Of the Beautiful and Sublime

Since the beginning of the semester, my views haven't so much changed as they have strengthened. Yet I have also learned to take into account views and beliefs that are in opposition to my own. The book I am nearing the end of is Kant's "Of the Beautiful and Sublime". This book outlines the distinct objective views of each along with the feelings that they evoke based upon the gender and culture of the observer. I still stand firm in believing in constructivism (although NOT radically, for I do acknowledge an objective world, however created, of which we have little or no control over) and my belief in perception has strengthened. Kant's book acknowledges the undeniable similarities in aesthetic objects while still justifying different perceptions. This ability is rare and classifies a good philosopher. Constructing reality, beliefs, knowledge, truth, education, and understanding is difficult and must be somewhat unbiased while still taking into account fact, cultural, gender-based, experience-based, and other influences.

Constructing constructions

The relative and construcitivist in me would be inclined to argue that absolutely everything is of human construct. However, I do not believe in superiority of the human race or that we possess the "power" and capabilities to produce such complex structures and concepts. Wouldn't we understand everything if we created it all? To address, the direct name and implications of the Constructing Reality course, I quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." However, mankind as a whole has chosen to accept mind over matter and in that way, a distorted view has been created which can only be disentangled through accumulation of knowledge through observation, experience, and more questions.

Soul Food

If music be the food of love, play on.-William Shakespeare

Most of us acknowledge that music can express an emotion but it wasn’t until recently that it was scientifically proven that music can actually affect our brains. According to Chordpiano.com, “Quoted in a 2001 article in USA Today, Suzanne Hasner, chairwoman of the music therapy department at Berklee College of Music in Boston, says even those with dementia or head injuries retain musical ability.” How’s that for a universal language? Music is processed in the amygdala which is the part of the brain that controls emotions and memory. Suzanna Hanzer explains that this is why we connect certain songs to childhood (or any other past) experiences such as our first kiss, first slow dance, or summertime in Maine. The American Music Therapy Organization claims music therapy may allow for "emotional intimacy with families and caregivers, relaxation for the entire family, and meaningful time spent together in a positive, creative way" yet they cannot pinpoint why yet.

For centuries, music has played a significant role in cultures, individual lives and memories, and the universe as a whole. Even William Shakespeare acknowledged its importance and mystery in his play Twelfth Night. Aldous Huxley defined music as expressing the inexpressible after a silence. Louis Armstrong was quoted referring to jazz, “Man, if you gotta, ask, you’ll never know.” George Santayana declared that “Music is essentially useless, as life is.” Perhaps music is mystery. So far, no one has been able to explain why we connect so emotionally to it. Because of this inexplicable capability to trigger emotions, memories, feelings, and thoughts beyond our comprehension (most of which are peaceful), why music does what it does is one of the few philosophical questions whose answer can be accepted peacefully as “Just because.”

A variety of different definitions of music.

Musica Instrumentalis

"Music, often an art/entertainment, is a total social fact whose definitions vary according to era and culture," according to Jean Molino. It is often contrasted with noise. According to musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez:"The border between music and noise is always culturally defined—which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus.... By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be."-Wikipedia

Perhaps the most common definition for music is that it is a subjective experience. This definition focuses not on the construction but on the experience of music. Rhythm, harmony, and melody are of little importance in this subjective experience. A sound or a sensory form of art that evokes any human emotion can be considered music. The common ground for provocation of such emotions is culture; exposure and teaching of pleasantries and values that varies with location and time.

The objective aspects of music-organization of rhythms, harmonies, melodies, silences, pitches, and so-on-is more clear cut but to universally define music, a universal culture and a universal perception of the objective would have to exist. Perhaps it's the constructivist in me, but if one man's trash is another man's treasure, can't the same be implied when referrin

Why are we fighting?

The first casualty, when war comes, is truth.-Hiram Johnson

We can support or oppose specific reasons for the U.S involvement in the war in Iraq despite validity or fallacies within these reasons but the fact is, we’re there NOW. Soldiers, civilians, innocents are dying NOW. Perhaps we entered on trivial or selfish reasons but we are there. And pulling out of what the current administration has made our responsibility would have devastating effects. Despite recent strides, Iraq is still to versatile and fragile and leaving would undoubtedly leave the Iraqi people in a worse state than when U.S soldiers arrived.

To quote Washington Post writer Joshua White, “Even if top commanders meet their goal of transferring authority to the Iraqi army within the next 18 months, a U.S. presence long after that is likely, several officers said. "This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed." (end quote)

As a young citizen, I cannot express a single reason for our fight. It is said that we are fighting a war on terror. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were undoubtedly devastating and shocking. And I believe it to be fair for a country to defend and retaliate against the forces behind this tragedy. Yet since 2001, the vision of success has become so blurred that even some soldiers are ignorant (I do not use this word pejoratively). From personal experience, I know that some soldiers don’t know where they are going or why. They aren’t sure what supplies they’re bringing to a certain place or why it’s necessary to bomb a location. Some admit that they are fighting for America and to help those less fortunate, but the exact reason is still not able to be pinpointed. Are more deaths really necessary? The media sugarcoats the public mind with images of thankful Iraqis and soldiers that receive packages and videos from their families. Perhaps we have “learned” from the gruesome publicity of Vietnam and that is why we don’t know what’s going on. One cannot support or oppose such a cause until he or she witnesses the effects of the efforts. Not to say that fighting the battle on home soil would be “better”, but I do believe that as a whole America is still as blind to the real issues as it was before 9/11. Our government still refuses to take responsibility for sticking its nose where it didn’t belong. Our own soil has suffering that should be fixed before we can imagine a harmonic country, never mind planet. Nonetheless, we are now a part of this war and we are fighting for the interests of ourselves and the Iraqi people. We cannot pull out now and risk greater disaster.

The issue is not how we will achieve a democratic or free Iraq or a powerful and safe America. The issue is whether or not the United States as a whole will ever be able to accept that despite our initial mistakes in entering prematurely, making assumptions, and concealing parts of the truth and move on with the current situation in an honest, safe, and equally beneficial way. This may sound presumptuous, but words and knowledge could solve this problem better than bombs and media-based embellishment and secrecy ever could.

