Endorsing Civil Disobedience

I would endorse civil disobedience when "an unjust law is no law at all." There

are always exceptions to obeying laws when the laws put into place are immoral
such as laws allowing discrimination, segregation, or genocide. Martin Luther
King, in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail,  recalled St. Thomas Aquinas'
thoughts on civil disobedience by saying, " Any law that uplifts human

personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." I think

this could not have a better choice of words. He also gave a perfect analogy to
support civil disobedience by reminding the clergymen that Adolf Hitler's
actions in Germany were considered "legal." This is a perfect example of what
could happen in a society today if citizens are not allowed to challenge immoral
laws. Even Gandhi, who was a supporter of nonviolence, agreed that in certain
circumstances, violence is the only thing that will stop immoral or unjust laws. 
Socrates did not endorse civil disobedience and even refused to allow his followers 
to help him escape prison. Years later, as we learn and reflect that his philosophical 
teachings were in fact an act of civil disobedience that he used to question the 
unjust laws of Athens. 
Then we are always left with the problem of deciding what is considered "immoral?" I think if we follow St. Thomas Aquinas quote, " Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." We can use this standard when confronting our modern day issues such as legalizing gay marriage, health care reform, mortgage fraud and more. 

Government Intervention, When is it okay?

John Stuart Mill is a classical liberal philosopher who argues that the government should only intervene when there is clear and present danger to someone other than one’s self. He does not believe in paternalistic laws such as refusing to wear a seat belt or a helmet. Then, we have Karl Marx who is in agreement with government intervention to ensure a safe society. I am in agreement with a little of both.

I believe that the government should not be able to control personal decisions such as wearing your seat belt and a helmet, a women’s right to choose, the right to bear arms and freedom of speech. However, I also realize that there are circumstances that arise that challenge these issues such as when one’s behaviors begin to destroy or harm their families or other parts of society. This when I begin to agree with Marx. The government needs to intervene to ensure the safety of society as a whole. The problem is that there is a fine line defining what is individual and personal and what is considered to be for the greater good. It is a fact that an outside source, such as a government, will never be able to control what one deems right due to their individual circumstance. I feel our country is still doing its best to figure this out, but still has proven to have a long way to go. Capitalism works when we have checks and balances or in other words when we have real statesmen working to enforce reasonable laws. Unfortunately, the majority of the people making the laws are playing a partisan rewards game and the real significance gets lost. Another thought is that it would be nice if  the people the government is actually helping only amounts to 20% of the population that truthfully can't take care of themselves, rather than including the percentile who work hard and make bad decisions or choose not to work at all with the expectation that the government will help them out. Then, we are left with the percentage of people who work hard and make good decisions and of course the 1% of people who own and control the economy, take more than their share and take advantage of society. When is it that an individual, a company or a big bank has to own up and pay for its failures and at what point was it that everyone became so concerned about themselves they lost sight of the bigger picture? I don't think that any of what I just described is what Karl Marks or John Stuart Mill were condoning and therefore I think the answer to government intervention may lie somewhere in between.

Buddhism and the reality for the Contemporary United States

 I consulted with a Buddhist monk in regards to the following question that was asked in my Philosophy course. " Is there a conflict between what buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society?" My answer is yes. I based my conclusion on several findings which included consulting with a buddhist monk what his thoughts were, the information obtained in my philosophy class and my zazen practice. I also am highly influenced by my personal observation of my own spiritual growth. Sitting Zazen for long periods of time at a Buddhist monastery such as Dai Bo Satsu Zendo, in up state NY was certainly not what I had in mind when dreaming up my life as a small town Catholic girl. I now consider myself Agnostic, Buddhist and on a constant spiritual journey. To some this may seem to be a paradox, but I believe that this is my dharma whether I like it or not. Now, getting back to the question is there a conflict of what buddhism teaches and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? Yes, there is a conflict. For one, I believe there is no individuality. The condition of our surroundings directly reflects the condition of our minds as one. For example, the 1% issue in the U.S. Although I am not big on protesting, I believe there is a lot of truth to this issue. We have those who are taking more than there share, over consuming, over spending and not seeing the big picture. This behavior affects the other 99% and leaves some scrounging to find ways of taking care of their basic needs. Now, within this 99% there are some of us who still take more than our share, forget to consider the bigger picture, get angry and bitter, refuse to work or pay taxes, which still does not add to a productive society as a whole, but adds to the HOLE or the GAP. I think the United States consciousness is filled with this kind of ego. Ego loves drama which loves to gossip, spend money, flash expensive things and compete. If you watch just five minutes of commercials you may be shocked that the over all message is telling you to be the best, or proving how they are the best which in one mind contributes to our collective consciousness and what it is focused on.
The Buddhist monk that I spoke with stated that the above question seems to stand outside of practice. What he means is the practice of Zazen. The practice of our individual reflection and realization of our part that contributes to the universe as a whole "without diversion."
Through my practice of zazen I found or continue to find my true spirituality and my experience of GOD if there is one or not. To me, this is what GOD is and it this way of being that is contradictory to the condition of  the contemporary United States.

Philosophy vs the Cosmological Argument

Philosophy can help guide an individual to a better understanding of what their beliefs are by allowing for the study of different points of view such as David Hume and William Paley, then moving on to discover what feels right for you.

