Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

To the new crew on co-phillosophy I would like to give you some tips. I was in this class last semester and guys all you have to do is what he says during his first lecture. Of course, dont skip class. If you can't make it send an email. Post on the blog anything remotely referring to phillosophy (or baseball). Make comments on his  post and the students post.  Be a part of the discussion. Dont be afraid to speak up in class.   It may be an intro course you just need to satisfy a requirement but after I started using phillosophy in my daily life I found a new piece of mind. It helped me in my other classes as well as my personal life.  Seriously, if you join in to the lecture it makes it fun and interesting and dr. Oliver will appreciate it.  I just got my grade and didn't deserve it in my opinion but after I got comfortable with the class I tried to be a part of it and it paid off.  All you have to do is think and discuss your thoughts openly and make the class fun. Good luck and have fun!

A dog is hiding behind a flowerpot

Thursday, May 3, 2018

You guys are probably tied of my adding things to this blog but its a great way to interact with fellow students.  I found a very interesting article in CNN about Australian Professor  David Goodall.  He is 104 years old and wants to commit suicide.  I have always been undecided on Euthanasia.  For someone that's in a lot of pain and there is no hope whatsoever, then I think it should be allowed.  Seen to many family and friends suffer from a lot of pain.  I don't believe in it though if its just someone who is tired of living but then I read this.  My grandfather died at 103 and the doctors said he died because he was tired of living.  I remember he had to have care givers, couldn't see, couldn't hear well and just layed in bed all day except for his physical therapy.  So here is a link to the article, what is your opinion?  Please comment.
thanks guys

David Goodall's Euthanasia article

The second part of our walk: to be Peripatetics.

Image result for the lyceum of athens     I chose this topic because I enjoy walking and I would agree that if you let your mind wonder while you wander a great deal many things may come to your mind. Websters defines peripatetics as movement or journeys hither and thither, meaning that the journeys will take you far and wide mentally and physically. The word peripatetics originally came from the word peripatos. This way of thought was originally a school founded by Aristotle in Ancient Greece around 335 B.C. then lasted roughly until the third century A.D. after a brief attempt at a revival from the Romans.  This school of thought was lost for a time in the west but
in the east early Islamic philosophy adopted it. The Peripatetics were followers of  Aristotle who founded a physical location for his school in the Lyceum just outside of Athens. He and his followers would hold walking discussions for the public to engage upon, unlike the majority of institutions of the time. Although the Peripatetics where the main users of the Lyceum it was also used for housings Aristotle's Library. He also created the first zoo and botanical garden there as well for patrons of the school to see. The teachings of Aristotle in the peripatetic field proved to be inspiring to not only Islamic Philosophers but also to the founders of the scholastic philosophy.
  I have found that in my own experience walking is a gate way to another level of thinking in some aspects at times when you don't have distractions but when its calm that's when you can really think when your mind is allowed to just wander. At times like during boot camp during our final few hikes when it was dead silent it really made you think and observe the world and appreciate it.  It makes you start to contemplate everything that you have done and take pride in your actions. I remember towards the very end thinking of everything as it had happened for the past three months and i could really think of those experiences and what they all taught me. Its times like that where you realize that walking can wake up your mind to explore not only the physical world but the expanses of the mind. At times when I am stressed out I will take a trip to the green-way to just go for a brief run to then turn I into a relaxing walk and while that is time I could be doing other work that allows me to calmly think about all my work that I still have yet to do but it calms me enough to be able to successfully complete it all. Also when I go for a good walk normally it puts me in a good mood from my perspective it would reinforce Robert Thayer when he says that walking can boost your mood for up to two hours post walk.
     In the end i would say id believe in being a Peripatetic because i feel like it can open up ones mind to venture far and wide.

