PHI208 discussion: Proof of God's Existence

Proof of God's Existence

Proving God “Each of the traditional arguments—the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the argument from design—has been criticized on the basis of a wide range of objections”  (Mosser, 2010). The proof is in all of these paradigms.  I’m not sure which specific theory I am about to share would fall under, but I think it’s a combination of design and common sense.  Instead of trying to prove the existence of a Character that was First Cause, I would like to suggest, as I have in former posts, God is a Verb, and proof is  and does be.  God is Being.  Sharing is actually the Nature of God. The Big Bang is how scientists will say the universe began.  Kabbalists have been saying the same thing for over 4,000 years. “The Creator brought this physical world into Being to fulfill the Vessel’s desire to share.  Our universe came about as the result of the Vessel saying, “I feel ashamed.  I’m getting something for nothing.  I want the opportunity to share as well.”  So, what did the Vessel do?  It said to the Light, “STOP, NO MORE.”  It actually restricted itself.  It withdrew.  With the Light restricted to a single finite  point to utter darkness, it was unbearable for the Vessel.  So, the Light rushed back at full force, but the Vessel was not ready.  It had not yet changed its nature.  So at that instance, it lost its original wholeness and was shattered, exploding into an infinite number of fragments--thus creating the souls of mankind, as well as time, space, motion, and the physical universe as we know it today"  (Berg, 2005) The thing to verify is the experience of doing this Being.  It can be a matter of meditation, astral projection, or shamanism or out of body experience that opens our third eye. “The mystical experience primarily "teaches" that consciousness is infinite in space and eternal in time. This infinite consciousness has been called God, Brahman, Buddha mind, nirvana, cosmic consciousness, etc.” “As the motion of all measurements of space and time is symmetrical, the mathematical description of all measurements is symmetrical progressions from zero: [-- 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 --] the structure of all measurements Every measurement of one unit of space or time is composed of *two symmetrical states of motion.* These symmetrical states of motion, being equal but opposite, are described mathematically by the equal but opposite numbers 1 and -1. As two equal but opposite numbers are derived from every measurement of one unit of space or time, the complete calculation of every measurement of one unit of space or time = {(1) + (-1)} = 0.”  (Goddard, 1994) The existence of God is a fascinating discussion and a debate that everyone has with themselves at a young age for most.  Faith is something that I feel every family should instill in the next generation. “Some people get tired of what they see as pointless arguments and instead choose to believe in God as a matter of faith. This is called fideism” (Mosser, 2010). I think it is important to talk about it.  Some folks make a living like that.  I like God.  Really. References: Berg, Karen (2005).  God Wears Lipstick.  Kabbalah Centre International Goddard, I. W. (1994).  Verification of the Mystical Experience.  The Vaults of Erowid.  Retrieved from http://www.erowid.org/spirit/writings/spirit_writings1.shtml Mosser, K. (2010). A concise introduction to philosophy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

Joshua, I agree with you that God is something that should be shared with family for generations. I agree with your explanation and understanding the "third eye" so to speak. Religion is something that I feel draws probably the most skepticism based on the multiple explanations provided as the basis for things like divine intervention. In my opinion it is a shame if someone does not know some sort of spirituality. I am not a holy roller by any means but I do know that believing in something greater than yourself is a window into a whole different understanding of the world we live in. Some may call the higher being God, some Allah, some Buddah however the inference is very similar. I think that being aware of the fact that evolution or the big bang theory couldn't possibly explain every miracle or creation that exists on earth. There has to be more to the world around us than what the logical eye sees. A divine being regardless of the name created us and this world we live on. To miss out on the peace that that brings is to deny yourself the ability to feel peace. Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

Are you saying that the proof of God's existence is a mystical experience? Proof as is usually understood refers to a process of verifiable reasoning, which involves logically deriving a claim from empirical evidence. This evidence is sensory. So, in the Argument from Design, the advocate points to sensory evidence purported to be indicative of design, such as a certain kind of complexity (e.g., the human eye), which it is claimed could only obtain through a conscious plan. Evolutionists may disagree with this, but there is at least empirical data that the Design advocate is basing her reasoning upon. What is the equivalent empirical data you are referring to in your mystical proof, if that is what it is you are arguing for, that could serve as the basis for your claim that God exists? In other words, I can see an eye, but what if I don't share your mystical experience? How can I know that it is real? Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

As the article I quoted from states, the measurement of all motion is symmetrical, and symmetry = zero. It's neutral mechanics. You can be sure it is real by experiencing the same.  Basically, what I shared is that God must be experienced as my response to your second question about "being" states.  I simply provided mathematics to verify the experience. Please, read the article, that's why I posted a link. Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

Also, I am a little unclear as to how you are using the term "being." You say that God is a verb rather than a noun, right? But isn't "being" a noun not a verb? Do you mean to say that God is "becoming" rather than simply "being?" As I suggested previously, you may want to look at Hegel's concept of the Absolute, which is a divine principle that both "is" and "is becoming." Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

A verb is an action or a state of being.  Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

