Why Obama won Re-Election in 2012

Okay, I’ve been trying to understand why Barack Obama won re-election to the Presidency.

On one hand, it IS frustrating for us common people to watch the Warren Buffetts, Mitt Romneys, and Donald Trumps of the world live in luxury while our parents, grandparents, and own selves have slaved in some rathole of a job, training for this certification or that one, still barely able to make ends meet – not to mention actually try to save money for our children’s college or a real vacation – and failing to complete those goals year-after-year. There seems to be a perpetual unfairness about the American capitalistic system and many believe that this system keeps us down. That part is understandable even though it is probably an inaccurate perspective based on a misunderstanding of the capitalistic system, including its merits and pitfalls (more on that later). It is also based on a lack of appreciation for all we DO have compared to other countries. We are somewhat spoiled by our success and sometimes do not realize how fragile it is.


On the other end of the spectrum, Obama has promoted ideas that fly in the face of what many Americans live and die for. He has implied in one way or another, that America is not to be seen in the following manners: America the Beautiful; America the compassionate country that gives food, aid, and assistance to millions of needy peoples; America, land of opportunity; America, the strong, who will protect and fight against tyranny and oppression; and last-but-not-least, America, land of the free. "Freedom" seems to be considered a dirty word for Obama and his supporters. "Success" seems to be something bad and those who are successful are portrayed as greedy and heartless and immoral. In George Orwell’s book, 1984, images were flashed repeatedly to people in order to brainwash them. One of those images was, “Freedom is Slavery.” This belief is now a reality with the majority of our population.


Why do I say this? Am I making up these opinions about the President? No. I attempt to teach Social Ethics and also Political Philosophy to mostly twenty-something year-olds. I’ve created discussion forums that ask about how much freedom they need or want, how close the safety net should be under a person, and what should the extent of government be. I’ve had literally thousands of responses to these questions over the years. Out of any given class of about twenty students, only one or two expresses the opinion that government should just leave them alone unless there is some great threat, such as an invasion. All the rest of the students make comments such as, “Without government there would be chaos! Anarchy! Craziness!” I keep reminding them that we are not talking about NO government; we are talking about the extent and purpose of government. But I seem to have a difficult time getting through because they repeat their similar responses again and again, as if the question is about all or nothing – total nanny state or total anarchy. The nanny state wins every time.


Most of the students say they only want a simple life; they will be happy if: the government can give them a job; the government can give them a decent wage; the government can help them find a place to live and a loan for a car. For the most part, that’s all the modern young adult seems to want.


This is diametrically opposed to the Ellis Island immigrants who worked doing anything they could, including buying and selling hot dogs for a profit, buying cloth and sewing clothes then selling those clothes; and saving every nickel and dime to purchase a machine to create products for profit. The Asian “Boat People,” who escaped communist countries because they had little-to-no freedoms for upward mobility, speech, religion, or marriage, these people learned to take advantage of freedom. Immigrant after immigrant learned to ply a trade and create something from little. That kind of freedom has disappeared – not because of the super-rich folks oppressing them or under-bidding them out of the market -- but because of the governmental licensing, fees, certifications, and taxes now imposed on even the smallest of businesses. Even neighborhood child-lemonade stands are being shut down.


The Obama voters were angry because they seem to believe there is a fixed amount of wealth to be distributed out to everyone. Each time they see one rich old white man (such as Romney), this somehow contributes to another person being poor, usually some poor person of color. They describe wealth as if wealth was a cookie jar filled with a certain number of cookies; and cookies are taken or dispensed by individuals or groups. The rich must be “taking” more than their fair share of cookies, which leaves less for others. This view of economics is a complete misunderstanding of the system of capitalism; this perspective of economics comes from a socialistic/Marxism viewpoint. In fact, their opinions would be right on the money in a socialist/Communist country. Prices are fixed, amounts are fixed -- everything is standardized regardless of the market demands or value of a product.


Capitalism, on the other hand, CREATES wealth by someone or some group producing something that has value (or increasing the value of an existing thing). The more the rich person makes, the more everyone benefits; the more any person makes, the more taxes paid and the more governmental programs can be supported. The way a capitalist thinks is NOT to cheat others out of their fair share but to get as much value (profit) for their merchandise. The more other people want their stuff, the more profit is made; the more profit is made, the more taxes are paid; the more profit is made, the more people can be hired and paid salaries; the more people make, the more taxes they pay; the more people make, the more stuff they purchase – all of which grows the pie so everyone makes more, even though the people at the top can make ten to a million times more.


When liberal politicians pass laws that increase taxes (to pay for more government programs and employees), the capitalists tend to spend less, invest less, research less, and produce less. Liberal economists and politicians accuse Republicans and Libertarians as using "Trickle-down" economics,where the breaks are all given to the rich in hope that they will pass some of their breaks along to their employees. What these liberal thinkers are describing, however, is not the dirty-named trickle-down economics but CAPITALISM itself.


Capitalists find shortcuts and offshore accounts to save money and increase profits; in capitalism, that is considered smart; in Marxism, that is considered immoral -- and the liberal press has convinced people that we should look through a Marxist perspective. The capitalists do not produce wealth for the same reasons as a non-profit government entity; they are producing wealth because people want to make their own stuff and because they like having control over their own livelihoods. If the government is going to try and determine how much money they can make, how much is taken from them, and even what they can make – then why should the capitalists even dream of great things?


The Obama voters believe in other false – but understandable -- liberal perspectives, such as the GOP wanting to end abortions, end unions, end same-sex marriages, destroy the environment, and keep the poor down. Yet abortion is a Supreme Court issue not made by the President or his administration; most conservatives simply want to stop public/tax-payer-funded abortions. Most conservatives support unions, only not out-of-control, tax-payer funded public unions whose members make twice the market average salary. And finally, regarding same-sex marriage, only a few states even allow same-sex marriage; most GOP members want a states-decide referendum – not a “one size fits all” law mandated to those states that are mostly against it.

