Up@dawn 2.0

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Crews Holt Installment 2

This is Crews Holt's 2nd Installment

Crews Holt
Purpose Driven Life: Installment 2
In this installment I will continue my dissection of the "Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren. I will continue to discuss some of my favorite chapters of this book that deal with finding one's purpose in life and continuing on ones spiritual journey with God. In my first installment I went through some of my favorite chapters of this great book. I hope some of you find this insightful. Another one of my favorite chapters is chapter 28 which talks about how nothing happens over night. Everything in life takes time. There are no shortcuts in your journey with God. Today's generation wants everything to happen in an instant and the same thing happens in our relationship with god. Too many of us pray for something better to happen in our lives and we expect instant results. Some prayers go un answered for many years, but we cannot lose hope. We have to trust in God's plan and believe that something better will happen because of our trust in God. Be patient with God and never get discouraged in your relationship with him. Another chapter is 32 that deals with understanding what God has given you. Similar to above, too many of us want more in life and are un satisfied with some qualities of ourselves, or our lives. We should be thankful for everything God has given us in our lives and be thankful and not take anything for granted. Sometimes we think we know better than God and get frustrated with things that are happening our lives. Warren says that we should accept everything God has given us and never take anything for granted. Chapter 34 talks about serving God. In my first installment I talked about how God created us to spread his word. We cannot just believe and not do anything about it. We must serve God and spread his word, that is one of the responsibilities as a Christian. Warren says that servants of God think more about each others than our own selfs. He says we should take a step back and really think about what is important in our Christian journeys. Serving God, as well as serving others on a daily basis, is what Warren says is one of the most important things in our life. Reading this book has made me understand a lot about life. Life is more about ourselves. We must understand that there is much more too life than about materialistic items and finding "happiness" in things that will not actually bring us that happiness. I know many people do not believe in God and I am not saying anything negative against them. This book has just meant a lot to me and has helped build a stronger relationship with God. I wish everyone the best and hope everyone finds happiness in their own lives. I look forward to reading all of your posts and learning new things about all of you and your beliefs.

Installment 1       http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2017/04/section-8-installment-1.html

Installment 2: Is there a God?

First InstallmentPhilosophical Question: Is there a God?

Installment 2:
In my first installment I gave factual evidence for the support that the writings of the bible are accurate in their records.  In this I will give my own personal reasons as to why I conclude that their is a God.

If you think about the world I see a place that has a biological and natural rhythm and structure. Nature seems to flow, in a sense. Everything has a pattern. Whether it is DNA replication or the way rocks are layered in the ground or even how life itself seems to be an ongoing cycle. The world spins and rotates and travels around the Sun. None of these things are debated on. In my opinion, something had to set these patterns, these rhythms, into motion.

This is where I think science and religion have trouble with each other. Science has the big bang, religion has creation story. However, could the creation story not be the Big Bang? That's something I have thought of. Why couldn't God send the big bang into motion? These are all questions that will probably never get set in stone but I think are good to ask. I believe God set this world into rhythm. I think about it from a view like someone playing with dominos. If I were to set up dominos into a pattern and set the pattern into motion (as in pushing the first domino over) could I not know how each domino is going to fall and when the last domino will fall? Could I not intervene at points and let domino 2 know that domino 1 is about to hit it? That is kind of how I view God. He set the world into motion and that is why He can intervene and be omniscient. And then comes the question: Why do we not know everything already? This is hard because we know so much from an educational standpoint as a race that we naturally want hard proof as to the existence of a God. I have taken the approach of faith not only because that is what is taught in the Bible, but because I do not believe it is rational to be able to gain all proof. In the bible it says God created man in His image. So he did not create us just like Him. Therefore, He did not and can not create something greater than himself.  So we can not fathom or understand everything about Him.

I know that this question of God will always be in debate and conversation. I also know that I am still relatively young and inexperienced in life. With that being said these are my beliefs and the reasons for them. I have a way of thinking and processing that I have shared with you all and hope that you can find reason and respect in what I have said.

