WEEK 12

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

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

I will speak mostly in relation to the Letter from Birmingham Jail, because I have studied it in two classes so far and Martin Luther King's civil disobedience is truly important to me. First, there has to be an injustice present in order to bring justice to it. In Birmingham, Alabama, they legally separated people by race and mistreated, humiliated and threatened people for their skin color. This is what MLK describes as an unjust/immoral law, meaning it does not match with the natural ethical guideline of respecting the lives of all human beings, no stealing, burning or murder. In fact, he claims it is a moral obligation to disobey these kinds laws because it disrupts the peace of a true just community. He wrote this letter in response to other clergymen (priests/pastors) because they commented he should not be involved in a fight that was not his. MLK explained that civil disobedience must happen because of the injustices committed against his people, and although Birmingham was not his city, one problem in a city will eventually spread to the entire country. 

I do agree with St. Augustine and MLK, a law makes no sense if they go against the commandments of God/morals of human beings. This being not to kill, hate, steal, or cheat. And this was legally possible with the Jim Crow Laws, many black churches were burned, many were killed or beaten in non violent protests or simply for being in the wrong section. And children were not allowed to have fun in amusement parks like the other children who were in favor of the law. That is miserable and has caused stress and trauma for so many families, especially being involved in non-violent protests, attempting to resolve their issues peacefully. People like MLK and Malcom X were seen as criminals in the public eye, the president at the time said he would restore "Law and order" when in fact, these leaders were fighting against a law that was unjust. 

Another example of Civil disobedience is for instance, The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, Argentina. During the Dirty War, the government kidnapped many students and any people who were against their political views, and put them in concentration camps to torture. Some of the women captured had babies and the babies were given to government officials who wanted to have children. These children grew up not knowing they were stolen. However, the grandmothers of these children still remember their children and grandchildren (some people survived) and march around the center of the main street. They still demand for their children to be returned today, and the horrible thing is, there are no government officials that have been imprisoned for this. Some grandmothers have found their children and grandchildren, others are still searching, always marching on Thursdays, checking in with the police station, and joined by others. In the beginning, they were forbidden to do this and were going to be beaten, but once more people joined Argentina saw this could not be controlled and they are now allowed to march. 

However, justice is still not there because their children are still missing without a trace.

week 11

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

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

I briefly read an excerpt on the Communist Manifesto, Marx on Alkienation, and I agree with Marx on condemning capitalism as inhumane. The worker becomes a machine all for the profit of their labor. There is a term of “alienation” when discussing labor and this is the separation of the human and their work. They do not enjoy their strenuous task, it is physically and mentally draining and the worst of it is that it’s forced labor and as long as capitalism continues, there will always be forced laborers. The damaging aspect of this kind of work is that the man does not work for himself or his own needs, it is simply for the benefit of the other. 

For instance, an impoverished man can work 12 hours a day in a meat factory being paid a weekly salary of $7, and he will continue to stress his mind and body to keep his job. There are no bonuses or worker’s compensation benefits and he loathes the tiresome job that also puts pressure on his legs. He stays with his job because he knows it is difficult to be employed and he prefers to make enough money to feed his family than none at all. He is suffering in this forced labor because he would not be doing this in his own time, and the owner of the company gains thousands of dollars for running it while he has free time to pursue his hobbies. How can a worker enjoy a personal life if they spend most of his time working? And to other people they are considered “animals” for not engaging in human activates besides working, eating, sleeping and procreating.

 We are naturally free beings but with the introduction of labor and capitalism we have chained the human race to forced labor, no other animals do this to each other; our intelligent minds can turn against each other.  The main message is that forced labor is against the nature of human beings and the estranged labor reversing the activities from being free. A human can create something and that is the beauty of the species but it can be torn down by another from the abuse of power. 

Why should someone else make decisions for us economically, they may take advantage of of. Obviously the state forces us to do things we do not want to do for their, especially bringing in indentured servants and enslaving people against their own will. Enslaved people many times escaped a "living hell" by committing suicide and factory workers worked in horrible conditions, and it was against the law to beg for money or food. Truly, classical liberalism removed the monarchy from power to simply be in charge and do the same to the new bourgeois, which are the working class. leaving a 1% of the population in charge and acquiring the most wealth is simply not freedom or equality.

The state can intervene for people to make free economic choices if they can get rid of people abusing others economically, becausw if we were completely left alone without the state, people would commit crimes. You should be forced by the state if you want to harm others, but also the state shouldn't force one to do anything if they haven't done anything wrong or to be taken advantage of. Therefore, I agree with both Mill and Marx on some of their ideas.

WEEK 9- Religion and Evil

According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.

