, red, hot, cold, the forms are quazzi things. Object for the object of thought. Things that are recognized as separate. Here with Aristotle we begin to get some separation of the objects, images, and forms. We begin to see differences. The third cause for Aristotle was called "efficient" or natural process. Aristotle borrowed this concept from Democritus. The main question asked by this cause is: "Who changed it from nothing to something, so that it is the way it is?" This concept allows for absence, starting with nothing and now having something. This is the thinking of itself, similar to the squeezing of the sponge. The actual actualizing and using the forms. Thinking about the forms, and the forms that were not abstracted from the objects. These ideas and concepts belong to us, they are in us. This is our mind at work, at this stage it is still very active with the thought of what these forms are and begins to see functions. The fourth cause for Aristotle was called "final" or to achieve excellence in the city in politics, art, athletics, war, science, or philosophy. This was Aristotle's own contribution. The main question asked by this cause is: "What is its purpose?" For Alfarabi this is the union of the spiritual world to the world of human beings. This is the last emanation of God, and the first step in which man begins to embrace the spiritual world. This is the actual reflection of man, looking upon his own thought process, seeing how his active rational mind works. It is this rationale that allows for the move from the first cause/stage to the second cause/stage, from the second cause/stage to the third cause/stage, and so on. This is the stage at which true thinking about thinking takes place. A very cognitive approach. The only confusion that is presented by Alfarabi's doctrine is: is it really that of Alfarabi? There seems to be contradictions in some of his views and some of the works that have been credited to him, are not actually his. Some interpreters have come to the conclusion that he was honestly trying to unite Islamic doctrines with philosophical teachings. While others thought he was committed to philosophy that was based upon a religious body that would be used mostly as a political resource. Regardless of these interpretations, if these writings are actually those of Alfarabi, then it is clear that there was a strong Aristotelianism influence on Alfarabi. This is evident in several of the writings such as in his mentions of the four senses, intellect in potentiality, intellect in actuality, acquired intellect, and with the agent intellect. There are several other writings that are credited to Alfarabi that were based on Plato and Aristotle, so there is no real reason to assume that these writings were not those of Alfarabi. It appears that Alfarabi uses the basic principles of Aristotle and has applied them to his principles of the Doctrine of the Intellect in order to rationalize his philosophy. Alfarabi was a philosopher that grabbed new ideas and harnessed them with some of the greatest philosophical minds known to man. He took Aristotle to a new level, doesn't any true philosopher? He embodied the thoughts of previous minds, and united them with his own and became a very powerful influence on Islamic philosophy. It is clear that Aristotle was used to develop his Doctrine of the Intellect. The similarities, the context, and the rational are too similar to belong to anyone else. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Lake.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Lake It was the middle of springtime and across from my house where the incident took place. There was a lake there in which my brother and I loved to explore from time to time. The humidity and waterdrops where reminiscent of a fully functional sauna. The onslaught of heat and burning glow of the sun was relentless. Nonetheless, this fact did not bother us one bit, but gave us more incentive to dance with our cool and embracing "long-lost love". The first step of this operation was making sure that our neighbors had gone away from the house for at least two hours. Since it was their lake and property, this made it safe for us in not getting caught in the middle of our escapade. Upon this, my brother and I snuck to their backyard like two undercover police officers, until we were in the clear. Nerve-wracking minutes later, flowed the emerald green and ever-so lively lake in front of us. We stopped and starred in awe. The lake had appeared so shiny and reflective, it resembled a finely-cut diamond. The rare and distinct fragrance enticed us. It smelled like mother-nature herself, with aromas ranging from wildlife and wet grass, to evaporated swamp water and healthy dirt. Then, the time for us to find the desired vessel arrived. We chose the kayaks, and set out for the water. Carefully, with our torn-jeans rolled up, and shirts off, we dragged the massive thing over the slope of grass and mud into the shallow stream. We then hopped aboard, grabbed the paddles, and floated and splashed into nowhere. The wavy current sucked us downstream, periodically bouncing us off of sandbags and sharp branches leaning over the water- Now that was true adventure! Minutes later, my brother and I, after passing under many pipes and tunnels, floated into a huge "cul de sac" of water, with an island in the center. In our amazement, we paddled there as vigorously as toddlers learning to swim. We tied the kayaks to a thin branch with the slimy green rope mysteriously attached to them, and hopped onto the island. We basked in pure amazement. After the tempo settled, we started our natural brotherly routine. My brother and I sat on the muddy bank, with our feet dipped in water, and threw stones out as far away as we could in our competitive nature. We set aside our differences, and together, bonded. My newfound companion and I sat, laughed, fought, played, and talked, as the sun slowly left us. At this point it did not matter what happened to us for taking the kayaks, because whatever it was, it could not replace the priceless experience we shared with one another. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Last Supper.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Last Supper Directed by Stacy Title The Last Supper, by Dan Rosen, supposedly dares to take on deep subjects in a vein of sarcastic humor. But, what it says is that liberals, because of their belief, have the right to pass death sentences on opponents. The story was amusing at times and there was some comedy in the film, but it didn't really go anywhere. The most famous actor in the film was Mark Harmon, and they showed him for about one minute, before he got killed. The movie takes place in Ames, Iowa. The film is about five liberal graduate students living together, (three males and two females) that enjoy inviting different guest over every Sunday for dinner. The students indulge their sense of superiority by inviting those that they regard as being less enlightened. They enjoy having different types of discussions dealing with all different types of topics. Their first guest that we see, ends up being a trucker who gives one of the five students a lift home because his car broke down. They invite the trucker in to eat, because they had an extra seat at the table and their originally invited guest could not make it for dinner. The trucker ends up being an anti-Semite and he is also an ex-marine. Immediately after the trucker sits down at the table to eat he starts pointing out to the five students that he hates Jews and that they always try to bargain down anything that they buy. All five of the students are stunned by the remarks that the trucker is making, especially one of the students that is Jewish. They all get into a heated argument and the trucker goes out of control; in addition, he grabs the Jewish student and puts a knife to his throat. They are all shocked by this and they immediately attempt to calm the trucker down. He releases the Jewish student and then breaks an arm of another student who was trying to free the Jewish student. The Jewish student picks up a butcher's knife and stabs the trucker in the back, which eventually kills the trucker. At this point the movie picks up a little. They all begin to contemplate about what to do with the body. They decide on burying the body in the back yard. They said it would cause a lot of problems if they contacted the police. They all agreed at this time that killing the trucker was only good for society. After they had buried the trucker they all sat down and they decided that from now on they would poison their guest depending on whether they thought that the guest was harmful to society. Their next guest was a Priest, who really thought that the gay movement was wrong. The priest believed that being a homosexual was really a disease and that AIDS was the cure for this disease. They quickly poured him a glass of poisonous wine and he was killed soon afterwards. It became sort of a game because the guests wouldn't even make it to the salad before dying. In total they had killed about eleven people including a seventeen-year old girl who was against the distribution of condoms and the teaching of sex education in high school. I think that at this point they all have realized that everything has really gotten out of control. The director seems to miss out on a few flaws that I observed while watching the film. When the trucker breaks one of the student's arms, nonetheless, you see the student with a cast in the following scene. The scene after that you see the student using a rifle and playing a game called skeet shooting. That is where a disk is thrown into the air and the person with the rifle attempts to shoot it down. In that particular scene he doesn't have a cast on his arm. Two scenes later you see the same student playing a game of skeet shooting again and all of a sudden he has the cast on his arm and he is firing the gun just fine. Did the director forget to observe that scene? I guess it was such a low budget film that they could not afford to hire some professional editors. The director shows some very symbolic scenes in the movie, and that is were small bushes begin growing from each grave in the yard. Later on in the movie the bushes had tomatoes growing from them. These tomatoes symbolized the blood of the people that the students had killed. These tomatoes were extremely large, red and they were very sweet. This goes to show that the people that they had killed had so much hatred in them that they were blocking all the good they had to offer. Once they were dead there wasn't any hatred left and these tomatoes symbolize all the good within these people that was stuck inside of them for so many years. It is also very interesting to point out how the director chronologically places each death into a certain order. The first killing in the movie begins with the worst of all the people, and that is the trucker. Worst, meaning that it seemed as though he was filled with the most hatred towards society. The killings there afterwards were pretty much pointless because a person shouldn't be killed for something that he/she believes in. All of the people that died had a belief in something and there are many different ways of changing somebody's ideas without having to kill them. The director has a problem: her narrative style remains conventional and unsurprising even as her story seeks to outrage. The film's wide-angle dinner scenes repeat one another without escalating much, and what leads up to them is of far less interest. Through viewing this movie you can determine that these five liberal students were in a way followers of the Machiavellian theory. Nicolo Machiavelli, was a celebrated political and military theorist, historian, playwright, diplomat, and military planner. His theory can be related to the way these five students were thinking. For example, he raises the point of a person who puts another in power "is ruined himself: for that power is produced by him either through craft or force; and both of these are suspected by the one who has been raised to power." Note that he does not say that it only happens sometimes, but every time. He states it without making excuses for that kind of action but puts the rule for as fact. The students were thinking, and they concluded that, through execution these people would never have anything to do with in society. Figuratively speaking, these students were avoiding anyway possible of letting any of the people killed, to have power in society. The group mantra is a party-game moral dilemma: If you had met Hitler in 1909, and knew what he was going to do, wouldn't you poison him? The mantra flops in two ways. Unlike most such party posers, it has no link with reality: How could you possible have known what lay ahead of Hitler? Second, this group knows no such vastly horrible future about any of the people that they killed: Each is just a soldier in the ranks of rightism. Although, to make us feel a little bit better, the director later lets us know that the truck driver was a child rapist and a murderer. These students are supposed to be ultra-rational. Well, perhaps we are being shown the dangers of ultra-rationality and the ability of not being able to control oneself. Finally, they then invite a conservative TV talker, who turns the tables on them. While they are eating dinner one of the guys decides to pour the TV talker some wine; consequently, one of the girls grabs the bottle and says that the wine is very old. They all look at her as if she has gone crazy. They all excuse themselves from the table and leave the TV talker alone in the room. When they return he has already poured everybody some wine and proposes a toast. The five liberal students drink and they all die. Nicola Machiavelli had a very interesting theory about his belief in having power, "By any means necessary." That is exactly what these liberal students did in order for them to have happiness. I think that in society most of us try to follow the Machiavellian theory on trying to do anything and everything possible in order for ourselves to survive. Machiavelli hoped that, "by helping the Prince rule more effectively, he might help Italy achieve the greatness he hoped for." Machiavelli believed that he didn't need to be appointed leader to run things in Italy back then. These student are the same, they believed that through killing off these few people that they thought were a danger to society, that it was going to make a difference in our government. Maybe it's a good thing that Machiavelli wasn't the actual leader of Italy, because if these five liberal students were leaders of this country we would have nothing but chaos. I think that this film probably would have made more money as a book and not a film. Nicola Machiavelli information was located on the Internet at http://rhf.bradley.edu/~liberty/mach.html. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Means of Media Influence.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fr. Kavanaugh was on the mark when describing the effects of advertising on society. Our moral values are being degraded by the bombardment of impropriety by the media. Adler would be quick in pointing out the reason why these messages have such a negative effect on people. There are two main tactics advertisers use to sell their product: either imply that their product will bring about the achievement of a particular (usually real) good, or make their product the object of desire, therefore making it an apparent good to people. The problem with associating products with the achievement of a good lies more in the realm of truth than in good, because it lies in whether or not the product can truly live up to its claims. The relation between a product and the achievement of a good is an objective truth, though the goodness of said product may not be. The statement that Product X will make you more popular, solve your problems, or let you lead a happy life (statements usually implied in these advertisements) are generally not true. When advertisers make these statements, therefore, they are directly misleading the public. The other tactic used, however, is a bigger problem, being not only harder to identify but having more problematic effects. Since society likes to think of the good as a subjective thing, it would seem to be acceptable for advertisers to qualify their products as being good. However, Adler shows that some goods (namely needs dictated by human nature) are universal to all people. Advertisers commonly exploit this by associating their products not with the apparent good they are truly associated with, but with one of those real goods. Though these products are by no means needs, the associations make people believe that the advertised product embodies the good they need, and to achieve that good they must buy the product. Companies don't advertise perfumes, for example; they advertise relationships. They don't advertise clothing; they advertise independence. Slowly, as people hear these messages more and more, they start associating more importance to the product than to the good involved, like a sort of idol-worship -- and here is where the real problems set in. Now that advertisers have people sold on the product, they can influence people's desires. This is what Fr. Kavanaugh saw when he said that advertising is damaging society's moral values. Calvin Klein, for example, has already become one of those companies whose product has become more important than the good they represent -- in other words, Calvin Klein products are now in and of themselves the good some people try to achieve. Thus, when their ads show immoral situations or actions (like the infamous child pornography ads that spurred many debates and a lawsuit against the company), people associate these immoral actions with the "good" Calvin Klein products, and people will slowly grow desensitized to them. Advertising, therefore, plays a notable role in the moral growth -- or stunting -- of society. Though their "job" is to make people envision their product as good, they often make people envision the values their ads advocate as good as well. Advertisers therefore have a responsibility to society to advocate proper moral values in their advertising, or at least not advocate improper moral values. And society should force them to uphold these proper values instead of the socially damaging ones many advertisers now use. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Mentors Last Words.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested After Bank Tampering".... Damn Kids. They're all alike. But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's techno-brain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him? I am a hacker, enter my world... Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it "No Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..." Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike. I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened by me... Or thinks I'm a smart ass... Or feels aching and shouldn't be here... damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike. And then it happened... A door opened to a world... Rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompentencies is sought... a board is found... "This is it... This is where I belong... I know everyone here... Even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all..." Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike. You bet your ass we're all alike... We've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... The bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert. This is our world now... The world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... And you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... And you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias. And you call us criminals? Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of out smarting you, something you will never forgive me for. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... After all, we're all alike. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The morality of abortion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Morality of Abortion On the question of abortion being moral, the answer is clearly that terminating a fetus' life under certain circumstances is not only moral, but it is also our responsibility to terminate it if the quality of life is in question for the fetus. A second major reason is that to declare abortion immoral would mean that we would have to consider the factor of how the conception came about. This cannot and should not be done. Quality is a major factor in the question of the morality of abortion. When parents decide to keep or not keep a baby the issue of adoption does not play into this. The reason for this is that once the baby is born that the parents may change their mind if they want to keep it. Parents must decide at the onset of the pregnancy to decide if they can in good conscience bring a child into the world, if the answer is yes, then people should proceed with the pregnancy and then determine whether they want to give the child up for adoption. It is a parent's moral responsibility to make sure that the environments which the child will be brought into will be healthy and supportive. It is a far greater crime to treat a child poorly for eighteen years then it is to terminate a fetus that cannot think, feel or is aware of its existence. On the second point of making the way that conception occurred a non-factor I am not saying that having the babies of rapists or in cases of incest is okay. Still, for the argument that abortion is immoral, you must argue that the action is immoral, not the child. The child cannot be either at this point. If we are then talking about the act of abortion then who is to determine right and wrong. A court of law should have no place in this decision. The primary interests in this pregnancy should make the decision themselves. This would normally be the parents of the fetus. The action in the case of rape is defiantly immoral, but the fetus is not. To say that the abortion is moral because the pregnancy arose from a crime is to place a value judgement on a child before it is born. A fetus is just the product of sperm and an egg, an accidental meeting that resulted in a pregnancy. If the fetus is not at fault but can be terminated, why should a different set of standards be in effect because two young people experimenting with sex made a mistake and the end result was the same as in the case of rape. I offer you the explanation that the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy can be deemed moral or immoral, but the fetus and therefore the abortion cannot. The outcome was an accidental meeting of a sperm and an egg in both instances. The moment of conception does not assemble a human the instant that the egg hits the sperm, it takes a full nine months. During this gestation period parts develop slowly, not all at once. Science has determined when the cut off is that a fetus can think and feel etc... If it were impossible for us to know when a fetus could feel and think than the obvious answer would be that it is immoral, but we can tell and therefore it is not. I think that it is important to remember that morals can be established for a society in particular, such as abortion in immoral, but cannot be changed by the context of how the pregnancy occurred. Either the termination of life is moral or it isn't. By this line of reasoning you can follow me to the logical conclusion of this paragraph. If it is logical and ethical to terminate the life of a fetus because of a particular circumstance, then it is moral to do so under any circumstance. A credible objection to my main position is that abortion is wrong except in the case of rape or incest. One good reason for this is that young parents of a fetus that made a mistake and got pregnant made that initial decision to have sex, while the rape or incest victims did not. A second reason is that we as a society should not force a mother to relive her crime every day for nine months and possibly longer if she kept the baby. These two statements do not even come close to undermining my position. My primary problem with the above argument is that the person on that side is putting a value on human life. The fact that the pregnancy occurred illegally makes that human being worth less than the one that was conceived by accident. The argument above hits a brick wall if you pursue it further. A person cannot come up with a justifiable reason why the fetus is worth less as a human because of the nature of the conception. At which point the person on the side of the argument must admit that values are the same and that total value is zero as a human being because it isn't one yet. As to the second reason, why should we remind a seventeen year old girl every day for nine months and possibly longer because in a moment of haste they forgot to use a condom. An objection to my first statement about the quality of life could be argued that after the pregnancy is over the baby could be given up for adoption. Along this line of reasoning the quality of life does not play into the factor. This argument is filled with holes. When a person is 18 years old and loses a leg in a car accident the leg is gone, never to be seen again. The case is much the same for a young girl, she has carried this thing around for the better part of a year. A new mothers natural response to giving the fetus up would be the same if after the accident the doctors asked the victim if they wanted to keep their leg. Of course the answer would be yes. Therefore having an abortion take this problem out of the equation and lets a mother make an informed decision whether or not to have a child and whether or not to give it for adoption. A second problem is the cost of a birth. What if there is no insurance, and there is no one to pay the immense cost of a hospital stay. Why should the same young girl go into financial debt for something that she is not going to keep, and she has no way of knowing if that babies life will be any better than what she could have provided for. To conclude this paper is a difficult task. I have tried to outline why abortion is moral by guiding the reader through a series of steps outlining thinking toward the fetus and we should regard it. The way that we should regard it is as a lifeless thing until it can feel or think, whichever comes first. This is not to that abortions should be common, cheap, or as easy to get as a physical is. Circumstances involved around the conception including the how and why should not be regarded. One abortion cannot be moral while anither is not. I would guess that I am taking an absolutists point of view on this subject. I also tried to state that social context must be taken into account, and that abortion is either one way or the other, indepedent of circumstances surrounding how the pregnancy occured. I have also tried to show how quality of life must be added into the decision of whether or not to have a child. I will lastly close with the statement that while the men of the world try to hash this controversy out, it is important to remember who physically has the child. And that it is ultimatly the womens decision whether or not to have a child. If abortion is declared immoral than it will eentually lead to laws making it illegal as well. When this happens we will see the practice go underground and have a lot of deaths among women attempting to have this done in an unclean environment. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Motionless Arrow.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Motionless Arrow Aristotle's thoughts on Zeno's Arrow Argument as represented in Chapter 9 of Aristotle's Physics: A Guided Study can be understood in such a way that it might not be "next door to madness". In this chapter, Aristotle interprets Zeno's argument of the Flying Arrow as "missing the mark". There are four premises for this argument, and in Aristotle's opinion, premise three can be rejected. He does not believe that time is composed of indivisible nows, which he proves with laws of science. However, by evaluating the falsity of premise three, you will find that premises one and two are also false. Almost all opinions can be argued, however, and by evaluating the philosophy of both men, many points can be reached about the validity and soundness of the argument. Though, by finding the premises false, the argument is not sound, and therefore, Zeno's argument leaves much to be said. Deciphering from what we know of the argument by what Aristotle tells us in Chapter 9, the premises are sketched out: 1. Everything is at rest when at a place equal to it; 2. The Flying arrow is at rest when at a place equal to it; 3. Time is composed of indivisible nows (instants). 4. Everything that changes place is doing so in the now. 5. Conclusion: The flying arrow doesn't move. According to Zeno, time is composed of many indivisible nows, or instants. Aristotle disagrees, stating in line 210 that no magnitude, including time, is composed of indivisible nows. Exactly how long is an instant? Is time finite? As you start dividing time, the smaller you get, the less movement occurs. But even when you do divide it smaller and smaller, is there not at least some small amount of movement occurring? When will time get so small that movement does not occur? This is Aristotle's reasoning: that time will never get to a "smallest" point, as length will never have a "smallest" division. Therefore, he is rejecting the third premise, stating that time is not composed of indivisible segments. Zeno, however, feels that time can be divided into a "smallest" part. After all, in physics, you can determine an object's instantaneous velocity or acceleration at a specific point in its journey, at a specific time. Wouldn't this make time indivisible? Velocity and acceleration are given to mean motion, which means the object is moving at this specific point in time. Therefore, according to Aristotle, this paradox would not be so if it were not taken that time were composed of nows. By rejecting this premise, and reevaluating the argument, you will read that premise one and two do not match anymore. When you find that nothing is ever at rest because time is never standing still, then the Flying Arrow is never at rest. This means that premises one and two are not true either, and this further complicates Zeno's argument. The reasoning from his standpoint makes sense, but by rejecting one premise using Aristotle's rationalizing, we have now rejected two more. Zeno's argument has fallen apart. The arrow is moving, and by following plain rules of science, we have found this to be true. Zeno's argument, as outlined in Aristotle's studies, is perfectly valid. He states that everything is at rest when at a place equal to it, which qualifies the arrow as a part of everything. Therefore, the arrow would be at rest when at a place equal to it. If the arrow is flying, then it is changing place, and everything that changes place is doing so in the now, so the arrow is changing place in the now. If you use Zeno's reasoning that time is composed of indivisible nows, you find that premise three is a true statement. But considering we have found, according to the laws of physics, Aristotle's views are correct, then the premise is false, and the argument is not sound. We have gone over why Zeno's reasoning about indivisible time segments is inaccurate, hence this will be the case. According to Aristotle, Zeno's theories "go beyond perception and pay no attention to it, on the grounds that one is obliged to follow where the argument leads...", and because Zeno seems to hold these opinions, Aristotle finds him "next door to madness." It seems to be that one is tempted to follow the argument, because without consulting the laws that hold true for motion and time, the argument will seem to be logical. At this point in evaluating his argument, you must think into exactly what Zeno is stating and the opinions he is holding. Certainly this is what Aristotle did, and what seems to be the correct idea, for he has found the faults in Zeno's argument. According to these points, both Zeno and Aristotle had the right ideas when formulating their arguments. Zeno seemed to be neglecting many laws of science, and although Aristotle corrected him on many of these points, he did not seem to prove him "next door to madness", as he states in Gen/Corr 325a12-17. These seem to be points that Zeno had very different opinions on, and even though they may be wrong, they do not seem to be so inappropriate when you see where his argument leads, and where he wished it to go. He had another way of interpreting what he saw. Zeno had a valid argument, we would have to agree, but the soundness did "miss the mark" by just a bit. But this only rings true if you are obliged to "follow where the argument leads". f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Myth of Perfection.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The Myth of Perfection" Adam Benzan Block H Perfection is a much sought-after quality, yet is completely impossible to obtain. Because we do not have a clear definition of what perfection truly is, when a person attempts to become "perfect", they are usually transforming into what seems to be perfect to . In both "A Doll's House" and "The Metamorphosis", we see that human beings cannot achieve a state of total perfection. When Gregor Samsa, from "the Metamorphosis", attempts to be the perfect provider that his family expects him to be, he inadvertently turns his life into an insectoid existence. Likewise, when Nora from "A Doll's House" tries to live up to her husband's expectations of a perfect wife, she builds up enough self-hate to leave everything that she loves and start an entirely new life. Striving to be this ideal person, like attempting to acquire any other impossible goal, is damaging to the characters in both cases. The fortunes of these characters illustrate the harm in attempting to achieve these impossible objectives. As human beings, we have no conception of any absolute values, such as perfection and imperfection or hot and cold. We can only perceive changes or comparisons based on what we already know. Through experience, we can tell what is hotter or colder, but never actually tell what the absolutes are. This is a central aspect of what makes perfection impossible to achieve. What exactly is perfection? Seeing as we have no inherent knowledge of what is perfect or imperfect, these ideals are usually set by the expectations of others who are in positions of control over us. Therein lies one of the fundamental dangers in attempting to achieve perfection. When the aims and goals of our lives are governed by an outside force, we are transferring a great amount of power over ourselves to someone else who may not have the best intentions. Those who have power over us, in most circumstances, will use it to their own benefit. This is Gregor Samsa's main problem. He transfers control of his life over to his family, who hardly had the best intentions for Gregor's well-being. They merely wanted a way to get money and food to support themselves. With Gregor working, his father has an excuse to continue doing nothing, and allows the family to remain stagnant at the level that they are at. Directly and indirectly, his family enforces the view that a son should work to support his family and not himself. They did this by showing love and commending Gregor when he brought them food and money, showing him that this was their idea of what a perfect son was. "He (Gregor) felt a certain pride that he had managed to provide his parents and his sister with such a life in such a beautiful apartment. What now if all calm, all prosperity, all contentment should come to a horrifying end?" p.142 At this point, Gregor shows how much working for his family has come to mean to Gregor. Needing a source of love in his life, took this opportunity and became a working man in order to help his family. Gregor obsessively sacrifices his social and professional life for a group of people who take his sacrifices as if they were due to them. In his pursuit of perfection, Gregor turns what is usually an admirable quality into a self-destructive one. In the same way, Nora allows too much power to Helmer, and finds herself in the uncomfortable position of having her life governed by a man whose ideas of female perfection were completely different than what her character was like. "HELMER: There, there! My little singing bird mustn't go drooping her wings, eh? Has it got the sulks, that little squirrel of mine? Nora, what do you think I've got here? NORA: Money!" p.3 Helmer uses his control over Nora in order to get the adulation that he needs to support his ego. He enforces the ideas of submission on Nora so that she will fit into his view of what women should be like. In very much the same way as Gregor, Nora is controlled by the flow of money. In an attempt to fit into a view of perfection, she sacrifices herself to become what another perceives as good. When one attempts to become perfect often they must sacrifice vital parts of ourselves to fit into the image that they desire. Nora is, at heart, a strong character. Nora first demonstrates this when we learn of the hardships that she had to endure because of the IOU. A truly subservient woman would not risk herself in this way, or presume to be able to help a man in his area of expertise. However, this is not the only place in which Nora's strength of character shines through. "NORA : You speak disrespectfully of my husband and I'll show you to the door. KROGSTAD: So the lady's got courage." p.25 Nora shows her resilience in this passage. After Helmer has enforced his ideas of female submission into Nora, she retains a some of her original strength in resisting Krogstad. This, unfortunately, does not last long. While in Helmer's presence, Nora does everything that she can to fit into his narrow vision of what a woman should be. She performs as a circus animal would, jumping for treats and always being obedient, merely for Helmer's praise. Her strength is fully exposed in the last scene of the novel, when Nora renounces her family, her social status, and her husband, an action which would undoubtably give her intense emotional pain for years. As we can clearly see from Nora's actions in the play, it is not at all in her true character to be either submissive or obedient. Mirroring Nora's self-sacrifice, Gregor sacrifices his own personal whims and desires. "If I weren't holding back because of my parents, I would have given notice long ago. I would have marched straight up to the boss and told him off from the bottom of my heart." p. 119 Obviously Gregor does not enjoy the job in which he works, but is trapped into staying at it by his "obligations" to his family. Through the picture of Gregor on the table, we can see that he was not always the subservient vermin that he is for the duration of the novel. In the picture, Gregor was a strong, handsome military man. Like Nora, we can see that at one time he had potential to be a strong character. However, he contrasts Nora in the way that he did not live up to his potential. Gregor was too worried with keeping his job and supporting his family to consider ways of escaping the rut in which he had dug for himself. Instead of fighting back and becoming stronger, Gregor becomes addicted to the "love" he recieves from his family, and slowly degenerates until his untimely demise. Ironically, near the time of Gregor's death, they preferred the image of Gregor from the photo as opposed to what he had become to help them. If we wish to become better people, we must learn to percieve our imperfections and accept them. Perfection is a concept which is far too abstract for anyone to strive for. Because of this abstraction, we are forced to look to others to help us understand what being perfect is. Upon observation of the characters in these books, it becomes clear that attempting to become "perfect" will only result in emotional pain and distress. Thus, both Kafka and Ibsen illustrate a negative attitude to the concept of perfection. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The NeverEnding Cycle of Cause and Effect.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Cycle of Never- Ending Cause and Effect There is no such thing as first or second, or as cause and effect. Humanity has constantly searched for the beginning of things asking questions such as 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?". They search for answers which are simply entangled in a never ending cycle of events. Belief before evidence or evidence before belief, it doesn't matter. Both compound a cycle where before belief there's evidence and before evidence there is belief and so on. If the mind teaser about the chicken and the egg is traced back to its beginning, for example taking the generations and going back on time, there will come a point where the beginning of things will be put under observation. How did things begin? Scientists believe that our world began with the Big Bang, yet for the Big Bang to originate there must have been the Sun and the Universe itself. Then what was before the Universe? An atom? And before the atom? The word "nothing" is a common answer to these questions, supposedly ending the infinite quest for knowledge. Yet before the "nothing", there must have been something else, maybe more nothingness, who knows? The fact simply is that humanity doesn't know what came first and have thrive to come up with answers which range from the scientific point of view to the religious. The religious answers, which are completely based on belief, used to be entirely accepted by people, but as science began to flourish, scientific answers, which use logic and reasoning, became the primary source for belief. Now a days it is important to have evidence in order to believe. Yet when scientists discover new things, do they just find the evidence? Or they believe that something is there and begin their quest to find it? Again, be it one way or the other, it doesn't matter. Let's take for example that the scientist believed that something was there, his/her belief must have been based on evidence. How else then could they have thought about it? Yet that evidence in return, before being discovered, was based on belief and so on. It is all a cycle indeed. One cannot say which came first. The beginning of things will always be an unknown if humanity keeps searching for it. There is no beginning. The cycle causes effects which in return cause causes which cause effects. In a family where there is constant fighting, problems are the result of other problems and so on. One would have to trace all the way back to see what or who was guilty from the beginning. The same applies to the search for the beginning of times. In order to stop the fighting one would have to stop the cycle. Everyone in the family would have to forget passed events and start all over, from the beginning. Yet because no such thing as completely forgetting exists, someone would again do a misdeed that would spark the fighting chain. The world is a sphere which rotates without stopping. Once it stops, the cycle of never ending cause and effect keeps on going. As a new begging takes place, the cycle would be rotating. It would be the same cycle, not a different one. The destruction of our world would indeed cause the beginning of another; if the present world had never been destroyed then the new one would never have been formed. A counter argument to the idea of a never ending cycle would easily be disregarded. One can say that the cycle must have been put into motion by a force as objects on earth are given a force to begin their motion. Yet that cycle would not be the same one. The never-ending cycle of cause and effect, of belief or evidence, of first and second, goes beyond all parameters. It is the cycle itself which causes everything. It would be the cycle which would cause the force to put a smaller cycle into motion. The cycle is an entity in itself. It has always been and will always be. Therefore, belief or evidence, are the result of one another. One caused the other which in return caused the other. Both are part of the cycle and will remain as part of it forever. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Only Truth Existing.