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Kylan Stribling's 2nd Installment

Kylan Stribling
Dr. James Oliver
Introduction to Philosophy
2 May 2017
Installment two: Beyond good and evil
In my first installment in the book “Beyond Good and Evil,” written by Friedrich Nietzsche. I gave a brief summary of what the key points are about in the book. For my second Installment I will give my personal opinions on the book and go into greater detail than the first installment. My favorite part of the book is when Nietzsche talks about morality and religion. He sheds light of the pre-moral period of mankind when people were judged by their actions. He mentions over the past ten thousand years people are starting to judge each other on their intentions rather than their actions. I thought this was true for today’s world. I feel like we focus so much on why people do what they do, rather than focusing on what they actually did. Nietzsche says if you focus on the intentions instead of the actions you will have a prejudice. He said a prejudice is something provisional and must be overcome. I would have to agree again with Nietzsche because if you focus too much on someone’s intentions instead of their actions you could end up gaining negative or positive prejudice towards that individual. Nietzsche states he hates egoistic morality and says that morality must bow down to the chain of command. Then he follows up with saying that every high culture society begins by recognizing the pathos of distance. What Nietzsche is saying is that any upper class society knows how to distance themselves from moral arguments to avoid prejudice. Yet again he is right, because America is a high culture society and our legal departments try to be fair and not use emotions when judging someone in the courtroom. That is why in America we say justice is blind because we see no prejudice in the courtroom.
Religiously Nietzsche compares northern and southern Christianity in Europe. Most people from southern Europe are Catholic, while people from northern Europe are Protestant. Nietzsche claims that northern Europe lacks talent for religion, and states they do not have southern delicacy. I just thought it was very interesting to see even in Europe that the southern part of the continent was more religious than the northern part, just like North America. Nietzsche also praised the old testament, but showed that the new testament was of little worth. Nietzsche says that religion has always been connected to three dietary prescriptions: solitude, fasting, and sexual abstinence. This is true because the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions all refer to these three important prescriptions and most of the entire world believes in these combined three religions. He mentions that  most religions believe in some form of sacrifice too. He touches on a specific religion a lot in the book and that religion is Christianity. He explains that Christianity has beaten everything joyful, assertive, and autocratic out of mankind and has turned mankind into a sublime abortion. This is one quote I would have to disagree with. I think Christianity does the complete opposite for mankind. It was surprising when  Nietzsche said this because he praised the old testament so much. When the book Beyond Good and Evil touched on the sensitive topics about morality and religion I agreed with most of it, but not everything. It at least opened my eyes how to view morality and religion in a overseeing way without prejudice. I loved reading the book and cannot wait to read another philosophy book in the future.

Section 8-Installment 2: John Locke

Locke contributed to the identity of the United States, he influenced the founding fathers on writing the U.S Constitution to give us the right for life, freedom, happiness, and property. In comparison, his personal philosophy “I could be the same man, but not the same person I was previously, “Is a claim that, what makes us the same person over time is our consciousness, our awareness of our own selves. He asserts, “What you can’t remember isn’t a part of you as a person.” Basically, you are a reflection of your memories, regardless of the form of your body. Locke gives an example of his philosophy through the illustration of the prince and cobbler.   

“If you have the prince’s memories, then you are the prince. If you have the cobbler’s memories, you are the cobbler, even if you have the body of a prince. If the cobbler had committed a crime, it would be the one with the prince’s body that we should hold responsible for it.”

If Locke is right that our consciousness keeps us aware of ourselves, which I think he is, then we need to stay in tune with our souls so, we know that we are the same person as before. Therefore, we will always know our personal identity.
 Alongside personal identity, Locke believed that God would only punish people for crimes that they remembered committing. He states, “Someone who no longer remembered doing evil wouldn’t be the same person who committed the crime.” In other words, that person cannot be punished for actions, he/she doesn’t remember. On the one hand, I agree with Locke that someone shouldn’t be punished for actions they don’t remember because, that person maybe different from those previous memories. But on the other hand, if that person killed or raped people, those actions shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt. By extension, it all depends on how that person’s current actions, stand with his previous actions. For example, if a person robbed a store 5 years ago and he’s continually robbing stores today; I doubt that someone would say that he’s a changed person. However, if a person robbed a store 5 years ago and never robbed one again, he has a stronger case for change in the court system. In relation, he would have a stronger case for the appeal that he is no longer a recollection of his previous actions. Therefore, it’s possible that person no longer reminisces on their previous memories of robbing, in result, molding them into a new person.     
In sum, Locke’s philosophy of personal identity correlates heavily on what we hold in our consciousness. Locke’s account of freedom of action is also connected with his views of personal identity. Freedom to review the decisions we made are very essential in our awareness of our souls and identity. Also, it is very important in being able to operate the law because you can bring new ideas and concepts to the table.
In conclusion, Locke’s philosophies were ahead of his time, making him one of the greatest philosophers of all time. He has one of the greatest minds known to the world.

