Civil Disobedience

I agree with Martin Luther King and Gandhi’s views on civil disobedience. I believe that if a certain law is oppressing or harming other, we have a moral obligation to both ourselves and others to break this law. The political and economic systems in our country are far from perfect and easily infected by corruption. We cannot simply follow every single thing we are told to do without question, especially when we feel what we are being asked to carry out is morally wrong. If it’s something that tears down another individual and degrades their human personality, it is not in accordance with Natural Law and should not be followed.

Occupy Wall Street is a good example of civil disobedience. The majority of our population is unhappy with the current economic system and distribution of wealth. In protest, some choose to break certain private property and trespassing laws in order to bring awareness to this issue. Even though the majority of people would like to see things change, the small group of people in who are in power continue to create and endorse laws that keep them there and continue to hold others down. This is clearly not fair or ethical.

I do agree with the idea that an unjust law is not a law at all, because it is usually created to help certain individuals or groups (usually those already in power), rather than helping the society as a whole. These things are unjust and we do not need to accept them. I agree that we still must have respect for the law and comply with whatever punishment the give us for disobeying, because laws are there to protect us and we need to respect that. However, we don’t need to follow ones that we feel are doing more harm than they are good or singling out a specific group of people. Personally, I would rather suffer the punishment for breaking these unjust laws than have to live with myself knowing I followed something I didn’t believe in; this only perpetuates the problem.

I can think of many situations where engaging in civil disobedience would be legitimate. Things like the corrupt economic and political systems: tax breaks for the wealthy while the poor are forced to pay more, corrupt elections, rights being taken away from specific groups like homosexuals and women, segregation of any kind – race, gender, social class, etc; all of these things limit individual freedom and disregard the need for equality. These things are not in accord with Natural Law and require civil disobedience in order for us to achieve the change we feel is necessary.

Freedom Isn't Free

When it comes to the idea of individual freedom, I agree with certain ideas from both Marx and Mill. I understand Mill's argument that as long as the government is not literally forcing you to do something you are free, because everyone has free will. Unless they are being physically forced into something they don't want to do, or being held against their will, they are able to exercise this free will and this makes them a free person. However, Marx also makes a great point. While we may have free will and freedom over our bodies and actions, we have already been programmed by society to think and act a certain way, so in reality we are not free. We are free to do what we like, but we are not free from outside influences that change our actions and who we are as individuals. We are not free from the economic and social structure others use to define us. What I don't necessarily agree with is Marx's idea that we need some sort of active state intervention to make sure we are making our own economic decisions. This sounds good on paper, but it's not practical and realistically wouldn't work with the current social, political, and economic system. The idea that the government would be the one in charge of making sure we all make our own economic decisions is very scary to me. Call me a person of little faith, but history has shown us that situations like this often result in extreme forms of corruption, with the state using their power to further limit the individual in order to ensure that their ideas and beliefs fit with those that most benefit the state. So while I agree that we need to have some way to ensure we are free to make our own economic choices, I don't think intervention by the state is the answer. Unfortunately, with the current structure of our economic and political systems, I'm not sure there is a workable solution at this point.

$$$ > Nirvana; It's the American Way.

There's no denying the conflict between the ideas behind the Buddhist approach and what we are taught here in modern American Society. In Buddhism, the idea is that you must learn to detach yourself from all self interest and material objects. Unfortunately, in the US things like health care and a good education are not provided for us so we must work, marry someone who can support us, etc. in order to pay for our necessities. This then turns into a competition of who has the best house, the nicest car, the most money, etc. It no longer is about just surviving, but about how many material possessions or how high of a status you have. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what Buddhism teaches. We are in a society where so much value is placed on material things, position and status, and physical appearance: all things that are fleeting. We don't care that they will go away or breakdown at some point because we are taught that if we continue to be successful we will have enough money to get all new things that will make us happy as well, and once those things break down or die, we will again replace them with even bigger and better versions, so long as we have the material wealth and power to do so.