If you belong to the Sierra Club or GreenPeace, you are probably liberal and say you want to protect the environment. I've belonged to these clubs and they do very little to really help. If you go to a "Beautification Day" to volunteer and pick up trash, you'll find most of the people who show up to be conservatives. Isn't that odd? The media portrays conservatives as environment killers because of "Drill-baby-drill" proposals yet conservatives want to protect the parks and natural beauty of the world -- but in a practical sense, knowing that we need energy to run the economy and protect our way of life. Liberals seem to lose rational thinking and run on ideology. OF COURSE we want clean energy! But don't ruin the country hoping that money will create it out of thin air. Provide incentives for companies to develop it -- not demands that oppress companies. If companies know they will benefit in the long run, they will invest more and we'll all benefit from their "greed."

In other words, if my students and the general blogosphere are any indication, they have misconstrued almost every perspective that a Mitt Romney kind-of-person believes. What about the misconstrued notions about President Obama? Some believe he is a Muslim; some believe he is a communist; some believe he is deliberately destroying the American economy in order to declare martial law and create a new government; some believe Obama is not an American citizen, was not raised as an American, and does not understand what it means to be an American.


The facts about Obama are mostly clear: his mother was for the most part an Atheist and believer in Marxism; his original father (Barack, Sr.) was an Atheist; his step-father was a Muslim; Obama was raised in a Muslim environment in Indonesia for a very short period then came back to America; Obama was then raised by his grandmother in Hawaii in an elite environment (Punahou High school, while she was a bank vice-president); then off to college on the mainland. In his two books, most of the people mentioned as his great influences were anti-white or anti-capitalist Marxists. He states this repeatedly, in his own words. He began to identify himself with Black-America in Hawaii, and later as a globalist, rather than as an American. Frank Marshall Davis and others were some of his early influences. Obama himself describes his dilemma about his dual race and makes it clear that he identifies with his African/black side. Davis and others that he admired were proud Marxists. Why would Obama himself praise and even claim to be a student of numerous avowed Marxists unless he was at least a little sympathetic to the cause of Marxism and its manifestations: Communism and Socialism? These are not my opinions; these are all things Obama openly writes about.


Are the conservatives being irrational by bringing up these issues? Why are Obama supporters convinced that Obama is a true-blue American who believes in capitalism and “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”? They must since they praise his realness and authenticity, and his looking out for them. What evidence do they have, other than his words?


Can we conclude that Obama himself is a racial activist, hating white people? Probably not, even though he makes a number of disturbing anti-white comments in his books. Can we conclude that Obama is a Muslim because of his background in and around Muslim countries and his own relatives being Muslim? Probably not, since he describes his spiritual journey and claims to be Christian, which is all a person can really do. His allegiance with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an anti-white, Black Liberation Theology pastor, whom Obama listened to for 23 years and called his spiritual mentor, is disturbing – at least it should be for any white person. To be preached that the white European culture is evil year-after-year can have a powerful effect on a person’s psyche and world view. I attended a few similar gatherings in Hawaii, thinking we were all fighting against racism but instead, each meeting was simply an anti-white, anti-European, anti-capitalism tirade.


Whenever a conservative person says that they are for or against something, the liberal seems to interpret that as meaning the conservative will impose those beliefs upon the liberals as well. Why would a liberal believe this? Maybe it is because that is what liberals do when they are in power so they project their own behavior onto conservatives. The idea behind liberalism is to protect some people from other evil, greedy people. The reason government gets large when liberals are in power is because the liberal government is trying to manage everything possible, making sure that people play fair, that rules are being followed, that the rich and powerful are not polluting the environment and exploiting the masses. What this means is that the mindset of a liberal is to control others; whereas the mindset of a conservative is to release control over others and empower the individual.


But what about things such as abortion, same-sex marriage, women and minority rights? Don’t republicans want to control other people’s choices and freedoms regarding these issues? No, actually, they don’t. Republicans have been one of the most active parties in ensuring those rights, contrary to popular belief. The Republican party was created just before Abraham Lincoln’s election mainly as an anti-slavery party. All one has to do is look up who proposed which laws (banning slavery, civil rights, etc.). Republicans proposed and sought equal rights much more often than Democrats; however, nowadays, since Democrats propose more benefits to women and minorities, they have become the party of choice for liberals. Liberals believe that these benefits are necessary for the normal decency of life. Liberals believe that the Democrats are the party of compassion. Lincoln was a Republican for the reasons of freedom and limited government and the goodness – not the evil – that resides in all people: black; white; male; female.


The abortion issue has to do with life, as in Life, Liberty…. Conservatives revere innocent life and abhor evil life. They want to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, who choose to do bad. What about same-sex marriage? They want to preserve the institution of marriage, based on Natural Law. What’s natural law? The implied law of nature that says it takes one man and one woman to bond and make a family so that is the natural marriage. Even if people cannot or will not have children; even if a couple divorces; even if there have been occasional multi-person examples, it does not affect the natural law of marriage. Liberals can argue about fairness and equality of love until the cows come home but natural law will always be considered the same for a conservative – one man, one woman. I suspect this will be an even trickier moral dilemma in the future.


Foreign affairs differences between Obama and Romney are interesting. Obama projected a traditionally Democratic position of defense: smile and Kowtow to the real bullies in the world, then sneakily bomb those same bullies with drones (Clinton’s preference was Tomahawk missiles). Democratic presidents have been brutally murderous via our military but always try to project an anti-military position to the American population. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson all pushed for massive attacks on usually-undeclared enemies. The GOP, on the other hand, chooses to have a Big-Dog military with big sticks approach. The GOP idea is to prevent aggressive behavior by our enemies by threats of slapping the aggressor upside the head if they get out of line (e.g., Iraq after they invaded Kuwait). The world and liberals promote the idea of the U.S. as being the bully, the wolf – but we have more often been the strong sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves, not the wolf. We could have taken oil, countries, goods, and many other things if we wanted – but that is not who we are. Most modern History books, and history teachers, focus on the evil that the United States has done, and include only token lessons about the good we've done. Contrarily, most of us who've studied history from a different perspective see the U.S. as a hugely positive force in the world, with some embarrassing and negative moments.