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Only Truth Existing "We are, then, faced with a quite simple alternative: Either we deny that there is here anything that can be called truth - a choice that would make us deny what we experience most profoundly as our own being; or we must look beyond the realm of our "natural" experience for a validation of our certainty." A famous philosopher, Rene Descartes, once stated, "I am, [therefore] I exist." This statement holds the only truth found for certain in our "natural" experience that, as conscious beings, we exist. Whether we are our own creators, a creation, or the object of evolution, just as long as we believe that we think, we are proved to exist. Thinking about our thoughts is an automatic validation of our self-consciousness. Descartes claims, "But certainly I should exist, if I were to persuade my self of something." And so, I should conclude that our existence is a truth, and may be the only truth, that we should find its certainty. From the "natural" experiences of our being, we hold beliefs that we find are our personal truths. From these experiences, we have learned to understand life with reason and logic; we have established our idea of reality; and we believe that true perceptions are what we sense and see. But it is our sense of reason and logic, our idea of reality, and our perceptions, that may likely to be very wrong. Subjectiveness, or personal belief, is almost always, liable for self-contradiction. Besides the established truth that we exist, there are no other truths that are certain, for the fact that subjective truth may be easily refuted. Every person possesses his or her own truth that may be contradicting to another person's belief. A truth, or one that is true for all, cannot by achieved because of the constant motion of circumstances of who said it, to whom, when, where, why, and how it was said. What one person may believe a dog is a man's best friend, another may believe that a dogs is a man's worse enemy. What one may believe is a pencil, to another is not a pencil, but a hair pin. Where one may believe that a bottle is an instrument, one may believe is a toy, where another may believe is a beverage container. Where one will understand the moving vehicle "car," one might understand "car" as a tree. Our perception of what is true depends on our own experiences, and how something becomes true for us. Many circumstances are necessary to derive at one's truth, whether it is an idea, object, or language. All perception, besides the perception of existence, is uncertain of being true for all individuals. Every thought, besides the idea that we think, has the possibility that it may be proven wrong. The author of the article, Knowledge Regained, Norman Malcolm, states that, "any empirical proposition whatever could be refuted by future experience - that is, it could turn out to be false." An example could be the early idea of the earth being flat and not the current perception of the earth being round. History tells us that at one time, the perception of the earth was thought to be flat. This notion was an established truth to many because of the sight and sense that people perceived about the earth's crust. At one point, to accept the newer truth that the earth is round, meant that, what one believed was true, really wasn't. And, what if, at some point in the future, we were told by a better educated group of observers that the earth is not round, but a new shape we've never even perceived before? Would we agree to the scientists' observation that they have, themselves, agreed to this more accurate shape of the earth?. We would probably agree to change our knowledge of truth to the observations of experts. This is an example that, what we may have once believed to be the absolute truth, may be proven wrong at any time. And what we actually know, may not be the truth after all. Truth may also be refuted through the identified appearance or sense of an object. A great modern philosopher, Bertrand Russell's, idea of appearance and reality explains that perception of a table and its distribution of colors, shape, and sense, vary with each point of view. Commenting on the distribution of color, Russell states that, "It follows that if several people are looking at the table at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the same point of view, and any change in the point of view makes some change in the way the light is reflected." What one person sees the table as green, one might see as red at another viewpoint. And what might seem to have color is actually colorless in the dark. What one might perceive as being rectangle, may look oval in another view. What may sense the table to be hard by a touch of the fingertips, may be soft by the touch of the cheek. Determining hardness of the table depends on pressure applied and judge of the sensation. No assumptions can be absolutely true because there is no determining factor in choosing the right angle to look at or sense the table. There are no determining factors in which angle or measurement is better to judge than the other in sense of color, shape, and feel of an object. Every object is determined self-contradicting which can be refuted by questioning its perception and even the existence for its use. Our experiences from our "natural" existence gives us a bias of all that is true, which is self-contradicting. The ideas and objects that we encounter are determined true by personal evaluation in the relationships of those ideas and objects in connection with our being. The relationship of the ideas and objects in connection with another person's life may be contradicting to my own beliefs. "I am, [therefore] I exist," may be the only statement with any validity of our certainty. We cannot test the validity of our reality, reason, logic, and perception in relation to all individuals, but we can test to the validity of our existence by thinking, therefore, being. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Open Boat.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The Open Boat" by: Sarah Clauer Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat," is thought to be one of the finest stories ever written by an American. Crane uses a theme of cosmic irony. Cosmic irony is the belief that the universe is so large and man is so small that the universe is indifferent to the plight of man. In "The Open Boat," Crane's theme, cosmic irony, is illustrated through the use of symbols for isolation, insignificance, and indifference. Three specific examples of cosmic irony symbolism used by Crane are, the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, the sea against the universe, and the little boat in a vast sea from the people on the shore. The indifference aspect of cosmic irony is where things serve no purpose, and there is truly no care for anyone or anything. In "The Open Boat," the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, is a prime example of indifference used by Crane. The universe is represented by the power of the ocean, and the small boat in this ocean is symbolic of man in this giant universe. The immaculate power of the ocean is very indifferent to the small boat, just as our great universe could not care less for man. Insignificance is described as being a lack of importance. Those little things that are insignificant mean nothing to the universe. In "The Open Boat," the sea against the universe is symbolic of insignificance in cosmic irony. The sea represents something which seems very large to mankind, but is actually very insignificant in comprison to the universe. The universe would still go on without that sea, just like the universe would still go on without mankind. The third form of symbolism in cosmic irony is isolation. Isolation is being held in captivity or lack of contact with the world or universe. The little boat in a vast sea versus the people on the shore is symbolic of isolation. The small boal seems so large and important to the people on it, while the people on the shore just see this small boat as one of many objects in that vast sea. This is prime example of man versus society. The belief of cosmic irony holds great significance in the writers of the time of Stephen Crane. The new philosophies portrayed in cosmic irony were so new and different. They taught a different approach to the way the reader interprets certain symbols. Cosmic irony is a theme which is used every day, even though it may not always be noticed. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Pefect love.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE PERFECT LOVE The Canterbury Tales, written by Geoffrey Chaucer around 1386, is a collection of tale told by pilgrims on a religious pilgrimage. Three of these tales; "The Knight's Tale", "The Wife of Bath's Tale", and "The Franklin's Tale", involve different kinds of love and different love relationships. Some of the loves are based on nobility, some are forced and some are based on mutual respect for each partner. My idea of love is one that combines aspects from each of the tales told in The Canterbury Tales. In "The Knights Tale", the love between the two knights and Emily is intensely powerful. The love that Palomon and Arcite feel towards Emily is so strong that the two knights feel that it is worth more than life. At one point Palomon says to Arcite, " Though I have no weapon here . . . either you shall die or you shall not love Emily." The love that Palomon feels for Emily is so overwhelming that he is willing to take on an armed man, in mortal combat, just for the love of a woman. Perhaps he feels that without her he will surely die, so why not die trying to win her. The ironic fact about the relationship between the two knights and Emily is that Emily does not wish to marry either of the knights. she expresses this in a prayer to Diana, the goddess of chaste, " Well you know that I desire to be a maiden all my life; I never want to be either a beloved or a wife." This is so ironic because Arcite and Palomon are about to kill each other for her love and she doesn't want to beloved by either of them. She enjoys the thrills of maiden hood too much to have them ended by marriage. While all this is going on, no one stops to think that neither Arcite nor Palomon has ever even spoken to Emily. When Palomon and Arcite are in jail Palomon says, " The Beauty of the lady whom I see wandering yonder in the garden is the cause of all my cries and woes." This is not something That I would want to base my ideal love on. These two knights are willing to risk their lives for the love of this woman, whom they have never even met. For all they know she could be the most annoying person on earth. In that case they would be risking their lives, only to spend the rest of it with a beautiful and extremely annoying woman. In "The Wife of Bath's Tale" A knight is forced to marry a wretched old woman to avoid death. The knight and the old woman do not get along well, and when the old woman suggests that she can make things better, the knight responds saying, " Corrected? . . . It will never be corrected! You are so loathsome and old." A love relationship such as this could never last because their is no attraction, physical or mental. A major factor in love is physical attraction between the two partners, here their is no attraction. Two people can not love each other if they can stand to be around each other. The knight can hardly bare to look at his wife, let alone sleep with her. Despite the fact that the knight despises her, the old woman persists on getting the knight to love her, which actually works in some cases. While the knight is complaining about how terrible his marriage is the old woman says, " What am I guilty of? For God's sake tell me and it shall be corrected, if I can manage." After this the old woman continues on convincing the knight that she is worthy of him and he finally agrees. Sometimes it is necessary to convince the other person that they love you. The love between the knight and the old woman started out as a forced relationship and was greatly regretful. But after the old woman pointed out some good qualities their relationship blossomed into a beautiful, loving relationship. My ideal love is best expressed in " The Franklin's tale". The love between the knight and his wife is based greatly on respect. From the very beginning the knight offers her respect and free will, " He swore to her as a knight that never . . . would he take an authoritarian role over her . . . nor show jealousy to her, but would obey her . . . as any lover ought his lady." The knight in this tale knows how to win a lady. By giving her respect and allowing her to do as she pleases, by not keeping her on a short leash, he wins her respect and therefore they build a very powerful love relationship. Another attribute to their strong relationship is faithfulness. When a young squire tells the knights wife of his love for her she tells him, " I will never be an unfaithful wife in word or deed, . . . I will be his to whom I am knit." With faithfulness comes safety. If a person feels safe in a relationship they tend to stay their, making the relationship that much stronger. Each of the love relationships I have just described contains qualities that I feel are important in my ideal love relationship. I feel that passion is important, as in "The Knight's Tale" when Palomon is willing to fight Arcite for Emily; it adds excitement to the relationship. Sometimes persistence can play an important role in a love relationship, as it did in " The Wife of Bath's Tale" when the old woman persists that the knight should love her. Finally, I feel that respect plays a key role in making a good love relationship. When to people love and respect each other, as the knight and his wife did in " The Franklin's Tale", it helps to build a very strong and rewarding love relationship. But, for every quality that I like in each story, there is also a quality that I feel is detrimental to a blissful relationship. For instance, in " The Wife of Bath's Tale " the knight is forced into a love relationship, which I feel could only lead to an unfulfilling relationship. Also in " The Knight's Tale ", Arcite and Palomon are in love with a woman to whom they have never even spoken to. this could only bring on arguments and would definitely be a shabby relationship. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Power of Language.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Power of Language Written by Bob Jones word count: 1282 Bob Jones 11-19-96 period 3 Mrs. Fox The Power of Language Of all possible human qualities, the one that wields the most power is the ability to use, understand and communicate effectively through language. A proficient use of language allows us to clearly communicate an exact idea from one person to another person or group of people. This precise science of being able to convey exactly what you want equates to the acquisition of power. An important link between language and power is persuasion. The power of persuasion is so strong it allows certain individuals to influence, and therefore, control thousands, even millions, of people and bind them together in search of one common cause. This tactic of persuasion is also called propaganda. Propaganda is the spreading of information in order to influence public opinion and to manipulate other people's beliefs. The message of propaganda is primarily intended to serve the interests of the messenger, thereby increasing his power. All propaganda is a systematic effort to persuade. The propagandist gives a one-sided message, accentuating the good points of one side and the bad points of the other position. Propaganda is most widely distributed through public speaking and use of the mass media. The propagandist speaks in an attempt to persuade the audience to believe his way. With the support of the audience, the speaker gains power. Propaganda as an art of persuasion has been used for thousands of years. In the fifth century BC, when Pericles addressed his fellow Athenians on the merits of their city compared to the tyranny of Sparta, he was making propaganda, even though much of what he was saying was true. Many centuries later, Lenin, the Soviet revolutionary, realized the value of propaganda to indoctrinate educated people. He employed another tactic toward the uneducated, called agitation. This process involved the use of slogans, stories, half-truths, and even outright lies in order to avoid the need for complex arguments. The Nazi government of Germany from 1933 to 1945, was very adept at propaganda. In order to gain power, Adolf Hitler used his ability to tell each audience what it wanted to hear. He stirred fears of communism when talking to businessmen, and preached the values of socialism when talking to factory workers. After his party won control of the government office, he appointed Joseph Goebbels as head of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Through Goebbels, Hitler gained power over the press, radio, theater, films, music, and literature. People naturally have this feeling, or intuition, about something. They know how they feel and believe about a subject, but it is something that they don't take the time to verbalize; they merely contain it in their minds as a belief. However, there are certain people who verbalize and put into words these internal feelings of the masses and gain the trust of the people. These certain people are our leaders. By speaking about and placing importance on the beliefs and values that these people have never before heard articulated, the leaders gain the confidence of the people. Political leaders are the primary examples of the people we put our trust in. In 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected to the office of President after four nationally televised debates against vice-president Richard Nixon. It was generally conceded that these debates helped Kennedy more than Nixon. In April of 1961, after Russia successfully launched the first man into outer space, John Kennedy asked for a greatly increased budget for space research. Kennedy said, powerfully, "I believe that this nation should commit itself, to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon, and returning him safely to the earth." Kennedy is considered to have been a driving force behind the mission to the moon which was successful in 1969. It was the power of his language that made the trip possible. It was also Kennedy who coined the phrase, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." This became the battle cry for the capitalist, American way of life. On January 26 and 27, 1830, the United States Senate heard one of the greatest speeches ever delivered before it. Daniel Webster, senator from Massachusetts, made the speech in answer to Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina. The issue was the nullification controversy. Hayne, a confederate of John C. Calhoun, has said that the federal government was a mere confederation of states and that the states could refuse to obey any laws passed by Congress. Webster refuted Hayne's notion with the memorable words, "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!" It placed Webster in the front rank of American orators and won him enduring statesmanship. There are other ways, besides public speaking that an effective use of language can be used to gain power. Millions of people encounter written language every day. Major novelists, such as John Grisham, have written several best sellers that are read and enjoyed by many people. Various novels of Grisham's have been made into films that are seen at theaters. It is in this way that John Grisham has gained power. There are other examples that bear larger importance. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed to the door of the church in Wittenberg a list of 95 theses, or propositions. They denied the right of the pope to forgive sins through the sale of indulges, among other challenges. The theses were widely circulated in Germany and Europe and caused a great controversy. It was from this demonstration of written language that later spawned the Protestant Reformation. On September 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation that he later called "the central act of my administration, and the greatest event of the nineteenth century." This document, the Emancipation Proclamation, gave freedom to all of the slaves held in the rebelling Confederate states. This written document held a great deal of power and had an enormous impact of the history of the United States. It serves as a further example of the power of language. Every day the are thousands of judicial trials going on in the world and for each of them there is an attorney. Attorneys wield a great deal of power through the language and ideas that they convey to the court. The power of lawyers is priceless to some people, for in the language of their attorney lies their life. In the extremely popular criminal case of O.J. Simpson, we see the perfect example. Mr. Simpson hired a "dream team" of lawyers to argue his case for him and they were successful. Through the power of language, attorneys such as Johnnie Cochran overcame massive scientific evidence, such as DNA blood typing finding Mr. Simpson's blood at the scene of the crime, to retrieve a 'non-guilty' verdict. Mr. Cochran invented the phrase, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." This clever slogan is an example of the how language can be used to persuade people to think a certain way. Language is encountered every day, by everyone, in one form or another. Its power can be vast, unlimited, and far-reaching. A proficient use of language can allow us to communicate an exact idea or to persuade others to one point of view. Throughout history, leaders have used this fact to control their constituents and the 'gullible masses.' Propaganda is one form of persuasion that is prevalent during war time and revolution. Famous politicians and orators have used language to get them elected into office. Writers and authors have used written language to convey their specific message as well. Language is the basis for all knowledge and for all power. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The priciple of philosophy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 There exists a philosophy that, the truth will make you free. For example, exposing a conspiracy that does yourself and others harm can only set you free from further harm and related mischief. Whether or not the conspirators are the criminals of society or the highest branches of our own government. Injustice spreads like a virus and it needs to be stopped while there is still a way. The effects of such an act can only free us and make us more aware of such corruptness. Moreover, a conspiracy spawned by criminals in society, to cause harm, will no doubt enslave the public both mentally and physically. The society will see the injustice happening but will not know from where it is being caused. This effect will be expressed in the sort of decisions they make and company they keep. A more defensive society cannot feel free until the conspiracy is brought to light, that is until the truth is told and the harm is stopped, society cannot be free. Furthermore, a harmful conspiracy in the highest levels of our governments prevents freedom on a greater scale. If the truth cannot be found in the government that we elect, then what hope have we for progress. Mistrust and suspicion will be the tools of this brand of enslavement. If the truth is revealed then the uncovered conspiracy will free the public from the secrets and lies and in essence keep the government honest. 1op First, the truth will make you free, is an irresponsible statement. To reveal the truth is not necessarily the best solution to a conspiracy. When you make the public aware of all that goes on whether it be what the criminals are up to or the high officials of governments, then a little knowledge causes a lot of unnecessary panic. A public with a truthful knowledge of what criminals have been doing will become paranoid beyond belief. They become defensive and suspicious of every person. That is how the truth can make you a prisoner of your own devising. Also, when this harmful conspiracy in the higher levels of society becomes known, then a little truth can cause a lot of harm. The issues that the government deals with are of such great consequence that, they will have to make unpopular decisions and even make unscrupulous deals and from the products of this practice, the public in turn will cause an unparalleled uproar that would tear the fabric that holds a society together, if they knew the truth. Therefore the truth cannot make you free, because the truth can do more harm than good. 6 Next is the statement, man is condemned to be free. That is that man is free to ruin the world. Everyone has the choice of doing something helpful or harmful in their everyday life. We are free to make others suffer and life a bit harder than it already is now. The freedom that runs rampant in society allows hate groups to form and march. It ties the hands of our officials and policemen from protecting us all in the name of freedom. We are condemning ourselves to a place that allows almost anyone to get weapons and the most unscrupulous people into our government because they were free to sling mud at their opponent. Therefore man is condemned by freedom because the fight for freedom is ongoing and the more we try to restrict harmful behavior, the more rules are established to get in the way of enforcement. 6op First, it is unthinkable that man can be condemned to be free. Man has made great efforts to make the world better by spreading freedom. The freedom to choose what is right for you is the most fundamental freedom that exists. Rather than being weighed down by restriction of what you can and cannot do with your life man has the freedom to decide on it's own. It is because anyone can run for office in government that we are free, life is not decided for us. We have the freedom to make a mistake and the freedom of whether we want to learn from it. This can only free a society, not condemn it. A world does not become ruined by making those who enforce the law use a bit of human decency when dealing with those people whom have made bad decisions. Laws and regulations are made to stop injustice, they should not be an excuse to infringe on another person's life. Therefore the idea that man is condemned to free is ludicrous, man is privileged to be free to make the world what they want it to be good or bad. 8 Next there is a statement of beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you were to ask a man what he considered to be beauty in a woman, perhaps he would say it is the face, the body, or even the mind. However the quality of these features and even how they are judged depend on the particular taste of this man. Perhaps he enjoys the charms of a thin and fit woman of perfect shape or a variety of shape that exists in other women. He may prefer an intellectual person or even one that is not so keen on conversation. The details are infinite, but regardless of what this man finds beautiful may not necessarily be the same for every other man. Moreover, the opinion of this one man is simply the product of his education, both formal and private by countless people that range anywhere from parent to complete stranger. Therefore by this condition it is easy to see that not every man had his kind of education. However his view is his from what he has learned, it does not mean that someone else with the same background will have the same views, it simply means that these are his particular views that he has formed based on that previous education. So beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. 8op Next, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is simply not true. The man in question based his opinion of beauty on standards that have already been set. He most likely grew up seeing a particular kind of woman in advertisements, television shows, and countless other sources that depicted what is beauty. Human kind has been doing it for centuries, through artwork, literature, and fashion it has always been made clear what physical and mental attributes are commonly desired in women. In particular if this man says that he likes women who are thin than this is because society has made great efforts to say that obesity is not beauty. Health and beauty aids of a store supply products to make someone thinner not fatter. Also if he prefers blonde haired women it is because all the woman in the movies that were that were most desired had blonde haired. Therefore any quality that this man can think of as beauty is beauty to a great amount of men. So beauty exists in the woman that can meet societies idea of what is beautiful. 7 Lastly there is a statement, science is the only valid way of knowing. This is evident in the knowledge derived from scientific methods. When you use scientific methods, you eliminate all other variables and conduct tests that are objective and specific. Science explains the mysteries of the world with sound tested theories that have not been conclusively proven wrong. When science finds previous theories to be false, then it is false only because it has been scientifically proven wrong. It is a practice that eliminates all doubts to arrive at a plausible solution to whatever problem is present. Therefore if knowledge has been established by science then it is valid and should be accepted until science proves otherwise. 7op Now, the statement that says, science is the only valid way of knowing, is false. Scientific method is based on estimated standards that are basically estimated guesses. It is mere luck alone that makes it possible for scientific theories to be proven true, otherwise why would there still be so many mysteries to life, science cannot explain everything. It can eliminate variables and find and test a solution, but many solutions that were found to be true turned out to later be false. Luck and a lot of convincing made scientific fact finding sound reasonable. For every explanation that science gives, there is an equal and opposite reason why it may not be valid. Science cannot be the only valid way of knowing because the knowledge gained from science is not completely valid. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Problem of Evil.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Evil exists, a plain and simple fact. The argument for the problem of evil (and suffering) proves that fact. The argument for the problem of evil states that there is a all-good, all-powerful God. It states that God being all-good means that he only wants good to exist. But, look at all the bad and evil in the world. A total contradiction of a all-good God. God being all-powerful means that he can make whatever he wants. So, if God can make whatever he wants then why did he not make all people and things good? This all boils down too the fact that evil does exist and with evil existing there could not be an all-good, all powerful God. I feel that the argument for the problem of evil is a good argument. The first solution to the problem of evil states that good cannot exist without evil. Not a bad argument, but faulty. With evil existing you have something to compare it to, which is good. But, If God was really all-good the word evil would not exist because everything would just be good. If God is so good and so powerful than why does he let so much evil exist? I could understand a little bit of bad people and things to make the good stand out, but there is so much. All the time in the news you hear about someone being murdered, children being molested, a natural disaster striking a area and many people suffering and dying, etc... This also shows that God cannot be all-powerful if lets all this evil exist in the universe that he supposedly created. The second solution to the problem of evil states that God allows evil to exist in order to bring out a greater good. Or that the universe is better with some evil in it. Better? Why would God being so good and concerned about humans want us to suffer? This solution is much like the first, saying that evil creates or brings good. Yet, if there was only good we would not have to worry about bringing out a greater good if everything was already good. Some would argue that evil brings out human virtues, and thus in a all-good world they would be lost. Yet human virtues would not be needed(or exist) in a all-good world. Also with human virtues you get the human vices, more bad or evil beliefs. God allowing so much evil to exist, again shows that there cannot be a all-good all-powerful God. The third solution states that God gave humans free will. Yes, that it good that God gave us the freedom to chose. God being all-good and all-powerful should have gave us free will in the sense that we can choose among only things that are good. This would seem to restrict the definition of free will since your options of what to chose would be limited. Yet, if everything was good the definition of free will would not be restricted either because there would only be good to choose from. With God allowing evil and free will to exist this creates a personal evil because you can choose evil. Also there are evils such as natural disasters and diseases that exist but man did not freely choose. A all-good and all-powerful God would not let such things exist. People die and suffer from these things that exist with a so-called all good and powerful God. The forth solution by John Hicks states that God allows evil to exist in order to test us. Hicks states that evil is a test to see who will choose that path. I don't understand why he would need to test us. With him being all-powerful that would make him all-knowing. Therefore, why would he need to test us if he knows what we are going to do, and what we are doing? There would be no reason to test us if God was really all powerful. If evil did not exist there would be not be a need for a test either, because God would not need to test the good people do. Also, if good is using evil as a test, and someone does not pass his test then I would assume that person would not make it to heaven. The person would be stuck in hell after they died. A all-good and all-powerful God would not want people to suffer, thus no need to test the person because that could lead to hell(suffering) which God would not want. Innocent people also would suffer from the wrong doings of others. Why would God want the innocent good people to suffer because others chose evil? This also shows that the test of evil is a bad solution because even the people that chose to be good can suffer along the way. The problem of evil holds to be a good argument. The solutions did not prove that God was all-good or all-powerful, with evil existing as it does such a God could not exist. I feel that there is a God, but he does not have total control. He is more off a overseer of what happens here on earth. Someone that does not have the power to make everything good, yet he keeps us in line when things get out of hand. I think it's all a matter of faith and what you truly believe in. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Relationships between Semiotics and The Quaker Company.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN QUAKER THE COMPANY AND SEMIOTICS KOREY SHIENFIELD CS100 1/9/97 For my presentation I have looked at one of Peterborough's oldest and biggest manufacturer, The Quaker company. More specifically the outside and inside of the building. As I was driving towards the building I thought, what was so significant about the Quaker building and how could a picture of a Quaker be so significant in today's culture. I also thought that this whole image of Quaker could not be that overwhelming, however, with great embarrassment I was completely mistaken. This one business and more specifically building has so many signified meanings and linguistic meanings that I did not no where to start from. When I stood at the foot of the hill of the Quaker building I was overwhelmed by the enormous size of it and how it sits on a hill overlooking the north end of downtown Peterborough. I started to think that this is the signifier, it's big and it's on a hill. Now if you think about this for a minute you begin to realize that simply the size and position of this building has many meanings, which are of course subconsciously. The Quaker building has many meanings and therefore the signified list is very long, but first we will look at the signifier. The sign is the word Quaker, plain and simple, and the signifier is Q-u-a-k-e-r. However the word Quaker is not just a word, it means many, many things, which is where the signified comes in. The actual building is huge, which gave me the feeling that they are a successful company and that their product must be all over the world. The building is also white brick. This, without even knowing it gives you a feeling of safety and purity(just as their products should be). Then there is the fact that it is situated on the top of a hill, when you put meaning to this, there is the feeling of greatness and domination. In my opinion these meanings or signified's work like a funnel, they all at first have nothing to do with each other, but when you put them together they all funnel into one thing, a marketing ploy to buy their product. My point is, that they new exactly where to place their building and what colour to paint it for the sole purpose of selling their products. They new what meanings people would pull from these signs and signifiers. When looking at the word Quaker you get a feeling of comfort. It gives an impression of going back to past times where morals and family values were at the forefront of Quaker society. This feeling is supported with the literal meaning of Quaker, which of course was a people of purity and religion. This sits very well with people, especially parents, who are the main market of their products. All parents would like to think of their kids as pure and innocent. These are signified meanings associated with the word Quaker. Quakers major marketing technique is their image. They express their image through a sign system of pictures, which have a lot of signified meanings. In Peterborough the Quaker building is on top of a hill towering over part of downtown . When looking up you see that very wise, happy Quaker face. Even though this is only their building they can still market there product. The sign system of a picture of a Quaker is a way of saying were a good, wholesome product like this man who is a Quaker, who you can trust and who is pure and simple like our product. A person sees this and says (not literally), well if its made by Quakers who are good pure people then I guess its good enough for my children who are good and pure. The person doesn't actually say this, however, it is a sign system working subconsciously for the sole purpose of marketing. My point is, that the picture of the Quaker is not there by accident. The colours of the Quaker are green and white. To me these colours represent purity, and are an excellent way of saying our products are pure. When analyzing this company more, it becomes clear that they are working very hard to get the point across that their product is pure and wholesome. They attack you from every angle, such as pictures, words, colours and even their building. Quakers linguistic sign system is not a simple letter like "M" is for McDonalds, or a word such as "great" for frosted flakes. Its a slogan, "You prepare them for life, we prepare them for the day". If you compare them to these other linguistic sign systems I have listed you notice that reading an "M" works like an image in your mind, however the slogan "You prepare them for life, we prepare them for the day" works on emotions. Both are very effective techniques, however the latter makes you feel a certain way, it makes you feel comfortable, which has a direct affect on whether you purchase their products or not. This is unlike McDonalds who uses the "M" as a way of being familiar with their products, so you can say, "ah there's the "M" it must be McDonalds." This linguistic slogan has alot more meanings. Firstly, when giving it meaning you find it is meant for parents, because the biggest consumer of their products is children. Its main meaning however is that if you eat their products you will be prepared for the day, healthy and happy. This linguistic system works very well for selling their products, because parents and grandparents alike can relate to this slogan. It is very familiar to them, because maybe they ate this product when they were kids or something familiar to it. Quaker in its marketing strategy is betting that this slogan will be familiar and hoping the emotions that are being felt will ride parents in to the grocery store to buy their products. Quaker using semiotics in everything it does. It is very effective in taking a word or a picture or slogan and transforming it into emotions and meanings. This is how it bases its marketing tecniques, on semiotics. Quaker the word means so many things as it has been around for so many years, I think the company Quaker has used it very responsibly and effectively in using Quaker the name and Quaker the picture. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Relevance of Philosophy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philosophy Essay The value of Philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of Philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from the convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation of his deliberate reason. Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy. Philosophy is commonly thought of as an activity reserved for Oxbridge high-brows; or a sort of intellectual table-tennis indulged in by the Ancient Greeks to while the time away before television came along. Russell suggests that it may actually serve a purpose for everyone. In the first line, Russell is clearly contrasting his own belief in the inherent uncertainty of philosophy with the attitude of those people who dedicate their lives to a search for the "right" theory, in an attempt to understand the "truth" about human nature. He argues that, were a philosopher to write the perfect, unanswerable theory, the solution to life, the universe and everything, then philosophy would itself become responsible for inducing the very mental laziness which it should help us to avoid. Disagreement and debate between the adherents of rival theories is, moreover, essential to the health of philosophy. Just as many major advances of science are catalysed by war, so the great intellectual insights are sparked by discussion. If there were universal agreement on one philosophical theory, then all further thought would be rendered useless. (See p.319, Small World by David Lodge: "...what matters in the field of critical practice is not truth but difference. If everybody were convinced by your arguments, they would have to do the same as you and then there would be no satisfaction in doing it.") Russell talks of three different factors involved in the formation of prejudice. Each is considered in detail below. The first type of prejudice is derived from common sense. This is interesting: it appears that Russell is suggesting that common sense is to be avoided. