Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law? In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? And 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience?

Personally I believe it is ok to break the law when it interferes with personal freedom or offends you to the point where you want to fight it in any way possible.  For example, many people did not agree with slavery, which was law long ago. Many people broke the law and help slaves escape capture. Another example is you are unhappy with a law passed by congress and you decide to block the doors to a government agency. Under these conditions I agree with breaking the law. I endorse civil disobedience when the crime is made to draw attention to something that is not right in the person’s eyesight. We all might not agree but your opinion to yourself is what matters the most. An unjust law is something that may discriminate against you or something that may interfere with your rights as a human being. I agree with St Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”. Why should I follow something that I don’t believe in or respect? 

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices. What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?

I like both ideas that Mill and Marx have, but I do not agree fully on everything. I agree with Mill’s on the harm principle. I think we should be allowed to do as we please as long as it’s not causing harm to anyone but ourselves. This is a contradiction though because I feel like everything is connected in the universe. Someone using drugs is only harming themselves at the time, but what about the effects of the drug on the brain. What if that person goes off and kills someone? For example, let’s say we have two people named Billy and Bobby. Billy and Bobby uses the narcotic crack. Billy uses crack and it doesn't interfere with anyone’s life but his own. On the other hand Bobby uses crack and ends up stealing to support his habit. Because of people like Bobby, laws are in place by our government. Although I do not condone drug use, isn’t it a violation of Billy’s rights to infringe a law that’s in place because of Bobby’s actions. So Although I like the idea of the harm principle I just don’t see how it can work in the world we live in today. Rules need to be set for the crazy people out there. The thing I like about Marx is how he acknowledges the struggle between classes and how it effects choices people make. If you do not have enough money for college this effects how and what you will become. Although I do not agree with communism, I’m not sure if it’s because this is what I was taught or because I genuinely do not agree, I am still questioning this myself.

According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions. Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

I really don’t think it is possible to live the way Buddhism teaches especially in the United States. Buddhism teaches you to reject materialistic things. The United States is based on capitalism. You want us to get rid of our iPhones, laptops, Jordan sneakers and all the other things people hold dear to themselves? Not going to happen! From young we are taught to strive for things. To have a goal and a dream of what we want to accomplish in life. We are taught if you do not have any dreams or desires for worldly possessions then you are a bum. I say this all the time; my goal in life is to be happy. I don’t want to be the next Bill Gates. I don’t want to drive a car that has the same value as a small country. What would bring me happiness? My health, my children’s health and living comfortably are my views of succeeding in life. Our society teaches this is not enough. You have to strive for the best of the best and work until you are at the top of the top. It’s kind of sad because I believe life would be so much better if we lived as the Buddhist. I mean living for you instead of living for what you can get sounds way better. Because guess what, once we die, that car, that iPhone, that house, and those Jordan’s are not going with us. But you can die happy and at peace knowing that you mastered yourself and found the connection to what truly matters in life.  

This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective. In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's relgious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument).

 I believe that the cosmological and design argument might change someone’s religious convictions. Any type of argument with good evidence may influence change on the other party. I think that leaving the main reason for most religions out, like faith is unjust. Faith is something you believe. You might not be able to see, touch, feel, smell or taste it but most religious people have it and use it as a main explanation for their beliefs. I view this topic as I view the atom. The atom was considered something that did not exist. In fact when the scientists tried to explain its existence they were deemed crazy. The scientist knew atoms where real and out there, they just needed to prove it. Will we ever prove the existence of God? Probably not in our lifetime but I do believe in him. I try not to let my beliefs cloud my views on others beliefs.I am always up for a good debate about his existence.  So my question is, why wouldn't faith be a good enough argument to help understand religion? What if the scientist gave up on the atom, think about how our world would of changed. 

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth. What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

I find this comparison interesting. We as humans can function like computers. Day in and day out we go about our day in a type of robotic way. Wake up, bathe, brush your teeth, eat breakfast, go to school or work, come home and tend to whatever it is you do, bathe brush your teeth sleep. Then we repeat the process the next day. I agree with John Searle though. The thing that makes us different from robots is that we can depict emotions. We can laugh, cry, feel, think, love, hate and all the beautiful things us humans are blessed doing. Yes we are programmed to do certain things but we are not committed to doing just that. Once you program a robot that is its task until programed to do otherwise. We as humans are unreliable, and I don’t mean that in a bad way. By unreliable I mean other things effect our decisions. For example, if someone in the army is programed to follow orders, he must do as his higher up commands. Let’s say his sergeant tells him to shoot a child. The solider may not do it. Why? Because he has emotions, he might feel guilt and sorrow in being asked to do this. Now if he was a robot, It would have been done right away. We may ACT like computers sometimes but we will always be humans.

