Week December 2011
Philosophy of
Religion
Christopher
Hitchens “An Antitheist”
Christopher Eric Hitchens, Is
one of the other thinkers who left his thoughts to reflect, because The thinkers are the
masters who teaching to think, and the thoughts would be the more dangerous lethal
weapons that would be used in well-being or harm to human being, and to think
in God and religion would be the beginning of a personal, popular and massive conflict.
God and Religion is an encounter very personal,
without any kind of influences and beyond of any human thought. We must remember that the historical wars and conflicts
of the human being according statistics are the legacy of the religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the legacy of the intellectual rubbish.
Therefore, our religious or about Gods thoughts
must respect the thoughts of others and we must think without fanaticism. We are free, and we need to be free always with
our own beliefs and thoughts, to live in peace and harmony respectfully each
other.
Here briefly some information to reflect:
Christopher Hitchens "Fighting Faith" 2011 Interview
Christopher Eric Hitchens, was born in Portsmouth, England on 13 April of 1949. He was a writer; journalist and public speaker, his subjects to discuss were politics, religion, history, biography and literature. He studied in Balliol College, Oxford. He was a British-American who died the 15 December of 2011 in Houston, Texas, USA.
Hitchens according the academic resource The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) is part of The New Atheists , who are authors of
early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam
Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, whose published about the effects
of religious beliefs on the global scene which was difficult to identify
anything hilosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but
the New Atheists have provoked controversies with their works.
Stephen Hawking There is no God. There is no Fate.
These works have three
components; a metaphysical component, like that the New Atheist authors share
the central belief that there is no supernatural or divine reality of any kind;
an epistemological component, like their common claim is that religious belief
is irrational; and finally an ethical component which is the assumption that
there is a universal and objective secular moral standard as Nietzsche and
Sartre arguments used to conclude that religion is bad in various ways. They
believe empirical science is the only (or at least the best) basis for genuine
knowledge of the world, and they insist that a belief can be epistemically
justified only if it is based on adequate evidence. Their conclusion is that
science fails to show that there is a God and even supports the claim that such
a being probably does not exist. What science will show about
religious belief, they claim, is that this belief can be explained as a product
of biological evolution. Moreover, they think that it is possible to live a
satisfying non-religious life on the basis of secular morals and scientific discoveries.
Therefore, For
them there is a Necessity of Atheism, their discussion are over faith and reason, arguments for and against God’s
existence, evolution and religious belief, the moral evaluation of religion,
secular morality and alleged divine revelations.
Hitchens was known for
his admiration of George Orwell, Thomas Paine
and Thomas Jefferson and for his excoriating
critiques of Mother Teresa, Bill and
Hillary Clinton,
and Henry Kissinger, among others. He was a controversial
figure in politics discussion. Hitchens described himself as an antitheist
and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens said that a person
"could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct", but
that "an antitheist, a term I'm trying to get into circulation, is someone
who is relieved that there's no evidence for such an assertion. According to
Hitchens, the concept of a god or a supreme being is a totalitarian
belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and
scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and
defining human civilization. He wrote at length on atheism and the nature of
religion in his 2007 book God Is Not Great.
Hitchens
and John Lennox
at the "Is God Great?" debate in Alabama
Hitchens often spoke out against the Abrahamic religions, or what he called "the three great monotheisms" (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). He said: "The real axis of evil is Christianity, Judaism, and Islam". In his book, God Is Not Great, Hitchens expanded his criticism to include all religions, including those rarely criticized by Western secularists such as Hinduism and neo-paganism.
Hitchens contended that organized religion is "the main source of hatred in the world",violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children", and that accordingly it "ought to have a great deal on its conscience". In God Is Not Great,
Hitchens vs God (god loses by the way)
Note
1. concerning those not members of the
clergy; "set his collar in laic rather than clerical position";
"the lay ministry";
(synonym) laic, lay
(similar) profane
(synonym) laic, lay
(similar) profane
The
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) Author
Information James E. Taylor
Email: taylor@westmont.edu Westmont College Last
updated: January 29, 2010 | Originally published: January 29, 2010 Categories: Philosophy
of Religion
To review.
