These past two weeks the topic of faith has been flung at me from all directions and often from the most unexpected places. Due to this, my thoughts about faith have been buzzing diligently within my skull and hence I shall emancipate them here.
One of the most horrible and yet most fortunate traits of being human is not knowing a very vast majority of things. There exist several questions to which we simply do not have answers, and so we use faith (in many forms, including hypotheses and theories) to fill these unanswered voids.
Faith can be classified into three categories:
These is immediate faith- the faith which is the foundation of all religious institutions but is often also found in other areas. This kind of faith is very cut and dry. It is simply choosing a theory and accepting that theory to be true. Religion is the perfect example here - even though I hesitate to use it. Unfortunately however, it is too good an example to pass up. Religion is a very clear example of immediate faith for it provides the answers immediately and hence labels all other faiths as false. Note in particular how this kind of faith completely cripples all prospects of searching for answers.
Then there is primary mediate faith. This faith is quite specific. It accepts that there are things we don't know and further asserts that research and study will allow us to discover these things. It provides no substitute for what is not yet known. Note how this faith very powerfully encourages the search for knowledge.
Finally there is secondary mediate faith. This is better known as open-minded faith. Whilst accepting certain theories, this faith acknowledges that they are only theories and is open to replacing these theories with facts when these facts become known. It is a well-balanced mix of primary mediate and immediate faith. Whilst it does not encourage the search for knowledge as strongly as primary mediate faith does, it is very useful as it provides some dogma to apply in life until the facts become known.
In reality one may use a mix of two or all of the different kinds of faith, for example having an adamant religious core but being open to some of the religious dogma being changed over time.
On a personal note, my preferred faith is primary mediate, although I use secondary mediate too in some cases as I need it to get by.
Some people may claim to have no faith at all, although this is only true as they are using a different definition of faith. By virtue of the above three definitions the only plausible way of having no faith is by admitting there is knowledge we don't know and not knowing whether further research will provide answers or not. Although such a lack of faith means not only having no dogma to live by but also not searching for any knowledge, hence living life not only knowing no truth, but also with no hope of learning the truth. Ironically, faith is required for one to gain knowledge.
On a side-note I would also like to point that if any atheistic person is asked by a religious fanatic about a topic which (s)he feels (s)he knows the answers too whilst the non-believer does not, remember that they don't "know" either, they only believe and as such everyone on Earth is on the same level when it comes to these questions as no matter how strongly you believe something, believing is not knowing.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Art
Today I feel like writing about Art. So that's exactly what I'll do.
The exact definition of what makes something art and not garbage is very vague to say the least. In general, art is something which possesses aesthetic value - but then again, what exactly is aesthetic value? Everybody seems to have his or her personal opinion of what classifies as art.
My take on the matter is as follows; There are two main parts to any work of art - the communicative part and the essential part.
The communicative part is the part of the art which pulls, attracts or entertains the spectator. In a piece of literature it would be the author's skill at writing which keeps the reader enchanted, for example. In a play it would be the actors' talent in acting, and so on and so forth.
The essential part is the part of the art which is what the artist is trying to communicate. In literature, this would either be the moral of the story or the emotions which the author is trying to convey. The essential part is either a logical essential part (i.e. trying to teach a lesson or express an opinion on an issue) or an emotional essential part (a sad story, a horror movie etc.)
Needless to say - one part without the other is not art. Some house music may be catchy, but it portrays no emotion and definitely no good sense- and hence is not art, but rather sound. It has the communicative part but not the essential part.
The essential part without the communicative part is not only very ineffective at being correctly communicated to the spectator but cannot be considered art as it would be more like a lesson. Of course, their are ways of making teaching an art- but these ways are not always implemented. Simply attaching an effective communicative part to the lesson (which is already in itself an essential part) would make it a piece of art overall.
Several performance arts are a lot of communicative part with very little essential part. Dancing, magic and drawing are three examples of artforms which find a very difficult time in having essential parts. One way of making it easier for them to have essential parts is perhaps integrating them with something else, for example an interpretive dance during a musical.
Anyway, I believe I have highlighted all I wanted to say on this subject. And now I shall allow my prose to come to a close.
The exact definition of what makes something art and not garbage is very vague to say the least. In general, art is something which possesses aesthetic value - but then again, what exactly is aesthetic value? Everybody seems to have his or her personal opinion of what classifies as art.