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines common sense as "sound, practical sense, especially in everyday matters". In theory, any sound sense is to be welcomed, where appropriate; the distinction to be made here is between applying common sense to mundane problems, which Russell would certainly not advise against, and taking it out of context as a set of rules which can be followed without any further thought, no matter what the circumstances. For example, if you are feeling hungry, and you are holding a biscuit, then a philosophical debate is not required to reach the conclusion that you eat the biscuit: it's common sense. Fair enough; but if there is then a debate on the problem of starvation in Africa, and you were to say: "We should obviously collect food to send to the starving people; it's common sense." then you would be taking the simple biscuit decision out of context and into an area where many factors must be considered, such as whether short term food aid would prevent the people of Africa from reaching a long term solution to their problems. So Russell is not arguing against common sense per se; what he is warning against is the replacement of careful reasoning with a system of ready responses that masquerades as common sense, to provide an excuse for not thinking. The sources of the second type of prejudice responsible for our imprisonment are "the convictions which have grown up in one's mind without the co-operation of one's deliberate reason". These convictions occur partly as a consequence of the social conditioning (or "brainwashing") which, whether consciously devised or not, seems to be the inevitable result of education in a large-scale society such as our own. A consequence of this conditioning is the tendency to naïvety and an unquestioning acceptance of anything taught as fact, which is present, in varying degrees, in all school leavers in our society. The success with which this naïvety is subsequently shaken off, and the resistance that an individual shows to further brainwashing from such sources as the Sun newspaper, both depend, according to Russell, on the degree of exposure to philosophy. I believe that this stands up to scrutiny: for example, graduates of university are extremely unlikely to read the Sun; the exposure to a climate of extreme intellectual freedom (students are often the main proponents of change to the status quo) makes the graduates resistant to the blatantly manipulative articles. I do not wish to enter into the debate on whether intellectual freedom is ever attainable, or whether it is always an illusion; the fact remains that the ability to question apparent truths will be aided by the study of, or exposure to, philosophy. (For it is clearly not only those who have sat in a class entitled "philosophy" that have had a "tincture" of it.) Mention of the gullible Sun reader raises the question of what is wrong with an unthinking but contented life. I would argue that nothing is wrong with such a life, provided it is truly contented. I think Russell believed that nobody could be content with an unthinking life. This theme is explored in many literary works and novels, e.g. Huxley's Brave New World, and Willy Russell's Educating Rita. Thirdly, there are prejudices derived from "the habitual beliefs of our age or our nation". These include the prejudices people are familiar with, such as racism or sexism, and an equally important, but less obvious group of prejudices: those caused by peer pressure - e.g. if you move to Saudi Arabia as a child, there will be strong pressure on you to become a follower of Islam. It is clear to me that Russell was something of a cynic, at least where popular sentiment was concerned. He is advocating that you be very careful of the supposedly obvious, or of anything that is accepted as fact simply because it is repeated regularly - truisms and mantras should be subjected to your own personal scrutiny before you accept them. The "imprisonment" referred to in the second line is the loss of mental freedom, a result of both holding the prejudices discussed in detail above, and of the lack of a philosophical perspective which would allow you to recognise and question these prejudices. This is, in fact, a description of the "unthinking human" discussed above. He is akin to a drone bee or a worker ant, obeying orders blindly and working mindlessly. What sets Homo sapiens apart from other species is the ability to question the world in which it lives. Philosophy has a vital rôle to play in the lives of all men, enabling them to realise this ability: it serves as an antidote to the "prejudices, habitual beliefs and convictions" which threaten their mental freedom. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Republic .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Republic written by Plato examines many things. It mainly is about the Good life. Plato seems to believe that the perfect life is led only under perfect conditions which is the perfect society. Within the perfect society there would have to be justice. In the Republic it seems that justice is defined many different ways. In this paper I am going to discuss a few. First I am going to discuss the reason why Glaucon and Adeimantus see justice as being a bad thing and it is better to live a unjust life. Plato's elder brother Glaucon argues that the just man is only just because of the fear that he will get caught and punished or the fear of having a bad reputations. He explains this decision in the story of the two magic rings. The rings of magic would make a man invisible whenever he turns it on his finger. He believed that each man would act in the same manor. They would both break into houses unseen, and help themselves to whatever they wanted. The just man would no longer feel the need to be just. He would have two lifestyles one, being just in front of the eyes of the society and two being the unjust man invisible unable to get caught. Glaucon say this proves that people are just only because they find it necessary. Adeimantus another philosopher and Socrates elder brother brought up the fact that we should take a look at the kinds of things people actually say when they get praised justice and condemn injustice. Adeimantus explains by saying that fathers tell there sons to be just because of the good reputations and social prestige that attaches to justice. So it is not justice itself that is recommended, but rather, the respectability that it brings with it. He believes that the son will realize to be just is only worth it if you can get a good reputation. Unless you are truly just the gods will punish you but as we have learned from the poets the gods can be bribed so if you live the unjust life you can bribe the gods to not punish you. If an unjust person fakes a good reputation then he can have a wonderful life. He says live a wonderful life because the unjust man is said to live a better life because he could cheat and live well but a just man has to live with what he has or earn his wealth honestly. Glaucon points of justice as I see them are fake and unclear. He says that if a just person were to have a magic ring then he would act as a true unjust person because there is no fear of punishment. If he was a truly a just person then he would not be unjust even if there was no fear of punishment. I define a true just man on his spirit and intentions if he is only being just because of fear of punishment then he is not just nor if he is only being just if he desire a good reputation. A man to be truly just must desire and get his pleasure on living with what he as earned fairly and helping others around him. Glaucon keeps arguing that the unjust man lives a better life because he has the power and the wealth to boss the just man around and bribe the gods so he does not get punished by them. Socrates goes on saying that the life and surroundings are what makes up a just person. A just person should be educated and trained of what is right and wrong. The quality of the justice is to be found in the society. If a society is unjust there can not be a just man coming out of the society because all he is taught is to be unjust. I agree that a just man must be educated and trained to tell what is right and wrong. I disagree with Socrates point that a just man is solely educated by the society around him. I believe that a just man is not educated solely by the society but rather educated by his parents and family and only barely influenced by the society. There fore a just man can come out of a unjust city and live to learn the honest life Adeimantus point of the father telling the son to be just only because it will give you a good reputation can not be true you can not be just for those reason they do not match up with the points Socrates points out when he say the quality of a just man is learned by the society . Since a just man is influenced by his parents the parents must be just. If they are telling there son to only be just because of the fact it will give you a good reputation then the parents are not just therefore the boy cannot be truly just. Socrates point of the quality of the just is brought up in this story Adeimantus gives. The poets told us that we can bribe the gods so it does not matter if we are just or unjust as long as we have the wealth to bribe our way out of punishment. This is the bad education taught by the poets it represents all that the just state is against. We should not have the option to bribe the gods with our wealth to not be just that makes a false city. The Republic is a book that showed views of justice and questions of justice. Justice is the better way to live your life. Only if the you are a true justice that is morally educated of the rights and wrongs and trained on how to control the temptations to be unjust. The just life is the most fulfilling life because it is spiritually happy with yourself. It is also the closeness with God and the feeling that helping other is all you need for pleasure in your life. So to give my final conclusion you must learn from your parents the ways to make your decision in your life and test what you have learned out on the society. Then you will know if the man you think you are is really a true just man that thrives on the happiness of other people when you help them. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Right of Autonomy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Right of Autonomy Political philosophy is the philosophy of the state. A state is a group of people who have supreme authority within a given territory or over a certain population, according to Wolf. Authority then, is the right to command and the right to be obeyed which is different from power. Power in Wolff's terms, is the "ability to compel compliance." Moral autonomy is "a submission to laws which one has made for oneself." Wolf believes that there is a problem between authority and autonomy. Autonomy overrides the importance of authority. He also thinks that classical democracy fails to be a solution to this problem. An autonomous person is not subject to the will of another. This is thought to be the primary obligation of man. In political philosophy, autonomy is a refusal to be ruled, and authority of the state is the right to rule, there is a conflict. If a man fulfills his obligation to autonomy, then he will go against the claim by the state to have authority over him. Wolf states, "He will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are the laws." This is the major conflict with political authority. Some philosophers believe that a solution to this problem is the concept of democracy. This argument says that if men rule themselves then they would be both the law givers and followers, combining autonomy with authority. "His obligation to submit to the laws stems not from the divine right of the monarch, nor from the hereditary authority of a noble class, but from the fact that he himself is the source of the laws which govern him." Wolf doesn't think that it fully solves the problem between authority and autonomy. A unanimous direct democracy is the closest to resolving the conflict, yet in only exists in theory. Representative democracy seems to solve the problems of unanimous direct democracy, but it too, has its problems. Its problems lie in the fact that it is incredibly difficult for everyone to be truly represented. If one is not, then their autonomy is sacrificed. Another possible democratic solution is majoritarian democracy. The problem with this comes with those people who are in the minority. The minority voice is limiting their autonomy because they are obeying something that they do not will. Here Wolf again shows democracy fails to solve the problem between authority and autonomy. In conclusion, Wolf believes that there is a problem with the concept of political authority. It conflicts with man's obligation to autonomy. If a man fulfills his obligation to autonomy, then he will reject the authority of the state, resulting in philosophical anarchy. Democracy seemed to be a solution to this problem, but Wolf quickly showed how it failed. Democracy took away the autonomy of the minority. He states, "If democracy is to make good its title as the only morally legitimate form of politics, then it must solve the problem of the heteronomous minority." f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Sceptical Argument.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Question: Can scepticism be defended, perhaps in a limited form ? 1. Introduction This essay centres around what it means to know something is true and also why it is important to distinguish between what you know and do not or can not know. The sceptic in challenging the possibility of knowing anything challenges the basis on which all epistemology is based. It is from this attack on epistemology that the defence of scepticism is seen. 2. Strong Scepticism Strong scepticism states that it is not possible to know anything. That is we cannot have absolute knowledge of anything. This can however immediately have the reflexive argument turned on it and have the question begged of it: "If it is not possible to know anything then how is it you know that nothing is knowable ?". Strong Scepticism is therefore unable to be defended. 3. A Definition of Knowledge Knowledge can be said to be information that the brain has received that meets a certain set of criteria. When someone states that they know something they must also believe that, that something is so. If they did not believe in it then how could they take it in as knowledge ?, they would instead be doubtful of it and look for evidence or justification as to why they should believe it. Secondly for someone to believe in something they must also believe that it is true. If they did not believe that it was true then what is mentioned above would not occur. So, so far it is decided that knowledge should be true belief. How does one come to the conclusion that something is true however ?. We seek justification. The justification really is the most important part of the criteria because without it one cannot say something is true and therefore cannot say that one believes. This does however bring up the question of how does something become justified ?, do we hear it from other people ?, see it on the news ?. The justification of something really depends on its predictability. If something becomes predictable then it can becomes justified aswell. For example, I know that the sun will rise tomorrow is a fair thing to say because I believe this is so, I believe this is true, and I am justified in believing this due to my past experience* of the predictableness of the sun rising each day. The only problem with meeting the set of criteria laid out above is that one must use one senses to do so and as shall be shown in the next section they are not the most reliable of instruments. 4. Perceptions A persons sensual perceptions are generally their means of receiving information but how much can we trust our senses ?. Two examples of a persons sensual perception leading them astray are as follows. Two people are looking at a white object. The first person is looking at the object through a transparent red sheet and the other through a transparent green sheet. Neither person knows that the sheets are there so both come away with different conclusions and perceptions as to what colour the object in front of them is. (Cornman, Lehrer, Pappas, 1992, pp. 46-47) Another example is when two people are looking at an oblong object from different angles one may see a perfect rectangle the other a perfect square. (Cornman, Lehrer, Pappas, 1992, pp. 46-47) The point I am making here is that sensual perceptions are all relevant to the position of the observer. This is not a good situation for something that we contrive to get justification for our knowledge from. 5. The Brain in the Vat Argument This argument is similar to the one in Plato's republic in that it involves an imaginary situation where the people or person involved believes that they have knowledge (Plato, Cave Analogy, Book VII). In the brain in the vat example the brain believes that it is a fully functioning human being and there exists an external world around it. The reason for the brain believing that it knows this is that it has reasonable belief due to the fact that everything in it's environment coheres, this is obviously not so however if everything does not cohere (Harrison, 1966-67, pp 179-189). The sceptical argument from this however is that it is impossible to know anything if one does not know the initial fact that one is a brain in a vat. This can be shown as follows. Suppose that you claim to know that you are sitting reading a book. You presumably also know that if you are sitting reading, you are not a brain in a vat. We can surely conclude that if you know that you are sitting reading, you know that you are not a brain in a vat, and hence (by simple modus tollens) that since you don't know that you are not a brain in a vat (agreed above) you don't know you are sitting reading. (Dancy, 1985, p. 10). The epistemist rejoin however states that this does not matter. The reason given is that since there is no perceptible difference between being a brain in a vat being fed sense data and sitting reading then there is nothing of importance that relies on this distinction. This can be said to be the case. The reason for this is that if the brain in the vat's environment coheres then it is possible for the brain in the vat to know something about his or her environment. This brings us to the case of what is real if everything is a fake. What money would be considered the real thing if it was suddenly realised that all the money in the world was counterfeit ?. Surely a paradigm switch would then occur and the counterfeit would be considered real and the real counterfeit. Therefore while the brain in the vat may not have any real knowledge about the world that is external to it's vat it would still have knowledge of it's own 'counterfeit' world. 6. Argument from Error This argument is based upon the errors made by a human's sensory perceptions. An erroneous perception can be said to be something like a hallucination or an illusion or even those strange voices in your head at night. The sceptics however say that if for you to have knowledge about something you must have complete justification then you cannot admit that you may be wrong. The epistemist rejoin to this though is that while it is true that we are occasionally subject to hallucinations and illusions it does not mean that we are always wrong. The sceptic would then say though, if your erroneous perceptions are indistinguishable from your veridical perceptions how can you tell the difference between real and erroneous perceptions. The reply by the epistemist would then be that you know you are having or receiving a veridical perception if it coheres with the rest of your perceptions. Now this is all well and good but it does not account for what I will call 'new' knowledge for want of a better description. Did the fact that in the sixteenth century Ferdinand Magellan managed to not fall off the edge of the Earth cohere with current knowledge or experience. This is where the gap in the epistemist argument is because if it held no new knowledge that was radically to different to current belief could occur. The very fact that there is new knowledge implies that what used to be considered knowledge was merely reasonable belief. An example of this is the white proposition. In Europe up until the seventeenth or eighteenth century the proposition was that: All swans are white, This is a swan, Therefore it is white. This proposition was considered knowledge up until the black swans of Western Australia were discovered causing all the European textbooks to be rewritten for one thing but also, and more importantly, it showed that the previous proposition above was not ever knowledge because one of the criteria of knowledge is truth. Truth values if they are once true will always remain true, so therefore the fact that 'swans are white' was never true and therefore could never be knowledge. The best it could be is reasonable belief and this is where the strength of scepticism lies. Universals, i.e propositions of the order All x are y can never be proved true but only falsified. Sceptics can always argue that the most people can hope for is reasonable belief because it will always be impossible to consider all the factors involved. If something that is reasonable belief becomes predictable then it becomes considered as knowledge, due to the fact that to be predictable it must first cohere. The problem with this is situations like the two theories of light. In one instance it may be predictable that light is in particle form while in others wave form. Both of these theories are considered knowledge but both are not always true. Therefore they must both only be considered as reasonable belief. 7. Justification of Arguments from Experience From one's experience or observations, current and past, one can inductively infer what will happen in the near future and where certain things exist. Therefore one can say that in the cupboard my coat is hanging and that I shall have a sandwich for lunch. David Hume however argued that I cannot know that my coat is in the cupboard unless I have justification in believing that my experience makes my proposition probable (Dancy, 1985, p.15). This again draws on my knowledge of the consistency of the outside world but it also needs me to believe that events that I have not observed are similar to those I have observed and Hume's point is that I have no reason to believe this. The sceptical side of this therefore is that one cannot make assumptions regarding one's senses which are unreliable in the first place. The experiences one has had cannot lead to assumptions beyond one's experiences. The epistemist's response to this would be to then ask the sceptic but where would we be if we could not believe the unobserved events to be happening. The reasonable belief of these events flows from the consistency of the outside world. If we could not believe in this consistency sitting down would even cause problems due to the fact that the chair would at some point become an unobserved experience. The fact of the matter is that we would not be able to survive for very long if we could not trust in our previous experience. 8. The Epistemist Rejoin for all Arguments This is the reply that any epistemist can make to a sceptic with a guaranteed outcome. The epistemist really just needs to say that since the sceptics argue that there is no knowledge only reasonable belief then reasonable belief is the most they can have of their propositions and conclusions. This is another example of the reflexive argument being turned on scepticism. 9. Conclusion Judging by the above arguments, which are admittedly not of the strongest sceptical type as they are all global arguments and do not attack our notion of understanding, scepticism can be defended. The onus of proof of the fact that knowledge exists lies with the epistemist and viewing the above arguments. The sceptic should concede that reasonable belief can exist but should vehemently argue that true knowledge cannot exist even though reasonable belief or justification exists. The part of the knowledge criteria that causes the problem is the truth criterion and this criterion can never totally be fulfilled. Bibliography Ayer, A. J. (1965), Philosophical Essays, London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd. Ayer, A. J. (1980), Hume, London: Oxford University Press. Cornman, Lehrer, Pappas (1992), Philosophical Problems and Arguments - An Introduction , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. Coval, S. (1967), Scepticism and the First Person, Great Britain: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Dancy, Jonathon (1985), An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology, Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Descartes, Rene (as translated by E.S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross) (1969), The Philosophical Works of Decartes vol. I - II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, Paul (1965), The Logic of Moral Discourse, New York: The Free Press. Gorovitz, Williams (1967), Philosophical Analysis, An Introduction to Its Language & Techniques, New York: Random House. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971), The Sophists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamlyn, D. W. (1983), The Theory of Knowledge, London: Macmillan Press. Harris, Errol (1969), Fundamentals of Philosophy - A Study of Classical Texts, U.S.A.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Harrison, J. (1966-67). A Philosopher's Nightmare or The Ghost not Laid. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol LXVII. Hume, David (1962), A Treatise of Human Nature, Great Britain: Fontana Library. Presley, C. F. (1967), The Identity Theory of Mind, St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. van Inwagen, P. and Lowe E. (1996) . Why Is There Anything At All?. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol LXX. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Sight of Science.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Sight of Science It is a truth universally acknowledged that he whose mind is ahead of his time and above that of his peers may not be understood by his fellow people and be subject to critisizm and persecution. Galilei Galileo, Francis Bacon, and Rene Descartes were am ong the first to break away from the conventional views of their times to find a place for science in a society and propose the way it should be practiced. All three authors agree on some points but differe markedly on others. Bacon insists on the importa nce of experimentation and relative uselessness of senses and experience, while Decartes thinks them imporatnt for understanding of nature. Galileo stresses the need for separation of science and religion, while Descartes deems the correctness of the meth od of scientific thought to be most important. Yet all three writers agree that natural science should be freed of the grip of theology and human ethics, what sets them apart from previous generations of scientists and thinkers. In his Discoveries, Bacon goes at great length to discuss the influence the prescientfic mode of thinking has had on generations of scientists, and tries to Descartes asserts that the mathematical method of examining the relationship between objects and expressing them in concise formulas, applied to the entire realm of knowledge, permits him to exercise his own reason to the best of his ability. Since nothin g in philosophy is certain, it is evident that he must discover his own philosophical principles. Galileo's views on science and religion, as seen from his Letter to the Grand Dutchess Christina are very radical for his times. He suggests that physical sciences must be separated from theological studies because the goals of the two disicplines are to tally different: theology is concerned with salvation of the soul, while the sciences are concerned with understanding of nature. He believes that the clergy apply faith where ther is none involved -- one cannot undersand nature just by quoting the Script ure because the nature, a fruit of God's infinite wisdom., defies the simple explanation men's feeble minds attempt to find in the Bible. To truly understand nature, one has apply the little of the reason that God has given to him and look "between the li nes" for the true meaning of the Bible. There are a number interpretations one can find because the Bible is often general and simplistic; Galileo suggests that the best way to find the true meaning is to disprove the false conclusions by finding contradi cions in nature, as determined by accurate experiments rather than fervent meditation. It is a job of scientists to examine nature and it is the business of theologists to make sure the Bible agrees with it, for nature is no less a manifestation of God th an the Holy Bible itself: "A thing is not forever contrary to the faith until disproved by most certain truth.. When that happens it was not the Holy scripture that ever affirmed it but human ignorance that ever imagined it." (St. Augustine, De Genesi Ad Literam i, 18,19, p. 206 ). Ultimately, the true faith and physical sciences take two different but parallel pathways in an attempt to understand God, one by following His canons and the other by exploring His creations, "by Nature in his works and by doctrine in his word" (183). Bacon differs somewhat in his view of science and religion. Indeed, he claims that a true scince must be free of religious tenets where they do not apply: "It is therefore most wise soberly to render unto faith that are faith's" (317). However, Bacon g oes further to describe the different uses and abuses of religion that can either further or impede the adavancement of science. Perhaps most notable of them is the idea of differentiating true faith from superstition. The true faith is derived from th e scriptures and applied only to the matters of salvation, while superstition is a dangerous mixture of philosophy and religion that is applied to the matters where there is no faith involved, such as politics and natural sciences. Unlike Galileo and Des cartes, Bacon not only states that religion is not a means of establishing physical truths because it does not rely on practical experimentation. He also suggests that the since the Bible was written centuries ago, it lacks the information scientists esta blished from natural experiments over that perfiod of time; using it to explain the natural phenomena is nothing more than "seeking thus the dead among the living." The role of the philosopher in science is different for Bacon and Descartes. Although both of the thinkers are sceptical of the benefits a philosophy may bring, Bacon denies a place for it in science, while Descartes believes that it may still be of som e value. Bacon rejects conventional philosophy mainly because it rests on what he considers to be a "weak foundation" or logic. Logic has no place in scientific method because it rests on few, if any, experimentally proven facts and then attempts to extra polate or deduce further conclusions. Logic is based on applying human mind in effort to explain nature, while, as Bacon claims, " The subtilty of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding." Apparently, he believes that nature so beyond t he grasp of human mind that it goes against all the conclusion that human rationality prescribes. Therefore he abandons logic as a tool for understanding nature. Instead, he proposes to conduct science by the method of "true induction" -- proposing a re asonable conclusion based on a set of thorough and deliberate experiments. Bacon's inductive reasoning is perhaps the main principle that separates him scientists of his times. Almost all of contemporary scientits, he tells us, are concerned with finding basic generalizations common to different scientific phenomena, and then a ttempt deduce the truth behind them by applying the newly established axioms to more specific problems. First, the nature is far too complex to be taken superficially; it defies both understanding of the human mind and perception of human senses. The only way to make sure that an axiom is true is by conducting a series of apt scientific trials, and then attempt to combine the experimentally found facts by the powers of induction to produce a more general statement. The importance of careful and systematic experiments is perhaps the certral principle that separates Bacon's understanding of science from the opinions commonly held at his time. He proposes that science should no longer be practiced by haphazard experim entation, superstition, Acknowledging the significance of contributions of the ancient scientists such as Pythagoras and Aristotles, Bacon disapproves the use of the methodology they prescribe for several reasons. First, he argues that practice of science should be essentially aimed at the discovery of truths behind natural phenomena, which is confirmed by centuries of careful analysis and experimentation rather then on authority, stature, or popularity of the scientist. Since the world has matured and advanced since the time s of the ancient thinkers, the contemporary scientists are in a better position to explain nature. In searching for a method of arriving at knowledge, Descartes considered ancient logic. It is apparent that he believes that logic can only be used to com municate those concepts that are already known and accepted. He rejects geometry and algebraic analysis because of the restrictions which limit these subjects to figures alone. Instead, he prefers mathematics since it is controlled and limited by rigid ru les. Just as the best government is the government which has few laws rigidly administered, the best method has few rules resolutely followed. On the assumption that a few rules closely adhered to are superior to lengthy set of precepts, he limits himself to the following four laws. First, never accept anything as true unless you understand clearly that it is true. Second, reduce all problems to small component parts and thoroughly analyze each part by itself. Third, proceed in a orderly and regulated m anner in analyzing matters step by step, from the simple to the complex order of knowledge. Fourth, present a thorough enumeration of all possibilities and review thoroughly to make sure that nothing has been left out. Under constraints of the above m ethodology, logic can be applied to scientific principles with great success. It follows then that reason must be nothing more than regulated logic. It is the misdirected or randomly applied logic what he is against. Descartes' search for certainty and absolute truth, by using his own reason rather than the traditions and dogmas of the church, represents a distinct departure for his time. This position rivals the medieval claim that truth can be found only in religio us doctrine. The methodology he proposes implies that a man can and perhaps should amass knowledge on his own. This idea seems to be in contradiction with the doctrine professed by the catholic church at the time, and Descartes prudently decides not to p ublish some of his work to avoid religious persecutions that befall the fate of Galileo. Although the three thinkers disagree markedly both conception and methodology of science, the message they convey is clear. The progress of science is essential for advancement of a nation; inventions, both in method and instrumentations, are the only me ans by which the human mind can grasp the subtleties of nature. Science must be free of religious and ethical constraints to achieve the master of humans over nature. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The similarties between Nietzsche and Frueds Views on the Unc.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There were two great minds in this century. One such mind was that of Sigmund Freud (1856- 1939). In the year 1923 he created a new view of the mind. That view encompassed the idea we have split personalities and that each one have their own realm, their own tastes, their own principles upon which they are guided. He called these different personalities the id, ego, and super ego. Each of them are alive and well inside each of our unconscious minds, separate but yet inside the mind inhabiting one equal plane. Then there was Nietzsche (1844-1900) who formulated his own theories about the sub-conscious. His ideas were based on the fact that inside each and every one of us is a raging battle going on. This battle involves the two most basic parts of society, the artistic Dionysian and the intelligent Apollonian. Sometimes one being becomes more dominant than the other or they both share the same plane. Even though individually created, these theories could be intertwined, even used together. Thus it is the object of this paper to prove that the Freudian theory about the unconscious id, and ego are analogous to the idea on the Apollonian and Dionysian duality's presented by Nietzsche. "The division of the psychical into what is conscious and what is unconscious is the fundamental premise of psycho-analysis; and it alone makes it possible for psycho-analysis to understand the pathological processes in mental life..." (Freud, The Ego and the Id, 3). To say it another way, psycho-analysis cannot situate the essence of the psychial in consciousness, but is mandated to comply consciousness as a quality of the pyschial, which may be present (Freud, The Ego and the ID, 3). "...that what we call our ego behaves essentially passively in life, and that, as he expresses it, we are 'lived' by unknown and uncontrollable forces," (Groddeck, quoted from Gay, 635). Many, if not all of us have had impressions of the same, even though they may not have overwhelmed us to the isolation of all others, and we need to feel no hesitation in finding a place for Groddeck's discovery in the field of science. To take it into account by naming the entity which begins in the perception system. And then begins by being the 'ego,' and by following his [Groddeck's] system in identifying the other half of the mind, into which this extends itself and acts as if it were unconscious, namely the id. It could then be said that the id represents the primitive, unconscious basis of the psyche dominated by primary urges. The psyche of a newly-born child, for instance, is made up of primarily the id. But then contact with that child and the outside world modifies the id. This modification then creates the next part of the psyche, the ego, which begins to differentiate itself from the id and the rest of the psyche (Dilman, 163). The ego should be seen primarily as Freud puts it is, "...first and foremost a bodily ego; it is not merely a surface entity, but is itself the projection of a surface," (Freud, The Ego and the Id, 20). An analogy that could help with this definition could be one that states the following. If we were to identify it with the, "cortical homunculus," (Freud, TEI, 20) of the anatomists, "which stands on its head in the cortex, sticks up its heels, faces backwards and, as we know, has its speech area on the left side," (Freud, TEI, 20). Ego, the Latin word for "I," is a person's conception of himself or herself. The term has taken on various shades of meaning in psychology and philosophy. In psychoanalysis, the ego is a set of personality functions for dealing with reality, which maintains a certain unity throughout an individual's life. Freud, with whom the concept is closely associated, redefined it several times. In 1923, Freud used the term to refer to the conscious, rational agency in his famous structural model of the mind; powered by the instinctual drives of the id, the ego imposed moral restraints derived from the superego. After Freud's death, several of his associates, including Anna Freud and Erik Erikson, extended the concept of ego to include such functions as memory, sensory abilities, and motor skills. It could also be said that there are other important functions to the ego. It is the reality guide for one, and conscious perceptions also belong to it. During the height of the phallic phase, about ages three to six, these libidinous drives focus on the parent of the opposite sex and lend an erotic cast to the relation between mother and son or between father and daughter, the so-called Oedipus complex. However, most societies strongly disapprove of these sexual interests of children. A taboo on incest rules universally. Parents, therefore, influence children to push such pleasurable sensations and thoughts out of their conscious minds into the unconscious by a process called repression. In this way the mind comes to consist of three parts: (1) an executive part, the ego, mostly conscious and comprising all the ordinary thoughts and functions needed to direct a person in his or her daily behavior; (2) the id, mostly unconscious and containing all the instincts and everything that was repressed into it; and (3) the superego, the conscious that harbors the values, ideals, and prohibitions that set the guidelines for the ego and that punishes through the imposition of guilt feelings. Strong boundaries between the three parts keep the ego fairly free from disturbing thoughts and wishes in the id, thereby guaranteeing efficient functioning and socially acceptable behavior. During sleep the boundaries weaken; disturbing wishes may slip into the ego from the id, and warnings may come over from the superego (Dilman, 170). It could thus be seen that the id and the ego, are two separate identities upon which our whole psyche is dependent upon, one side is the pleasure side (id) and the other is the reality-based side (ego). Then, however, Nietzsche came along and stated that he had his own theories on the unconscious mind. In his first book, The Birth of Tragedy (1872, Eng. trans, 1968), Nietzsche presented a theory of Greek drama and of the foundations of art that has had profound effects on both literary theory and philosophy. In this book he introduced his famous distinction between the Apollonian, or rational, element in human nature and the Dionysian, or passionate, element, as exemplified in the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus. When the two principles are blended, either in art or in life, humanity achieves a momentary harmony with the Primordial Mystery. This work, like his later ones, shows the strong influence of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, as well as Nietzsche's affinity for the music of his close friend Richard Wagner. What Nietzsche presented in this work was a pagan mythology for those who could accept neither the traditional values of Christianity nor those of Social Darwinism (Salter, 41- 42). It can be visibly ascertained that by binary opposition, Nietzsche, as well as Freud, can thus now reveal to us our split personalities. "Much will have been gained for esthetics once we have succeeded in apprehending directly-rather than merely ascertaining- that art owes its continuous evolution to the Apollonian-Dionysiac duality," proposes Nietzsche, "even as the propagation of the species depends on the duality of the sexes, their constant conflicts and periodic acts of reconciliation," (AD in Jacobus, 550). It is by these two, "art-sponsoring deities," (AD, in Jacobus, 550), Apollo and his brethren Dionysos, the we come to grasp the idea of that splinter between the, "plastic Apollonian arts and the non-visual art of music inspired by Dionysos," (AD, in Jacobus, 550). "The art impulse which has been described he [Nietzsche] designates as the Apollinic impulse," (Salter, 40). We thus recall that Apollo is the god of dreams, "...and according to Lucretius the Gods first appeared to men in dreams," (Salter, 40-41). He [Nietzsche] then regarded the residing family of deities on Mount Olympus as a removed and exalted conception of the, "commanding, powerful, and splendid elements in Greek life," (Salter, 41). The experience of the Dionysiac is compartiavly different from that of the Apollonian. The [Dionysiac] experience is element for art. It is a subject that may be virtuously treated, for, "out of the Dionysiac festival grew that supreme form of Greek art, the tragic drama; this may briefly characterized as an Apollinic treatment of the Dionysiac experience- a marriage of the two," (Salter 43). By creating the art-loving Dionysian, he [Nietzsche] has also created the equal but opposite Apollonian. It would appear to be necessary to then understand Apollo in order to understand Dionysos, and vice-versa. "At first the eye is struck by the marvelous shapes of the Olympian gods who stand upon its pediments, and whose exploits, in shining bas-relief, adorn its friezes," (AD, in Jacobus, 557). The mere conclusion that he is one god amongst many should not throw us into a fit of misguided questions. But instead it should represent that the same motive that created Apollo created Olympus (AD, in Jacobus, 557). The Dionysian, the opposite of the Apollonian would then be considered his twin brother, cut from the same womb, but yet different in personality and equally independent. Nietzsche and Freud both had similar views on the subject of the unconscious. Nietzsche's though were directed primarily to the arts and the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysos for whom his dichotomy of the personality were named. The Apollonian, "...music had long been familiar to the Greeks as an Apollonian art , as a regular beat like that of waves lapping the shore, a plastic rhythm expressly developed for the portrayal of Apollonian conditions," (AD, in Jacobus, 556). That "plastic rhythm" described by Nietzsche is the cardinal groundwork for the theory of the Apollonian. Apollonian people are those who are totally based in the scientific world. They have no real imagination, no abstractness to their thinking. Whereas people who are wholly Dionysian are the opposite. These folk have no real basis in the real world. They are completely out of synch with reality because they think only in hypothetical thoughts. Hence the fact the most, if not all humans have a little of both in them. Most great scientists for instance are both Apollonian and Dionysian. They are mainly Apollinistic, due to the fact that they are clearly intelligent, which according to Nietzsche is the foundation for Apollonian thought, but they are also Dionysian. This can be said if you take Albert Einstein for an example. He is probably one of the most intelligent (and thus Apollonian) thinkers f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Socratic Donctrine of the Soul.