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.