Stephen Hawking There is no God. There is no Fate.
Albert Einstein on God
Christopher Hitchens "Fighting Faith"
2011 Interview
Hitchens vs God (god loses by the way)
Christopher Hitchens & Al Sharpton on Hardball
- Part 1 of 3 (2007)
Christopher Hitchens Bertrand Russell 1 of 2 An
Outline of Intellectual Rubbish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=jaCpU-44BNc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=jaCpU-44BNc&NR=1
Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher
Hitchens (1 of 3)
Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher
Hitchens (2 of 3)
Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher
Hitchens (3 of 3)
Mother Teresa: DEAFANATLY NOT A SAINT!
Week 13
Wittgenstein - sea of the faith BBC documentary part (1 and2)
Do you agree with Wittgenstein that the meaning of life is to be
found in the vanishing of the problem? Say why, or why not!
I agree in part with Wittgenstein’s states, "the solution of
the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem," because the
men should not look an answer
philosophic, religious or from other sources, to the problem if not from a logical relation of its reality
world of himself, with a positive mind to his own happiness. It is a fact a
moment; you are you own reality.
Even though the meaning of
the life is perceived by the human mind in any moment, under different
circumstances and by any reason or reasons that have the human mind.
For example, The
preposition, "I don’t have money"
Philosophy,
I think that I don’t have money because may be that God don’t made
me lucky or, because I was born poor.
Wittgenstein,
Use the free logic answer by yourself and your own happiness and do
not think in reasons of the problem why do you not have money, if not in how to have the money
for you, logically and positively.
BRIEF NOTES
Ludwig Josef Johann
Wittgenstein was born in Vienna, Austria,
1889; he was a philosopher, engineer and linguist. Wittgenstein’s family was
part of Austria high society.
He wrote TheTractatus
logico-philosophicus, a complex text that explain how work the logic as
structure, and language as part of our thought in its form and description of
the world of images. “The limits of my language are the limits of my
world." The language and thought are the logic form which we use to
describe figures of the world through words (language). He says, "The
facts are states of things". You speak after your logic analysis.
for example; the preposition " the book is over the
table" the book object = a, table = b this relation is transcribable in logic as a fact to our thought aRb, where R is the relation between objects.
The mental
representation of the reality are governed by the logic of propositions. The
reality could be false or true .The logic figure is the facts of the thoughts
and the thought is the proposition with sense; Reality is an image that is of a
descriptive language and not a reality in itself, hence the limits of my
language are the limits of my world. It is logic Identity.
The Tractatus influenced to the positivist
logics.
For him our civilization is characterized by
the word 'progress'. Progress is its form, not one of its qualities, the
progress. Typically it is constructive. Its activity is to build an
increasingly complex product. And even clarity is to serve this end, not an end
in itself and the philosophy must "find the understandings of our through
language and our philosophy of our mind."
Week 12
Civil
Disobedience
Gandhi The Road to Freedom - British Propaganda - BBC Documentary 1/6
Who Killed Martin
Luther King? (documentary) PART 1
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.
Is supporting the occupy wall street the US President ?
I think that is morally justified to
break the law if the minority (called power majority group) does not respect
the law. These conditions generate protest by the real numerical majority with
common sense and logical perception who decide to make peaceful actions for change the unjust law. The protester actions could incur in a justified and moral
break of the law.
For
example; Is morally justified to break the law when a group more than hundreds
and thousands protest against the regulations of the financial law created by a
called “power majority group” (Lobbyist,
bankers, investors and businessmen- who are a 20% American population) who compels
to a “minority group” (workers, disables, singles parents and students-who are
a 80% American population) to obey the financial laws without regulations; to
benefit a small power group considered majority. Of course I would endorse
civil disobedience when an unjust law affect me and affect to others persons, obviously
more than a simple group, like hundreds, or thousands, and when they and I decided
to protest peacefully together against the unjust law.
