Another Day in Paradise... Are you sure?

For the last 2 years I have grown a desire to focus on humanitarian efforts. I think that we have lost the value of what life is, as a nation that is, and perhaps... humanity has. I also feel strongly that the economic perversion that has perpetuated itself and integrated into virtually every society has caused more pain than pleasure. WE MUST CHANGE! We must go back to the roots of capitalism and adapt them to the needs of society. WE MUST help and educate those that were raised or have experienced adverse conditions that have caused their suffering. This desire has been one of the main reasons for my desire to educate myself - I pray that I may one day be a tool to bring about the improvement and benefit of at least some of my fellow men.

Here is a great song that you should listen to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiQNyIB_5kY

Leave a comment about your feelings.

Is God Free?

This post may not be as long as I would like, but I will attempt to make it as precise as possible. While sitting in church on Sunday, I was contemplating the ability of God to be able to preform some action. While thinking about the later, I came to the conclusion that God is not a free agent. This was supprising to me, and I quickly attempted to find justification that would negate my conclusion. Nevertheless, my attempts proved to be utterly unavailing. Thus, I obviously decided to continue my analysis of why it is that God was not free. This is what appears to support this claim:

1. God is all-knowing (omniscient).
2. God is all-good (omnibenevolent).
3. If (1) then God always knows what it is the he will do.
4. If (2) then God always does that which promotes or allows for the greatest good.
If (1) and (2), are true then from (3) and (4) we deduce:
5. God is not free.

So, the proof (1-5) holds that God can only do that which he knows to be good and consequently he already knows that which he is going to do. If that is true, despite the obvious obscurity about whether or not God can choose that which is future or possible, then it must be the case that God is not free with regards to some action. The additional result is that God can not even choose amid some set of options; like: a set of choice's say, A and B. As per A is always better than B or B must always be better than A for God.
Some may make the objection that some set of options say, C and D are exactly equal both quantitatively and qualitatively, then God could make the choice amid C and D base upon some ability of preference. However, for those who make this claim they must understand that if C and D are numerically identical (in terms of properties) then they run into Leibniz's law, which states: if any two objects A and B possess exactly the same properties then A and B are exactly the same thing. This means that if A=B and B=A then the result if some type if tautology such as: A=b and B=A the AB=BA and BA=AB --> A=A and B=B (B&A+A&B)=(A&B+B&A). So it does not matter which is chose as per A and B are the same thing.

Obama and HONOR

President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993 -according to a report made in The Guardian.

We are currently experiencing a sever recession, which could be or is the worst financial crisis since the depression. Additionally, the world has been struck with problems that have never before been so prolific and sever. Nevertheless, as bailouts span our financial sector and americans are loosing jobs and homes, President Obama will spend at least 150 million on a "party". I remeber why Ex-president Bush took office and the media (and several democratic leaders) critizied him for excessivness for example:

“Many have wondered whether, given the war and all of our security challenges right now, it’s appropriate to have a lavish and expensive inaugural celebration?”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Laura Bush in a taped interview shown on the January 20 Good Morning America.

“President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?
■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

If Bush's inauguration cost sufficient for 200 humvees and health treatment for 22 million children, what would Obama's inauguration do for us as a nation and the world? I suppose we could say that it could buy 610 humvees, and help over 66 million children! It is utterly ridiculous that the man of "change" would damage even further the current stress placed on the taxpayer! How ungrateful and unhonorable. Roosevelt, during his inauguration felt that it would be a dishonor to do anything "excessive" he merely served cold salad and gave a short speech! If Obama wanted to be about "Change", he would merely provide a speech and then get his ass to work. If this is going to be a example of what is to come with a democratic congress and president, then may his 4 years pass quickly and may he be kicked out of office -or impeached!

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