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up the doctrine of a future life. The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term "mind" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while "soul" denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well. If there is life after death, the agent of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body. The belief in an active principle in some sense distinct from the body is inference from the observed facts of life. The lowest savages arrive at the concept of the soul almost without reflection, certainly without any severe mental effort. The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during sleep, even the most common operations of imagination and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence even while awake; all such facts suggest the existence of something besides the visible organism. An existence not entirely defined by the material and to a large extent independent of it, leading a life of its own. In the psychology of the savage, the soul is often represented as actually migrating to and fro during dreams and trances, and after death haunting the neighborhood of its body. Nearly always it is figured as something extremely volatile, a perfume or a breath. In Greece, the heartland of our ancient philosophers, the first essays of philosophy took a positive and somewhat materialistic direction, inherited from the pre-philosophic age, from Homer and the early Greek religion. In Homer, while the distinction of soul and body is recognized, the soul is hardly conceived as possessing a substantial existence of its own. Severed from the body, it is a mere shadow, incapable of energetic life. Other philosophers described the soul's nature in terms of substance. Anaximander gives it an aeriform constitution, Heraclitus describes it as a fire. The fundamental thought is the same. The soul is the nourishing agent which imparts heat, life, sense, and intelligence to all things in their several degrees and kinds. The Pythagoreans taught that the soul is a harmony, its essence consisting in those perfect mathematical ratios which are the law of the universe and the music of the heavenly spheres. All these early theories were cosmological rather than psychological in character. Theology, physics, and mental science were not as yet distinguished. In the "Timaeus" (p. 30), one of Plato's writings, we find an account derived from Pythagorean sources of the origin of the soul. First the world-soul is created according to the laws of mathematical symmetry and musical harmony. It is composed of two elements, one an element of "sameness", corresponding to the universal and intelligible order of truth, and the other an element of distinction or "otherness", corresponding to the world of sensible and particular existences. The individual human soul is constructed on the same plan. The Stoics taught that all existence is material, and described the soul as "a breath pervading the body". They also called it Divine, a particle of God; it was composed of the most refined and ethereal matter. They denied absolute immortality; relative immortality, ending with the universal conflagration and destruction of all things, some of them admitted in the case of the wise man. Yet many others, such as Panaetius and Posidonius, denied even this, arguing that, as "the soul began with the body, so it must end with it". With Socrates came a revolution in all manners of thought. As, perhaps, the most influential of philosophers, and also one of the best known, it is truly unfortunate he left the future so little of his theories. Only through the writings of his students have we any idea of his philosophy. In the writing of Plato much thought is given to the concept of the human soul. Socrates presents the soul having three major ideas associated with it. The human soul is immortal, immaterial, and moral. The question of immortality was a principal subject of Plato's speculations. In the "Phaedo" the chief argument for the immortality of the soul is based on the nature of intellectual knowledge interpreted on the theory of reminiscence of past lives; this implies the pre-existence of the soul, and logically derives its eternal pre-existence. The human soul is eternal, existing with neither beginning nor end. With Socrates, the individual aspects of the soul became dominant. It's individuality and its strict separation with the body. In dominant thought prior to the introduction of Socratic ideas, the human soul was naught but a small part of a great world-soul; a soul that included the souls of every creature and every object upon the earth and in the universe. In this scenario the actions of a human were of no consequence directly to the soul. There could be no concept of morality having any impact on personal life beyond the immediate. To Socrates the soul is the center of all human morality, the embodiment of "the good" in the human consciousness. Rather than just proceeding to rejoin the world-soul the individual soul must pay reparation for life on earth. A human that lives immorally, with disregard to the good will impact the future of his soul. In Greek philosophy the souls that are damned live for eternity in a place of torture and torment. The individual soul gives humans motive for leading lives that are good and just. In Socrates own words "It is better to suffer injustice than to serve injustice." The care of the soul becomes dominant over the body. Care for the immortal aspects of the human and rewarding life after death will follow. Socrates ties an abstract set of values to the existence of the soul. To lead a life that is good and just is to seek throughout ones life the ultimate understanding; to fully recognize the good in the universe and to understand its place. Without the realization of this good we are unable to fully comprehend any form of existence. I originally found fault with this assessment of life and the soul as a result of the seemingly complex and abstract values that a soul must live by. Upon further reflection the ultimate purpose of the soul is to seek understanding. Though abstract in nature, this goal is one that can be applied to every individual regardless of culture, creed or religion. Though I first considered this one of the week points in the Socratic theory in truth its universality, is one of its strengths. Socrates' introduction of the individual soul includes an aspect of motive to the nature of existence. With this new found individuality a soul must worry about its existence, if it acted properly it would ascend to the Greek concept of eternal bliss. In my own unworthy opinion, to act with personal benefit in mind is to act selfishly and therefore immorally. I concede to Socrates that a truly selfless act is impossible, for as humans we always have an ulterior motive behind the closed door of our direct consciousness. Why should it be different for the eternal existence of our soul? Though we may always have goals to work towards, basing ones life on the condition of afterlife is self defeating. Life must be lived from day to day with actions that further ones own immediate goals, whether they are to bring joy to others or to live quietly in peace. To have the thought of eternal salvation looming overhead is to live life with a bit in your mouth. Actions in accord with the good will be committed for that reason; because they are good and just, not in hope of a better afterlife. Socratic thought has played such a dominant role in our thinking that it is all but useless to imagine a world without the benefit of his wisdom and understanding. his influence can be felt throughout all aspects of thought, for he covered them on such a universal level that they extend even to our own time. His concept of the soul revolutionized Western concepts and gave the necessary basis for his students to carry on. In the convoluted mess of differing ideas on the soul, Socrates' is the most universal, the most encompassing and the most realistic. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The soul .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Open Letter of Apology: I have come to the conclusion that we are all responsible for the destruction of the human mind. We are all at fault for breeding hate, ignorance, and worst of all any known and/or association to an --ism. Should we all band as one and focus on a better future or let the mind fester in its own propaganda filled atmosphere? Are we really to blame, for not being able to see what truly is rising in today's society? The acceptance of brainwashing of America's youth should not go unspoken. They stand on the corner of every block wishing they were someone else; and due to this they form their own falsified family of "friends"; to which they all drink, smoke and/or do other mind altering drugs in which they choose to escape reality or just plain "relax". This should not be going on; not now, not tomorrow, not ever. Hostility grows from within to which an entity of peace can force upon such utopia, with just that; force. It shouldn't be sugar coated, but just bluntly said; as with a philosophy or certain thought pattern. The weak will not grasp onto an idea, but learn slowly as the strong teach them and lead them by their hands to acceptance within themselves. Hard times have approached, I know this; but to embrace a crutch that serves as an excuse should not be tolerated. A crutch such as no respect for other's bodies or your own to which you engage in promiscuous sex is deemed as ignorant; plain and simple. Unfortunately if such actions were to partake and an unwanted pregnancy was to occur "In cases of incest or rape, obviously the mother should not have to expose herself to further emotional trauma of carrying the child full term. However, we feel the view and use of abortion as a means of birth control is wrong"-Earth Crisis I stand up for what I believe in, try to do my best and stick to my own corner. I am not a vegan, but I do have respect for every living organism: animal or plant, and I try to educate as many people as can on many topics as possible. The underlined theme should only be, do what you feel is fit, and accomplish what you can, push yourself to what you think your potential is. Just because you're not a certain categorization doesn't mean that you shouldn't educate. II. Statement of The Soul: I've spoken many times before, but it seems that people are refusing to listen. The message is clear, yet utterly spoken. It should be taught in more socially deflectable places, but oddly enough no one seems it's appropriate anymore. I'm physically tired of the fight I had to endure throughout the years, and I still refuse to give in to their faction of a biased thought pattern: stupidity or pride? I tend to think it might be both, but I urge all the ones who comprehend to heed the words of which I speak and search for your reliable, true, and fire of a destiny. Search throughout the spirit and mind and drag out what drives you to survive. The same that moves certain unearthed ones to reside on a throne instead of a jury. The same factor that serves as a model for the weaker ones and the same which has the merit of a golden soul within divine flesh. Finally through days and nights, memories of a better time seep into the present that serves as a crutch to which people strive to get by on. Yet they are lost when those memories are gone and they have nowhere to turn; but little do they know that those times aren't gone, they're just suspended in time. It's up to the person to fetch them out and relive them to their fullest potential, and what shall our destiny hold; but an empty crystal ball. The chose shall be just to the cause of which you defend, or better the fight of which you lead. The path is cleared and hopefully your ears and eyes are and will be open; from time to end, and your comprehension with your sense opened and clear. A man. Written for my philosophy class, under an pen-name of the non-existent-A man f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Symposium A Philosophers Guide to Love.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Shaun Butler Honors Philosophy 8:30am Tues-Thurs section The Symposium: A Philosophers Guide to Love As much as our society has become involved in the advancement of feminism and the equality of the sexes, there is one fact that neither gender can ignore; none can survive without the other. Love and the want of a soul mate keeps each member of man and womankind in constant search of the perfect person with whom to become one. Yet if this bond is a necessity of the human race then why has the meaning, purpose and pursuit of it eluded us for so many generations. There has yet to be a one universal explanation of love and there has yet to be one who understands it's powers fully. As we see from Plato's Symposium, even the wisest of men in a time when the search for knowledge was seen as the pathway to enlightenment love was still a concept that was not understood and unknown. Though many of the guidelines and characteristics of love are wise, some may not apply to modern society. The writing serves as a pamphlet that depicts some of the guidelines of love as the philosophers of Plato's time saw them. The intervention of the God's in the orations of the philosophers can be interpreted to mean the different aspects of love and their effects on people. The text goes into many characteristics about the god or gods that were love , yet for the purpose of this essay, it would seem relevant to stick with the guidelines and ideals that were presented in the speeches given by the men. It seemed as though in each of the lectures given, Plato put a message into each one. Each man brought up valid guidelines for dealing with love and each should be concentrated on. The speeches started with Phaedrus who began to state many of the powers of love. He spoke about the honor between one and their beloved and how it was a great virtue in a relationship. The point that Phaedrus made was that a man of any nature would rather suffer humiliation in front of a great mass of people or all of mankind itself than to suffer the loss of respect or the loss of dignity in front of their lover. This point is definitely true yet Phaedrus failed to make a definite cause as to why this was prevalent. It may pertain to modern society that to suffer indignation in front of a lover as seen by the male would be to suffer the loss of one's masculinity and the inability to protect their lover, whereas for the female it may be the fear of inferiority that keeps the strive towards honor a constant venture in the relationship. In any case it seems that the main reason Phaedrus's point is valid is because in one of the driving forces in a relation is fear; fear of inferiority, fear of humiliation, and fear that they may lose the other person's respect. Phaedrus soon builds on this point by stating that a true test of one's love for their mate is the value of their life. Comparisons between the fates of Achilles and Orpheus are brought up to emphasize his point. As we learn from the legend of Achilles, a man was rewarded for the value he put on his friends life. Achilles sacrificed his own life in an attempt to obtain revenge for his friend. For this act Achilles was rewarded and seen as a hero. Yet on the opposite side of the spectrum we learn of Orpheus who was punished for his selfishness in that he would sooner have his loved one die than threaten his own existence. Because of this, Orpheus was punished. These examples help Phaedrus to show how the bonds of love can make a man dare to die for another. Later on in the text we find a less dignified motive behind the sacrifice of one's self for another from the woman who teaches Socrates the meaning of love. We are once again faced with the idea of respect as one of the driving forces in love. The woman proposes that the main motive behind the sacrifice may be that it is a way to gain immortality. By dying for another they would be considered a hero.. This may have been a valid reasoning during Plato's era because virtue and honor were seen as great characteristics of men. People were judged daily on these credentials and thus it is important in that era. Yet today our values of honor have changed. Honor is still a superior quality, yet the degree to which someone will go to gain the respect of another seems to be more relative to what the relation is between them and the person to be impressed. We are generally more concerned with gaining the respect of those who have an actual relation to us (Father, friend, acquaintance, etc.) than to the average stranger. Therefore this idea of sacrifice in the name of honor seems an invalid argument today. Soon Phaedrus concludes his oration and Pausanias steps up to deliver another set of guidelines for love. Pausanias concerns himself with a topic much like Plato's guidelines in the Ideal Republic where he stated that honorable and virtuous acts were only those that were applied to noble and just causes. Pausanias believes that honorable and noble love should only apply to that of the good and that the opposite would apply to love that concerned itself with evil. He believes that love should be done in an honorable fashion even if it may be viewed as honorable or flatterous and that a person of noble love would not be compensated in any way other that virtue or knowledge from their beloved. To this he adds that evil love is that of the body and no the soul. Evil love is one that concerns the love of money, wealth or power. Following these guidelines, Pausanias makes the conclusion that a dishonorable act would be to lie about one's status and intentions to obtain love and if he is rejected for what he truly is than he is disgraced for lying about it, yet if he is lying about his knowledge or virtue in attempt to gain more virtue or knowledge than he is noble for the effort. This double standard seems to also concern itself with a value of honor and virtue thus substantiating earlier notions of the value of honor and virtue to the philosophers of this time. Soon after Pausanias completes his lecture, Aristophanes is heard. Aristophanes relays a legend to the group on the beginning of the world and the creation of man. In this myth we learn that through these beliefs man and women were once created as one being. The two were joined back to back with two faces, four arms and four feet. We are told that the beings grew to be very powerful and became a threat to the gods. Because of this, the beings were split in two, or Aristophanes says, "like a sorb-apple ...or as you might divide an egg with a hair," and because of this they became irate in search of their other half. To prevent further gaining of power the gods gave them the ability to procreate and thus create more confusion and uncertainty as to who their original mate was. The pursuit of the other half is what Aristophanes designated love. The legend as Aristophanes portrays it is much like that of the modern new age philosophy of the soul mate. Many modern faiths and cultures believe that each person is originally a part of on being that is split in two and that their other half is their one true love. This idea may be a basis to explain the need for humans to find one person that best suits them and their needs thus the commonalties could be interpreted as such a concept. Aristophanes continues and states an idea that in itself is a troubling double standard that is proof that even philosophers were blinded by sexual prejudices. Aristophanes states that after the separation of the beings that were like women that don't care for men and have a female attachment were lascivious and adulterous where the men that followed other men were not shameful in fact, "they do not act thus for any want of shame, but because they are manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them." This remark I consider a double standard because as stated before the beings were once a singular entity which was identical both front and back. Aristophanes has said that they were divided like an apple or an egg which even the mathematical oriented philosophers would agree are symmetrical. So why then are the rights of the women less than that of the rights of the man if they were begotten from the same being? This idea is unsettling due to the fact that in most of the articles that have been written on human and social cooperation, the idea of female inferiority never seemed to be a problem. If the philosophers truly thought that beings were identical in creation then why are the rights of one half greater than those of the other? Eventually Socrates begins to convey his philosophy on the idea of love, yet he goes about it in a different way than his predecessors. In the earlier speeches each of the men had thought of love as a god and gone about praising this god and giving their ideas as to what this god were like. Socrates, only speaking of things that he knew of through fact relays his story of his trip to a women from which he wished to learn what love was. Through his story Socrates tells us that he believes love to be not a god nor is love a mortal. Socrates learns that love is a spirit that is neither rich and fair as the others had thought, but in fact normal. The being is the mean between ignorant and wise and between good and evil. Socrates goes on to question what the nature of love is. After much deliberation Socrates comes to the conclusion that love is the everlasting possession of good things. Yet in the reasoning that comes about from this idea I found a few faults in what Plato depicts Socrates to have said. After Socrates came to his conclusion the deliberation continued by saying, " 'And what does he gain who possesses the good?' 'Happiness,' I replied 'there is no difficulty in answering that.' 'Yes,' she said, 'the happy are made happy by the acquisition of good things.'" It is this statement that I find problem with. In other readings we have heard that one cannot become truly happy through other people or from the acquisition of material possession. If Socrates and Plato followed this philosophy then why does this idea of love hold true. The woman also goes on to insist that the idea of procreation is just another attempt at mortals to come close to being immortal. By carrying on their name or traits they are in essence carrying on themselves. Once again this idea of immortality, I feel is outdated and does not apply to modern society. I believe that these ideas about the characteristics of love and the ideas that coincide are outdated and are not very relevant to today's society. In our modern monotheistic society the idea of love as a god is certainly invalid. Also the ideas of actions done out of virtue and respect rather than love also seems to be a dated concept. Whether our motives for actions such as self sacrifice or procreation have gotten more respectable or less remains to be seen, yet it is evident that they have changed since Plato's era. Thus if the characteristics and motives of love have changed then the concept of love must have evolved as well. This evolution of love may be a characteristic of the concept itself. Love may be an ever changing concept that adapts itself to the society in which it exists. Our concepts of love and what is noble is undoubtedly different than those of the eastern cultures and as we have seen from the previous example, love definitely changes with time. Therefore the concept of love may have no exact meaning except for that which the society in which it exists perceives and excepts it to be. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Three Great Compromises that lead to the establishment of.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Three Great Compromises The United States of America was founded on the basis of compromise, but what does compromise really mean? According to the Webster's New World Dictionary compromise means "an adjustment of opposing principles". Political systems use compromises in daily life. The Three Great Compromises that occurred early in this nation's government were the Connecticut Compromise, the 3/5 Compromise, and finally the Commerce & Slave Trade Compromise. Were it not for these compromises the United States could still be governed under the Articles of Conferderation. The Connecticut Compromise was the most important compromise in the history of the U.S. government. The representatives from each state were going to change the government totally, from powerful state governments to a powerful central government, which they vowed not to do when they declared independence from England. Rhode Island was so disgusted with the idea of changing the government that they did not even come to the meeting. Finally after all the debating and each state getting their say, they "compromised" on a plan where they would have two governmental houses, one being the House of Representatives and the second being the Senate, with the Senate being the stronger of the two houses. The House of Representatives was based on each state's population, that is the more people in the state the more representatives that state would get. The Senate said that regardless of the state's population each state would get two representatives all with equal say. The 3/5 Compromise was mainly about slaves. The issue in this compromise was should slaves be counted for determining representation for each state? The North did not want them to be counted because they were considered possessions, not citizens, and that meant less representation for them. The South, on the other hand, wanted them to be counted because that meant that they could pass laws more beneficial to the South since they would have more representation. So they "compromised" and said that each slave counted 3/5 of a person. The final compromise was the Commerce & Slave Trade Compromise. The issue here was should Congress be able to regulate trade and should the United States continue with slave trading? The North felt that Congress should control trade and put an end to slave trading. The South was fearful of Northern jealousy of Southern agriculture trade with England, and the South was also wary of Congress regulating trade. The South also wished to trade slaves indefinitely. The compromise was that Congress would control trade (fairly) and the South would trade slaves for 20 more years. The three great compromises in our the history of the United States were critical to the success of the Constitution. The 3/5 Compromise, the Connecticut Compromise, and the Commerce & Slave Trade Compromise demonstrated that the Founding Fathers could reach a middle ground. These were much needed compromises, but were they effective for long term political harmony? And can Congress and the President ever compromise on a budget today? f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Uberman.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Some call Friedrich Nietzsche the father of the Nazi party. Was Nietzsche's ideas twisted and warped by a needy country? Nietzsche himself despised the middle and lower class people. Was it Nietzsche's Will to Power theory that spawned one of the greatest patriotic movements of the twentieth century? These are some of the questions I had when first researching Friedrich Nietzsche for the following paper. Friedrich Nietzsche, at one time called "the arch enemy of Christianity"(Bentley, p.82), was born into a line of Protestant Clergyman on October 15, 1844. During Nietzsche's early years, he gave no indication that he would not follow in his families' clergy tradition. As a boy, Nietzsche considered himself a devout Lutheran. At age six(two years after his father passed away)Nietzsche, his mother and sister moved to the small town of Naumburg. When Nietzsche was twelve he wrote "I saw God in all his glory"(Bentley, p.82). Later his description of his own mental state was one of Gottergebenheit; "surrender to God"(Bentley, p.82). At a very early age Nietzsche had already displayed an aptitude for highly intellectual prowess. At fourteen, Nietzsche left his home of Naumburg and went to an exclusive boarding school at the nearby Schulpforta Academy. The school was famous for its grandeur of alumni that included "Klopstock and Fichte"(Brett-Evans, p.76). "It was here that Nietzsche received the thorough education in Greek and Latin that set him upon the road to classical philology."(Brett-Evans, p. 76) On many occasions Nietzsche's zeal to prove himself at the Pforta school spurned legendary tales. One certain tale is when Nietzsche "could not bear to hear of the courage of Mucius Scaevol, who did not flinch when his hand was burnt off, without seizing a box of matches and firing them against his own hand."(Bentley, p.84) At the age of twenty, Nietzsche left to attend Bonn University. By this time Nietzsche had come to think of himself as an "aristocrat whose great virtues are fearlessness and willingness to assume leadership."(Bentley, p.85) Ironically, Nietzsche planned to study theology(to please his mother). At this time Nietzsche no longer believed in Christianity, because "with maturity he lost his heavenly father"(Bentley, p.86). In 1868 Nietzsche was a student in Leipzig. This is when he met Cosima and Richard Wagner. The latter was a world-renowned musical artist. Both of these individuals were crucial to Nietzsche's development as a philosopher. Theognis was a poet of the sixth century B.C. This man supplied Nietzsche with the idea that an aristocracy "should be scientifically bred like horses"(Bentley, p.85) When Nietzsche was twenty, he had acquired a diverse set of opinions and attitudes. He had been taught to "admire strong politicians and to think of himself as an aristocrat whose great virtues are fearlessness and willingness to assume leadership."(Bentley, p. 85) Despite his own personal efforts to be bad and mean, Nietzsche remained innocent and caring. The first major school of thought that Nietzche adhered to was because of the writings of Schopenhauer. After purchasing Artur Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Idea, a book on metaphysics, Nietzsche wrote, "I saw a mirror in which I espied the whole world, life and my own mind depicted in frightful grandeur. In this volume the full celestial eye of art gazed at me; here I saw illness and recovery, banishment and refuge, Hell and Heaven."(Bentley, p.87) Nietzsche went back and forth with these opposites for the rest of his life. Deviant from Schopenhauer's class theory, Nietzsche's "endeavor was not so much to elevate the practical man to the first rank as to merge Schopenhauer's first three ranks into one superhuman being."(Bentley, p.89) As Nietzsche did with all of his youthful inspirations, he turned against Schopenhauer. "The name of Schopenhauer was the flag under which he was proud, for a time, to advance."(Bentley, p.89) The second major influence in Nietzsche's development was the Wagners, Richard and Cosima. Nietzsche was captivated by Richard Wagner. Nietzsche personally thought the reason behind this was Wagner's musical art and talent. Nietzsche's sister Elizabeth was "closer to the truth in her belief that what held Nietzsche was Wagner's tremendous will power and instinct of command. Wagner, Nietzsche thought for a time, was the highest of higher men and he held the key to a new epoch of art and and new epoch of life."(Bentley, p. 91) Wagner was the only man Nietzsche knew that personified his will-to-power theory. In essence, Wager was Nietzsche's superman. Nietzsche is given credit for the National Socialism movement in Germany that began in the 1930's. Far more damaging to his reputation has been the course of German history from his death(1900) to 1945. "To claim him, as National Socialism did, as a prophet of the superiority of the Germanic race and an advocate of German world domination is only possible by ignoring the greater part of what he wrote."(Brett-Evans, p.81) Matter-of-factly, Nietzsche sternly despised anti-Semites. At certain times, there was not a harsher critic of racist German nationlism. But some questions arise out of these statements. What of the comments Nietzsche made concerning the "will-to-power" theory, the constant reference to the "superman", and his sometimes vigorous patriotism? One of the most significant contributions Nietzsche made was in the area of psychology not philosophy. One of the "most significant conclusions he came to in this field was that traditional morality consists of different expressions for the same thing, that "good" actions and "bad" actions can ultimately derive from the same motive."(Brett-Evans, p.80) In truth I believe that Friedrich Nietzsche was a visionary who was never able to replace his earthly Father or his heavenly Father. This led to his strange emotional relationship with women. His only friends were those women who he had failed relationships with and men who he quarreled with. In the end, Nietzsche died of syphilis that was allegedly contracted while in college. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Ulitmite pet.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ryan Lewis 8-96 THE ULTIMATE PET A pet rock can be as comforting to me as any canine or feline. Some would believe that a man's best friend is a dog. However, living in a confined two bedroom apartment, I do not have the luxury or permission for a forty pound dog to be plopping around. This is why I have found comfort in my pet rock. A pet rock can replace many of the duties, such as a companionship, I can get from a pet dog or cat. When I go shopping for a pet, I look for the appropriate size and color to meet my needs. Some people like big animals, some small. Some animals come in black, brown, white, yellow; yet some are spotted. The same goes for my rock. When I went "shopping" for my rock, I didn't want one too small, for it would get lost like a gerbil. I didn't want one too big like a Labrador, for I would trip over it every time I walked into the room. I needed a pet the size of a fat barn cat, like the ones back home in northeast Iowa. On my walk to the river before I left for college, I found many rocks within my size range. I couldn't decide which one I should pick, but then on the side of the muddy bank, partly submerged in the water, lay a shinny, sandy, orange stone. It called out for me to pick it to take home instead of the others, like a puppy does from a pet store window. When I held the rock in my hands, I knew it was the one I wanted, and the rock that I needed. Now as for a name. That was easy. How does one name his cat or dog, bird or fish? Every pet has a name, so they're not so hard to come with. I picked "Sparky". Some people may be thinking, "A rock....what kind of a companion can a rock be?" Just like a cat or dog, it will sit with me and listen to all of my problems and worries. The rock won't talk back or give unwanted advice. My world feels like a better place after a conversation with my pet rock. Best of all, he will love you no matter what words or force you put on him. All of ones anxieties can be released. A pet rock may have even more advantages than the common pet dog or cat. There isn't a toilet training process; it won't eat my furniture or shed on my couch. The rock won't beg at the dinner table, fart when I have company, or give my boss a slimmy kiss on his brand new pants. What more can you ask for in a pet? As well, a pet rock can do tricks too. It can sit and stay; it can roll over if you give it a gentle kick; it can play dead and freeze. The best thing about having a pet rock is that there aren't any veterinary bills, no food expenses, and the rock can't breed, so there will never be any "little" rocks laying around. Yes, dogs and cats are good pets, but can't a rock be a good pet too? f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Uncontrollable Force.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ People would like to believe they can accomplish everything they want in life. In reality, it is just a positive way of thinking. It would be nice to believe that a person could do anything if he puts his mind to it, this way of thinking is not reality. People are victims of greater forces. The force is not a force of God or magic. The force are our environemnt, our Biological instinct, and our inheritied characteritics. This philosophy is called naturalism and it is used in oneil's play "Beyond the Horizon". The phliophy of naturalism has its merit and affect real people everyday. Naturalism affects the way people live and the lives they affect. One of the major factors of a persons life is his environent. A persons surroundings affects how they live, how they think, and how he sees his own life. Sure America is the land of oppurtunity. But not everyone has the same oppurtunity as others. A person living in the Ghetto seems to have less of it than a person living in a rich neigborhood. A young boy could be at the top of his life. He is ready to conquer the world. He is ready to go to west point to study to be the best soldier in the world. When his physical come back they tell him he has a weak heart. He then finds out he got it from his father. It is nice to believe that a five foot hudred and fifty five pound boy could play in the NBA. But his chance are slim to none. Michael Jordans son has a better cance than makeing pro than anyone else. Just like how a rocket scientist son would like to be smarter than everyone else. This way of thinking is very negative but is true. We have very little control of what happen to our lives. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\THE VIRTUES.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I. The Virtues In Robin Waterfield's translation of The Republic,Socrates attempts to give a definition of justice. At the end of Book II he began a detailed description of the construction of a good city. The good city is a relation to the human soul, and its four virtues. In the following paper I will discuss the virtues, what they are and where they are found. Also discussed will be the foundation, arrangement, and the interconnectedness with each one. Next discussed would be the 3 "H's" and the understanding Aristotle has on the role of happiness in the moral life. Lastly, I will discuss the experience that I had that related to Leonitus. The four virtues used by Plato are prudence, courage, temperance, and justice. Plato relates the virtues to a community, which is made up of the rulers, army, and workers. Now the base line is the workers, and they do not try to blend with the army as the army doesn't blend with the rulers. When all of these do their own job, the community becomes one. The first virtue to be discussed is prudence. Prudence, also known as wisdom, is found in the rulers. "The people who have it are those rulers..." (428d) In order to have wisdom one must be resourceful, in which he/she has obtained knowledge. Plato says, "... resourcefulness is obviously a kind of knowledge... it's not ignorance which makes people resourceful; it's knowledge." (428b) The second virtue is courage, which is found in the military section of the community. Courage is not the virtue of standing in front of a tank and say it will not hurt me, that is stupidity. Courage is the ability to apply what you have been taught: what is to be feared and what is not to be feared. Plato relates retention to courage, "I'm saying courage is a sort of retention...the retention of notion." (429c) The ability for one to retain what one has learned is courage. "Ability to retain under all circumstances a true and lawful notion about what is feared and what is not to be feared is what I'm calling courage." (430b) The next virtue temperance, is found in the workers of Plato's community. Temperance, also known as self-discipline, is needed by the workers, so that they do not desire to be in the ruler's position. It is seen that each position has its own importance in the community, and for the community to function correctly each one must agree on their position in life. Plato relates, "... in this community... the rulers and their subjects agree on who the rulers should be." (431e) Temperance is also used to control the desire to go against one's free-will. Plato says, "To be self-disciplined is somehow to order and control the pleasures and desires." (430e) The last virtue to be discussed is Justice otherwise known as morality. Justice is found when all of the three work together, and no crimes are committed. If one breaks pattern then the community becomes immoral, or if one becomes out of place then it is immoral. "...when each of the three classes... perform its own function and does its own job in the community, then this is morality..." (434c) Now I will discuss the human soul, containing three parts. The human soul is a larger version of Plato's community, therefore each of the virtues relate to the human soul. The first part is reason, which is the capacity to think rationally. Next is passion, which is the fighting for what is right, and the two together work as allies. "... the rational part is wise and looks out for the whole of the mind, isn't it right for it to rule, and for the passionate part to be its subordinate and its ally." (441e) As passion and reason work together, passion is found in the military. The last part is desire, which can be found in temperance, and is closely related to passion. Desire is the temptation to do what is wrong, but self-discipline corrects it. "...desirous part, which is the major constituent of an individual's mind and is naturally insatiably greedy for things." (442a) Justice is again found in all three parts of the soul, because when they all work together justly, the are successful. The virtues are arranged in a hierarchical pyramid, in which the rulers are found at the top. The top resembles the highest position, in which the rulers are in charge of the community. The next position is the military, which takes orders from the rulers and sends orders to the workers, which are last on the pyramid. The only virtue that cannot be placed in the pyramid is justice. Justice is found in all three of the virtues, therefore it reigns in all of them. The way that the virtues are arranged makes it impossible for any of them to mix, be missing, or trade places. One must have all four virtues to be completely moral. Each virtue is directly related to each other in an indirect way. "The rational part will do the planning, and the passionate part the fighting. The passionate part will obey the ruling part and employ its courage to carry out the plans." (442b) The three "H's" which underlie each virtue are Head, Habitual, and Happiness. In the Head the person must contain the rational ability to know what he/she is doing. In the Habitual, the person does something all the time aimed toward the good. In Happiness, the person must simply be happy at what they are doing. When the three "H's" are obtained one is considered moral, or just, and also has underlied all of the virtues. Aristotle thinks that our aim in life is to live a moral life, and be happy doing it. All human actions are aimed toward the good, and to be real is to fulfill one's goal. The story I will use for my reflection on Leonitus' experience, began in my freshman year of high school. There was a person in my freshmen class, that came across as the class nerd. He assumed a nickname of "Pottsy", close to his last name. Pottsy began to run cross-country in his junior year to win an award his senior year. My senior year of cross-country was the best year of my life. I was the captain of the team, and was able to meet many different people from around the state and country. I was looked upon by all of my peers, and coaches treated me with the highest respect. Everyone was angry with him for joining, when all he wanted to do was be a part of something. He wanted to be a part of the closest sport in high school. The sixty of us refused to let him in, and chided him all the way through the season. Being a captain I had to assume the right and not the wrong. At the beginning of the year I followed my rationality, but towards the end, my self-discipline gave in to pressure. I called him names, started more amusement, and lowered myself to a different level. This level went from ruler to worker, and made him the military. My triangle became shapeless, and the virtues that failed me were courage, and temperance. This is because I lacked the courage to stand up for him, and I lost temperance for doing what is right. My temperance was reshaped, and my courage was rebuilt, when the coach lost respect in me. After attending a retreat, I remembered what I had done, and wrote him a letter of apology. I was utterly disgusted with myself, but I feel that you learn from experiences, and now my triangle has been reshaped. In conclusion, I enjoyed discussing the main elements of Plato's Republic, the virtues. I have recaptured many events that have occurred in my life, and plan to live closer to the triangle. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\The Vision of Christ and Teiresias.