I am going
to explain through the example of John Joe who endorsed his protest against the
financial situation crisis created for the Bankers and investors millionaires and
billionaires, who created this critical situation against the United States
people.
John Joe knows
that the consequences of this crisis come since 2008 and have grown until today
2011. The government from Obama administration does not have the legal power to
stop the immoral corrupt thought and power of bankers, investors and others
finances people, who used and abused the Federal loans from the Government to
benefits themselves. They forgot to create
new businesses, industries and jobs, here in America for American people, and they
wastefully spent the money from the Americans tax, federal and states loans and
invested them in other countries.
And John
Joe thinks that one of all reasons would be the pay of salaries, because these Businessmen
pay the miserable salary to poor people less than $ 1 dollar per hour. Obviously
the American people never could accept it illegal salary. It is a good business
for the corrupt investors. But, for the American people it is very bad, because
the American people are suffering the consequences ,like the high rate unemployment
and the cuts of public benefits in education, health, and financial support against
the crisis. Crisis generated by the immoral investors; furthermore, John Joe decided
participate in the protest peacefully called Occupy Wall Street. It is the moral reason that John Joe and American
people decided to protest. And part of the protest was sleeping in the Zuccotti
Park, New York.
But this
sort of protest is against the law because the laws say the park is of public
interest to walking, enjoying and to resting in a specific schedule. To sleep
by a protesters group would be considered break the law. The defenders of the
law, obviously the Major and police in observance of the law repress to people.
The defenders of the law enforced the law against the violation of the
regulation of the parks. The protesters and John Joe even though have been
repressed by police; they know it is part of the strategy to get a possible modification
on the financial regulations.
Furthermore,
the protesters and John Joe are in civil disobedience, which is coming as an
intermediate stage between persuasion and the revolution.
Is it a future
financial revolution?
I would
say that it is a legitimate use of the civil disobedience in the Wall Street
case.
And I agree
with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all,” because was created
by a power majority in other words by a false an immoral majority and on the other
hand the real numerical majority has more moral and logical sense to think in
benefit to all people.
Note.
Civil
disobedience is the active,
professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government,
or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, thou
gh not always,[1][2] defined as being nonviolent resistance. It is one form of civil resistance. In one view (in India, known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience )
gh not always,[1][2] defined as being nonviolent resistance. It is one form of civil resistance. In one view (in India, known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience )
Week
11
Individual
and the state
|
| President Bush in freedom seech |
 |
| Mill |
 |
| Marx |
 |
| Communism |
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?
In terms of Individual and State, The Mill’s
liberal thought give to the person all responsibility of their acts in the
society and the minimum intervention of the State. The Government should
interfere when it is for the protection of society. He is a great defender of
the personal liberty and protector of the freedom of speech, which is a vital
way to develop self -realization, talents, and creativity. Even though, he
speaks about Social liberty and tyranny of the majority.
USA Freedom of Speech Documentary
He believe in The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as
he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others, and Mill's Utilitarianism known as the "greatest-happiness principle" is a thought which is the action
of society or individual to find
happiness.
His contribution in human rights and
slavery were emphatic and eloquent and He felt that the oppression of women was
one of the few remaining relics from ancient times, and which these were a set
of prejudices that severely impeded the progress of humanity, because thought
the education of the women the society could educate to all family, part basic
of the society.
Even though Mill argues that despotism
is an acceptable form of government for those societies that are
"backward", but the despot must have the best interests of progress
of the people at heart; while,
The protectionist, Carl Marx theories consider
the economy as the root of the human existence and to individual as part of the
economical process, and in the process, employers and employees two classes in
conflict, Marx calls classes struggle; Therefore, the State must protect to
the workers, exploited or proletariat against
the bourgeoisie or exploiters (capitalists, private owners of industries, factories)
and the Protectors must be the people who control it.
Russian revolution Marx thought?
Marx' dialectic says the State could
be controlled by the people in
political decisions and also in the economic life; furthermore. The State takes control above individual and
properties because the criterion is all are equal.
