PHI208--Most people have views that are strongly influenced and informed by philosophy, often without realizing it. Identify a view you have—whether on politics, religion, science, culture, or even the media and entertainment—that might be regarded as being related to philosophy. What kind of reasons do you have for holding that belief? What figure from the history of philosophy section do you think might have some views that are similar, or at least relevant, to your own? Explain why you chose that particular figure.
I hold the view that we are collectively nearing a critical mass of the world transforming the ego and the scales are always weighing left-judgment and right-mercy. I hold to the perception that prophecy and parallel universes are connected. I am a pious church-goer, and I understand the new heaven and new earth to be heralded by events in the media towards the scope of ending the illusion of duality such a this false idea that humans are naturally competitive hence the lies of capitalism. I like the saying, and I actually remember saying this as a youth, “If nobody had any money, we’d all be rich.”
I am an individualist who agrees with Ayn Rand that individuals are the smallest minority and those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. This is to say that we were all given certain unalienable rights by our Creator, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So long as those personal attainments does no harm to ourselves or anyone else, we are free.
That brings up an anomaly. The fact is that earth has plenty enough resources to feed, house, and sustain everyone, even more than enough, but the only reason some have not is for lack of money.
We are existing on the lowest of all desires to where all we can do is receive. We need a Savior. The quality that causes a light bulb to become bright and that is atoms forming molecules is Light. The Way of light is creation. Truth is homogeneous.
I want to see the new Superman movie, Man of Steel.
The philosopher that I think my perspective is closest to is Plato.
“Plato seemed interested in everything; he wrote on moral philosophy and made fundamental and permanent contributions to political philosophy, metaphysics, the study of knowledge (epistemology), and cosmology. It is hard to discover something Plato was not interested in” (Mosser, 2010).
Metaphysics is something I like to talk about. The entire wisdom of truth is being written about everyday. There’s so much literature on earth, and that can’t even out scale the eternal essence that is I am you as you are me as we is us is them.
I believe in unity for all from mutual guarantee in a recourse-based economy with access abundance.
Was that last sentence using too many prepositions?
Plato wrote, “It would be well, if when meditating on the higher truths either of philosophy or religion, we sometimes substituted one form of expression for another, lest through the necessities of language we should become the slaves of mere words.”
I have studied everything from buddah to Krsna, Hashem, Allah, Lao Tzu, Jesus and his disciples, the existentialist, Neitzsche, and I revere the opportunity to listen to new interpretations.
It’s alive.
References
The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Republic, by Plato
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it.
There is enough food to feed the world | Oxfam.ca
Mosser, K. (2010). Philosophy a concise introduction. Ashford University--Discovery Series. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
| RE: What is Philosophy? |
|
|---|
I like your enthusiasm! You make so many points, more really than I
could comment on in a single response, so I think I will restrict myself
to a few observations and a couple of followup questions.
You reference as influences on your thinking a number of diverse sources: from religion, to Ayn Rand, to Plato and more. (1) Ayn Rand was an atheist who argued that her ethics and politics of individualism was derived from a metaphysics and epistemology that was radically opposed to any notion of a Creator known by faith who is responsible for reality. Contrary to your stated view, she would say that it is not the case that our unalienable rights are granted by a Creator. In fact, she argues that if our rights were granted by a Creator, then that would render them alienable, and hence not true rights (but rather the temporary permissions of an owner)! So, she thought that rights necessitated atheism. (2) Further, Ayn Rand was staunchly opposed to Plato. Plato was not an individualist, at least not in its modern form. Rather, he was a proponent of what is known as the organic theory of the state, which supposes society is like a super-organism. In this conception, society is seen as possessing the most reality, while the individual is seen as a mere fragment or cell in the social organism. In addition, Plato was the father of rationalism (the epistemic position that reason is the foundation of all knowledge), while Rand was an advocate of a type of empiricism (that knowledge is based on the senses) most closely associated with Aristotle (who on most major points held the polar opposite of his teacher Plato's views). (3) Lastly, Rand was an advocate of capitalism, which she held was the social and economic implementation of her conception of individual rights (a conception of rights quite similar to the one held by the English philosopher John Locke). These rights in turn, she argued, were based on an egoistic ethics (an ethics she claimed was diametrically opposed to Christian altruism), which was itself based on accepting reason and rejecting faith as a means of knowledge. Thoughts? Questions: (a) How do you reconcile an advocacy of a (religious) individualism (as I take you to hold) with an opposition to capitalism? Do you not think that capitalism is based on an ethics of individualism? If it isn't, then what do you think it is based on? (b) I am also curious about your claim that "[t]ruth is homogeneous." I'm not clear what you mean by this. Do you mind elaborating? Thanks again for a thought provoking post! | |||
| RE: What is Philosophy? |
|
|---|
Hi, Instructor.