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings? If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).

I agree with Descartes. I think of myself made of two different substances.  I believe we have a body and a mind.  I think they are two different things but they work together to function.  I think that our mental life is closely connected to our brain because our mind uses our brain to react with the physical world.  Like we think, and we act on it using our brain which then applies it to our body. For example, I think and wish about taking a trip. I use my brain to figure out how I can take this trip. Whether it be saving money up to take this trip or going to a travel agency. My mind takes action by using my brain as a tool to get what I want done. It signals the brain to let me walk to the travel agency and book the tickets.  Then the brain alerts my body to do the action. We think and it can become. It’s amazing! I mean if we were simply physical beings as physicalist suggest, wouldn’t we all go about things the same way? I feel like we would all function like robots.

Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge? Now that we have concluded the section on epistemology, write about what kind of thing you think knowledge is.

I like the idea that pragmatism and feminist epistemology brings. Knowledge should be seen as something that affects our choices in life. As far as the feminist view, I never really saw how much things are emasculated. Even when we refer to all people, its okay to say, “He should take off his hat when he enters the room”. That’s an acceptable form to refer to everyone. Why not say “One should take off their hat when they enter a room”. This is more gender neutral.  I think that knowledge should be viewed as something we have and use to make our lives better. In all reality isn't that what it is? We apply to our everyday lives in hopes that we become successful and prosper in whatever we chose to do. I really don’t think anyone wants to fail. But striving to fail is a goal in itself. After learning about epistemology, it really changed my views on how I will apply what I learned. What really stuck with me was John Dewey and his instrumentalism.  I agree that we use our beliefs as a tool when we have issues or problems in life. This view of thinking, I feel will help people work harder and really think before they do. 

What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses? What areas of knowledge do you think support this theory? Are there any types of knowledge (mathematical knowledge, for example?) that you think are a problem for this theory?

I disagree with the claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses. I mean senses are really how we acquire useful verifiable knowledge. This would be great to describe knowledge based on experience. To me it falls apart when you are trying to use it to explain math. Math is facts 2 plus 2 is 4 everywhere. I also discussed this briefly in my pervious post. Check it out.

What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methodological skepticism is not a good strategy?

I think methodological skepticism is something that is hard to accept at first, but can be used effectively to prove skepticism. I am one of the types of people that clings onto my belief until it is evident that whatever it is, is not true. For example, when I was younger I read a children's book that said corn grew on trees. I loved that book. There was no way you could convince me that corn did not grow on trees. Eventually as I got older, I visited a corn field and was in shock. I doubted my eyes. When I realized that corn did indeed grow from the ground, it made me question all my other childhood assumptions. So I can see how skeptics relate everything back to beliefs. When you truly wholehearted believe in something and then you find out its not true, it makes you question everything around you. Even though I do see where skeptics are coming from. I do not agree about some things. The early Greek skeptics stated "Don't worry about what you cannot know". Isn't questioning beliefs in itself, apart of philosophy? So if we never question and worry, how will we ever know? Is this to say we should be the horses with the blinders on? knowledge. I think that we have came a long way as a people. So 2+2 does not equal 4? Some things are undoubtable. Facts equal Facts until proven otherwise. But even though I do not agree with methodological skepticism, I believe it has interesting points and can be a good strategy to disprove beliefs of others.

In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates suggests that, without philosophical education, we are all like the prisoners in the cave. What are your thoughts on this? How is philosophy supposed to be liberating? Do you think Socrates is right to be so pessimistic about life without philosophy?

I agree with Socrates. We truly are like prisoners in the cave. We would be walking around like horses with blinders on. The thing that makes us one up from animals is our power of thought. Us humans like to wonder about "why?" and "what"  we are curious creatures by nature. Without philosophy we would be stuck in a world I would rather not live in. I am thankful for philosophers like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X that changed our views for the better. We needed these "gadflies".

I think philosophy is liberating when it comes to your thoughts and ways of thinking. It frees your mind from captivity of common basic thoughts and allows you to explore thoughts you never had. You question your thoughts over and over. 

Yes I do think Socrates has a right to feel this way. Can you imagine a world with no philosophy? No one questioning truth or beliefs of others? A lot of great things has come from people standing up and questioning others beliefs. Can you think of any?

Excited

Hi everyone, My name is Allison Robinson. I am new to online courses but the convenience of them has helped me a lot. What I hope to to learn in Philosophy is more about Socrates. I am interested in his way of thinking.  I am majoring in Paramedics at BMCC and I look forward to getting to know all of you.