My take on the matter is as follows; There are two main parts to any work of art - the communicative part and the essential part.
The communicative part is the part of the art which pulls, attracts or entertains the spectator. In a piece of literature it would be the author's skill at writing which keeps the reader enchanted, for example. In a play it would be the actors' talent in acting, and so on and so forth.
The essential part is the part of the art which is what the artist is trying to communicate. In literature, this would either be the moral of the story or the emotions which the author is trying to convey. The essential part is either a logical essential part (i.e. trying to teach a lesson or express an opinion on an issue) or an emotional essential part (a sad story, a horror movie etc.)
Needless to say - one part without the other is not art. Some house music may be catchy, but it portrays no emotion and definitely no good sense- and hence is not art, but rather sound. It has the communicative part but not the essential part.
The essential part without the communicative part is not only very ineffective at being correctly communicated to the spectator but cannot be considered art as it would be more like a lesson. Of course, their are ways of making teaching an art- but these ways are not always implemented. Simply attaching an effective communicative part to the lesson (which is already in itself an essential part) would make it a piece of art overall.
Several performance arts are a lot of communicative part with very little essential part. Dancing, magic and drawing are three examples of artforms which find a very difficult time in having essential parts. One way of making it easier for them to have essential parts is perhaps integrating them with something else, for example an interpretive dance during a musical.
Anyway, I believe I have highlighted all I wanted to say on this subject. And now I shall allow my prose to come to a close.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Case of Cordoba House.
Previously I have said both that nothing lasts forever or is sacred and that certain ideas are universal and unchanging. This seems to be self-contradicting so please let me elaborate further.
All physical things in the universe exist - meaning that they can interact in some way with the world around them. If they could not do so, then they wouldn't exist. Also, certain ideas never change, for example definitions and logical deductions (i.e. A circle is always a circle and 20/4 = 5is always true.)
Now let's take the very simplest of universal concepts, such as the number 4. You can have four of anything in the world; if you half that group of 4 you'll have 2, if you double it you get 8, add 5 to it you'll get 9 etc. etc. Basically the number 4 changes in the same way no matter what it's referring to. They could be buses, ducklings, Vikings, bullets - whatever. If you half the number in that group you'll have a group of 2.
Now let's take four ducklings as an example. With time those four ducklings will grow older, molt, re-grow their feathers, get scarred, develop drinking problems, open up Duck-Duck-Duck&Duck enterprises etc. etc. Although the number four has remained unchanged, what it is referring to has changed. After 15 years, double the group, halving the group etc. will still have the same result it had initially, for the number four is a universal concept and doesn't change.
Therefore, even though universal ideas in themselves never change, they are represented in the physical world by physical things and those things change. The same with much more complicated ideas like peace and freedom and so on and so forth.
Let me bring up the case of Cordoba House as an example. Nine years after the events of 9/11, an Islamic center is to be built very close to the site where the Twin Towers used to stand. Eight years ago, this would have been a joke. It is quite easy to imagine a stand-up comedian using such an event to lead to a witty remark about the government. Anyway, how does Cordoba house relate to the point I am trying to make?
Nine years ago, the idea of an Islamic centre so close to the sight of the WTC would have been unthinkable by the authorities. However, they have now changed their minds. Hence their opinion- which exists and is therefore influenced by demographic numbers, economic situations etc. has changed. The idea of what peace is, however, has not changed. The choice to go ahead with Cordoba house has made several citizens very angry with the authorities who gave the green light on this project. These enraged emotions have disrupted civil peace and protests have begun springing up.
The point? Opinions change but what peace is does not. If these politicians had the concept of peace in mind they would not have gone ahead with the project. They may have waited a few years for the people's opinions to change also, in which case the project would be able to come into realization without causing a panic, but they have chosen not to. Hence it is clear to see not only how the world has changed to allow such a project to come into being, but also how change can allow such projects to be feasible without having to disrupt peace. (i.e. waiting for the public opinion to change - or steering it to change)
To generalize the moral further; Universal ideas never change but the world does. Hence change may make universal ideas more feasible or less feasible (depending on the change which has taken place) and therefore must be taken advantage of in such a way as to make positive ideas more feasible and negative ideas less feasible.
Also; Everything changes, so rather than trying to create something permanent, trying to steer change in a certain direction is much more efficient and realistic.