It's sad that this has become our mentality but this is reality. Especially in New York City, it seems like who you are, who you know, what you have, and how you look is more important than ever and it becomes easier to survive with these things. Humans have a basic instinct for survival and when being attractive helps you get a better job, your father's high social status can get you into a top school, or you can buy you way out of jail, we begin to see that money and power help one survive in our culture. So we all strive for this success, we have a desire to "make it" in society and have everything we could ever want. But often times people get these things and then realize that they're still not happy. This is because these things eventually fade and when we start to look to physical things for fulfillment we always want the next thing coming along. We always have that next desire, that next thing we're trying to get, and one becomes restless and empty. We must learn to separate ourselves from all outside objects, from everything that is fleeting and temporary, and learn to connect with the deeper source of what makes us who we are. Only when we are able to break away from the desires that lead us on this never ending quest for our own self interest, will we be able to develop a oneness with the World that leads us to Nirvana, to perpetual happiness and contentment.

Are You There God? It's Me, Krista.

Personally I am not a religious person and I don't believe philosophy has a lot to contribute to religion overall. I spend 14 years growing up in the church, very much as a part of that community: going twice a week, my parents sometimes taught church classes, praying over dinner, the whole 9 yards. Anyway, even after years of being brought up with that set of values and beliefs there was always just this disconnect for me. Even from the time I was a small child faith just isn't something I was interested in. It was like even though all these people around me that I looked to to teach me how to do everything else in my life were telling me that this was the right thing I didn't see any type of proof of or anything to make me believe it with absolutely no doubt. Natural theology looks at faith in a similar way, essentially disregarding it. With natural theology there are no miracle and divine teachings, simply explanations of theology based on things occurring naturally in the World. 

To me both the cosmological and contingency arguments as well as the design argument just aren't convincing. The cosmological argument makes assumptions and jumps to conclusions like "there must be an uncased first cause, therefor God exists" no real explanation or proof, just therefor God exist. Some people believe in aliens or the big bang, etc. those could also be seen as uncaused 1st causes to people who have faith in them. It's basically like saying that I believe in something so since that's what I believe in and I have faith in it, that's what it is. To me this is just ridiculous. 

With the design argument, I don't even think it's a good analogy. I understand the idea that the World is complex but I don't know why this seems to mean that something has to have created it. I feel like you could argue that the universe is so vast, detailed, and complicated that there's no way one person or thing was able to make all of that just appear. What sounds more plausible? The idea that one person/being could create the universe, with all it's functions, and everything in it? Or the idea that one person/being did not create the universe and everything in it but that these things have naturally occurred and evolved due to free will and the way different organisms and chemicals interact with each other? To me the second one just makes so much more sense. In reality the universe is nothing like a watch - it cannot be duplicated and pumped out by the thousands. It cannot be broken, bought, sold, or held in your hand; it is extremely complex and unique. Even if the analogy made sense it still doesn't prove who or what is was that created the World. Again they just jump to it being God because of their faith, so again I find it to be ridiculous. Also, the argument that one perfect specimen designed the universe and everything in it contradicts itself; there are MANY disasters, tragedies, faults, and design errors (like global warming and world hunger for example) all throughout the Universe and certainly all over the World. A perfect designer would have created a perfect design. Using their strategy of reasoning: since the design is clearly not perfect, you can assume the designer was clearly not perfect, which means it obviously wasn't God who they believe to be perfect. In my opinion philosophy, which is considered a social science, is in conflict with the ideas behind faith and some kind of divine and perfect God.

Programmed by Society?

For the most part I agree with Searle's theory that computers are not really intelligent, but just simulating intelligence. They are not able to think and understand on their own, but have been programmed to respond to certain commands and actions in a very specific way that makes them seem intelligent. However, an interesting question was posed about whether or not humans have been programmed by society the same way computers are programmed to respond to different commands?