The Idea of Home

There’s no place like home.-Judy Garland in “The Wizard of Oz”
(referenced by Professor Johnson; triggered the erratic thoughts contained within this blog)

Adjacent towns, states, countries, and continents are easily distinguished through cultural practices, skin color, religious beliefs, and government (despite the prejudiced connotation to such terms). As long as man has an opponent, he will maintain a sense of patriotism towards his home. The definition of such a “home” is dependent upon external locations that one has little or no emotional connection to. I believe that as long as man has an opponent, he will maintain a sense of patriotism towards his home. If we were to discover life on another planet that was capable of interacting and comprehending human ways, even if they were similar to us, we would compete with them. Even if as a whole we were curious and apt to coexist with such beings, there would still be an internal sense of desire for superiority, pride, and patriotism within Earthlings

Should we unite and respect everyone just because we share a physical location? House, city, state, country, planet, galaxy, existence, conscience? Yes. Will we? Most likely not. Perfect peace is unattainable because of individual and cultural subjectivism. I’ve said this all before. Universal harmony is a great goal to strive for but we won’t ever fully succeed because people are selfish. We connect locations to who we are and therefore what we (hope) believe is better because it’s ours. There is a sense of security in believing that something else is a part of you. One can be at home in a house, state, another person, a religion, a sports team, an idea, a possibility, an emotion, etc. All of which, despite some control on our part, are as Professor Johnson pointed out, contingent; accidental; circumstantial. Man does not want to be insecure. Having a home, no matter how small or large, gives him something to defend, love, and strive to improve. This doesn’t necessarily have to mean that this home is superior (although it may come across this way); it simply gives man a purpose.

Patriotism-A single word with many implications

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.-George William Curtis

The dictionary defines patriotism as "love and loyal or zealous support of one's own country." The problem with this simple definition, according to Robert Jenson is if we feel superior simply because of where we live, "Are we truly internationalist? Can we go beyond patriotism? Or, in the end, are we just Americans?" Are we truly for peace and justice? Or just our own interests? Consider the idea of political realism in which the interests of other nations are largely irrelevant, except instrumentally. I agree with Jenson that the term “patriotism” has become a word without much value in America today. However, to throw away concepts such as loyalty and pride which were initially entailed within the word ‘patriotism’, I believe is unrealistic. The problem is not patriotism in its prime, it is human tendency to confuse loyalty and pride with superiority and supposed obligation to a single region, culture, ideal, etc., rather than the ever-expanding circle of humanity.

But how can an individual, a patriot, fulfill his or her obligation to humanity without sectoring beliefs or acts based on culture or region and therefore resources, government, and opportunity which stem from natural societal differences? Location, location, location. Loyalty to a landmass is quite different than loyalty to that particular regions ideals and values which are rooted in a specific place coincidentally and therefore uncontrollably. We can only be loyal to ideas due to the uncertainty of the state of a nation at any given time. Pride in and loyalty to such ideas as democracy and freedom can be taken as respect for a particular region simply because this region is the only one of which a person knows and experiences that possess such qualities. However, there is no specific evidence that these ideals hold true to America and only America. As Jenson suggested, all human beings are capable of comprehending if not practicing such morals.

There is a fine line between selfishness and non-arrogant pride. (As long as pride for one’s country or any other form of matter or idea realizes that it is not superior, I believe it can be useful and justified.) When crossed, the chaos of war and ignorance emerges. People begin to place their reasoning for patriotism on George Bernard Shaw’s idea that “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” This is simply ignorance. It is t he assumption of superiority because of location and therefore opportunity and (for the individual) luck. When this ignorance is applied internationally, a stubbornness forms and humanity as a whole may suffer in the end.

At the beginning of class, a question was posed about arguing with “is” claims. From the question, I have derived my own: Should our moral arguments be to persuade people or to find the truth? We have the right to believe what we want to believe (although we can’t always act upon these beliefs) but we don’t have the right to be correct. If everyone was correct, the world would be chaos. Every valid belief or worldview is supported by morals although not all of- actually, most of-these morals can be proven true. We must admit that our observations shape our “is” claims; our accepted knowledge; current scientific facts which are debatable when new evidence is acquired. Observation, research, and history are the most reliable sources to build facts, but is fact always morally right? No. There would not be an “ought” or “should” if what is was correct.

To encompass several of the topics we have considered throughout the semester, morality, although generally accepted based on culture, religion, and experience, is still consistently wavering in that the more answers we find, the more inquiries we find. If A is morally incorrect, contrary to what we believed in an earlier time, then is B, which is closely related to the previous state of A, now immoral as well? And furthermore, can we assume that C, a new proposition, must now be questioned?

For a tangible example, consider our current topic of meat-eating (one of which I am still researching and wavering in, unashamed). If man was to find, based on a series of convincing and true “is” claims, that meat-eating (A) is morally incorrect, then perhaps the question of other generally accepted customs would be questioned. Maybe…deforestation, no matter how minute. Taking this into consideration, several more moral questions would be posed and the search (as the search for any ultimate truth, whether it is for “is” or “ought) would continue and not end until the world did.

Hume's Take On Morals-The Is/Ought Gap and the Impossible Bridge

If they put in a bridge, it would save a of lot of driving miles, but they'll never put that in out here in the middle of nowhere.-Dale Jones

Given our knowledge of how the world is, how can we know how the world ought to be? Hume believed that knowledge is based on experience. The is-ought gap is completely valid and extremely difficult to bridge (although I will attempt and post any possible connection if I am able to create an argument that derives an ought from solely is claims). "Hume's is/ought gap by itself does not entail that subjectivism is true. It is just an observation about what valid arguments for ethical claims require" (wikipedia). He is suggesting that because our individual or cultural experiences, our sense of moral right and wrong are tainted. Empirically, it is therefore difficult for us to possess any idea of moral truths (if they even exist). There are definitely universally accepted moral boundaries but again, they are based on what has been and what is, according to our observations. Much like von Glasersfeld's theory of unconceptualized apples, it is virtually impossible to confidently and conceive a true and right moral act without first basing it upon another moral assumption or generally accepted pre-existing idea.

