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.