Personally, I would answer no. I can see where this idea is coming from because society and socialization make a huge impact on the way people live their lives and definitely lead people to act a certain way, but I don't think this can be so easily compared to what happens with a computer. With society there are things leading us in a certain direction: developing our beliefs and morals, telling us right from wrong, establishing things like class systems, gender roles, etc, but everyone takes in different parts of it and interprets it in their own way. A computer is not like this. You could set up 50 computers with the same programs and they will all be exactly the same and do the same exact things. But if you raise say 30 girls in the same society, under the same conditions, they will not all do or say the same things in any given situation. They not only interpret and understand the things society is influencing them with differently, but also can use their own free will when making decisions. Computers cannot do this - they're simply given information and commands and are able to make sense of them based on their software and programming.

What goes into speaking a language shows that humans cannot really be programmed. Some people speak a certain language when they're a child and then move to another place and begin speaking that language too. After a while people sometimes completely forget their native language and can no longer speak it when they return to their home country. Even though society "programmed" them to speak the language, they eventually forgot. This would never happen with a computer unless something happened to the hard drive (for humans this would equal brain damage). Clearly, humans are able to adapt to their environment and change their behavior regardless of what they were taught or told before. People are not really being programmed by society, but rather heavily influenced. Even though they're learning things from society, they still have the ability to act on their own and complete any task they choose, whether or not society agrees. Computers do not have this luxury and are entirely controlled by those entering in the information. The human mind cannot be programmed; it is an extremely complex and ever changing thing that, even when given the same command as before, will not always produce the exact same result, as is the case with computers.

Physicalism vs. Dualism

I believe both physicalism and dualism to be  somewhat incomplete in their own different ways, but given the choice between the two I find the ideas behind physicalism to be most believable. Dualism states that the mind and the body are two completely different things, independent from one another. Physicalism other other hand, says the body and the mind are essentially the same thing. This also may not be entirely true; however, I cannot deny that they interact with and depend upon each other in some way, meaning they cannot be completely separate as dualism suggests.

Some arguments used to back dualism, like the idea of doubt and consciousness being separate from the physical body, may not be completely accurate. I'm no scientist, but based on what I've been taught about the brain and the way it interacts with the rest of the body, I think there's a very good chance that when we have a feeling like doubt certain neurons are firing and physically certain things are taking place in the brain - this is what physicalism argues. They're not necessarily saying that what you do with every part of your physical body like your hands or legs will affect the mind, but what is taking place physically in your brain is responsible for everything that happens in your mind.

Take love for example: Love is something that dualists would probably say is clearly entirely separate from the physical body. You can't point to love, you can't open up your head and see the love there in your skull, so they would argue that it is clearly separate from the physical body. However, modern science has shown us that when someone is in love or has feelings of love, different parts of the brain light up and certain chemicals are released. Although love may not be it's own physical structure inside your head, it is creating some sort of physical change in the brain, which then also creates a change in the mind (serotonin, endorphins, etc.) Clearly they have an strong effect on one another and therefor cannot be entirely separate from each other.

What is Knowledge Anyway?

After covering several different theories on epistemology, I find myself both believing in and arguing against different aspects of each.

Skepticism and Rationalism - 

I agree with Descartes' idea that we are more certain of our own thoughts and what we think we know about the World around us, than we are of the ACTUAL World around us. He believes we should be questioning the things we know, and only accepting those things that we can prove without any doubt to be true. While I think methodological skepticism is a good strategy for making decisions about the validity of some things, I don't think it can be applied to all things in life. It's important to realize that if there is great doubt about a certain concept and it's validity, or if there are many little doubts about an idea, that it may not be true. However, there are also a lot of things that you may never be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt, and that doesn't necessarily make those things untrue. This method is simply not practical; it would be exhausting if applied to every idea one holds about life and about themselves.


