Civil Disobedience

Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law?

In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? and 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience?

There are many governments that are overpowered and unjust to the subjects contained within them. In attempting to define what an unjust government is, I find myself taking a closer look at Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter. I also would like to keep in mind Marxism because power often corrupts. So in my own terms, an unjust government is one that rules accordingly to ruler in order to achieve more power or wealth. In a government like that, laws are made to keep the order. For example, a law may state that if anyone has a different opinion than the King will be hanged; everyone must abide by his rules whether they are right or wrong. In the society’s interest, civil disobedience would be the appropriate action to take against a society like this.

Unfortunately, I have not found a better example other than the story of Camelot and Merlin. In the story, Camelot is ruled by Uther Pendragon, who evokes many unjust rules that the society deals with in return for protection. This type of government uses power in order to rule. This would be the best scenario for civil disobedience because this is a government ran by the thoughts of an individual with power. Governments like these, according to St. Augustine, are not governments. I would agree on behalf of St. Augustine because this type of government doesn’t allow ideas to improve society by the members who live the life of poverty on a daily basis. Instead it is a government to fulfill the needs of the powerful and the rich.

Government is made up of the people that abide by the rules and conditions that are enforced. A society that must abide by unjust rules and immoral conditions is not a form of government and should reconcile the problems that would contribute to a need for civil disobedience. If we lived in a society where our opinions aren’t taken for granted, our society would never improve and history would be irrelevant.

Marxism, "Harm" Principle or Both?

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?

           According to Mill, freedom rests heavily on the shoulders of the “harm” principle. Government or society should not intervene in internal affairs unless harm is being done by another’s actions. In this, our society is founded but only partially. Agreeing with Mill, his ideas allow us to determine whether or not our role in society is to help those in harm’s way or let them be if they conflict harm to themselves. Contrary to the fact, an individual seeking medical help in order to commit euthanasia would be denied in the United States. It would appear that assisted suicide would be legal according to Mill principle; however, government injects into the life of the individual in order to save him from himself. This brings my argument leaning toward Marx approach of economic philosophy or Marxism. Clearly these two philosophers are searching for a “just society” but due to modern society; Marx theory behind economic philosophy would appear to be more rational. As Marx states “people cannot eat ideas but must live on the material products of labor”, portraying his status in society (599). A quote like this usually comes from someone with economic problems. I find this quote to be the utmost reality pertaining to my social class; and as the famous cliché goes, “the rich gets richer while the poor gets poorer”. As I look back into the little biographies of philosophers in this textbook, I notice that the majority of philosophical ideas that still exist today are from many philosophers with little financial problems. Marx political philosophy on the other hand, was forced to move from city to city because of the rejection his ideas built in society. Which also provides support for his argument that “the changes in society and PHILOSOPHY are the result of underlying changes in technology and the economic system” (599). Power is dominant in any society and with wealth (meaning the most property, cattle, money, wives, etc.) comes power.

           In formulating my response for this week’s post (What are your thoughts on this?), I find myself looking deeply into both Marxism and the “Harm” principle. From my analysis, I conclude that Marxism is meant to oppose government allowing power (wealth) to be divided “equally” among the individuals in a society. I am convinced with this approach toward political philosophy because in a stable society, individuals are equal. There would be no need to “hate thy boss” or organize a strike because everyone would have equal power amongst each other. Pertaining to the freedom of the individual, those with greater power should enforce “equality” in society. Hence Mill’s “harm” principle; in stating that individuals are free depending solely on their actions in society. In the example of “going on strike”, the individual would lack the finances to provide for family, which is caused by the undivided “power” from government; therefore, government should then take actions on itself accordingly to keep society from hurting itself. Both Mill and Marx approaches would help society become Just.

Week 9 Buddhism yes or no?

Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

Buddhists believe that in order for us to free ourselves from suffering itself, we must first control our desires and cravings. Personally I have questions about this approach, especially in the United States. My answer for this question will be based on relationships, as we are all aware of them and how they affect our everyday lives. Divorce rates are higher in North America globally and expose those like myself to become insecure when in a relationship. The lust for the significant other and the need for comfort lie within all couples, thus forcing our desires and needs to control us. A Buddhist would enlighten us by telling us that in order to completely rid ourselves of these potential hazardous emotions, we need to remove them from within us. In today’s day and age, I don’t know how that’s possible. If you have even been hurt, and according to polls mostly everyone has had a rough relationship, then you know how much you would actually expect from your partner; especially if it was that one person that hurt you. Although relationships are the most effective way of demonstrating how the teachings of Buddhism conflicts with our society, it is not the only reason we should doubt whether it’s possible to live accordingly to the Buddhists way of life. As a college student with an active social life, I tend to get frustrated when my assignments pile up. Many times I feel as if I am no longer connected to the outside world, especially when my week consist of two to three hours of socializing and five to six hours of sleep per day. Indeed I am suffering and am in need of a resolution; however, discontinuing my education would seem ridiculous but would end my suffering. I wonder how a Buddhist would approach this problem or this type of suffering.

Buddhism encourages us to set aside our desires and more or less, our ambitions. I have always been told that it’s important to have goals in life if there’s any chance I would want to live comfortably. Buddhism wants us to believe that these goals or desires that we have are doing us more harm by growing them. How can I possibly not build an ambition and hope to become successful? Society is America, and especially in New York, is demanding and there are always people to laugh when you quit halfway. For example, before I started college, I wanted to work in the HVAC industry because it promised a good salary and a comfortable life. Throughout the years of my technical career, I have grown to dislike that job due to the amount of bills that piled up at the end of the month. Basically I was working to pay the bill and I no longer was able to take a day off or just relax. The demanding society cancelled my previous goal and put me back at first base. I then decided I would earn an associate degree and be able to work a little more money so I can finally have a day to myself. The goal escalated as I started school and thought further on what how I would be more comfortable if I got a bachelor’s degree. So now that I’m moving into a phase that could eliminate my suffering; I’m also acquiring additional suffering. How would a Buddhist solve this problem, especially when society can be so demanding?

Cosmological and Design Argument

In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's relgious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument).

It is essential for religious followers to dig deep into the depths of the philosophical understanding of God. Not all religions are the same; however, through studies, it has been proven that we all may be praying to the same God in many different forms. As a philosopher, God – the creator of the world and universe is the reason why we exist but exists without a cause. I would defiantly point out to a follower or leader of religious beliefs to look at God as the beginning of all we know. We are certain there is a God, but for what purpose? By looking into the philosophy of religion, we are able to see that since God is an uncaused cause, it has to be the beginning of what we know and nothing before it like the reflection of the sun on several glasses. We see the reflection on different glasses, but the source is the sun and we can look at God the same way. This connection between philosophy and religion is the hidden truth that could change many religions. As a Hindu, I worship many forms of God whom I have recently realized that many are forms of single forms. For example the Gods I worship are the reincarnated version of another God and so forth. Why stop there though? What if philosophy had the answer to the main question – Which is the real God? By understanding the universe is created by an architect and understand that the beginning would be an uncaused cause, we can infer that there is one God. For Hinduism, that Supreme Being is named Brahman. Philosophy also points out that an “apparent design”, which is the design of the world as we see it. It is not by accident that our world comes together in such simple harmony. Of course it’s not perfect, but it isn’t by mistake. Science predates the “big bang” theory. What if that theory was a part of God’s creation?

As we look into the scientists who claim the origins of the world and the archeologists who sought evolution as the answer to our questions, we find that these people were theists. Strangely enough, Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution does make a lot of sense with all of the archeological finds that have been discovered over the years. A theist, however, would say that is inaccurate and claim that humans were made by God. Darwin does mention that God supervised the events or probable chance of our homo evolution and allowed the chances to take place. A religious follower would then ask, why does it seem so well thought out, our species, and designed to work in such a way where we became the dominant species of the world?

In all philosophy explains that when it comes to religion and science, religion asks us questions of ‘why’ and science asks of ‘how’ without interfering with each other. I would agree with the harmonizers who see the relationship between science and religion as a contingent. Without religion there is no science and without science there is no religion because science exploits religion and vice versa.