All physical things in the universe exist - meaning that they can interact in some way with the world around them. If they could not do so, then they wouldn't exist. Also, certain ideas never change, for example definitions and logical deductions (i.e. A circle is always a circle and 20/4 = 5is always true.)
Now let's take the very simplest of universal concepts, such as the number 4. You can have four of anything in the world; if you half that group of 4 you'll have 2, if you double it you get 8, add 5 to it you'll get 9 etc. etc. Basically the number 4 changes in the same way no matter what it's referring to. They could be buses, ducklings, Vikings, bullets - whatever. If you half the number in that group you'll have a group of 2.
Now let's take four ducklings as an example. With time those four ducklings will grow older, molt, re-grow their feathers, get scarred, develop drinking problems, open up Duck-Duck-Duck&Duck enterprises etc. etc. Although the number four has remained unchanged, what it is referring to has changed. After 15 years, double the group, halving the group etc. will still have the same result it had initially, for the number four is a universal concept and doesn't change.
Therefore, even though universal ideas in themselves never change, they are represented in the physical world by physical things and those things change. The same with much more complicated ideas like peace and freedom and so on and so forth.
Let me bring up the case of Cordoba House as an example. Nine years after the events of 9/11, an Islamic center is to be built very close to the site where the Twin Towers used to stand. Eight years ago, this would have been a joke. It is quite easy to imagine a stand-up comedian using such an event to lead to a witty remark about the government. Anyway, how does Cordoba house relate to the point I am trying to make?
Nine years ago, the idea of an Islamic centre so close to the sight of the WTC would have been unthinkable by the authorities. However, they have now changed their minds. Hence their opinion- which exists and is therefore influenced by demographic numbers, economic situations etc. has changed. The idea of what peace is, however, has not changed. The choice to go ahead with Cordoba house has made several citizens very angry with the authorities who gave the green light on this project. These enraged emotions have disrupted civil peace and protests have begun springing up.
The point? Opinions change but what peace is does not. If these politicians had the concept of peace in mind they would not have gone ahead with the project. They may have waited a few years for the people's opinions to change also, in which case the project would be able to come into realization without causing a panic, but they have chosen not to. Hence it is clear to see not only how the world has changed to allow such a project to come into being, but also how change can allow such projects to be feasible without having to disrupt peace. (i.e. waiting for the public opinion to change - or steering it to change)
To generalize the moral further; Universal ideas never change but the world does. Hence change may make universal ideas more feasible or less feasible (depending on the change which has taken place) and therefore must be taken advantage of in such a way as to make positive ideas more feasible and negative ideas less feasible.
Also; Everything changes, so rather than trying to create something permanent, trying to steer change in a certain direction is much more efficient and realistic.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Stop! You're doing it wrong!
We've all heard it - the whole "life is shit" speech which always sounds so much like the last time you heard it that you could swear pessimists had an underground club somewhere in a warehouse where they drone the same words over and over until they can say them all by themselves. Then they're back next Sunday for some brushing up.
Yes that is some light humour over there. I figure that the best way to start a blog which argues against the view that life is a tragedy is with a bit of comedy. Anyway, now on to why life isn't shit.
Well you see the thing is...life cannot be horrible. Because that feeling of life being horrible doesn't come from life per se. It comes from the way you're handling life. It's very easy to say life is horrible when you keep looking for things like "fairness" , "sanctity", "forever after"'s etc. etc. Well obviously life is horrible then. You're looking for a bunch of things which just don't exist. We made them up to make life less scary.
Think about the universe for a second. Where in the universe is anything fair? Do planets which get obliterated due to getting a tad too close to a black hole get a second chance? Nope. What about sanctity? Well where have you ever seen anything spared in the universe? I assure you, a meteor collision will spare nothing and no one. And forever? What lasts forever in the universe? Just in case you don't get the picture yet: Zilch.
Life is none of these things. Life is ever-changing, uncaring, unbalanced and restless.
So it's definitely horrible when you're looking for fair treatment, kept promises, a love ever after, unchanging happiness, total respect and all the other leprechauns at the end of the rainbow.
And why did we come up with these fairy tales? Well for one things it all makes life less scary. It's much easier to believe that you're going to achieve your goals when life is fair. You don't need to worry too much about the future if it's possible to just settle down and live happily ever after. It's just so much easier.