P.S- Information pertaining to personal identity was found in A Little History of Philosophy pgs. 81-86.          
Link to 1st installment: http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2017/04/section-8-devin-willis-installment-1.html

Section 8 - Installment 2 - Kate Archer

If you haven't read it yet, you can find the first installment here!

Now that you know a little bit about The Secret, how about a rebuttal?

Just like with many of the philosophers we have studied this semester, there is almost always an opposition to one's way of thinking. That is one thing I have found so fascinating of philosophy, it is a  discussion, a questioning, of what we think and know, and for as long as it has been going on, it will always continue.

 So, The Secret purports that we can bring about all the things we want through our thoughts, concentrated positive thinking, and gratitude. I still agree that none of those things are patently bad for anyone, maybe not entirely true, but not harmful. Many have come out against this “secret”, and have some very strong thoughts of their own about its existence.

 A lengthy article from Ingrid Hansen Smythe, "The Secret Behind the Secret", goes through The Secret bit by bit, questioning and taking apart every piece. I found that same, "well, duh", feeling came from Smythe as she drew connections to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (no secret there), and wondered why some one would attribute their success to some "secret" over themselves:
"It happened because I wished for it," the Secreteer would say, instead of the more obvious explanation, "It happened because I worked for it."
Another article from The Chief Happiness Officer Blog titled "The Movie The Secret Is Entirely Fake", rebuts the secret fro a more clean cut perspective. Throughout the movie, and the book, The Secret makes more claims beyond the ability of your own thoughts. From the start, readers and viewers are told that the greatest people in history knew the secret, and that it has been kept hidden for centuries - powerful people have deprived the rest of the world from knowing the power of the secret! ... Very bold claims, and especially if you are watching the film, it is portrayed as quite the conspiracy. Injustice! Scandal! This all does a wonderful job of grabbing the attention of anyone, but these claims are never revisited, proved or even mentioned once utilized as a hook to draw you in.
More importantly though, is "quantum flapdoodle". Yes, that is a real thing, and I love it, so thank you Murray Gell-Mann for coining the term.
Throughout the book and film, of the many testimonies that were provided, 3 were from quantum physicists, claiming their work in quantum physics proved the secret existed. With a little scratching of the surface though, they fit the bill as "flapdoodle":
 “hijacking the terminology of modern science without understanding the underlying concepts or employing any of the intellectual rigour intrinsic to scientific inquiry”.
I guess everything is open to interpretation, but if that is so, then the secret would definitely have to be included. 
The Secret has certainly garnered strong responses to it's teachings, both for and against, but I think that is also a big part of the secret - it is and individual experience. You decide how you feel about it, and decide how you want to live your life.

Feel free to see what some folks think about the secret, both for and against, and decide for yourself!

Friday, April 28, 2017

Carl Windham 2nd Installment on Plato's: The Republic

Posting From Kylan's account again is Carl Windham
Second installment by Carl Windham on Plato's: The Republic
     As I went into deep detail of what the book was about in my first installment, I figured a brief overview of the chapters, themes, and a few other points I missed should be highlighted. I also felt that in my first installment I had few errors that needed to be re-touched on. 
      I mentioned how justice was the main topic of the book and how Socrates and Plato felt about it, but I didn't mention how they came to speak on it. The online source I examined places, in the beginning, Socrates being led to Polemarchus' home to "speak to Cephalus about old age, the benefits of being wealthy, and justice"(328e-331d). It is then that Polemarchus buds in to give his definition of justice "justice is helping ones friends and harming ones enemies and this is what one owes people"(331c). From here the book goes on to Socrates and Thraysymachus' (a sophist) conversation about justice and an advantage or disadvantage. So in all Plato is admiring the discussions and thoughts of his inferiors in this book. 1 of 9 books, he continues to go on and on for chapters about the many ways justice can be addressed as in life. 
     This is a REPUTABLE source. This is one of my many mistakes made in the first installment. This source went into a deep synopsis of all 9 books by Plato, gathering a lot of useful information. It even went into extra information, not known by many readers like themes. A couple themes I found in the reading was, specialization and the power of advantage with justice. 
     In the end, Plato highlights Socrates' discomfort and dissatisfaction toward his discussion with other philosophers about the topic justice. The book is an incredible piece of work that will resonate in court houses for many more years to come.

Gettier Problems

       As I read over and over different examples of Gettier’s Problems, I cannot help but find myself going back to the aliment of the subjects (S) interpretation of justification. It almost seems like a catch 22, in order to have justification, you have to have knowledge of the justification, yet you also have to believe it. But in order to believe in it there had to have been some sort of justification to persuade you to believe. The belief roots in the senses of the subject and how they perceive the information as well as trust in the source of justification. Smith sees the clock and believes what it says, 1) because his senses (eyes- he sees the hands on the clock) tell him the time shown on the clock and 2) his belief in the clock working.

