Week 12: Civil Disobedience

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? For some examples, take a look at the Wikipedia article on civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is the society’s cry for help, boundaries have to be crossed in order to get a point across.

When unjust laws and unfair laws are passed I believe it is necessary to resist and break the law. Laws that would interfere with a person’s life in a negative way would fall under this category. People who have made these laws have not considered ALL of the people and their individual situations, as to why they would need to resist these enforcements. For example two people that have been in love for ten years have established their lives with each other, made plans for their future and in that future they see a wedding for themselves to celebrate their love and unity. However the American Public has made limiting laws in which states it is legal to allow gay marriages, which means if in certain states the two same sex people can not have a wedding because of the horrific restrictions the law has enforced upon them. These laws are unjust; as every situation and every relationship is different why outlaw the people who would like to marry a same sex couple? It is ruining their chances to celebrate love and legally establish their unity.

An unjust/immoral law is anything that proves ignorance to the society and is disregarded, argued, and constantly trying to be changed but instead broken. Think of my statement any way you want, everyone will think of a different set of laws when it comes to it. However if it in anyway comes in between you and your moral beliefs then I believe it is problematic and unjust, it is simply not right.

“Unjust law is not law” is a head on statement as for me. The law was created on a basis of regulations and restrictions, limiting people’s actions in society and the public. I believe that everyone has a subconscious that knows what is right and what is wrong, no matter how strongly we agree with or deny that fact. It is a metaphysical thing that can not be explained by any list of laws that the government can enforce on us. Humans have a mind that explores the depths of right and wrong and an unjust law can trigger that part of a humans mind directing it to ignore the law for it is not right. It doesn’t sit well with individuals therefore it will be omitted and broken.

I am not a big government person myself, I believe that any law that doesn’t sit well with the public should be cautioned and fought with an act of civil disobedience. The government wants a perfect society where everyone is quiet obeys the big guys (them) and doesn’t ask questions. Everyone is flawed and whoever makes any law that doesn’t seem just to the people who make up that civilization should be disobeyed to the highest extent.

Week 11: Marx & Mills

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? 

Ah the topic of freedom what a controversial thing! 

I can't help but side with both of these wonderful men for their clear philosophical standpoints on freedom. Mills made it clear to us that living in harmony with a non oppressive government is what gives us freedom and Marx strongly expressed that we need the essentials of survival from the economy to lead a free life. Both statements provide specific conditions for freedom and in doing so assert a guide on how to be free. I think that if two combined their ideas to formulate one that would create a wonderful theory on freedom! Let me explain how this theory would work if i were to merge the two..


First, Marx's standpoint on freedom would be presented: In order to survive you need the essentials of life that the economy should be able to provide such as shelter, food, and clothes. Through Marx's perceptive view a fundamental base would be set for the next phase of freedom, the final phase of freedom provided by Mills. In order to finalize the freedom you need to live in a society with a liberal government without being pressured or forced to do things by them. Finalizing this theory you have to have the stability and security of a good economy to get you on your feet and a liberal government to let your freedom soar!


Now that's how it should be seen! Both brilliant ideas combined into one amazing theory of freedom. Both Marx and Mills make points that contribute to the factors of freedom but i can't see their individual ideas as the makings of freedom. United they make much more sense :)!

Week 9: Buddhism

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 believe as living in the US my whole life i can certainly and surely say that this country would not be able to successfully undertake the concepts of Buddhism, America is the central of individualism. We serve to ourselves primarily, go to school so we can have a job, get a job so we can have money, have money so we can build upon our own needs and wants. All of these desires are self-centered, Although i do agree Buddhism does have a strong belief system and incredible moral teachings with certain enlightenment, I do not see the people of this society diverging from their individualistic values to Buddhist values.

In society we are treated as names and numbers, not beings. Buddhism embraces every soul and embarks on a journey for the mind. Americans only worry about the work that is done for them and the society, not the fact that a person can be mentally exhausted by working two jobs to pay enormous bills. Meditation and care for the individuals was never a foundational factor for this society we live in. Buddhism does come into conflict with our society in the sense that Buddhism tries to involve and enlighten everyone, exempting any negative energy and focusing on the mental wellness and moral correctness of the individuals who practice it, Our society does not spiritually inspire or enlighten any of us, the only motivation is money our well being is not a part of that goal.


It's harsh but it is the truth, in being together like Buddhism teaches a person can unfold and reveal their inner selves with the beauty of enlightenment. America does not concern or confront any of these spiritual teachings or try to bring the best out of every individual, they just motivate us with things that money can buy, without looking into the persons mind, a sad but true part of our society.


Buddhism is amazing, America should take some pointers to help destruct the developing individualism driven my money motives they have set :(!

Week 8: Cosmological and Design Argument

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).

Philosophy as a whole focuses on in depth analysis and theories of what we are, who we are, where we are and why we are here. In doing so many upon many different arguments arise and oppose different standpoints varying from person to person. 
The cosmological argument proves certain of the existence of God and his creation of the universe. As a Catholic i believe in the theory of the "first cause" and the first uncause cause being God. People could argue based on standpoints but the religious theme is apparent and pretty convincing in my eyes. The conclusions of God portray his creation of the universe since the early times of this earth. 
Diverging from the topic of philosophy one of the most prominent arguments and points that prove religion as a strong experience and faith is the stance of art. Art has always reflected expressive and personal qualities, people display the world around them with the influence of knowledgeable beliefs. Religion and the creator of the universe have played apparent influences on the illustrations, aniconically displaying the creator of the universe but iconically representing the servers of God. Through Shepards, Jesus Christ, Virgin Mary, Saints and Angels the creator of the universe is shown to be a prime belief of the people. 
Basically has religion and the creator of the universe God influenced the people since the dawn of time? YES. It still continues to live in the minds of people globally because as the Cosmological Argument states the first uncause cause is God.

