December 18, 2007

Olivia Sabuco with her body-soul connection theory.

From personal experience, I have seen physical body responses...negative and

positive...based upon the thoughts one thinks. At the very bottom of this
manifestation in my opinion, is the person who has a "positive" attitude about life
and one that is held captive by "negative" thought. At the higher end I would
suppose are those individuals that have manifested spontaneous cures that
medical science cannot explain.

Holistic medical treatment(s) abound today in the overall mitigation of illness.

While not claiming it self to be a cure-all, the combination of traditional medicine,
with as the text book states "...holistic medicine with its emphasis on the intimate
connection between mental and physical well-being" (p107), does at the very
least ease suffering...which could be considered curative.

Barring catastrophic illness, in my opinion, even if one does not believe in the
body-soul connection, often people with a sunny disposition as opposed to a sour
one, look younger, appear happier with themselves and life in general, recover
quicker from life struggles, and are physically healthier.

December 18, 2007

Perhaps lack of experience can lead to the generation of ideas?

An example could be fantasy. Fantasy can be 100% fictional having no actual

experience in the area under contemplation...to coin a Madonna phrase...like a
sexual virgin.

Or perhaps one has some actual physical feeling by experience in relationship to

sex, but has never had direct sexual contact with another so technically they too
are a virgin. In this case, some genuine experience exists from which further
fantasy ideas can develop.

I completely agree that the mind is what validates the senses by cataloging an
experience as real. In the movie What the Bleep about Quantum Physics, one of
the scientists' related a story to support this theory regarding the arrival of
Columbus in the Bahamas. According to this scientist, the eye cannot see
something the brain cannot comprehend. The Indians, as the story went on, were
blind to the arrival of Columbus because they had never seen ocean going
vessels. The shaman, the scientist said, sensed something was up in the ocean
but didn't know exactly what. After a few days of watching the movement of the
ocean water, the shaman was finally able to see the ship. The shaman then
described to the people what he saw, who in turn could then see the ship.
December 19, 2007
If what Locke theorizes is true, then how does one explain moments of
"deja vu"? Or what about intuition or precognitive visions?

If one knows absolutely nothing until an experience occurs and leaves its imprint,
then how does one explain the amazing abilities of idiot savants? Of course not
everyone believes in reincarnation, but those that claim reincarnation appear to
know things from a prior life...dates, places, people, events...that the current
incarnate had absolutely no prior knowledge or experience of. Plato's theory of
love and becoming, obviously offers a differing view when he states that "each
individual has in his or her immortal soul a perfect set of Forms that can be
remembered (anamnesis), and only this constitutes true knowledge" (p44).

Perhaps it's partly Locke's statement about a clean slate that Christians hook into
when they claim baptism is a wiping away of sin or being born again...each at
least seem to imply a clean slate theory.

December 19, 2007

I can totally buy into Berkeley's argument about perception as well.
I am the type of person that can seldom take anyone's word for something I have
not experienced (or at least researched) myself. And as Berkeley stated and you
discovered, each perception is often unique to the individual based upon his or
her prior knowledge or perhaps lack of knowledge when forming a personal
perspective.

We all know how ones imagination can run wild without fact into fantasy based
on perceptions or stereo-types or biases or public opinion and so on. Perception
often times has more impact than truth...isn't that a sad truth. I have spent a
significant amount of time with smallish Native American populations. Being white
and a member of the community (by marriage), I was witness often to perception
carrying more weight than truth...especially when the perception was negative.

December 19, 2007

While the text does not state as such, I believe because Olivia Sabuco de
Nantes identified the brain as the central hub through which thought is
processed and that the quality of thought can affect quality of the body,
Hegel could step further by claiming "...what is true, what is real, is not
merely that which is thought of, but that which thinks" (p143).

Hegel's theory is an indication to me that the thoughts one thinks about can
become an absolute truthful reality for that individual. Therefore, prior support
exists for Hegel's argument that "the objective world in fact exists in the minds of
individuals...and the individual mind is the vehicle of infinite thought reflecting on
itself" (p143).