From the link you cite: "Distance across space and time is measured by * motion *" Okay. But, shortly thereafter, this is switched to the reverse of the above: "The nature of the motion of measurement" and "As measurement is motion" He starts in the first quote be correctly using "measurement" as the means by which we can (relatively) compare motion, but then he switches to talk about the motion of measurements. That does not make sense. Motion is a feature of the physical world. Measurement is something that consciousness does. Consciousness can measure things, including the motion of things. But there must be things that are moving and they take up space--they aren't a zero. This talk of the motion of measurements seems to have it exactly backwards. Measurements aren't in motion. Things that are in motion can be measured. Hence the syllogism in the link is wrong: "All measurement is motion Motion is symmetrical Thus: all measurement is symmetrical" The syllogism only "works" because of his reversal of the major premise ("All measurement is motion"). The premise he starts with that "Distance across space and time is measured by * motion *" ("All motion is measurable.") would actually lead to the following argument: All motion is a measurable process. All motion is symmetrical. Thus, all measurable processes are symmetrical. So, I've corrected the major premise by keeping his use of it consistent (he changes it in the middle of the argument, so he's committing the fallacy of equivocation) and rendering it true (keeping to his original definition, not the one he illicitly switches to later in order to make his argument work). But, once the first premise is made (mostly) true, the argument is then found to be invalid, since it contains an illicit minor fallacy (technically: the minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise; incidentally, he also has the premises in the wrong order, but that's pretty minor). In order to make his argument work, he would have to somehow establish that "all measurement is motion," which I can't even fathom what that would mean--it's the exact reverse of the truth, and a category error (confabulating concepts of consciousness with concepts of existence). So, all his talk about "symmetry" is besides the point (I think he gets that completely wrong too, but that would be an even more detailed point of science). The bottom line is that, in my view, he is misunderstanding and hence misusing the more basic concepts upon which his notion of symmetry is based. In other words, he is trying to do something with his concept of symmetry on an incorrect foundation, so his conclusions about consciousness being infinite do not follow. His argument amounts to the claim that consciousness is infinite because the world isn't (he says it it is sizeless and timeless, which is completely contradicted by the obvious observable facts to the contrary: we see things all the time that take up space and exist for some amount of time). He "deduces" this not by appealing to physical, verifiable evidence but from a stream of abstractions that he got from where? Some quotes from Einstein who was making a totally different point? I don't get his argument at all. Perhaps, you could point out where I am misunderstanding it. Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

I can only reckon that during a measurement, symmetry is deduced from the motion that is the deduction itself.  So to say, when moving from one point to another, the other point is simultaneously moving towards you.  Do you agree that symmetry equals zero?  Rather, "to" is a symmetrical progression "from" zero?  If measurement doesn't happen in the physical world, then we can be still and know that God is real. That stream of abstractions probably came from magic mushrooms or some other hallucinogen since the Erowid Vault is mostly an encyclopedia of drugs. I have been taught that consciousness is the only thing that exists.  Even inanimate objects are made of a much more dense projection of consciousness.  I suppose that is where the whole matter and anti-matter debates begin. Nice follow up, Mr. Stern. Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

As I reread this discussion, I am reminded of the Einstein eureka that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  If (1) + (-1) is cause and consequence, everything has an effect and the Cause above all causes brings our judgement in "That What for", infinity is that nothingness where is begins.  Greater than or less than <>.  One Beginning.  Something can come from nothing.  It does.  I think that is quantum physics. Light, love and peace. Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

"So to say, when moving from one point to another, the other point is simultaneously moving towards you." This point sounds like Einstein's view that all motion is relative. So, why bring up this new concept of "symmetry?" What does that add that we don't get with "relativity?" "I have been taught that consciousness is the only thing that exists.  Even inanimate objects are made of a much more dense projection of consciousness." That is a widely held view in metaphysics known as idealism. I have recommended to you in the past, and will do so again here, that you might find it interesting to read about Hegel's philosophy. He was what's known as an absolute idealist, and held some views that sound like some of the ideas you have been raising. Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

Thanks, Mr. Stern! It's all relative.  I think Goddard was a huge fan of Einstein, hence Erowid Spirit article opened with a post from him. Respond

RE: Proof of God's Existence

I agree with your statement that God is something that should be shared along with families for future generations.

PHI208--The Limits of Skepticism

PHI208


Can a person be skeptical about everything, or are there limits? Is it possible to doubt everything or almost everything? Does a person have an obligation to use ethical and moral reasoning when examining ones beliefs. Are there beliefs you possess that cannot be challenged or shown to be false? How might the skeptic respond to your claim that such a belief cannot be doubted? Identify one such specific belief and present your response to the skeptic. (If you don't have such a belief, explain how one could live while not accepting any claim as true.)

How does one know something is true?  Is there evidence that anything is absolute?

“A well–known doctrine among philosophers is called solipsism; the idea that, for an individual, the only thing that exists in the world is the mind of that individual. On this view, the only thing you have access to is your own mind and its contents. This would mean everything—your body, everyone else, the stars and planets, what you had for lunch, everything—is simply a projection of your own mind. ”  (Mosser, 2010).