The problem is our trust in the belief that the source of the justification is doing exactly what we assume it was meant to do because in past experiences they have done exactly that. For example, Smith’s belief in the clock stemmed from his assumption that the clock was working. Every other time he has used the clock for accuracy, it has been correct because it had been operational. The fake barn, again… the subject’s belief that when he sees an outline of a barn in the middle of a field, his belief in that being just that comes from his assumption that every other time he has seen a barn in a field, it has been a barn. 

After examining several different possible solutions to Gettier Problem’s, I noticed most had to deal with the justification piece of JTB. For example, Alvin Goldman’s theory called No False Lemmas states ’S’s belief the p is no inferred from any falsehood.’ If we take the Barn County example and we see that the problem for S is that their justification for believing the barn is a barn is false. S assumes the barn is real because every other time S has seen a barn, it has been a barn. That is basing an answer off of the assumption that from insight collected on previous occasions, the pattern proves when S sees a barn, it has always been a barn in the past, therefore the current barn must be a barn. S does not take into account the very ever so slight possibility that in this ONE instance, the barn may not actually be a barn. But how often does that happen in our daily lives? How often do we stop and think about the authenticity of our perceived justification? As humans, we are design to spot patterns. In fact it has helped us survive since we first began. Spotting patterns and remembering those patterns help expedite certain tasks, which in turn has helped us evolve into the dominant species on the planet. If we had to stop and think about every decision we make daily, we would never get anything done. Things that occur over and over again with the same outcome turn into routines that we go through almost on autopilot without a second thought. I explain all of this because that is how S responds in Gettier Problems. Their (S’s)  justifications are based off of assumptions of repetition. For example, in the Mr. Smith and the clock example, clearly Mr. Smith has used a clock before, albite maybe not that exact one, however Mr. Smith has used them enough to know how they work, and what their purpose is. To tell time. And in every time before (or enough times for Mr. Smith to not second guess the clock in the example) the clock has always given Mr. Smith the correct time. So the entire problem is based off of S’s assumption. The definition of assumption is “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof” and justification is “ the action of showing something to be right or reasonable”… so… you cannot have justification based on assumption... it leaves room for error. In fact an antonym for assumption is knowledge! But that is the whole point of JTB is it not?!? Knowledge?!? So you have to have knowledge in obtain knowledge?!? 

Here’s an idea though, what if we both are the ones with knowledge, us the reader and S. For example, in the case of the clock and Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith never finds out the clock was not working nor that the clock just happened to be on the correct time when he looked at it. We, the outsiders, know the clock is broken, thus giving us the advantage of making a realization that Mr. Smith made an error in his justification, in turn altering the knowledge for us, but not for Mr. Smith. We have knowledge given the data and perspective we have, as does Mr. Smith from his data and perspective.

I’m still digging through pages and pages of different ‘solutions’… I cannot believe how many there are, and even more so I cannot believe how so many seem to solve it only to present its own set of problems. This rabbit hole seems to go deeper and deeper the more I read on.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Government is but a Philosophy; Installment 2

Installment 2
Section 8

Now that we have established Plato’s distaste for the principles of democracy, let us take a look at his ideal government.  In “The Republic,” Plato’s goal is to lay out his beliefs on what a “just” city should look like.  But what is just?  Even Plato’s depiction of Socrates struggled with this question.  Reading this work, you will notice him giving several different definitions of the ideal.  I am sure if you asked 10 of your friends today that same question you would have 10 slightly different answers.  The character of Socrates’ clearest definition comes from looking at his just man’s soul.  Plato breaks the soul down into three separate parts.  This is known as the tripartite soul http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/plato_tripartite_soul.htm.  The three parts are as follows; the rational (love for truth), the spirited (love for honor), and the appetitive (love for pleasure).  For one to be just, the soul must have its parts in proper arrangement.  A just soul is completely directed toward filling whatever knowledge-loving desires that reason produces.  Therefore, his just man is ruled by a love of wisdom and truth.  Theoretically, he will not be controlled by desire, greed, or lust for honor. 