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

According to Buddism, we must stop being absorbed in ourselves and adapt to desires and cravings that cause the least amount of suffering. It's unfortunate in the physical life that people can be in pain from illness or the selfishness of others, pain is inevitable. However, it can be reduced by making decisions about your own body and spirituality. This means to not let anyone else make decisions for your life, but to take control and live your best, even if happiness is temporary. My only concern would be how one would know what's best for them and what causes the least amount of suffering. What if they accidently cause more suffering like Sidharta when he fasted and collapsed from malnourishment before switching his beliefs? I am quickly connecting this to Badiou's "Plato's Republic", where in the first few chapters Socrates and Glaucon are discussing the definition of justice and one definition appears" the interest of the stronger", meaning justice is what favors the stronger person. Socrates argues some decisions can be an error and lead to unintentional pain, instead of one's own interest. So, this is a fault I find in Buddhism, but perhaps there may be an answer my question.

Buddhism is very difficult in the United States, especially in New York City, one of the biggest cities that advocate for Capitalism. Buddhists do not give in to cravings or desires and do not focus on materialistic objects, which is the complete opposite of corporate America. In fact, to be successful in pursuing the American dream is to be filthy rich, own a house, a car, a complete family, and well established socially. Being a Buddhist will be very hard in the U.S. and I can understand how people believe the teachings of Buddhism is extreme or irrelevant because of the vastly different lifestyles. 

However, with the liberal movement of "I control my body and what I want to do" in the U.S. today, such as being able to study what you want, eat what you want, or live how you want without input from others makes it somewhat easier to pursue Buddhism. The only difference is one must follow the 4 noble truths to reduce suffering, which can be hard for many Americans who believe in other religions. 

What one does or believes in is their personal choice, one can choose to be a Buddhist, it will be difficult, but it is possible. Contemplating, it wouldn't make sense to be a Buddhist in America because the lifestyle is too different from one's beliefs, therefore causing unnecessary suffering, which is not reaching the goal of Nirvana. America is too materialistic and shoots messages of independence which can leave people being too self-absorbed, not an ideal environment for a Buddhist. 

WEEK 8: The Design Argument

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

Despite reading the textbook on philosophy and religion, it did not change my viewpoint of the existence of God. The design argument definitely contributes to proving the existence of a higher being. In general, religious people say faith alone is all one needs to believe in God because if you do not have faith in something, how can you truly believe it? For me, it's based on faith and arguments such as the design argument. It makes more sense to believe in a higher being that has placed us in a world that fulfills our needs in an organized manner. For instance, our bodies need food for energy and the earth produces it naturally and it heals our bodies (until the chemically processed foods by other humans came about).  If we exist by chance, how come there are natural resources for our needs?
There are religious experiences that are left out in philosophy such as pure faith as I mentioned above. Also, the controversy of miracles and how real/unreal they can be. Are miracles random ways to cheat death, or are they blessings from a higher being? Philosophers can ponder on this since the basic definition of a miracle is astounding in itself.
It can be said that most people choose to believe in God because it is more comfortable than believing there is nothing after death and does not want to be involved in such a dark reality; religion brings positivity to that. However, religion has also been able to cause oppression among people because they may use it to justify horrible crimes or to manipulate what others do to benefit from them. This can be backed up by years of Evangelical churches stealing money from offerings and becoming rich while saying giving money is necessary to lift the house of God and to be good Christians. This is an exploitation of others and is not okay, true faith in a religion is to love others and have God as a priority in your life.
Being a Christian is a personal lifestyle choice, and maybe it doesn't have to be for everyone because there are other gods people believe in that could have created the earth, we simply do not know who this higher being is or what are they. It seems impossible to know even if we think hard enough, there is no absolute certainty. Utilizing our talents and intellect is the best things humans can do to comprehend the world and to look out for each other to live in the most harmonious community together in the modern world.

Week 6- Functionalism and AI

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

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

I mostly agree with John Searle that computers imitate intelligence because without a human programming it, it cannot exist. Since I am a Christian, my belief is that God created human beings, just like human beings are creating robots. Yes, humans are very intelligent and yes robots are very intelligent, but they cannot surpass their creator because the computer would not be able to do the same. I am saying this in a very broad term, for a concept to get across. Computers and human brains are similar, they can formulate ideas and create many things with their intelligent "software". What separates computers from humans is emotion and experience. For instance, a robot observing Mars would simply show information to a team, versus a human being would be very excited by the discovery and sharing what they have seen with emotion and pride. Computers don't experience fear, pride, or have a passion. They can be programmed to respond a certain way, but it is artificial and does not duplicate natural feeling or intelligence. The textbook gave an example of artificial light and real light. They say the artificial light is real light because humans use light to help construct the artificial light. The same they applied to A.I and humans. But I don't believe it is the same, artificial light will never be natural light as A.I's will not be humans. 