But that's the shame of it too though. Why go for these dreams? That's no kind of living if you're not fighting for something you believe in. You ever go to the theatre and watch just the last scene of a play? No. You go for the whole play, the whole plot. It's not about the ending it's about getting to the ending. And of course, nothing ever ends, so once you're done you can catch your breathe for a while but soon after you're off again.
So in short; Life doesn't suck. You suck at life. Now get your ass in gear and start living with a fighting mentality.
P.S. For the record, the "should"'s and "shouldn't"'s of our dear little norms....also dreams. So in the spirit of unpredictability.....fuck' em, they can kiss my ass.
Yes that is some light humour over there. I figure that the best way to start a blog which argues against the view that life is a tragedy is with a bit of comedy. Anyway, now on to why life isn't shit.
Well you see the thing is...life cannot be horrible. Because that feeling of life being horrible doesn't come from life per se. It comes from the way you're handling life. It's very easy to say life is horrible when you keep looking for things like "fairness" , "sanctity", "forever after"'s etc. etc. Well obviously life is horrible then. You're looking for a bunch of things which just don't exist. We made them up to make life less scary.
Think about the universe for a second. Where in the universe is anything fair? Do planets which get obliterated due to getting a tad too close to a black hole get a second chance? Nope. What about sanctity? Well where have you ever seen anything spared in the universe? I assure you, a meteor collision will spare nothing and no one. And forever? What lasts forever in the universe? Just in case you don't get the picture yet: Zilch.
Life is none of these things. Life is ever-changing, uncaring, unbalanced and restless.
So it's definitely horrible when you're looking for fair treatment, kept promises, a love ever after, unchanging happiness, total respect and all the other leprechauns at the end of the rainbow.
And why did we come up with these fairy tales? Well for one things it all makes life less scary. It's much easier to believe that you're going to achieve your goals when life is fair. You don't need to worry too much about the future if it's possible to just settle down and live happily ever after. It's just so much easier.
But that's the shame of it too though. Why go for these dreams? That's no kind of living if you're not fighting for something you believe in. You ever go to the theatre and watch just the last scene of a play? No. You go for the whole play, the whole plot. It's not about the ending it's about getting to the ending. And of course, nothing ever ends, so once you're done you can catch your breathe for a while but soon after you're off again.
So in short; Life doesn't suck. You suck at life. Now get your ass in gear and start living with a fighting mentality.
P.S. For the record, the "should"'s and "shouldn't"'s of our dear little norms....also dreams. So in the spirit of unpredictability.....fuck' em, they can kiss my ass.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
You'll have to answer eventually.
Who are you?
Many people answer this question with a list of useless syllables. "Jonathan Ebejer," for example. That is by no means who I am. It is what people call me (unless they use a nickname) but in no way is it who I am.
Who are you? More importantly, how do you go about answering that question? Unfortunately we tend to look to the world around us to find out who we are. We place ourselves in certain groups, certain beliefs, and label all kind of -ists to ourselves.
Such an obsession on looking at the world around us to define ourselves is like measuring the shape of each and every other puzzle piece except the one we're interested in. Then we hope to guess how this one puzzle piece fits in with the rest.
Needless to say, trying to find out who we are in such a way can never prove to be effective. Sometimes it might completely misguide us and take us to places or situations which are not where we belong. After a certain amount of time we begin to feel out of place, maybe even alone and depressed...which is to be expected as eventually you will realise you are not where you're meant to be.
The most effective way of finding out who you are is, unsurprisingly, observing yourself. The imagination is key here, as it will show you who you wish to be. That image of who you want to be is much more real than you may think....if you want to be something it is a clear sign that deep down inside that something is part of who you really are. Now I'm not talking about wanting a car or something pathetic like that. I'm talking about character.
I call wanting a car "pathetic" mostly because material objects like that are more often than not there to try to down out who we really are and just become what we own. Think about it. Imagine somebody came into the room right now and asked you to describe yourself. You wouldn't begin with your personality. You'd begin with your job, your school, your family....everything in your life which isn't you. Then maybe you'd get to describing your personality....if you even remember that it's there to be described. I'm sure you can remember an occasion you were asked to describe yourself and didn't have much to say. As you stood there grasping for thoughts, the only things which didn't pass your mind were your own virtues, weren't they?