These changes of political system are the phases of socialism and communism, according
Marx, who thinks the human first secure food, shelter and clothes to survive
before philosophize, paint, write novels, do science, or practice your
religion.(even though, To Marx was the religion " a opium of the
people")
For Marx's thoughts “the
philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to
change it."Reflecting in the philosophers' theories,
I agree in part with Mill and I
disagree with Marx, because the liberty of individual is the base of the
society, the individual is who build the society, and the society not need
protectors, and Marx's Theories through the history showed us the wrongs
practices of communism and socialism in the countries where was practiced this
politics, like some examples, Russia Federation, Germany, France, Venezuela,
North Korea, China or Cuba. The individual was a captive of the tyranny.
Therefore,
The human being before was oppressed
by his ignorance after discovered his liberty, now is free, and will continue
free whereas that read and take
actualized information of the changes in the though human.
Is it digital era?
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?
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?
A new Generation of Buddhism in Americ
I think that, Buddhism’s teaching would be practiced by its followers, but I would not live as a good Buddhist, practicing in United States because for me the suffering is not caused by selfish cravings of the human being if not, by for a psychologist state of the person.
My desires and illusions will be always part of my progress for obtaining success in my life. My life experiences with events will be totally separated from any concepts about religion, God, goodness or demons.
Jesus was a Buddhist Monk BBC Documentary
I am a free person, for example If I want to buy a last model of an Ipad, I will try to do reality my desire. If my desire cannot be real, merely I would not suffer for it like the Buddhism says.
For me this desire is done without any philosophical or religion implication and comment.
Therefore for me is impossible to live in America suffering for anything as consequence of my desires, like the Buddhist criteria says. I like to live free of any kind of limited thoughts.
David Allen coe live 2002 free my mind
Kiss- Evils?
I want to be free
Don't Stop Me Now
DJ Guest - You're always on my mind remix
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 religious 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 think that philosophy might contribute to understand better about any religion.
The philosophy is the most important way to think much better that an ignorant mind. It process of thought require know what happened through the history about theories, concepts, doctrines and other forms of the human thought.
To understand clearly the different sort of arguments about GOD and the Universe, we need to review the philosophers, scientists, religious or humans thoughts whose give us absurd, interesting, evident, controversial or elaborate possibilities to have a criteria about God, Universe or religion.
Under the ignorance sometimes our interpretation would be wrong, and as consequence we would create absurd and fanatics arguments.
For example Muslim, Catholics, Jewish, Christians or agnostics had a time of fanatics religious. Like inquisition, September 11 or crimes against Jews.
In name of GOD
 |
| Extremism Muslims Religius? |
 |
| Catholics Christians Religius? |
 |
| Extremism Jews Religius? |
It never more must repeat in the history, the fanaticism religious.
Therefore, the religion based in the theology and philosophy without fanaticism would be an excellent way for all to understand any religions and share friendly our positions as humans intelligent and avoid the violence and wars among us.
Reflections.
Cosmological argument
The cosmological argument is an argument about the existence of God. It is also also known as argument of first cause about the existence of God, or the argument of the primary creator.
This argument was defended by Thomas Aquinas (1220-1274). He argues that everything that exists has a cause which, has another cause, and so successively going back to get to the primary cause, who is God. It argument would not admit that the series of causes could be infinite.
The cosmological argument or primary is as follows:
1. Everything has a cause.
2. No cause can be created for itself.
3. (Therefore) everything is caused by something else (cause and effect)
4. A chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite.
5. Must exist a beginning or first cause.
6. God is the primary cause
Teleological argument
The teleological argument or Design argument for God is the argument about the existence of God based on the premise that would to exist a perceived evidence of a world and a universe "designed." Which is based on those aspects of the world that appear complex, and these appear to have been designed. Therefore, seem to follow a goal or purpose of an intelligent being.
Description
Within the different variations the basic argument is as follows:
1. Universe is too much complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
2. Therefore the universe must have been created by an intelligent being.
3. God is the only intelligent being able to create the universe.
4. Therefore God exists.
WEEK 7
Reflection Week / Test YOURSELF
Week 6
October 16, 2011
Functionalism and Artificial Intelligence
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?