                In Book I, Thrasymachus argues that justice is in the interest of the rulers.  In every government, the rulers make the laws and enforce justice.  Without a method to delve into one’s soul how are we to know one’s desires?  Since Plato’s just man is a lover of knowledge and seeks to only further that knowledge would that make him the most qualified to rule?  Plato would say yes.  He proposes a rule by the Philosopher King.  One man to control all.  He makes some very disturbing propositions under the rule of his Philosopher King. https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosopher-king

                One of the proposals that stands out the most is his idea on population control.  The guardians are the best of the best in his society.  One could call them his nobles.  He elects a time period of every year (festivals) where guardians can have sex with as many women as they choose in hopes of increasing the noble population.  Children born outside of these festivals are subject to death.  His preference though, is to abort the children before they see “the light of day.”

                Another notable proposition is the censorship of poetry.  Poetry’s aim should be to control the guardians.  Poetry should not spark uncontrollable laughter, should not present the underworld as bad (so that the guardians are not afraid to die), should promote a sense of truth-telling but an ability to lie when needed, should promote discipline…etc.  To add to his censorship, he proposes a myth to be told to the citizens.  The myth states that people are born with different metal within them.  Rulers are the only ones born with gold, thus the only fit to rule.  Therefore, no one should question those picked to rule.

                Is this all starting to sound familiar to you?  Totalitarianism, censorship, noble race…  Think back to a time in history where much of this idea actually took place.  My thought while reading “The Republic” was Hitler.  Hitler (lover of knowledge) the King, Nazis the guardians, mass censorship, and the cleansing of the population…is there not a resemblance?  I will let you decide.  http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/01/nazi-philosophers-plato-fichte.html


Audiobook for anyone interested

Peter Singer on Ethics, Altruism, and Morality

Section #10

            Altruism by definition, is the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Peter Singer takes this definition and forms a philosophy from this that has become quite popular among vegans, vegetarians, humanitarians, environmentalists, and the everyday good doer.  His philosophy pertains more specifically to ethics and morality of eating animals (animal rights) and morality of what we spend our money on and how spending could be done elsewhere to benefit more people than just ourselves. In this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzwqf_JkrA Perter Singer talks about our species and how we have grown to the top of the food chain with little to no regard for the species of animals that we consume to be where we are today. He promotes veganism and vegetarianism and discusses that we should all start to move in this direction. Elaborating that animals have conscious minds and feel pain and asks, “is the mainstream view of farming compatible with the way we treat animals?” Most people have an idea about what might happen on these farms but would otherwise be horrified if seen firsthand. Yes, this may be hard to swallow but from a different perspective, why do we not feel bad about this maltreatment of livestock when it is in front of our face every time we go to the grocery store? Though when a dog attacks a person or in the same case of Harambe, was euthanized (even though the child was not killed or brutally wounded), we feel sorrowful and sympathetic for the animal? So, you’re telling me that ‘one’ gorilla that was captive in a Zoo with no hopes of being released into the wild and not in our mainstream diet was killed and think that that was more morally and ethically wrong than the millions of turkeys that are sacrificed for our traditional holiday? Neither of them aren’t necessarily right or wrong but should we stop the large masses of food being produced in the world today and go vegetarian? What about the 7.5 billion people on this planet that our livestock system has allowed us to sustain? What’s the ethics and morality in that, when we cut out all animal based sustenance? Is it ok to feed off trees and plants because it doesn’t have visible feelings like that of animals? How would you solve this dilemma and is it possible to devise a system that is morally and ethically right?

            Another point Singer makes is that the mass production of factory farming has a negative effect on our environment. Not only because of the large lagoons used to hold all of the animal’s waste that makes its way into other water ways and contaminates them but also the vast number of cattle who apparently release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere which is a significant contributor to global warming as a greenhouse gas. Along with this he says that factory farming should go green and allow for animals to live a happier life than what they currently do. The issue with this is that sure, we may provide the animals the ability to range and graze and promote happiness but if we move towards organic farming then we need more land because the grass that we would need for cattle won’t be enough. So now we must resort to other means to supply the cattle enough food so we can sustain the human population.

Second comment: Life is too short not to live (SECTION 9) http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2017/04/life-is-too-short-not-to-live.html#links