And why do we all have embarrassing moments, but still feel ashamed when we look like fools? Isn't it to hide from who you are? To hide from your clumsiness, forgetfulness, inadequacy etc.? You want to look strong don't you? You want to seem in control- to seem like everything's in your hands. How much of your life is really in your hands? Very shockingly little. But we don't want to admit that. Everyone's a king, nobody's a fool.
I have no idea why we have these self-destructive tendencies. Maybe it's instinct, maybe we're brought up that way. Maybe it's the media or the government or the educational system. I don't know. And I won't pretend to know.
So with all this in mind, let's try again;
Who are you?
Many people answer this question with a list of useless syllables. "Jonathan Ebejer," for example. That is by no means who I am. It is what people call me (unless they use a nickname) but in no way is it who I am.
Who are you? More importantly, how do you go about answering that question? Unfortunately we tend to look to the world around us to find out who we are. We place ourselves in certain groups, certain beliefs, and label all kind of -ists to ourselves.
Such an obsession on looking at the world around us to define ourselves is like measuring the shape of each and every other puzzle piece except the one we're interested in. Then we hope to guess how this one puzzle piece fits in with the rest.
Needless to say, trying to find out who we are in such a way can never prove to be effective. Sometimes it might completely misguide us and take us to places or situations which are not where we belong. After a certain amount of time we begin to feel out of place, maybe even alone and depressed...which is to be expected as eventually you will realise you are not where you're meant to be.
The most effective way of finding out who you are is, unsurprisingly, observing yourself. The imagination is key here, as it will show you who you wish to be. That image of who you want to be is much more real than you may think....if you want to be something it is a clear sign that deep down inside that something is part of who you really are. Now I'm not talking about wanting a car or something pathetic like that. I'm talking about character.
I call wanting a car "pathetic" mostly because material objects like that are more often than not there to try to down out who we really are and just become what we own. Think about it. Imagine somebody came into the room right now and asked you to describe yourself. You wouldn't begin with your personality. You'd begin with your job, your school, your family....everything in your life which isn't you. Then maybe you'd get to describing your personality....if you even remember that it's there to be described. I'm sure you can remember an occasion you were asked to describe yourself and didn't have much to say. As you stood there grasping for thoughts, the only things which didn't pass your mind were your own virtues, weren't they?
And why do we all have embarrassing moments, but still feel ashamed when we look like fools? Isn't it to hide from who you are? To hide from your clumsiness, forgetfulness, inadequacy etc.? You want to look strong don't you? You want to seem in control- to seem like everything's in your hands. How much of your life is really in your hands? Very shockingly little. But we don't want to admit that. Everyone's a king, nobody's a fool.
I have no idea why we have these self-destructive tendencies. Maybe it's instinct, maybe we're brought up that way. Maybe it's the media or the government or the educational system. I don't know. And I won't pretend to know.
So with all this in mind, let's try again;
Who are you?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Oops.
Recently I've been feeling myself growing more and more distant from my blog. And I think I know why.
When I started this thing a few months back (early March) it wasn't much more than just an experiment. I've always loved writing, and so I found it quite easy and interesting to blog.
Back then, though, I was going through what I can only describe as an emotional dryspell. I was thinking too much and not feeling enough. I still acted as if I felt perfectly fine, but only because I didn't want to admit anything was wrong. Actually looking back now I realise that maybe I acted out my "emotions" stronger than I should have, trying to over-compensate in my own mind.
And then- inevitably, since I wasn't allowing myself to change- something bad happened. And that something bad left me, to say the least, in a very bad state. I apologetically admit that for one or two weeks after that I was a complete twat. Thankfully, everybody had the good grace to put up - or at least pretend to put up (it's the thought that counts) with me and my twattitude.
However, this "something bad" served as a well-needed wake up call. Gradually I began to realize exactly how much I was holding myself back. I started realizing that I was thinking far too much and letting myself become involved in very deep questions without taking a look at myself and asking myself if I was alright.
I wasn't. People can think but people can feel too, and as I focused so much on thinking the part of me which felt started getting more and more worn out.
Once I realised this I started to wake up to just how human I really am. This blog, however, had always been about thinking, and for some reason I began feeling less and less comfortable with it. Now I realise it's because I still associate this blog with cold thinking and I never let myself express who I am or what I feel when I write.
I don't want to change that in this blog however. Maybe I'll make another blog and let me express myself in that one (I don't mind making the blogs, I'm not after any kind of success- I write for the sake of writing.)
