Civil Disobedience .

 Laws get broken everyday from something petty to things much more serious. But the only condition in which it would be morally justifiable to break the law is under the circumstance that the law is immoral and not justified. If the law is one that isn't to protect us or they violate us and our rights or are used to control us it is immoral. The underlying reasons to have laws are to protect us not harm us although we may not agree with certain laws they are put in place for a reason. So yes i would in fact agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all' and if it is in fact an unjust law this is where civil disobedience comes into play and we as a society can do something about it. For the people to peacefully get there point across to their government. Instances where it would be legitimate reason to use civil disobedience are things such as slavery, taking away voter rights, segregation, and gay pride for example. These are examples of things that oppress a certain group or people and would be unfair, unjust and immoral. so in my opinion unjust laws aren't meant to do good they are meant to do harm to people so it shouldn't be considered a law at all if good for only a certain group of people comes out of it. The Government is suppose to create a unified society with equal rights and opportunities for everyone. 

Individual & State .

Both Marx and Mill make very valid points. i agree with Mill on his belief that individual's should be able to make their own decisions and choose what they want to do as long as it isn't harming anybody else. we have to understand that we are all different and if even if we may feel as if something is wrong and not the way we do things this doesn't mean that the next person feels the same way. Marx also makes a very important point that laws by the state are essential in order to keep a balance. in my opinion laws aren't put in place to control us but they are put in place to keep things orderly and basic things we know shouldn't be done and remind us that there are consequences if we break these laws. Without laws things would be complete chaos and very violent. laws are put in place for our protection. even though laws don't prevent bad things from happening they are still play a major and important part in society. Mill argued that so long as you aren't being forced to do something by the state then you are free.but in my opinion it is hard to clearly determine what being free is. i can in fact see how certain laws of the state may effect a certain individual more than others and be seen as interfering with freedom but i don't think they are meant for the state to control us. 

Week 9 - BUDDHISM .

               I actually do believe that it is possible to live according to the teachings of buddhism in the contemporary United States. Although it is a major conflict between what Buddhism teaches and  how we are encouraged to think and act within our society. I believe that if a person truly wants to live their life a certain way they can, with hard work and determination. according to buddhism the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our desires. Suffering is caused by selfish cravings and desires. which is completely true. Our society creates this image of the perfect life that has a lot to do with materialistic things which in the end don't necessarily amount to happiness. and we cause ourselves to suffer because we are selfish and don't care about anyone but ourselves for the most part and the desire to be better than everyone else and have power and live lavish lifestyles that are unrealistic. The contemporary United States paints this image, and Buddhism in a sense paints the picture of being happier with the simpler things and when we detach from our narrow concerns with ourselves and truly become enlightened and live our lives to their fullest potential. I think it's possible to live this way although it's not easy i think it would make things much better and the world would be a completely different place if everyone were to follow the teachings of buddhist. It would be a simpler United States, with selfless people who were actually concerned about the world around them not just themselves in the world.

Cosmological and Design Argument.

             The cosmological argument argues that the existence of the universe requires and explanation and active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe. Generally assumed to be God.
              The design argument uses and argument by analogy. Paley suggests an analogy between a watch and the universe. like a watch the universe exhibits such a complex design that it could have only been the creation of an intelligent will. 
              I think both of the arguments do have valid points that may cause a person to question their religious beliefs but i don't think that the arguments are strong enough to change someone's religious convictions because of how much different religions vary and believe different things about God, but i do think either argument can generally be related to someones religious beliefs because things had to start some where and in a sense might make their beliefs stronger and give them more reason to believe in their religion because they feel like it gives them a clearer sense of understanding why things they way they are and how they became this way. But both argument fall short once they start to get in details and start explaining further. The questions how? or why? constantly came to mind while reading about both arguments or in fact when learning about any religion. Not saying that there isn't A God but it comes to a certain point when learning about religion where things cannot be explained by facts but by belief and faith in that religion. Faith plays a major role in religion when things cannot be explained and faith has no role in philosophical argument. 

Computers the New Human Being ?

        I would have to agree with John Searle that computers are not really intelligent, they just stimulate intelligence. Although computers are programmed to respond to different commands and we as human beings are to 'programed' to perform certain task, but this type of 'programing' in humans is not the same as in a computer programed to respond to different comands. computers are intelligent because humans set them up to be that way in order to make things easier for us. i see how they both can be compared to one another and i do believe that society does in fact 'program' us to be a certain way and our location in the world has a different way of doing so. We as human beings develop our intelligence in our daily lives by doing difficult things like learning new languages and more simple things like walking intelligence isn't programmed into us like it would be in a computer. 

Pragmatism & Feminism Epistemology - Week 4

         i do in fact believe that pragmatism and feminism epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as detached intellectual activity. for pragmatist every belief is like a scientific hypothesis and every action is based on beliefs is like an experiment that either confirms or refutes viability. we should all think that we start our lives with natural or basic knowledge that is expected to develop through experience as we grow through life. we as human beings do learn through experience from young ages. for example as toddlers our parents all told us not to touch something because it was hot they knew it would hurt us but we still had to see for ourselves was it really hot and would it hurt. often learning the hard way is the way many people gain knowledge. 
        To me knowledge isn't about how much informations and facts you can memorize but knowledge is to truly understand things we believe in and what we want to know and get out our lives. overall each and everything we experience adds to our knowledge and we develop and learn from it .

Empiricism - Week 3 .

         Empiricism claims that all of our knowledge is based on our use of senses. In many ways this statement is completely true, but in some cases this claim does fall short. for the most part i believe this is true because from infants we learn many things just based off what we see, we learn to talk based off what we hear, which why people who have lost there hearing have a hard time pronouncing words they do not know what the word should sound like and can't hear themselves saying it to know whether they used correct  pronunciation. For example my niece who is one years old is learning and developing her vocabulary day by day didn't really know how to talk clearly or write and read yet but would make the noise of each letter in the alphabet because she had heard it so much. we as human beings do primarily learn through and from experience of our senses but as we get older more factors come into play and not just our senses. i think mathematical knowledge is one of the main. in a way i believe we learn mathematical through our senses without even realizing i say this because after we a taught a formula and know what it stands for when we see it the next time we automatically know what to do based on out last experience. but as mathematics gets difficult we cannot alway count on experience to give us correct knowledge.