The skeptic would say certainty is a limited or rare, if not an impossible attainment by which one could thereby not question the existence of anything.  If you are for one reason or another thinking that something is not true, you are still analyzing that “something”.   I know that I exist, because the reactions I create always impact the world around me.
I have a view that is the opposite of skepticism, which sort of inverts to what the text calls “"absolute gullibility," where one believes that everything is true”  (Mosser, 2010).
 
I actually connect everything with how it is related to me, or as Descarte said, “I think, therefore I am."  “We saw his claim that when he thinks, he knows he exists, was a claim that had to be accepted as true and undeniable. But that seems quite different, and conceptually far away, from our being able to accept the reports of our senses.”   (Mosser 2010)
Here is a good place to mention a sixth sense.

To quote Rav Michael Laitman of Bnei Baruch, “All of the worlds, upper and lower and this world exists within us. . .  we perceive everything.  to say, we exists because of our inner properties.  There is nothing outside of us.  We, as scientists have proven, see an inverted vision.  It’s that same inverted vision that causes us to see things as outside of us.  It’s just my impression (my ego) that makes me think that the world is outside of me.”
“Now, I sense myself and the world around me which is full of people.  There will come a time when beside this world,  I will also sense begin to sense and see other worlds.  Let’s say that some additional sense will open up for me.  Later, I begin to improve my perception. . .   then, I will know and feel that it‘s all actually part of me.“

That is, my perception projects an environment, so how and what I perceive as reality has personal relevance, and therefore is true .  It’s the epitome of objectivity.

Of course ethics and moral reasoning are necessary for co-creation, because life is an opportunity to connect.  Uncouth behavior is a disconnection.  “To the extent that souls connect, the worlds disappear.  There are between me and the Creator, some sort of filters called the worlds.  To the extent that I connect with other souls, I elevate above the worlds, and I attain a state in which I am above them, meaning they enter me.”

The skeptic might doubt the existence of a Creator Source, to which I will suggest that God is a Verb, the attribute of pure bestowal, and if there is something to be certain about, sharing creates.  Of course, if the skeptic could point out that the majority of much I perceive is a disconnection to which I would just say touché.






References

Mosser, K. (2010). A concise introduction to philosophy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Laitman, Michael (n.d). . Kabbalah and Our Perception of Reality.  Uploaded on Aug 27, 2006 by ARIfilms, retrieved July 3, 2012 by Joshua Haltom

RE: The Limits of Skepticism, I am

Joshua, I can tell through your post that you have an acute awareness of your surroundings and how they affect you.  You also are open to new things and as a result are open to new understandings.  In my experiences I have found that skepticism can be a hindrance because it limits a person's view of reality.  Instead of being open to new ideas a person will only allow themselves to go so far with their believability before they will reel themselves back in which severely limits their ability to thoroughly understand a particular topic. I understand the need for a skeptic to see every possibility before making a decision however, I do not believe that everything in life has to result in absolute certainty. Religion is a topic that brings much debate and can be argued that there is not enough certainty to cause a skeptic to truly believe one way or the other regarding the presence of a higher power.

  

Solipism is an acute awareness of surroundings,because if one is never skeptical of oneself, they are more intuitive.  The negative part you shared is also true.  All theories of knowledge must co-exist, and no one should ever dismiss any of them that are ethical.

The God particle was discovered just a few years ago.  It is called the Higgs Bosson.  The thing is considered by scientist "to be what gave mass to matter as the universe cooled after the Big Bang."  However, you can never prove something is right, you can only ever prove something is wrong."All we can do is rule out more and more alternatives." – AFP  (n.d.).


Reference

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-02-could-this-boson-be-the-god-particle/

RE: The Limits of Skepticism, I am	Instructor Stern	7/8/2013 1:59:12 PM

You cite the cogito as a means of resisting radical skepticism. Do you find Descartes' use of the cogito adequate to counter the Evil Demon argument he raises? Your idea about perception projecting an environment sounds like a form of representationalism, of which Kant, in some sense, was a leading exponent. In fact, the direction of your entire discussion on this point sounds Kantian/Hegelian. What do you mean by "objectivity," once the distinction between the subject and the object is dissolved? Would you say we would then be all object or all subject? Something else?

The subject is what the objective is about.  Both subject and object are both nouns and verbs.  To subject something to be subjected is like a proposition.  Subject and object are like the prepositions 'to' and 'for'.  There is the verbs 'is' and 'am'.  There are many grammatical or logical ways to address what you pointed out.  It all depends on perspective. 