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As a child, my world was enraptured by the wonderful Fisher-Price toy known as the Lite-Brite. By inserting multicolored little pegs into their corresponding slots on a detailed guide, I could transform drab, dull, and dark pieces of paper into wondrous works of brilliant art. The light that filled and transformed the plastic pegs closely parallel concepts of light and darkness found within the Gospel of John and in Sophocles' drama Antigone. The Gospel of John focuses on the profound meaning of the life of Jesus, whom he saw as the manifestation of God's Word (logos). Teiresias, of Sophocles' play Antigone, is a blind prophet whose lack of vision does not prevent him from recognizing the truth. The words of John and the characterization of Sophocles, although similar in many aspects, differ in the extent to which their concepts of light and darkness affect humanity. Sophocles' light, in the form of Teiresias, allows truth to permeate throughout one's lifetime. John's light, as the manifestation of the logos, presents truth and enlightenment to humanity, but also ensures a glorified and joyous afterlife through Christ's salvation. Teiresias, the voice of fate and harbinger of truth in Sophocles' play Antigone, humbly enters the drama by addressing the malevolent Creon and stating that he "must walk by another's steps and see with another's eyes" (Antigone, 102). The wise prophet was metaphorically declaring that he delivered the message of a higher truth. This truth existed as Natural Law. Teiresias advised his monarch to choose a different course in life. His divine vision more than compensated for his lack of physical sight, for it allowed him to walk on a wise and virtuous path. The sage shared the knowledge and truth that he perceived with others who were too caught up in conventional matters to realize the existence of a higher purpose. Teiresias allowed those who stood "on fate's thin edge" (Antigone, 102) to walk safely to a plateau of illumination. The blind prophet combated pride, arrogance, and ignorance to deliver his message of enlightenment. John's message of the illumination and enlightenment provided by Christ is very similar to Sophocles' Teiresias. John explained that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). The Word or Logos that John is referring to manifested itself on earth in the form of Jesus Christ. The prophet states that Jesus is "the light [that] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome [him]" (John 1:5). According to John, Jesus had redefined the Jewish covenant with God and allowed all people realize the truth. By following the examples of Christ, one can see actions and faith define a virtuous life, not actions-in-themselves. Jesus carried with him the divine message of God and shared his words with everyone. All people, from the despised prostitute to the aged blind man experienced a fraction of God's glory through interaction with Christ. Like Teiresias, Jesus allows people to depart from the sinful path of worldly consumption to tread upon a more virtuous path. Jesus allowed people to walk within the footsteps of the Lord. Light and darkness both play integral parts in the Gospel of John and in Sophocles' play Antigone. In both literary works, a person serves as a divine tool who delivers the message of a higher purpose to the ignorant masses engulfed by darkness. Although the purposes of these messengers are similar, a vast difference exists between them. Teiresias offered and gave advice to individuals to allow them to live a virtuous life while on earth. The Gospel of John illustrates that Jesus came to earth to bring more than enlightenment. Jesus came to bring salvation to the masses. In Sophocles' Antigone, Teiresias states that "honest counsel is the most priceless gift" (Antigone, 103). John disagrees with the words of the worldly sage, for with Jesus it is shown that human actions pale in comparison to the acts of God. Jesus condemns the judgements of men in saying "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me" (John 8:15-16). Although the judgments of Teiresias may appear to be wise and virtuous, they seem dull and corrupt when compared with the holy radiance of God. To John, the most priceless present is that which God lovingly gave. To John, the greatest gift to humanity was Jesus Christ who shared his holy message to not only individuals but to the entire world. Jesus proclaimed that "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12). The Gospel of John and Sophocles' Teiresias in his drama Antigone shared many common concepts regarding light and darkness. Both emphasized that the truth and enlightenment could not be found with worldly means. Teiresias, the blind prophet, and Jesus Christ, the humble Messiah, shared the message of a higher existence with people who had not yet experienced the light. A difference exists in the fact that while Teiresias attempted to follow the path of virtuosity, the limits of his human mind and actions could not provide salvation for the ignorant masses. Jesus carried with him a divine purpose that not only enlightened but saved. Christ did not solely emphasize on the physical existence, but also explained matters belonging to the realm of the divine. Teiresias's message made profound changes in the lives of individuals. Jesus's message broke through the barriers of ethnocentricity and engulfed the entire world in its light. In the ways that the Gospel of John and Sophocles' play Antigone are similar, they are also different. The very path to righteousness that makes the two literary works comparable makes them different. While both allow people to embark on the path of light, only the Gospel of John carries the secret to eternal salvation. In a way similar to a child playing with a Lite-Brite, the Gospel of John and Sophocles' character Teiresias allow rainbows of light to exist in a world devoid of color. While both allow the existence of a form of the truth, it is only the Gospel of John that provides a detailed guide that will allow a person to find order in their truth. Through such truth and enlightenment, an abstract world of chaos and ignorance can be engulfed by a world full of order and wisdom. Realms of beauty and glory can manifest themselves to individuals who accept the truth and the essence of light as a message from a higher existence. Great joy and pleasure shall come to the child who can find beauty and order in a bleak world full of ignorance and emptiness. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Theology and Falsificaiton.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How can I start this paper? Hmmmm.....??? Let's begin with the parable. Antony Flew starts off his speech by telling the audience this story of two explorers that accidentally came upon a garden in a jungle. In this garden, there were many beautiful flowers and weeds. One explorer says, "some gardener must tend this plot". While the other disagrees, "there is no gardener". So, these two explorers tried to figure out who was right and who was wrong. They waited the whole night, but no gardener was ever seen. Then the "Believer" said that there must be a gardener, that he "is an invisible gardener". He tried everything he could to convince to the "Sceptic" that he was right, barbed-wire, electrifying fence, patrolling bloodhounds. But no gardener was ever found. Still the "Believer" was not convinced. He gave the "Sceptic" many excuses as to why they couldn't see the gardener. The "Sceptic" told him that he was crazy because what started out as a simple assertion that there was a gardener, turned into "an imaginary gardener". This parable that Flew is using is clearly an analogy to the existence and belief of God. The garden represents God, "...invisible, intangible, insensible...". The "Sceptic" says there is no gardener, just as an atheist denies the existence God. The "Believer" says there is a gardener, like a theist telling everyone that God exists. The "Believer" tries to prove that there was a planter, who planted the seeds for the flowers to grow. This planter takes care of them, a parallelism to God supposedly taking care of "us". Flew talks about assertions. He states that "what starts as an assertion, that something exists...may be reduced step by step to an altogether different status". He uses the example of how if one man were to talk about sexual behavior, "another man prefers to talk of Aphrodite". They don't seem to make sense. How can one confuse the idea of a sexual behavior with Aphrodite? He also points out the fact that "a fine brash hypothesis may be killed by inches, the death of a thousand qualifications". A good example of this is when he said that "God loves us as a father loves his children". He states that when we see a child dying of cancer, his "earthy father" is there, to help him, nurture him, trying his best for his son. But his "Heavenly Father", God, is no where to be found, that he "reveals no obvious sign of concern". The qualification that is made is that "God's love is not a merely human love or it is an inscrutable love." What started as a simple statement "God loves us as a father loves his children", has now turned into this complex idea that "God's love is not a merely human love..." Also this new, complex thought, have started even more questions about that nature of God's love, "what is this assurance of God's love worth..." This is what Flew was talking about, "death of a thousand qualification", something that is simple, is turned into a complex idea that needs more answering. Flew also talks about other assertions such as "God has a plan", "God created the world". He calls them, a "peculiar danger, a endemic evil, of theological utterance." He states that they first look "very much like assertions, vast cosmological assertions", but there is no sure sign, no evidence that "they either are or are intended to be, assertions". Flew said that, "for is the utterance is indeed an assertion, it will necessarily be equivalent to a denial of the negation of that assertion." What he meant is that if one asserts something then one must deny something. He then goes on by saying that, "anything which would count against the assertion, or which would induce the speaker to withdraw it and to admit that it had been mistaken, must be part of the meaning of the negation of that assertion....and if there is nothing which a putative assertion denies then there is nothing which it asserts either; and so it is not really and assertion." What does he mean by this? He proposes that if an assertion must be continuously qualified in the face of evidence that counts against it, then the assertion is meaningless. For example, the "Sceptic" asking the "Believer", "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?" He was telling the "Believer" that there was no gardener, because they had watched the area for a long period of time and he never showed up. The evidence counts against the gardener. The "Believer's" statement had been "so eroded by qualification that it was no longer an assertion at all." It was now very meaningless. He claims that in order for a belief to be meaningful it must be possible for it to be disproved. R.M. Hare also starts his speech with another parable. It is about this lunatic, who was "convinced that all dons want to murder him." A "don" refers to a Professor at an English University. He believes that they are all out to get him. He had this strong "blik." Hare refers to a blik as an "undefined term that appears akin to an unprovable assumption." A blik is like a very strong belief, I guess. Many would say that this person is "deluded." But what this mean? What is he deluded about? He strongly believes that they were out to get him. But his friends have shown him that they were not. Hare refers to him as having "an insane blik about dons." That our bilk is sane. He explains that there are two sides to every argument. Hare uses another example to give a better understanding of what a blik is. He talks about how when he is driving, he notices that his movement with the steering wheel will be followed by a corresponding alteration in the direction of the car. He thinks about steering failures, skids, and how his car is made. He said that he knows what must go wrong (problems like the steel rods break or joints are defected) if he was to have a steering failure. He said that he have a "blik about steel and its properties." What he probably meant was that, he knows that steel is a very strong compound and that it does not break that easily. So, his blik is a sane one. But what if he were to switch his blik? "People would say I was silly about steel", that he was crazy. There would be a difference between the respective bliks. For example, he would never go inside a car because he would feel that the care is unsafe. Hare goes on to say that our perspective of the world depends on our bliks about the world and that differences between bliks about the world cannot be settled by observation of what happens in the world. He is trying to say that one's bliks is one's bliks, no matter what everyone tells you, no matter how much evidence there is to prove one wrong. That the individual will continue to have the same blik. Hare points out that Flew "selects for attack is to regard this kind of talk as some sort of explanation." Hare believes that without a blik, we can not explain what goes on in the world, "there can be no explanation" because it is "our bliks that we decide what is and is not an explanation". The example that he gives is what if "everything that happened, happened by pure chance." He says that this is not an assertion because anything will happen or not happen. There is no asserting something because we are not trying to deny something here. This is totally different from Flew's argument, that if one asserts something that one must deny something. With this belief, he says "we should not be able to explain or predict or plan anything." Thus, they are no different then from someone who doesn't have this belief because they will not be asserting anything. "This is the sort of difference that there is between those who really believe in God and those who really disbelieve in him," said Hare. Hare concludes that there is a very important difference between Flew's parable and his. He tells us that in Flew's "the explorers do not mind about their garden, they discuss it with interest, but not with concern." But in his, "my lunatic, poor fellow, minds about dons, and I mind about the steering of my car." What is he trying to say here? I think that he's trying to mention that in Flew's argument that people, the explorers, don't mind about God. They talk about it and everything but are not "concern." What exactly does this mean not "concern"? Hare tries to point that in his parable that his explains care about themselves. They care about what goes on around them. They not only talk about it. "It is because I mind very much about what goes on in the garden in which I find myself, that I am unable to share the explorers' detachment," said Hare. He tried to point out that if he was in the same situation, he would not share the same views as the explorers. Which is a belief in the gardener, a belief in God. Both of these man had some strong viewpoints. Flew states, if one asserts something, then one must deny something. What Hare is trying to say is that, there is two sides to every idea or "assertions", a blik. That that is a sane blik and a insane blik. Most people have the sane one and those who don't share this view is point as lunatics. But no one is not trying to deny something here. The person with the insane blik is not wrong or that he's not trying to deny something, it's just that his views are different. Flew states, "what would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?" Hare's reply to this question is that he calls this "completely victorious." Nothing have to occur because those who does not share this belief in God have an insane blik. They are not trying to deny that God doesn't but rather that they views are just different. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\These Raging Days of Our Lives.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "This is a very special day for me. It's the day of my release, the release from suffering, the release from the torment of my body." Those were the words of the very first Canadian to die through the process of doctor assisted-suicide, with the doctor being Jack Kevorkian. His name was Austin Bastable, and in the last few years of his life he became a crusader for the right to die with dignity. It has been only in these last few years, with the introduction of people such as Dr. Jack Kevorkian and Austin Bastable, that the world has begun to see the benefits made possible by the act of assisted-suicide. The prevention of suffering and pain made possible through this medicide, regarded as immoral for years, affects not only the patient but their immediate and distant relatives as well. Kevorkian told a judicial court the same one day in late April, early May: "Suicide is not the aim. Eliminating suffering is the aim, but you pay a price with the loss of a life." Although Kevorkian's methods have succeeded with some difficulty, in the USA, their northern neighbour, our great dominion of Canada, disallows the administration of this relieving practice. In our grand country assisted suicide is illegal. Cases of other terminally ill persons have surfaced throughout the news, the most prominent being those related to Dr. "Death" Kevorkian. We don't often think on what a terminally ill person might be like. They might be suffering from Lou Gehrig's Disease. They might be suffering from multiple sclerosis. They might be suffering from any number of other types of injuries and diseases. What we don't think about are the cases that bring out our most empathetic feelings. Take the case of one Christine Busalacchi, who was so severely injured in an accident that she now lives in what her father calls a "persistent vegetative condition." Vegetative is precisely the word to describe her condition. She has lost enough weight to cause her to appear as someone else. She has her right leg bent with her knee always in the air and her left foot is frozen in a quite unnatural manner. Her skin remains milk white, the kind of colour one would associate with the skin of dead bodies. She chews constantly, often gagging on her own saliva. She has a gastrostomy tube protruding from her stomach. Nurses have to come every so often to change her diaper. She will never respond to any stimulus voluntarily, only through reflex action, and that reaction will be only in her brain. A well-known neurologist pointed out how her brain now only includes those parts of it that control the reflexive actions, such as chewing, rather than those parts that make us human. Christine is not the only person in that situation. Many others are forced to live the rest of their artificial lives in a prison where freedom is taken captive-the freedom to die. Canada's laws against assisted-suicide have been attacked before. The most well known "right-to-die" campaigners in Canada are the late Sue Rodriguez and the late Austin Bastable. Sue Rodriguez led the "right-to-die" campaign against the government in 1993, where a ban against assisted-suicide was narrowly upheld. Sue later died in an assisted suicide in 1994. Bastable become known to many Canadians in early May of this year. He became the first Canadian to die with the aid of Dr. Kevorkian, as well as the first non-American to do so, on May 6th. Bastable was said to have had a videotape recorded for the purpose of being shown during a media briefing in Toronto: "My death is a blow for freedom, not just for myself but for every rational Canadian who someday may wish to have a choice in how they will die." Comparing cases such a Christine's, Sue's and Austin's it becomes clear that quite a few people support the concept of assisted-suicide. In fact, physician-assisted voluntary euthanasia is favoured three-to-one according to polls taken in the USA. Of course, the USA is not Canada, but how much different can we be. Still, although our countries have a long way to go in providing people the right to die, there are some places where our species is beginning to see the light. The Northern Territory of Australia's legislature became the first in the world to allow voluntary euthanasia in May of this year. Bob Dent became the first person to kill himself under the world's only such law. Yet this act in itself had profound results; federal lawmakers drawing legislature to make doctor assisted-suicide illegal. The papal system of the Vatican voiced its opinion of the event exclaiming that no law or human suffering could justify euthanasia. Arguments such as these have no substance at all, if one looks closely. Dent, in a letter to his government, made numerous points that show this. He argued that "If I were to keep a pet animal in the same condition I am in, I would be prosecuted." He also restated the already widely known fact that religion and state must be kept separated: "What right has anyone, because of their own religious faith (to which I don't subscribe), to demand that I behave according to their rules until some omniscient doctor decides that I have had enough and goes ahead and increases my morphine until I die?" The answer to that question is undeniably, NONE, no right at all. With time, and the understanding of the public, the right to die campaign can be won. People would have the freedom to decide when they have had enough suffering and how they wish to die. Yet the time it will take is most probably a long one. Many problems and obstacles must be overcome, from the oppression of religious organisations to the negative image portrayed by biased media. In time these organisations might see the light, and we will all be able to go gentle into that good night. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\To Tell or to Lie.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Maral Frendjian To Tell or to Lie For modern students, a training in rhetoric such as that offered by Gorgias is more preferable, rather than learning how to distinguish truth from falsehood. It is the art of forceful language, emphasizing figures of speech and focusing on devices for swaying and persuading an audience, that would be most beneficial for students lives today. Despite the fact that it is simply ornamented language to make a good facade, the rhetoric by Gorgias is necessary for the success of students, especially those who would like to "sell" their ideas, products or beliefs to the people (the larger population). In the world we live in, there are many ways of getting the things that we want. The way most people would like to believe that their accomplishments were achieved is through hard work and sweat. However, that is not how it works, because most people around the world lie to get things to go their way. A perfect example of a group of people that use the rhetoric are politicians. Politicians will say and do anything to convince the citizens that they are right, and that they will do all they promise to do, if you vote for him or her. They try to convince us all the time, and often succeed, that they will make changes. Just think about the many times we've heard, "If you vote for me, I will lower the taxes." Gorgias makes a very clear point regarding the power of the rhetoric. The following quote from Gorgias expresses the impact that rhetoric can have on those listening. I mean the ability to convince by means of speech a jury in a court of justice, members of the Council in their Chamber, voters at a meeting of the Assembly, and any other gathering of citizens whatever it may be. By the exercise of this ability you will have the doctor and the trainer as your slaves, and your man of business will turn out to be making money not for himself but for another; for you, in fact, who have the ability to speak and to convince the masses. (Gorgias, p.28 sec. 453) What Gorgias is saying in the preceding quote is about the amazing power of persuasion. He is saying that if you have the ability to convince, you have the power to sway anyone listening by your ideas. He demonstrates the diverse situations in which the "ability to convince" can help the persuader, by giving him the power so that the control will be in his or her hands. Convincing is not only a form of speech, it is a form of twisting the truth, elaborating on the truth, in other words lying. If you ask students today, they will tell you that people cannot "do right" all the time. Although, Socrates says "...truth can never be refuted." (Socrates, p.60 sec.473), which means that when only truth is spoken, no one will be able to win you over or prove you wrong. Therefore, according to Socrates, training on how to distinguish truth from falsehood would not protect you from rhetoric such as that offered by Gorgias. Even though this is an important point, in modern society survival is based on the power of persuasion. As said by Socrates, " ...the orator does not teach juries and other bodies about right and wrong - he merely persuades them;..."(Socrates, p.32 sec.455). What he means is that orators do not tell you what is wrong and what is right in the situation, they tell you the facts and then try to persuade you to believe them. Everyday when we turn on the television companies try to convince us that their products are better, by giving us reasons which aren't always the full truth. For example, DiDi Seven says that it will remove stains off of anything. That is not quite true for when you read the cover of the box you will see that it says do not use on colored materials for it is a bleach. They "lied" to the customers because they said it would remove any stain. In actuality it removes the stain by bleaching and this could actually ruin the article of material you are using it on since it will leave a white mark after removing the stain. Furthermore, anyone working in sales must convince the customer that their product is the product the customer needs, despite the possibility that the customer may not really need that product in particular. For students in this day and in age, it would be beneficial for them to be trained in rhetoric because not too many people believe in truth anymore. Gorgias is right by saying the rhetoric can distinguish someone who is successful from someone who is not unless that person is successful by hard work and honesty, which doesn't happen often. Knowing the difference between truth and falsehood isn't something that is very hard to learn but being able to convince and persuade people is a talent that students have to be trained in. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\To what extent does the nature of language illuminate the dif.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To what extent does the nature of language illuminate our understanding of the relation between knowledge of ourselves and knowledge of others? ------------------------------------------------------ More than any other thing, the use of language sets humankind apart from the remainder of the animal kingdom. There is some debate as to where the actual boundary between language and communication should be drawn, however there seems to be no debate as to the nature of Language, which is to communicate, using abstract symbols, the workings of one mind to one or more others with a relatively high degree of accuracy. It could perhaps be said that we are all capable of expressing or representing our thoughts in a manner that is only meaningful to ourselves. Wittgenstein says that ..a wheel that can be turned though nothing else moves with it is not part of the mechanism.1 The idea of a uniquely personal language is not relevant here and so will not be discussed further. Language is a system of symbols which represent thoughts, perceptions and a multitude of other mental events. Although the meaning of a given word or expression is by no means fixed, there is a sufficiently high degree of consensus in most cases to ensure that our thoughts are to a great extent communicable. This essay will concentrate on two aspects of language. Firstly that it gives our own thoughts and those of others a certain degree of portability and secondly that because it has a firm (though not rigid) set of rules governing the relationships between symbols it allows what would otherwise be internal concepts that could not be generalised, to be made explicit, examined in detail and compared. If we did not have language we would be able to surmise very little about other humans around us. Non-verbal communication has evolved to instantaneously communicate ones emotional state, and generally succeeds in this, however although it can reveal what a person may be feeling at a particular time, it says nothing about why those feelings are present and in any case is most reliable with strong emotions such as anger, fear, disgust &c. The less intense the emotion the more vaguely it is portrayed. If we are aware of the events preceeding the display of emotion we may be able to attribute a cause to it, but as psychologists Jones and Nisbett (1972) showed, these attributions are quite likely to be inaccurate due to the predilection that humans have for attributing behaviour to the disposition of the person being observed. In addition to all of this, non-verbal communication is limited to observers in the immediate area at the time of the behaviour. In contrast to this, language allows us to group ideas and perceptions together and compare them in order to reach a high degree of consensus about their meaning. Wittgenstein says that You learned the concept pain when you learned language.2 The portability that language imparts to thoughts and perceptions allows us to compare our own response to various experienced stimuli with anothers report of their response to a similar event which we may or may not have witnessed. Over time it becomes possible to discern certain trends and so, for example, the sensation that we feel when we strike our thumbs with a hammer, the characteristic pain behaviour and such things as the anguish that people feel at the end of a romantic liaison all become part of the general concept of pain, even though they are all dissimilar in form (this point will be discussed subsequently). By using language humans can vicariously partake of the experiences of another (e.g. when one watches a play or a film or when one listens to an account of a friends experience.) In short, language allows us to make comparisons between our own thought processes and those of others which in turn enables us to infer that the subjective experience of others is in many cases similar to our own. An important property of language is that it has rules governing the relationships between its constituent parts. Some of these rules are more rigid than others which gives the system considerable overall flexibility. For instance, there is a great difference between saying You are not allowed to do it. and You are allowed not to do it. This is a crude example but it makes the point that the meaning of an utterance depends upon more than just the words used. In addition an utterance may be meaningful, and grammatically valid and still be nonsense, For instance the sentence; An Elephant is a fish in wellingtons The meaning of the sentence is perfectly clear and the rules of grammar have hopefully been obeyed, but the sentence itself is patently untrue. The analysis of sense and meaning is carried out using Logic, the study of argument and inference. Logical analysis of an utterance can establish the validity, or non-validity of any assertions that it makes. To use the oft-quoted example; All men are mortal and Socrates is a man. One may infer from these statements that Socrates is mortal, since there is no combination of circumstances in which they could simultaneously be true and Socrates immortal. One major contribution that logic makes to the understanding of the difference between ourselves and others is that it can identify assumptions that are commonly made when speaking of others. For instance, to continue the pain example, If one sees a person exhibiting pain behaviour one is apt to think; That person is in pain. but it is impossible for one to actually know what they are feeling. To a greater or lesser degree one infers that the others actual experience mirrors ones own to the same degree that their behaviour does. In the same vein, if I see my best friend slip with a screwdriver for instance, and injure his hand, I could reasonably say that I know him to be in pain, given that long experience has not shown any great difference between his apparent response to injury and my own. However I could not make the same statement about myself with any real meaning for the simple reason that my own experience of pain transcends knowledge. In my own case it makes as much, or as little sense to say that I doubt that I am in pain as it does to say that I know that I am. Language therefore can be said to be something of a two-edged sword when referring to an understanding of the differences between knowledge of the self and knowledge of another. One the one hand the ability to ask questions of the type; What do you mean by ......? can allow some insight into the thought processes underlying the behaviour of another. On the other hand an analysis of the differences between what is actually being said when a statement is made referring to another and the same statement made referring to oneself, can show that ultimately ones knowledge of oneself and ones knowledge of others are two fundamentally different things. Knowledge of self is based on priviliged information that, in the absence of telepathic communication, is only available to oneself. This does not mean to say that our knowledge of ourselves is either accurate or complete. Human beings are generally highly proficient at self-deception, nontheless a word, a sentence, a series of sentences can only be an approximation of the thoughts behind them, likewise when words impact upon our consciousness, they are subject to interpretation. The purpose of language is to communicate but as Huxley says; By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies - all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation every human group is a society of island universes. REFERENCES 1) Wittgenstein. L. 1995. Philosophical Investigations. 271. 2) ibid. 384. 3) Huxley. A. 1954. The Doors of Perception. pp3-4. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hume. D. 1985. A Treatise of human nature. Penguin. Huxley. A. 1994. The Doors of Perception. Flamingo. OHear. A. 1985. What philosophy is. Penguin. Putnam. H. 1975. Mind Language and Reality. Cambridge University Press. Wittgenstein. L. 1995. Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Transcendentalism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Transcendentalism: The Philosophy of the Mind Transcendentalism is the view that the basic truth of the universe lies beyond the knowledge obtained from the senses, a knowledge that transcendentalists regard as the mere appearance of things (Adventures 162). Transcendentalists believe the mind is where ideas are formed. The transcendentalist ideas of God, man, and the universe were not all original, but were a combination of other philosophies and religions. One of the major questions of philosophy is "What is the nature of the universe?" Immanuel Kant was one of the major Transcendentalists of his time. One of the major questions he asked was, "What is knowledge, and how is it possible?" Transcendentalists believe that one really only knows personal experiences, and that one can not know the universe which exists. Kant came to the conclusion that there are two universes, one of experience, called the "Phenomenal Universe", and the other the "Noumenal Universe", the one of reason. The first is scientific and the other practical (Frost 42). Transcendentalists think there is a dimension of depth in everything that exists. They also think the spirit is what controls your physical side (Halverson 431). Some transcendentalists say the world has no beginning in time, everything takes place according to the laws of nature. The same people think there is not necessarily an absolute Being who causes the world to be (Frost 42). Transcendentalists think nature is a product of the mind, and without the mind nature would not exist (Santayana 42). These ideas come from the Romantic traditions which originated in England. The Romantics believed in spiritual unity of all forms of being, with God, humanity, and nature sharing a universal soul (Adventures 208). Transcendentalists came to the conclusion that good and evil were things only man could control. Their belief of man is that man is part of the universe of objects and things. His knowledge is confined to ideas. He is able to reason, and he can form ideas of the outer world of God, freedom, and immortality (Frost 53). Immanuel Kant said, "Always act in such a way that the maxim determining your conduct might as well become a universal law; act as though you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action." He called this the "categorical imperative." Kant believed this was a sure criterion of what is right and what is wrong. Kant also made the point that an act desired of everyone would be a good act, or if the act is performed with good intentions it is good no matter if it brings pain. He also said human life is only possible on this moral basis (Frost 95). Is there a God? This question has been around for hundreds of years. Many transcendentalists think they have answered it. Kant said there must be a God who is wise, good, and powerful to join happiness and goodness. He thought the idea of God was necessary to serve as a foundation for moral life (Frost 132). The transcendentalists explain that when God made the world, he found it good, and when the transcendentalists assumed the Creator's place, they followed his example (Santayana 121). Other transcendentalists believe the unseen part of the universe dwells in God (Halverson 429). Theodore Parker was nicknamed the Savonarola of transcendentalism, by Emerson, because he denied the necessity of biblical inspiration and miracles in life (Edwards 479). Transcendentalists firmly believe that the mind is superior to matter. According to Kant, there are intuitions of the mind itself not based upon experience, but through which experience is acquired. Kant called these "transcendental forms"(Edwards 480). Transcendentalists believe the mind is the only source of knowledge, but Kant said there is a world other than the mind (Frost 242). Kant also thought humans are shut up in their minds and must interpret everything. He believed that space and time are not realities existing by themselves, but are ways the mind has of receiving and shaping sensations. Kant stated, "Take away the thinking subject, and the entire corporeal world will vanish, for it is nothing but the appearance in the sensibility of our subject." To the thinkers who followed Kant the most logical solution to the problem of mind and matter was to eliminate matter. The mind seemed evident but matter had to be interpreted as something other than and outside of the mind (Frost 243). Transcendentalists believe many ideas come from the mind itself, not from experience. They believe that these ideas of the mind are a very important part of life. An anonymous pamphlet (many believe to be written by Charles Mayo Ellis), An Essay on Transcendentalism, says, "Transcendentalism maintains that man has ideas that come not through the five senses, or the power of reasoning; but are either the result of direct revelation from God, his immediate inspiration, or his immanent presence in the spiritual world." The transcendentalists called the spiritual body within the physical body the oversoul, the conscience, or the inner light (Encyclopedia 3). Kant says the mind is like a bowl with many crevices and depressions in it's contour. When one pours water into the bowl, it takes the shape of the bowl, filling all the crevices. In the same way the environment pours impressions into the mind and they are received by the mind and shaped according to the nature of this mind (Frost 257). Some transcendentalists think all minds are alike. They say all minds have certain categories such as totality, unity, plurality, and reality. Transcendentalists believe knowledge is limited to the combined role of sensibility and understanding, both of which are concerned with sense and experience, though in different ways (Hakim 98). They also think knowledge is universal (Frost 258). Some transcendentalists think the ideas are of the mind and cannot be applied to a world outside of the mind. They believe ideas are a result of the kind of thinking organ which people have, and are determined by it's nature. Transcendentalism is a combination of beliefs, some of which are from other religions and other people and their philosophies. It is a belief that there is another way knowledge is obtained, not only from the senses, but also from the mind. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Turn Around.