Empiricism -  
I agree that a lot of what we know comes from what we've experienced before, but not everything. I think in terms of what we see and experience in everyday life - things like our environment, the weather, etc, our knowledge does come from what we've seen before; but for more complex ideas this doesn't really apply. While parts of empiricism apply to most of what we encounter in our everyday lives, I do not believe the idea that ALL of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses because there are some things that are just too complex to rely solely on our experiences.

Pragmatism and Feminism-
The more I read about pragmatism and feminist epistemology, the more I found myself agreeing with their view that knowledge is not a completely detached intellectual activity. Both theories question our ability to separate ourselves from society and outside influences, in order to gain real knowledge about the World. To me this makes sense because all people are different based on the kind of environment they were brought up in. Knowledge cannot really be an entirely detached and independent thing because there is always something that led us to gain that knowledge or come to a certain conclusion - these things are affected by outside sources. Unless someone has never encountered any sort of human interaction or socialization (including TV, newspapers, etc.), the way they gain and perceive knowledge about different things will be in some way skewed by their human experiences. However, I do not completely agree with pragmatic idea that true knowledge of something is based only on an idea's ability to help us do something useful because this implies that if we are not getting some sort of practical use of out an idea, than we do not have any knowledge. I don't think this is always the case becuase again, some ideas are too complex to rely on just one thing, in this case the value of an idea.

Overall the theory I most agree with is Kantian Constructivism. I agree that both sense experience and reason are needed to gain true knowledge, and that our ideas of space and time are simply a part of the way we structure and organize what we see and feel at different times. The only thing I'm not totally convinced on his idea that intuition is only anything present to the senses, because I think there are some things we know simply due to human nature. After looking at many different views, Kantian Constructivism made the most sense to me and seemed to fit best with my views of the definition and origin of knowledge.

Does Knowledge Come Only From Our Sense Experiences?

Personally I don't agree with empiricism's view that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses. I agree that a lot of what we know comes from what we've experienced before, but not everything. I think in terms of what we see and experience in everyday life - things like our environment, the weather, the date, the seasons, etc, our knowledge does come from what we've seen before; but for more complex ideas this doesn't really apply. 

There are certain things that we just know without ever having to be told or exposed to. I guess these are like our instincts in a way. I've heard cases where people who have never swam before fall into a body of water and they end up being able to swim to save themselves. Without ever being exposed to water, or the feeling of swimming, they were still able to figure it out when they really needed to. Now the act of swimming is a pretty simple idea - one that even if a person had never actually done before, they have probably still been exposed to in some way. But what they really did - the more complex idea, for which I believe the use of senses does not really apply - was survive. They knew that they had to survive and they did what needed to be done. Even though they didn't know how to swim and were terrified of water, something within them knew that was what needed to be done and just did it - without any outside source or past experience to rely on. There are also instances where babies falls into water and they are able to flip over on their back and float, sort of treading their arms, to keep their heads above water. I've seen videos of babies as young as 4 weeks doing this - it was crazy!! This is another good example because a baby that young would never have experienced this before, or experienced anyone else doing it, and even if they did they wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand and remember it to act it out themselves later. It's something they just somehow know to do because they have to - again for survival. The fact that if your head goes underwater and you can't get it back up you will get very injured or die seems to be a universal truth that we are able to know outside of any sense experiences we may have had. So while parts of empiricism apply to most of what we encounter in our everyday lives, I do not believe the idea that ALL of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses because there are some things that are just too complex to completely rely on what we are able to see, hear, smell, touch, and taste.


 

Methodological Skepticism

I agree with Descartes' idea that we are more certain of our own thoughts and what we think we know about the World around us, than we are of the ACTUAL World around us. People often hold sets of beliefs that have been passed down, or that they were raised with, without ever questioning where this information came from and if there's a chance that some of it could be wrong. For most people there are things we believe and do because to us that's just the way things are and the way it's supposed to be. When in reality, we should be questioning the things we know, and only accepting those things that we can prove without any doubt to be true. 

