As the semester is coming to an end I found myself reflecting on some of the topics we discussed in our philosophy class. I can honestly say that this was my most interesting and favorite class this semester.
We have been introduced to a lot of different concepts and ideas with the intention of putting our brains to work.
Looking back to the beginning of the semester when we read Adrienne Rich’s “on claiming an education” I must say that it was really refreshing to see that all of us claimed our education in this class. All of us seemed to be highly motivated and always engaged in good conversations.
The ethical and unwritten contract between teacher and students (as Adrienne Rich talks about in her essay) led to active and responsible participation of all of us.
Of course Philosophy itself gives a lot of room for free discussions. Since it is the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom by intellectual means many questions were being asked. Not all of them found a satisfying answer at the time. But that is ok.
I understand that life cannot be viewed and understood from one single perspective. For me there is no universally valid right or wrong answers that account for all human beings. It all depends on the viewpoint of each individual person I believe. And this is what makes it so interesting and wonderful. There is so much room for different ideas and as long as we remain open minded to other people’s idea it will never get boring and there will never be limitations to our thoughts. We may evaluate others idea and see how far we can come to agree with them or if we can even be persuaded and change our own ideas to the new ones but it is important to remember not to judge. One of my favorite philosophers is Krishnamurti (whom we did not discuss in class I know.) He once said something like “Thinking without judging is the highest form of intelligence. This seems like quite a challenging task and maybe even impossible for humans, but only this let's us stay open minded and be tolerant of other people's thoughts.
However, sometimes I think life would be a little easier if we didn’t have so much intellectual freedom and just had to follow rules and opinions. If there was a definite right and wrong. But since humans constantly evolve this can’t be the case. We thrive forward… we want new stuff, new ideas, new concepts. Things just don’t ever stay the same. We change our attitudes and ideas over time as we learn more. This all helps to sort our own thoughts and discard old useless stuff.
This course was really the best example how things can turn out when students actively claim their education and not be limited to learning fixed things dictated by teachers. Not only are students encouraged to challenge themselves but also teachers (as I mentioned in my very first blog entry) to be open to challenging questions and recognizing the idea that things can also be learned from the student. This concept has really been successfully implemented in this class. Philosophy covers such a big terrain that unfortunately we were only able to touch on a few things and not go through anything thoroughly but I have made some mental bookmarks for myself on things I want to return to later and read/learn) more about.
Some of the most basic and fundamental questions in life to me are:
Who am I? How can I transform myself? How important is authenticity and is the ultimate purpose in life “the quest for happiness”?
I really loved this class and feel like I have learned quite a bit.
Monday, April 25, 2011
A practical guide to personal freedom
The Four Agreements (by Don Miguel Ruiz)
Don Miguel Ruiz realized as a neurosurgeon that what needed to be healed was not only the physical brain, but the human mind as well. After a car accident the direction of his life shifted dramatically and he experienced himself as pure awareness outside the constraints of his physical body. He realized that the Toltec wisdom of his family contained all of the tools needed to change the human mind.
If one is on a quest for authenticity, the four agreements can definitely help to influence this process. I thought about how they can be implemented in our daily life, why they are so difficult to pursue and how they can actually make our lives better. I tried to find answers to the following questions for each one of the four agreements.
What does it mean?
Why is it so hard to do this?
How can it help us transform our lives?
1) Be Impeccable with your words
Impeccable means flawless, without sin. We can do this by taking responsibility for our actions and words without blaming ourselves. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word against ourselves or gossip about others. Don’t use words that go against your own integrity, your own self worth. When we speak we should ask ourselves these questions: how am I using my words? Am I judging? Am I blaming? Gossip is one of the hardest bad habits to break. People talk about other people behind their backs, people judge. When we are young we are taught not to be truthful with our words in order not to hurt the other person or to appear “polite.” Be careful what you tell your children, it forms character. Set yourself free from opinions formed during your own childhood when you feel they don’t go conform with your present views and beliefs.
2) Don’t take anything personally
We need to understand that we don’t see things how they really are, we see things as we are. Everything we see and the way we speak is always filtered through our own set of beliefs. Therefore it is always a limited perspective. So when people make judgments about you, it is more about them than it is about you. However his agreement is hard to understand and put in context when someone attacks you verbally, or crosses a boundary. I find it really difficult not to take this personally because this verbal attack is directed towards me at this very moment. However, sometimes we project our own emotions onto other people. What this agreement does not mean is to close ourselves off to the feedback of other people that can actually help us grow. Communication is the key component that can build bridges. We want to be open and at least listen to what other people have to say. It is up to us to decide which people we want to listen to, which people influence us and then make our own decisions based on that. Respect other people’s opinions as well. Tolerance is the way to freedom. Open the conversation by saying: “You must have a reason to say this. I am curious to hear what that is.” And then they probably will dig deeper into the real issue and we have a conversation. I think this is the most difficult agreement to follow
3) Don’t make assumptions
Is this realistic? Don’t we always make assumptions? Isn’t it part of our life? People always try to make meaning out of their life experiences. In science assumptions are totally necessary. In order to have innovative breakthroughs in life it is necessary to make assumptions so we can start receiving things from a different point of view. Making assumptions helps us to create a bigger framework of what is possible. Ruiz however, is probably talking about the assumption as it relates to our personal relationships. When we make assumptions we base all of our reactions, or what we think, on something that may not even exist. When we make assumptions it is negative for us. We put ourselves and other people down. Ruiz says that people make assumptions because they are afraid to ask questions. When we don’t have the facts as human beings, we are going to fill in the blanks. We make up our own story. Another thing he talks about in terms of personal relationship is that people assume they can change someone. They get into relationships that may not be working the way and assume they can change it and the other person. We expect people to act a certain way, again based on our own assumptions. When you stop making assumptions, your world becomes impeccable, and your life is completely transformed. What you need comes to you easily because spirit moves freely through you.