The recent Benghazi incident in Libya, on the anniversary of the 9-11 attack, was something new. I suspect the White House action was a uniquely Obama-esque, modern liberal, technique. They seem to fear offending the new Muslim Brotherhood governments so apparently wanted to stay out of the way once the attack on our Ambassador began. The fighting went on for seven hours, with our people pleading for assistance or evacuation as they valiantly fought. The President and his Cabinet insisted that an anti-Islamic video was the cause – now we know that it was a planned attack by Al-Qaida. Regardless the reason for the attack, in the past we had a, “No man left behind,” policy. We are all still waiting for the explanation why these Americans were not saved. During the election season, the Network television stations and other mainstream media outlets either rarely mentioned the deadly event or twisted it up into bizarre, pretzel stories – so the public rarely knew about the inept – if not criminal – behavior of the Administration.


So why did Barack Obama win not only the Presidency but the majority of people’s confidence and the hearts of the non-rich minorities? I can only think that most people have gross misperceptions of Mitt Romney and the Republicans and equally gross misperceptions of Barack Obama and the Democrats. The comments read and interviews listened to from liberal voters shows a lack of knowledge about history, economics, and politics. Of course, there are pockets of racism, arrogance, and ignorance on the right but it is not systemic throughout the party -- as is the ignorance promoted by the left. On the other hand, based on what liberals see on television, what they’ve learned in public anti-American History classes, and what they are reading from the mainstream media, none of us should be surprised. They make rational decisions based on the bits of information they have received. It makes sense that President Obama is looking out for the common American while mean-old Republican Mitt Romney is only thinking about himself and the rich -- who want to cut all the benefits for the poor and women while lining their own pockets. This is what is pushed by the media day-in and day-out. So it is not surprising that people buy the liberal agenda even if it flies in the face of facts or most people's personal beliefs.


Many Americans do NOT know where wealth comes from; they do NOT know why our founders created a republic based on enumerated freedoms; and they certainly do NOT know when they are being bamboozled by those who wish to create a weakened United States and what dangers that weakening will attract from our enemies. Our enemies are clearly waiting in the wings, loving ever moment we self-implode.


These are some of my thoughts about why Barack Obama won the election.

Society in Silent Chaos

Do we care about which laws are passed and how our taxes are spent if we don’t really expect to follow the laws or pay the taxes? Today, there is an under-the-table kind of debate going on in our society: Should we allow non-violent criminals to go unpunished and enforce only “serious” laws or should we enforce the laws as written even if the jails are expensive and recidivism is rampant? Should we enforce immigration laws when millions of illegal/undocumented immigrants are living and working in our neighborhoods? Should we enforce drug laws when 70% of local inmates are in jail for marijuana possession or distribution, and most people don’t think pot is that as bad as alcohol? Should we respect law enforcement when we see a steady stream of stories about corrupt law enforcers?

The media presents a story to its public that goes like this: Leaders and police are not to be trusted; marijuana is not so bad but tobacco cigarettes are evil; illegal immigrants should be given compassion, not a one-way ticket home; and lastly, we should not cut any “essentially helpful” government program, regardless of how ineffective it may be or how much tax money is taken from the rich people to pay for it.

Looking at just these three issues, one might justify an argument that concludes a future collapse of the United States. The United States, it’s Constitution, and its success was based on several ideal premises. It is a “republic” form of government, meaning that people elect other people to represent them to enact and enforce laws. There were ideals put forth by the founders that has strengthened our nation. People were assumed to possess inalienable rights, such as life, liberty (autonomy), and the pursuit of happiness. People were assumed to have equal rights under the law.

People were assumed to be self-sufficient but could not fend off an invading country or be at the voting table making laws when there were crops to tend to. Therefore a government infrastructure must be there to protect people and taxes must be paid to establish an infrastructure for roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Today, many people do not follow nor respect the laws. Stand on any street long enough and you’ll see cars speeding, people littering, pot smoke wafting in the air, and jaywalking.

Personal responsibility is considered a joke. Today, it is typical for a sports-championship city to get trashed by revelers who destroy cars, throw bricks through windows, and burn police vehicles. Today, many people do not pay any taxes to pay for governmental infrastructure programs, yet we expect these people to care about taxes imposed.

Today, people do not consider autonomy as important as they do personal safety, and consider the term “freedom” a codeword for allowing the rich to abuse the poor. The important decisions, such as defense of our borders or foreign wars, are assumed to be made by others. The trivial decisions, like personal appearance or television shows watched, are considered important protected rights. Personal responsibility, as before, is considered someone else’s issue.

Today, people expect free public services, such as education, hospitalization, legal defense, and decent wages. Yet those services are not held accountable for their success, tend to be wasteful and inefficient, and are not free (someone is paying for these unproductive services).

If a society gives everyone the same opportunities, of course the strong and the smart will tend to rise to the top and become the movers and shakers, the land-owners and leaders. But we all know that not everyone starts from the same socio-economic status in society. Some people start life already rich, with parents who already have great educations and jobs. These children will become the leaders of tomorrow. It seems awfully unfair.

The deck is already stacked against most people, some more than others. A 20th-century philosopher named John Rawls proposed a kind of lottery where people draw lots and are randomly assigned stations in life – mayor, garbage collector, rich, poor. He concluded that our station in life determines to a great extent our future success. But what about the grandparents who saved, worked three jobs, and sent their children to college versus the ones who sat around watching reality shows all day?

The children of hard-working, sacrificing people grow up to be successful and established in the elite positions of society and their children will be raised in privileged households. They will go to music and dance classes, golf weekends, robotics and NASA camps.

How can a child from a poor background, with alcoholic or drug-addicted parents, expect to succeed against these other children? There is a way but it will take a complete effort and possibly several generations. Very few people born with “silver spoons” in their mouths become people of great character – unless their parents taught them some of life’s hard lessons.

Studies show that some people succeed regardless their background circumstances. In Transpersonal Psychology, we studied “self-actualizing” people. In other words, people who seemed to transcend themselves, people who seemed to be the happiest and seemed to be more satisfied with their lives than others. They tended to focus on the effort, not the outcome. They set goals then focused on the present moment, doing the best they can, not wishing they were somewhere else, and never regretting their past choices because they knew that they did they best they could at the time. The only choices they regretted were those where they did not think to choose and just blindly did something.

Self-actualizing people think beyond themselves to their entire sphere of influence. They are open-minded but make sound decisions; they learn about diverse topics but develop foundations to stand on; they take calculated risks but accept the inevitable setbacks. They are disciplined but not dogmatic. Why am I mentioning these people? Because when it comes to raising children or developing a society, we should be conscious of how our politics and the media are shaping people. Are we encouraging people to make tough decisions or do we expect others to make tough decisions for us?