Week 6: AI

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulateintelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.

What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?




           Personal experience has led me to believe that AI is a simulation of many minds into one powerful mind. Instead of one person having to compete on an intelligence test to another; and AI computer would act as 100 different minds that process information differently and quickly. Therefore computer do simulate intelligence. Theories and formulas are not thought up by computers; they are only enforced and calculated by computers. Even though we are able to input questions into a computer and generate an answer within seconds, a computer doesn’t think of the question to be situational. Instead it locates and shares the ideas inputted relating to the question asked. A computer represents intelligence from humans that stores information that humans discover.

          While computers are being programmed by humans, it would only make sense to assume that humans are also being programed by another source. I find that source to be natural selection. That is the process of adaptation by an organism in order to survive. Computers are not able to do that and humans have done it well over the history of our origin. There are many movies like “iRobot” and “Eagle Eye” where the computer itself tries to avoid deletion or exile. This is where AI becomes fascinating to a point where we can say that computers now can be called a different “species”. However, I have not seen any instance of that by any computer; only humans. Much like computers, humans are programmed by the changes of the environment and its effects on our lives. For example I’ll explain how humans are programmed by society. Emotions change people every second of the day. In the college atmosphere where many people become mature if not already matured. In the process of doing so, the transition from being in high school changes as more material is student oriented instead of teacher involvement. Simply stating that in high school when I needed help on an essay I would be able to go to the teacher during lunch time and correct my grammar and fix my topic explanations so I would be able to get a high grade. In college the change from being given that extra assistance where you’re able to know what the teacher is looking for (since he/she is the one helping you with the assignment) conflicts when you have to determine for yourself what needs to be improved. In doing so, the nature of that transition from high school help to college individual education, “programs” our minds to pay closer attention to our assignments to get the “A” we want. Not only does this type of experiences change or program us, but anything that benefit us will “program” us. Media’s effect has affected many people both of young and old age. Everyone wants the body Kim Kardashian has because she is socially desirable causing its programming to affect young minds. This is one example of the many that causes us to socially be programmed as computers are by us. The way I see it, were in a universe that’s linked together in sequences found in a chain. It’s all cause and effect and its origin is unknown.

Week 5: Brain or Mind?

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?

   


    

     Descrates took the side of dualism philosophy. He was convinced that despite the connection between the mind and the brain, their properties are different, causing them to be two different things (spiritual and physical). At the time it would seem that Descrates’ thoughts on dualism could be undoubted since neuro and brain imaging had not yet been introduced to the world. Therefore, the experience leading me out the cave, as Plato introduced, would have to lead me into believing physicalism philosophy over dualism. However, I must say that both physicalism and dualism have certain ideas that seem rational to me and makes clever sense when really thought about. The idea Descrates introduced to us about our mind and brain being two different substances is correct. Technically – according to physicists, interactions are a type of force, and Newton’s law of force states that an object has to come into contact or apply the same amount of force back in order for a force to exist, therefore, conflicting with physicalism. So I would take Descrates side on this argument that a mind and a brain are two separate substances. I also agree with physicalism on the notion of Phineas Gage and his accident. This story proves that the brain is connected with our mind but doesn’t necessarialy prove they aren’t different. If we alter the brain, the mind is also altered as the prisoners in the cave. We alter someone’s brain physically (putting them into a cave and calling it reality) and their mind reacts spiritually (unquestioned reality). So once again my argument is with Descrates on the idea that our mind and our brain are two different substances.

No matter how I put it, physicalism and dualism both seem practical to me. If there were a combination of the two, I would certainly follow that road on the philosophical journey. I don’t think there should be a force linking the mind and the brain together, and if there has to be one, we’ve yet to acquire that knowledge.

Week 4: Pragmatism

Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge? Now that we have concluded the section on epistemology, write about what kind of thing you think knowledge is.