The programming terminology depends of the sense that the human could give to this word.
I think that we cannot compare between programming computers and programming human beings, because the man designs a limited computer program, which is a machine without any emotions and feelings, and only responds to an automatic limited set up program for specific tasks.
Meanwhile the human throughout history showed us the evolution capacity by himself organizing activities to develop the society through emotions, criteria, and logical reasoning thinking among the others humans.
Therefore
Our society is a consequence of the logical and reasoning actions by the human being and computers are human’s instruments to develop the society.
Let me share with you some videos of my search.
Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence
Discovery - The Brain - Our Universe Within - Part 3 of 4 - The Miraculous Mind
Michio Kaku on Artificial Intelligence
Language Human and Robot Language
Chatting with Zeno the VERY Human Robot
Robert, the most human Robot
Japanese Robot Mouth Narrates Virtual Baby Maker
Artificial Intelligence and the Human Brain
pielberg Explains Ending of A.I. Artificial Intelligence
The Future of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (Andrew Ng, Stanford University, STAN 2011)
Week 5
DUALISM AND PHYSICALISM
DUALISM AND 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.
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.
The Dualism of Descartes' argument is interesting and more convincing when he explains about the interaction of mind and body, and when argues that the pineal gland is the vital spirits, mental nature of human being. The physicalism has a scientific explanation also through physics and chemistry explanations. Certainly both arguments are importants.
We can give a scientific explanation to connection brain, mind and body. Physically the body and brain are connected through the cerebellum and spinal cord. The Neurotransmitters interact physically and chemically in the brain and body. The conscience of the mind acts do not have a satisfactory explanation, but truly these studies go beyond of any physics or chemical explanation.
We would have questions, like Is it possible to give life to a clinically declared dead brain? Why can't the scientific give us the answer about the life after dead?
The Scientists working to future brain transplant in damaged bodies. Since1963, Studies by Dr. White, are an example, but, Is it possible?
Will scientific ethics permit the possibility to create monsters, who can replace us?
My concern is when I think about brain transplant in another body, for example a scientist brain of 80 years-old in a child of 7 years-old, would be this a case of reincarnation?.
Or in other case the scientists could create supermen as war strategies with limited brains for combat and death only?
Today we live among a world that goes into digital perfection and genetics. Which will be the future of cloning? Is the man ready for it?. We still have more questions.
Furthermore, I must say that the philosophy must support the scientist criteria for well, and the scientist must act with the real intention to serve and help man to live healthily in harmony of his mind, body and spirit in the universe, independently of any religious ideology.
Let me share with you some videos of my search about it.
Videos List:
A. Scientific Documentaries
Extreem body parts, head transplant
the first head transplant
DOCTOR WHITE Part 1: Brain Power
DOCTOR WHITE Part 2: Remember When?
head transplant pt 1(Sick Elite groups push these experiments)
head transplant pt 2 (Sick Elite groups push these experiments)
Sovietian Experiment, FULL VIDEO - Part 1
Sovietian Experiment, FULL VIDEO - Part 2
The Human Body Brain Power 1 of 5
The Human Body Brain Power 4 of 5
The Human Body Brain Power 5 of 5
DOCUMENTARY SERIES BRILLIANT MINDS BY CEDECOM - SCIENCE
Mentes Brilhantes - parte 5 final
The Brain and the Universe
Matter and Beyond - Metaphysics
Today I Died - Science Documentary Pt.1 of 6
5/5 Amazing. Boy Remembers Past Life
REINCARNATION SOME FACTS - 1
"Hypnosis in History" - Revealing documentary, Facts, Photos, Mesmer, Braid & More....
Man Controls Robotic Hand with Mind
B. Films
munsters low cal Munster herman goes to the doctor for diet.avi
The Munsters - Original 1964 Theme!