Comment #1 https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/dungeons-and-dragons-game-for.html?showComment=1525327808588#c8027597057466931898
Comment #2 https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/aldair-avalos-8.html?showComment=1525328697930#c8465028778299164639

Fact? or Fantasy? Vol. II

Image result for empty tomb
In preparation for this blog post I did an awful lot of digging. If you read my first post entitled Fact? Or Fantasy? It was a step by step look at the historical applications of the Bible, the reliability of the scriptures and if Jesus of the New Testament actually existed outside of the New Testament scriptures. This post, as I wrote, is much more weighted in its applications and context.
As I stated before, without the resurrection, the Christian faith is dead. If the resurrection is a fabrication then that would discredit Christianity. So, Jesus definitely did die on the cross that is an undisputed fact, but did he conquer death? How do we know?
The answer lies in the tomb… Was it empty? The answer is yes.
For this to be applicable to your knowledge, I need you to open your mind. I already proved the historical reliability of the scriptures. So we can begin to use some of those to form ideas, in this instance. 
“Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb,” (Perman).
This has astronomical historical applications. The Jews were enemies of Jesus and his disciples, they hated them. Jesus’ claim that he was going to raise from the dead needed to be refuted. They stated that the disciples stole the body. Which we will assess later and come to the conclusion, is false. In the process of blaming the disciples for the empty tomb, they acknowledged something. The tomb was empty, this became a well known fact in Jerusalem at that time. The Pharisees and Sadducees, or religious leaders, did the worst thing they could’ve possibly have done for their case. Acknowledge that the tomb was indeed empty, when they could’ve sealed it themselves and told everyone that Jesus still lay in there. But then the Pharisees would be actively participating in something that they knew was a lie. The Pharisees certainly wouldn’t have taken the body, or else they would’ve shown people that he hadn’t risen through bodily evidence to back up their claim.
So let’s acknowledge the Pharisees claim. Could the disciples have taken the body. At first glance you would say, why yes they could’ve. Until you take a look into what the disciples actually went through. 10 of the 12 were killed in gruesome ways in the name of Jesus. No big deal right, we see cults all the time where people kill themselves based on a lie. Difference is, in those cults, they believe those lies to be truth. Had the disciples taken the body they would have known that it was a lie, and thus they would’ve have been consciously dying for a lie. Not likely. 
On top of all of this you have the accounts from the disciples that over 300 people witnessed the risen Jesus, in some way, shape, form, or fashion. I encourage you to look into the questions associated with this if you are still curious and open minded.

Ultimately, it is historical fact that the tomb of Jesus Christ, from the New Testament, was in fact empty. Jesus was raised from the dead. If you are not a person of faith, but still want knowledge, and are curious I deeply encourage you to research for yourself the historicity of the claims I have presented. If this Jesus is the son of God it has massive implications for your life. With love, and open mindedness I have presented facts for you. If you would like to continue discussion with me about any of these topics or more you can contact me at : harrisandrew057@gmail.com


I have enjoyed the challenging thoughts presented in this class. I have tested them each against my faith. Philosophers can only speculate what came before the universe, but the Bible has an answer. Has many answers for what is usually speculative. Do some digging. I encourage your curiosity. Test the scriptures as I have done. They will not let you down. Keep your minds open and your thoughts positive. Love unabashedly. Godspeed.


“Historical Evidence for the Resurrection.” Desiring God, 3 May 2018, www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection.

The Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org/ChristEmptyTomb/.

First Installment: 

http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/fact-or-fantasy.html

Comments:

http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/abigail-mcadams-part-1-pro-life-and-pro.html#comments


https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-do-we-fear.html?showComment=1525326052466#c4972398378614093563

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

No Phone Policy

#3
2nd Installment


To first answer, the question “do you think that professors should have a no cell phone policy?” yes I do believe that professors should have a no phone policy. Speaking from experience and from the student's point of view, it brings a huge distraction to our learning ability in the classroom. I notice that in the classes were my professors don’t allow any technology, it creates much easier and more focused learning environment. Amy Macy, a teacher an MTSU, told our class to not even bring our phones to class because of how much of a distraction it can still be even if it’s just sitting in your bag.  Something as small as just hearing the buzz or vibration of your phone can trigger our brains to want to see what it is. I used to keep my phone on my desk sometimes just in case something important were to happen and somebody needed me, but I found that even just having it on my desk urged me to want to pick it up just from the that it was sitting in my face.
            For the classes that I did take where they didn’t allow technology, I noticed a lot of improvements. I could keep more focus and stay on pace with the teacher. It amazes me how technology has almost programmed our brains to wear we hear something, and we immediately go to it. For instance, each social media has its own sound that it makes on your phone when you get a notification. One example is Twitter. The sound that it makes is a bird noise and is recognizable to about every person under the age of 25. If you ever hear that noise in a classroom, immediately you will see about half the class check their phone, either making sure it wasn’t them, or just looking at it because they feel obligated to do so. It’s as if it is the modern day drug.
            To implement a no phone policy would be crucial to students but in a good way. I hear sometimes teachers say that it’s for the student to be responsible for their education. It is, but if the teacher cared about their student then forcing that upon students would help tremendously. It would increase classroom participation and less distraction. In a day and age where technology has advanced so much, not having a no phone policy would almost be asking for students to not pay attention, in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UDxP8V-hv8 

