Questioning Egalitarianism

This will be a short post. I am very busy studying for certain things relative to my education. This post will question on of the principle components of Egalitarianism: that every person is entitled to equal opportunity. This view is a very westren-specific one, and is derived from similar views, such as: Autonomy, equal-rights, or free will. However, can we really hold a rational belief that people can really have equal opportunity?

The majority of human existence has been filled with suffering and strife, so how are we to hold that there really is equal opportunity when some of those that suffer choose not to suffer - and those who do not suffer have some how evaded the quintessential situation that haunts society?

Many may feel the temptation to respond by way of an appeal to some type of belief that we have "access" to the same "ability" to make life what it is. BUt this is completely false; can we really say that there are those who actually have access to the same ability that I have or you? And more so, what about those that have even more "access" than I or you? It seems that to respond in this way would be obviously a mistake.

Perhaps, we could hold that we were all "endowed" with certain unalienable rights and that among those are the equal chance to success relative to each person. But, if the former is true, then are we to say that the children born in Africa and suffer immensely have had their rights violated? And if so, then by whom? Maybe, God? - however that does not seem right, we wont blame that on him (even though some might). So, is it the REST of humanity that has violated the rights of this child by not aiding it to have the same opportunity or same situations that are some of us possess that are necessary to the correct perpetuation of one's ability to obtain the correct state of affairs to create "opportunity?"

So, what is it? What is it that make some feel that we are indeed equal? What makes us want to assert something that is obviously not the case?

Just some simple questions,
J.R.P

Philosophy

Kripke's Puzzle

To proceed, let us first list in detail what compromises Kripke’s Puzzle. Consider Pierre, a native French speaker that does not speak a word of English or any other language, one-day hears or considers the city of London. Upon considering this famous city, he utters the statement, in French, “Londres est jolie.” The translation of this utterance is, to some extent, London is beautiful. Following the Pierre’s utterance, we are able to conclude via the Disquotational Principle (which holds that: If a normal English speaker, on reflection, sincerely assents to ‘p’, then he believes that p) that Pierre believes that London is beautiful. So,
(1) Pierre believes that London is pretty.
Latter in Pierre’s life, he decides to relocate to London, and during some unspecified amount of time he learns English by way of “direct method”. However, upon moving to London, he is unfortunately placed in a part of London that is less than admirable. Pierre is then inclined to make the statement that:
(2) London is not pretty.
And as Kripke points out: he is under no inclination to assent to:
(3) London is pretty.
Suppose further, that Pierre is under no immediate inclination to abandon or revise his former beliefs that he held in France about the city that he knew as ‘Londres.’ From this we arrive at the folcum of Kripke’s puzzle. Kripke states that,
If we consider Pierre’s past back ground as a French speaker, his entire linguist behavior, on the same basis as we would draw such a conclusion about many of his countrymen, supports the conclusion ([1] above) that he believes that London is pretty… but then on the basis of his sincere assent to ([2]), we should conclude:
([4]) Pierre believes that London is not pretty.
How can we describe this situation? It seems undeniable that Pierre once believed that London is pretty – at least before he learnt English. For at that time, he differed not at all from countless numbers of his countrymen, and we would have exactly the same grounds to say of him… [However] it [now] seems that we must respect both Pierre’s French utterances and their English counterparts. So, we want to say that Pierre has contradictory beliefs (emphasis mine).
So, to reiterate the basic aspects of the puzzle deals with the idea that we have two contradictory utterances –in different languages- of X, and that via the Disquotation Principle, it follows that if those utterances were sincerely assented to, then the person P must believe X. If the prior is the case then P must possess contradictory beliefs.