All of Me Trailer
Being John Malkovich - Trailer - HQ
Week 4
October 2, 2011
Pragmatism and Feminist 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 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.
 |
| We set high ideals and are aaware |
 |
| Feminist Epistemology,Power of woman. |
 |
| fredom of Man like woman or woman like man |
Pragmatism is the practicality, utility and feasibility of our thoughts and Epistemology as theory of the knowledge, concerned with the origins nature, the degree and the field of human knowledge. These are complementary thoughts. The practice and theory are inseparables; they go together to the human understanding. Pragmatism and epistemology detached do not have reason of functionality to the human understanding.
For example, I want to learn how to play piano like Mozart
Pragmatism I can play any musical note like Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol.., without knowing them because I haven' learned any musical theory.
I would be playing any sound or noise and I would also be correcting, correcting, and correcting repeatedly, but for how long?
Epistemology I could learn the pure music theory, but I can’t play any key of the piano, I have never touched a piano key. But I can comment about Mozart beautiful piano's music. But I really can give a real or certain appreciation of Mozart music?
The fact is, if I want to play piano like Mozart, I need to acquire knowledge from the theory and the practice, In other words from the pragmatism and epistemology.
Therefore,
For me the knowledge is obtaining the understanding of any information to get rid of any sort of ignorance.
Notes
Analyzing Terminologies under my perception:
Pragmatism
Philosophical doctrine developed by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey and others, according to which the proof of the truth of a proposition is its practical utility, the purpose of thought is to guide action, and the effect of an idea is more important than its origin.
Philosophical doctrine developed by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey and others, according to which the proof of the truth of a proposition is its practical utility, the purpose of thought is to guide action, and the effect of an idea is more important than its origin.
It is opposed to speculation about matters that have a practical application and that impractical ideas are to be rejected. Pragmatism says also that truth is related to time, place and purpose of the investigation and that value is inherent in both their means and for its purposes.
 |
| John Dewey |
Other important aspects of pragmatism include, radical empiricism, instrumentalism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, a denial of the fact-value distinction, a high regard for science, and fallibilism.
Pragmatism was the first philosophy of the United States developed independently. This thought was the dominant way of addressing the philosophy in the United States during the nineteenth-century and first quarter of the twentieth century.
Therefore, Pragmatism is a philosophical movement begun in the United States by C.S. Peirce and W. James late nineteenth century, seeking the practical utility, practicality and feasibility of thought and it puts the criterion of truth in their effectiveness, and effective value for life.
Pragmatism is the practicality, utility and feasibility of our thoughts.
Epistemology
Is the branch of philosophy dealing with philosophical problems surrounding the theory of knowledge and it is concerned with the definition of knowledge and related concepts, sources, criteria, types of possible knowledge and the degree to which each one result certain, thus as the exact relationship between the knower and the object known and also investigates the origin, nature, methods; fundamentals and methods of scientific knowledge, and limits of human knowledge.
 |
| origin nature of knoledge? |
It addresses the questions, what is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? What do people know? How do we know? And what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief and justification. It also pact with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.
In physics, the concept of epistemology is vital in the modern interpretation of quantum mechanics, and is used by many authors to analyze the works of dominant physicists such as , Niels Bohr, Max Born and Wolfgang Pauli.
The origin of epistemology word was introduced in 1856 by philosopher James F. Ferrier (1808-64) from Greek - episteme "knowledge," (from Ionic Greek Pistasthai "know how to do, understand," lit. "overstand," from epi- "over, near" + histasthai "to stand.") Logos, "science" Or the theory of knowledge, The scientific study of the roots. (As opposed to philosophical)
Therefore, Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the origins nature, the degree and the field of human knowledge.
Feminism
 |
| Former President Bachelet from Cile Politic Power |
 |
| woman need to be equal with her rights. |
The liberal feminists are who advocate the human rights and freedom, intellectual and political participation and the gender feminists are who attempting to change structures, assumptions, methods and fundamentals knowledge. For them the society reflects male-dominated distortions.
Feminist
 |
| PakistanI woman , Freedom. |
 |
| Business woman , Financial Power |
Its latest manifestation emerged in the late 1960s in the United States, as the Women’s Liberation.
Therefore, Feminism Is a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women as men have. Movement social, political, cultural and economic which begun with the white women and the feminists are the followers.