Indifference

Genetically modified food and animals are becoming more and more popular very rapidly in the United States specifically. Chemicals, preservatives, and growth hormones are being added to improve flavor, size, and look as well as to preserve foods (especially mass produced meat) for longer periods of time in larger amounts. Benefits include improved health of the organisms, resistance to allergies (on both the parts of the foods and consumers), more efficient processing, and increased food security for growing populations. GM foods are cost effective and, some argue, healthier.

Despite these advantages, as with almost every technological advance today, there is ethical opposition to GM foods. Unintended modification could take place and unknown effects could result on the animals and/or humans that consume them. The eco-balance will be disturbed as will natural genetic structure of the animals. In the U.S., the labeling of GM foods is not required so consumers are often ignorant when it comes to what they toss into their shopping carts.

Some believe that “ignorance is bliss”. Even if one chooses not to acknowledge the negatives in meat processing, the production of GM foods, and mass production of unhealthy and sometimes unknown foods, he should at least consider that his ignorance makes him a contributor to animal cruelty, withholding of information, and the “wrong” side of the ethical debate of meat-eating, whichever side that may be, simply because he is indifferent and therefore inactive.

Enjoy and give pleasure, without doing harm to yourself or to anyone else-that, I think, is the whole of morality. –Chamfort

It would be hypocritical for me to say that one shouldn’t eat meat. I’ve eaten it for eighteen years, acknowledging but brushing past the way it is obtained in the United States. I believe that individual ignorance, selfishness, laziness, and indifference are the moral problems rather than meat consumption or even the processes used to obtain such meat in the U.S. Until I was “forced” to deeply research the topic, I did not have a personal active opinion. And now after reading, considering my own habits and morals (which are in the process of being formed each time I learn something new), I have decided to stop eating meat. Why? Because I can.

Should one base his or her actions based solely upon ability? No. If the entire population of the United States stopped consuming meat from animals, there would of course be problems. The animals that were bread for the sole purpose of consumption would most likely not have the traits needed to survive in the wild. If they did, or if humans found a way to keep them alive, overpopulation could occur, although it is unlikely since forced breeding wouldn’t be taking place to produce meat products. According to Joy Williams, (“The Inhumanity of the Animal People,” Harper’s, August 1997P) “On an average day in America, 130000 cattle, 7000 calves, 360000 pigs, and 24 million chickens are killed” to feed Americans. The ways slaughter houses and other industries kill these animals are inhumane and should be looked upon as immoral in a country that frowns upon the killing of innocents. Although there are many people who can survive on a diet without meat, there are those who cannot. The scale upon which the meat industry influences the average citizen of the United States is too grand and too easily accessible. With convenient supply, many Americans don’t think twice about what has happened to the animals they turn into Christmas dinners, and if they do, the thought is fleeting. As an individual, I feel it is my moral responsibility to not support the meat industry and therefore cruelty to animals by not eating meat. If one chooses to consume it, I do not deny them that right if they are conscious about where it comes from and how it is obtained. It would be virtually impossible to turn an entire planet vegetarian, so as long as individuals are informed, I believe that the choice is theirs. Moral wrongness in meat consumption lies not in the consumption itself but rather in an individual’s choice to regard animals lives as equal to or subpar from human’s.

I understand if you believe that there is no ultimate purpose in life...

But how can you have a conversation and feel so connected to someone that it's as if they are your home, and not believe in some purpose for yourself? I still can't comprehend that. The moments that you give someone else a purpose should do the same for you. I'm lucky to have many of those moments on both ends...just thought I'd share.

Awareness and Self-Identity

http://www.loveoftruth.org/selfdiscovery.htm

Greater awareness does not come in a single blinding flash of enlightenment. It comes slowly, piece by piece, and each piece must be worked for by the patient effort of study and observation of everything, including ourselves.- M. Scott Peck

I found (as Professor DJ did) that many students (myself included) are having trouble supporting their beliefs with concrete evidence or labeling themselves as strictly theist, atheist, or even agnostic. I wonder, is this due to our young age? I think that is partially the case. One of my sociology professors once told us that when most of us our young we are “like big chalk boards and then, ’they’ write all over” us. As we grow older and the pressure to fit in or have an identity increases, “Your idea of who you are is your idea of what you think they think of you.” When do “they” stop influencing our beliefs? When we decide not to let them anymore.
Religion plays an astronomic part in the formation of one’s identity, character, beliefs, values, and morals. So what plays the biggest roles in the formation of religion, and therefore self-identity?

The above image is Ian Wholstenholme’s theory of how we form our identities. Quite often, we base our beliefs on what we experience through our bodies, thoughts, and emotions. When we enter into the spiritual realm, says Wholestenholme, we open ourselves up to an awareness beyond ourselves. We are aware of what we see and know. What we know affects how we think and feel. How we think and feel determine how we act. How we act portrays who we are. But do others always interpret who we are the way we do?

Wholstenholme believes that “at different times you are experiencing life through different domains” (the viewpoint of a “seer).This viewpoint offers one possible answer as to why we are having trouble fully expressing our religious beliefs. I think that once we as individuals are secure in our beliefs, whether they are theist, atheist, or agnostic, it will become easier for us to express and support them for others. But at such a young age, in the college stage which is about discovery and the building of ourselves through observation, experience, and the consideration of outside ideas, it is difficult (though not impossible) to express and justify our beliefs.

For those who are confident in their beliefs, good for you. That takes strength. For those that aren’t, however, keep searching. You are not hypocritical simply because you are changing.