Installment 1:

Comment 1:

Comment 2:

https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/05/is-random-really-random-part2-by-mena.html?showComment=1525315321473#c6739622372486185311

Lessons and Philosophy in Children's Cartoons

I chose this topic because I feel that animated television usually gets deemed as content for a younger audience and is therefore shallow but I believe that while there are thought provoking cartoons for adults, even topics in children’s cartoons can be deep. We had a group whose midterm report was over philosophy in cartoons and that was very interesting to me but I wanted to go deeper into the concept and expand upon it.



The first show I would like to use as an example would be Adventure Time, a lighthearted adventure show in a mystical land called Ooo. Or at least, that what it had initially started out as. Our main hero, Finn, has experienced many things throughout his adventures which range from fighting a punk-rock vampire to listening to a princess-stealing wizard tell stories of your life with everyone in it gender-swapped and in love with him. In one episode he learned that it takes cooperation to please everyone. Upon visiting a village of marauders and engaging with some friendly roughhousing, Finn hears crying coming from far away and finds a mountain with a face weeping over the violence. Finn, remembering a time someone helped him which inspired him to be the helpful hero he is, declares that he will find a way for the marauders to be able to roughhouse and not be violent. Initially, he helps them soften their blows by tying animals to their hands but the mountain is even more hysterical because the animals are getting battered, so Finn goes to propose another idea and gets them to pat each other. The problem here is they men pat each other raw and return to roughhousing. So throughout the episode Finn goes around this area solving problems with his solutions creating a new problem for someone else. After being told to give up by his best friend and adopted brother, Jake, Finn recalls his dream and goes throughout the village getting everyone to work together until they are all satisfied. This shows a difference between Finn and Jake that is shown throughout the show frequently. While both love to fight monsters and help out the people, Finn does it because he enjoys giving back to the people and it gives him joy, while Jake is more plausible to go into a situation that he can gain from or he has interest in. The lesson learned is this episode is that a community has to work together to prosper, and while this isn’t 100% an adult topic, it is an important message.

In the episode City of Thieves, themes of purity and impurity in a society are Jake come across a city where all the citizens are constantly stealing from one another. Before heading in the two are warned not to go into the city as they will become impure and fall into the woes of the city. Of course the two adventurers don’t listen and run straight into the city. Whilst inside, our heroes run into a young girl named Penny who says she has lost her basket and that it is very dear to her. The two then go about the city chasing various thieves attempting to get a basket. Penny then tells them about aking thief who takes things from little girls and keeps it in a castle protected by a magical barrier that keeps out thieves. Around this time the two notice Jake is wearing a pair of red boots and realized he has become a thief and cannot go in. Penny says she is scared of the castle and doesn’t want to go in so they send in Finn alone. Thinking he is simply getting things back for Penny, Finn brings out the treasure, only to discover that it was all a trick by Penny who was a conniving thief the whole time. Finn revolts and vows to (in the literal sense) cleanse the city but only gets to cleaning Penny, and himself and Jake in the process, after which Penny immediately returns to stealing. The whole episode seems to be about purity, but sends out the message that true “purity” is only a state of what you view another person as. To one person their actions can seem “impure”, but to that person they are doing something that is of their norm.