I will end this article with a quote from an article written by an agnostic atheist:

"The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all."  (Cline, n.d)

Followed by another quote of RaMChaL:

"The entire Wisdom of Truth (çëîú äàîú, Chochmat Ha-Emet, the Kabbalah) comes only to demonstrate the truth of Faith (àîåðä, Emunah). It comes to explain how all the created realms and beings and everything that happens in the universe all emerge from the Supreme Will (äøöåï äòìéåï, HaRatzon HaElyon). It shows how everything is governed in the right way by the One God, blessed be He, to bring the entire cycle of creation to complete perfection in the end. The component details of this wisdom provide detailed understanding of all the laws and processes by which the universe is governed."  (Luzzato, 2003)




Cline, A (n.d.). 

Objective Truth

Is Something True Regardless of What We Believe?

Retrieved from http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/ObjectiveTruth.htm

Luzzatto, M.  (2003).  138 Openings of Wisdom.  Azamra Institute.  Retrieved from  http://azamra.org/Kabbalah/Openings/001.htm

The Limits of Skepticism

The term “skeptic” originally meant someone who looked at things, however in time its definition changed and is now used to describe a person who doubted various kinds of claims (Mosser, 2010).  Skeptics question everything, that in itself is not totally bad but it can really limit an individual for he or she would not be able to grow as a person.  Most people their own strong personal beliefs. I believe that everything happens for a reason and nothing happens incidentally.  Skeptics should have some limit to their skepticism for they have to believe something is accurate but they simply want to judge the reality of the belief.  Moral and ethical reasoning should be a must when examining someone’s beliefs.  Both bring significant characteristics in the decision making process and can be used to obtain the most correct answer in situations (Rainbow, 2002).  A skeptic may respond to my belief that everything happens for a reason by arguing with me.  He or she might list horrible events, such as the attacks of 9/11, and ask if it was right all that destruction occurred.  My response would be to reiterate the fact that those events still happened for a reason.  It may not be a reason I like or agree with but it was someone’s reason nevertheless. Even though skepticism may be a hassle at times, it is used to evaluate claims for flaws, mistakes, and inaccuracies which lessen the potential that we will believe something that is not true (Hill, 2013). 

Hill, S, (2013) Media Guide to Skepticism. Doubtful News. Retrieved from:  www.doubtfulnews.com/media-guide-to-skepticism/

Mosser, K. (2010). A Concise Introduction to Philosophy. San Diego, CA:  Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Rainbow, C. (2002). Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles. Department of Biology, Davidson College.  Retrieved from: 

     www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories.htm.

RE: The Limits of Skepticism

Your post gave grandeur  to Skepticism.  As the article from doubtfulnews you shared states, If a claim is true, it "is important and extraordinary. So, it would be fitting to apply Skepticism to this claim"  (Hill, 2013).

It's a strange way that a word or idea can be watered down through translation.  It's like the game of "broken telephone" where one person whispers to the next and what you end up with is less than the message meant to begin.  It's really a good thing for truth.  A declaration that goes without rebuttal cannot be proven.  And, it isn't enough to simply say "I doubt that", Skepticism needs reproval.  The solipist, who is the most, almost belittled form of epistemology, must to be sure, doubt the doubt and, as you mention, trust that everything happens for a reason, then, take that reason and receive correction from it.

We are all works in progress in the same world and living under the same sky, we must unite, and skepticism should not be thought of as offensive.  It ought to be readily welcomed and appreciated.

"Bothersome, it may be.  To the naked eye, nothing is free, but the burden of proof may take more than a lifetime to see."
Apex Theory -- Apposibly (C) 2002


Reference

Hill, S, (2013) Media Guide to Skepticism. Doubtful News. Retrieved from:  www.doubtfulnews.com/media-guide-to-skepticism/

Music video by The Apex Theory performing Apossibly. (C) 2002 Geffen Records

	Discussion 1

There are people who can find skepticism in nearly all things but there has to be some limitations. Skepticism is a part of human nature based on proving one’s knowledge and justifying claims. It is possible to doubt everything but people must, no matter how long it takes; go around and around until skeptics are quieted. The obligation for explaining ethical and moral reasoning is a valid one. Any belief that is worth holding is worth defense. If a person is not willing to defend a moral or ethical belief than can they truly hold one. My belief or faith in God cannot be proven false. Skeptics cannot, with any certainty, say that God is not real. A skeptic can say that there is not any physical evidence that God truly exists. They can also ask what makes me believe. At the end of the argument God cannot be proven to not exist. The life of a person who can’t accept any truths has to be a never ending examination. Skeptics are doomed to a life of not having anything that they can believe in. (Mosser, 2010) Mosser, K. (2010). Philosophy: A Concise Introduction. Bridgepoint Education.  RE: Discussion 1  I have heard that the only thing that can be proven wrong is a conspiracy.  If the conspiracy theory is wrong, it can still be right, because the ends calculated the means.  Or rather, the means is the end. You mentioned that you can't prove that God is real.  I say it all has to do with your definition of God.  If God is a Verb, an action or state of being, then the process of atoms forming molecules can be called God.  That is one way to prove a matter is to sync the means with another structure. A skeptic who doubts reason is a separatist.  Skepticism is good as with demanding explanations.  Dense skepticism, a person in denial, is like a cancer for the search for truth.