Define Divine

If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. -George Orwell

What exactly are we analyzing? What are we defending and justifying? Or denying and trying to prove as “wrong”? Some say “God”. Some say “A Supreme “Being”, “Higher Power(s)”, a deity, a king, a lord, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternity… When we refer to God, we all mean something slightly different. Yes, there are guidelines: God is the beginning, all powerful, the law, redeeming, a truth we are struggling to find or deny. Pantheism states that God is everywhere and manifests in all things. The coining of the word “God” could be an attempt to explain something inexplicable. When we try to define and name such extreme thoughts and possibilities, ones which we cannot express thoroughly because they are beyond ourselves, we limit our own comprehension of such thoughts, ideas, and possibilities. Spoken and written language can hinder one’s understanding of things that can only be felt and thought. Some ideas are meant to be out of our complete grasp and expression. There are some things maybe we aren’t meant to be able to explain because they are so great. Why can’t humans accept that? If a person is secure in his or her beliefs, does it really matter whether or not they are “right” or “wrong”? Apply logic and evidence but faith will outweigh both whether that faith is in God, the universe, oneself or simply happiness. Call that stubborn or selfish if you wish. As an individual, our words can only take us and express our beliefs so far. Others may take what they wish from our words and justifications but in the end, whether our beliefs were expressed the right way will not matter; the fact that we felt them will. Whether or not our beliefs hold true “ultimately” will not matter; we are not ultimate. We are microscopic in the grand scheme of things and our limitations do not make us inferior; they make us unique.

As a Christian, I am not supposed to doubt or question. But I am not ashamed to say that I do. I doubt the validity in what I have been taught at times. I doubt that one word (God, even with all its components) can represent everything I feel I live my life for. I doubt that knowing the entire "ultimate truth" (if it exists, which I doubt) would bring us as much satisfaction as we think. Being as all knowing as God would defeat the purpose of our lives. And whether it is simply to comfort myself in believing that there's a purpose for our existence, or to attempt to explain and acquire knowledge about that which I did not create, I still believe in God in the sense of the word that is different to many. The pantheist in me believes that God is everywhere and his name is an attempt and solidifying something intangible despite evidence for or against. Until we can concretely define divine, I doubt anyone will ever agree completely on the concept never mind prove it...and I also that that's okay.

Knowledge vs. Belief

When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it-this is knowledge. –Confucius

You do not believe; you only believe that you believe. –Samuel Taylor Coleridge

As suggested by Austin Cline, “agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge.” In order to understand the difference between agnosticism and atheism, one must take into account the differences as well as similarities between belief and knowledge. It could be suggested that knowledge is a current belief or acceptance of truth that changes with time and new evidence and in that way, the two are related. Knowledge may also be seen as objective and limited to us because of our finite capabilities of comprehending such an objective truth.

A connotation often affiliated with atheists and theists alike is that they are close-minded and stubborn. Each group claims to know that God exists. Their evidence may vary from that based on reason to faith yet no matter how scientific or personal this evidence is, we have yet to prove or disprove the existence of God. A theist or atheist can strongly believe and even subjectively know that God exists or doesn’t exist, but he cannot know objectively either way.

Agnosticism can also be seen pejoratively. Many agnostics, although seen as open-minded, are afraid of commitment. They say they believe in God because it’s what they were taught as children when truly, they do not believe. Many of these people will claim to be agnostic so as to not offend their culture or family and to avoid standing behind and having to defend one belief. Others claim to believe in God because they fear the consequences (hell, judgement) or simply hold the hope that there has to be something more so close that it gives them a sense of worth and purpose rather than admitting what we see is all we have.

Ultimately, I believe that one’s beliefs should not be based on solely reason or evidence, and definitely not upon the influences of others. Fear shouldn’t play a part because claiming to believe would fool God and possibly be worse than not believing. Although our search for knowledge of any kind is inconclusive, religiously speaking the ultimate truth is even more unreachable. So when we ask what one believes, we must also ask what they know so that their beliefs may be justified by thing. Without knowledge, there can be no belief, and visa versa. Without belief, there would be no theists and perhaps the only search would be for what IS rather than what could be.

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory. Thomas Jefferson

Our capacity to know for certain is extremely limited, even scientists agree with this. We assume facts to be facts until we disprove them and since our time and space is inifinite (at least to our capabilities of determining), we may never be able to disprove a fact which is actually false. We may see something as true forever simply because we cannot see its falsehoods. According to Richard Carrier, we can only prove the limits of which we can see.

Theism strives to prove the existence of an intelligent and omnipotent creator. Believers of theism often look for evidence to prove the existence of such a creator which is difficult because the assumptions made about him are that he is so powerful that we can't comprehend of discover all of his ways. Unfortunately, many assume that since a God is not provable to our senses, he cannot exist.

On the contrary, atheism strives to prove the nonexistence of God or a creator. Assumptions are used yet again in determining whether or not God is real. It is assumed that if God existed,there wouldn't be suffering, he would reveal himself, or there would be evidence of such places like Heaven or Hell. In other words, the stories from the Bible or other religious books would be more literal and acceptable because we would be able to touch them. Since this is not so (at least not in a physical or natural sense), we cannot prove God's existence and he therefore, does not exist according to atheists.

Both views choose to base their beliefs on proof and whether or not evidence determines existence. Do we need to prove or disprove in order to believe? As Jefferson suggested in his quote at the beginning of this blog, these repelling views choose only to see evidence that coincides with their theory.

Therefore, is agnosticism the less stubborn view? Since our capabilities and capacity to know are so limite, perhaps agnostics are wise in choosing a view open to interpretation. This interpretation could be based upon scientific evidence of the existence or nonexistence of a God or experience. This evidence (or lack thereof) could sway an agnostic to believing in the POSSIBILITY of a God more or less but he will never confirm nor deny this existence. Believing that we cannot and will not ever know if God exists is a commendable thing to do in that it is admitting our limits as human beings, but is it also at the same time trying to find a way not to commit to or form opinions about an issue that shapes the lives of not only philosophers but families, cultures, and individuals alike? And if so, is this indifference a safer route to take?