Yes, humans are conditioned by their environment to behave a certain way because of their culture and education. However, computers will always listen to the programming unless there is a malfunction. People argue every day with each other about the right way of living or following rules. For instance, there is the branch of philosophy. Philosophers are educated the same way (or "programmed") but they all won't believe in the same theories about human life and find ways to improve education. Computers cannot do this, they cannot learn from human beings and disagree with their programming. Or if someone does not agree with a tradition, they refuse to because of their beliefs, a robot cannot say, "sorry I cannot kill that chicken for you, it's animal cruelty and it's against my beliefs". Humans may be conditioned to certain behaviors and beliefs, but we all have room for change or disagreement, unlike a computer. Besides, the process of learning is longer and more enriching for a human than a robot. Someone may be trying to learn Spanish and enjoy it so they may open up a business in Columbia. Robots will process a language quickly because it was told to, there is no drive or sense of purpose for it. Humans live life with habits to live a high quality life with meaning, robots simply do this because they were told to. 

Week 5: Dualism and Physicalism

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

If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).

Both Dualists and Physicalists come up with very good theories on the mind and the body. I am more on the dualism side because they believe mind and body are separate and important. As a Christian, I believe our bodies are places our souls live in order to live in the physical world. Once our bodies reach death, our souls still live on in heaven, our true selves. For someone who isn't religious, the explanation of an out-of-body experience can make sense. Some people have experienced coming close with death and they watch over their bodies as a soul. I believe once a mind/soul has control over a body, it can use it to its full potential, but without a body, it wouldn't have the necessity to eat, breathe, or laugh. 

The mind is very powerful, when one's emotions are down, that is communicated to the brain and it sends messages to the rest of the body, and the body begins to feel tired and a bit weaker, because the emotion of the person is down. Or, when someone is having a good day, they suddenly feel more energetic and their body functions a bit better. It cannot be denied that our mental life affects our physical brains. The mind causes you to make decisions that may change your body such as overeating when stressed out or losing sleep because you may feel paranoid after watching a scary movie, and you start to notice bags under your eyes and paler skin. Also, there have been cases of miracles such as a pastor praying at a church to make a disabled man walk again, and it actually happens. Phenomena like this are very hard to explain how it can happen, but surely it is not the work of the brain alone, there is the mind/soul. I think the mind interacts with the brain but can also be known as a soul. 

The brain is more of a messenger, it has access to the mind and body and allows the body to interact with the mind. Descartes believed there was an extra organ called the "vital spirit" in the human body, but I don't think that is the case because it didn't seem like a well-researched answer to justify his beliefs on dualism. If the mind and body weren't separate, then they would have to be identical, but since the mind is non-physical and no one can hear, taste, touch or see it, it is very different from the brain and body. Perhaps it could be the non-physical part of the body that is connected, I am open enough to believe the research could change. 

Our consciousness is very complex and cannot be explained by the physical world. There are beliefs, ambitions, feelings of love and the need to find out our identities. The body reproduces, but it's the mind that forms love since it is a non-physical term that becomes real when people get married or spend time with each other. Also, if we were only our bodies, we would have everything we need, yet, people still try to figure out who they are, and why they exist. The idea of purpose itself is part of the conscious mind. If we were only bodies, we'd ask "Who am I? Oh, there I am" and our appearance would be enough.  People have ideas on justice, ethics and living a fulfilling life. That sounds like dualism to me, there is a mind, and a body, the body alone is not enough. 

Week 4: Pragmatism and Feminism

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

Philosophers like Descartes tried to remove themselves from communities and reach a level of detached knowledge to not be influenced by social factors. They believe this is the best form of gaining knowledge but feminists call this the Robinson Crusoe assumption. They disagree with this perspective because thy want the community to be included in studying knowledge. When people help you, they have different perspectives to understand what knowledge is. Feminists feel they can offer their knowledge to help others understand philosophy not limited to only male thinkers. In fact, on page 176 of our textbook Lorraine Code shares her view, "knowledge production is a social practice of embodied, gendered, historically, racially and culturally located knowers whose products bear the marks of their makers and whose stories...need to be told". She stresses the importance of everyone participating in knowledge because people have diverse ways of thinking and if we do not include them, the theory of knowledge will only be held in the viewpoint of the well-educated white philosopher. Not excluding the views of people living on this earth, knowledge can expand and humans can get one step closer to understanding how we gain knowledge. Learning something is about team-work, not an individual task where only one person's thoughts matter. 

