Week 12

Civil Disobedience

"An unjust law is no law at all"- St. Augustine



There was a school of thought, which still has many adherents, that defended the existence of a link between "justice" and "divinity"; therefore, what is right is what is not against the "natural law". This argument provides the basis to object in conscience to all that, according to the understanding of some people, is unnatural (in this context, euthanasia or abortion would be considered as a rejection of the sovereignty of God). This line of thought has been, and is today, a dangerous assimilation between "justice" and "religion" in which the most fundamentalist doctrines are based.

For the opposite point of view, only what is "legal" is right, and therefore, there is neither disobedience nor conscientious objection to a particular law, although it may seem unnatural.

 In my opinion, we can and must disobey unjust laws, because the health of democracy depends on it. What we have to fear is the day when there not be unjust laws, because it would mean that we all would be under the yoke of the only thought. In addition, disobedience has always played an important role in society, as disobedience to the laws of racial exclusion in the U.S. during the years 40 and 50.

Martin Luther King appealed to the ideas of St. Augustine who said, "An unjust law is no law at all". However, for St. Augustine, all human law derives from natural law, and if in any case a law is contrary to natural law, it is no longer law, but corruption of law. The problem is figure out what does the "natural law" mean, especially for agnostics and atheists. We must be careful when interpreting these concepts because any person could claim the right to disobey a particular law with the excuse of being unfair according to his-her scale of values, his-her personal interest or simply his-her whim.

Civil disobedience, which was applied in many countries and times throughout history, consists in consciously breaking the law, not to gain advantage or personal interest, but to change the transgressed rule into other more in line with general interests.

I was in Peru when the Amazonian indigenous people declared themselves in rebellion and civil disobedience. They started the uprising of the people under the motto "The forest is our mother, our mother is not on sale, we defend our mother" in protest against a government that did not heed their demands. The Government was privatizing and plundering the natural resources in the region putting in danger the Peruvian Amazon and violating the laws and international treaties that protect indigenous people. Through this civil disobedience, there were achieved major changes in national legislation in order to safeguard the rights of indigenous people, while they were recognized as important political actors with the right to be involved in the development of national legislation and measures, especially when they can have social, cultural and environmental consequences for their community.

Week 11

Collectivism and Individualism 
 "I am not a Marxist"

Karl Heinrich Marx (German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. 1818-1883)

  

The ideas of John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx have been the basis of the two great economic and social currents of the twentieth century, liberalism and socialism, respectively. Mill's philosophical conception puts particular emphasis on the individual over the interests of the state and the society, and any power can exert actions against the will of the individual, except if it harms to third parties. Freedom proposed by Mill did not put brakes on human development, and politically and economically, it was interpreted as the right to excel without limits. For Karl Marx, this concept of freedom focuses on the individual and personal interest, in the freedom to dominate and exploit others to gain power and wealth, because those who take over the means of production (because their freedom permits to do it) have the ability to command and dominate the weaker.

From Mill's theories comes the idea of ​​free market where private industry has the right to extend its branches without the meddling of government and society. The growth of the individual is a natural human instinct, but Mill made ​​it clear "as long as it does not harm others", and this is not reflected when we see how the wealth-poverty gap is extending around the world. From Marx's theories arises socialism, where social being determines consciousness of men and justifies an egalitarian society in which a dominant group does not undermine the chances of others. It is important the collective consciousness around the individual, while it does not fall into oligarchies that put arbitrary limits.

Although the interpretations that emerged from these conceptions of freedom became antagonists, both Mill and Marx defended the individual freedom, civil rights, religious tolerance, equal rights, the abolition of privileges, free elections, private property, etc. The originating status of liberalism was clearly humanistic, concerned about individual liberties of every human being to carry out their life plan, but the subsequent manipulation placed it dangerously close to its antithesis. Today, liberalism is associated with certain factors which may even endanger those old ideals, because liberalists defend the absurd idea of it is justified, and even it is admirable, a despotic and totalitarian political regime as long as it keeps multi-million dollar trade relationships. Apparently, the only real freedom is market freedom. If there are suppression of civil rights or aberrant Human Rights violations, everyone looks away. This "false liberalism" is merciless with the idea of the state as something bad, like a perverse structure that systematically violates the rights and potential of people. Marx's theories have a great philosophical value, but they were reduced to mere power struggles that led to an economic and political doctrine, naive and unworkable, as communism, which inevitably becomes in a tyrannical and inhuman system where there is no room for non-Communists who have only one option: either compromise or death.