What is Philosophy? PHI208 discussion

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.   RE: What is Philosophy? 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

To Love One's Neighbor

PHI208

    How much does nature compel a person to be generous or willfully be empathetic enough to share at least the spoils of our well-being?  In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972), Peter Sings write about creating vessels of bestowal through mutual responsibility for our fellow man.  He does so by first using concrete examples of gross unequal, wealth distribution by governments, and onwards to the words “assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad."  He did not think that position required defense, it is not much subject to relativism.  He goes onto the premise that without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, if we can prevent something bad from happening, we ought do so.  In relation to proximity, we may be more likely to help a woe that is closer to us, but there might just be a greater need further away, geographically.

    A lawyer seeking justification asked the Rabbi, “Who is my neighbor?”  And, Yesu answered him with a rather simple but complementary parable of a man who is beaten half to death and robbed on the road.  Three people pass by this man-a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan.  “The parable of the good Samaritan, as it has become known, is cited most often by moral philosophers to open a debate about the duty of rescue, i.e., a debate about the stringency of our obligation to help others as opposed to our obligation not to harm them”  (Walden, 2003, p. 334)

    The whole story explains the self-sacrifice it means to share physical aid with those who are suffering from structural violence or victims of blows seemingly not directly caused by oneself.  It is easier to dismiss helping a person if we think they get what they deserve.  However, most of the woe in life is a form of economic oppression or a sort of external bereavement.  When this schism is broken and more than a minority can thrive, we will increase our stature as a community, and all of us will have a better state of being.

    Sings mentions the concept of marginal utility, wherein a measurement of suffering received by one’s own dependents is compared to the measure of suffering the charity beneficiary would relieve if we sacrifice.  It’s like a scale is weighing impact.  But, the traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not in the place we normally draw it.  That’s because the monetary-market anti economy, I mean anti economy, because the majority of the lack is due to its fallacy, also known as structural violence, it does the opposite of simplify the management and flow of acquisition, which is the meaning of economize. 

    In the article, Sings gives special focus to a place called East Bengal where millions of people were dying because of lack of food, shelter, and medical care.  All of which would not be the case if the people of East Bengal had enough money to comply with the system made by corporations that monopolize everything from the food supply to labor.  Sings writes, “Because giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving. The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned. People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them.) This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified.” 

    Humanity is a single, living organism, as is all energy and matter in the entire existence.  We should, for utilitarian reasons, unite by the grace that is love of one’s neighbor.  It is taught by many esoteric sages that one’s neighbor is actually one’s own desire to receive appearing outside of us to give us the opportunity to accept and correct it.  Everything starts with the individual, and the affinity for bestowal is learned and exists in various degrees from one person to the next.  So, that being said, the propensity and will to give charity cannot be left for others to do.  It is true, however, that “one feels less guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others, similarly placed, who have also done nothing.”  Sings radically suggests that it is more of a moral duty to help those who need it the most that may be father away from us than to help people with whom it is the more convenient action.  The view that those who objected have taken is simply that it is too drastic a revision of our moral scheme.  Sings condemns the idea of enjoying luxuries instead of donating to famine relief funds.
   
    In conclusion, Singer basically replaces the definition of charity with the definition of duty.  He proposed a hypothetical situation, where if everyone in a similar situation as him donated as much as they can spare, it would erase the problem of lack for the folks in more dire circumstances in other parts of the “global village.”   People usually do not offer help without hope of a reward.  Perhaps, the fulfilling of one’s capacity to improve life for those less fortunate satisfies the ego in a loving and compassionate way.  And, “if it is expected that everyone gives something, then clearly each is not obliged to give as much as they were obliged had others not been giving too.”  “There is a puzzle here, for helping people in desperate need is something that we ought to do; it would be wrong not to do it-in which case it is more like justice than benevolence”  (Walzer, 2011).













References

Singer, Peter  (Spring, 1972).  Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. pp. 229-243 [revised edition]

Waldron, J. (2003).  Who is My Neighbor?: Humanity and Proximity.  Monist, 86(3), 333.

Walzer, M. (2011). On humanitarianism: Is helping others charity, or duty, or both? Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 69-80. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/873487191?accountid=32521

The Negative Fallacy of Stereotypes

    A stereotype is an unfairly made generalization.  They are bigoted assumptions.  Stereotypes about women, religious groups, minorities, ethnic groups, and so forth are often based on insufficient evidence can therefore lead to harmful results, not only for the victim of the stereotype but also for the person doing the stereotyping.  (Mosser, 2011) 

    Stereotypes can be based on good or bad repute.  Either way, the effects are usually negative.  A stereotype about positive qualities can still have negative effects.  One example of this is an Asian teen who struggles with algebra.  But, since the stereotype says that all Asians excel at math, he or she neglects to seek tutoring. “Past studies have shown that people perform poorly in situations where they feel they are being stereotyped,” said Professor Michael Inzlicht of psychology, who led the study, published in this month’s edition of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.   (Kemick, 2010)