Do we expect to be held accountable for our choices or do we expect a pass whenever we make a bad decision so we don’t really think much about it? Whenever a percent of the funding for a governmental program is cut, there is an outcry from the public. “Education cuts? You are hurting our children!” “Medicaid cuts? You are hurting the poor!” “Social Security cuts? You are hurting the elderly!” Yet each of these governmental programs has been thoroughly analyzed and determined to be bloated, inefficient, and generally unsustainable.

How are we so idiotic that we stick our heads in the sand rather than propose serious changes? People exclaim, simplistically, “But we need to educate the children!” “We need to care for the poor!” “We need to care for the elderly who have put into the system all their lives!”

OF COURSE we need to do these things – but do we need to manage them so badly? Because that is what we are doing. These programs are terribly managed and heading for a fall off a steep cliff yet all we do is blame each other, wring our hands, and pass the buck. Big ideas, hard choices, and media responsibility must be part of the equation to save our society.

We Need A New Type of Science (part 1)

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” --Albert Einstein ===================================================== Introduction to the problem My book, Metaphysics for the Commoner, ended with a list of “eternal rules.” I am not exactly sure what is meant by the term “eternal rules,” maybe “perennial issues” or recurring themes would be more accurate. What I do know is that people have been experiencing particular types of experiences throughout human history and those feelings, thoughts, and impressions have a particular gist to them yet are almost universally brushed aside by the scientific community. Religious beliefs, mythologies, spirituality, even archetypes, and other invisible, non-empirical based concepts are seemingly thought of as products of a second-class mentality by the elite intelligencia. ====================================================== Here, I would like to pursue a better understanding of those eternal rules in a common, non-scientific manner. I do believe we should be investigating evidence of these “eternal rules” with rigorous philosophical and scientific methodologies – only not the stogy, closed-minded current guard. ====================================================== Philosophers tend to ignore these perennial patterns of experience because they have adopted a phenomenological approach to “knowing” reality – yet they ignore repeatedly-claimed phenomena. Scientists tend to shy away from “religious,” “spiritual,” and other “meaning”-based claims because these claims are too philosophical or psychological; arguments given by realists generally avoid these topics because they do not seem accessible to empirical testing. How can one perform a repeatable experiment about “God” or “karma” or claims of predestination? These ideas do not fit into current scientific models of reality therefore are often considered superstitious fiction, the domain of the ignorant, or obsolete primitive thinking. At best, these “supernatural” claims are not considered applicable to scientific investigation; at worst, these topics are considered beneath serious thinkers. ============================================== I would like to remind those realists that all or nearly all of our current knowledge already comes from “meaning”-based inferences. Each word you are now reading can only be understood because we have mentally associated a meaning to the group of shapes we call written words. We do the same with the groups of sounds we call spoken words. If we simply discover intricate details of, for example, letter shapes, via empirical testing, this does not imply knowledge of the meanings of those letters. =============================================== Similarly, the important truths discovered throughout scientific, philosophical, and theological pursuits were truths of meaning, not of the mechanical – illusory – shell that surrounded the meaning. Theological pursuits tend to be interpretations of “revealed truth”; philosophical pursuits tend to be discovering a more accurate and rational meaning of everything – “How can that be?” “Why is it that way?” and scientific pursuits tend to explain the practical, mechanistic-shells (observable principles) that surround an underlying truth – the how and empirical why -- but not the meanings. Theology looks at grand declarations; philosophy looks at grand meanings; science looks at grand descriptions. Each perspective has its worth but none possess exclusive access to reality. ===================================================================== Science in the maze:

=========================================================== I would like to give an example of how people, well-intentioned, smart-as-whips people, might be led astray. Applied Science has seemingly contributed amazing benefits to people around the world for over 150 years (medicines, cell phones, materials technology, and so forth). Scientists seem to be learning more about the world and the way it works year after year. They are learning to understand the inner workings of the atom, the workings of the DNA molecule, and the larger cosmos (Black Holes, String Theory, etc.). ============================================================ What if, however, it is the scientist’s methodology itself that leads them to those conclusions? What if scientists’ assumed axiomatic premises can only lead to the conclusions that they are gradually concluding? In other words, the scientist is looking in a mirror and not discovering the truth about reality but only seeing him-or-herself (and his-or-her particular limitations) more and more clearly. Bear with me. ============================================================== Suppose our physical reality is like a maze. We make our way through the passageways by using our own “free will,” but the walls do exist – they are not illusions. At least, our senses tell us they exist. By using the scientific method, we can investigate the world of our senses (in this analogy, the walls of the maze) and gradually develop a picture of the empirical world. We have clear evidence that can be cited and tested. ============================================================== Science can move us forward through the maze. It can help us find the corners, the passageways, the right ways and the ways that lead us to dead ends. Science helps us discover the “true” path through the maze. What if, however, that regardless how closely we look at the walls and measure the hallways like a blind man through a funhouse, the maze is a very limited reality. What if we could climb up a ladder, above the entire maze, and look down at the intricate passages?

=============================================================== What if we climb up to one of the watchtowers and peer down on the maze from above and can see the people struggling to find their way through. From above, we can see where the various branches lead and also see which branch leads to the exit (or pot of gold or a Heaven-like place or a Hellish place). =============================================================== Then what? We look down and see the scientists testing the walls and making their conclusions but it is clear that their conclusions are based upon a limited perspective. They are in the maze and their activities seem somewhat petty from this new perspective. Are they wrong? No, not exactly. They are clearly discovering the details of the maze. How do we explain our point of view to the people within the maze? What words and ideas do we use to explain things that are not within the 3-D physical maze, words and ideas that do not fit within the parameters of the maze? Words and ideas that include new dimensions? =============================================================== How do we explain our point of view to the scientists, who study the maze itself and are not geared for phenomena outside the range of the maze? How do we describe what is all around the maze without people thinking you are imagining things, making up things, or being deceived? (end of part 1)

How Do You Know?