While I think methodological skepticism is a good strategy for making decisions about the validity of some things, I don't think it can be applied to all things in life. It's important to realize that if there is great doubt about a certain concept and it's validity, or if there are many little doubts about an idea, that it may not be true. However, there are also a lot of things that you may never be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt, and that doesn't necessarily make those thing untrue. A good example of this is love. When someone tells you they love you, you can chose to believe them or not based on the way you perceive their feelings for you. The person saying it may know without absolutely no doubt that they love the person they are saying this to - which when applied to methodological skepticism makes it true. However the one being told may, and most likely will, have doubts about the validity and truth of this statement because there's no way to logically prove it. Following methodological skepticism, the person's doubt about the statement would require holding off on judgment of it's validity until it can be proven with absolutely no doubt - which for something like love is never. But just because it cannot be proven with total bedrock certainty, doesn't mean it isn't true.

It really depends on the individual but I think that overall most people don't use the strategy of methodological skepticism, probably because of the time and energy it takes to do so. It's much easier to believe what we want to believe or what we've always been told until someone can prove us wrong or it becomes impossible to accept it as the truth, than it is to constantly doubt everything that is presented to us and only really believe the ideas that we can find no doubt for. There will most likely always be someone who doubts any idea in question, but that doesn't make it untrue. People often choose to take the easy way out, and the effort and thought that goes along with the practice of methodological skepticism is too much for many individuals. Constantly having to play devil's advocate in this sort of game of "is it really true" would be exhausting if applied to every idea one holds about life and about themselves. Most people are simply not willing to take the time to do this when it is so much easier to just believe what they already think they know. Especially since these ideas are usually similar to, and repeatedly reinforced by, those closest to them.

Allegory of the Cave

After reading through Plato's Allegory of the Cave and taking some time to think about it, I can't help but agree with what Plato and Socrates are trying to teach us. The allegory is meant to show that those who never question, never learn anything outside the norm and look deeper at what they think they know, believe that what they see is right and real even though it isn't. In the allegory when someone finally goes out of the cave and sees the sun, whch is meant to represent true knowledge, they realize there is so much more to everything they had thought before. They then feel an obligation to go back into the cave and explain to the others, but are almost always rejected and ridiculed as those still trapped in the cave write these new ideas off as impossible and ludacris. This is showing how people become so set in their ways and comftorable with what they've known for so long, that they are unwilling to branch out and gain further understanding by looking at different ideas and questioning their own. If they are unable to break out of this, like the prisoners in the cave, they become just that - prisoners in the caves of their minds.

I believe philosophy to be liberating because like we see Socrates explain in The Apology, to truely be wise you must be able to realize and and accept that you don't know everything about everything, or anything about anything really. Everything is subject to change with  further examination and there is always more to be taken out of every idea and situation. Being able to recognize and accept this would be extremely liberating because it would mean giving up all control of what you think you know about everything in your life.

Although he's implying that those without philosophy are like prisoners trapped in a cave, I don't think Socrates is neccesarilly being pessimistic. He's certainly showing how much better life is outside of that, but he explains that those in the cave are content and comfortable because they don't know any better. They think they're right and don't understand what they're missing so even though they are not truely enlightened, many of them believe themselves to be. Only after breaking through that and seeing the truth do they recognize that they had been stuck in that sort of mental prison.

First Blog Post

Hey everyone my name's Krista and I'll be using this blog as a philosophy journal for a class that I am taking at BMCC in Manhattan. I moved to Manhattan from California about a year ago but I grew up in Oregon. This is my third semester at BMCC and I've taken a few online courses before. I take some classes on campus as well but doing some online definitely helps me manage my busy schedule. I really enjoy discussing and learning about Philosophy and Krishnamurti's book, Think on These Things is one of my favorites. I'm excited to get going with this class and further develop my thinking.