    One negative stereotype thrown my way was actually directed at my fiancee’, her name is Lady, which is ironic when you hear the slander.  We met on the world wide web, and soon after we started talking, an old American female friend texts me, and I tell her the news.  She warned of a scam ongoing with Filipina women (Lady is from the Philippines) posing as super spiritual, perfect wives, when in actuality, they are promiscuous succubi.  I looked up the stereotype online, and it does happen.  But as I have known Lady, I am not the least bit suspicious of her goings-on.  I find average, American women dirtier than this woman and the life she leads.  The negating of the initial upset it caused is good, because I really love this girl, and we have many plans for the future.  To have bought into the stereotype would have altered my entire future.  I probably would not be back in school, because Lady was a huge motivation as well as support system.

    Another stereotype to mention is of a religious group, Christians, it’s also a thing that has effected me.  Supposedly, Christians are hypocrites, because they preach a sinless life, all the while having secret sins and a still, divine esteem.  This is complicated, because it is partially true.  However using logic, we can by-pass the slippery slope judgment fallacy.  Jesus, the God of Christians, is said to have fulfilled the law of Moses as ‘Esu Immanuel Yeshuah ben Yosef, the Messiah, Jesus Christ.  This subject is deep, as are all Biblical matters, but the origin of all metaphysical knowledge, Chochmah ha Emet (the entire wisdom of truth--the Kabbalah) can resolve the apparent discord.  Kabbalah teaches that in each generation, there are two potential Messiah’s:  1.  Messiah ben Joseph--who, will die and ascend to atone for the generation, if the generation is wicked, like were the brothers of Joseph in Genesis, and 2. Messiah ben David--who will usher in the tangible connection of heaven and earth in complete unity, ending war, lack, death, and uniting the masses towards that mutual guarantee which is taught by both potential Messiahs.  (Yochai, n.d.)  In actuality, both are happening constantly, because prophecy and parallel universes are inseparable.  So, as for Christians, in the Holy Bible, Psalm 31 verse 5 states, “Into Thy hand, I commit my spirit.  Thou has made ransom for me, O Lord, God of Truth.”  And, as for those who will say nay, Jesus said, “Let one without sin cast the first stone,” --John 8:7--and then He drew a line in the gravel.

    A third stereotype that relates to me, personally is a hasty generalization of the brain damaged not being able to learn as well as others.  I incurred a traumatic brain injury on September 27, 1997.  It’s true that it impaired me for a while, however, here I am in my second year of college at an accredited University, passing all of my classes.  Often the fallacy of hasty generalization can lead to damaging stereotypes made on the basis of just a few examples.  (Mosser, 2011)  There were a few light distortions of reality that I had to work through, but this particular stereotype begs the question of how much to invest into a charity and which best equip the population for taking life to the next level.

    In conclusion, stereotypes are fallacies in logic which limit the understandings of conditions, creeds, cultures, or the people who adhere to them and they are anything but productive.  I suggest that all stereotypes relate to assumed quality, and they can be transformed from sorts of perceived problems into opportunities for diversity.  The variable that fits this equation is the attitude of those who accept or reject the beliefs.   Don’t judge a book by its cover.






REFERENCES:

Kemick, April (August 12, 2010).  Stereotyping Has Lasting Negative Impact: Prejudice has lingering effects, study shows.  University of Toronto

Mosser, Kurt (2011).  Logic:  An Introduction.  Ashford University--Discovery Series.  Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Yochai, Rabbi Shimon bar,  (n.d.). The Zohar:  Beresheet B, article 21, “Moshe and the two Messiahs”

HIS204--Civil Liberties from 1865-Present

    Civil liberty in the United States of America has come through some tough opposition since after the Civil War.   There have also been some breakthroughs in education and activity outside of the home.  Technology has given our communication express, non-restricted potential.  There have also been many barriers in the matter of civil rights, let alone civil liberties.  America is supposed to be a democracy, a government for the people and by the people.  This implies that each person, so long as they do no harm to themselves or others, has “certain unalienable rights given to him by the Creator”  (Jefferson, 1776).  That is most likely what Abraham Lincoln was exclaiming when he outlawed slavery.  But, still, in economic terms, slavery to this day exists and it is even celebrated by those who would thoughtlessly hoard resources.  Ayn Rand said, “The smallest minority is the individual.  Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”  (Cantoni, 2009)  This is a profound statement and the rest of this paper will expound on civil liberties, its successes, and its challenges.  Six civil liberty issues to be discussed here are African American’s stature after the Civil War, children’s education, prohibition and the War on Drugs, economic freedom, access to technology, and rights to privacy.

    Following the Civil War, African Americans faced much discrimination.  “Legislatures from southern states, encouraged by the same people who led the states out of the Union, made Black Codes which stopped African Americans from getting almost all of their rights.” (thinkquest.org, n.d.)  There were segregated uses of public facilities by which skin color determined quality of life.  This is a sad fact considering that the bloodiest war in American history was waged to make them free.  Even security and assurance that you will not be lynched by a mob was considered a liberty back then.  Few former slaves could read, so there rights to a proper education seemed far-fetched. 