        I would first like to begin with Pragmatism and how the ideas it conceals assert itself to our everyday lives without any conscious thought. I would have to agree with the Pragmatic view of knowledge that our beliefs lead to actions because we all have beliefs, and it’s our beliefs that drive us to wake up and get on with our day. Pragmatics argues on the fact that if we are unable to prove these beliefs wrong then these beliefs are true. Which in fact are correct if you think logically. They also find that a belief (weather it is false or true) will lead to action, which could lead to a higher truth, and so forth. Since all 3 of the famous Pragmatics were scientists are some point, they have derived their theory of Pragmatism from the scientific method. You would first construct yourself a hypothesis (the belief) and then find an experiment to prove it right (the action), and in doing so you would be able to know whether your truth proves to be true or if there’s another truth to counter your belief making the countered belief the truth. Very confusing stuff to understand but I must say it is amazing as to how the Pragmatic thought of philosophy comes to be true for me. These instruments of our beliefs drive us to work all sorts of ways, meaning we may belief we have cancer and well live our lives to the fullest. What I find fascinating, and what really lured me into the Pragmatic view of philosophy is the idea that we view knowledge individually. We find that due to our experience, our knowledge would appear different than another person’s. I have used this example before in my previous blog, at the restaurant a person trying out a dish exaggerates how wonder it taste and sends compliments to the chef while the fellow beside her tries the same dish and finds it horrible enough to ask for a refund. The knowledge these two people acquired are both true however, the twist that knowledge is gained individually forces me to ask this question… How will we know when we have acquired full knowledge? I don’t suppose we really can.

       Feminist philosophy on the other hand seems a bit interesting and little by little generated the idea of evolution in me. Now agreeing with Pragmatism, every individual has their own knowledge and experience will prove their beliefs right or wrong. (By the way, Aristotle’s view on women made me laugh my pants on, when he mentions that females are the deficiency of males. WOW!! Really? So it really means that were all basically mating with our own sex). Feminism is something to really think about because it’s not implying that women itself are not as smart as men are, but to me it just indicates that men were able to find such philosophies about intellect, reason, logic and life first or get to it sooner than women. What would our thought be today if women took the first grab at philosophies? I believe it’s the theory behind it that women was always more concerned with discrimination, rape and were more affiliated with being a wife and taking care of the children that men was able to dominate. Feminist strive to be equal with men – to be recognized that they also have the capacity of intelligence and that they can also contribute to education and the world as we know it. I know for a fact that women alike men have great intellectual capacities, and sometimes I even think they are smarter but because of the emergence of the philosophical dudes, women now have to remain outsiders. If I was to comment to the Feminists, I would like to share that I believe females and males are in equality but should be looked at as two different species. The male species evolved faster and at a hastier pace than the women species, the one thing keeping them closely related is the fact that the two very different species are very similar and evolution has pushed the male species up the latter when the women were left as outsiders. Now when one would combine these species, ‘he’ would refer to women as he.

       I find that the views illustrated by Pragmatism to be more real than many of the other discussed in this chapter. Descrates ideas didn’t make much sense to me and Hume made much sense to an extent. The Pragmatism view completes my puzzle of epistemology and - knowledge is what you already believe in until proven wrong.

Week 3: Knowledge

What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses? What areas of knowledge do you think support this theory? Are there any types of knowledge (mathematical knowledge, for example?) that you think are a problem for this theory?

What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses?

   I don’t agree with the empiricism’s that our knowledge is based on our senses because as Descrates explain to us, if we find that what we know is based on the impulses transmitted to our brain then knowledge and reality can be whatever someone wants us to believe. Also Plato had the same observation in “The Allegory of The Cave” when he mentions the prisoners chained to view the stories projected by the superior people. That was their knowledge and it was based on what they see and hear. Empiricists argue that because of our experiences, we obtain knowledge.
When I was growing up, my parents were the type that kept me home when school was finished; I wasn’t able to go out and have my own experiences, so by observing my surroundings as I walked home, my mind took all the bits and pieces of my observations and gave me a knowledge of life in whole. Also knowing of God cannot be experienced, it doesn’t have a smell, or taste, and we can’t touch it. But we do know that God exists. I know that every time something goes my way, I always say ‘thank God’ and when I’m in need of help I always say ‘God please’. Our knowledge of God is limited but we do believe in God.


