Philosophy 100

It is not possible for philosophy to give a satisfactory answer to the meaning of life'
Do you agree with this statement? Explain why!

I do agree with this statement. I don't think that the meaning of life can be given by an individual nor a group of people. I believe the meaning of life depends on who you ask and what they have been through. A person with religious values may believe that you are here to please God and the only way you will be happy is to go to church and give to charity. Other people may live their life dedicated to helping others in what ever way they can. I myself believe that everything that people go through in life is for a reason and that we should all try to help a person who has gone through what we have went through.

posted by Esther Dee @ 3:56 PM 1 comments

Civil Disobedience
Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law?
In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? And 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience? For some examples, take a look at the Wikipedia article on civil disobedience.

If a law threatens to block my path in life or any women or Black person, I would be forced to act against it. I believe that if you make a law that is unfair to any race of people is considered is unlawful and how can we follow a law like that. I believe any person making those kind of laws are afraid of the competition, so in order to have less competition they need to add bars that were inappropriate. If a college or med school decided not to accept me or any persons because of their skin color or sex, I would sit on school property everyday with a group of females not making noise or disturbing anyone but just sitting on campus quietly everyday. That is to away to show civil disobiedience that will not hurt anyone or incite riot in anyway. the only law i would be breaking is trespassing.

posted by Esther Dee @ 3:46 PM 1 comments

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


I believe that both have a good point and that we are pretty much free to do as we please. I do believe that the only issue we are having is ever since 9/11 we are coerced in believing that we are not fully protected because they need to monitor our phones and other forms of removal of privacy and since we do not have protection of state nor are we informed well enough on the decisions that are made And not being informed is just as bad as being coerced

posted by Esther Dee @ 3:42 PM 1 comments

Government today

Anarchists argue that government is never justified in its exercise of authority. Locke argues that government is legitimate so long as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights. Hobbes argues that government has a much broader authority to secure peace, and keep people's natural selfish instincts in check.

Which of the perspectives above do you agree with the most? Do you think your answer depends on what you think human nature is like (i..e. whether people are basically selfish or essentially good? Explain your answer on your blog.


I believe that a part of human nature does need to be ruled by some kind of government or leader for the community of some sort. I think that at times we may look at what another person has and people may be provoked by greed. I think some people morals may not allow them to do what is known in their minds or heart as wrong but, a lot of us are taught what is wrong through our religious views or teaching. Also a lot of people know what not to do by laws and guidelines.
With cars on the road, children who barely follow instructions from there parents and criminals how are we suppose to live a decent life if no one has the right to put criminals behind bars because they don’t feel what they did was wrong. I can see children getting less out of line when they obey every adult and when an adult sees them doing wrong they can correct that child but what adult who may take advantage of a child. In this day and age with all that we have I think it will be damn near impossible.

posted by Esther Dee @ 3:46 PM 0 comments

Buddhism

According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

I think that in the U.S. our main goal is higher education and material things. Our belief will be compromise if we were true Buddhist. Regardless of how centered a person may try to stay or how uncaring about material things it will take a toll on your every day life. We live our life to go to work make money and live comfortably but in order to live comfortably in US especially New York you got to continue to push to be better and have better because of inflation. We can't just stick with a position as trying to help people and live off nothing. Even Pastors and Priest have to make money one way or another. I believe that its great to try not to live for the material things but in this day and age its almost impossible.

posted by Esther Dee @ 3:17 PM 1 comments

Cosmological argument and the Design argument

This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective.
In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's relgious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument).

I believe that philosophy gives people who believe in god, question on why to believe. Ever since I have taken philosopy I learn to look into what i believe, in and make sure i understand what i am following and understand. I think philosphy opens your mind to what some religious beliefs tell you should be closed. So once you have a better understanding of religion and god and your self and existance its not a totally blind walk built on pure faith but a walk built on knowledge. Besides i don't think any god will want you to follow him blindly because you can be easily swayed

posted by Esther Dee @ 3:54 PM 1 comments

Artifical inteligence

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

Computers can simulate actions like humans but most human action is based on emotions which are not taught. With computers, feeling may not always be easily programmed because humans can cry or laugh at awkward moments, while computers may laugh because it is programmed to believe something is funny or sad, with no real understanding on why.
Computers are mostly as smart as the people who build it. With all the knowledge we have it is still really hard to rebuild a human body with artificial parts and make it work like normal and with all the science we have developed and continue to develop to understand a humans. How can we think that artificial intelligence can take over certain human characteristics when we have computers can never have sense of being or can never really, feel, hear, or see.
People are programmed to be a certain way because of society’s norms but a lot of people are also very stubborn and sometimes rebellious and regardless of norm will do things differently.

posted by Esther Dee @ 3:53 PM 1 comments