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

Section #10  First Installment

Morality has been one of the major topics that have divided philosophers. The struggle to come up with a definition for what is right and wrong that works in every condition continue. John Stuart Mill starts his book Utilitarianism with making the point that “…neither thinkers nor mankind…” has made any progress to improve the definitions since the time of Socrates. He made the argument that one would think that morality would follow the rule that governs science in ways that truth comes before theory. Based on that argument he deduced, “A test of right and wrong must be the means of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a consequence of having already ascertained it.” This raises the question what about instinct? He responds to that question by reminding us that the existence of instinct is also a question that still has not been accepted by all philosophers as truth. The “thinkers” that interpret the moral faculty believe “…the general principles of moral judgments…” is part of our reason and not our senses. Mill explains there are two schools of morality. Both schools agree on that “… morality must be deduced from principles”. Although that seems like an attractive idea, things get foggy when we try to find out what exactly are those principles? The book continues to explain that neither school have come up with “a list of the a priori principles”. One thing the intuitive school of ethics teaches is that there must be a general law to apply to individual cases. Mill explained that in order to do so, they need to come up with one fundamental law to be a root for several other laws. This principle will sort out any “conflicts” that may arise between other principles. Even though there is no one principle is stated to be root for others, Mill explains that the consistency of mankind’s moral belief is due to a “… standard not recognized.” He believed that this unrecognized standard has a great link with “the principle of utility, or, as Bentham latterly called it, the greatest happiness principle”. He even goes on to say that there is no school of thought that would reject the thought that happiness plays a great role to decide moral values and obligations. Thus, he continues his study towards "utilitarian" or " happiness" theory.

He defines the theory of utility (passed down from Epicurus and Bentham) as “… pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain…”. And it is very important to know the difference between right and wrong in terms of “greatest happiness principle” that right promotes happiness and wrong reverse happiness. Happiness here is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain. Mill continues to say that not all happiness is equal. And he clearly disagrees with Bentham on that note because Bentham said that animals’ feel happiness too and it would measure the same as humans. Mill proposed the idea that “few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures”. This introduced higher and lower happiness.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Leah Magdal 2nd Installment
Karl Marx part 2

In my previous installment I talked about the reasoning behind why Karl Marx supported communism and how certain communist policies are utilized today. These examples include free healthcare, free education, and other things that are considered necessities for consumers such as food stamps for lower class people. These policies are becoming quite popular in certain countries because of how it can benefit their society. We have seen politians that try to run for office that support socialist policies. Many people get confused about the difference between socialist and communist policies, and that’s understandable because the terms haven’t really been used correctly all the time. In a communist society the workers are supposed to be in charge and own the businesses and people get what they need through there work, but we’ve seen that many countries that have called themselves communist didn’t do this but had more of a very extreme dictatorship like Russia. Then there are countries that allow free education and free healthcare because it’s considered a need for the functioning society, but the government is in charge, so there is a bit of a communist/socialist overlap. So you can see that in a capitalist society you are more likely to also a develop a mix of socialist and communist policies because there is enough money in the economy to allocate money to education and healthcare for people that can’t afford it without assistance, but it is regulated by the government in order to hold businesses accountable of standards they need to meet.
Getting back to politicians, a very popular advocate of socialism is Bernie Sanders, who had many votes during the 2016 presidential primaries from the younger generation because of his support for free education. Among the other things he supports is regulation of corporations, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, and to raise taxes of the upper class. All of these policies are to strengthen society as a whole, and not just of the upper class. As a broke full time college student I support these ideas because I have seen how hard the struggle can be for the hard working lower class. Many people are on edge about this new way of doing things, because we are used to living in a society with a very divided class system, and popular stigmas such as: "if you can’t afford something it’s because you don’t work hard enough.” A lot of people are against raising the minimum wage because jobs with minimum wage “are meant to be for high school students”, and “you should go to college if you want a living wage.” The list goes on.  The whole reason the minimum wage was created in the first place was to give people a living wage. This was done by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1938 during the depression because he saw how little companies were paying their workers and how much profit the people in charge were getting. Companies are supposed to be held liable for training their workers and paying them a living wage. This has become stigmatized by companies though over the years and many will convince people that they should pay for another business to get their training, and that is college which most people pay massive amounts to go to, in the hope of being accepted to work for companies and being paid a decent wage for their work. Many people think that raising the minimum wage would take money out of the economy, but this has already been tested after Roosevelt passed a law to raise the minimum wage and decrease unemployment and this was called the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This new law led to fair competition between companies, because companies wanted to be able to offer better wages to be more popular to gain more employees. People were being paid more and therefore spending more, which led to businesses hiring more people to increase productivity. This was a policy that was put in place that was very successful until the price of living and food went up years later due to companies trying to gain more profit.
The point of all of this is that many socialist policies that have proven to be successful are still being stigmatized so people will feel that they deserve less. This is wrong. Both companies and the Government should be held accountable for how they treat people and spend their money so our society can be improved.

Here are some charts to show how minimum wage was increased and unemployment decreased soon after 1938 
Other References:
my 1st installment (more information about Marx and references in comment section):
Final Report Installment 1

Karl Marx

Other installments I have commented on:
Immanuel Kant -- Blog Post #1 (Lucy Haston, Section 8)

#10 Installment 1- Feminist existentialism.