4) Always do your best
This agreement sounds pretty simple, but often we don’t do the best we can and we usually know when this is the case. We compromise for less. A lot of times there is a big gap between stuff we do and the stuff we could do. “Always do your best” is about practice and knowing that we are going to make mistakes. We should learn from our mistakes and move forward. Our best today may not be our best tomorrow. Face every situation the best you can possibly do. Bring the best out of people. At the end of our journey we then don’t have to regret the things we didn’t do, because we always gave things our best effort.
As human beings we are always evolving and always changing. What happens when we constantly ask ourselves these questions is that we become more aware. Self awareness is the core principal of personal development. Seek to always improve yourself, the relationship with ourselves and with others.
Following these rules can bring about so many positive results including the accomplishment of personal freedom and the improvement of our interpersonal relationships.
Don Miguel Ruiz realized as a neurosurgeon that what needed to be healed was not only the physical brain, but the human mind as well. After a car accident the direction of his life shifted dramatically and he experienced himself as pure awareness outside the constraints of his physical body. He realized that the Toltec wisdom of his family contained all of the tools needed to change the human mind.
If one is on a quest for authenticity, the four agreements can definitely help to influence this process. I thought about how they can be implemented in our daily life, why they are so difficult to pursue and how they can actually make our lives better. I tried to find answers to the following questions for each one of the four agreements.
What does it mean?
Why is it so hard to do this?
How can it help us transform our lives?
1) Be Impeccable with your words
Impeccable means flawless, without sin. We can do this by taking responsibility for our actions and words without blaming ourselves. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word against ourselves or gossip about others. Don’t use words that go against your own integrity, your own self worth. When we speak we should ask ourselves these questions: how am I using my words? Am I judging? Am I blaming? Gossip is one of the hardest bad habits to break. People talk about other people behind their backs, people judge. When we are young we are taught not to be truthful with our words in order not to hurt the other person or to appear “polite.” Be careful what you tell your children, it forms character. Set yourself free from opinions formed during your own childhood when you feel they don’t go conform with your present views and beliefs.
2) Don’t take anything personally
We need to understand that we don’t see things how they really are, we see things as we are. Everything we see and the way we speak is always filtered through our own set of beliefs. Therefore it is always a limited perspective. So when people make judgments about you, it is more about them than it is about you. However his agreement is hard to understand and put in context when someone attacks you verbally, or crosses a boundary. I find it really difficult not to take this personally because this verbal attack is directed towards me at this very moment. However, sometimes we project our own emotions onto other people. What this agreement does not mean is to close ourselves off to the feedback of other people that can actually help us grow. Communication is the key component that can build bridges. We want to be open and at least listen to what other people have to say. It is up to us to decide which people we want to listen to, which people influence us and then make our own decisions based on that. Respect other people’s opinions as well. Tolerance is the way to freedom. Open the conversation by saying: “You must have a reason to say this. I am curious to hear what that is.” And then they probably will dig deeper into the real issue and we have a conversation. I think this is the most difficult agreement to follow
3) Don’t make assumptions
Is this realistic? Don’t we always make assumptions? Isn’t it part of our life? People always try to make meaning out of their life experiences. In science assumptions are totally necessary. In order to have innovative breakthroughs in life it is necessary to make assumptions so we can start receiving things from a different point of view. Making assumptions helps us to create a bigger framework of what is possible. Ruiz however, is probably talking about the assumption as it relates to our personal relationships. When we make assumptions we base all of our reactions, or what we think, on something that may not even exist. When we make assumptions it is negative for us. We put ourselves and other people down. Ruiz says that people make assumptions because they are afraid to ask questions. When we don’t have the facts as human beings, we are going to fill in the blanks. We make up our own story. Another thing he talks about in terms of personal relationship is that people assume they can change someone. They get into relationships that may not be working the way and assume they can change it and the other person. We expect people to act a certain way, again based on our own assumptions. When you stop making assumptions, your world becomes impeccable, and your life is completely transformed. What you need comes to you easily because spirit moves freely through you.
4) Always do your best
This agreement sounds pretty simple, but often we don’t do the best we can and we usually know when this is the case. We compromise for less. A lot of times there is a big gap between stuff we do and the stuff we could do. “Always do your best” is about practice and knowing that we are going to make mistakes. We should learn from our mistakes and move forward. Our best today may not be our best tomorrow. Face every situation the best you can possibly do. Bring the best out of people. At the end of our journey we then don’t have to regret the things we didn’t do, because we always gave things our best effort.
As human beings we are always evolving and always changing. What happens when we constantly ask ourselves these questions is that we become more aware. Self awareness is the core principal of personal development. Seek to always improve yourself, the relationship with ourselves and with others.
Following these rules can bring about so many positive results including the accomplishment of personal freedom and the improvement of our interpersonal relationships.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Humanity and Morality
Immanuel Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality, thus immorality is thereby irrational. He believed all humans have within them the capacity for moral behavior.
I am somewhat still confused about what morality and ethics are and if there is a universal morality?
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
So morality is either defined by society as a whole, and can thus vary from group to group or it refers to something put forward by all rational persons.
Does this mean there must be some kind of universal morality that accounts for all of humanity?
If human beings are moral and ethical why do they treat each other so unequally? If a creature was completely moral or ethical inequality of any kind would be impossible. Maybe human nature is completely amoral and we are just pretending something we are not?
Morality is an individual phenomenon but it only works or makes sense in a social context. When humans form into social groups, there is something that naturally happens by virtue of human psychology and the motivations for forming groups. Different societies have different beliefs which form the basis of their morality.
To me it seems like most morals arise out of real-life situations. Religions and philosophers looking for universal moral truths are just trying to fix morality. Why does it need to be an all or nothing sort of thing? Can there not be human morality and ethics of a personal or conditional type? Must we claim that if a human idea or belief or value is not UNIVERSAL and proven objectively, that it does not exist?