I choose an agnostic position because there is no religion or science that will ever be able to prove the existence or non- existence of a supreme being or beings. Philosophy helped contribute to my Agnostic belief by using logic to break down and compartmentalize different ways of thinking. Through my philosophical studies, I have found that the powers of reason and logic can only take you so far. For instance, after studying all of the different philosophical perspectives on the Cosmological and Design Arguments, I have been reminded of “ I think, therefore I am.” This has led me to the conclusion that we are all right. Therefore, if you are atheist, religious, not religious or not religious but spiritual, your world is what your mind makes of it that makes it true.

Some say that faith has no role in a philosophical argument, however I think by questioning your faith you can remain open to what life may have to teach you and make steps toward your personal truth.

Artificial Intelligence, Feelings and Choices

I am in agreement with philosopher John Searl when it comes to artificial intelligence. There is a belief that exists however that humans are programmed by society and education to perform certain tasks which can include learning to speak a language or very simply brush your teeth. The difference between the programming of artificial intelligence and programming of a society or humans is that we have a choice and we have feelings. We have a choice to stop and think before we act. A computer just simply responds as quickly as it can. It may come up with the right answer to very logically based questions, but it cannot think about whether it is right or wrong scientifically or morally for that matter. Humans can be programmed as children just like a computer ( go to church, go to school, don’t watch too much tv,) but when the child becomes an adult, they may choose to learn new ways of being in the world. My second point is feelings.  How would a computer know what something feels like? It only knows the information that it’s told. Sometimes for example when it comes to feeling love or not we have no real control. Where does this come from? What is it? I believe it is much more than just a mental state that produces a function. These things we call feelings such as love, will never be felt by artificial intelligence. 

"Keeping the Mind Theory" ( by Krystal Stone) as related to Dualism

There are significant scientific truths in regards to the mind body connection in Physicalism. I am in agreement with the fact that there is a connection with the brain, mind and body within the means of our physical existence. There is no denying that science is finding out more ways to understand the brain and how it works such as how and where interactions occur in the brain. One example of a degenerative brain disease that may relate to the mind body theory and the ideas of dualism and physicalism  is Alzheimer's Disease. In relation to physicalism, I think that the more science knows about why the degeneration that is happening in the brain, the more we can help the physical brain and body "keep the mind." However, this leads me to my disagreement with physicalism and my agreement with dualism. I think physicalism is based on trying to understand the mind as it relates to the brain which I think will never be fully understood in our physical existence. We may only figure out ways for the body not to loose consciousness. A patient diagnosed with advanced Alzheimer's disease is experiencing rapid degeneration of the parts of the brain that allows them to "keep their mind" which leads to the patients loss of most or all of their consciousness. My belief is my own, which  I call "Keeping the Mind" theory in which the patients' "mind" or "consciousness" is not fully leaving the body and therefore hanging between the physical and non-physical. The physical as understood by science and logic is true but the non-physical can never be understood. We have mind when connected to the body or our brain which is a part of the body, but once our physical neurological functions begin to fail we loose our mind and consciousness begins to leave our body. There is no way to prove this "keeping the mind" theory by science but I believe it is the difference between mind-body and consciousness and therefore, I am a dualist.

Epistemology and Evolution

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It allows us to bring more sophistication to our way of being in the world such as how we study, what we study and how we relate to people and the environment around us. It is essential to the evolution of our human experience. Pragmatism and Feminism are two examples of philosophical movements under the idea of epistemology that have enhanced our philosophical awareness. Professor Foster said, “Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity.” They both agree with the fundamental fact that our thoughts and actions are connected. They believe that our attitudes and behaviors directly affect the way we interact with the world around us. One very simple example is realizing that fire needs oxygen in order to burn. It was discovered, confirmed by science and brought change to our thoughts and how we relate to it. A more advanced example would be creating a movement for women to have full and equal participation within society. Without examples like these we would all be living like underground prisoners never seeing the light of day like Socrates’ Allegory of the Cave suggests. Therefore, epistemology has proven to help us move forward both scientifically and morally by challenging us to reflect, refine and change ideas and or knowledge of the past.

Pragmatism and Feminism agree on the fundamentals facts, however feminism takes pragmatism a step further by morally questioning Western Philosophy and its root. Feminists criticize for example, that western philosophy only gave examples of knowledge and experience from a man’s point of view. I have mixed feeling on this. Being that I have found great respect of many historical philosophers, I have a hard time disagreeing with much of their findings just because it was mostly from a male point of view. Whatever point of view some of the ideas came from, it did help get us to wear we are today with some success. Therefore, I prefer to look at it as parts of philosophical history that are in agreement on a universal levels while other parts need some more progressive refinement. For example most would agree on, the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirces’ belief that being open to inquire about science will allow us to become closer to our beliefs.  I also think there are some of those parts that need to be contemplated a little further, such as including a female perspective which gives birth to the Feminist Movement. I think the feminist movement if not taken out of context can be very healthy for our universal philosophical needs. It can deepen our awareness by reminding modern day philosophers to keep information more universal. It is my opinion that as long as Feminists commit to exploring and communicating their points in a non threatening and accusatory ways, they may prevent the opposing sides from shutting down and instead build a bridge to aid in the maturity of modern day philosophy. Feminists could do this by keeping Sara Ruddick in mind. She has famously said, “mothering embodies its own model of knowledge, involving such traits as caring, intimacy, responsibility and trust.” This point is being more widely accepted as truth, but strongly depends upon the way it is being conveyed. The examples that I talk about here relates directly back to what I was explaining in the beginning of my blog. Epistemology is not only the study of knowledge but key in the evolution in our human experience.