Both Marxism and liberalism destroy human solidarity. The key to the welfare of a country is not class solidarity, but solidarity among all individuals. It is necessary to bring closer as far as possible the interests of all, produce wealth and, above all, make available all necessary means to have a decent life, but respecting aspects of human nature as the desire for improvement, individual distinctions, certain grade of individualism, ambition, competition, etc, while they do not come into conflict with the collective interest.

Week 9

A Noble Truth: Desire causes suffering

“Desire nothing, give up all desires and be happy”.

Swami Sivananda (1854 – 1934)

If we analyze each of our sufferings, we realize that there is always a desire unfulfilled.   From the moment the desire is in our minds, the thirst for satisfaction arises, but this satisfaction is ephemeral and resurfaces to demand more of the same. The consumerist policy creates desires. The commercial strategies and tactics of consumerism are constantly offering something desirable to the people. Sometimes are useful things, but in most cases they are completely useless but associated with social or personal "status" that makes one see himself- herself more important in the eyes of others. We are the product of a society that consumes us while we consume its products, where the identities are exchanged for false needs.

 Simultaneously or alternatively, we want everything but we cannot achieve it. Sometimes when we get something, there is not enough for us, or we lose it, or we suffer the feeling of dissatisfaction because of the end of our craving. Intellectually we know that it is impossible to have it everything but we feel bad because what dominates us is what we want and not the intellectual side. The desire to own things without limits imprisons us in a suffering that makes us vulnerable and kills the desire of being who one is. Then, we desire more things to compensate our emptiness creating a vicious cycle that never ends ...

 However, given the ephemeral nature of life, why we also have to renounce to the ephemeral? Not all the unfulfilled desires crumble us, some affect us more than others depending on the importance we have given them, and this depends much on our psychological structure. Every plan of life can be seen as ephemeral and doomed to suffering, but can we aspire to anything more?

Week 8

Philosophy and Religion

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it".

Andre Gide (French author and winner of the Nobel Prize in literature-1859-1961)

    The existence of God is an issue that concerns philosophy and religion. Both try to answer the same questions about the meaning of life, death, fate ... etc, but in different ways.

The philosophy addresses these issues from a rational point of view, and it is open to criticism and change through the advancement of human knowledge. God, from the philosophical point of view, is the possible existence of a first principle using the reason to raise the hypothesis of an omnipotent being. Religion simply takes this hypothesis as dogma, there is no debate about the existence of God, and it assumes its true without having reached this conclusion by reason. Religion responds directly to the most important human questions without allowing changes, and faith is all we have as answers to our questions.

Philosophy has doubts, religion asserts.  Philosophy arises from criticism, religion from dogma. The principles accepted by faith do not allow criticism, and philosophical analysis criticizes everything, therefore philosophy and religion are incompatible unless there is reasonable faith.

Week 6

   Artificial Intelligence

"I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do." 

HAL 9000 (from 2001: A Space Odyssey)

   Can a machine be intelligent? Can we create a complex program enough to "feel" and "think" for itself? Is it possible to "create" mind from the pure matter or is it needed a "something" else?, and above all... How do we define what we would take as evidence that a machine can think or not? The Turing test establishes that we can consider a program "smart" if it can hold a conversation and the interviewer cannot distinguish it from a human being under conditions that he/she cannot see any of the two respondents. John Searle tried to answer the Turing's experiment with the Chinese Room:

   Suppose there is a locked room with a slot as the only communication with the outside. Within this room is someone who cannot speak Chinese. At the same time there is a vast library of Chinese encyclopedias that indicate which ideogram is the response to another. If someone from the outside introduces an envelope with a question in Chinese, the person inside the room will search through the books until he/she finds the corresponding ideogram as a response and returns it to the outside. Can the person who is out and get the answer conclude that the person who is in the room "knows" Chinese? If the door is never opened always left with the doubt, and for practical purposes the answer is "yes, he/she knows Chinese" because we assume that if something works in an intelligent and conscious way is because it is smart and aware.

   How can we determine if a machine is intelligent or not? If we make the comparison with human capabilities, sooner or later we will hit the uncomfortable fact that the machines surpassed us on several fronts long ago. However, for something to become intelligent as a human, it makes sense to bet on emerging behaviors that were not be scheduled, but we would enter into a kind of contradiction because we would not be creating a machine piece by piece, but only certain parts that would open the possibility for new issues to arise. In fact, the intelligence is characterized by the ability of self-perfection on the basis of experience; therefore we could never create something clever at all, only the core for the emergence of that intelligence.

   A machine could be programmed to react to a blow like a human: can scream, move, and hold the place where it was beaten, but without feeling pain, then, although we could implement more features, the machine would lack of the more human feature: the ability to have mental experiences firsthand.