Individual people have ethics and moral codes. Groups also have codes, defined by the agreements between members of the group on such things. Morality is never unchanging, permanent or able to be “proven” somehow. I don’t think there is a universal moral law. Ethics is not “in nature”. It is human; it is in us. However, this does not make it any less real.
Humans are formed by their biology and by their social interactions and motivated by a mixture of ego, malice and compassion. When people who believe in morals and ethics say that everybody else must behave in a way that is considered moral or ethical, they make such statements by believing there has to be some independent existence that everybody must conform under. That definitely sounds like either Kantians or Christians – ironically both of a dying breed in Germany where Kant was from.
But even Kantians and Christians see such systems only as an ideal and not the real day to day behavior of ordinary people – they express how they would like people to behave.
I look at morality and ethics as a sort of socio-religious form of thinking.
Like religion beyond belief there is no hardcore evidence for believing in morals and ethics other than that it makes those who believe in them feel "good" about themselves and the world around them. This is where the belief in god is very similar to the belief in morals and ethics. Also there is no proof to what makes a specific action “right” whereas another “wrong.”
I am really surprised that postmodern humans seek to salvage morals and ethics which are based on theological forms of thinking.
I am somewhat still confused about what morality and ethics are and if there is a universal morality?
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
So morality is either defined by society as a whole, and can thus vary from group to group or it refers to something put forward by all rational persons.
Does this mean there must be some kind of universal morality that accounts for all of humanity?
If human beings are moral and ethical why do they treat each other so unequally? If a creature was completely moral or ethical inequality of any kind would be impossible. Maybe human nature is completely amoral and we are just pretending something we are not?
Morality is an individual phenomenon but it only works or makes sense in a social context. When humans form into social groups, there is something that naturally happens by virtue of human psychology and the motivations for forming groups. Different societies have different beliefs which form the basis of their morality.
To me it seems like most morals arise out of real-life situations. Religions and philosophers looking for universal moral truths are just trying to fix morality. Why does it need to be an all or nothing sort of thing? Can there not be human morality and ethics of a personal or conditional type? Must we claim that if a human idea or belief or value is not UNIVERSAL and proven objectively, that it does not exist?
Individual people have ethics and moral codes. Groups also have codes, defined by the agreements between members of the group on such things. Morality is never unchanging, permanent or able to be “proven” somehow. I don’t think there is a universal moral law. Ethics is not “in nature”. It is human; it is in us. However, this does not make it any less real.
Humans are formed by their biology and by their social interactions and motivated by a mixture of ego, malice and compassion. When people who believe in morals and ethics say that everybody else must behave in a way that is considered moral or ethical, they make such statements by believing there has to be some independent existence that everybody must conform under. That definitely sounds like either Kantians or Christians – ironically both of a dying breed in Germany where Kant was from.
But even Kantians and Christians see such systems only as an ideal and not the real day to day behavior of ordinary people – they express how they would like people to behave.
I look at morality and ethics as a sort of socio-religious form of thinking.
Like religion beyond belief there is no hardcore evidence for believing in morals and ethics other than that it makes those who believe in them feel "good" about themselves and the world around them. This is where the belief in god is very similar to the belief in morals and ethics. Also there is no proof to what makes a specific action “right” whereas another “wrong.”
I am really surprised that postmodern humans seek to salvage morals and ethics which are based on theological forms of thinking.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
On marriage and monogamy
Marriage is a legal, a religious and a social institution. It can be seen as a social union or legal contract between people and is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. Such a “contract” is often formalized via a wedding ceremony.
But what is the purpose of marriage? Does it make sense to get married? In order to answer these questions one must understand the reasons why people get married. People marry for many different reasons, including political alliances, economic reasons, immigration purposes, social image, spiritual and religious reasons and sometimes even love.
Most Westerners probably like to believe that marriage should be based on love. However, love seems to be the reason which makes the least sense to me, because very often love does not last forever. People change. They grow, and most of all, they grow apart from each other. Does it even make sense to be with one person for our entire life? If love is our main reason to be with a person why can’t we live with that someone happily in a long-term committed relationship without having to get married? Why is marriage necessary in this case? Does marriage really make a difference for a relationship that exists because of love?
In our culture marriage is defined as a “monogamist relationship”, at least from a legal standpoint. This brought another question to my mind. Is it really a natural thing for humans to be monogamous? If we look into human biology, anthropology and sociology, the monogamous human appears as a very weird notion. We are mammals after all and biologists say that strictly sexually monogamous species are almost non existent. Most mammals have just a social monogamy: they pair up to mate and raise offspring, but still have flings.
So why Monogamy?
Evolutionary psychologists explain that monogamy is a breeding behavior that is considered to give offspring a better survival chance. In monogamous couples females receive all the support of the male in raising newborns to adulthood. The human committed partnership between a man and a woman evolved for raising the children and ensuring the presence of their genes in the next generation. In this sense monogamy is “natural” since it arises from a “natural” desire to spread one’s genetic “self” to the next generation.
However, human cultures have evolved so much that, amazingly, there are societies that forced our biology even beyond monogamy into polyandry. The marriage of a woman with more than one husband is extremely rare, but it does exist. There are tribal societies considering that a child could and should possess more than one father.
Christopher Ryan who is a psychologist, explained in his article “Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species” that couples who turn to a therapist for guidance for their marriage are likely to receive the confusing message that long-term pair bonding comes naturally to our species and most insist that long-term sexual monogamy is "normal.” Thus, couples are led to believe that waning sexual passion in enduring marriages or sexual interest in anyone but their partner are signs of a failed relationship, when in reality these things often signify nothing more than that we are Homo Sapiens.
Our bodies, minds and sexual habits all reflect a highly sexual primate. A non-possessive sexuality was the human norm until the rise of agriculture and private property just 10,000 years ago. When people began living in settled agricultural communities the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with his house, slaves and other assets. Also the “natural” desire to pass on those goods to one’s children, an institution was needed to insure that it was truly one’s children to whom the goods would go. Monogamy insured that that the goods will go to the male’s biological children and the legal rights of transfer of property insured that the present generation will be able to determine who in the next generation will have control over the property.