What areas of knowledge do you think support this theory? Are there any types of knowledge (mathematical knowledge, for example?) that you think are a problem for this theory?
   To support this theory that knowledge is based on our senses, we can simply look outside at the people wearing jackets. We feel cold; therefore we find ourselves a jacket. We see someone getting pulled over by a corrections officer, so we slow down. Some Knowledge can be based on our senses. In Chemistry, touching an acid may cause your hand to burn and fatally damage you skin cells, but what happens to knowledge we can’t always touch, see and smell. Science is a subject where predicting an outcome isn’t always the best idea. Our senses may tell us the solution may smell sweet but it could be deadly if we drank it. We cannot see atoms with our naked eye, and there are some people that don’t get the chance to look at one under a microscope, but knowledge of them still exists. For example, how many times have you wanted to try a dish at a restaurant that the person near you is having? The next time you go to the same restaurant, you try it and don’t find it as tasteful as it looked and smelled. That may be a problem when empiricists say that knowledge entirely is based on our senses.

Week 2: Descrates

What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methological skepticism is not a good strategy?

     Methodological skepticism is an approach that removes all prior beliefs and knowledge in attempt to find further knowledge. The idea of brain washing my knowledge I have already obtained, in order to learn a higher knowledge, terrifies me. I wouldn’t take part in methodological skepticism because it would seem that in the quest for further knowledge, I would find myself at some point believing in what I already know. Removing what I already know in order to learn it once more seems like a waste of time for me. Instead, I would explore other procedures and combine what I know to that of what I don’t in order to get a conclusion. As humans, we are consistently thinking of ways to improve our lives. In our daily lives, we don’t usually stop to think of all the possibilities and choices we can explore in completing a task or assignment. However, if we use what we already know and combine it with other possibilities, we may be one step closer to success. For example, Thomas Edison tried 100 times to make the electric light bulb and failed, people thought of it as impossible, but by using what Edison already knew and combining his beliefs with what he didn’t know, Thomas Edison was eventually successful in the invention of the light bulb. Methodological skepticism is a procedure that’s not really practiced in our everyday lives because people tend to be a lot more rational about daily tasks.

     Methodological skepticism in today’s day and age wouldn’t be such a great idea because of the drastic economic and political pressures. To question all beliefs wouldn’t seem practical and would make you seem “mentally ill” in another person’s eyes. Descrates had much free time to question the beliefs his reality was based on. As humans, we tend to dig deeper into the ground when be believe “impossible” comes our way (realistic views). Without the inertia to look further, as we combine our current knowledge of reality to new ones, we would’ve grown to be extinct by now.

The Allegory of the Cave - Week 1

In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates suggests that, without philosophical education, we are all like the prisoners in the cave. What are your thoughts on this? How is philosophy supposed to be liberating? Do you think Socrates is right to be so pessimistic about life without philosophy?

       According to Socrates, the path of a philosophical education is a hard one to walk. Without philosophical education, we as humans lack that pursuit and Instead of gaining knowledge, we act like the prisoners in the cave and do exactly what we are told to do. Our society can be compared to the society of the prisoners. From the moment they were born, the prisoners were chained up so that they could not look in any direction except straight ahead. Shadows were cast behind them and they thought these shadows were real. For them a tree was nothing more but grey shadows and the stories being illustrated was their reality. They were told to never turn their heads and the prisoners obeyed every command. Our society today follows those same rules. When we are born, we are taught that we have to go to school, get an education, find a job, and then get married. No one questions this order of life because that is how it has always been done. It is what our parents did and their parents before that. Out of the entire group of prisoners, there was just one man who questioned this. He wanted to know what was on the opposite side of the wall and he took the risk to find out. He was not like all of the other prisoners who believed everything they were told. He wanted to gain more knowledge and his curiosity is what led him to achieve his pursuit of wisdom or philosophical education.  If he just followed his society and lived his life according to their norms, he would have never attained philosophical education. Is there a higher truth in our society that exists? I would sometimes question my parents when they explained the way they were brought up. At times, I would even revolt and try things my way to see if I can come up with a better outcome. I believe we are living in a society where sophists are roaming around telling us that there is no higher truth, no other reality, life is the way we live it now and there is no other knowledge to gain from this.  