Children’s cartoons are made with the intent, usually, to entertain but, in most, also to teach a lesson. As someone who watched a lot of cartoons as a kid, I personally understand how shows can try to enrich the youth or even open on a topic that, at a time was once not the norm. With the rise in visibility in the LGBTQ community and more open dialogue about gender and sexuality, cartoons have started to reflect this change with the portrayal of certain characters. In some cartoons, characters such as Him from “The Powerpuff Girls” or The Red Guy from “Cow and Chicken” (one being trans and the other frequently cross-dressing), are depicted as the devil, thus associating sin or badness with that behavior. Classic cartoons like Tom and Jerry or Looney Toons depicted frequent cross-dressing, usually as a means of deception or escape, but at times it could be taken as a jab to anyone who may exhibit this behavior.

The rise in more openly LGBTQ characters is evident in shows like “Steven Universe”, which hosts a whole race of aliens, called gems, who present as as female. The show focuses on a child named Steven whose mother came from another planet and after saving the Earth from her own kind, falls in love with Steven’s father and then….. becomes Seven. The show often talks of freedom as the Gem Homeworld is a place where everyone and everything is designed for a specific purpose. Steven’s mother, Rose Quartz, loves the Earth and the humans and their freedom to be whatever they want. She falls in love with the way things can change and how certain things can end in a beautiful way to create something new. And the best example of this is the birth of Steven. While I could go in depth about his birth, the man point is that to give “birth” to Steven, Rose Quartz had to give up her physical self to create Steven. This clearly alludes to the theory of reincarnation, which is touched on several times throughout the series. But back to the topic of gender and sexuality. As mentioned, on Earth Gems are free to love and this is exemplified in the character Garnet who is essentially made of love. Garnet is a fusion of the two Gems, Ruby and Sapphire who would never have such a union on Homeworld. On Homeworld fusing is deemed as a method for Gems of a similar cut to group together to perform a task more diligently and a fusion of different gems is highly looked down upon. Garnet is introduced to the show as a single Gem but is never revealed to be a fusion until later seasons, with Steven reacting in a way, not of surprise or confusion, but encouragement and joy. The show even dips into the subject of polyamorous relationships by introducing a fusion of multiple Gems who stay constantly fused like Garnet. Touching on these topics in children’s cartoons makes it easier for children to have conversations with those necessary about sexuality and offers them representation and the social reinforcement that they are free to love who they love and be who they are.

Emerson’s Life Lessons parts 1&2

Posted for Hannah Williams #3
Part 1

Ralph Waldo Emerson is a famous transcendentalist who lived from 1803-1882. Transcendentalism is the belief that people have knowledge about themselves and the world that goes beyond what their senses can taste, hear, feel, see, or touch. Emerson was the lead transcendentalist of his time and stressed the importance of self-reliance and the opposition of depending on social structures. In his famous work self-reliance Emerson states “Trust Thyself” based on the connection between man and the divine reality that works within him. He argued that everything that we need resides within us. He urged his audience to examine their relationship with God and nature and learn to trust their own judgement above all others. He also stated that if our natural impulses are bad and they come from our inmost being, then we have little choice than to be ourselves rather than conform to something we are not. Instead he pushed the idea of making your own path in life. Emerson was an overall optimist and refused to accept evil. Emerson described human life as consisting with two major elements. These elements are power and form. In order for life to go on the balance between them must be kept. Emerson also argued that experience cannot be reduced to the smallest observable events and then added up to make up life. Instead it’s the whole presents in life and at work though us. He believed that each man served a particular function but that they could still be greater and use self-improvement.

I think that there are some lessons to be learned from what Emerson believed in. It’s not easy to go against the grain and make your own way in a society that stresses conformity. I agree with the argument that everyone is great but can still work on themselves in some way because the moment you believe you are perfect you stop trying. I have always been a fan of the transcendentalism beliefs and values but I don’t think that a relationship with God is necessarily crucial to be an effective transcendentalist. I think that one can achieve this transcendence by trusting their selves and relying on their selves. I think that more people should learn to truest themselves and love and work on themselves more as well. And I agree with him saying that every man serves a particular function. I think too often people feel as if they are worthless when they do have worth if they would just look within themselves and find it. I’m not sure that I agree with him on power and form being the two major elements though. I mean it is definitely an interesting concept but I’m not completely convinced on it. Neither am I convinced that someone who has naturally bad impulses should accept themselves that way. In my opinion, he did get his views on experience right though. Small moments don’t give us experience in life, the whole presence works through us and teaches us. And we have a lot to learn.