A Philosophical Video Short

Cast of Characters:

Mr. Carter = Philosophy Professor
Ashley Smith = White student
Lakisha = African American office worker
Mrs. Thompson = Office supervisor
Johnson = Soldier
Sergeant = Voice of sergeant
Bill = AC Technician Helper
Matt = AC Technician
Couple = Young couple in car
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theme:

Who knows, we might be living in parallel worlds at this very moment, say the Quantum physicists. Philosophers ponder these issues and more through the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science. Who knows what is really real or who we really are?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLASSROOM SCENE I:

In a typical college classroom, a philosophy teacher (Mr. Carter) is addressing the students:

CARTER:
“What do you know with absolute certainty?”
A white student raises her hand.

ASHLEY:
“I know that I’m Ashley Smith.”

CARTER:
How do you know that?

ASHLEY:
Because that’s what everyone calls me; that’s what I’ve always been called; that’s what is on my birth certificate; that’s what my Mom calls me. I’m sure that I am Ashley Smith.

CARTER:
Birth certificates can have mistakes on them or even be forged; babies can be accidentally switched in the hospital nursery; people can call you lots of things but that doesn’t make it your real name.

ASHLEY:
But, regardless what they call me, I’m still the same physical person, so I am me. I’m certain of that.

CARTER:
So, you know that you exist right now, at this moment? How do you know this.

ASHLEY:
I can see what’s around me. I have memories of doing things through the years. I can remember when I was ten years old and playing with my cousins. I remember going to work yesterday and driving to school this morning. I DO exist – I remember the things that happened in my life!

CARTER:
So you’re saying that because you seem to remember things, images and impressions that make up a consistent story in a convincing way, even though they are not happening right now, then you are absolutely sure that all those things really happened the way you remember them, so your memories are really the key to you knowing with absolute certainty that you are who you think you are and that your life has really occurred the way you remember it occurring? Is that what you’re basing your certainty on?

ASHLEY:
Not just my memories. My memories were made up of present moments like right now. I can see you; I can hear you. I can feel myself breathing and talking. I definitely exist right now (a little frustrated).

CARTER:
How do you know that you can see me and hear me? How do you know you feel yourself breathing? How do you know you have memories, these memories that you are basing your whole life on? How do you know they are accurate or actually even represent real events that happened?

ASHLEY:
Wha…..?? (confused & disbelieving look)
????
I…just…know….

CARTER:
HOW do you know that you’re really here at this moment? That you are who you think you are? That you live the life you think you’re living? HOW do you know these things? Our senses, our minds, our beliefs, are easily manipulated. A magician, a hypnotist, a sales person…heck, even a late night comedian can manipulate you into believing things that are not really true. Yet you are absolutely sure that what you’re experiencing right now is real and true and getting sent to your “memories” to accurately record?

ASHLEY:
So, Mr. Carter, what are you saying…that I don’t exist? That this is not real?

CARTER:
No, I’m trying to make you aware of your assumptions, things that we assume are true but we never really think about or question. We just buy into it. Here, let’s do an exercise. Relax…relaaxxxx. Be awake in this moment; what are you really feeling? Who are you, really? Relax and pay attention. Just sense this moment, right now…relax…relaaxxxx. What do you feel? What’s really going on?

Zoom to Close up on her eyes; eyes turn inward, reflective; blur then squiggly lines.
-------------------------------------

OFFICE SCENE:Close up on new eyes, pull out.

Scene is a busy office. Ashley is now an African-American office worker sitting at a messy desk full of papers. An older woman is standing next to the desk, talking to her:

MRS. THOMPSON:
“Lakisha? Lakisha? Are you with me? We need to get those Accounts Payables out today. You can do that, right?”
Lakisha goes from being confused to quickly gathering herself.

LAKISHA:
“Oh…oh…right, Mrs. Thompson. I’m on it.”

MRS. THOMPSON:
Mrs. Thompson heads out the door; “I’m counting on you.”

LAKISHA:
Lakisha looks down at her desk. “Now, what was I doing? That was a weird feeling….”

Words on screen: TWO HOURS LATER.

Desk looks neatly organized.

LAKISHA:
“There! All done. Now where was I? (slowly) Where was I?” Looking inward, reflective.

Zoom to close up on the eyes; blur then squiggly lines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGHTTIME BATTLE SCENE:

It’s dark. Gunshots are heard in the background. Flashes of light, almost like lightning come and go, then thunderous sounds.

JOHNSON:
“Where am I? Where are we?” A man’s voice, where was previously Lakisha’s, asks.

SERGEANT:
A second voice tensely whispers: “Johnson! Johnson! You still with me!?”

Johnson tries to gather himself. A flashlight snaps on and awkwardly illuminates the face of Johnson, who is clearly a soldier. He has camos on, a helmet, and black smudges on his face. He’s lying face-first on the ground with a rifle next to him.

JOHNSON:
“Uhh…uhh…I’m with you Sergeant! I just lost my bearings for a second. What’s going on?!”

SERGEANT:
“We’ve walked into an ambush, that’s what’s going on! They were waiting for us. We gotta retreat; we already lost McDonald and Kozinsky. You ready? It’s just you and me left, Johnson. Here we go: Ready…Go… go… go!”
(barely visible in the low light, Johnson grunts and breathes hard, as if struggling and running.)

A brilliant flash of light then a boom. Johnson’s voice groans. All is dark.
------------------------------------------------------------
CAR SCENE:

Close up on a man’s pair of eyes. Pull out to show a young couple sitting in a car together.

YOUNG WOMAN:
“Are you even listening to me?” the young woman asks.
The man has a far-away look in his eyes, then snaps it to the here-and-now.

YOUNG MAN:
“Wha…? I’m sorry, sweety. What were you saying?”

YOUNG WOMAN:
“Whenever you have something to say, it’s all ‘end-of-the-world’ important, but I want to vent a little about my work, and you don’t even pay attention. Forget it! I’m going home.” She gets out of the car and slams the door.
The man looks bewildered.

Zoom to Close up to blurr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINTENANCE WORKERS SCENE:

Close up on eyes, then pull out.
Two construction workers with hard hats are outside working on air-conditioning equipment behind a building. One is up on a ladder. Another confused-looking one is on the ground; takes a drag from a cigarette.

MATT:
“Billy! Give me that socket again. It’s not tight enough.”

