Monday, December 12, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
The Meaning of Life Lab Report Point of View
The question, "Is there a meaning to life?", is a very special question. Already when asking the question, we are supposing that there a is a meaning to life. The meaning of life question is also a hard question to answer, as it takes in so many ideas and perspectives into one single answer. Some people say that there is no meaning to life (the nihilists), whilst others say that there is a meaning to life that God gave to us (theistic view). I agree with the author that there are two point of views, if not more, but I also believe that the theistic view is more accurate. The naturalistic package says that there is no reason to be here, there is no God, no free will, no soul, no life after death, hope, or anything. I find this wrong, as, there are so many reasons and proofs that we are free. For example, free will. We are all free, and that all events are caused by an agent, being ourselves. I believe that if I want to scratch my face, I have the free will to do this. There is no one out there to stop or prevent me from doing this. This differs from the naturalists' determinism that say we are never free as all events are without a cause. They will say that we scratch our faces because we are forced to, and that is just the way it is. I find this a bit faulty as, I know that there is no outer force that is forcing me to scratch my face.
Then there is also the question about dualism and materialism. Is there a difference between our minds and body? I believe so, that my soul is existent, and that it is separate from my body matter. My mind is free to roam wherever it wants to. If I am dreaming about falling from the sky, my body isn't falling from the sky. Hence, once again proving that the theistic point of view is more accurate. Then there is the big question: Is there a God out there? I believe there is one out there. There is so many proofs to that he is out there. Just look at the birth of a baby. There is no earthly reason to why that baby, that has been a a capsule on water for 9 months, should suddenly start breathing in our earthly circumstances. There has to be an outer force out there that breathes life into the baby. God is also shown in how the world orbits. How can the world be orbiting 356 days a year for over 4000 years without altering, at all? How can the world be located at a perfect distance so that it never gets too hot or too cold? There must be a God out there, once again proving the fact that the theistic view is correct on that there is a reason and meaning to why we are here today.
Also affecting the answer to the meaning of life is, "What is Good"? Is there a moral order out there? Or is everything chaos only? I believe that there is a moral order out there. The easiest example is probably the law. We can break the law, but the law is out there, and much of what there is what almost all of us agree with. For example: Don't murder, don't steal, etc. The naturalistic man would say that there is no moral order. It is all chaos. Then my question is, "how come the world is still going around and that we are still happy with the way it is? We have order. We have laws. So this is almost a bit of a stupid point.
In conclusion, I agree with the author that there are two, if not more, world views. The human race is very diverse, and we all have brilliant ideas. Still, I find the theistic point of view more accurate. It answers all the points to the meaning of life more accurately. The meaning of life, according to my perspective, is what God tells you to do. That is what is important. God is in everything and so is what you believe. Everything is connected, we all just have to look in the looking-glass and take a peak at what God has given us. The world is full of possibilities.
Then there is also the question about dualism and materialism. Is there a difference between our minds and body? I believe so, that my soul is existent, and that it is separate from my body matter. My mind is free to roam wherever it wants to. If I am dreaming about falling from the sky, my body isn't falling from the sky. Hence, once again proving that the theistic point of view is more accurate. Then there is the big question: Is there a God out there? I believe there is one out there. There is so many proofs to that he is out there. Just look at the birth of a baby. There is no earthly reason to why that baby, that has been a a capsule on water for 9 months, should suddenly start breathing in our earthly circumstances. There has to be an outer force out there that breathes life into the baby. God is also shown in how the world orbits. How can the world be orbiting 356 days a year for over 4000 years without altering, at all? How can the world be located at a perfect distance so that it never gets too hot or too cold? There must be a God out there, once again proving the fact that the theistic view is correct on that there is a reason and meaning to why we are here today.
Also affecting the answer to the meaning of life is, "What is Good"? Is there a moral order out there? Or is everything chaos only? I believe that there is a moral order out there. The easiest example is probably the law. We can break the law, but the law is out there, and much of what there is what almost all of us agree with. For example: Don't murder, don't steal, etc. The naturalistic man would say that there is no moral order. It is all chaos. Then my question is, "how come the world is still going around and that we are still happy with the way it is? We have order. We have laws. So this is almost a bit of a stupid point.
In conclusion, I agree with the author that there are two, if not more, world views. The human race is very diverse, and we all have brilliant ideas. Still, I find the theistic point of view more accurate. It answers all the points to the meaning of life more accurately. The meaning of life, according to my perspective, is what God tells you to do. That is what is important. God is in everything and so is what you believe. Everything is connected, we all just have to look in the looking-glass and take a peak at what God has given us. The world is full of possibilities.
The Meaning of Life Homework for November 29, 2011
This is what the picture says...
"Dad, what is the meaning with life?"
"Son, that is a big question. You have to consider everything pretty much. It all depends on what you value. Do you value extrinsic or intrinsic values? You have to consider other points of view as well, like nihilism, do-it-yourself approach, and the theistic approach..."