   Qualia would be this, the subjective sensation of pain, and subjective experience of other sensations. They are the most mysterious events of human consciousness. They are somewhat personal, not transferable, and characteristic of the individual. The mystery of qualia, so tied to the human, comes from the fact that they are not explainable from a physicalist reduction. Consciousness or awareness is the capability of experiencing these qualia or feelings, and if these cannot be simulated, we must admit that there is "something" that is specifically human, something intangible and independent of the matter. Almost all philosophical positions, including the psychoanalysis, give to the consciousness of oneself a shade almost magical, but science has quite simple and concrete definitions of consciousness as it is a self-monitoring of unconscious psychological processes, or the view of oneself as an object in the world. If the mind and human emotions are a consequence of the actions of the brain as a complex processor system, why should not happen something similar as a result of other complex processing system?

   According to Roger Penrose, quantum mechanics is involved in the phenomenon of "consciousness" and that's not magic, but it is virtually impossible to replicate it artificially in a current machine, so there will not be artificial beings now, but perhaps in the future. Less than 100 years ago it was unimaginable to think that a machine could play and win at chess to a human...

Week 5

Mind and Matter

"What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind"

George Berkeley (Anglo-Irish philosopher, 1685-1753)

   Of all the mysteries of the universe, perhaps the most intriguing resides in the center of our being: the mind. Throughout history, dualism has been defended by philosophers like Plato, who believed that an immortal soul survived the body, Aristotle, who believed that the soul was the shape of the body but the two were inseparable and when one disappeared, the other also did, or Descartes, who believed that man consisted of two substances, res extensa (material) and res cogitans (thinking) joined by a gland called the pineal.

   Currently, the dualism of mind and body is defended primarily by religion to explain the immortality of the soul through life after death. Many philosophers and scientists defend the dualism of body and mind, such as cognitive psychology or mentalism, they believe that the mind rules the brain and there is no physical theory to explain consciousness, the mind is like software on the hardware. The physical explanation of the mind and human consciousness is probably the largest and most important scientific challenge of humanity, and maybe quantum biophysics can find the physical basis of consciousness. On the contrary, the evidence for the existence of the mind would allow other intangible realities such as the soul and the spiritual realm.

   However, dualism is unable to explain the interaction that occurs between the body and mind: how the mind, if not physical, can produce a change in a physical domain (violating the principle of conservation of energy). Also, if the mind is immaterial it would be impossible to influence it by physical means.

   Physicalist theories try to answer the mind-body problem by denying the dualism and arguing the lack of mental entities, or the ability to identify entities, attributes and material processes (ontological dimension), or the need to translate our mentalist language into a physical language (semantic dimension) or the possibility of reducing the psychological explanations about mental states into physical and organic explanations (epistemological dimension).

   The root of these physicalist theories are at the same time, in Cartesian philosophy: if the body- according to Descartes- functions as a complex machine, could the mind also be explained by similar mechanical principles? Scientists claim to be able to map the brain and to know where are centered the processes of thinking. The stimulation of a certain point of the brain can cause a sensation or particular reaction. Scientists are working hard to prove this in an effort to show that the life of the immaterial mind can be physically located within the physical object we call the brain. They say there is really no difference between what we call the brain and what we call the mind, and therefore there is no difference between what we call body and what we call soul. In essence, the immaterial world is simply a figment of our imagination. In this universe there are only two things: matter and energy, and both are physical, there is nothing spiritual. The body is subject to physical laws, and memories are recorded in neurons such as the information of a PC is on the hard drive, thus memories are also matter.

Week 4

Knowledge

"All theories are legitimate and none of them are important. What matters is what one does with them"

Jorge Luis Borges (Argentine writer and poet, 1899-1986)

   Knowledge is a way of asking and answering questions that recognize multiple points of view. Throughout the history of epistemology, there have been many ways of understanding knowledge: a theoretical knowledge where there is plenty of reason and logic but very little action taken, a practical knowledge built without any reasoning from the experience, the practice, the day-to-day, or an intuitive knowledge where the logic is out of place and emotional and unconscious elements play an important role. This is sometimes more powerful than any other knowledge built with logic and reasoning.

   Ideally, the reason, heart and action should go together in order to build the knowledge, but this denies the reality: our imperfection to know. However, even though imperfect, there are a thousand ways to learn and build knowledge.

   Knowledge is in the person, not in anywhere else, and is indistinguishable from the person. What I know is the sum of all my life experiences, absolutely all of them which have left a residue at any time. It manifests itself in everything we do, in what we say, in what we do not say, in what we dream...

   There is not knowledge, for example, inside a book. A book can build, contribute, and enrich so much knowledge as different interpretations that its readers make of it. The person who writes it know what every sentence means, but prior knowledge of each reader will make that the words, phrases and ideas are interpreted in one way or another. Sometimes the lack of prior knowledge makes that the reading of the book does not tell us absolutely nothing, in other occasions, a limited prior knowledge makes that the reading of the book tells us little, but often occur that the prior knowledge of the reader creates exciting new interpretations of the text: applications to other fields (perhaps unimagined by the writer), relations with other concepts and ideas, etc.

   In short, everything we do is building our knowledge, which is manifested in all what we do, think, want or feel. In this sense, the knowledge could be defined as an inseparable combination of thought, emotion and action.

   All knowledge, concepts and ideas are built over other knowledge, concepts and ideas, but to get certain types of knowledge, it is required a journey because knowledge is not open to anyone, it is only open to those who want to make a conceptual journey that will lead them to be able to assimilate a new idea. Beyond the considerations of whether the knowledge has to flow or has to be stored, I think we should act and interact from knowledge.

   Knowledge, this that is so hard to define, is perhaps what best defines each one of us (is our identity?), I talk about a knowledge that has an indissoluble combination of thought, action and desire, not about a computer hard disk. We are not machines. My knowledge is how I act, how I think and how I want or feel, and also, what I do, what I think and what I want or feel.



Week 3

Beyond Empiricism

"Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them"
Albert Einstein (Physicist, 1879-1955)

  John Locke was based primarily on experience to criticize the Innatism. According to Locke, we come into the world without any idea of things. Our minds would be similar to a blank slate or tabula rasa, and everything we learn throughout our lives we get it through the experience that previously passes through the senses, denying the possibility of spontaneous ideas.

  The main idea of the tabula rasa is that we are basically sensitive to an experience that is self contained and provides something that it would not exist without it. But knowledge would not be possible if there is not a whole cognitive system that makes possible an identity in the form of experience. Knowledge is not acquired from the senses, it has to come from somewhere else, there must be something innate to organize and interpret experiences. The understanding of the experiences is what creates the knowledge; therefore the most important ideas must be innate, such as the idea of infinity, the substance, the idea of God or mathematical ideas in general.  Descartes talked about God and a primigenial science as the knowledge itself. The modernity of Descartes should be viewed in light of rationality. The reason replaces God. The logic of God is replaced by man’s rational faculty.

  The famous linguist Noam Chomsky argues that language comes before thinking. For Chomsky, language is a kind of computer that operates automatically, like the processes of association before thinking. Chomsky sets out that the child has a genetic programming for learning their mother tongue and the proof of this is that phonemes are limited to a few and they are not infinite as we may believe. For empiricists, thinking comes before language, arguing that the ability to think affects the language. They are convinced that the child learns to talk because they imitate adults- especially their mother- and because they have to express their needs and desires. According to the empiricists, the child learns the language in the same way that other physical and mental abilities are learned. That is, through the so-called "operant behavior" determined by the influence of external factors and not by innate or genetic factors.

  The problem with the empirical sciences is that they are not objective like formal sciences, because they are born from the ways of seeing the reality of each one.  If we imagine a future where human civilization has undergone a biological evolution totally different from any known species, these beings will have a vision of reality quite different. They could have a wider viewing range, more senses or less, and most importantly, a completely different structure of their brain, so their interpretation of reality will not be the same than ours. In this case, the empirical sciences and the entire understanding of the reality of these people will be different. However, 2 +2 will be 4 also for them, and the sum of the angles of a triangle will be also 180 degrees.

Week 2

Methodological Skepticism

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Carl Sagan (Scientist and Skeptic, 1934-1996)

  The skepticism comes from the Greek word "Skeptikoi" which means "seekers" or "inquirers".  It is commonly believed that the skeptics do not have beliefs, but this belief about skeptics is false, because without belief of some kind we would not survive.  Beliefs are the sources of action. Anyone who believes in nothing does nothing, and therefore she or he will live even worse and less than dogmatic people.

  In skepticism as a philosophical doctrine, there are, at least, two different approaches: the philosophical skepticism which deny the possibility of knowledge and is in clear opposition to dogmatism, and the methodological skepticism (or Cartesian doubt) associated with the methodology of Descartes, which is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to examination in order to separate true from false statements, that is, to apply the reasonable doubt as a tool for knowledge. Methodological skepticism does not deny dogmatically;  it denies claims with no evidence.