BILLY:
“Huh? Oh…oh! Okay, Matt, what size was that again?” leaning down to the toolbox.

MATT:
“Are you day-dreaming down there? The 13 millimeter, you dumbass!”

Close up on eyes, then Blurr & squiggly lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSROOM SCENE II:

Close up on eyes, then pull out to show Ashley Smith in the classroom.
Ashley looks confused.

CARTER:
“So, Ashley, the question is HOW do you know who you really are? Doesn’t it have something to do with what we are consciously aware of at the moment? That whatever you’re aware of in the here-and-now, especially if you suddenly have memories of how you got there that support your beliefs, then you’ll think it’s real. You’ll be convinced that wherever you are IS the real world.”
“Ashley? Are you following me?”
Ashley shakes her head and gives a wave, as if to say ‘forget it’.

CARTER:
“Anyway, class, that’s a taste of Metaphysics with a little Epistemology thrown in for good measure. See ya’ll next week. Have a nice day.”

Weary class gets up and walks out.

Mr. Carter smiles mischievously as he watches them file out the classroom, knowing that he might have gotten them to reflect a little about existence this day.

END

What is "Philosophy"?

What is philosophy? That is the question.

Some of you have a general idea of what the word "philosophy" means, but most of you don't. The most common usage of the word is probably when someone expresses their “philosophy” of something; e.g. their “philosophy of life,” or their “philosophy of football,” or their “philosophy of using make-up.” This usage, however, does not explain what the concept of “philosophy” actual is. We will unpack the word philosophy here to find out what it really means. Philosophy is more of an activity than a field of study. In the above examples, it kind of means a person’s “conclusions about an issue AND their reasons for believing it to be that way” – so their philosophy of life might be to “take it easy” or “don’t sweat the small stuff” or “just do it,” and they can readily explain to you why they believe these things. But their conclusions, or opinions, do not make it philosophy – their rational attempts to discover their conclusions and opinions DO make it philosophy. So philosophy is more of a systematic approach to finding the truth about something.

“Philosophy” is even more than that; philosophy seeks the ultimate truth about things; it tackles BIG questions. These questions often seem simplistic at first: Why are we doing what we’re doing? What is important to us? What political type of government works best? What do we know? What is real? What's the purpose of living? We automatically tend to answer these questions with responses that we’ve been conditioned to give, such as, “I’m taking this class because it’s required by the school and once I finish school I can get a good job,” or, “Supporting my family is most important,” or “I know what my name is because it’s on my birth certificate,” or “The things around me are real because I can see them.” Philosophy encourages us to go beyond these quick-response answers.

Why do you want a good job? What is a “good” job? One that pays $75,000 per year? What if you hate the job? What if you’re required to work 90 hours per week and be away from home for two weeks out of each month? You might not like these responsibilities even though you are receiving $75k per year. Is it really the good job that you want or is it what the good job will provide for you, namely, an income and job experience? Why do you want money? Is it the money or what money will help you acquire? The point here is that there is more that meets the eye with these questions. Asking why you’re taking this class might seem simple until you really think about it – and that’s what the field of philosophy does – really tries to figure these BIG questions out.

Philosophy asks non-rhetorical questions like these then seeks the truest answer --yet does not rely solely on opinions, tradition, or authority. Philosophy relies on good reasons to support opinions. This is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp when first entering the world of philosophy. When a student makes a statement then I ask, “Yes, but how do you know that?” the student often interprets my question as if it were a statement. The student often thinks that I am saying “You don’t know that” but I am not. I am asking the question “How” do you know something. It’s important in philosophy to know how and why we believe to know things.

Philosophy is the field that questions assumptions people have in order to gain a better understanding of things -- of every thing. Why are you here? How do you know you're here? How do we know when something is true or false? Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you think one action is good and another bad? We try to answer these questions as best as possible.

Other fields teach you facts, histories, routines, and techniques -- established things. Philosophy itself doesn't really do this -- learning the history of philosophy in an academic setting does, but not philosophizing in itself -- it teaches you to question assumed facts, truths, & methods in order to understand the "facts" better.

Philosophy also demands that good reasons be presented for making conclusions. A philosopher asks: How so? Can you prove it? Can you show me? Are you sure? How do you know? And then listens closely to the answer. He or she does not simply accept a "truth" or "fact" except during informal socializing.

Philosophers make some people extremely annoyed and even furious. They make others bored to death. What is "death," by the way? What happens after death? What is "life"? When does life start? How do we know that "time" exists for us to live within? This is what philosophers do, they question everything – but with the purpose of understanding, not just to destroy assumptions. It's a difficult concept for many.

Some of the other issues Philosophy investigates are: What is love? knowledge? justice? morality? beauty? These are all abstract ideas -- beliefs, theories, assumptions -- very general conclusions we assume are real and sometimes true.

Philosophy is an activity, an active process; it asks questions that can't satisfactorily be answered by science or religion. You may ask: What is a Southern Baptist? or What is a Roman Catholic? or What is Atheism? and be able to arrive at a clear answer because those questions pertain to convention or agreed upon terminology. But what is "religion"? What is "God"? What does having a "belief" mean? Knowing the "truth"? These are more difficult topics that philosophy tackles; these are more philosophical questions.

The KEY in Philosophy: support your opinions with defensible statements. Opinions that have more weight to them, because they have more evidence or logical validity, are going to be considered more true than those opinions that cannot hold up to questioning.

So why do we do philosophy? Because it is what we are meant to do; philosophizing is what sets us apart from every other thing on Earth, and ultimately, it makes us happy. "To be happy," or “feeling satisfied,” or “experiencing pleasurable feelings” are often concluded as our ultimate purpose. To think about things; to think about ourselves; to think about others; to think about why we are the way we are; to think about the consequences of our actions and adapt; to think about ideal ways to live; to anticipate what might happen if we did such and such, so not do it if we conclude it would not be good.

Philosophy is all about a process of thinking, a certain manner of thinking, a method of thinking; it helps you think more clearly. It helps you recognize what you value. It helps you to understand yourself and your world better. Philosophy is not an alternative to other fields but can enhance any other field.
=================================================

What questions do philosophers ask" Questions such as these: What is a philosophical question? Is there a purpose to living? Why are we here? What makes something right or wrong? What is real? Is this just an illusion, a dream? Does God exist? How do we know? Why do so many people consider a certain painting beautiful?