Hegel's synthesis thesis and antithesis, follow Sabuco's argument also. Hegel's
theory that on the opposite side of self-conscious thought existed external
expression (p145) can, in my opinion, lead back to Sabuco's theory that our
psychological (self-conscious thought) health can determine our physical
(external expression) health (p107).

December 19, 2007

dualism

I just believe one cannot exist without the other. In my opinion, the earthly
spirit/mind, requires a physical boundary/vessel to exist within. The body cannot
exist if it is spiritless/mindless because the mind controls the body.

December 20, 2007

Commonsense is relative only to one's own perception of what is
commonsense.
Universal commonsense might include the fact that when one places a hand on a
hot burner , said hand could be burned. With a child that is just learning about
their environment, one could tell the child from personal knowledge via
experience that if they touch a hot burner they will burn their hand...yet the child
will often touch anyway...perhaps so they too can add a physical experience,
which provides them knowledge?

December 20, 2007

If there was no meaning behind what we experienced could we say that it
was an experience at all?

I've spent years writing down philosophical statements that seem to have no
rebuttals and thus labeling them universal truth's. While certainly truth is an
extremely subjective concept, I believe there must be universal truth's for which
no rebuttal argument exists.

As an example, dreaming. Dreams occur, in my opinion, as a result of the

subconscious brain attempting to catalog every experience it encountered during
the day. In my opinion, when we dream about something known to be true to our
conscious self, then the characters and events in our dreams are common place
and familiar...like having a dream I am at work. But then suddenly, within my
dream when I open a desk drawer, several five legged dogs come flying out and
begin dancing and singing on my desktop. In think these odd dream story lines
are the result of the conscious mind trying to place a known/experienced
meaning to an unknown bit of sensory data encountered during the day that is
bubbling up from the subconscious in an attempt to be cataloged for future
experience in the conscious.
 According to some quantum physicists in the movie What the Bleep, our eyes
take in 400 billion bits of information per second of which the mind can only
process 2000. Of those 2000 bits of sensory information being processed per
second, our conscious mind will only recognize self-serving experience which
then becomes our own reality (Movie: What the Bleep).

January 15, 2008

My point here is the subjectivity of what one thinks sex is or is not and what
constitute a lie. Perhaps Clinton actually believed oral sex was not like having
real sex.

January 15, 2008

Perhaps that's the lesson this DQ is supposed to teach...genuine "good" (while
subjective) habits should be hard to break because they become a part of what
others and you associate as being a part of yourself.

January 15, 2008

In my personal opinion, while drug usage and abuse usually affect personality
and judgment, I do not view an addiction to a mind/body altering substance
a habit, which alters moral character. I personally believe that good/bad
moral/unethical are subjective terms...in this instance an identifier of
character...and I am hard pressed to find any addiction as the cause of decline in
moral character. I personally may not like the manner in which a drug addicted
person behaves while in my company, but as you said, even they know drugs are
bad for them. So, if one is judging one to have good moral character because he
or she knows drugs are bad, then the drug addicted person has the same moral
compass because he or she, in your example, agree drugs are bad also.

Kant says (on page 281) that "it's not effects or consequences of your act that
determine whether your act is good, for these are not totally within your control.
What is within your control is the intent with which you act. Thus, what
determines whether your act is good or bad is the intent with which it is taken."

What's odd about the Kant quote...when I marked if for future reference, I was in
total disagreement with that statement. Now that you have asked your question, I
am quoting him to support my opinion...isn’t philosophy interesting?

January 15, 2008

What is the connection between habit and moral character?

Without some kind of "habit(s)" moral character cannot exist as a term or as a

state of subjective reflection upon self, another, or a group. Thank goodness,
humans are most often creatures of habit so some sort of moral character is
practically guaranteed for everyone on this planet.