"Wait! Are you saying that my perspective on importance and meaning also plays a role?"
"Yes, Jacob. How you see everything affects not only your morals, but your beliefs as well! Does God exist? Is there life after death? Since I am a man of religion, I believe in this. I also believe in dualism, and not in materialism, giving us a body with a seperate mind and soul. I can believe in this, since i am free, due to agency theory."
"Dad, it all seems so disconnected... How can all this be?"
"Son, let me break it down to you. What you believe affects what you think is the truth. So what about beliefs and being good? You are only as good as what you believe is moral and ethical to do. You are free to believe whatever, for example in a god, life after death, etc. You see, it is all how you as a philosopher perceive the world. I believe in a meaning to life. Everything is connected. The question is now what you believe."
"I believe that there must be a meaning to life. There must be a reason why I am here, and I believe nihilism is wrong; go theistic approach!!!
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Brain Chemistry Argument
First of all, to clarify this youtube clip, you have to understand what Materialism is. Materialism is a part of Monism, which states that everything is made up of matter, or material. A thought of something like a mind or a soul, is out of the question, as everything is physical matter, nothing else exists. Then the question is, what is The Brain Chemistry Argument? The Brain Chemistry Argument is the argument which materialism touches on about the path our brain takes. The argument questions, "is the brain becoming more physiological rather than psychological?" The argument uses the proof that our mood can be set by drugs (like anti-depressants), the amount of sleep we get, and amount of food. They take this as proof that we are in fact, material. We are all just a mear part of an electrochemical system.
The 3 Disorders Ramachandran touched on were the following:
1) Capgras Syndrome, is a disorder which is not very common, and usually occurs to people who have had head trauma. When they wake up out of their coma they seem perfectly fine. They communicate and take in orders. It isn't till they see someone like their mother that everything goes wrong. They see that it is their mother's features, and it sounds like their mother, but in their head they can't connect it all. They see this woman as an impostor. This is just an example. This syndrome proves that materialism is true. It shows that the affections and feelings we get for another person, can be controlled by matter, for example the brain chemical reaction.
2) Phantom Limb Pain is a disorder that affects people who have had a certain body part amputated. They find that they have feeling in their "amputed part of the body", and this feeling is usually in pain. Materialists look at this and they find proof. They say that this connection between this nonexistant limb pain as a connection to the nervous system and the brain, hence, once again proving materialism true.
3)Synesthesia is a disorder that connects different wires in the brain in a wrong way. For example, a person who might smell home baked bread might say that it smells loud, or if they hear a thunder in the distance, they might say that it sounds beautifully. This syndrome is shown to side with materialism as the wires can be connected in a wrong way, showing that our emotions have a connection with our brain. This also helps side with materialism.
These are some examples of disorders that materialists like to show that everything is made out of matter, it is all just about the chemical reactions that happen in our bodies and brains. An idea of a spirit or mind is just out in the blue.
The 3 Disorders Ramachandran touched on were the following:
1) Capgras Syndrome, is a disorder which is not very common, and usually occurs to people who have had head trauma. When they wake up out of their coma they seem perfectly fine. They communicate and take in orders. It isn't till they see someone like their mother that everything goes wrong. They see that it is their mother's features, and it sounds like their mother, but in their head they can't connect it all. They see this woman as an impostor. This is just an example. This syndrome proves that materialism is true. It shows that the affections and feelings we get for another person, can be controlled by matter, for example the brain chemical reaction.
2) Phantom Limb Pain is a disorder that affects people who have had a certain body part amputated. They find that they have feeling in their "amputed part of the body", and this feeling is usually in pain. Materialists look at this and they find proof. They say that this connection between this nonexistant limb pain as a connection to the nervous system and the brain, hence, once again proving materialism true.
3)Synesthesia is a disorder that connects different wires in the brain in a wrong way. For example, a person who might smell home baked bread might say that it smells loud, or if they hear a thunder in the distance, they might say that it sounds beautifully. This syndrome is shown to side with materialism as the wires can be connected in a wrong way, showing that our emotions have a connection with our brain. This also helps side with materialism.
These are some examples of disorders that materialists like to show that everything is made out of matter, it is all just about the chemical reactions that happen in our bodies and brains. An idea of a spirit or mind is just out in the blue.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The Truman Show Part 1
The Truman Show is one of the most famous philosophical movies of the past century. It is about a man who lives, in a world he believes is real. He has his childhood friends, wife, family, and anything he could ever wish for. He is the All-American guy, until one day when he notices that the world he lives in is a bit weird, to say the least. This sparks an adventure which helps him realize that his life is only a studio set, in the form of an entire city enclosed in a dome. He is the star of the longest running show in history, and everyone watches him. Nothing around him is real. It is all orchestrated by the creator, Christof, who decides what fits into this city of Truman. His friends are actors, his neighbors are actors, and even his parents are actors. So the question remains, was Truman ever free?