These are the types of things philosophy tackles and what a student of philosophy will hope to understand better.

New World Ethics

Judging large-scale ethical behavior is a tricky thing. Crime statistics will go down then all of a sudden, whammo! a string of school shootings, car-jackings, or destructive flash mobs will take place. Or people will declare their concern for individual liberties (a la the Tea Party) then suddenly opinion polls show that the majority is okay with our freedoms being usurped in the name of safety.

I’ve noticed some trends myself. I’m starting to worry about the direction of ethics in our society, especially but not exclusively, our youth. My concern does not seem to be the same concern the older generation had with teenagers and young adults (“listening to that crazy, decadent music,” etc.) but more to do with trends in 1) attitudes and 2) technologies, and where these trends will lead.

Current attitudes lean towards believing that other people will make important decisions for you, not you yourself; your own right to free choices should be restricted to the area of entertainment and appearance. Technologies are developing that keep us personally disconnected from each other, from social-connectivity – even though this seems paradoxical. We use more impersonal electronics to stay in touch. Actual, live, in-person, human connectivity and the impact resulting from that live, in-person, human connectivity, is disappearing. Compassion and fear are playing less and less a role in our decision-making due to the electronic socialization of people; yet compassion and fear have historically been two of the most self-governing characteristics of humanity.

Attitudes:

I’ve been teaching at the community college level for over thirteen years. In class, I ask questions to initiate discussions and I try to rebut the responses given by my students – by playing a little devil’s advocate. Whenever I ask my students “How much freedom should a person have?” the general response is, “Not too much.”

As odd as this sounds, the idea of freedom seems to have a negative connotation with young adults. For the past three or four years, there has rarely been any student in class who believes we should have as much freedom as possible. Almost all believe that people cannot handle freedom; freedom makes people steal and kill and drive like maniacs; they have sex with everyone they can and use all the drugs they want. “People go crazy when they have too much freedom!”

I respond by saying, “Do they really? But wait a second, the question is How much freedom, not ‘Should we be totally free with no laws or limits.’” They continue to reply with answers such as, “No, we’ll have anarchy without laws.” I repeat several times, “No one is saying that we shouldn’t have laws, but how many laws should we have and how intrusive should they be?” The overwhelming majority sticks to the original sentiment: We need more authority to protect us from the crazies out there.

I usually bring in the Bill of Rights about this time. “What about the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution? It protects certain freedoms that we should have. Freedom of speech, religion, the Press, the right to bear arms. What about those freedoms?” They reply with answers such as, “Yes, but you can’t say whatever you want so we really don’t have freedom of speech. You can’t offend others with certain words or lies. I think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others.”

“So what can you do without affecting others? If you sleep late so end up going to work late, doesn’t that hurt your co-workers? Should sleeping late be against the law, punishable by fines or jail? If I say I like gangsta rap music and you had a relative who was shot by a person who was listening to gangsta rap music, does that mean we should make rap music illegal? Should a redneck’s ‘YeeHaw!’ cry be banned because past racism was sometimes accompanied by yeehaws?”

Silence. “How free should we be?” I re-ask.

Usually one person will speak up and say something like, “Everyone is different. What’s right to me is not right to others; what’s good to them might not be good to me.” I usually rebut with, “So should we have no laws, more laws, the same amount of laws, or different laws for different people? Are you suggesting that because people are different they should follow different laws, based on how responsible they are? Who is to say what laws we’re supposed to follow? If you want more laws, will you follow those new laws?”

“Should not we follow all the current laws?” (class makes murmurs and snickering sounds) “No? Do you follow all the laws? Do you always drive the speed limit and never smoke pot? (laughter) Why not? It’s against the law to drink alcohol if you’re under 21. Does everyone here obey that law? Or do you follow some laws but don’t follow others? Martin Luther King, Jr. says we should follow ‘just’ laws but not unjust laws, to follow God’s moral laws.

“Who’s to decide which laws are just and which are unjust? Is it fair to leave law-making up to our government? Of course, at every level, that is exactly who makes our laws. This is why voting for someone to accurately represent us is important."

Getting back to our topic, should each of us choose which laws are good laws and which aren't? A drug addict thinks he or she deserves compassion so relieving his or her suffering with more drugs it's a good thing. The addicts think the laws they break are unjust laws so shouldn't be followed. Thieves, murderers, drug gangs, car-jackers, all commit their evil deeds even though there are laws against them and police officers trying to prevent them. Police are, in fact, catching and incarcerating the law-breakers – yet people still break laws – day-after-day, year-after-year, people break laws – yet you want more laws?”

So I have to wonder, do we really need more laws and more enforcement to keep us safe? Or do we actually need more morals instilled within our cultures? If parents instill a strong sense of right and wrong behavior, what should be considered good and what should be considered bad, then maybe more children will grow up to be moral young adults.

Students often say, “Yes, but who’s to say what is right or wrong? Whose morals are we supposed to follow?” Most world religions have the same basic morals: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, & Confucianism all teach to help your neighbor, honor your parents, to not steal or kill. I would rebut their rhetorical questions by saying that society already has a general set of moral principles called the “Principles of Ethics” that specifies how and why we should behave; it's based on both religious and secular reasonings. We should be good to ourselves and others, prevent harm, remedy harm, be fair to everyone, treat groups with equal respect, and give each person the individual freedom and dignity they deserve – unless they are breaking these morals and trying to hurt others.

Moral concepts such as these should be followed regardless who you are, how you were raised, or regardless what the laws state. But very few of my students seem to feel this way. Even after the semester on Ethics is completed, they continue to believe that everyone has their own definition of right and wrong, and that people cannot help but exploit, steal from, cheat, and even kill others. So, they reason, we need parent-like governments to take care of us, to guide us, and to punish us if we do bad things. This is the current attitude among teens and young adults. Maybe they are right; maybe they haven't been knocked around enough -- like we have -- so are not capable of controlling their impulses? Nahh!