Pragmatists disagree with the individual comprehension of knowledge as well, however, they explain why for different reasons. Now, the greatest pragmatists believed pragmatism could be a creative instrument of change, addressing the problem of the contemporary culture, while emphasizing scientific thinking applying to moral decisions (154). In addition, the world is an ongoing process, therefore experiences change. If someone detached themselves from others, they cannot learn about knowledge because they wouldn't know about experiences changing, they would only know about their own experiences. Without social factors, their decisions cannot turn into actions if not engaging with others when it comes to knowledge. Truth and error occur in the human experience, and according to William James, each person will answer differently to the question of the purpose of the world. He gives an example say a theory that solves a problem for us is more satisfying than another, making us believe in it more (160). Truth is not objective or absolute, therefore, more people have to revise it constantly and one person cannot do that, in fact, Dewey, Pierce, and James agreed and disagreed on many ideas and tried to revise because of the constant change of human experience. 

To some extent, these epistemologies are correct, however, no point of view is perfect and every belief has holes in them. Knowledge is very complex and so are humans and it is difficult to find one theory of knowledge that answers all of the questions about the truth. What if the truth was already in us? What if humans are truth themselves? Perhaps it's religious, or a topic of subjectivity. I agree with the feminist point of view on including everyone's experiences to studying knowledge. We are diverse being for a reason, and when studying knowledge we cannot ignore this and stick to the beliefs of only one group of people. This way, knowledge can be discovered more accurately because it includes all humans. Also, social, cultural and religious factors greatly change the meaning of truth and knowledge for everyone, and this makes me believe that not everyone will agree on one idea. Could it be that we were not meant to find out?  

I somewhat agree and disagree with all of the epistemology covered in the book, they all have excellent insights on knowledge but it is not complete. I believe we are born with knowledge and learn from others who share their own ideas through experience, and we should include the ideas of people from all races, ages, genders, and religions. I would open myself up to other's inputs, even if their beliefs are the complete opposite of mine because we both don't absolutely know who is right or wrong. We cannot ignore each others views, it is not about being right or having the truth, but like James believes, there could be more than one truth. 

WEEK 3 Empiricism

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

The empiricist's theory of knowledge is a very interesting one because understanding the biological function of the human mind and body, our senses are extremely helpful. If we did not have any senses, we would not be able to do anything. Areas of knowledge that support this theory are ideas should be tested by tracing it back to an original experience. Also, they believe that the rationalist's universal truths are simply highly probable generalizations from experience (ex: every shape has a size). Also, unified objects such as a pear are made up of three activities of the mind; compounding, relating and abstracting.  

However, our minds also help us gain knowledge about the world. For instance, all animals have senses such as the wolf, or a worm in the soil. They rely on their senses to gain knowledge about their environment and uses it to survive. The only thing is, they are not capable of reaching the level of knowledge that human beings do because their intellectual capacity isn't as strong. Senses are very important, but the mind of a human is the strongest in this world. 
There are a few types of knowledge that creates a problem for the empiricist, for example, triangles can only have three sides is a universal truth that cannot be changed, unless one debates that with experience we can come to know what a triangle is. Another example is that humans need food to live, no amount of experience can say that we can live without it. Also, we are born with feelings of hunger that must be taken care of. 

Personally, I am more on the side of Kant, we need both the rationalist's and empiricist's ideas to understand knowledge and how it comes about. It is the same thing for nature vs nurture, some people believe we are born a certain way, giving us our personalities at birth, and some believe our environment influences who we become. People are very different and nature and nurture both play a role in the life of a person, therefore, you need both reason and experience to acquire knowledge. Watching my younger brother grow up, I observed his knowledge and I have seen that it comes from reason and experience. 

For instance, when we would take him outside in the stroller, we would wait for the train, and once the train was stopping the wheels made noise as it was slowing down (it always makes the same sound). And I noticed my brother began dancing in the stroller to the sound of the train moving. He couldn't have learned that from experience because he or I have never seen someone dance from the sound of a train in NYC. The strange reaction to the moving train was something that came from him, and I assume he already had some knowledge about hearing a rhythm and moving along to it, no matter what the object was. But with experience, he learned other things such as properly brushing his teeth, putting on his clothes and preparing his own breakfast as he got older. Therefore, I agree with Kant that we need both reason and experience to acquire knowledge. 