    Though blacks were having a hard time after the Civil War, there were also then radical changes happening in education that effected everyone’s place in society.  The way that young people learned changed radically as the sources of their education multiplied.  Family guidance was becoming less, and as Bernard Bailyn (1960) mentioned, peer, media and gang influence was more.   “Many youths spend thousands of hours for eleven to twenty-two years in schools of various kinds, pre-schools, elementary schools, secondary schools, tutorials, colleges, propriety schools, graduate and professional schools, and continuing educations schools”  (Keller, 2008).  But, suffice to say, learning begins at home, and around the end of the 19th century, children were working in sweatshops and being more influenced more and more by the before mentioned groups.

    A legality that infringed upon civil liberty around the beginning of the 20th century was prohibition of alcohol.  “The Eighteenth Amendment, which gave Congress the power to create laws to enforce the prohibition of the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" was passed by a so-called Progressive Congress in 1919.  Prohibition became the stuff of cultural legend in the 1920s with bootleggers, bathtub gin, and gang wars.  Prohibition only lasted 14 years, when the Twenty-first Amendment repealed it in 1933”  (Bowles, 2011).  Today, prohibition is a 10th Amendment issue with marijuana laws.  Now, “more than 30 percent of the U.S. population lives under some form of marijuana decriminalization, and according to government and academic studies, these laws have not contributed to an increase in marijuana consumption nor negatively impacted adolescent attitudes toward drug use.”  (norml.org, n.d.)  In the parts of America that still prohibit marijuana sale and consumption, civil liberty is being held hostage.  The benefit of this is to the tobacco corporations’ and gun lobbyist (among others) who pay for prisons to be built and run it from within the system that profits from the institution.  “The legalization of drugs would prevent our civil liberties from being threatened any further, it would reduce crime rates, reverse the potency effect, improve the quality of life in the inner cities, prevent the spread of disease, save the taxpayer money, generally benefit both individual and the community as a whole”  (Cussen, Block, 2000)

    About the economic bondage that is the largest restriction of our civil liberties--we live in a society that is in debt to itself.  But, no one can know where to all of that money has gone.  It could be said that it has built the great innovations in technology that make our lives comfortable.  But, is it really bliss to be comfortably numb?  No, most of the country is blind to the fact that we are being led like sheep to the slaughter.  A police state is being ushered in by legislation like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the Military Tribunal, and other legislation.  It is completely and totally design to take away our civil liberties.  Your home can be searched without a warrant when you are not even home, and you could be arrested or even killed under suspicion of being a terrorist.  Hitler used the same propaganda to get public support of doing away with the German Constitution and going to war, all in the name of national security.  He burnt down his own German, Parliament building, the Reichtag, and blaming it on communist/ terrorists.  Similar things happened in America on September 11, 2001.  The reality of creating money out of thin air allows evil, power hungry men to be able to advance their agenda.  This schism and scheme was catapulted into overdrive by the creation of the Federal Reserve, a privately owned institution of “bankers banks” (Bowles, 2011), who trade dollars for bonds printed by the Treasury Department which are also printed out of thin air.  With the idea of man creating something out of nothing, debt has enslaved us to the whims of a capitalist market.  The monopoly is on your labor, and the control is of your mind.  “The older vision, heald by the Constitutional Convention, of a citizen body of free farmers among whom equality of resources seemed altogether possible, perhaps even inevitable, no longer fits that reality of the new economic order in which economic enterprises automatically generate inequality among citizens in wealth, income, social standing, education, occupational prestige, and authority”  (Dhal, 1986).

    With more technological advancements came the need for ability to access use of new gadgets.  People living, today have capacity far beyond the telegraph or even a telephone line.  Now, we can immediately send and receive messages through cell phone texts, e mail, or fax.  The reach of our domain has been enlarged greatly.  People have liberty to express themselves and influence or effect the environment by a sort of amplifying their voice and reaching out more easily than ever.  The only catch is that it must be payed for with currency or credit.  Public libraries are being used to serve the technological needs of those living in poverty.  Keeping up with the change is not as simple as pick and choose if you need this or that or perhaps not.  In more recent times, everyone at least needs some enhanced ability to communicate abroad.  It‘s a matter of civil liberty, because there is a divide between the certain creeds and races who benefit from such luxury and those who do not.  “The bias of technological change determines its distributional implications, for example, which groups are the winners and which will be the losers from technological progress, and thus the willingness of different groups to embrace new technologies”  (Acemoglu, 2007).

