Are We Free?

Despite core values been directly linked to freedom, specifically to those of us residing in America, total freedom seems nearly nonexistent. We live where the list goes on and on with types of freedoms or unalienable rights that we are all accustomed to. However, evidence exists that even those at the top, such as Lincoln or Kennedy, can almost be sacrificed due to their more radical beliefs. We have freedom, but in many parts of the country and the world, one cannot even marry the one they love, partake in spiritual rituals/ceremonies, or experiment with drugs without the fear of government collision. Even deeper than this, in the parts where one is granted the freedom to do so, it does not prevent outlast from others to use their so called freedom to discriminate against them. In places like China, individuals cannot even have Facebook to express their values or opinions. But here in America, where almost everyone is on Facebook, they can have profiles deactivated over certain statements and can have it used against them legally if a situation ever evoked the need. Comparing this to Mill and Marx, I would have to say I slightly to believe in both of their ideals. However, I personally believe that the ability for an individual to acquire complete freedom with this world is nearly if not impossible as we are all partially confined to laws, burdens, and restrictions that society and government enforces upon us.

Is Buddhism Possible in US?

Contemporary United States culture is obsessive, self-involved, and in certain aspects very shallow. We live in a culture where selfies are an art form, and most Americans from all age and social groups, thrive off of social media where they primary talk about themselves and speak their own personal opinions. I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. However, I do believe that it makes practices of a selfless spirituality such as Buddhism nearly impossible. Not entirely impossible, because despite the plethora of self involvement that our culture is infested with, those with the correct discipline could most definitely be a practicing Buddhist. However temptations are heavily ready in the United States, so it would be a daily or more realistically a constant act of disciple to stay genuine to Buddhism. Despite all of this, I believe that there are still constant acts of kindness that exemplify selfless awareness and the urgency to help those in need. Living in the contemporary United States may have many selfish aspects but that isn't all that defines our culture. Desires do not necessarily have to have a negative connotation but ultimately associating it with Buddhism would only allow for that negative connotation to thrive. Our culture may be tempting, seductive, and thriving on desires and although all of this leads to a challenging culture to practice Buddhism in, with the proper discipline it could be possible.

Human vs Computer

In a world where computers are evolving more into human like machines and technology is growing closer and closer to all humans, there are strong similarities between both human and computer. As we know, computers are programmed by humans. If it were't for us, they would not exist. Some say that they feel like computers are smarter than they are. Because if you don't know who directed your favorite movie or what the capital of Minnesota is, you can simply ask Siri or Google it and you'll get an instant answer. Computers can calculate math equations even faster than the most brilliant mathematician. However, those answers were programmed some way by an actual human. Yes, computers are intelligent but it is purely simulated. Comparing this with humans, there are similarities. I believe that we as humans, as individuals, go through our own journey which is how we are developed or programmed. Obviously there are genetics and other aspects that we are simply born with. But we wouldn't know how to speak if we weren't taught by our mothers. We wouldn't have our knowledge without schooling. And although we all strive to be original, it's merely impossible for even the most original of humans to not be influenced by those around them. In reality, the programming of computers is essentially the same as the programming as humans.

What Are We?

Personally, I agree with Descartes on his ideas of humans being of two different substances, specifically being made up of the body and the mind. Although I do firmly understand how one can find it easier to agree with physicalism due to the fact that there is direct evidence to prove it exists. One can dissect a body and see with his own eyes the physical realm of a human. I believe it's easier for masses to believe only what they can see. Despite this easiness, I still agree with Descartes' views. It seems impossible that the diversity and talent in the world is purely due to the physical brain computing humans to do such things. We would be much more of a machine if physicalism was the ultimate truth. Even with their being physical evidence of most of human's actions to be correlated with the physical organ of the brain, there's still something forcing that to happen. And for it to be different than what the billions of people around the world are doing at the same exact second. For me, I just cannot fathom the idea of there not being something within each human that is a driving force of motivation. If it's the mind or the soul, I believe we as humans are most definitely made up of two parts.

What Is Knowledge?

With Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology in mind, the concept of knowledge seems much diverse than prior to being introduced to these theories. Before it seemed as if knowledge was being presented as something that is solely learned through experience, obtained through senses, and is not directly correlated with one's inner self. However, now it's as if knowledge is only essential if it directly correlates with one's self experiences rather than just being gained through those experiences.  Can knowledge be personable? Personally, it's quite challenging for me to decide on what knowledge actually is.

With all prior being taken into account, I will say that I can agree with all of the theories on knowledge discussed within the last few weeks. I believe different types of knowledge hold different paths to be followed. For instance, maybe certain academic knowledge can solely be taught. To me it seems like these knowledges can be obtained through one's experience and you aren't going to be aware of these "truths" until life presents you with the opportunity to learn them, most likely through the use of your senses. Despite this, I think there's invaluable knowledge or should I say truths to life that could be achieved through senses but just wouldn't be valuable until one is able to effectively apply it to their life. We won't know if expressing ourselves will get us the next date in the same way we won't know if putting our hand in a flame will burn ourselves until we actually do it. We can assume, but this knowledge doesn't matter until it is our saving grace. Or our sinking ship.

It's nearly impossible for me to detach knowledge from emotion, that we can't personally grow from within through heartache and issues. That lust, love, and pain can be learned through our emotional roller coasters and not directly learned about through a sense or a lesson. Especially with Feminist Epistemology in mind, it seems as if knowledge is just as attached to one as emotion and self identity rather than just an detached intellectual substance. 

Maybe it's up to the individual as to what classes of knowledge are important to them and which theories we've learned are the paths in which they obtain those truths.

Knowledge Based On Senses

Reflecting upon Empiricism, I begin to strongly connect with the notion that all of one's knowledge based on the use of senses. In order for one to receive any type of information which translates into knowledge, we have to have an experience that presents it to us. From valuable skills to simply studying about Empiricism, we as individuals have to use at least our sense of sight to inherit the information. For one to fully be aware of this knowledge, it must be fully experienced through their senses. 

The only issue I do have with my understanding of Empiricism is how it seems to claim that one cannot rightly discuss what he has yet to experience. To me this diminishes any idea of one's creativity or imagination. 

Methodological Skepticism

From my understanding, methodological skepticism is a process in which an individual rules out all possibilities through his own self doubt in order to reach certainty. Personally, this does make sense to me. In everyday life, I strive to rule out all possibilities in simple situations such as where I misplaced my iPhone to more extreme like how to handle an uncomfortable situation with a friend. We tend to assume the worst before arriving at the truth, which hopefully is the best. Therefore most all individuals unconsciously use this process. From childhood, we fall into traditions such as believing in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. As outlandish as these concepts are, we wholeheartedly believe in them until we find those hidden gifts under our parent's beds. It's not until we are given a reason to doubt that we finally realize the truth. However, as much as I would love to say that I am more self aware than aware of the world around me, I do believe that there is a balance between the two. Simply due to the fact that we live in a superficial society where it's easier to believe one's actions than one's words. Therefore we are almost always craving instant gratification. Sometimes there's isn't always time to rule out all possibilities and we doubt what we are presented with and stay true to what the world around us provides.

In conclusion, methodological skepticism is a good strategy that is applicable to one's everyday life. As true as it may be though, the world we live in doesn't always allow it to be the most suffice strategy to use.

My Blog

This will be my philosophy blog.