Some might argue that we as intelligent humans are not apes and have the power to choose how to live. This is true. We can choose many things including a decision to lead a sexually monogamous life. We can also choose a married life, which may bring some advantages but also disadvantages along with it. Before getting married people should ask themselves “Why do I want to get married? Why is it important to me?” They should also be aware that they are giving up a lot of freedom to explore their own values, dreams, goals and spirituality. A non-committed person may have a greater sense of self-knowledge. As people mature and also go through the disappointments that sometimes come along with relationships they often start to realize the benefits of being single. I am not arguing against marriage, what I mean is that a mature person, who is single, realizes in a mature way the significance of the freedom of singleness and many people who choose that life are able to live fulfilling and rewarding lives just like married couples. This to me is best proof that there is absolutely no need to get married, at least not for emotional reasons.
But what is the purpose of marriage? Does it make sense to get married? In order to answer these questions one must understand the reasons why people get married. People marry for many different reasons, including political alliances, economic reasons, immigration purposes, social image, spiritual and religious reasons and sometimes even love.
Most Westerners probably like to believe that marriage should be based on love. However, love seems to be the reason which makes the least sense to me, because very often love does not last forever. People change. They grow, and most of all, they grow apart from each other. Does it even make sense to be with one person for our entire life? If love is our main reason to be with a person why can’t we live with that someone happily in a long-term committed relationship without having to get married? Why is marriage necessary in this case? Does marriage really make a difference for a relationship that exists because of love?
In our culture marriage is defined as a “monogamist relationship”, at least from a legal standpoint. This brought another question to my mind. Is it really a natural thing for humans to be monogamous? If we look into human biology, anthropology and sociology, the monogamous human appears as a very weird notion. We are mammals after all and biologists say that strictly sexually monogamous species are almost non existent. Most mammals have just a social monogamy: they pair up to mate and raise offspring, but still have flings.
So why Monogamy?
Evolutionary psychologists explain that monogamy is a breeding behavior that is considered to give offspring a better survival chance. In monogamous couples females receive all the support of the male in raising newborns to adulthood. The human committed partnership between a man and a woman evolved for raising the children and ensuring the presence of their genes in the next generation. In this sense monogamy is “natural” since it arises from a “natural” desire to spread one’s genetic “self” to the next generation.
However, human cultures have evolved so much that, amazingly, there are societies that forced our biology even beyond monogamy into polyandry. The marriage of a woman with more than one husband is extremely rare, but it does exist. There are tribal societies considering that a child could and should possess more than one father.
Christopher Ryan who is a psychologist, explained in his article “Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species” that couples who turn to a therapist for guidance for their marriage are likely to receive the confusing message that long-term pair bonding comes naturally to our species and most insist that long-term sexual monogamy is "normal.” Thus, couples are led to believe that waning sexual passion in enduring marriages or sexual interest in anyone but their partner are signs of a failed relationship, when in reality these things often signify nothing more than that we are Homo Sapiens.
Our bodies, minds and sexual habits all reflect a highly sexual primate. A non-possessive sexuality was the human norm until the rise of agriculture and private property just 10,000 years ago. When people began living in settled agricultural communities the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with his house, slaves and other assets. Also the “natural” desire to pass on those goods to one’s children, an institution was needed to insure that it was truly one’s children to whom the goods would go. Monogamy insured that that the goods will go to the male’s biological children and the legal rights of transfer of property insured that the present generation will be able to determine who in the next generation will have control over the property.
Some might argue that we as intelligent humans are not apes and have the power to choose how to live. This is true. We can choose many things including a decision to lead a sexually monogamous life. We can also choose a married life, which may bring some advantages but also disadvantages along with it. Before getting married people should ask themselves “Why do I want to get married? Why is it important to me?” They should also be aware that they are giving up a lot of freedom to explore their own values, dreams, goals and spirituality. A non-committed person may have a greater sense of self-knowledge. As people mature and also go through the disappointments that sometimes come along with relationships they often start to realize the benefits of being single. I am not arguing against marriage, what I mean is that a mature person, who is single, realizes in a mature way the significance of the freedom of singleness and many people who choose that life are able to live fulfilling and rewarding lives just like married couples. This to me is best proof that there is absolutely no need to get married, at least not for emotional reasons.
Do we have free will?
When I read John Mill’s “on liberty” I asked myself how free do we want to be and how free can we be in a society? How much power does society have over our own freedom and do we have choices that are completely free?
If the world is deterministic, then none of our actions can be seen as free.
If this is the case then everything we chose was already pre-determined and thus we wouldn’t have free will. So how do we know if we are really free? Do we really have free will? And if so, what exactly is “free will?” Rene Descartes identifies free will with the freedom of choice, “the ability to do or not to do something” (Meditation IV), and even goes so far as to declare that “the will is by its nature so free that it can never be constrained”.
Part of me, however, wants to distinguish freedom of will and freedom of action. We may be able to have free will but are often limited in carrying it out in part on factors that are beyond our control. There are always external constraints on the range of options we believe to have. Furthermore, by making our free choices we often limit our own freedom. For example, if I make a conscious free choice to get married to a certain person I most likely will not be able to pursue other persons as well as a possible romantic prospect.
However, Mill didn’t seem very interested in these questions in his work “on liberty.” His aim was a completely different one. He was not so much interested in the metaphysical aspect of freedom and liberty but more in civil liberties. The questions he asked AND answered:
• How much power should society and government have over its citizens?
• What are and what should be our civil liberties?
Undoubtedly there is a struggle between liberty and society. Civil liberties seem to be set by each government. We define Civil liberties as rights and freedoms that provide individual specific rights such as the right to life, freedom and the right to liberty and security, the right to privacy. So interestingly the government decides what our civil liberties are but in the same sense they “guarantee” us the right to liberty and security. We must limit government’s power so that we can preserve our rights. But we must give government enough power to allow it to protect us. Liberty and Authority are thus in constant conflict.