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Turn Around Putting the Allegory of the Cave into my own words seems comparable to the Christian idea of using the lord's name in vain. First, I'd like to introduce a phenomenon I have observed throughout my life time. I call it soul resonance. Bear with me here. When two objects emit sympathetic vibrations, the sound or force multiplies. Example: Two tuning forks of the same frequency are struck upon each other and held a few feet apart. The vibration is much stronger. Something basic about each object recognizes a similar quality in the other, and amplifies it. As with so many other laws of science, this law applies to many other phenomena. I believe this is what people feel when they first hear the Allegory of the Cave . . . soul resonance. Somehow, something deep inside tells them that here we have found a singular truth. The Allegory, taken as the story of one man, narrates his life from ignorance to enlightenment. He sits within a cave, facing away from a blazing fire. He stares at the wall opposite him, watching pretty shadow puppets. He listens to the exotic, wonderful, and large words whispered in his ears by the puppeteers. He would naturally turn around, or perhaps even stand, but chains bind him to the ground, and the puppeteers have servants who hold his head in place. One day, a situation arises where he finds that the chains are broken, and he stands. This is against the will of the servants, but they have no physical power over him, if he does not allow it. He turns round and sees the fire and the puppeteers and then he realizes that all has been lies. He is not what they have told him. He does not feel what they have said he does. The fire blinds him. The puppeteers, seeing they have lost another to knowledge, quickly get rid of him by pushing him into the dark cave that looms off to the side, hoping for his demise. The man is lost, he has gone from darkness to light to darkness once again. Something within him tells him to climb, and he does, scrabbling. He cuts himself many times, and many times he almost falls to his demise on the rocky ground below. He pauses often. Until there comes a time when he sees a distant light at the exit/entrance to the cave. When he sees this light, he is not sure whether this is yet another shadow puppet on the wall, but it is upward and that is where he must go. When he comes out into the bright sunlight, he cannot see, the brightness of the sun alone has stricken him temporarily blind. He stumbles about, closing his eyes for periods of time and then reopening them, adjusting himself to the light. And one day, he stares at the sun without fail, and knows. Let's start at the beginning. He is in the cave, he is in the darkness of his own ignorance. Even the light behind him is a false representation of the glorious sun outside. People have assaulted him with their falsehoods, telling him what God is, what Ideals are, and what his morals should be. These are the shadows on the wall, a terrestrial God, money, Law, etc. When he was young he may have questioned these ideas, but if you say something enough to someone, they will come to believe it. The man built his own chains, fashioned them from a forge in his own soul, and soaked them in a barrel of his ignorance. He learned resignation, and now he sits in an office all day, being unhappy, his blood-pressure rising. One day he snaps, for it is a drastic force that rips the chains from the ground. He turns around for the first time since he was young, and cries. He now realizes the truth, he is not who they have told him he is. He realizes there are truths inside him that are not the truths of which they spoke. And he cries, also, for he sees that he and the puppeteers are the same. He weeps at the realization of his own self-imprisonment, his true nature, and burns himself upon the fire of his tortured soul, which drags him into the cave. In the darkness he feels things such as self-pity, depression, and a great deal of guilt. These are the times that try men's souls. There are three options, endeavor to climb, return to the wall, or resign to self-destruction. The rest is where it becomes hazy in my mind. How can I put into my own words what I have not discovered, what I have no understanding of? The man climbs, and he does feel pain in the aimless wandering, but the tunnel is a very subjective place. It can be either heaven or hell, depending on the mind of the man. Hope waxes and wanes, and the first view of the light is a critical point in his journey. Through all the lies and false "faces" of God, how can one recognize the truth when they see it with their own eyes (own minds). For me, soul resonance is the key, I listen to all the conceptions of God, keep an open mind and remember what resonates. Most of the time, it seems I am merely whittling away using what I know God is not. I fear, of course that when I finish whittling, there will be nothing left, but the Truth is of highest priority. Plato divides Everything into two worlds, and each of these two worlds into two subsections. The lowest section is the World of Images. If I tell you that money will bring you happiness, and you decide to believe what I have said with no previous knowledge of either happiness or money, you have been exposed to the lowest World. Up one level is the World of Objects. If I give you some money, you can touch it, fold it, eat it, whatever. You learn that you can buy things with this money, or you can deposit it in a bank. You have experienced the Physical world. In the World of Lower Forms, the next higher world, we have archetypal molds for all these physical objects. There is a mold for the ideal human, a human that has ALL characteristics. At the same moment he/she has blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes, etc. The model has all forms of eyes imaginable, all types of hair imaginable, etc. This world is a world of perfection, filled with perfect triangles, perfect time, etc. In this world an equilateral triangle has three sides, all equal, and three angles, all exactly 60 degrees. It is within this realm we delve while doing mathematical calculations. The highest realm is the World of the Higher Forms. A realm of Absolute Truth, where there are no interpretations, only complete Forms, which the mind can only grasp in its full complexity. The worlds together form a logical outline displaying levels of truth from lowest opinion to highest form. The two lowest levels are usually occupied by common man. While working with mathematics, one can venture into the third level. And only when we can stare directly into the sun with our archetypal eyes can we conceive of the highest world. From a spiritual standpoint, the Allegory of the Cave is a narrative of one man's journey to the light. He exists in a state of Becoming (the lowest two levels of truth), and proceeds toward the ultimate Truth and Enlightenment, much like The Buddha. From a political standpoint, it is an outline of a society's transformation to perfection. A tale of a society's realization of the falsehoods absorbed within it. It is a place where every person experiences true freedom, and where the Good rule, where the Low are converted from animal to Soul. The purpose of the Allegory of the Cave, I believe, is twofold. To help make people aware of the fact that they live within those lower levels of truth, and that there are higher truths. And also to help the ones who are lonely, dirty, almost broken. These lost ones who have just begun their journey and are losing hope, a reminder that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\two brands of nihilism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Two Brands of Nihilism As philosopher and poet Nietzsche's work is not easily conformable to the traditional schools of thought within philosophy. However, an unmistakable concern with the role of religion and values penetrates much of his work. Contrary to the tradition before him, Nietzsche launches vicious diatribes against Christianity and the dualistic philosophies he finds essentially life denying. Despite his early tutelage under the influence of Schopenhauer's philosophy, Nietzsche later philosophy indicates a refusal to cast existence as embroiled in pessimism but, instead, as that which should be affirmed, even in the face of bad fortune. This essay will study in further detail Nietzsche view of Schopenhauer and Christianity as essentially nihilistic. Nihilism Throughout his work Nietzsche makes extensive use of the term "nihilism". In texts from the tradition prior to Nietzsche, the term connotes a necessary connection between atheism and the subsequent disbelief in values. It was held the atheist regarded the moral norms of society as merely conventional, without any justification by rational argument. Furthermore, without a divine authority prohibiting any immoral conduct, all appeals to morality by authority become hollow. By the atheists reckoning then, all acts are permissible. With Nietzsche's appearance on the scene, however, arrives the most potent arguments denying the necessary link between atheism and nihilism. It will be demonstrated that Nietzsche, in fact, will argue it is in the appeal to divine proscriptions that the most virulent nihilism will attain. There is a second sense of nihilism that appears as an outgrowth of the first that Nietzsche appeals to in his critique of values. It contends that not only does an active, pious, acknowledgment of a divinity foster nihilism, but also, the disingenuous worship of a deity that has been replaced in the life man by science, too, breeds a passive nihilism. Christianity Nietzsche conceives the first variety of nihilism, that fostered through active worship, as pernicious due to its reinforcement of a fundamental attitude that denies life. Throughout his life Nietzsche argued the contemporary metaphysical basis for belief in a deity were merely negations of, or tried to deny, the uncertainties of what is necessarily a situated human existence. Religious doctrine is steeped in, and bounded by references to good and evil and original sin. The religious student is taught original sin, with the hopes the student will faithfully deny a human nature. Good and evil are not the approbation or prohibition against certain actions, rather, such doctrine codifies self hatred and begs the rejection of "human nature". Christianity goes beyond a denial of just the flesh and blood of the body to do away with the whole of the world. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche suggests in several places, that the world is falsified when dictated by the tenets of dualistic philosophies, with emphasis on Christianity. How the "True World" Finally Became Fable, a section in Twilight of the Idols, is subtitled "The History of an Error", for it supposes to give a short rendering of how the "true world" is lost in the histories of disfiguring philosophies that posit otherworldly dualistic metaphysics. First, Plato's vision of the realm of forms. "The true world - attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man...", a feasible world, achievable through piety and wisdom. A world a man may come to know, at least possible for the contemplative and diligent student.In this early imagining the world is not entirely lost yet, it is however, removed from the "concrete" world. A world hardly accessible but by the few who might escape the cave. The first realization of nihilism is the denial of the sensuous world for the really real. The idea of the true world removed is then characterized as the Christian world."The true world - unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ('for the sinner that repents')...(progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible - it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)" The true world is promised, but removed and the "apparant" world is denied for the sake of attainment of the real one. The undermining of sensuous values attains what Nietzsche calls "ascetic ideals", good, evil, God, truth and the virtues that are demanded to attain in light of these form the codes of the priests. These metaphysical codes are designed to give the pious a transcendent idealized place to go, one that will replace the sensuous situated world of humanity. The series of "nots" that Christianity embraces, truth is not of the body, not of this world, not humanity, this general negation of the world reveals to Nietzsche, Christianity's fundamental denial of life. Ultimately, the unattainable world is the truth, God's point of view is the view from nowhere, an unquestionable unbiased veridical apprehension of the really real. Another sense of nihilism arises, rooted somewhat in the first, it will not be the abdication of this world for some other instead. This brand of nihilism attains when one's words overtly call attention to God, and the values fostered in His name, but the very idea of no God has replaced the hitherto dominant theocentric paradigm, science now situates man's place in the universe. Nietzsche is perhaps most famous for his rallying cry, "God is dead". Nietzsche will contend, in the parable of the Madman that we have taken a step away from the stultifying belief in the trasencendent realm, but are far from behaving as if we acknowledged His death. The events for which God was invented have now all been explained by a science, "the holiest and mightiest...has bled to death under our knife". But the crowd listening only stares on silently looking on surprised. The madman is too early, for the wielders of the blade have not measured the full implication of His death. There remains the "residue" of Christian faith that is still in need of overcoming. "Our greatest reproach against existence," he writes, "was the existence of God", and he believes, our greatest relief is found in the elimination of this idea. But in rejecting the Christian formulation the role and importance of existence is left an open question. The question turns now on the significance of existence. Despite the overt and honest atheism both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche profess to share, the Schopenhauer formulation of the significance of existence will appear, at least, if not more life denying to Nietzsche than the Christian. Schopenhauer If one understood a fundamental project of Nietzsche as a will to affirm life even in the face of great tragedy, Schopenhauer stands in stark contrast. It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine where exactly Nietzsche would be siuated with respect to his cosmology, and the notion of eternal return. But to illustrate the contrast of Nietzsche with Schopenhauer a delving into will bring some of this difference into relief. Nietzsche asks how might one respond if a demon were to reveal that all of a life, every moment, would be forever repeated. "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more," with nothing new but to repeat every pain and every joy. Would a reponse be to praise and exalt the demon for that , or is one more likely to "throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the who spoke thus?"(GS, 341). For the purpose of this paper it matters not if the demon speaks truly, for the idea serves a function; could one affirm life and live as if one had to eternally repeat it? The challenge then is to live joyfully, in the sensuous world. Could one face optimistically the ambiguities, uncertainties and chaos that is the world, in a spirit of affirmation? Nietzsche imagines no greater affirmation of life can be concieved than this test of willing. For Schopenhauer ,this is unlikely, in his the World as Will and Idea, a passage is offered that could hardly be a more explicit denial, "at the end of life, if a man is sincere and in full possession of his faculties, he will never wish to have it over again, but rather than this, he will much prefer absolute annihilation" (WWI 589). Schopenhauer's pessimism has some roots in our inability to adequately satisfy our wants. A casual reading might have one to believe both philosophers took the will to be the same oject or process, but that where one celebrates it the other denigrates it. A more careful reading will reveal, however, that, Nietzsche though initially impressed with the Schopenhauer conception of the will, he will later reject it. Schopenhauer concieves the will to be a primal metaphysical reality. The mileage the two philosophers get from investigating "will", the term is no coordinate in their use, nor are we surorised at the disparity of their mature philosophies. For Nietzsche, the resignation of the will is a forlorn denial of life. Similarly, the appeal to a transcendent deity also indicts the indivuals as resentful in the face of those who can affirm life. Nietzsche proposes one should affirm life even in the midst of tragedy, thus the passive nihilism that embraces the ascetic ideals are overcome. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\TwoWorlds Model of Reality.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Two-Worlds Model of Reality Steven Kemmerling 9/28/98 C.F. 2320 - Honors Two-Worlds Model of Reality "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Gen 1:1). These words, along with the rest in Genesis, and for that matter, the rest of the bible, seem to give a very definite image of our Christian God as an entity clearly different from the humans he creates. Although He may walk and talk with Adam and Eve through the Garden of Eden at the beginning of Genesis, He soon exits the human world to a more ethereal place far off in the heavens. Similarly, the creation stories from the tribal people in the Indian state Orissa seem to hold the same concept that their gods too had at one time or another taken a physical part in the creation of their world, but they also went to "live in the sky." The traditional two-worlds model of reality states that some regions of reality, or "worlds", are qualitatively different from others. Often times, humans equate this model of reality of God (or gods) with perfection and paradise, while the reality of humans is devoted to the attainment of this "other world." These ten creation stories support the long held belief in a two-worlds model of reality and that, although humans cannot remove themselves from one reality to another, they can be conscious of it and have interactions with it (or those in it may interact with them). According to these creation stories, as well as Genesis and Gilgamesh, in the very beginning, there was but one reality, that of the gods. The stories then usually go that the gods either wanted somebody to keep them company or worship to them (or both), so, in their infinite wisdom, the gods created humanity. This very creation of man is very interesting in that many of the stories employ very similar methods for the actual creation process. In the first of these ten creation stories, the gods all take a little of their blood and a little of the dirt on their bodies and, after a few incantations, fabricate man. The creation of Enkidu by Aruru in Gilgamesh is very similar as she creates him "out of earth and divine spittle the double" (Gilgamesh 5). Even the Christian story of the creation of Adam entails similar characteristics when God "formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen 2:7). This reoccurring theme of man being formed from the ground seems to strengthen the thought that his (i.e. man's) only reality can be the one he spends on earth, in tangible, physical space, and that the gods are only physically present during the creation of man. The latter two of my previous examples also support the thought of gods living in different, separate realities. In Gilgamesh, the gods obviously live in a different, supposedly "unreachable" reality that none but Gilgamesh (who is part god) may reach. And in the bible, God also eventually removes himself from the world of the living man to Heaven, where only the spirits of men may go. The part of the two-worlds model of reality that is perhaps most surprising is the amazing likeness of the gods to the humans (or should it be humans to gods?). Not only do the gods shape man in their likeness as clearly stated in the bible or is implied in some of these creation stories, but they also act much in the same ways. In the third creation story, Kittung Mahaprabhu (a supreme being) eats fruit, just like man, something I would never really expect a god to do (i.e. eat). In the fourth creation story Kuraitsum, another god, has body hair which he ends up using to raise up trees and grass (who would ever expect a god to be hairy anyway?). Perhaps the reason for such likeness between god and man, as portrayed in these stories, can best be explained by, if the gods did not have such similar human characteristics, humans could never fully comprehend or quantify the concept of a being greater than themselves. A good example of this is that people can much more easily relate to Jesus Christ, who was at both times man and God, than they can with the Holy Spirit, a non-physical, ghostly apparition which is also God. It may even be argued that these likenesses between gods and humans are necessary for the concept of a two-world model of reality to even be possible. The amazing likeness of man to gods may also help to explain the seemingly good disposition gods have towards man in these stories. One can reason that gods would have a positive feeling towards their creations just from common sense. I know that if were a great god and I created the entire human race in my likeness, I would want them to do as well as possible. And, being their creator, I would have an almost obligatory sense of kindness towards them. The Christian concept of God clearly reveals Him as a completely loving and caring god, one with the utmost regard and concern for his creations. The creator gods in the second (Nirantali) and the third (Kittung Mahaprabhu) Orissa creation stories show care and love towards man when they provide the hunters with stones to sharpen their axes with and seeds which bring about the creation of mountains for hill-side farming. However, one may argue that if the gods are so well disposed towards man, why did they in many instances wipe out almost the entire human race with great flood? The best answer to this is that, as with any invention, sometimes the creator messes up the first time and wants to try again. In the cases of the flood, if the gods did not like humans, they would not have bothered to save any who would one day revamp the entire human race. Human life is not the easiest thing to decipher, break down, and understand. The two-world model of reality helps tremendously in attempting to explain many of the motives and notions which surround the human life and why humans do what they do. These ten creation stories, which have ancient roots in the tribes of India, are just more examples of human attempts to understand and make tangible human life and its purpose and beginnings. By creating a two-world model of reality to separate the gods (the non-understandable and intangible) from man (the understandable and tangible), much is helped to be deciphered, broken down and explained. Word Count: 1095 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Understanding the misunderstood Art from different cultures.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Understanding the Misunderstood Art From Different Cultures By Kate Woods Art is a medium used by people world wide to express their ideas, their fears, and their joys. The artist takes the experiences of life and translates them into a visual object, rich in colors, shapes and sizes, for all the world to observe. As a casual observer of art, one is able to relive the feeling or experience the artist was trying to display, if only for a brief moment in time. No matter what cultural background one comes from, art appreciation and enjoyment erases the barriers and the limits, and allows cross-cultural understanding and appraisal. Art has always relied heavily upon universal symbols. One of the most well known universal symbols is the cross, meaning of course, religion. Religion of a culture is one of the most frequently misjudged and stereotyped aspects From the prehistoric times of the cave man to present day, art has depicted religious scenes native to a specific culture. This is where most of the cultural boundaries lie. To one person, a smiling monkey can instill a primal feeling of fear, while to another the first reaction is one of amusement. This difference in reaction is based upon religious upbringing, and nothing more. To certain culture, a smiling monkey is the scariest thing they could ever imagine, and to another, it means laughter. A close minded person viewing an ancient religious mask would see nothing more than nonsense, while one who wishes to understand art would see the beauty of that culture and it's beliefs, and would try to place themselves in a way so that they may understand the original meaning of the mask, and form an educated opinion on it. Anyone can enjoy a piece of art, but what is it that makes a piece of art "good"? Is it the realism of the piece? Or the absolute perfectness of a sculpture? Maybe good art is abstract, an array of shapes put together to make a point. Or maybe good art is a classical sculpture that catches the light just so and brings a warm smile to the viewers face. Is it a measure of craftsmanship? A measure of mediums used? A measure of technique? Or is it just a measure of how it affects the viewer? Is good art visually irritating or visually pleasing? The beauty of art is impossible to define, for it's beauty inherently lies in the eye of the beholder. As Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said, "Beauty is the spiritual put into a form." So, in defining beauty, one is attempting to define the spiritual beliefs behind the form. This means that that which is seen as ugly is just something that is new or is not fully understood by the viewer. Knowledge of art is just a measure of experience. It is impossible for someone to know art, but it is possible for someone to be well briefed in the field of art and have an understanding of it. No one can ever be an expert on art, because art is indefinite. There is no right or wrong, good or bad, and the rules change every day. When art is studied, the observer may note things such as symmetry and balance, but they may never understand why they are there. One may carefully measure the dimensions of an object, catalogue its mediums, its shapes, its patterns. One may even catalogue their opinions on the piece, but they will never fully capture the meaning of the piece, for seeing is not understanding. Maybe this is why art is studied. The absolute uncertainty is guaranteed, and it is human nature to want to understand what is not understood. This may be what draws people to art exhibits and museums, the primal urge to understand, to solve the great mystery of art, to be able to say "I get it, I fully understand art". This will never be possible. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Utilitarianism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "One death, and a thousand lives in exchange--it's simple arithmetic." -Raskolnikov Raskolnikov's mathematical evaluation of the moral dilemma presented to him in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment exemplifies the empirical view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism attempts to distinguish between right and wrong by measuring a decision based on its calculated worth. Raskolnikov appears to employ the fundamentals of utilitarianism by pitting the negative consequences of murdering his old landlady against the positive benefits that her money would bestow onto society. However, a true follower of utilitarianism would be outraged at Raskolnikov's claim that murdering the old woman can be considered morally right. Raskolnikov arbitrarily leaves out some necessary considerations in his moral "equation" that do not adhere to utilitarianism. A utilitarian would argue that Raskolnikov has not reached an acceptable solution because he has not accurately solved the problem. On the other hand, a non-utilitarian would reject even the notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a mathematical manner. He might contend that Raskolnikov's reasoning, and the entire theory of utilitarianism, cannot be used to judge morality because it rejects individual rights and contains no moral absolutes. A utilitarian bases his belief upon two principles: the theory of right actions and the theory of value. These two principles work together and serve as criteria for whether or not a utilitarian can deem an action morally right. First, the theory of right action argues that the morally right decision is the one whose consequences are at least as good as any other available option . For example, upon receiving the assignment for this paper, I could have chosen to ignore the assignment and spend my time on something more enjoyable, or I could have worked diligently on my paper, actually turning it in. Employing the utilitarian principle, I would have to weigh each option and then decide which one has consequences at least as good as or better than any of the other options possible. But, what standard do I use to gauge the consequences in order to choose the best alternative? The theory of right action does not stand alone as the only condition for ethical evaluations. To measure the given alternatives, I would have to apply the theory of value. The theory of value bases itself on the premise that pleasure is the only thing valuable in itself and as an end. Mill clearly states, "that all desirable things are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain ." In my moral dilemma, I had to take each alternative and calculate the total amount of pleasure that each would produce, minus the total amount of pain each alternative would induce. So while not doing the paper might give me the most amount of immediate pleasure, the pain that I would incur upon receiving an F in my class would greatly reduce the amount of net pleasure. On the other hand, I might experience some pain (due to boredom, frustration, etc.) from writing the paper. However, this amount of pain would be outweighed by the pleasure of receiving an A on it, thus in turn raising my GPA, making my parents happy, graduating with honors, securing a six-figure salary job, marrying the perfect man, and having 2.5 kids. Therefore, utilitarianism not concerned with just the short-term consequences of the decision nor with the sole effects on the agent himself. A utilitarian must consider the long-term effects and the amount of pleasure or pain that others will experience as a result of his decision. The agent cannot just consider his personal level of pleasure or pain. In fact, there may be cases where the utilitarian's right decision may cause the agent only pain. However, in accordance to the greatest good for the greatest number philosophy of utilitarianism, the decision that is morally right produces the greatest amount of net pleasure for everyone involved. Raskolnikov seems to be employing utilitarianism when he justifies the murder of his landlady. According to Raskolnikov, he has two available options: murdering the old woman and giving away her money to benefit society or letting her live and watching the money waste away in a monastery when she dies of natural causes. Apparently, Raskolnikov has formulated an equation in which the old woman's death has a greater positive differential between the pleasure and pain than not murdering her. He states that the pleasure the old woman's money would bring to the poor would outweigh the pain inflicted upon her. Although Raskolnikov's reasoning seems to be a clear example of the utilitarian principle, in reality it simplifies utilitarianism to the point of distortion. A utilitarian would argue that Raskolnikov has not shown the murder to be morally justifiable because Raskolnikov abstracts the situation, does not develop key variables of utilitarianism, and thus has not accurately solved the problem. First, Raskolnikov does not fulfill the requirements for the theory of right action. Whereas the theory of right action deems an act morally right if it is the best choice out of all available options, Raskolnikov simplifies the situation and ignores other available options. Murdering the woman is not the only possibility for Raskolnikov if he truly wants to better society. He could, for example, steal the money which would inflict less pain on the old woman. He could find alternative ways to raise money (fundraising, donations, etc.) which would cancel out any factor of pain. Both alternatives would produce a greater amount of net pleasure than the single, drastic option Raskolnikov has considered. Raskolnikov has also not applied the theory of value because he has not weighed all the consequences accurately. In measuring the level of pleasure and pain associated with each outcome, a utilitarian must base his evaluation on the probabilities of all likely consequences. However, Raskolnikov, in his subjectivity of the situation, has not considered the likeliness of several possibilities. Raskolnikov might be caught in the act. He might prove to be ineffective in helping society. Mill clearly warns against using the utilitarian thought in trying to fix something as large and general as society . Therefore, Raskolnikov may cause a high degree of pain with no resulting pleasure to show for it. It is easy to see why Raskolnikov thinks that the old woman's life is expendable. However, his reasoning is not applicable towards a utilitarian definition of "morally right". Only in an abstracted situation as the one Raskolnikov portrays, can his simplified conclusion be considered. In reality, his reasoning leaves out several elements such as numerous alternatives and unforseeable consequences, which true utilitarian arguments do not take for granted. The difference between utilitarian arguments, which Raskolnikov's reasoning does reflect to some extent, and non-utilitarian arguments, is that non-utilitarian moral theories do not cancel out an individual's pain as easily. Even if Raskolnikov could prove to the old woman that her death is the morally right decision according to utilitarianism, I doubt that she would go along with the plan. She would not be so hasty to overlook her personal pain, although it is outweighed by the positive consequences of her murder. A non-utilitarian would argue that one cannot simply dismiss the factor of pain, even if overshadowed by a greater amount of pleasure. In Raskolnikov's reasoning the pain of the old woman could never compete with the pleasure gained by society; therefore her suffering is tossed aside. This is because the theory of value cannot measure the value of an intangible quality such as life. However, a non-utilitarian would contend that the human life of an individual should be valued more than any other consideration, especially one as superficial as money, because once it is taken away, it is irrevocable. They would also assert that because utilitarianism values only those things which promote pleasure, it does not value human life. Life, like pleasure, is valuable in itself. A non-utilitarian would not look at moral dilemmas with the calculated objectivity that one uses when looking at a mathematical equation. To a non-utilitarian a human life holds a tremendous amount of value, a value that cannot be quantified into simplistic factors and then dismissed. Another problem that a non-utilitarian might have with Raskolnikov's use of utilitarianism is that his reasoning is not held to any moral absolutes. If Raskolnikov could prove that an act of murder was morally acceptable through a utilitarian equation, then anyone could calculate such heinous actions. We would have mobs of people murdering their rich, old landladies because they would feel that they are justified, if only they donate some of the money to charity. Anarchy and a disregard for human life would ensue if everyone subscribed to Raskolnikov's thinking. A non-utilitarian would argue that moral absolutes provide a standard by which people can gauge the morality of their decisions. However, in utilitarianism, there are no moral absolutes. So, who provides the standards to make sure that people do not feel justified in committing murder? Unfortunately, Mill does not make allowances for competent judges, so any practitioner of utilitarianism must come up with his own scale to measure pleasure and pain (and in turn morality). As we see in the Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is not a competent judge. Therefore, he commits an immoral act, while feeling justified because he the utilitarian theory protects him. In conclusion, utilitarianism is the most democratic of moral theories. The greatest good for the greatest number mentality secures justice for the majority but fails to provide the rights due to the individual. However, unlike our democratic government, which employs a system of checks and balances to regulate itself, utilitarianism has no set standards to deem certain acts wrong. Raskolnikov demonstrates the mathematical objectivity of utilitarianism, although he miscalculates somewhat in his justification of murder. In such a calculated manner, personal pain and suffering are dismissed in lieu of the emphasis placed on monetary value. So while utilitarian would describe his formula as "the greatest good for the greatest number", a non-utilitarian would characterize it as "the happiness of many overshadowing the happiness of the individual". f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\utopia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Utopias are generally said to be societies in which the political, social and economic troubles hampering its inhabitants has been done away with. Instead the state is there to serve the people and ensure the peacefulness and happiness of everyone. The word utopia, which means "no place" in Greek, was first used to mean a perfect society in 1516 in the publication of Saint Thomas More's story "Utopia". The story depicted life as it was with its people and social institutions on an imaginary island. More's Utopia gained critical acclaim and a wide audience. The term was subsequently used by all prominent social thinkers and visionaries to define other concepts of this kind. During the 19th century many attempts were made to actually establish communities which followed the beliefs of a utopian society. Most were experiments in utopian socialism. Although they differed considerably in their specific views, most of them agreed that ideal societies could be created without much difficulty. They felt all that was needed was to have the formation of a few small, cooperative communities made up of their followers. The comte de Saint-Simon regarded technological progress and large scale economic organization as being the most important keys to the establishment of these communities. It was felt that industrial growth was the key to happiness for people in the future. Another visionary, Fourier, was quite the opposite of Saint-Simon. He Spoke strongly against the use of industry. His opinion was that agricultural communities would be better suited for this situation. He favored these communities as he saw them as small, self-sufficient and more importantly, free from the restraints that were being imposed by civilization. Experimental societies based on the theories of the utopians were also set up in Europe and the Unites States. They included Robert Owen's cooperative communities in New Harmony, lnd., and New Lanark, Scotland. Most of these did not survive long. One of the longer lasting of these communities was the Oneida Community. It lasted from 1848 to 1881. By the middle of the 19th century the utopian socialists were beginning to be eclipsed by more militant radical movements. These included anarchism and Marxism. In more modern times, utopianism has more frequently been used to suggest a naive and impractical approach to reality. Most comes by way of literature with stories such as a way to expose modern societies social ills. Some prominent examples of this type of writing include George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World". The places mentioned in those stories were all imaginary. Such a place does not exist in the world as we know it today. Therefore the word imaginary comes into play. I have heard of places that have experimented with the concept of a utopian environment but none have truly succeeded. One example is the community in Chicago which George Pullman attempted to control. He attempted to create a community in which every person was taken care for, all had adequate housing, medical attention and so forth. In return everyone would work for Pullman's company. The better he provided for his workers, the better he expected their attitude towards working for him would be. Not everything turned out as planned though. A panic in 1893 lead to Pullman lowering the employees wages, he did not however lower the employees rent and other charges in the company town. This lead to what was called the Pullman strike. The anticipated utopia had turned into a dystopia. (A dystopia would be the exact opposite of a utopia.) Federal troops arrived on July 4th to try to control the unrest. Rioting broke out and several strikers were killed. It wasn't until July 10th that the troops were able to control the situation. The word utopia however does not necessarily have to be used to define a society. A utopia can also be used to define a certain situation as it is perceived by an individual. A person who feels that their life at the specific point in time is perfect or a person who is involved with a certain group or organization can very well feel that they are living in a utopic way. Regardless of what others may feel, These people feel content that their choices are the right ones. These choices are not always the right ones however. Let's take the example of the Koresh commune in Waco, Texas. The people who migrated to this place did so by their own choice. It was their belief that the ideas on how to live shared by David Koresh were the right ones. They felt that this was the way that they wanted to live their lives. The inhabitants disagreed with the ways of society and chose to live in a way completely shut off from the rest of the world. Meanwhile, to the outside world was well aware that what was going on in the commune was not right. There were reports of child abuse, and sexual misconduct. This lead to a stand off between the followers of Koresh and the military. Unfortunately that situation got out of hand and there were resulting casualties. This goes to show how hard one would fight and how much one would gibe to be able to achieve that perfect life which is dreamt about by so many. They went as far as to give their lives. Another example of individuals striving for what they consider to be a utopic society for themselves is the formation of different social-political and at times militant groups of different kinds. These kind of things have been appearing throughout history. Some were successful to a certain degree in their own right, while others have been complete failures. Let me say before I continue that I am not endorsing the beliefs of any particular group nor condemning others. I will merely try to give a brief over view of what they stood for. One example of these factions was the Black Panther Party. This was a group of African-Americans that formed in order to try to resolve some of the issues of civil rights for their people. They felt it was only right that they as people had the freedom that was given to others. They wanted the power to determine the destiny of the black community. They also felt that it was up to the government to provide employment or a guaranteed income for all of the people. The panthers also sought restitution for the slavery of their ancestors. These are a few of the demands that were put forth by the Black Panthers. Although many Americans at that time considered these demands to be excessive, the Black Panthers saw them as just. One could say that a society in which their demands were met could be considered a utopia. At least in the eyes of the Black Panthers. Another example that I can think of is the formation of the Nazis in Germany. The Nazis lead by Adolph Hitler also sought to get what they felt would be the right thing for their people. Few would argue though that their views were misguided though. They felt that the Aryan People were superior to the others. And with that in mind, they embarked on what they hoped would be a plan towards world domination. During World War II, the Nazis appeared to be indestructible. They conquered many territories and with that brought a terror to many people of Europe. Perhaps the most notorious result of these actions was the attempted genocide of the Jewish People. Nazis saw them as inferior people and therefore considered them expendable. The Nazis saw their actions as a way to preserve the type of world they felt was the right one. A utopia is not always what the majority sees as perfect, at times it is merely the beliefs shared by a certain group or individual. They sought their utopia, and millions of Jewish people were killed as a result. Everyday life can also reflect one's own pursuit of the perfect life. We see it everyday in a variety of ways. Yet we don't necessarily think of these events, happenings and life decisions in these terms. It can be from the most life changing decision we make, to the most mundane occurrences. The struggles of humans throughout the world reflect this. A person working at a factory, at an office or anywhere for that matter works hard because they want to earn as much money as they possibly can. They know that this money can be used for a variety of purposes that they hope will make their lives easier, happier and overall better. Maybe they'll be able to send their children to college. Perhaps a new car or a brand new wardrobe will make them feel complete. Maybe they will acquire a certain prestige they desire either from their economic or social status. People in general basically do everything they do to reach a goal in life. It is viewed as the final stop in a series of steps that lead to the end. The end being the place where one wins. Almost like a life-sized game of chutes and ladders. They seek their own private utopia. This holds true for families all over the United States and throughout the world. Even as I think about this, I'm living my life trying to reach a point where I may be happy. There are things in my wildest fantasies that would make my life perfect in my eyes. For starters, I'm writing this paper. Hopefully this will get me a decent grade. If I also get good grades on all my other classes this semester and for the rest of the time that I attend Roosevelt University I should receive my degree. With a degree in hand I'll go out into the job market in search of a place to work. If and when I settle down with a company I intend to start to save some money. With this money I hope to do a number of things. I want to pay off all debt that I've acquired for educational purposes. I would like to treat myself to a semi-new automobile. Doesn't have to be the most luxurious car in the world, but one that isn't in constant need of repair as is my current one is. I would like to save a little bundle on the side to be used as a down payment for a home. White picket fence, doghouse for rusty, the whole kit and caboodle. I've always dreamt of having a house that I could call my own. No one to tell me how I have to keep the place. By then I think it may be time to settle down. Perhaps I'd ask the woman of my dreams (if not, my current girlfriend will do.) to be my lawfully wedded wife. And in these turbulent times, maybe the marriage would even be a happy one. And if the Lord allows, I might even father a few little kids. In my house, I'd love to have a large screen t.v. and a laser disc player as I am a movie fanatic. A great big leather lazyboy in front of the t.v. would also be required. Electronic gizmos of all shapes and sizes would surround me. Then as my children grew older, I'd hope to be able to provide them with the opportunity to receive a college education, as this is key to success. To see them go on to do well for themselves would make me very proud. By then I would start to contemplate retirement. I'd hope to have a nice little nest egg stashed away so that I may live comfortably for the rest of my life. I hope to grow old peacefully, and as gruesome as this may sound, I hope that when my time does come, I die in my sleep. Never felling a thing. I know that many of the things I just mentioned may never happen. Many of my wishes are just that, wishful thinking. It is just a concept of a type of life I would like to live. Real or not. But after all, its MY private utopia. Plus we must remember that utopias in these times in their most technical definition do not exist. They are merely ideas and concepts of the world as man would wish it were. Being a man in this world of ours, I have my wishes too. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Virtues of my life.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Virtues of My Life In order to survive in 1996, there need to be at least some standards and goals of morality in a person's life. Moral excellence is definitely hard to achieve, but is definitely something to attempt. Personally, there are many distractions and obstructions the present day provides, creating a difficulty of direction in my own life. I need to overcome obstacles such as peer pressure in order to become a confident, successful person. The present day provides impediments which I believe I can overcome by way of morality and virtue. Order, courage, patience, and faith are all virtues necessary for personal achievement in my life. The first virtue I have chosen is order. In agreement with Russell Kirk, I also believe that "order is the path we follow, or the pattern by which we live with purpose and meaning." Order is something that directs in our everyday lives, a working condition we cannot live without. Without order there is chaos, and with chaos there is room for little virtue. Order is important because it provides life with stability and direction. As an example of a personal order, the school schedule which governs my academic studies is a type of order, setting specifics of where and when I should be. Order helps in my life if I am able and willing to create a schedule for each day, specifically stating when I should be doing what. If I can achieve order in my own life, worries and concerns will be eliminated by means of order that will easily become habit. Russell Kirk also states, "Order is the first need of the soul. It is not possible to love what one ought to love, unless we recognize some principles of order by which to govern ourselves." Because of the needs of our soul, I again agree with Russell Kirk that religion, morality itself, and our everyday feelings are derivatives of order. Nothing can be achieved without some sort of order, but we must first recognize that the things we desire can be achieved only by gaining order. Order is truly the first need of human life. Courage is the second virtue I have chosen. Courage is a virtue needed to conquer fear or despair. The virtue of courage is important because it can be applied in numerous situations. If people possess courage, they can be strong and stable in situations where they might feel uncomfortable. Since there are many things in life which are stressful and unfamiliar, such as apprehension of the first day on a job, first day at a new school, or what you will find behind door number two, courage will allow you to overcome these suspicions and fears. Personally, courage will help me become more confident in the activities in which I participate. I can feel better about myself and not be so timid, but at the same time, courage is not something which I can abuse. If courage is abused it can easily generate into conceit or egotism. Egotism can easily be obtained by overworking courage. Courage levels out to be the happy medium between bashfulness and conceit. The third virtue I have chosen which will hopefully lead to self-improvement is patience. Patience is the tolerance and the ability to wait. Patience is necessary for life because throughout life there is waiting to be done. Because half of life is spent in waiting, there are few desirable alternatives to being patient. If people are not patient, they can easily become frustrated and stressed when they realize the length of time they may have to wait. Patience is a required trait, and there are absolutely no shortcuts for waiting. Personally, patience can be applied to my life because there is suspense and waiting for the rest of my life and there is no alternative for even my own waiting. I must wait to become an adult at 18, I must wait to reach the legal drinking age, I must wait to finish high school and college, and I must wait to marry the love of my life. It is not possible to age faster, finish colle f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Voltair Author and Philosopher.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Voltaire French Author and Philosopher 1694 - 1778 A.D. Francois Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) was born on November 21, 1694 in Paris. Voltaire's style, wit, intelligence and keen sense of justice made him one of France's greatest writers and philosophers. Young Francois Marie received an excellent education at a Jesuit school. He left school at 16 and soon formed friendships with a group of sophisticated Parisian aristocrats. Paris society sought his company for his cleverness, humor and remarkable ability to write verse. In 1717 he was arrested for writing a series of satirical verses ridiculing the French government, and was imprisoned in the Bastille. During his eleven months in prison he wrote his first major play, "Oedipe," which achieved great success in 1718. He adopted his pen name "Voltaire" the same year. In 1726 Voltaire insulted a powerful young nobleman and was given two options: imprisonment or exile. He chose exile and from 1726 to 1729 lived in England. While in England Voltaire was attracted to the philosophy of John Locke and ideas of the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton. After his return to Paris he wrote a book praising English customs and institutions. The book was thought to criticize the French government and Voltaire was forced to flee Paris again. In 1759 Voltaire purchased an estate called "Ferney" near the French-Swiss border where he lived until just before of his death. Ferney soon became the intellectual capitol of Europe. Throughout his years in exile Voltaire produced a constant flow of books, plays, pamphlets, and letters. He was a voice of reason, and an outspoken critic of religious intolerance and persecution. Voltaire returned to a hero's welcome in Paris at age 83. The excitement of the trip was too much for him and he died in Paris. Because of his criticism of the church Voltaire was denied burial in church ground. He was finally buried at an abbey in Champagne. In 1791 his remains were moved to a resting place at the Pantheon in Paris. In 1814 a group of "ultras" (right-wing religious) stole Voltaire's remains and dumped them in a garbage heap. No one was the wiser for some 50 years. His enormous sarcophagus (opposite Rousseau's) was checked and the remains were gone. (see Orieux, Voltaire, vol. 2 pp. 382-4.) His heart, however, had been removed from his body, and now lays in the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris. His brain was also removed, but after a series of passings-on over 100 years, disappeared after an auction. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\We are not alone.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Outline Thesis: We once believed that Earth is the only planet in the Universe that supports life. Today there is overwhelming evidence that not only suggests, but supports the very real possibility that we may share the Universe with other intelligent beings. I. Things in the Sky A. The First Documented Sighting B. The Fever Spreads 1. Pilot Encounters 2. The Lights in the Sky II. Dents in the Earth III. Unexplained Phenomenon A. The Writing on the Wall B. Geodes IV. What About Religion? A. The Christian Bible B. The Ancient Greeks C. The American Indian V. Conclusion We are not Alone. On June 24th, 1947 while searching for the remains of a downed Marine C-46 transport, lost somewhere in the Mount Ranier area, a young Idahoan businessman named Kenneth Arnold spotted something that would change his life forever. Just north of his position flying at an altitude of 9,500 feet and an unprecedented airspeed of 1,700 mph he spotted nine circular aircraft flying in formation. According to his estimate the aircraft were approximately the size of a DC-4 airliner ( Jackson 4). This account was the first sighting to ever receive a great deal of media attention. This sighting gave birth to the phrase "flying Saucer" coined by a reporter named Bill Begrette. Although not the first UFO sighting in history, Kenneth Arnolds account is considered to be the first documented UFO sighting. The following day Mr. Arnold discovered that in addition to his sighting there were several others in the Mount Ranier area that same day (Jackson 6). When most of think of UFO sightings we picture an unemployed, half- crazed, alcoholic hick living in a trailer park in the middle small town USA. Often times this description, although a little exaggerated, seems to fit fairly well. In the past when the average person spotted a UFO they were quickly discounted as a kook or con-artist in search of either attention or monetary reward. It wasn't until more reputable figures in our society began to come forward that we that we started looking at this issue a little more seriously. An article written 1957, entitled " Strange lights over Grenada" written by Aime' Michel describes just such an account: At 10:35 p.m. on September the 4th, 1957 Cpt Ferreira ordered his wing to abandon a planned exercise and execute a 50 degree turn to port. Ferreira was attempting to get a closer look at what he described as brilliant, pulsating light hanging low over the horizon. When the turn was completed he noticed that the object had turned too. It was still directly over his left. There was absolutely no doubt that the orange light was shadowing the F-84s. For another 10 minutes, it followed the jets without changing direction or appearance. The pilots watched as four small yellow discs broke away from the large red object and took up a formation on either side of it. All at once the large luminous disc shot vertically upward while the smaller discs shot straight towards the F-84s. In an instant the flat disc sped overhead in a hazy blur and vanished. When Cpt Ferriera was questioned by Portuguese Air Force Investigators he was quoted as saying: "Please don't come out with the old explanation that we were being chased by the planet Venus, weather balloons, or freak atmospheric conditions. What we saw up there was real and intelligently controlled. And it scared the hell out of us. (32) This is only one of literally hundreds of pilot accounts that have been documented and cross verified by other sources. To date the Portuguese Government has taken no official position as to what the luminous discs were. The United States has had more than it's fair share of unexplained aerial objects. In February of 1960 the N.A.A.D.S. (North American Air Defense System) spotted a satellite of unknown origin orbiting the Earth. They knew that it wasn't a Soviet satellite because it was orbiting perpendicular to trajectory produced by a Soviet launch. It also had a mass estimated at 15 metric tons, no evidence of booster rockets and traveled at speed three times faster than any known satellite. The satellite orbited for two weeks and disappeared without a trace. Before its disappearance, the object which appeared to give off a red glow, was photographed over New York several times (Jackson 19). Lights in the sky aren't the only evidence that suggests we may have cosmic company. In the book "A History of UFO Crashes", the author Kevin D. Randal gives detailed accounts of numerous UFO crashes in history. Perhaps the most famous of these crashes occurred on July 4th, 1947 in Roswell New Mexico. The crash at Roswell was witnessed from afar by over a hundred people. Until just recently, no one who was involved in the recovery operation was talking, but thanks to continued pressure from UFO enthusiast our government has begun to declassify much of its UFO related material. Perhaps more startling are than the government documents are the accounts given by local police and members of the recovery team. According to one unnamed witness, a member of the Roswell recovery team: The crash site was littered with pieces of aircraft. Something about the size of a fighter plane had crashed, the metal was unlike anything I'd ever seen before. I picked up a piece the size of a car fender with one hand, it couldn't have more than a quarter of a pound and no matter how hard I tried I couldn't even get it to bend. (10) In my opinion the most fascinating piece of evidence to come out of the Roswell crash is the alien autopsy film. Apparently there was more than bits and pieces of spaceship recovered at Roswell. There is an Air Force video account of an autopsy being performed on a life form that doesn't share the common characteristics of organ development found in life forms on this planet. The film is silent and labeled "Autopsy, Roswell, July 1947" (Randal 17). As difficult as the Roswell evidence is to explain or discount it pales in comparison to the physical evidence left by our ancestors. An Illustration taken from a Nuremburg Broadsheet Tells how men and women "saw a very frightful spectacle". At sunrise April 14th, 1561 "globes, crosses and tubes began to fight one another", the event continued for about an hour. Afterward they fell to ground in flames, minutes later a "black, spear like object appeared". In a Basal Broadsheet dated August 7th, 1566 large black and white globes are seen over Dasel, Switzerland. Both events occurred in a time period when there should have nothing more than birds and bees filling our skies. They each considered to be Divine warnings at the time (Gould 95-96). Ancient physical evidence isn't limited to newspaper illustration and sketches on cave wall. Perhaps the most astounding and unexplainable pieces of physical evidence are a pair of geodes. Both are believed to be approximately 1,800 years old and when carefully examined were identified as electrical cells. One of the cells which was discovered in Iraq was tested and produced 2 volts of electricity. The other, which was discovered by a pair of Arizona rock hounds, was damaged when the sedimentary encrustation was being removed and therefore couldn't be tested (Montgomery 221). Since the dawn of time man has told stories of heavenly and demonic beings coming to rule, teach, torment, seduce and provide salvation. Every culture has myths of ancient gods who strode through the heavens. The American Indians had the cachinas who taught them to farm and saved them from numerous cataclysms. Greece had Zeus who threw lightning bolts from his finger tips and Apollo crossed the sky in his golden chariot. The Christians have Ecclesiastes who encountered the "ant people" and rode through the skies with them from Babylon to Israel. Across the entire globe we find drawings on cave walls that resemble men in space suits and objects that greatly resemble flying saucers. The sacred artwork of the Hopi Indian when is without a doubt a representation of the waves produced by modern day oscilloscopes (Montgomery 225-237). The Hopis are also native to the area where one of the electrical cells were found. It could be that these things are no more than mere coincidence, but I doubt it. Man in his arrogance is reluctant to believe that we may share Gods vast, glorious universe with other beings of intelligence. We sometimes fail to realize that if the Earth were a day old, the race of man would only have been here for 13 minutes. If you couple that with the fact that there are Black Holes and White Dwarfs millions of years older than our sun, it increases the improbability that we are the only ones out here. In the preceding text I have produced a limited sampling of the volumes of evidence available. I will close this paper on a quote from Ecclesiastes I:9 "there is no new thing under the sun", and that includes intelligent life. Works Cited Ecclesiastes. Holy Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1976. Gould, Robert. Oddities. New York: Bell PC, 1965. Jackson, Robert. UFO's: Sightings of Strange Phenomena in the Skies. New Jersey: Chartwell Books, 1995 Michel, Aime'. "Strange lights over Grenada." Fate Magazine. Aug. 1957. 29-32 Montgomery, Ruth. Aliens Among Us. New York: G.P Putnum's Sons, 1985 Randle, Kevin. A History of UFO Crashes. Avon Books,1995 f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Wealth.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anukool Lakhina ID 203, Lindholm Question #3 October 10th, 1996 THE CAPITALIST FUTURE : A CONSEQUENCE OF CALVINIST ANNUNCIATION In his work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber predicts that the future will be a world of "mechanized perfection" devoid of "religious and ethical meaning." In this world modern capitalism becomes a self sustaining system no longer needing the Calvinist religious impetus that had inspired the work ethic. Weber argues that the future will be a capitalistic society, where the proletariat and the bourgeoisie alike, will not be driven by religious motivation, but instead by a constant struggle to benefit from the system. He reasons that this future of the capitalist society is a direct consequence of the teachings of Calvinism. The Calvinist work ethic of 'living to work' forms the core of modern capitalism. This ethic originated from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and the notion of a transcendental God. Predestination decrees that God has already picked out who those "predestined into everlasting life" (100) and those "foreordained to everlasting death" (100). Calvinists also believe that God, a distant "grand conception" (164) who is "beyond all human comprehension," (164) is unreachable. Both these beliefs together eliminated any possibility of appeasing God through service or sacrifice. The answer to the question whether believers were the chosen or the damned could thus neither be influenced nor known. If, however, one turned his work into a 'calling,' restricting any desire to wasteful pleasure, he could experience a feeling of assurance that he is indeed a member of the Elect. Calvinism preached this ascetic ethic of hard work and complete absence of frivolous waste of money and time. As a result, the work ethic of the population shifted from 'working to live' to 'living to work.' Traditional capitalism which relied on the "greedy maximization of profit in a one-shot enterprise," (14) became the rational modern capitalism, a continuous cycle involving the constant "productive investment of capital." (172) The Calvinist teachings demanded honest dealings in business, steady production and sales, and continuous savings and reinvestment which no doubt led to phenomenal business growth and success. Weber illustrates in the following quote: "When the limitation of consumption is combined with the release of acquisitive activity, the inevitable practical result is obvious: accumulation of capital through ascetic compulsion to save." (172) This "diligent and frugal" (175) attitude made people richer and "material goods gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men." (181) The dependence on external goods went from the "light cloak which can be thrown aside at any moment" (181) to a necessity, or as Weber puts it, an "iron cage." (181) The so called acetic lifestyle now led to an increased dependence on materialism. This is unavoidable, since a religion such as Calvinism which preaches "industry and frugality" (175) could not help but produce riches. An increase in riches however, led to a "proportionate increase in pride, in anger, in the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life." (175) As a result, the ascetic 'see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil' value lost its importance. In John Wesley's words : "wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion." (175) In essence, the "form of [the Calvinist] religion remained" but the "spirit [continues to] swiftly vanish away." (175) The Calvinist values have now "faded into the self absorbed luxury of the wealthy." (19) Calvinism had become rationalized into a tradition and the original religious doctrines began to die out. Weber illustrates this claim by using the United States as an example: "In the field of its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions." (182) While the "Puritans wanted to work in a calling, we are [now] forced to do so." (181) Calvinist-inspired asceticism had created "the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order" (181) which now "determines the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with direct economic acquisitions." (181) Capitalism, unlike the religion that had originally motivated it, has not perished or been replaced by another charismatic religious movement. "Victorious capitalism rests on mechanical foundations"(182) and its Calvinist supports have now stultified. The entire conception of the calling now "prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs." (182) The now disenchanted world has lost its God. It is a cold, heartless but very efficient machine. The work ethic of modern capitalism, although similar to the Calvinist ethic, remains but the religious reasoning behind the ethic has eroded away. Constant competition among firms who struggle to stay in and benefit from the system has given Capitalism the "character of [a] sport." (182) It is now a self sustaining system guided by Adam Smith's invisible hand, no longer needing any religious motivations. Are we to live in this "mechanized petrification" (182) forever? Weber reasons that there is no way we can know about the future. "No one knows who will live in this cage in the future." (182) He does however postulate that "new prophets" (182) may arise or "a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals" may come to pass. He also suggests another possibility that of the embellishment of the "mechanized petrifaction" (182) with a "sort of convulsive self importance."(182) There is, however, no way we can know what will occur in the future at the present time. Until then, we are all "specialists without spirit, [and] sensualists without heart." (182) (922 words) WORKS CITED Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Roxbury Publishing Company: Los Angeles, rpt. 1995. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\welfare reform a matter of justice.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Welfare Reform: a Matter of Justice Medicaid. It is the United States Federal Government program to aid states in providing health care to the poor and impoverished who otherwise could not receive proper medical care. In 1995 the federal government spent a total of $77.4 Billion on Medicaid. This is up almost 300 percent from $20.1 Billion in 1984, only 10 years earlier. In the same 10 years state spending on Medicaid rose over 250 percent from $16.5 Billion to $58.2 Billion. Under the current Medicaid programs, Medicaid spending will increase at an annual rate of 10 percent, to an estimated $262 Billion by the year 2002. Medicaid spending has grown much faster than the general rate of inflation. For the Federal Government, Medicaid expenditures have grown from only 1 percent of the national budget in 1970 to over 6 percent in 1995, while state expenditures went from 8.1 percent to 13.5 percent in the same time span. This increase can be attributed to multiple factors. First, through a series of mandates, the Federal Government has expanded the eligibility for Medicaid, requiring states to serve more people. They also increased the standards required of nursing homes. This led to higher nursing home costs which were passed directly back to the Medicaid program. The current average cost to care for a patient in a nursing home is nine times greater than that of a single dependent child. The price of medical care, in general, has drastically increased. Expensive new technology and procedures are a large part of this increase. The need for these costly new technologies is not expected to decrease, the cost will just be passed on to the public through higher prices and higher Medicaid spending. And finally, an estimated 10 percent of Medicaid payments is wasted on fraud. This is mostly fraud by health care providers, with a minuscule amount from patients with forged documents. From 1985 to 1993 Medicaid enrollment has gone up 53 percent. In the early 1970's, Medicaid recipients were at 8 percent. Today more than 13 percent of the U.S. is receiving Medicaid's assistance. If there was no Medicaid, current cuts in employer sponsored medical coverage would have increased the uninsured population from 41 million today to an estimated 50 million people. The politicians are finding themselves in a complete catch-22. If they try to cut Medicaid spending, they fear they will appear cruel and insensitive to the poor and disadvantaged voters, and also voters who sympathize with their plight. But if they don't try to cut spending, they will be criticized for not trying to cure our current budget deficit. But while our elected officials sit on the fence, trying not to offend anyone, they alienate everyone by not acting while this Leviathan digs us deeper and deeper into debt. In his Justice as Entitlement theory, Robert Nozick describes his view of social justice. He states that aside from nontransferable natural rights like life, liberty and happiness, justice is to do with holdings, and that government is to have as small a part in the lives of its citizens as possible. This is his idea of the Minimal State. Justice as Entitlement, as he puts it, has three major parts. First is how people acquire their holdings, Justice in Acquisition. This states that if a person acquires their holdings by their own labor, without violating the rights of others, then this holding is just. It is each persons responsibility to work to support themselves and their families. Next is the idea behind transacting business, or Justice in Transfer. This principal states that if a person gives something of their own free will, then this holding is also just. These are the only fair, reasonable, just ways for a person to acquire anything. Any other way, and the holding will be considered unfair. Finally, there needs to be a way to correct unjust holdings. If a person can provide proof that their holdings have been taken unjustly, then the holding is unjust and reconciliation can be made. However these must be specific claims with specific proof of specific actions. Next, the Minimal State is Nozick's idea of what a government should, and should not, be. He states that government has the obligation to protect its citizens from theft, force, fraud, and also to enforce contracts. He states that any more extensive a government will violate its citizens natural rights. He also says that a government must not prohibit activities of its citizens for their own good or protection, and it cannot force any citizen to aid another citizen against their own will. With these two major principals we can determine, basically, what his views on the current plans for welfare reform. With the Minimal State principal, we can clearly see that in Nozick's view, the state has clearly overstepped its bounds. It is forcing U.S. citizens to pay taxes that will directly be spent on medical care for impoverished citizens. Many are paying against their will. Some citizens think that the health care of these people should care for themselves or be cared for by their families. which leads to his Justice as Entitlement principal. These needy people are receiving money, or holdings, from the state. They did not work for this, it was a transfer from the taxpayers of this country. Since many feel that this is not their responsibility, it is against their will that this money is spent on caring for financially challenged individuals and families. I believe that Robert Nozick would consider the entire Welfare system to be unjust. The American philosopher John Rawls, however, has a far different idea of social justice. In his theory of Justice as Fairness, Rawls states, like Robert Nozick, that every person has inherent rights to basic liberties. These include life, freedom, happiness, all nontransferable, and the one transferable liberty, the right to hold property. But from there, their views differ. One of the main points in the Justice as Fairness theory, is the Principal of Difference. Rawls states that all positions within a society should be open to all. Everyone should have an equal chance of getting to any position within reason. He also states that wealth should be distributed to everyone based on their contributions. The owner who puts up capital for the business, the manager who has the knowledge to make the product, and the laborer who puts in the hard work and effort are all entitled to their own portion of the wealth that has been created through their concerted efforts. He also states in this principal that disadvantaged people should be given compensation if their needs require it. Many people work hard and still can't make ends meet. In the U.S., the poor are disadvantaged in more than one way. The higher education required by many professions are beyond the means of most. Not only can they not get the education to be competitive for jobs, they are exploited by the employers who may not be compensating their hard efforts fairly. These problems should be dealt with by the government. They should provide for the needs that the disadvantaged incur that they can not take care of for themselves, especially something as basic as decent health care. The current programs are not enough, there are many people going untreated, and now they want to cut funding, this will prove fatal for some people. In these tough economic times, times of downsizing, layoffs, and cutbacks, the people who continue to be hurt most are the poor. With funding for education being cut, they have less of a chance of being competitive in the current job market. They are unqualified for the higher paying jobs that haven't lost medical benefits. Nor can they afford personal health insurance with the meager wages they earn. These hard working men and women, their dependent children, and their convalescent parents also need medical coverage. They need x-rays, chemotherapy, to have babies, tonsillectomies, infant immunization, and nursing home care. If current plans for Medicaid reform are enacted, many will loose even this last chance to receive decent medical care. John Stuart Mill's theory of Utility states that an action is good if it produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. While all U.S. taxpayers would like to close the budget deficit within the next six years, most would not want to see the elderly, expectant mothers, and especially children, without acceptable medical care. Under this philosophy, reform would be preferred, and greatly appreciated, but not at the cost of these innocent peoples health and lives. Using Immanual Kant's theory of the Categorical Imperative, one can get another view of whether we are doing the right thing. The categorical imperative states that if you take any action and universalize it, make it applicable to any person in the same situation, and it remains acceptable, then this action is good. If someone had the means and was given the chance to aid another person who desperately needed it, would there be any circumstances in which it would be good not to offer your assistance. No rational human could refuse such an act (if they were using the categorical imperative to judge by). Medicaid is just a centralized system of doing just that. Even though it's not working to its best possible effect, could anyone refuse to take part? People, in this country, need to overlook their own greed. If they see that the money they work hard for is going towards bettering human life, even just one, I believe that should be reward enough. I don't believe that my money is being used to its best extent in respect to Medicaid. There needs to be major reforms in the way money is apportioned and used. There also needs to be a decrease in the need for Medical. Through incentives to businesses for providing health coverage to applicable employees, i think that this is an attainable goal. The current state of the Medicaid program is grim, but what would be the state of our nation without it. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\what is is to be human.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Question of an Answer: What it is to be Human The body is socially constructed; and in this paper we explore the various and ever- changing constructions of the body, and thus of the embodied self......The one word, body, may therefore signify very different realities and perceptions of reality.....(Synnot 1992, 43) It has been said that in order to understand life and society, we as people must first understand ourselves. Who are we as a people? Who are we as individuals? Who are we as humans? These questions all present themselves when discussing a topic such as this. I believe that it is indeed important to ask questions such as these, and also as important to answer them. All of this assuming of course, that there is one specific answer. My problem begins here, in that I do not believe that there is one defined answer to these questions. As you will see, many "great philosophic minds" have different views and beliefs relating to these questions, and it is my job to sort through these different beliefs and discover...... What it is to be human It seems that for ages the human body has been studied and inspected. However, literal "inspection" only takes us so far. As humans, we all know that there are parts of our "being" that are intangible. Take thoughts, dreams, and things of the like. We know they exist, yet they are unable to be inspected scientifically (to any valuable degree at least). The distinction between beliefs begins here. How one views this intangible side of life with respect to the tangible, is the factor that defines one's beliefs. There are several ways in which one may view the body. A dualist is one who views the body and mind, or tangible and intangible, as two separate intities existing together to form one being. The principle of "Cogito, ergo sum," or in english, "I think, therefore I am." The "I" meaning the mind, and "I am" meaning the body. (Synnott 1992, 92) The tangible side of the person being bound of course, by the laws of biomechanics and gravity, and the intangible being bound by nothing but the laws of reasoning. ".....the body, from its nature, is always divisible and the mind is completely indivisible." (Descartes 1995, 70) Like anything, dualism comes with its pro's and con's. Many people choose to believe in the idea of dualism because of its truths. Obviously, we can all see that indeed, the body is real and tangible, and that the mind on the other hand is the intangible, although it too is real. Likewise, as evidence of dualism we have undoubtedly felt the physical as well as the non-physical. The physical being, exhaustion or heat. The non- physical perhaps being the "ah-ha" experience, learning something or even dreaming. Dualism however, does have its share of con's. Take for example, the actual evidence of this belief. No one has ever been able to explain totally how the mind and the body work together. How can a tangible reality coexist with an intangible one? This one question is the draw of most criticism of the belief, obviously because no one has been able to answer it. Along the same line of thinking, how does one explain the physical location of the mind, without giving it a physical nature? If I said that undoubtedly my mind is located in my brain, I have made it part of the brain, and thus into a physical, tangible intity. The same goes for wherever one would like the mind, or "soul." Dualism itself can be broken up into four types. Object dualism, value dualism, behavior dualism, and language dualism. (Kretchmar 1994, 37) Of the four, object and value are by far the two most prominent. Its important to understand that any dualist is an object dualist. The basis of object dualism is that of dualism itself, the idea that the mind and the body are separate intities. Value dualism however, is a bit different. A value dualist agrees that the mind and the body are separated, yet they value the mind over the body. A value dualist puts emphasis on the fact that the mind is superior to the body, and in effect supervises it. "The body is distanced from the thinking person because it is less capable." (Kretchmar 1994, 42) The attraction of value dualism is huge. The fact is that people simply cannot trust their senses (their body) all of the time. Kretchmar provides an excellent example of this: For example, playing center field, we see the batter take a mighty swing, hear a loud crack of the ball against the bat, and see the ball start on a trajectory that would take it over our head. We begin to run back to make the catch, but we have been deceived. The ball actually struck the end of the bat, and it turns out to be a short blooper that falls in front of us. (Kretchmar 1994, 42) It is facts like this that attract people toward the idea of a separate mind that is superior to a separate body. It seems that logic is indeed a better choice. Would logic have allowed our body to make the mistake? The truths in dualism have allowed it to make its way into much of our culture. In society today, it is very hard to escape dualistic thinking. Take the Christian view of death and afterlife for example. "Does not death mean that the body comes to exist by itself, separated from the soul, and that the soul exists by herself, separated from the body? What is death but that?" (Plato 1995, 68) Of all the type of dualism, value dualism is the most evident form found all around us. For example, here at The University of the Pacific, the course of study now known as "Sports Sciences," was formerly known as "Physical Education." Although the same course material is covered, the name was "upgraded" due to the fact that society seems to place much more importance on the academic side of the human than it does the physical. What would it be like if the physical were valued as much as the mental? Well thankfully there is a system of viewing the body that allows this mutual, equal importance to occur. Holism is a school of thought that views the mental and the physical on the same level. Holism actually incorporates four basic ideas, two stemming from the body, two stemming from the mind, all linking together. (Sverduk lecture 1996) The idea of holism is a defeat to the idea of mechanistic thinking which evolved between 500BC and 1300AD. (Sverduk lecture 1996) The idea of mechanistic thinking is that everything on earth can be explained by breaking it down and examining its parts. It is evident how often the body itself is taken in a mechanistic view, and indeed many are treated as if their body is a machine, doing anything to make it better, bigger, faster, and more efficient. With the mechanistic view of the body comes many methods of which to enhance it. "This obsession with body image has led to exponential increases in cosmetic surgery, weight-loss fads, muscle building, and even disturbing uses of new genetic engineering techniques." (Kimbrell 1992, 52) This view of the body even brings on several dualistic notions. The idea that we are "ghosts caught in machines." (Kimbrell 1992, 59) Obviously this notion is a harmful one, "Much of the stress and illness caused by the modern workplace is due to the fact that man is not machine." (Kimbrell 1992, 59) Holism, as I mentioned earlier, is a defeat to this mechanistic line of thinking. The basic idea is that the body is made from a little bit of a wide variety of things. Feelings, emotions, biomechanics, kinesiology, phyco-social aspects of activity, etc.. These factors can be set up into a quadrant system, allowing us to view them all separately. Being viewed separately, these things become "holons," each existing alone, while simultaneously existing as part of another. (Sverduke lecture 1996) All of these, along with many more things, make up the human. Take for example the action of weightlifting. On one hand, the lifter feels the hate, disgust, or confidence brought about by his action. This aspect falling into the upper-left quadrant. The athlete also feels the laws of biomechanics. Things like gravity and the laws of motion. All of these falling into the upper-right quadrant. Phyco-social aspects also enter into the lower-left hand quadrant. These are things like values and questions as to why the lifter is lifting (i.e.: to impress others, or for his own health). The last quadrant is reserved for the actual kinesiology of the lifter. He can feel his heart rate increase, his breathing increase, etc. A holistic view incorporates all four quadrants into the "complete" person. It is all of these "truths" that draw people to the idea of holism. For a holist, physical education is just as important as mental education. It is just as important to move intelligently as it is to think intelligently. Holism is a bit like a piece of paper. You cannot have a piece of paper with only one side. Each side is separate, yet each are essential to forming one total piece of paper. (Beal lecture 1996) Taking into consideration all of this information, I am now able to create my own personal philosophy as to what it is to be human. It is a very difficult task indeed, to sit and think solely about what comprises my human presence. To do so, one must consider values, ethics, and their beliefs. To be human, in my mind, is much more than merely the mind and the body. It seems strange to me that such a complex being could be explained by a school of thought such as dualism. Dualism seems a bit too vague. I believe that I would take a more holist approach to this question. Perhaps this is due to the fact that I can relate to all the sub-groups in a holistic approach. I have felt all of these areas, and therefore seem to believe a bit more in this idea. To me, the human is a being comprised of a mind that takes into consideration time and space, as well as emotions and feelings, and a body that exists kinetically and spiritually. The physical aspect of life is just as important as the mental one. A human is a being that experiences life with respect to all these areas, and works throughout there lives to create the best life they can. The human searches for, and completely defines his beliefs. I believe in the existential idea of existence proceeding essence. "....first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards defines himself." (Vanderzwagg 1969, 48) I do not believe that the human is born "into" a life, but works to create one. Whatever the human may be comprised of, it is no doubt that it is a difficult question to answer. Different people believe different things. I am in no way to make the decision that tells specifically what the human is, but perhaps neither is anyone else. Maybe the important thing is that we answer the question individually, each coming to our own beliefs and understandings. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\what is piety.