    With the increased capacity to be heard, our First Amendment rights have been under scrutiny by government intrusion.  Today, the National Security Agency will monitor all communications, eliminating privacy for the sake of national security.  This legislative allowance is thought by many to be very unconstitutional and quite disturbing.  “After it was publicly disclosed in 2005 that the US government was conducting warrantless surveillance under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, dozens of lawsuits were filed against the government and cooperating telecommunication carriers on behalf of citizens who were illegally wire tapped as part of mass domestic warrantless surveillance programs”  (Hughes, 2012).  “First, privacy and security from terrorism need not be in conflict: when accounting for strategic interactions, reducing privacy protections does not necessarily increase security from terrorism. Second, and more important, the anti-terrorist agency will always want less privacy. The very agency whose expertise affords it disproportionate influence on policy making will prefer a reduction in privacy protections even when that reduction harms security from terrorism”  (Dragu, 2011).

    In conclusion, the manufactured illusion that one must pay a landlord in order to survive is being usurped by the call to unite for individual, civil liberty and universal, God-given rights.  From African-Americans being discriminated against to no one being able to keep anything private, civil liberty has never been bulletproof.  It is, however, being demanded more and more.  As Thomas Jefferson and some of our founding fathers envisioned in the Declaration for Independence,  nothing stands between the Creator and the Creator’s creations besides the illusions of superiority some creatures may have and the legalities certain creatures have added to or taken away from the universal law of interdependency and mechanics of equilibrium.  Many have taken to fight against such tyranny, and we are assured a victory.  This is known to be absolutely certain, because of the reactions and measurements in quantum mechanics.  Civil liberty is not just an allowance by some human authority, it must be granted.  The denial of civil liberty is creating metaphysical discord in the vibratory energy that sustains life.  In the battle, it is seeming that we are collectively taking two steps forward and three steps backward.  Together, we have made much progress, but the truth is there is still a lot missing when it comes to freedom.  “Capitalist societies are full of unacceptable inequalities. Freedom is of paramount importance. These two convictions are widely shared across the world. Yet they often seem in complete contradiction with each other. Fighting inequality jeopardizes freedom; taking freedom seriously boosts inequality. What can be done?”  (Parjis, 2011)  “We live in a world of unprecedented opulence, of a kind that would have been hard to imagine even a century or two ago”  (Sen, 2001).  Why should we not live in access abundance and total, unequivocal, civil liberty granted?  A big part of the problem is monies and how they are produced, why they are traded, and also, at least in America, our political system.  "We have to nationalize the banks. We have to get rid of the government. We need to have access to the internet seen as a human right. We need to have a new Constitution," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, founder of the Icelandic Pirate Party.  (Gibson, 2013).  With unity and a clear set of goals the Occupy Movement can for America can get us in on the beginning of civilization.







References


Acemoglu, Daron (Sep., 2007).  Equilibrium Bias of Technology.  Econometrica, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp. 1371-1409

Bailyn, Bernard (1960).  Education in the Forming of American Society: Needs and Opportunities for Study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Bowles, M. (2011). A history of the United States since 1865. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Cantoni, C. J. (2009). The “Will of the People”.  Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 14(3), 77.

Cussen, M. & Block, W.  (Jul. 2000).  Legalize Drugs Now!:  An Analysis of the Benefits of Legalizing Drugs.  The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 59, No. 3 , pp 525-536

Dahl, R. A. (1986). A Preface to Economic Democracy (No. 28). Univ of California Press.

Dragu, T.  (February, 2011).  Is There a Trade-off between Security and Liberty? Executive Bias, Privacy Protections, and Terrorism Prevention.  The American Political Science Review Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 64-78

Gibson, Carl (June 5, 2013).  5 Ways the U.S. Can Have an Icelandic Revolution.  The Huffington Post.  Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/have-an-icelandic-revolution_b_3391151.html

Myth #9:  After the Civil War all black men had the right to vote. (n.d). 
Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/myth_9.htm

Hughes, S. S.  (November 3, 2012).  US Domestic Surveillance after 9/11: An Analysis of the Chilling Effect on First Amendment Rights in Cases Filed against the Terrorist Surveillance Program.  Canadian Journal of Law and Society, Volume 27 pp. 399-425.  Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy-library.ashford.edu/journals/canadian_journal_of_law_and_society/v027/27.3.hughes.html

Keller, G.(2008). Higher Education and the New Society. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved June 2, 2013, from Project MUSE database.

Parijs, P. V. (2011). Real freedom for all: What (if anything) can justify capitalism?. OUP Catalogue.
   
Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford Paperbacks.

U.S. Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2 (1776)

Zeitgeist - Destroying Your Civil Liberties (Uploaded March 9, 2010 by zeitgeistau)  Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB3YC6NDdYY

Responding to Amazing Grace

Reading Response to Amazing Grace

Joshua Haltom

ENG125

Olabisi Adenekan

Ashford University

October, 30, 2012

            Poetic literature has intrinsic quality of relevant, human, existentiality.  The poet may write about everything they sense, feel, experience, or imagine.  Saying that poetry is built into our life experience, is another way of saying that human experiences are more complex than they seem.  (Clugston, 2010)  In a way, we are all poets when we attempt to relate the outward environment to our internal condition.  Since perception is reality, the imagery within poetry is only as limited as the reader's spiritual capacity.  Poetry is unique in pervasive depth of symbolic content.