To answer this question, we have to take a look at freedom. What is the definition of freedom? According to dictionary.com, it is the “exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.” and “the power to determine action without restraint”. Was Truman ever in power to determine an action without restraint? According to many people, he was in complete power even though everything surrounding his life happened according to the script. He could have left the set at any point. He could have conquered his fear of water and sailed off into the “moonlight”; the only problem is that he never did. Personally, I agree that Truman was indeed free. Let’s examine what philosophical views agree to this opinion.
The four main philosophical views that are found in Philosophy for Dummies, are: Scientific Determinism, Indeterminism, Compatibilism, and Agency Theory. Each of these four philosophical perspectives have the following in common: a point of view on The Principle of Universal Causality, its own definition of free action, and a unique answer to “Was Truman ever really free?”. The Principle of Universal Causality is summed up in two major points (a and b). It states: every event (a) has a cause, and (b) thereby stands in a causal chain with a long history.
The first philosophical view on freedom is scientific determinism. People who believe in this view, believe that a person’s free action has to do with something that has no cause behind it. Because the scientific determinists state clearly that it believes in The Principle of Universal Causality, there can never be such a free action, and thus no free will. According to scientific determinism, Truman was never free to do any choices, because no one is ever free. I would argue against this point of view because Truman actually showed that he was quite adventurous as he talked about the Fiji islands. He said, “You can’t get any further away before you start coming back. You know that there are still islands out there where no human being has ever set foot.” Even though Truman’s life was actually controlled and restricted, he was dreaming about using his freewill doing some quite different.
The second philosophical view is indeterminism, also known as simple indeterminism. Indeterminism is a branch from the libertarian way of thinking. People who believe in this, find the question about freedom almost like a joke. They find freewill so obvious, that they don’t know why people question the idea, and they also think that The Principle of Universal Causality is not based on any facts, so it shouldn’t be called a scientific piece of work. Since our freewill is so obvious, we don’t have to have an event that was caused by something. They believe that if something happens, it just happens. Indeterminism would say that Truman was free. He is a human being, and being that, he is free. Truman was free, even when he was inside the dome, where people watched him every day of the year, and people interfered in his actions and will, like when they tried to stop Truman from leaving the dome.
The third philosophical view is compatibilism. Compatibilism is a view that says that we are all free. Even though they believe this, they have very different reasons for their opinion comparing with the indeterminists. Compatibilists believe that every action has to do with The Principle of Universal Causality. They say that all events occur with an inner cause. For example, if we feel the urge to scratch our foot, we do so because we are free to do so, but at the same time ,that action made is connected to a long chain of other events, which helped us to make the decision to do that certain scratching of the foot. We are free, but we are also connected to The Principle of Universal Casualty. So according to compabilists, Truman was free to do any of his actions done in and outside of the dome. Even though he was free to do any action he wanted, those actions made would have been affected by the actions of the past. So maybe if his father wouldn’t have “drowned” in the storm, Truman would have decided earlier to take the risk and sail off on the ocean. All actions are connected, even though we have the freedom to make the choice to perform an action. In other words, Truman was free, and he could leave the island if the series of event accepted it; still Truman was maybe never fully free if he lacked options of choice.
The fourth philosophical view is agency theory. This view has become more and more popular throughout the past few years. It states that we are all free, no matter who we are or where we are from. The agency theory has a very unique answer to The Principle of Universal Casualty; it believes in half of that principle. The agency theory says that every event is caused by an agent, but doesn’t follow a long chain with a long history behind it. This is one of the points which makes the agency theory differ from all the other philosophical views on freedom. So then the question is, who is an agent? Anyone can be an agent! The agency theory would also have a strong view on the freedom of Truman. It would say that Truman is free, as he could do any action if he pleased to do it. He can change his position in life at any given point, without needing a long chain of events to ignite an event. If he really wanted to leave the dome island city, he could’ve left, if he wanted to. As Truman started to get suspicious and paranoid, and started questioning. He became an agent who started the event that led to his own freedom.
In conclusion, there are many philosophical views on the term freedom. Freedom is: “exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.” and “the power to determine action without restraint”. I believe, and so do many more, that Truman was free all along, even if he lived in a dome controlled by a director, named Christof, security officers, and actors. Out of the philosophical views, only the scientific determinists say that Truman was absolutely not free; there isn’t a free action without a cause. Compatibilists would say that he was free to do what he wanted to do, and that a free action is an event with an inner cause. Compatibilists are unique as they also believe in the Principle of Universal Causality. That leaves indeterminism and agency theory, which both states that Truman was free. Indeterminism would say that free action is an event without a cause. Agency theory would state that that a free action is an event caused by an agent, that does not follow a long chain of events. Personally, I believe that Truman was free to perform his own actions and will.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)