Liberty implies self-government over our bodies and our minds. That gives us individuality. If we lack individuality, we thereby lack freedom, and we thereby lack what makes us human.
No society can be free in which social liberties are disrespected. This is true no matter what its form of government is. So what are these all-important liberties for John Stuart Mill?
• The Right to Privacy
• Freedom of Thought
• Freedom of Publication and Freedom of the Press.
Depriving anyone of the freedom to express her thoughts takes away her civil liberties.
I do agree with Mill that everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest.
Although human beings are individuals after all they have chosen (or were coerced) to live within a society, which implemented a set of rules and laws to its members for a better, more harmonious way of living for all of its members. I do agree with Mill on every aspect he discusses in his work. I think freely which leads me to the conclusion that what Mill proclaims as individual freedom is the best freedom we can hope to achieve within a society, ending with his words: “ The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” (John Stuart Mill on “Liberty”)
Having true freedom to me means that we are free emotionally and mentally. Free of judgments and limitations. True freedom is when deep in our Soul, we are content.
If the world is deterministic, then none of our actions can be seen as free.
If this is the case then everything we chose was already pre-determined and thus we wouldn’t have free will. So how do we know if we are really free? Do we really have free will? And if so, what exactly is “free will?” Rene Descartes identifies free will with the freedom of choice, “the ability to do or not to do something” (Meditation IV), and even goes so far as to declare that “the will is by its nature so free that it can never be constrained”.
Part of me, however, wants to distinguish freedom of will and freedom of action. We may be able to have free will but are often limited in carrying it out in part on factors that are beyond our control. There are always external constraints on the range of options we believe to have. Furthermore, by making our free choices we often limit our own freedom. For example, if I make a conscious free choice to get married to a certain person I most likely will not be able to pursue other persons as well as a possible romantic prospect.
However, Mill didn’t seem very interested in these questions in his work “on liberty.” His aim was a completely different one. He was not so much interested in the metaphysical aspect of freedom and liberty but more in civil liberties. The questions he asked AND answered:
• How much power should society and government have over its citizens?
• What are and what should be our civil liberties?
Undoubtedly there is a struggle between liberty and society. Civil liberties seem to be set by each government. We define Civil liberties as rights and freedoms that provide individual specific rights such as the right to life, freedom and the right to liberty and security, the right to privacy. So interestingly the government decides what our civil liberties are but in the same sense they “guarantee” us the right to liberty and security. We must limit government’s power so that we can preserve our rights. But we must give government enough power to allow it to protect us. Liberty and Authority are thus in constant conflict.
Liberty implies self-government over our bodies and our minds. That gives us individuality. If we lack individuality, we thereby lack freedom, and we thereby lack what makes us human.
No society can be free in which social liberties are disrespected. This is true no matter what its form of government is. So what are these all-important liberties for John Stuart Mill?
• The Right to Privacy
• Freedom of Thought
• Freedom of Publication and Freedom of the Press.
Depriving anyone of the freedom to express her thoughts takes away her civil liberties.
I do agree with Mill that everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest.
Although human beings are individuals after all they have chosen (or were coerced) to live within a society, which implemented a set of rules and laws to its members for a better, more harmonious way of living for all of its members. I do agree with Mill on every aspect he discusses in his work. I think freely which leads me to the conclusion that what Mill proclaims as individual freedom is the best freedom we can hope to achieve within a society, ending with his words: “ The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” (John Stuart Mill on “Liberty”)
Having true freedom to me means that we are free emotionally and mentally. Free of judgments and limitations. True freedom is when deep in our Soul, we are content.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Abuse Excuse - a justification for violent acts?
When I researched the case of the brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez, who according to their defense lawyer, killed their parents out of fear and as a result of being sexually abused by their father for many years, it made me wonder if there is a justification for someone’s violent actions. Did the Menendez brother intentionally kill or did they act out due to the years of alleged abuses they had suffered?
I have no doubt that prior sexual or other physical abuse can cause some sort of emotional instability or even mental disorder but can this lead to violent acts by the victim against their abuser and make the abuser not be responsible for their actions? Does the abuse excuse claim that it was necessary for the brothers to kill heir own parents because they were just innocent victims of their environment and thus not responsible.
This brings up the question: To what extent are we responsible for our own actions? Is there a cause of forces that makes us do things or do we really have a choice in life? Do we have free will? I do believe that experiences form us and we are indeed a product of our environment. But what dictates our beliefs, morals, emotions, values and thus influences our actions?
There seems to be a broad source of influences beginning with the time we were conceived. It starts with our genetic make up, one set of biological parents decide (or do not intentionally decide) to produce life (us). And parental influence doesn’t quite stop there in most cases. They raise us and enforce their own beliefs and values on us, in most cases with good intentions of course. It continues with social influence/experiences, education and all sorts of life experiences throughout our entire life. We are constantly introduced to new experiences and most people change or at least re-consider previous views over time in light of these experiences.
In philosophy, the view that every event has at least one cause is termed determinism. It claims that we do not have free will, because our choices and actions are caused by prior experiences.
Hard determinism is the belief that there is no free will. Everything happens because of a previous experience that influenced it. According to hard determinism, environment, heredity, and other influences determine people to act the way they do and because of that, they are not responsible for their actions. But if people are not free and thus responsible for their actions, then why do we even attempt to hold them responsible? Does this mean we do so only to influence future behavior? Some theories support the claim that human beings are free and can be held responsible for their actions. In contrast to hard determinism, soft determinism says that we are determined and are nonetheless still free. According to the soft determinist, it is an individual’s desire or belief that forms the basis for the choice of his or her actions. Libertarianism is the viewpoint based on the idea that there are many caused events in the world. The human choices, however, are NOT caused and these are seen as the free actions.