Believing versus Seeing

I believe in God. I could attempt to prove and justify and convince you to believe the same, but it would be a wasted effort. My belief is subjective to my cognitive and emotional experiences. Call my faith blind if you please. I am not blind to what I feel. A major misconception of the Christian faith is that its goal is to unify the world’s beliefs with its own. In Christianity, there are many denominations, some more “strict” than others. There are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Assemblies, Protestants, Lutherans, Adventists and each group’s bible, beliefs, morals, values, and practices vary. But these are all just labels. I realize the problem concerning accepting supernaturalism in that there are infinite possibilities, and theories that we cannot understand fully or prove because they aren’t a part of the common physical and scientific world. I for some reason, however, cannot comprehend specifically why so many religious believers want to prove the validity of their beliefs.

One (especially a naturalist) may be surprised to learn that labeling myself as a Christian is not the core of my being or purpose or search. I wouldn’t call myself a Christian if there were a better word to describe my lifestyle. I believe in God, yes. I believe in creationism, yes. I believe that the Bible is a good guide to moral and ethic values, yes. Do I hold it to be concrete? No. Do I force my beliefs upon anyone? No. Some would call me a bad Christian because I am not spreading God’s word but I truly believe that spirituality of any sort should be personal. It should beyond subjective; it should be inexplicable. I mean this in the best sense, but I don’t care what you believe as long as you let me live according to my faith. As I said, I am a Christian. But I am a Christian who believes in karma like Buddha did. I am a believer in karma who holds science and tangible evidence close when considering the reality of now. I believe there are natural limits and some supernatural experiences are only subjective and impossible beyond our minds. I am a believer in science who meditates and prays. I believe, as Empedocles did, in the capability of such forces as Love and Strife to alter a person’s life without a person knowing. I believe, like the Native Americans that nature is sacred. I believe in basic human rights. I believe that culture greatly influences worldviews, as does childhood, status, time, and gender. My path is no path and I don’t know how to label it; I don’t think I should have to. I simply want to know ‘who’ and ‘why’ and ‘how’. My search is the same as everyone else’s. I believe, as a student pointed out in class today, that “the world as I experience it is as it is beyond my experience of it.” I believe that the only person I can trust is myself and the only experiences and evidence I can rely on is my own. I don’t want to justify my beliefs because I know I have reason to keep them. I don’t want unify naturalism and supernaturalism or any spiritual notion. My mind is a canvas and I’ll consider painting with your colors if you give me good enough reason. If some of my views aren’t normally associated others, so be it.

Perhaps, thinking as a radical constructivist, we create our own truths and instead of believing what we see, we instead see what we believe. I do not deny the existence of the common and roughly similar experience of the natural world that we all encounter. I am merely suggesting that epistemology and worldviews WITHOUT justification (while still maintaining an openness to change and variety) might very well be an effective way towards peaceful coexistence.

The epistemologies of science versus faith are indeed extremely controversial when pinned against one another. Science requires evidence. Faith requires solid belief. Science can be (physically) proven. Faith is basically just cognitive; it can defy logic, nature, and science. But is faith just what science can’t explain naturally (YET)? Perhaps the world as it truly is is actually very different than the world as we are capable of knowing it. Not to say that science is behind, but is it inconceivable that we just don’t have the technology to prove faith-based ideas of knowledge and reality. If evolution and natural processes have taken billions of years and comprehending these processes has taken even longer, perhaps the supernatural IS natural and possible. There’s always a loophole in science. There can be exceptions. Nothing is certain in either faith or science. The search is the same. The pathways are just different. And is there a destination; a final spot where we have acquired knowledge of all the possible, impossible, natural, supernatural, real, and "fake"? If so and we can take strides towards it, does it really matter how or what we call it?

In his article "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to Survive the Culture Wars" Thomas W. Clark suggested that the ultimate goal of many worldviews is "to establish the one true view of reality in the minds and hearts of all, and have it rule their lives." Why do humans want uniformity so badly? According to Clark, it’s because of our “innate predilections for cognitive security, tribalism, and egoism.” There are extremists (we know many of them as religious terrorists/martyrs) who believe that when it comes to worldviews, it’s their way or die. Plurality, a concept that is the easiest approach to cultural peace suggests that we agree to disagree. Empiricism, the idea that all knowledge stems from what we can physically experience and scientifically prove, is often mistaken for undermining religion and supernatural beliefs/worldviews. Naturalism, however, is the view that goes against such beliefs. Naturalism is not simply empiricism, “it requires the additional, philosophical assumption that we should place our cognitive bets with science in deciding what ultimately exists.” Naturalists will see empiricism as a means of explaining and understanding the cosmos but supernaturalists can still believe in higher powers while accepting then nature of the world (just not agreeing on what caused or created it).

One might assume that a supernaturalist or religious believer might reject the idea of empiricism because of the common misconception that it attempts to rule out a higher power, but it doesn’t. Unlike naturalism, empiricism does not suggest that science decides what ultimately exists, it only suggests that to fairly judge and address public policies (such as abortion, civil, rights, dignity, and dying), we must refer to only the tangible and factual evidence of this world. It does not out rule the possibility of supernatural worlds, entities, or concepts (we still have our right to free speech and belief); it does, however, express that the pragmatic world is the only thing we can be sure of and, therefore, arguments over ideas or beliefs that can’t be proven are a waste of time.

I can’t speak for all Christians, but as someone who might be assumed to reject empiricism and naturalism, I can say that this is not the case. I agree with Clarks views completely. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all just agree to disagree on issues that can’t be proven? Such peaceful existence is ideal, yet inconceivable and almost impossible, and I find that somewhat disheartening.

It all comes back to apples...

All concepts are in the mind (concepts are mind-dependent)
All concepts are conceptualized (there are no unthought thoughts)
All concepts are concepts-of-some-x.
All concepts-of-some-x are in the mind.
There can be no unconceptualized concepts-of-some-x.
All concepts of TIME are concepts-of-some-x.
Can there be unconceptualized time?