I don't know what to make of this. Upon first glance, it compels me to hold Pierre to the fact that he seems to have contradictory beliefs. And at times, it makes me hold him to the fact that Pierre is just irrational. I think that there is a response to Kripke. Consider my solution:
Let us again suppose that at T1 Pierre holds x, and at T2 he holds ~x; but at T2 Pierre holds both x and ~x. That is to say that the properties that composed x at T1 hold relative to T1, or that x is “rigidly” fixed to T1. This means that there is some property or set of properties that composed x and that those properties are fixed to the states of affairs that were actualized at T1. So, even if he holds ~x at T2, he can still hold x relative to the states of affairs at T1 –and ~x is able to also hold for the states of affairs at T2.
This seems to work for Pierre, and we would hold that he just thinks that from one perspective London is beautiful and from another it is not.

I "might" wright more about this someday...
Best,
J.R.P

"Higher" Education and America's Future

In the USA we have fallen behind in the number of students who finish their proposed collage major. We also have the fourth lowest collage participation among competitive countries. Additionally, there seems to be a growing anomaly that has self-perpetuated since the late 1980s -that anomaly is what type of collage majors are actually graduating and entering society. The vast majority of collage graduates are located primarily in the discipline of Business (marketing, financing, accounting, and economics). Nevertheless, the USA -and much of the world- has seen a large slow-down in certain technological advances compared to prior decades. Additionally, we have seen a change in the total world population being considered in a state of "extreme" poverty, which has increased slightly since 1990 - but also there has been a jump in the number of people who are impoverished. Finally, there have been more economic problems since 1980 to 2008 than in the last 110 years combined! Who are we to thank? Is it not true that our society and its functioning depends on the younger generation which educates itself to become the leader? Yes, but why all the problems? One of the reasons for the problems we are experiencing, is the sever polarization of higher-education toward business majors and business related majors.
Why is such polarization bad? This answer is quite simple; as we progress toward one side of the spectrum of education we experience a imbalance of the collective and progressive thought of society, which also leads to less people (especially intelligent and productive people) participating in studies that could produce great beneficial discoveries for mankind. Nevertheless, those people have opted-out and have joined the dark and greed infested world of the merchants, and thus, we have seen a incredible -and unjustifiable- growth in world economies. This augmented growth in business majors is relative to other aspects (I am aware of this), but it has been principally generated by this idea that "business is the only way to go to make money." Of course I am aware that we must make "money" to survive -but do we make money to enrich our selves, to help others, or to use resources unnecessarily?
As I had noted earlier, there has been a reduction in extreme poverty in the recent ten years, but there has been an increase in poverty. This increase in poverty is partially due to the proliferation of large companies into third-world nations that take UNFAIR advantage of the lives of some of the desperate populations. Some may hold that such companies are doing a favor, and that the proliferation of business majors has lead to the increase from Poverty X to Poverty Y (Y being somewhat better than X). This is not a valid argument. The number of impoverished people has risen disproportionally to the amount that has left extreme poverty, so that means that some people have actually lost economic status.
Moreover, we have personally witnessed what happens to world economies when you let some ignorant money-savvy chump sit behind a desk and make millions of dollars a year by only knowing how to manage some company. Those men -and their greed- have caused a down fall of many american and human lives. This is unacceptable!
We have also seen a decline in human morality/ethics. It has been reported that white collar and 'simple' crimes have increased 20% in the last decade on a world-wide scale!
Now, all you economic majors should be aware of these states -after all you are a "Social Science" rigt? Yes, you are, but what has happened is that one of the most solid social studies has degenerated into the field of business. You see businessmen are cunning, and they know that economic majors should have some knowledge of how things move in society. Since their product deals with society it is logical to higher them -right? (By the way, I don't actually believe that many businessmen are logical)
The problem is that economics has taken its rank with finance guys, marketing people, and the exploitative sales jerks. Many economic majors that I speak to don't know @#!! about @#!! This is sad, and is the result of people thinking they can get a degree and go work for some major financial investment bank or firm and become rich! What good will that do, I ask? Going and sitting behind a desk making far more money than many of the worlds people, at the cost of the workers of society? Is that ethical?
So, I guess you could say that I shame you business majors. I shame what you have done to society, and you completely wastefulness. I also spit upon your misconceived notion that -if I am a businesses degree-holder, I will some day have my big company that makes me lots of money- in realty the majority of you guys run companies for guys that never went to school or studied something else.
We need, as a nation, revert back to the basics, the classics. Things that will allow us to survive are: Science, mathematics, physics, philosophy, sociology, engineering, chemistry and the like.