Aristotle’s view is very consistent with soft determinism it seems like. He said this about free will/free choice: “We are free insofar as we are responsible for our actions, and we are responsible only for those actions that we do voluntarily (that is, as a result of our choices). Insofar as our habits or dispositions are the result of choices we have made in the past, any choices or actions based on them are voluntary and are our responsibility. We are responsible for any action that results from our "culpable" ignorance or negligence if any reasonable person in our circumstances could have avoided such ignorance or negligence. We are also responsible for learning how a "reasonable" person thinks, and that means not allowing ourselves to become selfish or lazy. Ultimately, we are responsible for developing through our actions the character and personality traits that form the foundation on which our actions are based. We are not responsible for involuntary actions, that is, those actions over which we have no control and which result from coercion, constraint, or justifiable ignorance.”
If the Menendez brothers didn’t have a moral obligation to do right because of their bad circumstances, why do the courts have a legal permission to understand their bad circumstances and exercise leniency?
My personal believe is that our decisions are NOT fully dictated. Though determinism is true, it does not rule out freedom and responsibility. As for the Menendez case, let’s assume they were sexually abused by their father and this had a great psychological effect on them and their behavior, I still would have to argue they were in the position to make choices, including the choice to kill their parents. They knew what they were doing, even though they were abused as children
If we are only the products of our environment, then all of us are just machines and can’t be held responsible for doing what we are programmed to do. We wouldn’t have souls anymore and merely respond to the pushing of certain buttons. I don’t think we are machines. People are in part products of their environment but they still possess something like human dignity which to me would have to include “free will” and also responsibility for one’s own actions.
I have no doubt that prior sexual or other physical abuse can cause some sort of emotional instability or even mental disorder but can this lead to violent acts by the victim against their abuser and make the abuser not be responsible for their actions? Does the abuse excuse claim that it was necessary for the brothers to kill heir own parents because they were just innocent victims of their environment and thus not responsible.
This brings up the question: To what extent are we responsible for our own actions? Is there a cause of forces that makes us do things or do we really have a choice in life? Do we have free will? I do believe that experiences form us and we are indeed a product of our environment. But what dictates our beliefs, morals, emotions, values and thus influences our actions?
There seems to be a broad source of influences beginning with the time we were conceived. It starts with our genetic make up, one set of biological parents decide (or do not intentionally decide) to produce life (us). And parental influence doesn’t quite stop there in most cases. They raise us and enforce their own beliefs and values on us, in most cases with good intentions of course. It continues with social influence/experiences, education and all sorts of life experiences throughout our entire life. We are constantly introduced to new experiences and most people change or at least re-consider previous views over time in light of these experiences.
In philosophy, the view that every event has at least one cause is termed determinism. It claims that we do not have free will, because our choices and actions are caused by prior experiences.
Hard determinism is the belief that there is no free will. Everything happens because of a previous experience that influenced it. According to hard determinism, environment, heredity, and other influences determine people to act the way they do and because of that, they are not responsible for their actions. But if people are not free and thus responsible for their actions, then why do we even attempt to hold them responsible? Does this mean we do so only to influence future behavior? Some theories support the claim that human beings are free and can be held responsible for their actions. In contrast to hard determinism, soft determinism says that we are determined and are nonetheless still free. According to the soft determinist, it is an individual’s desire or belief that forms the basis for the choice of his or her actions. Libertarianism is the viewpoint based on the idea that there are many caused events in the world. The human choices, however, are NOT caused and these are seen as the free actions.
Aristotle’s view is very consistent with soft determinism it seems like. He said this about free will/free choice: “We are free insofar as we are responsible for our actions, and we are responsible only for those actions that we do voluntarily (that is, as a result of our choices). Insofar as our habits or dispositions are the result of choices we have made in the past, any choices or actions based on them are voluntary and are our responsibility. We are responsible for any action that results from our "culpable" ignorance or negligence if any reasonable person in our circumstances could have avoided such ignorance or negligence. We are also responsible for learning how a "reasonable" person thinks, and that means not allowing ourselves to become selfish or lazy. Ultimately, we are responsible for developing through our actions the character and personality traits that form the foundation on which our actions are based. We are not responsible for involuntary actions, that is, those actions over which we have no control and which result from coercion, constraint, or justifiable ignorance.”
If the Menendez brothers didn’t have a moral obligation to do right because of their bad circumstances, why do the courts have a legal permission to understand their bad circumstances and exercise leniency?
My personal believe is that our decisions are NOT fully dictated. Though determinism is true, it does not rule out freedom and responsibility. As for the Menendez case, let’s assume they were sexually abused by their father and this had a great psychological effect on them and their behavior, I still would have to argue they were in the position to make choices, including the choice to kill their parents. They knew what they were doing, even though they were abused as children
If we are only the products of our environment, then all of us are just machines and can’t be held responsible for doing what we are programmed to do. We wouldn’t have souls anymore and merely respond to the pushing of certain buttons. I don’t think we are machines. People are in part products of their environment but they still possess something like human dignity which to me would have to include “free will” and also responsibility for one’s own actions.
Monday, February 7, 2011
What is truth?
Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. A huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth. So since I am writing this blog for my philosophy class I think I should dedicate a least one blog entry to this question “What is truth?” This seems like the same kind of elementary question I once asked everybody when I was only 14 “What is the purpose of life?” No one could really answer that question and in fact seemed rather disturbed by me even asking so I tried to define the purpose of life for myself which of course changed while I was going through different phases of my life.
But what is truth and why do philosophers search for truth? Why is truth so important?
Truth is often defined as a “conformity with fact or reality”. But what is fact or reality? The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what makes them true. I think very often we tend be persuaded by information or “proof” of science about what truth is and what not. I suppose this is a good thing, information and knowledge can empower us but it can also abuse and manipulate us. Of course we can be manipulated by given false information but even supposedly true information can manipulate us. If we are given the information that there is now a reliable vaccination against H1N1 and everybody is “adviced” to get it, this piece of information may certainly influence the action of people who are afraid of illnesses. It’s pure manipulation. We think we are free to make our own decisions but we are constantly being manipulated by information (true or false) which influence our decision-making process.