Perhaps there can be an unconceptualized objective time but it cannot be fully understood.Can we experience the same perception of time? If we take von Glasersfeld’s point of view about conceptualized apples, there can be no unconceptualized apples or ideas of apples (or any other object for that matter). Therefore, objective time can only be spoken about through our individual (or sometimes conceptual) perceptions, senses, and experiences. This issue is even more complicated because time itself is not visual so we can’t paint a common picture of what an objective time might look like. We can illustrate its affects and changes on our lives or objects, but that brings us right back to perceptions, senses, and experiences of these affects and changes which makes all possible descriptions of time inevitably subjective. Just as we can’t all perceive the same apple, we can’t perceive the same objective time because our perceptions are ultimately subjectively based upon experience.

Life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quickly you hardly catch it going (Tennessee Williams) so, Laugh as much as you breathe and love as long as you live (Unknown.) Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment (Buddha) and time will seemingly fly.

--------------------------

In 2004, scientists Dr. Anthony Chaston and Dr. Alan Kingstone asked children to engage in scavenger hunt activities on paper, similar to “Where’s Waldo?” After they had found various images, the children were then asked how much time had passed since they had begun. According to Express News, "The harder the search tasks were, the smaller the estimates became," said Chaston, whose study is published in the latest edition of Brain and Cognition. "The results were super clean--we have created a new and powerful paradigm to get at the link between time and attention."

So it has been scientifically proven that more direct and challenging attention equals a faster perception of time. But attention and focus isn’t always considered enjoyable. So, does ‘fun’ affect our subjective perception of time? Many people believe that it does. We’ve all heard the declaration “Time flies when you’re having fun.” I have my own theory as to why this is so and although I can’t scientifically affirm it, I think it’s quite relatable to mankind.

Living in the moment is something many existentialists strive to achieve. How is happiness attainable if we’re dwelling on the past or worrying about the future? These worries only lead to stress, regret, and anxiety. Focusing our attention to NOW gives us a sense of purpose and enjoyment. If we take advantage of the good things we have now, it’s not being selfish; it’s being grateful and excited. When we’re having fun, our bodies and minds are filled with peace and ecstasy. These emotions stimulate our brains and consequently “speed up” our perception of time. The (objective) measurements of a second, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year and so on still hold universally true as tools of organization. However, those who choose to enjoy themselves, take advantage of life’s enjoyable aspects, and accept what they can’t control may live “quicker” years than worry warts and those whose minds and hearts are planted in an unreachable regrettable past.

Choice, Chance, and Fate

Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved. -William Jennings Bryan

The theory of existing parallel universe(s) is often linked with the idea that each choice we make in our lives transports us from our current universe to a new one instantly. Ergo it is believed that our future opportunities, fate, and choices are altered each time we choose and enter into the universe corresponding to the consequences of our decision. There are infinite possibilities and when we decide, we are capable of controlling (to an extent) the outcomes of a situation. The bigger question, however, is to what extent do our choices change our fate? And how much control do we have over the outcomes and consequences of our choices? How much of our future and fate is determined by chance and how much by choice? If I wake up one morning and opt to wear a black shirt in lieu of a blue shirt, and it takes me four seconds longer to put on the former, would those four seconds have been used for something else (significant) in a parallel or alternate universe? There are those who would think so. I happen to believe in a less extreme theory. I don’t think that the color of a shirt or the song we choose to listen to on the way to class has a substantial impact on our entire lives. I do, however, find the existence of parallel universes fathomable relative to big decisions such as choosing or denying a school, career, relationship, or residence. There is never only one possibility for anything. If the outcome of a choice or decision is perceivable, then certainly it can exist somewhere else. Whether that somewhere else is only hypothetical or tangible, we may never know. We can’t be aware of ourselves in two universes at once, but can we exist in multiple universes without being aware of it? Or do we exist solely in one universe and travel to another via choices? And how do we explain relationships with other people? If we are constantly changing universes and opening up new chances, choices, and destinies for ourselves, are our friends and family the friends and family whose choices coincide with our own and thus bring them to the same dimension, or do we bring the idea of them with us? Are there are more questions than explanations in this entry? Yes, but it only seems fitting in a world of choices, chance, and fate. I chose to ponder with a microscopic chance of arriving at a finite answer (as is all philosophical thinking) and as fate would have it, I end this entry where it began: the theory of existing parallel universe(s) is often linked with the idea that each choice we make in our lives transports us from our current universe to a new one instantly. Take me where you must…I choose to post this blog.

Flatlanders in a World of Time

The video "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" does a great job of making an otherwise strictly idea-based explanation into a very visual and therefore, more feasible clarification of the theorized ten dimensions we supposedly live in according to Rob Brayanton. It made it easier for me to comprehend why time is a dimension that is so difficult to perceive physically (/beyond experience or thought).
The comparison to the mobius strip shows how we could be walking, as three-dimensional beings, along a curved dimension of time but it would feel like we are walking in a straight line. This is because we are three-dimensional beings who logically are only capable of perceiving and comprehending (fully, at least), the corresponding three dimensions-length, width, depth. We can, however, exist within more extraneous dimensions if our perceptions of them are based upon the existence and functions of our basic three dimensions. Since time as seen as change/duration, then the curves of time could be the environment in which we exist- everchanging and eternal- and we would perceive it to be flat. In this sense, we would be flatlanders living in time. Furthermore, perhaps time exists within other dimensions, being perceived relative to its capabilities. Who's to say that time does not have cognitive capabilities similar to our own? Perhaps since it is the fourth dimension, it can exist within itself and the fifth dimension (yet again perceiving the fifth dimension related to its four). This process could continue not only to the ten dimensions mentioned in the video, but infinitely. In that case, everything would either be infinite/recurrent or-more realistically-contained within dimension upon dimension upon dimension which would eventually end where it began.

The Gift of the Present

The theory of Presentists is intriguing to me. According to the article we read on time, "Presentists suggest that necessarily only present objects and present experiences are real; and we conscious beings recognize this in the special "vividness" of our present experience." One might inquire that if this is true and the only real moment is “now”, how then, do we know that what we label as our “past” and “future” are not merely our own cognitive conceptions based solely upon the feelings bound to what we are currently experiencing. Although I do not necessarily agree with the presentist’s theory that the present is the only real time, I do think that it’s the most important. Maybe someday we will encounter the technology and knowledge that will allow us to travel back in time to fix mistakes, or into the future to assist us in making important decision, but until then, the present is the only time that we can control, and even then we only have control over our own actions, not other people, nature, or forces.