First Installment Coaching Philosophy

Philosophy: as Seen in Sports

                When it comes to sports different coaches employ different strategies and philosophies when it comes to leading their teams to wins and championships.   Whether it be in basketball, football, or other sports the goal should be the same and that is to win a championship.   One of the hardest tasks is trying to incorporate a group of people with different aspirations and attitudes into one cohesive unit that has the ability to be a great team.  Molding and leading individuals is one the hardest tasks for a person to have.  Phil Jackson, former coach of the Los Angeles Lakers was tasked with trying to get strong minded strong minded individuals such as Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O’neal  to buy into his system of the triangle offense and  also trust their teammates by not only relying on their individual greatness to win. 

                 Phil Jackson preferred a more laid back approach to leadership.   In his book Eleven Rings he stated, “As a leader your job is to do everything in your power to create the perfect conditions for success by benching your ego and inspiring your team to play the game the right way. But at some point, you need to let go and turn yourself over to the basketball gods. The soul of success is surrendering to what is.”  Steve Kerr, the head coach of the Golden State Warriors and former player under Phil Jackson, uses a similar strategy by allowing his players to play freely and be themselves on the court, which is one of the key reasons that they have become one of the best teams of all time.  His free flowing offense allows his players to not be bound by stiff and rigid plays that leave few options, and instead chooses to let his players make decisions based on how they see things happening on the court.  Also his laid back style of leadership allows a fun atmosphere to be around and have caused his team to gravitate around him be successful.  

                Coaches who allow their players to play freely usually have the most success.  A “team first” philosophy is essential when managing a team and getting everyone to trust one another and not allow outside forces to become a distraction are usually the best teams.  Creating a winning atmosphere is based on basic principles such as having no egos, recognizing a common goal, and pulling together through adversity.  Although, there are many different philosophies when it comes to coaching or leading, in my experience the best results come when a team is allowed to make mistakes and play in loose atmosphere that is also fun. 

Life is too short not to live (SECTION 9)

Some believe life is too short, some believe it isn’t long enough… but why? Life comes and it goes, and should always be viewed as sacred and special. Life demonstrates to you that individuals come and individuals go. Life is about making something out of yourself before you leave Earth. I adore having the capacity to help somebody in improving their life. Seeing a basic grin on a man's face, fills my heart with joy. You need to live realizing that everything wont run smooothly, or treat you right. We live with loaded with sins, which means we will battle paying little heed to the kind of individual we are. Be that as it may, the best way to have faith in yourself is to run regular with an uplifting state of mind and prepared to vanquish the world. The philosophy of life can be described differently among all types of people. I believe life is what you make it and everyday should be treated like your last. I grew up alone, no sisters and no brothers. Being that I was the only child it made me appreciate friendships, relationships and family more than most people. Life is love as it was given to us by someone who loves us more than we can ever express. We were brought into this world for a purpose, meaning life is meant to have a purpose. We are meant to leave a mark on earth before we die. Living life with no regrets, understanding that mistakes happen, but also learning from them is something everyone should live by. Some people don’t understand the value of life, or how quick you can be dismissed from earth. Living one more day out the year shows me how God sees a purpose in me to be here. Life is too short to waste time on people who care about nothing but themselves. I learned years ago, that some people only surround their self around you when it is beneficial to them, meaning you can go months maybe even years caring for a person and they will only stick around if you are perfecting their life in some way. Being used is not a good feeling, but feeling lonely is not as well. So if you aren't careful, sometimes in life you can confuse happiness and being used very often when you are in love with someone. Life shows you that people come and people go. Life is all about making something out of yourself before you leave Earth. I love being able to help someone in making their life better. Seeing a simple smile on a person’s face, makes my day. You have to live life knowing that everything wont run smooothly, or treat you right. We live life with full of sins, meaning we are going to struggle regardless of the type of person we are. But the only way to believe in yourself is to go everyday with a positive attitude and ready to conquer the world.