I believe the choice for truth exists within us. Truth is really a matter of perspective for me. What might be true for me might not be true for someone else. Aren’t we all influenced by our own subjectivity? I know I am. I have my point of view about things and sometimes I change it and a lot of times I don’t. Once again depending on the information I am getting from the outside world. I believe we all have our own ability to find our own reality. Thus we create our own reality, our own truth.
I looked up the word reality and found this definition: “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be. In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.
This to me sounds like a contradiction: Reality is the state of things the way they actually are, rather than as they appear. But it in the same sense it includes everything whether it is observable or comprehensible or not. I think this already shows that it is almost impossible to define an absolute reality.
I think one of the messages Plato tried to bring across with his “allegory of the cave” was that enlightenment and free thinking can be found by using our own mind and the goal is to do this by reaching objectivity through knowledge. We are typically not in a place of wisdom and are narrowed down by our own opinions. Plato believed that mind was the only source of true knowledge and immortal? What does that mean immortal in this case? Does that mean we are bringing knowledge into this life already, or we might be connected to some type of universal knowledge? A universal source of knowledge that can be accessed by everybody?
The only good thing about this whole confusion about truth and reality is that we are free thinking human beings and have a choice. We have a choice of what kind of knowledge we want to attain, what kind of truth we want to pursue and what we want our reality to be. I have always believed that we create our own reality, and yes this is my truth.
To me personally Philosophy is the process of free thinking, mainly, although I understand that we tend to guide our “free thoughts”. As a person who is trying to make sense of the world – at least to a certain degree – I am obviously in search of plausible positions and explanations. After I have contemplated about the question “what is truth?” for a while I can only come to one conclusion for myself. Different people have different beliefs, different perspectives, different point of views. I believe that facts do not automatically equal truths. Someone can hold beliefs quite different from my own. The way I understood the allegory of the cave by Plato was the he thinks “knowledge is truth”. I can’t agree completely. I think truth is something that guides us. The absence of guilt maybe? Well if I believe I have found my truth which feels right to me and I act accordingly it gives me the feeling of being authentic, of being truthful, of acting and thinking morally according to my own truth, thus I don’t have to feel guilty about anything. My actions and thoughts were “pure”. I don’t believe there is an absolute truth because truth will always be interpreted differently by different people with different experiences and belief system. An interesting thought though that has crossed my mind while I was debating this question with myself: “Does there have to be a fixed truth for the universe to function properly?”
But what is truth and why do philosophers search for truth? Why is truth so important?
Truth is often defined as a “conformity with fact or reality”. But what is fact or reality? The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what makes them true. I think very often we tend be persuaded by information or “proof” of science about what truth is and what not. I suppose this is a good thing, information and knowledge can empower us but it can also abuse and manipulate us. Of course we can be manipulated by given false information but even supposedly true information can manipulate us. If we are given the information that there is now a reliable vaccination against H1N1 and everybody is “adviced” to get it, this piece of information may certainly influence the action of people who are afraid of illnesses. It’s pure manipulation. We think we are free to make our own decisions but we are constantly being manipulated by information (true or false) which influence our decision-making process.
I believe the choice for truth exists within us. Truth is really a matter of perspective for me. What might be true for me might not be true for someone else. Aren’t we all influenced by our own subjectivity? I know I am. I have my point of view about things and sometimes I change it and a lot of times I don’t. Once again depending on the information I am getting from the outside world. I believe we all have our own ability to find our own reality. Thus we create our own reality, our own truth.
I looked up the word reality and found this definition: “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be. In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.
This to me sounds like a contradiction: Reality is the state of things the way they actually are, rather than as they appear. But it in the same sense it includes everything whether it is observable or comprehensible or not. I think this already shows that it is almost impossible to define an absolute reality.
I think one of the messages Plato tried to bring across with his “allegory of the cave” was that enlightenment and free thinking can be found by using our own mind and the goal is to do this by reaching objectivity through knowledge. We are typically not in a place of wisdom and are narrowed down by our own opinions. Plato believed that mind was the only source of true knowledge and immortal? What does that mean immortal in this case? Does that mean we are bringing knowledge into this life already, or we might be connected to some type of universal knowledge? A universal source of knowledge that can be accessed by everybody?
The only good thing about this whole confusion about truth and reality is that we are free thinking human beings and have a choice. We have a choice of what kind of knowledge we want to attain, what kind of truth we want to pursue and what we want our reality to be. I have always believed that we create our own reality, and yes this is my truth.
To me personally Philosophy is the process of free thinking, mainly, although I understand that we tend to guide our “free thoughts”. As a person who is trying to make sense of the world – at least to a certain degree – I am obviously in search of plausible positions and explanations. After I have contemplated about the question “what is truth?” for a while I can only come to one conclusion for myself. Different people have different beliefs, different perspectives, different point of views. I believe that facts do not automatically equal truths. Someone can hold beliefs quite different from my own. The way I understood the allegory of the cave by Plato was the he thinks “knowledge is truth”. I can’t agree completely. I think truth is something that guides us. The absence of guilt maybe? Well if I believe I have found my truth which feels right to me and I act accordingly it gives me the feeling of being authentic, of being truthful, of acting and thinking morally according to my own truth, thus I don’t have to feel guilty about anything. My actions and thoughts were “pure”. I don’t believe there is an absolute truth because truth will always be interpreted differently by different people with different experiences and belief system. An interesting thought though that has crossed my mind while I was debating this question with myself: “Does there have to be a fixed truth for the universe to function properly?”
Monday, January 24, 2011
Is education a basic human right?