Part 2
The Transcendentalists as a whole focused on the power of nature. In Emerson’s work Nature he explains that all of our questions about the order of the universe (God, man, and nature) can be answered by our experience of life and the world around us. Emerson argued that nature is not around us but instead, within us. We are not just a part of nature but it works though us. He believed that each individual is a manifestation of creation and as such holds the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe. We have the power to discover great things and with the help of nature we could find the answers to all of the questions we had.

These beliefs are quite rare now days. With the rise of technology and more people living in big cities, nature doesn’t seem to take a big priority in modern life. We spend a lot of our time inside focused on things that are happening on the internet and around the world instead of the things right in front of us. We distract ourselves from the things that really matter. We don’t stop to smell the flowers or take off our shoes and run our feet through the grass. People don’t walk outside as much or spend time at the park. So many people are stressed, depressed, and anxious. While I don’t think that nature can completely solve mental illness, I do think that in a strange way nature helps. It is scientifically proven that those who spend more time outside leisurely live longer and tend to be happier. When in nature it seems like all of your problems drift away and it is as if you are weightless. Nature has a way of grounding us and bringing us back down to earth. It reminds us that the world is bigger than us and that there is a bigger purpose and design in life. Nature is so devine and mysterious. It and has a way of lifting your spirit in unexplainable ways. In the words of Emerson himself: “In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows. Nature says, -- he is my creature, and maugre all his impertinent griefs, he shall be glad with me.” This intense passion towards nature and all that it has to offer is inspiring to me. I think that we should all follow in Emerson’s footsteps and go outside more. Instead of going to the gym, go on a run outside. Stop spending your days inside watching tv or browsing social media. Instead go on a walk in the park, or hiking, or even just sit outside and breath in the fresh air. Take time to smell the flowers and walk barefoot in the grass. Go for a swim in the river or lake. Walk in Emerson’s footsteps and enjoy all that nature has to offer!



Part 1: https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/emersons-life-lessons.html#comment-form


Comment: https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/1st-installment-what-does-one-perceive.html

Comment: https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/lauren-gage-3-every-day-are-presented.html

Why Do We Fear & Wonder

Posteed for Iesha Hardy #3

Why Do We Fear

Regardless of whether you are a creationist, athiest, freethinker, evolutionist, or scientist we as a whole dread the obscure. It is by some plan, albeit nobody can appear to concur by what substance or component. Our brains have a tremendous certifiable file organizer of past encounters that it is always rearranging around to understand new encounters. While experiencing the obscure it is expect that wins on the grounds that our brains don't have a record to connect with the new tremendousness before it.Kurt Vonnegut once composed a short story called "The Dancing Fool", in which an outsider named "Zog" came rational to clarify how wars could be anticipated and how growth could be cured. The thing was, this outsider imparted by flatulating and tap moving. The night "Zog" arrived in Connecticut (supposedly), he saw a house was ablaze and as he rushed to caution the Earthlings of the inconvenience they were in, flatulating and tap moving, the head of family unit thumped him over the head with a nine iron.Sticking to a similar schedule each day and never addressing why you do it smothers the very substance of encountering this life. Given numerous shots, we so regularly keep the firearm on wellbeing as motivation to not miss, when in certainty the more shots taken will as a rule prompt a bulls-eye in time.Should you wind up on the overwhelmingly huge side of a specific dominant part then it may be an ideal opportunity to scrutinize the preface of why you are there with those other agreeable animals. At the point when obscure ends up known the time has come to gain some new useful knowledge.Numerous individuals don't have a vast enthusiasm for widening the tight chinks of their caves or opening entryways of discernment. Numerous individuals are additionally very substance to be figuratively shackled together watching shadows on the divider before them and trusting it is the entire of their reality. Thus, be cautioned, should you take a sledge mallet to your sinkhole or start kicking entryways down then people around you will probably regard you an offbeat and odd character, when in actuality you are nothing of the sort. Continue with alert. Moving toward the dread of the obscure ought to be moderate and figured like a mountain climb. What's more, after achieving the best return promptly in light of the fact that you shouldn't be there.