To bad that human egoism is so prevalent... God bless america.
J.R.P

P.S.
It is important to note that universities are, traditionally, the place of "higher-learning," and that should and would not usually include business studies; so, I think that we should just put all business studies in junior colleges or tec-schools (oops again.. they already do).
Here are some sources.
1) Major stats.
2) Major state 2
3) Poverty

Obama and Compulsory service?

Obama has proposed that there should be a type of "civil service" imposed upon the youth of america. I personally think that some aspects of this are great; except for the compulsory requirements that it might have to demand. Bellow is a copy of what certain members of his future cabinet aims to propose. You can read it here.

"We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs."

- First I would like to know what all of you think about this type of establishment, but before concluding, let me explain to you how this is a standard socialist conception. Most socialist feel that this is something that is beneficial to the society at large. Now, if being subject to a large and powefrul government is good, then I guess they are right. Also, how can they pass this reform with the following "wall" in there way (and I am not talking about the GOP minority). 

Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

The former is from the thirteenth amendment, which I like to call the freedom amendment. This amendment seems to prevent any type of compulsory service or obligation that may be imposed upon its people.

Thanks,

J.R.P

And here's to change!

The Disquotational Principle

I am preparing on writing a paper on Kripke and his essay, A Puzzle About Belief. In this Puzzle he raises (this is off the top of my head, so if I am wrong then forgive me) some problems about How we hold certain linguistically statements and how they associate with one's beliefs.  So, consider one of his puzzles

There is a man named Pierre, and Pierre learns that Skaowsky  is a famous polish pianist. He also learns that Skaowsky refers to a famous politician. Now, Pierre believes that no politician can produce good music, and thus, since Skaowsky is a politician he therefor cannot be a great pianist. 

This argument depends upon something called "the Disquotational Principle." This principle holds:

If S means P and a speaker understands and sincerely accepts (assents) to S, the the speaker believes P. 

DO ANY OF YOU THINK THAT THE PREVIOUS PRINCIPLE IS VALID? HOW WOULD ADJUST IT?

Mormon Church and Pro 8

There was recently "news-speak" about members of the LDS church leaving their position and affiliation with this church because of its opposition to gay marriages. You can read about it here.

I would like to speak out against those members who are leaving the LDS church and criticize them for their complete disregard for their former faith's positions and the knowledge that they should have possessed if they had previously even considered themselves members. The LDS church -to my understanding- has always opposed gay marriages and homosexuality in  all of its forms. It has been on record about describing such actions as, "contrary to God's plan" and as, " an abomination." So, why, first, would any member leave his or her church for the reason that their church decided not to change its mind in accordance with that particular member's view?

I think that any one person who feel that some religious institution, especially one that propounds the view that they are the true church - as the Mormon church does- should never have become member as per their faith was vain.  Moreover, if such an institution is true and of God, then should it change? Should God change his views on gay marriage? Perhaps, those mormon members of whom felt that they could not associate themselves with such a church should take a long walk and think about themselves and maybe read the Bible and see what will be the inevitable end to such supporters of evil. 

It is ridiculous that any member would leave their faith for such a trivial and stupid thing. Don't they know that since the beginning of the Bible and most organized religion, for that matter, have opposed Gay activities of all sorts? Don't they know that in the end, the Bible holds that such people will be burned as stubble? 

I admire the valor and strength of the LDS chruch to keep true to their word and doctrine. This shows that they are not another wishy-washy and fly-by-night non-denominational church that feels that they can adapt their doctrine to allow for they gay community to be accepted - or should I say, that they adapt to keep the offering basket full...

Anyway, shame on those ex-members, and I hope that some of them read this, shame on your lack of investigative capabilities, and I think that the LDS church is better off without your weakness; especially, since the purpose of the gospel is to cleanse the earth from all evil though the blood of the lamb, and getting rid of those week links is part of that.

Best, 

J.R.P