However in my opinion, the definition of moral character is 100% subjective

based upon what I believe to be true, what my culture says is true, and what my
environment taught me to be true. Sounds like I am an ethical skeptic.

I have been trying to think of some habit that could be applied universally that is
not biased in some regard to favor some particular group or individual that could
pass the absolutely true test. While I can think of many offensive habits that I
would avoid and just as many healthy habits I would employ...all are still MY
personal philosophy regarding what constitutes a good or bad moral character.

The term "habit", according to my American Heritage Dictionary states: a

constant, often subconscious inclination to perform some act acquired through its
frequent repetition.

The term "moral" the same source states: Of or connected with the judgment of
the goodness or badness or of established human action and character.

The term "character" again from American Heritage states: the combination of
qualities or features that distinguishes on person, group from another. Moral or
ethical strength' integrity, fortitude.

So if I engage in a continuous act…that is most likely subconscious due to my

frequency of doing it
AND
This behavior is "good" because it conforms/exemplifies established human
actions, or "bad" because it runs contra to established social norms and human
actions
THEN
The two (habit & moral) combine to form my moral character which will
distinguish me as an individual and as part of a like minded and acting group.

What is the connection between moral character and politics?

Can one have good moral character and be engaged in politics? It seems the
two terms are mutually exclusive...especially in this day and age...and the current
election process unfolding in the US. In my opinion, even if one had impeccable
moral character (subjective), the rest of the political arena would subdue the
good gal/guy eventually. Honor...an essential habit one requires in his or
her arsenal of impeccable moral character…is of course a subjective agenda.

January 16, 2008

I would vote immediately for an individual - no matter his or her party affiliation -
IF what that person genuinely believed in matched the majority of my convictions.
However, I don't see that happening in politics in this day and age.
What I see in a political figure is one that will change opinion to match the
majority held (popular) opinion. Romney would be a recent example. At one time
he favored a woman's right to choose. But when this attitude brought grumblings
from some Republican sections, he openly changed his tune.

Some would say his moral character improved by changing his stance. I say his
moral character declined because when the going got tough, he took the popular
road out of conflict rather than holding true to his original conviction...or was his
original conviction the popular opinion at the time and now he is allowed to
openly support his private opinion? Either way, his moral character in the public
eye has changed. I am sure he is hoping he gained more public support than he
lost.

Perhaps individualism is impossible to maintain when seeking to fill public office?

January 16, 2008

What about a drug addict that is addicted to prescription drugs?

A morally upstanding individual gets into a car accident and ends up with chronic
back pain. So much pain, the only management solution is morphine. Morphine
is an addictive substance. I have been on morphine for let's say the past ten
years. Now let's say I lost my source of income because of the effects of
morphine addiction. Now my ability to continue taking my prescribed narcotic is in
jeopardy. Withdrawal from morphine is ugly.

Morphine is the only pain-killer that works for my pain management. Now,
because I am an addict and I lost my insurance when I lost my job, I am reduced
to petty theft in order to pay for my prescription drug habit which I now have to
buy on the streets because I cannot afford to see my Dr.

Is my moral character now bad because of my need to mitigate...not only my

chronic back pain but also a medically induced addition? Perhaps moral
character must be defined act by act, person by person, circumstance by
circumstance?

At first read, I didn't agree with Kant either. The worst kind of human being I know
of is a pedophile...which was my immediate thought when I wholeheartedly
disagreed with the Kant statement I quoted. And then I started thinking...drug
addicts, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, thief's...all share (in my opinion) a
common foundation. The motivation behind the "bad" behavior has a
psychological/medical explanation. If one engages in a morally reprehensible
behavior then most likely something is medically wrong with the individual in
question because a normal (subjective) person doesn't display or engage in
these "bad" behaviors.
Which then led me to the drug addict. Even though the habit was initially self-
inflicted, the existing addict now has a medical condition known as
addiction...which now explains the "bad" behavior(s) the addict engages in.