Why Do We Wonder

We human beings are curious creatures, and our interest drives a look for clarifications. So while this inquiry may fit unequivocally in the domain of science, it is not really restricted to the quest for researchers and savvy people. Indeed, even preschoolers inquire as to why, and surely may do as such to the irritation of grown-ups. However grown-ups try to comprehend things, as well. They need to know why their accomplice reacted irately to their demand, why the prepared was late, or why the climate changed so all of a sudden. By helping us comprehend our condition, clarifications give us some control over our lives. I talked with clinician Tania Lombroso at the University of California at Berkeley to discover more about the kinds of clarifications individuals need, why we esteem these, and which sorts of human thinking convey us nearer to reality.
Pondering is tied in with engaging and investigating potential outcomes.

It is about expectation and confidence. It can likewise be tied in with addressing and uncertainty . . . asking why things are how they are.

We welcome great things to show up. We expect that fantasies can improve life. We decline to agree to less.

"Hold quick to dreams," cautioned Langston Hughes, "for if dreams kick the bucket, life is a broken winged fledgling that can't fly."

Our feeling of ponder - if fit as a fiddle - commends each wonder, each beauty, each amazement. We value the uncommon, the novel and the extraordinary. We crave the great, work to improve things and expectation that the hohumdrum weights and trivialities of life will be supplanted by something more otherworldly. We dream that we can rise above the everyday, that we can escape obscurity, fatigue and an existence without outcome.

On the off chance that we are equipped for pondering, our mind takes off and hopes against hope. Pondering injects our scrutinizing and our reasoning with an otherworldly perspective. Kids discover that life can be substantially more than another block in the divider.

My very own lot considering wonder was motivated by perusing Rachel Carson's The Sense of Wonder, first distributed by Harper and Row in 1965. As a rudimentary essential investing heaps of energy pondering about the imagining, considering and addressing of exceptionally youthful kids, I found that specific sections resounded seriously with my own impressions and contemplations.
https://youtu.be/YFVS1kE8gFQ

Abigail McAdams Final Solo Blog post #2 http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/abigail-mcadams-part-1-pro-life-and-pro.html#comments

(Formatting needs fixing - remove gratuitouis carriage returns)

I know these are not the same topic, however i felt a second post on the same topic would be a bit redundant and tired. I would like to respond to some of the comment however.

Andrew Harris : I can see the point you are making with the right of one to disregard another life.

However when that life was solely create by another and the fetus is yet to acquired a beating heart

who is truly alive. Was the chicken or the egg first ?


Aldair Avalos : it is very understandable for people to take the responsibility for their own decisions,

however we are in a society where the burden of responsibility always lies with the mother. The father

is legally obligated to care for the child ( which rarely happens if they have chosen not to do so ) and

you are left with a mother caring for a child on her own often unprepared therefore hindering a childs

life in ways of physical and emotional support.



Confucius was a philosopher in china around 551-479 B.C.E. He based his philosophy off the idea that

man need no ruling religion just inner and outer good deeds and will to reach a place of complete bliss.

He believed in Ren and Li, the inner and outer self , and its effect on the actions and interactions of

communities. I believe that inner and outer harmony trumps any organized religion attempt at peace.

If communities focused solely on maintaining or even promoting a unified body of people not ruled by

laws and punishment but ruled on the benefits they could provide for one another.





With individuals all working to please one another and find their inner happiness, the environment would

grow harmonious with less crime and a possible barter trade system. Confucius also played a part as

mediator between conflicting regions of china and rulers. There has been argument debating weather any

mediators today could be truly impartial between two countries. Someone who could say they had no part in

either side of the situation. I believe the reason he could be impartial is because of the high pedestal he placed

family and role characteristics on. He believed that rulers should treat their people as their children, allowing the

children to disagree as well as agree with their choices and decisions.


The philosopher also thought the people had the right to impeach any ruler who seemed unfit for the role.

I often think this is possibly why it didn’t last very long. The point of a ruler is to make decisions that are to

controversial or hard for a mass to make on their own. Also taking into consideration many are very uneducated

about what is considered RIGHT or APPROPRIATE. I guess if people began with confucius first steps of getting

sound with their inner ren and outer Li they would have less ulterior motives in their decisions and ideas of a singular

rulers opinion and the political aspects.