And why would one want to manipulate something that has already occurred or (in the future) is possibly the will of the universe, a god, or nature? Learning from the past is beneficial. That’s not to say that using records and predictions of former and latter day times is trivial. Observation and inquiry are categorically purposeful. Studying the past and present in order to derive new technologies and ideas to improve living conditions in the future are very practical. But my view is that while the mistakes, possibilities, and realities of before and after are most definitely significant and essential in any human’s life and the chance of improving it, the present is irreplaceable and should be cherished, savored, and never taken for granted. Everything we do has a consequence but everything we do also teaches us something; helps us grow. Therefore, attempting to “fix” mistakes in the past or “prevent” possible hardships in the future is almost inane to me. I don’t think that the past is worth trying to change or the future is worth worrying over to an extent that may cause one stress, doubt, or insecurities. I don’t think choices are worth trying to change because they show us who we are and even if they happen to be the “wrong” choice, consequences and lessons learned from them teach us about ourselves, situations, and life in general. I don’t think relationships are worth overanalyzing. It hurts to lose someone (whether physically or emotionally), but it’s inevitable. How many people can truly say that even though they are no longer with a lover, they’re content simply because there was a period in their life that they were happy with them? How hard is it to appreciate what we have and let go when the time comes? I honestly don’t think it has to be as hard as many people make it out to be. In my opinion, now is the only thing that's worth anything. We shouldn’t worry over what we’ve done if we’re happy now. We should always enjoy what we have in the moment because even though it might not be the only “real” thing, it’s the only thing we can be sure of now and in that sense, it’s all we have.

"To live in this world, you must be able to do three things: to love what is mortal; to hold it against your bones knowing your own life depends on it; and, when the time comes to let it go, to let it go."
-Mary Oliver

The Dream Dimension

This entire entry could be a stretch, but my mind has a tendency to link certain subjects with others that one might consider barely related without my awareness until after the fact. I hope this isn’t the case and that I haven’t strayed too far from the subject of time.

In class today, I jotted down something from the magazine DJ shared with us: "Saint Augustine of Hippo, the famous fifth-century theologian, remarked that he knew well what time is-until somebody asked." I find this to be exceptionally relevant to nearly any philosophical, scientific, or religious debate, but I find time to be particularly inclusive to this statement since it is a generally accepted standard (although not necessarily exactly uniform in all cultures) universal concept and I personally would not have thought to question it had it not been of focus in Constructing Reality. Like Saint Augustine, I (thought I) knew what time was until somebody asked. Now the most I can do is introduce more inquiries based on the theories of others.

The spacetime relativity theory attempts to scientifically illustrate the behavior and construction of the universe, including governing forces such as gravity, light, speed, and time. In Euclidian perception, the universe is suggested to consist of three dimensions of space (height, width, and depth) and one (temporal) dimension of time. In this theory, the universe does not consist of four dimensions, but of 3 + 1 dimensions. The relationship between the two types of dimensions is additive, yet codependent. These dimensions provide arenas where all events of the universe take place. Time cannot be separated from the continuum because it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light and also the strength of intense gravitational fields which can slow the passage of time. According to the block theory of the universe one can travel through time if he discovers worm holes and thus, time must exist like length, width, and depth because it would be continuous and simultaneous.

If time travel is possible, we would have to change location (space) as well as time. Continuous and simultaneous time would provide infinite locations and events at any given moment. We’d only have to find the specific coinciding coordinates to reach a certain instant.

…which makes me wonder…

Is the dream world contained within our own and can/do we control our ventures into it? "People in primal societies were unable to distinguish between the dream world and waking world or that they simply choose not to make such a distinction. They saw that the dream world was not only an extension of reality, but that it was a more powerful world." (http://www.dreammoods.com/dreaminformation/history.htm) Maybe our subconscious when we are asleep isn’t ‘sub’ at all. Perhaps it IS just an extension of reality beyond our control to which our minds travel routinely. It is possible that dreams are a different time and place which are experienced by deeper parts of our minds and bodies during the nighttime time and space which we naively consider purposeful for sleeping alone.

Temptation to Understand the Creation and Limitations of Knowledge

http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/gallery/exhibitions/2007/cranach/adam-eve5.jpg

I made a perhaps rather exaggerated stretch from Ernest von Glasersfeld's problem of unconceptualized apples to the story/theory of Adam and Eve. Now, because relating philosophy and religion is almost inevitable, given that philosophy strives to discover or unveil the forces behind the workings of the universe and its creatures, it's difficult to argue a strictly philosophical
case when contemplating the beginning of the universe and reality as we know it. I will attempt to adequately form and word one possible theory as to why mankind will never know the true nature of an apple (or any object, for that matter) with the assistance of the Bible's recordings of the first humans and their sins.

If we put aside religious beliefs and assume the following story to be at least somewhat reliable, we are given a possible explanation as to why there are certain things-the nature of an apple, for a common example- that we'll never know.

THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE

It is plausible that the tree of knowledge was not a tree bearing fruit, but rather a concept held by a force-call it whatever you want: God, gods, nature, science, intelligent design, fate, luck, creation, discovery... Perhaps a creator or force has a reason for withholding such knowledge as nature beyond perception from us. Or maybe we are withholding it from ourselves. If Adam and Eve symbolize the human race, the tree of knowledge symbolizes those things that cannot be conceived, the serpent represents temptations and limitations of the mind/consciousness, and God symbolizes whatever reason exists for the denial of such knowledge, then whether or not we can discover an apple's true properties, or a universal truth is beyond our control.

But maybe we can create it, instead.