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is Piety During the Periclean age (around 400 B.C.) in Athens Greece there was a man named Socrates. He was considered a very wise man by the Athenians. However there were men in power who did not care for him or his teachings; Claiming that he corrupted the Athenian youth and did not believe in the Greek gods, Socrates was put on trail. On his way to his trial Socrates met a man named Euthyphro, a professional priest who is respected by the "authorities" (those who want get rid of Socrates). Euthyphro is at the court house to prosecute his father for murder. Socrates finds this to be interesting. If Euthyphro can properly explain why he is prosecuting his father for murder Socrates might have an understanding of piety. This would help Socrates to defend himself, for the prosecutors know and think highly of Euthyphro. Socrates could then draw parallels between himself and Euthyphro, who the citizens' highly respect, thus bringing him respect, and freedom. This is where Socrates begins his dialogue with Euthyphro seeking the definition of piety. Socrates wants Euthyphro to teach him the meaning of piety since Euthyphro considers himself an authority on the subject. In this dialogue Euthyphro gives Socrates four different definitions of what he believes piety is, none of which prove satisfactory to Socrates, leaving the question unanswered in the end. The first definition that Euthyphro provides to Socrates is that "the pious is to do what I am doing now to prosecute the wrong doer" (Plato, Euthyphro, Grube trans., p. 9). This is merely an example of piety, and Socrates is seeking a definition, not one or two pious actions. Socrates says "you did not teach me adequately when I asked you what the pious was, but you told me that what you are doing now, prosecuting your father for murder is pious (Loc. cit., 6d, p. 10) Socrates wants to know what piety is "through one form" (Loc. cit., 6e, p.10). He does not want to know which things or actions are pious, but rather what piety itself is. One cannot simply define something by giving examples so this definition does not satisfy Socrates. Euthyphro gives Socrates the second definition. He argues "what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious (Loc. cit., 7a, p. 11). Therefore piety is determined by the gods. According to this argument this cannot be true because, how can all the gods find everything to be pious when what is just to some gods is unjust to others, and what one god finds beautiful another would not. They have differences in opinions. "The gods are in a state of discord, that they are at odds with each other" (Loc. cit. 7b, p.11). "They [the gods] consider different things to be just beautiful, ugly, good, and bad." (Loc. cit., 7e, p. 12). This is a good argument in that, the gods would not agree on piety, therefore piety cannot be simply what is dear to the gods. It must be something else. The third definition that Euthyphro states is that "The godly and the pious is a part of the just that is the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of men is the remaining part of justice" (Loc. cit., 12e, p. 18). Euthyphro believes that for man to be pious to the gods he must learn to do what is pleasing to the gods. Taking care of the gods is doing service for the gods. The horse breeder takes care of his horses, cattle raiser cares for his cattle, and the slave takes care of his master. These are all pious actions intended to pleases the gods. "If man knows how to say, and do what is pleasing to the gods at prayer and sacrifice, those are pious actions" (Loc. cit., 14b, p. 20). This definition seems to lead to the idea that sacrifice and prayer will get a man what he wants from the gods, as long as it is considered pious by the gods. Socrates ask Euthyphro "Are they [piety and pious] a knowledge of how to sacrifice and pray" (Loc. cit., 14c, p. 20). Euthyphro "They are" (Loc. cit., 14c, p. 20). Socrates states the fourth definition "piety would then be a knowledge of how to give to, and beg from, the gods" (Loc. cit., 14d, p. 20). Socrates says that if this were true than piety is a trading skill between men and gods, and that what they get from us is "honour, reverence . . . and gratitude" (Loc. cit., 15a, p. 21). Socrates says that Euthyphro's arguments "go around in a circle, . . .[and that] either we were wrong when we agreed before, or, if we were right then, we are wrong now. The fourth definition brings us full circle, and back to where they started leaving the question unanswered. It seems that the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates is arguing about whether or not there are absolutes or if everything is just a matter of opinion. Is piety prosecuting ones own father for murder? Is piety what is dear to the gods? What makes it dear to the gods? If it is dear to one god, is it not dear, to another? Can justice be split between men and gods? Is piety a sort of trading skill between gods and men? In conclusion it seems to be that piety is not definable in one form and that it can be judged in many different ways by many different people. It also seems that these questions are not simply answered, but keep asking the question. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Whos at Risk .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2/26/97 Who is to Blame The doctrine of "assumption of risk" clearly defines the responsibility of all voluntary actions taken on by individuals, independent of the inherent risk or danger involved with such actions. Are we only to assume responsibility for the positive outcomes of our actions, without also accepting the negative outcomes as well? Most individuals only claim responsibility in cases in which they are fully responsible for their actions. Living within a country which houses a large amount of private enterprise, we often find ourselves relying on outside help. In many occasions we, the individual seeking assistance, hold the power to choose which avenue of help will be taken. In these cases in which we have the choice, should we not also be held responsible for the outcomes of our decisions, especially in cases in which we have been pre-warned about any inherent risks or dangers? For example, When we take it upon ourselves to drive on a private road, smoke cigarettes, work for a mining company, or fly on a discount airline at our own volition, do we tacitly consent to take responsibility for any outcome these actions may hold? The "assumption of risk" doctrine seems to ignore the fundamental obligation of entities to ensure their natural goals. The distinguishing factor in deciding responsibility in faultless cases which call on the "assumption of risk" doctrine is the control held by individuals after the situation has begun. In accordance, companies such as discount airlines and cigarette companies must take on the responsibility of completing their duties, while individuals who chose to work in a mine or drive on a private road must accept the responsibility of their actions to do so. All airlines hold the responsibility of transporting their customers from a point of origin to a previously designated destination. The person who agrees to buy a discount airline ticket, which warns to "fly at your own risk," is entitled to receive the minimum service of transportation provided by the airline. The individual traveler should assume no other benefits other than transportation. The airline company claims this act of transportation to be its goal of services rendered. Independent of difficulties which may arise in completing this goal, the airline may not alter the basic duty which it is contractually obligated to perform. The airline tacitly consented to perform this basic duty the moment they began transporting individuals for an accepted payment. Once an individual has boarded the airplane they render all control over their safety to the accepting airline which holds the minimum responsibility of returning the individual back to a state of safety once their duty is complete. The mere nature of airplane transportation forces the individual to render total control over themselves to the airline. This transfer of control holds the airline responsible for any action which may occur due to the obvious lack of responsibility in the hands of the individual. Once the plane has closed the cabin they withhold all control of an individual over themselves, and must grant the service promised. The individual may demand the right to existence and hold the company liable once they hold the power to dictate all aspects of the situation. One problem which arises within the situation is that of something happening which the airline holds no control over. Any difficulties which arise due to the daily routine of the airplane fall under the responsibility of the airline. Even occurrences which are deemed unavoidable fall under the responsibility of the airline because they hold total responsibility of their clients once the cabin is closed. Due to the complete control the airline holds on the situation it may be assumed that the doctrine of "assumption of risk" applies solely to the airline. In creating a situation in which the individual must give up his/her right to self-substinance the airline holds full responsibility for any actions taken which may effect the safety of its passengers. Anytime the airline engages in profit making acts, such as cutting costs, they increase the risk upon themselves in return for extra monetary benefits. Some may argue that some responsibility falls on the consumer due to the warning which the airline provided prior to the purchase of the tickets. This argument revolves around the assumption that the individual becomes responsible due to their decision to buy a discounted ticket over the full price. Having been previously warned about the risk involved, the individual is expected to relieve the airline of responsibility for any mishaps which may occur. This idea of responsibility may hold true if, and only if, the participant holds some control over their well-being once inside the cabin of the airplane. There is no controversy over the fact that the individual willingly accepted the discounted rate and received a warning, but the airline still holds the responsibility of earning its payment by completing the minimal requirement of transportation. The prior warning only holds precedence over the individuals ability to choose an airline which may either claim responsibility for numerous actions, such as transportation, food, and entertainment, or act as the discount airline and only claim responsibility for the transportation. The warning holds no validity once the individual has lost control over their well being. In continuing with the theory that the provider of a service holds the minimum obligation to produce their product; the situation which arises in the case of cigarette companies tends to raise several questions. If it is correct that they provide a good which is legal under present law, how can they be held responsible in any way? In following with the statement above, the cigarette company holds a minimum obligation to the individual to produce a "safe" cigarette. The meaning of safe in this context is meant to imply that the cigarette will meet the safety requirements set by the government so that individuals are not killed by a single cigarette. This act of producing "safe" cigarettes for individuals covers the minimum obligation of the company to the individual. In this case, any additional concerns or problems which the user may have as a result of the product becomes the responsibility of the cigarette addict. The cigarette company seemingly performs more than the minimum obligation by also providing a product which fills the crave of addiction. Continued use of this addictive product may lead to detrimental health and lung disease. Cigarette companies attempt to protect themselves from such issues by warning users of the inherent dangers and therefore eliminating their responsibility for the result. After all, the individual must only notice the risk and discontinue the use of cigarettes to reduce the risk of illness. Therefore, it seems that the company holds no problems since they provide the product and clearly state the risks of use. In this case it becomes the individual's responsibility to accept the risk and suffer the consequences. A large problem arises in the addictive nature of the cigarette to seize control over the actions of the individual user. Although the product acknowledges its addictive quality, the addiction still continues to seize complete control over the situation of cigarette smoking. The user becomes chemically dependent on the product and becomes unable to avoid the risks associated. As in the airplane case, the cigarette company gains control over the individual and is therefore forced to share responsibility for their actions. By outwardly admitting the problem at hand, the cigarette company must handle the consequences. It seems logical that the company could restrict blame solely to the user, due to the self-inflictive nature of the problem. The problem lies in the fact that as the cigarette company admits to the addictive nature of their product, they emphasize the fact that they have seized control of the situation. Taking control of the situation forces the company to take responsibility for the outcome produced. Cigarettes are intended to be addictive in order to increase sales. Thus, if the company shares in the awards of the addiction, they should consequently share in the damages as well. A case which differs, due the control of the individual over their actions, is that of the mining industry. The only problem for the company is that of the moral dilemma accepted by the company's executives. When we look at the case from a distance it seems to be similar to that of the cigarette industry, but the difference lies in the non-addictive nature of mining. Although the company acknowledges the dangers of working in the mines, it is the decision of the workers to accept the risk or find less hazardous job. The individual holds the power to work in the mine or not. Unlike smoking, the mine holds no addictive qualities which force the workers to stay. The worker assumes full responsibility for his/her actions due to the choice to work in a hazardous area. Since the company never gains control over the worker, the worker stays in full control of the situation given the apparent risks involved. The only instance in which the mining company gains some power over the individual is in the case of monetary concerns. If the individual can only obtain work at the mine and relies upon the income produced, it seems clear that the company then holds some power over the individual. Although, this power is limited by the mind set of the individual to determine the actual importance of monetary gains. Since the mine holds no addictive quality which forces the individual to work, the worker holds a free mind to decide what qualities of life are most important. This freedom to decide releases the company from responsibility of any problems which may arise as a result of the mine work, and places all burden on the individual. Some may argue that the mining company holds some responsibility over the well-being of its employees. These beliefs support the idea that the company should provide the greatest amount of safety precautions for their workers. This can be witnessed through the use of safety equipment, medical aid, and protective gear. Since the company has already warned about the risks, it becomes the burden of the individual to purchase these items for themselves. The company only holds the obligations to inform the workers of such available equipment. If the workers feel this is unfair they may quit working and possibly force employers to engage in such safety precautions. The responsibility of providing payment for work is the only act which must be taken on by the employer after they have given the warnings about the dangers of mining. The rest of the responsibility lies in the hands of the miners who hold the power to decide where they work. The final case regarding responsibility of actions lies on a private road which warns individuals of falling rocks. The sign posted at the beginning of the road clearly states any dangers and makes the reader aware of the apparent risks. The fundamental obligation of the road is similar to that of the airplane in that it must provide a means for transportation from point A to point B. However, the road differs from the plane in that the person driving is in control of the situation at all times, and never gives up control over their actions. The speed of travel, length of stay on the road, and the decision to travel on the road are all decisions made by the individual and have a direct effect on the safety of the individual. In this case the driver becomes responsible for his actions on the road. The owner of the road met the requirements set upon him by providing means of transport and warning of any danger; all other responsibility lies in the able hands of the individual driving the automobile. The responsibility of any given action remains in the hands of those in control of the action at any given time. As seen in the airplane and cigarette examples, proper warning does not warrant lack of responsibility if the individual holds no control over the outcome of the action. The mining company and private road examples show how responsibility lies in the hands of the individual as long as control over the situation is also controlled by the individual. It is clear to see that responsibility for any given action remains in the hands of those who hold control over the situation. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Why do humans err .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In today's pop culture, there is one very popular view of the future. All humans will be free to do as they wish, because robots and computers will work for us. Computers are viewed as the ideal slaves. They work non-stop, never complain, and above all, never make mistakes. It is often said that computers don't make mistakes, that it is the person using the computer who commits errors. What is it that makes humans err, but not computers? I will prove that it is simply the way humans are built that makes us commit errors. Unlike computers, built of mechanical or electronic parts, humans are made of organic matter and nerve pathways. These same pathways, with the help of the brain are responsible for all the decision making. I shall demonstrate why humans err, despite the fact that we have eyes and ears to sense with. Before I can establish causes for error, I shall define the terms "error" and "mistake". In the context of this essay, they will simply mean that a human obtained a result different from the expected, correct one. Whether it in be adding two numbers, or calling someone by the wrong name, these are all errors that a computer would not make. An error can also be interpreted as being a wrong physical move. If a person is walking in the woods and trips on a branch, it is because the person erred in the sense of watching the path followed. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that humans make mistakes all the time. Let us simply analyze any process in which there is a chance for someone to commit an error. Take for example a cashier in a grocery store. The cashier obtains the total on the cash register, and receives a twenty dollar bill from the customer. She must now give the patron back his/her change. The cash register tells the cashier that the client is owed 4.60$. The cashier then reaches into her change drawer to retrieve the proper set of coins. This is where the opportunity for error increases. What if the cashier only gives the customer back 4.55$, because she mistakenly returned a nickel instead of a dime? What caused this blunder? Would this blunder have happened if the cashier had had 15 minutes to decide on how much change to return instead of 15 seconds? Logically speaking, we can establish that if the cashier had 15 minutes to select the proper set of coins, she probably wouldn't have made a mistake. This is due to the fact that she would have taken more time in figuring out which coins to choose and would even have had time to review her decision several times. What can we deduce from this discussion? Humans are more prone to make mistakes if they are rushed than if they have lots of time to do an operation. There are many other examples. If you give a class a math exam, but restrict them to 15 minutes, we can be almost certain that they will get a lower mark than the same class doing the same test in one hour. The reason is fairly simple. Our brains and senses simply do not react fast enough. That is why computers are so renown for their dependability in terms of errors. Computers can perform thousands more operations per second than a human with no chance of error. This is due to the construction of these machines. Their inanimate parts are better adapted to executing these operations at very high speeds. Let us take another example. A man is adding up a column of numbers. We will pretend that this individual has a basic knowledge of math. The mistakes he might make, if any, will not be due to his lack of knowledge of the basic addition rules. He sits down with a sheet of paper with a list of many three digit numbers. What kinds of errors can he commit, and why? While adding up the numbers, he might mistake a 7 for a 1 and add the numbers together wrong. He might, while adding, disregard a number once in a while. All these possible mistakes would lead to the wrong final answer, but what causes these errors? Once again, the time factor is very important. Given the chance to redo his calculations another 99 times, he would certainly produce the correct final answer. The reason he committed errors was simply that he was doing an action faster that his brain and eyes could handle with 100% accuracy. It seems that our brains can compute complex operations that allow us to drive a car through terrible weather conditions, at night, but all these operations cannot be accomplished within too short a time limit. So far, we have discussed the speed at which the brain can compute operations without error. We must consider other factors which can also lead to mistakes. To explain other types of error, I will use a terminology developed and used by the philosopher Bertrand Russell. He identifies something called sense data. Sense data is the data received by our senses from the object being "sensed". For instance, if a person is looking at a red apple, the shape and color and all other aspects of this apple are received in the form of sense data. In the case of the man adding up the numbers, he mistook a 7 for a 1. What really happened is that his senses misidentified the number. The sense data was received by his eyes, which then converted this information into an electrical signal to be sent to the brain for analysis. There are thus two possibilities. Either the eyes did not transform the signal of the 7 properly, or the brain misunderstood the signal received from the eyes. In both cases, the sense data was analyzed incorrectly, leading to an error in the final calculation. Some skeptics might criticize my position by saying that, no matter how much time a person has to complete a job, he or she might still commit errors. In the example of the cashier that I used earlier, one might say that although she had 15 minutes to select 3 different coins, that she still might make a mistake. One could justify this position by saying that this is due to a lack of attention. If a person has 15 minutes to complete a simple task, they will pay very little attention to the details. If the coin is slightly worn out, and the cashier is not paying attention, then she will pick it up by mistake. Moreover, once the coin is selected, she will assume that it is the right one, so that even if she checks the coins before handing them to the customer, she might simply assume that she has selected the correct amount. My answer to this position is fairly clear. No matter how little attention she pays to the job she is doing, that is not where the error lies. If she is distracted while picking up the coins in question, then her senses are not receiving and analyzing the sense datum properly, or thoroughly. This is simply a more complex case of what I described earlier, with the man mistaking a 7 for a 1. The individual is not drawing the right conclusion from the sense data received. In light of the examples and discussions presented, I think is safe to say that human error is due to the fact that the brain can only function perfectly up to a certain speed. Also, the five human senses do not always properly interpret the sense data received, causing the brain to make mistakes. Not paying attention to what one is doing is not a reason for making a mistake. It is the repercussions of this behavior that cause the error, because the person is not using his/her senses properly. In conclusion, it is understandable that humans make mistakes despite the fact that our senses receive sense data from objects surrounding us. After all, if this weren't true, you would have just finished reading a perfect essay! f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Why Rome Fell.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Why Rome Fell (a condensed version) The sun had long ago set, the newborn moon peeked out from behind a scattering of thin, high clouds. From a vantage point atop one of seven hills I could see glimpses of how this great city must once have looked. The mammoth buildings seem to shed their long years and are once again as they were; huge, awe inspiring, it is as if a portal in time had opened and I am afforded a glimpse into what was Rome. What could have caused this once master of all cities to fall? This paper will attempt to describe some of the explanations generally accepted, or should I say argued, and possibly shed some light on what could have caused the fall of what was, unquestionably, the most powerful empire in history. I feel that I must begin with the explanations given by Edward Gibbon. While few agree entirely with his logic, his Decline and Fall on the Roman Empire is certainly unavoidable in a paper such as this. His work could be best summed up by the word confusing. According to David Jordan, 'the causes for Rome's fall march across the pages of the Decline and Fall, seemingly without pattern, and seemingly unrelated to each other. This quote taken from the seventh chapter of Jordan's Gibbon and his Roman Empire sum up my feelings concerning the work; however, I will attempt to show some of Gibbon's Causes for this decline. Two of Gibbon's causes are the political blunders of its emperors and their search for personal glory. These are especially obvious in his chapters on Constantine. In them Gibbon accuses the emperor of destroying Rome for his own personal glory. Another cause would have to be the anti-Roman nature of Christianity. Gibbons argues that the 'insensible' penetration of Christianity was fatal to the empire by undermining the genius of a great people. On a pessimistic note, Gibbon also lists as a 'causes' the inevitable collapse of all human institutions, some arguments on the corrupting nature of luxury, and some detailed reflections on the vanity of human wishes. While the arguments presented are lengthily backed, they seem to fail in explaining the true nature of the fall. Others, many others disagree with Gibbon's explanations and proffer their own for approval. One such author is David Woomersley who in his work, The Transformation of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , openly attacks Gibbon's work calling it 'a blunt instrument with which to dissect these centuries.' That quote, taken from chapter sixteen, is one of many which show the violent disagreement of the two ideas. A few pages later Woomersley refers to Gibbons works as a stumbling block to historians and again later refers to Gibbon himself as a poet historian, caught up in the moment and unaware of the true history of the situation. The problem is that in the mist of these attacks, Woomersley fails to bring to light any new and exciting information concerning the fall of Rome and is seen as simply relying on the old standby that the cause was the corrupting nature of luxury and power. Woomersley argues that the Romans became so content in their superiority that they forgot how to fight and forgot what made them great. Another who disagrees with the premises of Gibbon is author and historian David Jordan. In his work, Gibbon and his Roman Empire, Jordan states that Gibbon imposed himself on his materials and in doing so distorted the history he was attempting to record. In Jordan's opinion, the main cause of the decline was internal decay. Rome had taken the 'known' world and held it for a very long time. He compares society to a living organism in so much that if it does not grow, it dies. While it was the Germanic tribes who eventually leveled Rome, it was Rome's own arrogance which destroyed it long before any 'enemies' entered the city. This reasoning certainly seems logical and fits with the political situation of the times. At the time of the fall, state was 'overawed' by the soldiers who were simply mercenaries. Leaders were murdered by their own troops for the wealth they had accumulated. The 'stubborn commons' had been eliminated by the Augustan settlement and it seems that every reign of the latter emperors finished with the same cycle of treason and murder. The ladder history of Rome seems to play like a badly scratched record, frozen into a groove. One fact which stands out in my mind is that Rome was greatest before the monarchy. Once power became centralized, Rome was doomed. In reverse order, England did not become a world presence until a decentralization of the power occurred, i.e. the Parliament. The problem seems to be who takes control when a monarch dies. It is the internal struggle which uses up so many resources and divides a nation. It is the losers of such a struggle which generally cause the break up since while people who oppose a particular ruler may be forced to live with it, they will never like it. I believe it is this inherent flaw in monarchy which lead to the continuos cycle of betrayal and murder which marks the ladder history of Rome. As I hope this paper has shown, the issue of what caused the fall of the Roman empire is a complex one and will most probably remain unsolved for the foreseeable future. People build on the foundations of others; patterns form themselves. Perhaps someday we will know the true reasons for the fall and be able to use that knowledge to prevent the same fate from destroying our American 'empire.' Works Cited Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Random House. Jordan, David P. Gibbon and his Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1971. Woomersley, David. The Transformation of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Why should I be moral .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WHY SHOULD I BE MORAL? The question of morality proves to be a complex interrogatory. Should I be moral? If I should be, then why? Why is morality important to society? An assumption can be made that morals derive from a purely religious perspective or the Golden Rule approach. We are told that it is right to be moral. This is an ineffective answer, since it does not apply to someone outside the moral circle (Olsen, 79). This in mind, there is really no way to prove this too a person who wants to know why he/she should be moral. According to Olen, the only answer to them would be "because you are". Happiness could also be included in the list of moral reasons. I personally feel that this is the best supported reason for being moral. Although there will be times when the moral decision will not be pleasurable, it will eventually lead to happiness. Morality is important for society as a whole, as it makes life livable. Now expanding on the happiness theory, I will discuss the ideas of Aristotle. Aristotle believed that happiness is the quality of whole human life. We all have misconceptions about happiness. Most of us believe that happiness is experiencing a lively feeling of joy or pleasant feelings. We can be happy at one moment, but not the next. Aristotle on the other hand said that true happiness includes pleasures, joys, and successes as well as many pains, griefs, and troubles in ones life. A happy life is not cause by the pleasures we've had, nor marred by the displeasures we've had. Aristotle also contended that children could not be happy as the requirement for happiness was a complete life. For instance, an old man looking back on his life and being able to say that it was good, is happiness. Aristotle defined the things that make happiness as health, wealth, friendship, and good moral character. Aristotle stated that happiness was also the highest good leaving nothing more to be desired. Life is made perfect by possession of all good things. We seek happiness for its own sake. All others are sought for happiness. Aristotle believed to become happy one must have good character and be willing to suffer to obtain the greater good later on. We should seek the good in the long run. Most men/women will not do this. We take the immediate pleasure. Most people think that happiness is unique to each person. Aristotle believed that there is only one true conception and that it holds the same for all humans. Power is not an attribute to happiness because it would preclude some people from being happy if they are ruled. Aristotle believed as our for fathers that everyone has an ultimate right to the pursuit of happiness. He believed that this pursuit must be cooperative, not competitive. All this said, it is clear that it fits into his belief that everything in nature has a goal towards which it naturally strives (i.e. happiness). A morally virtuous person is one who is moderate in his actions. He chooses the mean as opposed to the extremes. Aristotle was more concerned with the real world than with the theological world. His bottom line view point was that we have no answer to the question "Why do you want to be happy?" other than "to be happy." He believed that we must be moral in order to obtain our life long goal of happiness. I find myself in agreement with Aristotle to some degree. When I as myself "why do you want to be happy?" I am stuck. I just want to be happy. I can see where society as a whole must practice morality as a whole to allow everyone the non-competitive pursuit of happiness. I can also relate to the fact that following the immediate pleasure doesn't unnecessarily attribute to the future good. I have not been able to live one city longer than a year at a time. As a result of this, I am unable to purchase my dream home because the financial tolls. I am however happier when I first move to a new state. I am not totally convinced that the pursuit of happiness alone is just cause for morality. I do believe that morality has much to do with a theological basis. I believe that there is an obligation instilled in each of us by the current religious belief of out society. I believe we make decision based on the consequences we could face in our afterlife. I believe we discern right and wrong on the basis of what is right or wrong to our doctrine. True moral issues, but for the most part don't we judge thing based on what was instilled into us as children? We were socialized to fit a pattern and our society even today is still tinged with religious attitudes and beliefs. According to Kohlberg's stages of moral development, children give the right answer to moral issues, but with different reasons as they progress. STAGE BRIEF DESCRIPTION REASONS FOR DOING RIGHT LEVEL I: 1 Preconventional Desire to Avoid punishment Avoidance of punishment and the superior power of authority; obedience for its own sake. 2 Desire to obtain rewards Serves one's own needs and recognizes that other people have their interests to; conforms to obtain rewards LEVEL II: 3 Conventional "Good Boy/Good Girl" Values the approval of others and tries to maintain mutual relationships involving trust, loyalty, respect, and gratitude; believes in the Golden Rule. 4 Respect for Authority Values society's laws and tries to uphold them; tires to keep the institution going. LEVEL III 5 Post-Conventional Respect for the social contract Believes in upholding the social contract because it provides the "greatest good for the greatest number'; recognizes that a social contract is an agreement between people that benefits the public welfare. 6 Universal ethical principles Personally committed to a set of self-chosen ethical principles, mot of which may be compatible with the laws of society. When laws conflict with ethical principles, the person acts in accordance with his/her principles. SOURCE: Based on L. Kohlberg "Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmetal Approach to Socializtion" in Handbood of Sociliztion Thoery and Research, 1969, edited by D.A. Goslin, Rand Mcnally, Chicago; and L. Kohlberg, "Moral Stages and Moralization' in T. Lickons Ied.), Moral Development and Behavior. New Yord: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. Now as I take this table into consideration I see that children are consistently react in to the consequences given to them by parents, schools, and so forth. These ideas are ingrained into us from birth, therefor they become a part of us. Not only do they become a part of us, but the real reason that they are important gets lost and becomes a "just because" reason. Maybe this is why it is so difficult to explain why a person should be moral. Having said all of this, I believe that Aristotle's ideas were for the most part correct. His philosophy o morality being linked to the achievement of happiness does fit into my thoughts on societal molding. In our society, or any for that matter, there seems to be a blueprint from which we set our goals and structure our lives. Being healthy, wealthy, and respected are a big part of that blueprint we in our sect call the American Dream. Inherent to being respected is being known for doing the right thing and making the right decisions, and keeping promises. We do all want to be happy but I say society has created those items which we consider important our out happiness. Would wealth be important if there was no money with which to contend? I think not, therefor I don't think morals would be an important ingredient to happiness if religion had not affected society. Through the ages the beliefs of the moral issues of the time. Therefor, I think the ideas we accrue throughout our life times concerning what is right our wrong are then past to our children just the same. Why should I be moral? I strongly believe it is because society says so. Olen, Jeffrey., Persons and Their World. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1983 Wallace, Patricia M., Goldstein, Heffrey H., Nathan, Peter E., Introduction to Psychology. Brown Publishers, 1990. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Women Men and Competiton.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Women, Men and Competition Loudly and often, women insist they don't like competition, and that competition is an act of aggression. Ironically, however, competition as aggression is inevitable in a society where men must compete for the attention of women. Women encourage this. Every time they passively wait for men to take the initiative, or reject nurturing men in deference to domineering men, they sustain the dynamic of dominance. Ignoring this, pop-feminists contend competition is the capitalization of aggression, and men do it to the detriment of all. Does this mean fighting for domination is the only way to compete? That competition is solely a product of masculine socialization and something we can do without? Masculine socialization has nothing to do with it. In one way or another, all living things compete, because wanting creates competition. You want to live, so you offer goods or services to others in exchange for the goods and services you need to survive. The better the goods and services you offer, the more you can get in exchange, and the better you will be able to live. To live well, you make your "stuff" as good as possible relative to what your "competition" offers. That is the essence of competition in a free market. It respects the rights of others, and everybody wins because it works through validation rather than domination. Competition as validation is the process by which the efficacy of ideas, knowledge, and products is validated by consumers. They choose what they value most. To the extent our economy encourages winning through validation, it works. Most women, however, encourage competition through domination by ignoring cooperative, nurturing men to give their love and sex to domineering, "virile" men. What's more, women compete, and they compete to win. This is especially evident in women's response to the invention of the rubber condom. Prior to the 1870's, prostitution in Europe was prevalent. Victorian ladies' distaste for sex encouraged "an explosive increase in prostitution" that caused "an epidemic spread of venereal disease, and a morbid taste for masochism." Then, women began to compete sexually, and prostitution had to go. They began to compete with prostitutes for their husbands' continuing attentions. What changed? Men started using rubber condoms. This gave women the option of enjoying sex without risking pregnancy, and that meant women now viewed prostitutes as sexual competitors. Subsequently, they demanded laws prohibiting prostitution, belying the myth that women don't compete. Women say this is men's fault. That men have forced the necessity of sexual competition upon women and that, left to themselves, women hearken to a more cooperative agenda. But the facts do not support this contention. Even among themselves, where male attention is not the objective, women still compete without compunction. Women objectify themselves as sex objects. They also objectify others. From childhood, women seek status through affiliation by objectifying one another as status-objects. Girls get status by being friends with high-status girls: the cheerleaders, the pretty ones, the ones who are popular with boys. As adults, they objectify men as success objects. The means for impressing other women. Effectively, they use men to tell one another, "Here is my man: with him, I buy cars, clothes, entertainment, vacations, trips to the beauty parlor and, if I'm so inclined, motherhood or early retirement." The consequences of this are devastating. The consequences of turning women into sex objects include rape; the consequences of turning men into success objects includes war. Most women know most men see them as sex objects, and most women agree this is bad. But when confronted with how they objectify men, they deny it, pointing to surveys that prove they value a good sense of humor above money, and sensitivity and kindness above power. But most men know they can be kind, caring, loving and sensitive, and while these characteristics may earn them the status of "just friends" with many women, their many women friends would never consider having sex with them. Men know the more money, status, prestige and power they have, the more willing most women will be to give them love and sex. Most men have ,always known this, but few realize the connection between how women objectify them, and female hostility toward men. Women's increasing independence, combined with how they objectify men as walking wallets, is the reason for much of their hostility toward men: The monetary basis for their "love" for men is gone. What remains is the resentment they feel toward most men for being unable to fulfill their need for "walking wallets." When men realize this, how will they feel? Will they resent it? Will male hostility toward women grow to match female hostility toward men? That depends. In response to the feminist movement, many men gave up objectifying women as sex objects to look to the deeper beauty that grows with time. Women must do this, too. They must stop objectifying men and embrace the equality they say they want. It's the only way to stem the tide of resentment men will otherwise feel. Generally, however, they compete within the context of relationship goals and processes. Understanding this reveals the source of women's loathing of male competitiveness. Projecting their own agenda onto men, they attack in men what they most despise in themselves. Spite, malice, rancor and hostility characterize competition within the context of relationship goals and processes. This is unsavory, to say the least. Inasmuch as men commonly compete within the context of production goals and processes, most will probably agree with women that female competitiveness in relationships is something the world can do without. f:\12000 essays\philosophy (281)\Zen in the Influence of the Sword.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Zen's Influence on the Art of the Sword Zen has long had a great influence upon Japanese culture. Many aspects of this culture are touched upon by Zen including art, literature, and specific ceremonies such as the one concerning tea. During the Kamakura period of Japan, another area of culture began to be affected by Zen; the martial arts of the samurai class. Somewhere along the line, the samurai realized the ease with which the monks of Zen Buddhism dealt with issues such as mortality and then began to seek these methods of discipline for themselves for the purposes of becoming less concerned with their physical well-being. However, as D.T. Suzuki noted, it was "not mere recklessness, but self-abandonment, which is known in Buddhism as a state of egolessness." This is the ideal which the samurai warrior sought; a state of being wherein life and death were meaningless and all that he had to concern himself with was his duty to his master, or if he was ronin (rogue samurai without a master), with his duty to his own code of honor. In order for the Zen master to pass on this state of mind to the eager to learn samurai, the master had to equate the state of mushin (empty mind and egolessness) with something familiar to the warrior. And what is more familiar to a warrior than his weapon, most often a sword such as a tachi (long-blade), katana, or iaito? From the first time that a samurai blade is picked up by its owner until the day the owner dies, it is his goal to so completely master the blade and make it as much a part of him as his own hand that there is seemingly no effort in using it. As stated by Takuan, a Zen master from the Tokugawa period, "you must follow the movement of the sword in the hands of the enemy, leaving your mind free to make its own counter-movement without your interfering deliberation." Herein lies the simplicity of Zen teaching in respect to all things, both exceptional and common; think not, merely do.