Week 3
Empiricism
September 24,2011
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?
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 Is the knowledge acquired through the experience of our senses, like sight, touch, taste, listen and smell. These theories were supported by the empiricists philosophers as Locke, Berkeley and Hume, as follow:
Locke says that the original components from sense experience are simple ideas, like red, hot, and warm. These simple ideas to be complex have to pass through 3 types of operations, as compounding, relating and abstracting. E.g. Acid+ yellow= lemon (compounding).
He thinks that genuine knowledge makes differences among the objective and the subjective. These can be part of the scientific reality considered the primary qualities like shape, motion and solidity while that the secondary qualities. E.g. like color and sound, only affects our sense.
Hume’s thoughts like cause and effect, the external world and the self, are judgments, like propositions, concepts, ideas, arguments, or kinds of knowledge.
Those are based in the assumption of the future that would be like the past under the principle of the induction and of the impressions of us. E.g. like coldness or hardness.
These empiricists philosophers gave us support to mathematical and physics knowledge.
Kant who strictly developed this category, retook the empiricist theories and the rationalism theories in part to explain his constructivism theory.
E.g. If the sky is cloudy, it is the cause to produce rain. (empiricism). This experience passed and repeated frequently produce an a priori knowledge.
E.g. 3+ 4= 7 may be known a priori
E.g. Wall Street is located on the shore of Manhattan. It is known only a posteriori.
SKEPTCISM AND RATIONALISM
September 18, 2011
According to Descartes, we are more certain of our thoughts, the content of our minds, than we are of the world around us, and even of mathematical or logical truths. He uses 'methodological skepticism' to reach this conclusion.
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 impossibleto believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methodological skepticism is not a good strategy?
I think that the Descartes Methodological Skepticism is a procedure that is necessary but does not happen in our daily lives because certainly the human beings use more the sense experience as knowledge. Without knowing if it is really real or not.
Despite the Descartes Methodological Skepticism process occurs instantly in our brain (the 3 stages of doubt, sense experience, dreaming and the malicious demon and the 3 rationalism categories of knowledge, the reason, sense experience and the fundamental truths) the human being uses more the senses experience as knowledge. |
| Logical truths |
 |
| Einsein, mathematical truths |
 |
| Descarets and mathematical truths |
 |
| mathematical truths |
I think that the skepticism is a useful tool that helps us to find the reason and find a genuine real knowledge. For example, the Cientists.
 |
| Leonardo da Vinci mathematical truth |
 |
| logical truths |
 |
| mathematical truths |
 |
| Matrix, methaphysical truths ? |
Week 1
PLATO'S CAVE
September 11, 2011
In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates suggests that, whitout 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?
Yes, without phisolophical education we will be as the prisoners in the cave. The philosopher is the one who has the knowledge and wisdom for being a free man and making good determinations.
I think philosophy liberates me from my ignorance in any matter. For example, if I am a christian and never read about other religions, so I can not give a correct opinion about them. And...
|
| Catholic Christian Religius? |
|
| Extremism Jewish Religius? |
|
| Extremism MuslimReligius? |
September 5, 2011
Week 0
Introduction
I am Luis Garay from BMCC Liberal Arts Program.
The philosophy is a marvelous science, supported in studies from rational arguments of the human being. These studies of the existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language about us come through of the history until our days from the Greeks .
The word philosophy which literally means "love of wisdom," has theories like, the Realism, nominalism, rationalism, empiricism, skepticism, idealism, pragmatism, phenomenology, existentialism, structuralism, and the analytical tradition, wich I would like to learn how those theories works in our minds and actions.
I would like to know and understand how PHILOSOPHY works for us.
Certainly I have some questions like, What kind of philosophy are we actually practicing?
Are the men really thinking in philosophy?
Why do we have kids involved in wars and terrorism?
How do we apply the peace philosophy theory for our daily life?
For me To be or not To be is a thought's determination in the daily practice to do well or wrong.
I really will try to learn and understand philosophy's practice in the human thoughts.