Week 5: Metaphysics- dualism & physicalism

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).
Write your thoughts on these issues

So the introduction to metaphysics in philosophy is by far the most controversial topic in my eyes. Dualism and physicalism both play opposite rolls in proving two different ends of the spectrum. Dualism is the belief which Descartes follows stating that the body is a physical being and the mind is a nonphysical entity which can not be explained by physics or science. Physicalism is a belief which follows the motto that the body is one physical entity which involoves the brain, the mind is non existant, and every mental function including decisions, thoughts, and choices are in the brain and can be explained physically.


Now as a person who is induced all this information at once i was concerned with my choice because i sided with both for specific reasons. I agreed with the dualist theory because i believe the things a mind can do are unexplainable, no physical evidence can prove any human behavior to be justified just because of what they think they know and conclude through our physical brains. However physicalism does support the brain as the main part of our bodies and accounts it for various mental interpretations and functions through the physical world. 

After weighing my options in which to believe Descartes finally convinced me that dualism is more into my beliefs. He fought to support and agree with dualism in numerous ways which are all in the Basic Premise he wrote, all of his standpoints including The Argument from Doubt, The Argument from Divisibility, The Argument from Consciousness and so on.  His strong arguments provided a basic take on the tradition that pertain to us as individuals and mental freedom, his exploration into the takes of consciousness and self-awareness harness a heavy load of mystery and provided me with all the notion i needed to side with dualism.


I do still believe that the brain helps the body function and creates certain physical explanations to how we respond to the world outside, but the mind and soul to me are separate and reach a higher standing, mentally, than the brain ever will. It accounts for the great enlightenment's in life, it pertains to the vague mysteries of our actions, and is something that will never be available to fully understand.  As an open minded person i do look at both sides with perks however i portray in my opinion a more spiritual look upon the body as one entity and the mind as another. Though the physicalist's might tend to disagree i hope i did atleast fully explain why i chose the dualist form of metaphysics. The mind and soul are metaphysical and in a spiritual sense eternal, they are the traces of religion and the center of a person's inner beliefs and functions.

Week 4: Pragmatism and Epistemology

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.


Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology are two varied concepts of philosophy but both agree on one thing, knowledge is gained through outside sources (experience, belief, observation, society, religion, etc.). As i was reading these two different approaches to philosophy they were easy to relate to and I would have to agree with them in terms of challenging the view of humans gaining knowledge as a detached and intellectual activity.

Pragmatism follows a structure on knowledge that serves the general idea that the meaning of our beliefs are the actions that they result in. This philosophical approach to knowledge is very straight forward and informing in a practical manner. This basic belief is not any definitive phenomenon however it is something that many people go by. If a belief you go by works for you in practice and successfully guides your actions in reality, the belief has been proven true by experience. If not you can work on adjusting the belief to make it a better belief. I strongly agree with this because truths in ones mind must be validated and verified by one's actions in reality. Gaining knowledge through this philosophical approach is practical and simple to follow using beliefs and ideas as a guide to our future actions.


Feminist Epistemology to me seemed as a modern day inquiry to the publishing's of philosophy based on subjective views of influence (sex, gender, society, religion, etc.). Feminists' reflect the ways that gender did and does influence our mental concepts of knowledge. Emphasizing that subjective matters do influence even the most "objective" works of philosophy. I do have to also agree with this because their points are very evident and true, you can not write an essay without your subjective matters influencing your knowledge. 



All of these theories and topics of knowledge have caught my attention because i either agreed with the logic they provided or disagreed with it. I have certainly taken away with me many things that have shaped my views on knowledge and how it is conceived processed and presented. Socrates, Descartes, Plato, Locke, Pierce, James, Dewey, Garry, Code and all the others have successfully helped me explore the theories of epistemology, and from each person i take away something different. Whether it be arguments of truth and liberation or rationalism and skeptics i have learned that knowledge in my eyes is a little bit of all of these aspects put together. 


I believe we should think about knowledge as a process, it is not something that is instantly attained. It is a gradual development in mental growth throughout life.

Week 3: Empiricism

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?

Empiricism's foundation of theory is based on three main anchor points, one of them stating that "The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience".  Based on my personal opinion in philosophy, i believe such a point is true.

While reading Locke's more modern approach to the claim of knowledge through sense experience, i was heavily convinced that in fact ALL of the people in the world learn and grow knowledgeably through experiences in life. From the time we are born we have little to no comprehension of the world around us until experience is settled in our minds. "Without experience the mind would have NO content" (92). That's why we grow older and grow wiser, we experience things that teach us, expanding our mind in power and in substance. For example if you have a problem in life and need someone to talk to, you choose a person with a lot of life experiences. They have been through more, so they are better able to help you because they have likely already experienced what you are going through and know how to manage and get through the experience. Locke has shown and explained that the mind unravels through experience either through the senses or through experiences based on the minds own functions.

I don't dare question if this theory has been questioned through the world of science and math because it definitely has. Many people want to question and re establish the basis of the fundamentals of Philosophy and empiricism through modifications and beliefs in numbers and science. However i do not shed light on such possibilities because i believe in and live by the Empiricists' anchor point stating that knowledge is gained through experience, nothing can replace what you have gone through and nothing can help you develop as a person as much as sense experience can. Couldn't you agree?