Often i wonder if he gave lessons to the emperor on self fulfillment and even political advice seeing as he served as

a justice, or so it is recorded. There seems to be a emphasis on the role of confucianism and the state playing hand

in hand with his meeting between the rulers however because it was less of an organized religion and more of a

lifestyle choice, there were less characteristics of confucianism in the resulting government


If confucianism was apart of today’s society i can't imagine a single person i would want at the meetings

between the United States and Russia or other feuding countries. However as a practical way of dealing with the many citizens of the united states today and their inability to relate to common religious standards. They would focus on fulfilling their true wants and needs and then projecting the same positivity and completeness to those around them and their community as a whole. Crime rates would decrease, poverty, and maybe even suicide rates with a mass participation of those willing to truly commit.

https://asiasociety.org/education/confucianism

http://www.religioustolerance.org/confuciu.htm

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/the-development-of-confucianism-faq.htm

Jim Holt

#8 2nd installment:

I was amused to find Jim Holt on a Ted Talk talking about the existence of the universe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M

I thought it was really nice to put a face on the man whose book I’ve read and hear him talk about things that I’ve wanted to ask him, like what he thought of the Ontological Argument (which apparently isn’t much). I have to say, I was surprised to find out halfway through the video that he was a relatively fluid speaker, considering the magnitude of his topic. Just the way he puts God and the world into a mathematical formula (God plus nothing = the world) really put our existence, science, and religion into a different light.



Not only Holt a really good speaker, but I like the wide variety of perspectives that he’s accumulated for his book and this presentation. He can talk about how Buddhists believe the world is a giant piece of nothing, and then discuss the Plato concept Plenitude, or the concept that the universe is as full as possible. The fact that he’s a Western philosopher but knows about Eastern philosophy and metaphysics make his works feel more reliable to me. He’s not arguing for a certain point, but rather trying to grasp the best pieces of wisdom from the smartest people he can and put them together to make something new.




And then of course Professor Holt just has to go and talk about multiple realities and/or universes. Now of course I’ve theory before, but Holt kind of breezes through the fundamental underlying physics and mechanics of this theory, and that’s the part where he loses me a bit. Other than that, I’m understanding his theory of various qualities of realities, such as a perfectly elegant realities, or full reality, or simple reality.

Now, when he discusses the importance of our existence in relation to the importance of our reality, I feel he starts talking in a more abstract fashion. For the majority of his presentation thus far, his statements have been pretty concrete and fact-based. Now he’s discussing how much of an impact our choices would have in a world that’s full of all possibilities versus one that has a limited number, and that kind of threw me off. He proposes that we live in a reality that’s very mediocre, being full of both bad and good situations, which we could magnify or minimize through some unexplained fashion. I couldn’t really get along with that last statement, but whatever, he’s only discussing the existence of the universe in the span of 17 minutes, so I guess he deserves a bit of leeway.

As a conclusion for his presentation, he admits he never owned a cell phone, which I found kind of off topic at first. Thinking back, he did mention how most of us probably didn’t care much for the existence of the universe, or our own for that matter. I suppose he thought his nonconformity to modern communication would surprise us more than the idea that multiple universes exist, or that our individual births equate to a mathematical possibility. It might just be me, but I took that as a passive-aggressive form of narcissism as opposed to a clever ending. So, I’ll admit, the ending was a bit of a letdown compared to the beginning of his presentation, which was really just stuff he already covered in his book in the first place. I know the titles of his book and his presentation are the same, but I was hoping that he would have something extra in his Ted Talk, especially since the book had already covered so much information, but really it just felt like a bad sequel for a movie franchise. I don’t mean to rip into him too much, he's a brilliant guy who’s covering a huge topic, but it just felt like something was missing. Not to mention he never covered the fact that science couldn’t explain the beginning of the universe more than religion could. All I hope is that his next book doesn’t conclude on his lack of WIFI.

Comments:

- http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/morals-by-brendan-mcgee-8_26.html#comment-form

-http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/t-he-meaning-of-human-existence-daniel.html

1st post:
http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/is-modern-philosophy-literature.html#comment-form