       I believe Philosophy to be liberating because the prisoner who went in search of the truth attained freedom. He achieved freedom from his bonds, freedom from his life in the cave, and he even found happiness in his freedom. At first he rejected what he first saw and thought to himself that this can’t be real. However, after going into the light and being blinded by the sun, facing the pain on his eyes, he became liberated and realized that there was a higher truth.  The prisoner was amazed to find out a whole other world existed and wanted to share his treasure with the rest of his society but no one took him seriously. They all thought he was a fool and had lost his mind. If they had listened to him, they would have also been liberated and they would have shared the same happiness and joy he found in a life without bonds. However, because they did not want to go against their rules of life, they ended up living a miserable life compared to the prisoner who escaped. Attaining the knowledge of philosophy may also do the same for us. As I explained, in our society we wake up and go to work or school, from there we shop and go home. We may participate in an activity every so often, but our lifestyles don’t change. Socrates mentions the sun as the ‘good’ and therefore liberating the prisoner once he was introduced to the light. If we were to be liberated from the teachings of philosophy, what consequences would we face in today’s society? Would we also have a trial as Socrates did for our philosophical education?

       I do agree with Socrates that life is pessimistic without philosophy but as the cliché goes, “Ignorance is Bliss”. In his story, the prisoners in the cave were leading a miserable life. They lived in darkness and in chains that prevented them from moving. They were unhappy but were too afraid to change anything. When the escaped prisoner came back to help them escape in order to live a better and happier life, they laughed at him. They were scared to admit that the prisoner could actually be telling the truth. It was easier for them to pretend that he was crazy rather than to come together and change their way of life. If they had the wisdom, they would have known the prisoner was telling the truth and they would have all lead optimistic lives instead of pessimistic lives. I believe in today’s society we do reside in a cave blinded from the higher truth. As I said before if we were to gain the knowledge that Socrates wanted us to be aware of, how would we be able to get along in society? Just like Socrates, we would have an enmity with many people for questioning their wisdom and then get in trouble (arrested, ticket, death sentence). Without philosophy we are constantly taking orders from others to live blind life in the dark, Socrates believes that if we face the pain to see the brighter truth, we can be liberated. I do agree that life can be pessimistic without philosophy, but in today’s society, how will we know when we are liberated?

Week 0

Week 0:

What would you like to learn in philosophy? What would make this course a worthwhile and enriching experience for you? Perhaps you can discuss this in your first blog post!

Until recently the subject of philosophy was all a puzzle to me. As i have mentioned, philosophy's meaning from the greek breakdown simply means "the love of wisdom". Apart from knowing that much of philosophy, i do know that there are many things that we can learn from philosophy to give us a better understanding of life itself. How are we sure the ideas that have been taught to us are the right ones, and how would we know what right from wrong is? This may be a question that philosophy could help me to better understand. I would also like to explore the topic of human knowledge and is there a limit to how much we can learn? Is there a limit to how much we are allowed to know due to what's being introduced to us? There are many things hidden from the public, and we could all be brain washed without knowing. I have always believed in one cliche; dont believe what you dont see with your own eyes. There are a lot of things that were told, which we can't see, so how real can it be? Are we being told to believe what someone wants us to believe? I don't know if philosophy will answer any of these questions, however, i do believe it will help me to understand the reason.

My Blog

‘This will be my philosophy blog.
Hello, my name is Nijel. I am 23 years old, currently attending BMCC majoring in RTT. This is my second semester and i am looking foreward in hearing from my fellow classmates.

I look foreward to the material this course has to offer. I have been told that the word "Philosophy" was derived from the greek breakdown. Simply meaning "The pursuit of wisdom". I am looking foreward in observing and understanding the concepts of philosophy. I would also like to discuss the topic of human knowledge and by which means does it expand.