Technologies:

We have probably all heard others, especially old folks, criticize the new social media. “They’re addicted to their phones! Why don’t they pay attention to the people around them? Phones are for talking to people! They’re going to kill someone while they’re texting and driving!” I happen to agree with some of these statements and you might also but alas and alack, the times are a-changing and we have to adapt. We can rebut this argument by saying, "People have always been distracted and always will be; it's not the new technology -- it's human nature!" Then again, we do need to be careful when adapting to powerful new technologies that allow us to be connected to our family and friends 24 hours, day-and-night.

To understand this new addiction to social media, remember that human beings are social animals; everyone should be aware of that ingrained fact. We tend to herd together and share thoughts, fears, and feelings with our fellow humans. People have always done that, only it used to be much more difficult, logistically speaking. We have always craved company, to share our emotions and experiences with others, at least with one person or a few significant others.

Mammals have a need for a sense of belonging; they also need to find a mate and care for immature young – social media assists in this process. Mammals need to gather information in order to protect themselves – social media assists in this process. Mammals need to feel secure, which social media can do by keeping in constant touch with a confidante to share emotional feelings about an array of topics. Humans seek to avoid anxiety and existential angst at all costs; however, anxiety used to be inevitable and an important part of our maturing process.

Think about it: Social media can help young people avoid many of the fears and challenges that used to accompany growing up. Dealing with friends and enemies face-to-face changes one’s behavior in a dramatic fashion, yet that live, in-person experience, with all its drooling, fears, and adrenaline is being eliminated. Now the new generation fears losing their constant communication with others and feeling cut-off and isolated, forced to deal with their own inner thoughts and feelings. This is a new de-emphasis on physical contact and emphasis on virtual contact. In this respect, the concepts of right and wrong take on a very different perspective.

One of the first things a new initiate to the world of social media notices is how blatantly uninhibited people tend to be compared to speaking face-to-face with a person. People will make the most inappropriate, opinionated, unthought-out, and personal comments, apparently not believing there will be any consequences. Some postings I’ve seen on the comment-boards are incredibly rude, have no truth whatsoever, and would lead to a punch in the nose if it was actually spoken live, in person. Social media, on one hand, has given people the opportunity to be friendly and social, but on the other hand, has made people extremely rude.

One can anticipate that in the not-so-distant future a generation of young adults who have never reflected on their thoughts and feelings; a generation of people who are used to being interconnected with their “friends” yet not in a physical, face-to-face manner. In other words, they will be filled with other people’s impulsive thoughts and feelings, which they will undoubtedly compare and synthesize with their own thoughts and feelings. Whether this massive influx of other-people’s-voices motivates them to particular, actual behavior is uncertain but seems likely.

People will become more impulse-driven to express their thoughts and feelings since they will be so habituated towards immediate expression of their thoughts and feelings. Without reflection or contemplation – two of the main ingredients that separated humans from other primates – the new generation will become more instinctive, like non-human animals, and with their instincts being controlled not by their DNA and culture but by social media -- the information (commercial) source of their electronic devices will become their inner “id.” Yahoo-News, Facebook, Wikipedia, and such would be their guiding “super-consciousnesses.”

You can see how television programs reflect this idea. Writers used to struggle to come up with relevant human themes: boy meets girl, seems inadequate at first then proves himself and wins girl; conflict at beginning drives entire story that ends up with a "moral to the story." Today, most programs are insightless reality shows. What drives todays programs are gut-level, animal-like base needs: sex, anger, jealousy, revenge, survival at all costs, fear. The modern viewer desires to be like an animal again instead of a human. We used to separate ourselves from animals through our creativity, our reflective ability to find meanings in the things we did, and so on. We developed values that symbolized our hopes and fears and search for meaning.

Most of us older types struggled on our own in a solitary manner during our young-adult years. I joined the Navy at 17 years old, just out of high school. I came back after the Navy and worked in a local shipyard. Later, I lived out of my car for some months while I worked and saved money to rent a room. Years later, after deciding to go to college, I lived out of my van for several months, during my first semester at a university, until my veterans benefits arrived. These times forced me to reflect long and hard about what my values were and what my goals should be.

Will the new generation find a new way to discover their values and goals – or will they acquiesce to the powers that be on the internet? Will their values be determined by their parents, culture, or religion – or will they be determined by the U. S. Supreme Court, Yahoo, Wikileaks, or others who have commercial and ideological agendas all being promoted on the web?

If the new generation believes that more government is needed, which is what most of my students believe, yet they believe that right and wrong are simply individual opinions, which is what most of my students believe – then most young adults will eventually find themselves in conflict with the governments decisions, since a single entity (the govt.) cannot address all the people all the time. Either that or each person will not be deciding what is right and wrong, good and bad, on their own. They will let the government decide for them, and then they will choose to follow some of the rules and not follow others, which is the norm for a society that uses sporadic and inconsistent enforcement of the laws. The problem with this outcome is that the government, unlike family-religious morals, will have the power to enforce their values onto the public – not the reverse, which is what has made our country different from other countries over these past 230 years.

The new power invested in the government will eventually allow them to fine you, imprison you, or force you to do community service if you don’t recycle or drive a fuel-efficient car or have health insurance. And you will think these things are justified since you have been wired in to the group-think modern ethics via a constant connection to the social media, a media that gives the illusion of being grass-roots controlled but is actually controlled by the providers of the media.

Just as newspapers used to be able to influence readers’ opinions in the past, modern social media providers run daily stories that provide a barrage of titillation and political bias that no one really rebuts or checks the relevant facts. This leads to the susceptibility for rampant disinformation; and with the 24-hour-per-day communication between people, rumors become exaggerated, truth (if it could be found) becomes distorted, and countries will fall to the most aggressive – physical – leaders. People believe most things that are repeated on news blurbs -- even though much of it turns out to be false.

Conclusion:

Current attitudes of young adults, waiting for the unseen “other people” to make important decisions for them, coupled with technological devices that allow them to stay in constant communication with each other and the world-wide internet, will likely create an entire generation of sheep-like citizens who are easily manipulated and will be capable of doing great immoral acts since they will not have deeply ingrained morals and values created by their own experiences. In the same way that “flash mobs” appear and destroy an entire city block, these young adults will be manipulated into causing anarchy and chaos in our urban centers.

What can we do about this predicted behavior? I’ll cover that in a future blog.