WEEK 2: Skepticism and Rationalism

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

Methodological skepticism is very popular, and the quote "I won't believe it until I see proof" sets questions to whether this form of questioning is a good strategy or not. As humans may know, it is practically impossible (for now I assume) for us to test the accuracy of subjective things such as the existence of God or aliens. Many scientists have used the scientific method to piece out mysteries of the world and our limited knowledge, and sometimes there is no concrete answer. I have heard science professors say themselves that science itself is not 100% absolute, meaning anything we may know now could possibly be false. This supports the skepticism Descartes had for his beliefs and the world, but he concluded if knowledge is not absolute then we do not have knowledge at all.

I do not see it that way, although our knowledge is not absolute, it only means we have limited knowledge that can be improved over the years. Humans may never know the absolute truth to anything, however, continuing to discover knowledge such as medicine, fine arts, building materials and more can help improve our quality of life, even if it is not the absolute truth of the world.

There are many different kinds of people in the world, but connecting the Allegory of the Cave to this assignment, I say that many people accept to believe what they are told. For instance, one's values such as religion and being a responsible person can come from how the parents raised the individual, or by the media of a society. It is easy to accept what is being given, and sometimes one truly does believe in it, but it may not be the truth. Descartes doubted his beliefs because he knew he could argue for or against it, making it a weak belief that is not knowledgeable unless it is an unshakable truth.

A quick example is when people debate on the same topics repeatedly; should abortions be legal? Is it okay to possess a gun? There are no true answers to these questions because both debaters make great arguments. This leads to people leaving their opinions on what they think is better and that varies from the individual. Rationalism is very popular as well, people think if something is logical, it cannot be questioned such as 2+2=4. Ethics such as not killing anyone is universal false beliefs (according to the textbooks). But we can never figure out why the world agrees to believe certain things such as this.

There is much to the world we do not know about, but I believe in the overall happiness and wellbeing of an individual and the community. What keeps us at peace and prosperity is what is important. Skepticism and rationalism are good methods of understanding the world, but they should not be the only methods because the world is extremely complex and can be seen through different methods that work.

WEEK 1 Post: The enlightened life vs. the ignorant comfort

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

There is a well known saying, "ignorance is bliss", meaning not knowing something is beneficial to the person instead of knowing the truth, which can be harsh.
For instance, there could be a family consisting of a husband, wife and two children. The husband is in the army and was called to war and has not been back in five years. The mother is aware that her husband has died in battle and suffers because of this. She tells her children that he will come back one day, sparing them the suffering of losing their father. 
For some people, "ignorance is bliss" makes sense and sometimes it is all they know. 

A less tragic example is the average person such as you and me watching the news, watching the political debates and looking at advertisements. According to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, we are ignorant and the images are only the shadows of the real issues. Most people accept information given to them and focus on their lives. However, without conducting our own research or asking questions, we become followers of society and this stops us from thinking critically, not using our intelligence to the fullest extent.
I agree philosophy is liberating, having knowledge on the world allows us to make decisions to improve the communities.
A relevant example is the new President Donald Trump, his election sparked an interest in politics through-out the United States. Many Republicans in large states that have not voted in years due to a Democratic rule, responded to this election. This also awakened people in other states such as New York, understanding the lingering racism and sexism present in the American society today. This includes the Muslim ban, reversing abortion rights and funding for PlannedParenthood, and deporting illegal immigrants back to their countries. People who have been part of protests did more than watch the news or debates, they organized protests and researched possible changes that can affect their lives negatively. 

There are also people who are only watching what is happening unfold and moving on with their daily routines. Some people prefer to focus on themselves and their well-being than step outside their comfort to change a society. Plato would call these people prisoners because they choose not to expose themselves to an unpredictable understanding of the truth. Plato's view on these people are very pessimistic, and I see these people as mostly "moderate" who do not want to stand out and risk getting injured, or simply do not see any reason not to stay the same.
Briefly connecting to this, I read a play called Antigone by Sophocles and Antigone went against the law of the king to bury her brother, while the rest of the citizens followed the king's rule to avoid the risk of punishment. Antigone ended up sacrificing herself for her beliefs, being sentenced to death. 
Another great example is Martin Luther King Jr. who fought against the separation of races and died for his belief. Many people would stay out of it, not die for their beliefs to continue to live for another day.
The same for philosophical enlightenment, it could liberate someone, causing positive change in their life such as the liberated prisoner in the cave, or be seen as something not worth leaving the comforts of one's life, or the cave.

Introduction

Hi, my name is Naomi and I am taking an online introduction to philosophy course at BMCC. This is my last semester and I will graduate with an associate's degree in Liberal Arts. I would like to attend Hunter College to receive a bachelor's degree in Early Childhood Education. 

My hobbies are reading mystery and science fiction novels, creating artwork, and more.

I look forward to this class and leaving BMCC with a deeper understanding of philosophy and how to think.