Adrienne Rich is a well known feminist who argues in her essay “claiming an education” that students need to be responsible, pro-active and not let others do their thinking and talking for them. They need to claim an education rather than receive one. She states that “university education implies an ethical and intellectual contract between teacher and student. This contract must remain intuitive, dynamic, unwritten; but we must turn to it again and again if learning is to be reclaimed from the depersonalizing and cheapening pressures of the present-day academic scene.”
So what is the difference between claiming an education and receiving an education? Claiming an education means that the student takes an active part when learning and is responsible. Receiving an education means accepting the teachings of another individual without questioning it, without using one's brain by seeking challenges.
Why does Rich encourage students to be challenged in every course they take? Why would they want to be challenged when they can receive their education with much less pressure? I think the idea is that actively claiming an education means sorting ones own thoughts. We all have a collection of thoughts and some are more certain than others. Education helps us sort our thoughts by adding new input. We change our attitudes and ideas over time as we learn more. Rich thinks a student should seek the challenge but are these students also a challenge to teachers and are such challenges even welcome? I have thought about instructors for a while and how and even if they are open to new ideas coming from their students.
The sort of education that Rich advocates places obligations not just upon to student but also upon the instructor (for example to be open to questions and challenges from students, to recognize that there is much to be learned from and with students). I was skeptical at first of how welcome such challenging students might be to the teachers but have learned that the student who takes himself seriously will also be taken seriously by his teacher.
But why is education so important to us? And is the only way one gets educated through a formal schooling system?
Education has undoubtedly a formative effect on the mind, character, physical ability and maybe even social skills of an individual. Society uses education to pass on its knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another. Teachers are usually the ones who direct the education of students, but one receives much of one’s education outside of the formal classroom as well. Knowledge can be acquired through self-study at libraries, museums, interpersonal relationships and most importantly life itself and the experiences it brings along seems to be one of the greatest teachers. Being an active student within the formal classroom, however, helps to develop the skills and qualities of mind that will help one learn even more from experiences outside of the classroom.
“To claim an education” suggests that there must be a fundamental right to education which can be claimed by all human beings. A right for every individual, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ethnic or social origin, religion or political preference, age or disability which is stated in the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26:
Education is widely recognized as a fundamental building block for human development and one of the strongest instruments for reducing poverty, improving healthy, gender equality, peace and stability.
Unfortunately there is no guarantee for every world citizen to actually get the education they want. In some countries it is a privilege to get a higher education, in other countries even the most basic education is not guaranteed. So speaking of education from a global perspective, if there is a lack of educational facilities the claim for education will often be unheard.
Even in the more developed world it is incredibly hard to claim a higher education if one doesn’t have the financial, moral and emotional support it takes. When I read point 3 of the declaration of the human rights I got painfully reminded that parents do have in fact a major part on the decision making of what kind of education their kids will receive. I claimed my college education when I was at “normal college age" but my parents thought it was totally unnecessary for a girl who will probably end up getting married and stay at home raising children, to receive an expensive and time consuming education. Sometimes it is unfortunately not enough to just "claim" your education.
Miss Teen South Carolina giving her infamous speech should be the best example of how important it is to claim and actively receive an education. I am claiming my education now and think everyone else should too.
So what is the difference between claiming an education and receiving an education? Claiming an education means that the student takes an active part when learning and is responsible. Receiving an education means accepting the teachings of another individual without questioning it, without using one's brain by seeking challenges.
Why does Rich encourage students to be challenged in every course they take? Why would they want to be challenged when they can receive their education with much less pressure? I think the idea is that actively claiming an education means sorting ones own thoughts. We all have a collection of thoughts and some are more certain than others. Education helps us sort our thoughts by adding new input. We change our attitudes and ideas over time as we learn more. Rich thinks a student should seek the challenge but are these students also a challenge to teachers and are such challenges even welcome? I have thought about instructors for a while and how and even if they are open to new ideas coming from their students.
The sort of education that Rich advocates places obligations not just upon to student but also upon the instructor (for example to be open to questions and challenges from students, to recognize that there is much to be learned from and with students). I was skeptical at first of how welcome such challenging students might be to the teachers but have learned that the student who takes himself seriously will also be taken seriously by his teacher.
But why is education so important to us? And is the only way one gets educated through a formal schooling system?
Education has undoubtedly a formative effect on the mind, character, physical ability and maybe even social skills of an individual. Society uses education to pass on its knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another. Teachers are usually the ones who direct the education of students, but one receives much of one’s education outside of the formal classroom as well. Knowledge can be acquired through self-study at libraries, museums, interpersonal relationships and most importantly life itself and the experiences it brings along seems to be one of the greatest teachers. Being an active student within the formal classroom, however, helps to develop the skills and qualities of mind that will help one learn even more from experiences outside of the classroom.
“To claim an education” suggests that there must be a fundamental right to education which can be claimed by all human beings. A right for every individual, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ethnic or social origin, religion or political preference, age or disability which is stated in the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26:
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Education is widely recognized as a fundamental building block for human development and one of the strongest instruments for reducing poverty, improving healthy, gender equality, peace and stability.
Unfortunately there is no guarantee for every world citizen to actually get the education they want. In some countries it is a privilege to get a higher education, in other countries even the most basic education is not guaranteed. So speaking of education from a global perspective, if there is a lack of educational facilities the claim for education will often be unheard.
Even in the more developed world it is incredibly hard to claim a higher education if one doesn’t have the financial, moral and emotional support it takes. When I read point 3 of the declaration of the human rights I got painfully reminded that parents do have in fact a major part on the decision making of what kind of education their kids will receive. I claimed my college education when I was at “normal college age" but my parents thought it was totally unnecessary for a girl who will probably end up getting married and stay at home raising children, to receive an expensive and time consuming education. Sometimes it is unfortunately not enough to just "claim" your education.
Miss Teen South Carolina giving her infamous speech should be the best example of how important it is to claim and actively receive an education. I am claiming my education now and think everyone else should too.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)