A Republican Democracy based on Liberal Philosophy

Was killing Bin Laden just?

I have seen many people celebrating the death of Bin Laden, the terrorist who was responsible for the event of 9/11 and the death of hundreds of American citizens, but in reality was killing him morally just? In the news reports it was said that he was given a chance to surrender and that he refused to do so, therefore the fire fight began. But, in other reports we are told that Bin Laden was never given a chance to surrender, the ideas wasn't even in any ones mind, the order were to find him and kill him before he got away. In the first situation we can say that it was just that he was killed because he was given a fair chance to surrender and be brought to justice through trial and refused it. But, in the second situation we cannot justify killing him because He was not given an opportunity to be judged for his actions and be punished in other forms; he was violently killed by our government. I believe that the question of whether or not he was given a chance to surrender has nothing to do with moral justice, only justice in the sense of earthy justice which is based on whether things seem fair or not. I believe that it was morally just to bring Bin Laden in to face a punishment that was equal the pain he caused others and from the American point of view, and from the Aristotelian point of view, it was just to bring him in because he was a terrorist that threatened the well being of the whole. But, no matter which way I look at it I can't back up his killing. I believe that what we did was punish him in order to find revenge. This is more along the lines of what Nietzsche was talking about in his Genealogy of Morals: Bin Laden is in debt to us for what he has done, we are helping to cure our suffering by killing him, we are finding closure, therefore killing him was the morally just thing to do.

we are all computers.

“All human beings from birth onward live to the realm of sense more than to the Intellectual.”

The above was a quote said in class while discussing the Intellectual-Principle and how it is “wise without intermission and therefore beautiful of itself.” But my main point here is not to talk about the Intellectual-Principle ( I would if I thought I had a proper understanding of it) or about the sense (because I feel that everyone knows what the sense are and how to : feel, taste, see, hear, smell). My point in this blog is to discuss the accuracy of this quote. It is very much true that human beings are more in tuned with what is physically around us because those things are easy to understand. The things that are hard to understand, such as the intellectual, we tend to ignore because they intimidate us. They make us feel as if we are losing control of the situation. I believe that humans are more comfortable with the senses because they aren’t ‘lying to us’, ‘what we see is what we get’, and so on and so forth. Yet, what we don’t seem to understand is that everyone perceives things differently; this is why we have likes and dislikes. The senses, in a way, are not the most accurate. We cannot control our sense, but only perceive what they are telling us; we are just computers saving information onto our hard drives.

Epoche

I wrote this a while back and came across it when looking for my blogs. I read it and thought that it sounded pretty funny because I could actually see someone taking all these steps to think about something. And then I thought about the Skeptics and the concept of epoche (or suspension of thought).Critical thinking is a mental process in which an individual obtains information regarding a topic and makes a logical association between that topic and their own belief. This being said, one can compare the concept of critical thinking to gathering flowers for an ornate arrangement. This task is complicated because one must first decided for what event this arrangement will be made; for not all flowers are appropriate at all gatherings. In this way critical thinking develops. Critical thinking is complicated in that it has many varied parts to the process. The first step in critical thinking is to decide which topic you will be thinking about and what stances there are in the discussion of this topic. You must decide which view of the topic fits your style of thinking best. By doing this you have eliminated many of the inappropriate assumptions that you might develop if you would have analyzed the topic from randomized viewpoints contrary to your own. After this one must find which flowers would survive best in the surrounding in which they will be placed; whether this means a table in a vase or a wreath or some other sort of adornment. Then one must progress to the task of gathering the flowers for this presentation. They must be varied, because you do not want make the arrangement colorful and you do not want to discriminate against a specific species of flower. These flowers must also complement each other in order to make the arrangement fit some sort of order. When complete, the final arrangement must be pleasing to you, because if it is not, then there is no point in putting together this arrangement.

I wrote this a while back and came across it when looking for my blogs. I read it and thought that it sounded pretty funny because I could actually see someone taking all these steps to think about something. And then I thought about the Skeptics and the concept of epoche (or suspension of thought). It’s strange to think that there were individuals that at one time took the time to stop and think because it seems like now a day we just act on impulse and desire. I feel like the concept of stopping to think involves nothing more than just working the idea over in your mind as you are putting it to action.