Now that I've come clean about this blog I hope that my feelings of unease will go away. But since this IS a thinking blog after all- maybe I should end with a thought-
Remember who you are.
When I started this thing a few months back (early March) it wasn't much more than just an experiment. I've always loved writing, and so I found it quite easy and interesting to blog.
Back then, though, I was going through what I can only describe as an emotional dryspell. I was thinking too much and not feeling enough. I still acted as if I felt perfectly fine, but only because I didn't want to admit anything was wrong. Actually looking back now I realise that maybe I acted out my "emotions" stronger than I should have, trying to over-compensate in my own mind.
And then- inevitably, since I wasn't allowing myself to change- something bad happened. And that something bad left me, to say the least, in a very bad state. I apologetically admit that for one or two weeks after that I was a complete twat. Thankfully, everybody had the good grace to put up - or at least pretend to put up (it's the thought that counts) with me and my twattitude.
However, this "something bad" served as a well-needed wake up call. Gradually I began to realize exactly how much I was holding myself back. I started realizing that I was thinking far too much and letting myself become involved in very deep questions without taking a look at myself and asking myself if I was alright.
I wasn't. People can think but people can feel too, and as I focused so much on thinking the part of me which felt started getting more and more worn out.
Once I realised this I started to wake up to just how human I really am. This blog, however, had always been about thinking, and for some reason I began feeling less and less comfortable with it. Now I realise it's because I still associate this blog with cold thinking and I never let myself express who I am or what I feel when I write.
I don't want to change that in this blog however. Maybe I'll make another blog and let me express myself in that one (I don't mind making the blogs, I'm not after any kind of success- I write for the sake of writing.)
Now that I've come clean about this blog I hope that my feelings of unease will go away. But since this IS a thinking blog after all- maybe I should end with a thought-
Remember who you are.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Preface.
Technology and philosophy are not so different from each other.
Technology is the manipulation of the physical world to create better devices to make humans' lives easier. The perfect device has never been made and its existence is dubious at best.
Philosophy, on the other hand, is the manipulation of concepts and ideas to make better theories about life to make humans' lives easier. Much like technology, the perfect theory has never been made, and its existence is dubious at best.
Those uncertain about just how valuable philosophy is may very well ask the same question about technology. Several claim that because philosophy has never reached a universally accepted and completely flawless theory it is a waste of time. Likewise, however, technology has never created the perfect device. Does this make technology a waste of time?
Indeed no. Technology constantly improves upon old devices or replaces them for better devices. The same is so in philosophy. New theories either build upon or replace old ones, but that does not mean that all philosophy is in vain. One cannot argue that we have come a long way from the ethics of the Dark Ages.
Nowadays the newest theories in philosophy exist to make life easier. Whether one uses the most suitable or the most cutting-edge theory is a different question, but the fact remains that he is using a theory much like one would use a device - to make a problem easier to solve.
It is unfortunate, however, that more people do not educate themselves in the field of philosophy, particularly in ethics, for it is very much like they are living in the 21st century but facing their problems with 11th century technology. Why shouldn't one equip oneself with the most advanced tools in facing life's problems?
Technology is the manipulation of the physical world to create better devices to make humans' lives easier. The perfect device has never been made and its existence is dubious at best.
Philosophy, on the other hand, is the manipulation of concepts and ideas to make better theories about life to make humans' lives easier. Much like technology, the perfect theory has never been made, and its existence is dubious at best.
Those uncertain about just how valuable philosophy is may very well ask the same question about technology. Several claim that because philosophy has never reached a universally accepted and completely flawless theory it is a waste of time. Likewise, however, technology has never created the perfect device. Does this make technology a waste of time?
Indeed no. Technology constantly improves upon old devices or replaces them for better devices. The same is so in philosophy. New theories either build upon or replace old ones, but that does not mean that all philosophy is in vain. One cannot argue that we have come a long way from the ethics of the Dark Ages.
Nowadays the newest theories in philosophy exist to make life easier. Whether one uses the most suitable or the most cutting-edge theory is a different question, but the fact remains that he is using a theory much like one would use a device - to make a problem easier to solve.
It is unfortunate, however, that more people do not educate themselves in the field of philosophy, particularly in ethics, for it is very much like they are living in the 21st century but facing their problems with 11th century technology. Why shouldn't one equip oneself with the most advanced tools in facing life's problems?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)