Thank you for pointing out the seeming contradictions in my post. I will just say in my meaning of truth being homogeneous that truth is uniform in structure or composition. That is how I myself recognize it. Everything can be explained, and the methodology of how to reconcile this with that is systematic as the force called nature, which in Hebrew has the same numerical value as the word for Creator. As for capitalism, it creates the illusion of scarcity and forces submission to a false hierarchy. The ethics of individualism are based on sovereignty of one for all. Capitalism is based on sovereignty of one over all. A more honest system is one that allows access abundance, as I said. It would mean that we collectively submit to the author of the Golden Rule--do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And, as I mentioned, the only reason anyone doesn't have everything they want is for lack of money. Capitalism is demoniac in that it promotes excess and greed of a few while leaving the rest to scramble for crumbs. Do you know what gives money its value? Federal Reserve Notes are nothing more than an IOU. If I were to write 100 on a paper napkin, it would not be as fancy looking, but it would be in reality of equal value to a hundred dollar bill. This is because the collateral for FRN's is illegitimate. It's treasury bonds, which are also just fancy pieces of paper. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, dollars use to say "One dollar in silver payable to the bearer on demand." Watch the documentary Zeitgeist Addendum for a more detailed explanation. | |||
| RE: What is Philosophy? |
|
|---|
Okay. Thanks. I think I understand more where you are coming from when
you say that "truth is homogeneous." Do you have an example you could
offer of this idea? That might cement it.
Your description of truth reminds me of a few thinkers you might want to take a look at, if you have not already. You might want to look up and read a bit about: Parmenides, Plotinus, Spinoza and Hegel. Parmenides held that only Being is. Plotinus argued that true reality is One. Spinoza maintained that reality was an interconnected oneness. Hegel said that the subject/object distinction was an incomplete understanding of the truth, and that rather "the true is the whole." Some of these thinkers might pique your interest. | |||
| RE: What is Philosophy? |
|
|---|
An example of a homogeneous truth is cause and effect.
As Spinoza said, “Nothing exists from whose nature some effect does not
follow."
A more abstract truth that has universally recognizable symbolism is the seed sowing and harvest cycle. If you plant corn, you can expect to reap corn. The word belief implies a possibility of doubt, so when I mention truth, it’s not a matter of believing or not. There is no end to knowledge, and therefore, I understand that we can be certain in some ways of most everything in the physical world. Also, every religion teaches the same basic principles and have parallel stories. It’s all about correcting our desires. What is assumed as right differs from culture to culture, but the reasoning behind why this is right or that is wrong is an equable foundation. Thank you for those philosopher’s names. All the best, Joshua | |||
| RE: What is Philosophy? |
|
|---|
Joshua,
Thank you for your post. It was quite deep and intense, though I enjoyed reading it. I agree with your statement regarding life liberty, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As you know from our previous exchange in prior discussions I believe in a Creator and his purpose for us and truly believe we were intended to be happy. I appreciate your broad study of so many religions and beliefs. That is exactly how we should determine our own personal beliefs and philosophy. Thanks again for your post.
Hello Joshua,
It sounds like you have studied many religions. I happen to be believe in God, heaven and base my ethics on whether or not I am following my heart. I also believe that you should not always follow the crowd because even though there are times when the crowd can be right, there may be times to make a new path. It sounds like you are hoping to make a new path in not following the "money" way of doing things. I would tend to agree that the basic necessities that are not being met for some is not the way to go. The need for food and shelter should not be something that is based on how much money you have. Thank you for your very insightful post, Tami | |||
No comments:
Post a Comment