Immanuel Kant -- Blog Post #1 (Lucy Haston, Section 8)

Lucy Haston
Dr. Oliver
PHIL 1030
Section 8
Immanuel Kant – Blog Post #1 for Final Report
            I have decided to write my final report blog posts on Immanuel Kant, a philosopher we recently covered in class, and one who is quite intriguing to me. While reading in our book A Little History of Philosophy, I was struck by the fact that Kant believed one should never lie because it is always morally wrong. I can imagine many situations where one might find it better to lie than to tell the truth because the truth will cause more destruction than the lie. To learn more about Kant’s philosophy and his strict beliefs on lying, I consulted a book called Immanuel Kant: Key Concepts. It’s available as an eBook through Walker Library, so check it out if you are interested.
            I figure first I should talk a little bit about Kant’s philosophy in general and some of his works. (You’ll find a more in depth discussion of his stance on lying in part II of this blog post.) The word “critique” is an important word when it comes to Kant’s philosophy, along with the word “reason.” Kant wrote three works pertaining to critiquing reason and judgment. They are Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of the Power of Judgment. According to Immanuel Kant: Key Concepts, the three installments were not all planned; they naturally developed as each previous work was written (14). I think it is crucial to note how Kant is using the words “critique” and “reason.” “Critique” is used to mean, “… a detection of prejudice and error in received views but also assumes the more specific sense of a principled assessment of the extent to which claims in general, or claims of a specific kind, may be justified or justifiable” (14). Critiquing is Kant’s way of figuring things out. He critiqued problems in order to come up with a solution. And for reason, Kant uses it to mean, “… the higher mental powers in their entirety, as opposed to the lower mental powers based on the senses” (14). Kant was a major figure of the Age of Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, so reason is an incredibly important aspect of his philosophy, as it was for many other philosophers and writers of the time (think Voltaire, Rousseau, Swift). Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant relied on reason rather than the senses. (If you’re a fan of literature from around this time and later, you’ll know that where reason was seen as the most important human aspect during the Enlightenment period, Romanticism [end of the 18th century] would reject reason and rely on imagination as the most important human aspect.)
            Now that I’ve established the important of reason in Kant’s philosophy, the second part of my blog post will be a more in depth discussion of specifics, such as his views on lying, and how I believe such strict views on lying can be problematic. Stay tuned.
P.S. – The straightforward essay format of this blog post is the English major coming out in me. This format is so engrained that I can hardly stray from it… but here are some helpful links you can consult relating to Kant and his philosophy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdpu58vo3PU ß a nice video on his Critique of Pure Reason

Beyond Good and Evil - William Deaver Section 10, Installment 1

Beyond Good and Evil was written by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1886, a peripatetic philosopher. Nietzsche dives into Morals, virtues, and what good and bad essentially means. He not only tells us about what we have done right but how wrong our perspective can be. Much of the beginning of the book represents an accusatory tone of Nietzsche's viewpoint of other philosophers. However, this is no without reason. Nietzsche claims that this a great way to delve deeper into a both the minds of philosophers and their underlying philosophies. Afterward, Nietzsche moves his topic on to what free spirit, specifically when it comes to religion means. During this, it shows how Nietzsche believes in going against the grain, and not falling into a group and losing your identity. Morals is another topic that Nietzsche touches. He sees morality as something that is constantly changing and evolving, something that he claims that most philosophers do not consider. The time we live in shapes our perspective of morality as much as our core beliefs do. In the same chapter, Nietzsche states that most details are lost when we experience them. By only taking into account the big picture and miss the small fraction of that big picture. This is even more relevant in today’s modern world. If we travel to New York, we don’t stop and value the intricacies. Without such details, the City skyline can never exist as it is only just a byproduct. Later in the book, Nietzsche once again brings up morals and how emotions such as fear, guilt, and happiness enslave our actions and our views on morality. Philosophers were not the only thing Nietzsche was skeptical of, he also went after the scholars of his time. He criticized them for not having two of the most important functions for humans. These two functions were being creative and creating arts, and the other was being self-sustaining, and non-reliant. Finally, Nietzsche goes into Nobility. Nietzsche was very critical of Christianity for glorifying weakness. He believes that while weakness is a necessity for human nobility, it is something that must be exploited.

Nietzsche claims there are no universal laws, and that there is no ultimate answer to what is and is not moral. It is based off time, origin, society, and personal traits. Everybody is going to have their own version of the ultimate truth, and that is okay. It is expected for everybody to modify or skew other people’s perspectives to mend their own. This is ever truer when this perspective can be used to absolve the originator's actions. This was a viewpoint that was not commonly shared during this period, and I believe that this only strengthens Nietzsche’s perspective on what good and evil are. According to Nietzsche, you must have rough patches in life in order for the good to actually mean something. Character development, morality, and your ultimate truth are all shaped by these unfortunate events. Without them, life would be meaningless. It is clear that Nietzsche was critical of the philosophers of his time, that much is for certain.

Below is an attached video with more about Beyond Good and Evil: