civil disobedience

Hi Prof Foster,

I wanted to let you know that I haven't been able to submit my paper because I cannot access turnitin.com. I emailed you at the "bmcc" email address for this and another situation, is this the correct address? Please advise. Thank you.

Civil Disobedience:

This week is interesting because reading two of the greatest philosophers ever and seeing the contrast between their opinions on civil disobedience is profound. I especially would like to know where Socrates and Dr. King would stand as far as the actions of the Zuccotti park protesters. Would Dr. king say they have a right to protest the fact that they do not have jobs or would he say that it would be better if we boycotted their businesses. It would be interesting to see how Dr. King would view the residents the live in the neighborhood of the park whom have somewhat demonized the protesters for their nuisance like behavior. Would he say that they are more evil because they are the bystanders?

I was really shocked to read that Socrates would not escape from jail. I am definitely down for the cause and the fight, but death is pretty much permanent and I cannot understand how one can be certain that his or her death will be for the greater good. I would like to think that I would have chosen exile if I were  Socrates, especially given the fact that he has kids.

Artificial intelligence

This week gave me an excuse to re-watch Steven Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence. While before I thought it was a pretty entertaining movie (except the drawn out ending) this week's reading gave me a new perspective. Where the first time watching the differences between myself and the character played by Haley Joel Osment were black and white now I can see there are definitely shades of grey.

What really makes us that different. Now the only criterion that I can gather is that we as humans are the creators and that makes us superior, and for the record that is really what were searching for when we discuss the differences between humans and AI-- who is superior.

In the end we are superior because without humans AI could not exist. There may come a day when robotic surgeons replace its human counter-parts, just as robots are used now for dangerous combat missions in lieu of soldiers. Then AI could definitely be responsible for creating human lives. Those days however are not here yet, so as humans our position on the top of the food chain is safe-- for now!

Metaphysics

Wow after this week I'll have to think twice before I say that I'm losing my mind!!
This week was a little weird because I'm strating to see my goals for this course manifest. One of my greatest wishes was to challenge what I thought I knew and this week I did. Prior to learning about metaphysics I was convinced that there was a "mind" and separate "brain" and "body". Yeah, now I'm not so sure anymore. I cannot say that I have completely abandoned my old truth but I definitely have reason to doubt it.

I grew up in catholic school and I was taught that a human is composed of a body and a spirit. After all the bible and its teachings always make reference to letting God touch your "heart". Certainly that does not mean that believers should walk around with their chest cavities exposed to make for easier access, however, I had to reconcile what I was taught to believe with that which I have learned from biological science. Unfortunately, I was not able to reconcile my beliefs with that which I was taught.

I have seen first hand what mental disorders, accidents, and drugs can do to a person brain and body. I have yet to see a case where someone was exempt from such variables because their "mind" as opposed to their brain and body was not affected.

The ebst that I can come up with is that the body (including the brain of course) answers to the physical laws and the "mind" answers to the laws of the brain. So, yes the mind does exist but is not a separate entity from the brain but rather an extension. Similar to the computer games titled, "SIMS". Yes, the worlds that the gamers create are very real but they only continue so long as the computer is turned on and plugged-in. If the computer is unplugged the game ends similarly the mind exists so long as the brain functions. If the brain was to be damaged the mind would suffer accordingly.

Lastly, I might add even though I have adjusted course I will still continue to use the terms "mind" and "spirit". The reason being I remember when I was young I believed whole heartedly in Santa Claus. After many years I found out he was fictional but I cannot forget how good believing in him and everything that comes with the tradititon made me feel! So, I will continue to summon my "spirit" during trying times and while my heart will be open my hope is that my chest will remain closed.

Hey, Hey-- Norma Rae!

This week was interesting because I've heard many women and some men in my life time say that they considered themselves feminist. I am glad that I gained some knowledge in the area because now I can ask them specific questions about the movements. I would want to know what kind of feminist each considered themselves: Liberal or gender? I can only imagine the answers that I would receive. I wonder if in some respect gender feminists believe that liberal feminists are traitors to their own cause.

The pragmatists' section of the readings this week was pretty interesting. I enjoyed discovering the etymology of the word pragmatist as a political- junky I often hear politicians describe themselves as such. In some ways I always felt as if she/he (important to write it that way after the feminist reading) was saying that "I deal with reality and my opponent lives in a fantasy world." Now I know that this is not necessarily the truth; the reason being just because an idea can not be used now, does not mean that it can not become useful someday!

Week 3-- I Kant believe I was able to comprehend most of this lesson! lol

Thank you for the encouragement last week Prof. Foster! I definitely relied on it when I started reading this week!!

So this week was definitely a challenge and that is a conservative statement. In addition to learning about new philosophers and their contributions to the discipline of philosophy we had to read and interpret what at times seemed to be unintelligible language. I had to read the material several times in order to understand it, but I must say that the book was correct when it read that if we were able to understand Kant's material we would be rewarded by having done something that to many was very difficult.

I found it interesting to see that even philosophers (who are expected to be objective) still find a way to bend their discipline to conform with their own religious beliefs, as did Berkeley to align with christianity. Despite whatever great contributions he might have offered philosophy all of his contributions must be held to the strictest level of skepticism.

I must add that at first I found the material to be lacking a relation to what I thought philosophy should be about; I thought who cares about the spatial and temporal relation that objects have in our minds? But after having some time to reflect, I noticed that the material had more to do with my philosophy (and why I might take a certain position) in regard to important subjects, than where a "book is located in my room"

After reading this material it is clear why a law school admissions team may prefer a student take a philosophy class over a law class. The law school can always teach you the law but you have to already come in knowing how to "think" or at least understand your own pattern of logic.

Also, I wonder if privately judges consider themselves philosophers or interpreters.

week 2 Descartes

Okay, so I know there have only been two weeks so far but this is my favorite lesson so far. I guess because what Descartes is in search for is exactly what I was searching for when I decided to take this course-- the search for certainty. I like to know that what I believe is the truth and if it is not the truth then I want to know it. It is always good to kick the tires.

In another class we discussed whether or not children make credible witnesses and most people said no because they are too young. Their litmus test consists of determining whether or not the child believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or other wild characters and stories that are told to them.  I countered by exclaiming that a child's beliefs can not be used to determine credibility. Why? Because Children believe what they are told, usually.  Also many adults believe in religion and God and the Holy Spirit and ghosts. Could these be stories also? Can these adults be certain that what they believe actually exists? Does this make them unreliable witnesses too?

I guess some would say, "well I've never seen a Tooth Fairy!" I would reply, "I have yet to see God!" Practicioners might say that even if one does not see God that we can witness his/her miracles. A skeptic might say, miracles or fortunate coincidence?

My Blog

Hey its Charles Gren aka SeaGreen! I just want to introduce my self and say that I am excited that I am finally a blogger and am looking forward to learning some great things this semester!