The Philosophy of Eclecticism

To me the philosophy of Eclecticism seems like a cop-out. I find it hard to believe that all philosophies, as different as they might be, can be tied into one— forced together in some sort of “natural” way, gathered, sewn together— without being downsized. I feel as if Eclectics are just little the middle person in the argument who agrees with both sides, saying that both arguments are right in some way, just so that they won’t have to think to hard about solving the problem. I know that this school of thinking developed because there were no new philosophies coming out and everything was falling into repetition, but I would rather repetition than submission. I believe that it would be better to continue being Epicureans, Stoics, Pythagorean, Aristotelian, etc. than just abandoning logic and metaphysics, putting everything into a big bowl, mixing it up, and saying “this is what I believe!” There is no reason or sense in substituting one set of logical foundations for another; this leaves philosophy shallow and weak. This philosophy can also be interpreted as weak because of its lack of a purpose. Yes, it unified the philosophies but what ultimate question was it trying to solve? Or was it just trying to make everyone from Rome to Greece happy (appeasement of the masses)? I honestly don’t know but hope to find out. Some of the theories presented by this philosophy, especially those on the soul, seem to have some worth and seem to be very complicated to understand (I have come to learn that the more complicated the theory that the better the concept turns out to be in the end) so this philosophy seems worthy of further investigation. I just hope that I can understand the explanation of the soul given by Plotinus because I think that that would be something interesting topic to talk over with a stranger on the streetcar when there is a delay.

Egoism, Hedonism, and the Jains

I am slowly falling asleep in class as the professor continues to lecture on Karma in the Jain religion. She mentions that Karma in the Jain religion is broken up into two different kinds, ghati ("destructive") and aghati ("non-destructive”). Aghati Karma affects only the soul and ghati Karma affects the body and can be broken up into four types of Karma: Happiness-determining, Body-determining, Status-determining, and Longevity- determining. You accumulate these four types of Karmas by doing bad deeds against others; such as fining happiness in hurting someone or making fun of someone’s lower status. She talked on for a bit about these four types of destructive Karmas and just as I am about to move from my “I’m just resting my eyes” stage to “I am now asleep” stage she says that based on what we know about the Janis we can clearly see that they were very egoist. Egoistic? I was shocked. I may be wrong in saying this, but I thought that Egoism was defined as each person having one goal: looking out solely for one’s own welfare by doing what brings pleasure to oneself. I didn’t, and still don’t, think that Jains can be egoistic when one of their “natural laws of the universe” says that you accumulate destructive karma (energy) if you treat others badly: you gain happiness-determining karma by finding happiness in hurting others, like seeking revenge; you gain body-determining karma by not loving the ugly or making fun of the unattractive; you gain status-determining karma by making fun of the people below you or praising you own elevated status; and you lose longevity-determining karma by killing someone (leading to a shortening of your life). I think that none of this sounds very egoistic. If anything it sounds hedonistic. Hedonism is defined as having the goal of looking out for one’s welfare by doing what brings pleasure to oneself but with the consideration of others. This “consider of others” is what the belief of destructive karma is based on. From that moment on in class I couldn’t even pretend to be uninterested in what my professor was saying because I kept on thinking to myself, “This can’t be right. Jainism isn’t egoistic it’s hedonistic.” I was just about to ask this one little twist in words that was bothering me it was time to go. On Monday the first thing I’m going to do is bring this issue up. Maybe I don’t understand hedonism/egoism too much or maybe I don’t understand the Jains. And then again maybe I do. I can’t even finish this blog and be satisfied with my answer. I will definitely follow up on this Monday night.

Oh, How They Suffered.

As I sit in class I get lost in thought and think, "Those poor Greeks. How they suffered. They were attacked daily with the ideas of the Skeptics, the Epicureans, the Stoics, and the Aristotelian. " I can't imagine living in Greece at a time where I'm being told that, "that the world is made up of atoms and void that are randomly colliding to make what is around us." Then turning the corner and hearing, "you know the world is made all interconnected made up of a logic order." Then hearing from across the street, "We can't know. We can't even know why we don't know. So, it's best just not to believe anything you hear. " I couldn't be any more confused if I was scuba diving and told that I needed to find a way to make a campfire using a jellyfish and a coral reef or else the little mermaid wouldn't be able to cook her steak for dinner.

Now, I know that I'm going to the extreme by saying something as crazy as that (because the littler mermaid is obviously a vegetarian) but I do admit that out of the many philosophies we've gone over so far I do have my favorite. So far I think that I like the ideas of the Skeptics the most. They don't pretend to know everything. They accept that they don't know and don't go any further. The Skeptics even tell you that they have no clue what's going on and it is that honesty that I admire. At time it might seem like the Skeptics are doubting out ability to gain knowledge, but that's not the case. The term Skeptic actually means examination, inquiry, consideration; their doubtful attitudes are not negative at all, but inquisitive. The Skeptics attempt to gain knowledge through asking and investigating and don't take anything to be certain until they are 100% sure that it is (the word used to describe this suspension is epoche) ; which unfortunately rarely happens.

The Skeptics are just covering all their bases before they make a decision about anything. I think that this is one of the best ways to live-- if you can't understand something or answer a question leave it off making a decision or answering the question until you are completely informed over the matter. This might just seem like a way to procrastinate but I feel that it is a way to get things done more efficiently. It reminds me of a saying my other always recites, "El arragan tiene que hacer las cosas de nuevo y en tratando de ser menos trabajo verdaderamente hace mas." (The lazy person that tried to cut corners ends up doing more work-- I apply this saying to the art of thinking off course.)