A Final Thought on Infinity

I am incapable of conceiving Infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.
Simone de Beauvoir

The topic of limitations arose in class on Monday and thus stemmed a debate over individual limits versus societal or limits imposed on/composed in humans as a whole. One student pointed out potential and drive. Perhaps potential is infinitely and exponentially expanding parallel to our experiences and the drive behind them. Drive must be an individual choice since ultimately, all humans decide at least semi-consciously in order to act or react. I wonder then, if limitations are ever-depleting individually and with the evolution of the human race and its technological advance and the formulation of new ideas, concepts, and theories. Or does the world, or even more vast, the universe possess concrete limits which are far beyond the imagination and/or capability of even the highest powers? And as we advance as a civilization, are we coming closer to reaching those limits and being denied access beyond or breaking the barrier and exceeding them? Namely, can we exceed a prior set "law" of the universe if such restrictions existed because we were not expected to reach them? Just as in mathematics, if the limit never approaches anything, the limit does not exist. If humans approach the limits of the universe, do they expand? And if not, what will happen if we (try to) defy them?

On a more personal note, when I kook at the sky, I just don't see how there can be an end, limit, or restriction to something so vast. How can there be an end to possibilities? Yes, logic, mathematics, "laws" and theories of nature can "prove" infinity wrong but that doesn't stop one being out of billions, one entity out of trillions, from not being able to comprehend the end. We'll never know the true potential of the universe and I think I like it that way. Mystery has its own mysteries and there's some comfort in knowing that although searching for possible explanations and philosophies useful and fulfilling in acquiring knowledge of the universe and oneself, the impossibility of never comprehending anything in its entirety gives me something to live for. A friend of mine once told me that "without doubt there would be no questions and without questions there would be no learning". A quest for more questions is as endless as philosophy. And I like it that way.

Truth Versus Interpretation

Kant: Experience and Knowledge

I wonder, how did Kant encounter the idea of a noumenal world containing differential perceptions and conceptions if it is said to be a realm that is beyond human comprehension or expression? If we are ignorant of this realm and the true nature of its contents, how do we acquire knowledge about it? According to Kant, we acquire knowledge of this ineffable domain, "the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality," through experiences of the phenomena-"appearances, which constitute the our experience". The only a priori judgments (judgments that are independent of observation or experiences and based entirely on an entity's true nature, unattainable by the human race) that we can make must derive from experiences in the phenomenal realm. Kant believed that the laws of nature, science, and mathematics are apprehensible exclusively because they intend to explain the world as we experience it. What is the true nature of a pencil? Surely, it is more than the words we produce with it and the smell of its shavings, but these experiences are the only things that will define a pencil's purpose to us. Experience truly is the only way we can attain knowledge. If we could comprehend the world as it is in the noumenal realm, then life would be utterly inane. I think it's safe to say that perspectivism is relevant in terms of radical constructivism. We must perceive the same things (from the noumenal world), yet interpret them differently based on experience in the phenomenal realm which we are familiar with. We can contrast radical constructivism with metaphysical realism even further by suggesting that radical constructivism is creation and interpretation based on experience while metaphysical realism is interpretation of a description. A skeptic would ask how Kant discovered the idea of Noumena if it isn't accessible to mankind. It's possible that a radical constructivist would suggest that we could create that access and possibly merge the two realms together, bridging the gaps between truth versus perception and description versus interpretation. Exactly how, whether consciously or by means of an inconceivable inner force, we could achieve this, is another question.

It's better to know some of the questions than all of the answers-James Thurber

In class yesterday, we briefly discussed skepticism. Although I am not a skeptic or nihilist, I felt compelled to defend some of these views, as I feel that the two have acquired unfair negative connotations. Is the extreme skepticism of nihilism even possible? If one believes in nothing, he still believes in something: he believes in not believing. A general skeptic, simply put, questions everything...but this is still believing in something. It's believing that absolutely nothing is concrete except change and uncertainty. It's believing that we can't trust ourselves, others, nature, or any supposed supreme being/higher power. This is often mistaken for narrow-mindedness. Yet I feel like some of these views are quite the opposite and aren't as radically different from other -isms are we might think."Turned on itself, skepticism would question that skepticism is a valid perspective at all" (wikipedia) so we can't say that skeptics are stubborn or pessimistic. They are simply open to all possiblities and assert no final truths.

Skepticism is built upon questioning and doubting more than it is upon rejecting. It has been said that "if we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything." Skeptics definitely don't let themselves fall for anything, so in the end, aren't they still standing behind a specific outlook, only never fully accepting possibilities concerning reality, purpose, and self so as to avoid narrow-mindedness and ignorance to all the possibilities we may never truly know or comprehend? They are accepting our lack of power as human beings and thus opening doors to all theories of knowledge, reality, and nature. Maybe the truth is that there is no truth.

Samism

I've tried to choose one or a combination of theories from the terms we discussed in class to stand behind, but I can see sides and truths to each one. Even further, I feel like my views will change as I grow and learn. So I figured I would try and come up with my own theory or loose definition of reality. After research, recounting experiences, debating logic, and exploring old journal entries of mine, I came up with a theory I'll call "Samism."From relativism, I strongly believe that moral values, ethics, and ideas of right and wrong are greatly influenced by environment and culture. Of course, not every person in a specific culture has exactly the same values instilled in them from childhood. This is where some parts of Radical Constructivism and Subjectivism come in. Decisions must be shaped by and individual's past experiences. This is why making a decision about something for the first time can often be scary. If we don't experience a situation, we don't have knowledge about it. Yes, we might have factual information from textbooks and the words of others, but until we go through it ourselves, I don't think we can ever know how we should or would react and/or think about the morality behind and nature of a situation. Being in a situation and thinking about a situation are very different from each other.
I believe in "tabula rasa", a theory that human beings are born with a "blank slate" and through a combination of experience (radical constructivism) and sensory perceptions (subjectivism), we acquire knowledge and form our own truths. The only way there can be a single truth is if that truth is that there is no singular truth. I don't believe that analyzing things such as truth and reality are a waste of time. I do, however, believe that the universe and its ways are beyond our perception and full comprehension (realism). Again, using philosophy as a means of further understanding ourselves and HOW we fit with the universe is fine with me, as long as we realize that we'll never understand everything...and I think not understanding everything and still being able to go with it and grow is what makes us human.