  Many religious practitioners and charlatans with a degree (chiropractors, acupuncturists, homeopaths, parapsychologists...) or those who invented it (ufologists, astrologers, advisors in Feng Shui, aromatherapy, tarot readers...) take advantage of credulous people.  Millions of people lose their time, money, health and even their lives because they are gullible in methodological aspects that seem inconceivably ridiculous to skeptics like me. But I know that "methodological skepticism" is not a vaccine against credulity. There are charlatans out there who are much smarter and they use the logic, their charm and persuasion to sell something that you will end up buying it. Fortunately, those are the least. Most of charlatans- including the priests in the area- have the charm of a toothache. However, they are able to persuade and deceive many people with their tricks.

  Every day, many religions "A la Carte" emerge as a replacement for traditional monotheistic ones which do not convince some people. These new religions are mixed through an eclecticism unthinkable in the past, Christianity and astrology, Christianities and reincarnations, "cosmic" consciences with "universal energy", Santeria with all kind of beliefs...

  In short, the need to believe in whatever as a compensation for the harsh reality faced by the human beings before the end of their existence, sets in motion the psychological mechanisms of consolation. Is it a matter of intelligence, of intellectual honesty, of nonsense? I do not know. The reality is that these beliefs are leaving to make room for others. The point is to always have a support to overcome the fears arising from the insignificance of man against the enigmatic forces of nature.  

  James Randi- a magician and professional skeptic- offers a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of supernatural or paranormal ability under proper scientific examination. After more than 40 years no one has won that money.

Week 1

The Allegory of the Cave

"The unexamined life is not worth living." (Apology 38a)

  

  The Allegory of the cave is a metaphorical explanation of the education of the soul toward knowledge. Plato explains us the existence of two worlds: the sensible world of appearances (known through the senses) and the supersensible world of ideas (only reachable through reason). There are also two levels of awareness: opinion and knowledge. Statements about the physical or visible world, including comments and propositions of science are just opinion. Some opinions are well founded, but none of them counts as genuine knowledge. The reason, used correctly, is the only way to discover and to understand the true reality.

  Plato describes a group of prisoners who have lived their entire live chained up facing the inside of an underground cave. They only can look to a wall of the cave and cannot escape. A burning fire behind them projects the shadows of the people and things outside the cave on the wall that the prisoners can see. The prisoners are not able to perceive the truth and think the shadows are real, unaware that they are blind from true reality.

  The cave is the place of the sensible world (things perceived with our five senses) and the situation in which people find themselves as prisoners in the cave represents the state in which human beings remain outside knowledge. They are shackled by their ignorance, which only allows them to see the shadows as the one and only reality misunderstanding its origin. The statues or objects are the change of men's mental state to reality, which involves pain and conversion of the soul and the fire refers to the reason, besides enables the projection of shadows of objects on the wall. These shadows are appearances, that is, what we grasp through the senses and think is real. Natural things, the world outside the cave, and the prisoners who cannot see, are the world of ideas.

  Only those who get rid of the chains that keep them confined in a world of appearances- the interior of the cave- and ascend gradually to the supersensible world, will be able to understand the nature of the reality.

Week 0

 "I am I plus my circumstances"

Ortega y Gasset (Spanish philosopher and humanist , 1883- 1955) 



  We live in troubled times where competitiveness, savage individualism and consumerism are values ​​that prevail in our world. It seems that we are losing humanity; the virus of indifference is inoculated in our blood, minds, souls and hearts. Sometimes we are like robots that don't feel or suffer, and because of the lack of humanity we lose our dignity.

 
  The culture of today’s society is mostly based on selfishness, from governments which are living a great corruption and a constant struggle for power without any concern for people's needs, to the big businessmen who only seek to increase their wealth earning high returns on their investments through the hard work of people who are exploited, underpaid or without benefits.

  In today’s society, Philosophy seems to be something that does not worth for absolutely nothing. However, it is an important aspect in building the personality.
       

  Philosophy, by etymology, definition, and essence, describes itself as love of wisdom. It aims to teach critical thinking and make reasoned judgments. It helps us to seek the truth. Most of the major issues (if not all) of concern to humanity have always been thought and addressed already by philosophers: each of them has given its response, has been challenged, supported or supplemented by another point of view, and this greatly helps us to develop our reasoning and to form our own ideas.

  People with a philosophical knowledge have a strong personality, their own criteria. They are not easily influenced by the opinions of the environment, by fashion, by lobbies or pressure groups. This people are not malleable, they have serious convictions; they are not changing their ideas with the wind that blows in every moment. Philosophy leads us in the pursuit of truth, honesty, integrity... concepts that seem to be in crisis nowadays.