So then I was back to supporting Kant's theory. Can one honestly possess a bad
moral character when they are in fact sick...when it is the
sickness/illness...mental and/or medical that results in the bad behavior that
is categorized as amoral?

Personally, while I understand that illness does not excuse these horrible
behaviors, my faith in genuine human nature allows me to believe that given
some magic cure, all of the people who engage in morally bad behaviors would
rush to take such a cure because they KNOW what they are doing is morally
wrong but cannot, for some medically defined reason, stop themselves.

So, because they know they are behaving in a morally bad manner, just as you
say they are bad...both sides of this argument are in agreement...and isn't part of
good moral character to know right from wrong? But then I'm back in the boat
that wonders who (outside of the law) determines the good the bad and the ugly
regarding morals because all are subjective based on a myriad of factors.

I'm just not sure if moral character can be exalted or diminished by ones
behaviors...especially if a medical condition is the underlying reason for the
display of said behaviors.

January 18, 2008

In my opinion, IF individual freedom took the Rawls approach - you can
have your freedom as long as it does not infringe upon mine - then
individual freedom would become the common good because everyone
would be happy being themselves in an individual way which then would
positively impact the common good of all.

Of course I don't see this type of freedom occurring in my lifetime...however I do

recall a Star Trek episode

While proclaiming ourselves in anthem that we live in the Land of the Free...our
freedom when choosing is often limited based upon our gender, ethnicity, and
sexual orientation while our moral character is often heavily burdened by
religious dogma and a majority social norm.

January 18, 2008

In my opinion, even if one votes based upon the platforms presented by the
candidates, we (as citizens) will end up with policies influenced by the
financial/religious backers of said candidate. As I have aged and have some
history to look back upon, I view political figures as puppets.

What they say in public is written by speech writers. Before sitting down to an
interview, they have reviewed the questions so absolutely no candid response
will ever be forthcoming. They have a media spokesperson to speak for them
when they cannot be trusted to talk the party line or have (like George W) placed
their foot in their mouth sooooo many times that the Dixie Chicks must've be
psychic in their pre-emptive apology for him being our leader.

January 19, 2008

Perhaps because animal cruelty is once removed from the eventual horrors of
human to human drug trafficking, the offence is smaller in scope and thus easier
to magnify under the public microscope. While I consider myself an animal rights
supporter, I eat meat, own a fur coat, and most of my shoes and handbags are
leather.

Perhaps we (American's) have been slightly brainwashed regarding animal

cruelty. When one hears about serial killers, they were most often cruel to
animals. It's not difficult...even if on a subconscious level...to equate animal
cruelty with a potential serial killer. Perhaps this association is what trips so many
triggers when, as you stated, illegal drug use and abuse is a national epidemic.

January 20, 2008

According to Aristotle, who was an ethical naturalist, a person's highest natural

objective is the attainment of happiness. Yes, however Aristotle said that we must
look at the function of a human being. Humans have two functions according to
Aristotle; we live and we reason. He then said because we live - happiness is
one part pleasurable enjoyment. Because we can reason - happiness cannot be
obtained if one is not "...exercising and developing their capacity to reason".
p261

Hypothetical: I take drugs because it brings me happiness. Therefore, I am

fulfilling my highest natural objective. I would argue that taking drugs is not
happiness, but rather a pleasurable event. Therefore, this hypothetical is only
addressing one side of a two sided Aristotle happiness coin.

Questions: Is this a proper interpretation of Aristotle's philosophy? I do not

believe so Is there a flaw in my logic according to Aristotle's philosophy? Again I
believe that this hypothetical has not addressed how the taking of drugs can be
equated to the development of human reason. According to Aristotle. "happiness
is activity in accordance with virtue" p 262. Looking at his two descriptions of
virtues, one possess intellectual virtue (exercising reason) and moral virtue
(keeping our impulses and appetites in moderation). Pleasure alone does not
equal happiness according to Aristotle.