Hume’s doubts are about the trustworthiness of our understanding. He wants to know whether the decisions man makes are in touch with the truth or the actual reasons why they happen. This leads to a speculation that is there something other than the actual reason which can guide our decisions. Hume believes this other guiding principle is experience. The problem Hume confronted was if a man does not base his decisions on the real reasons why things happen, but rather on his experiences, then isn’t he going to face problems in his life if those reasons change?  But since man does not know the real reason, there is the possibility that without his knowledge, the reasons can change. Man will be in doldrums because his old experiences cannot account for the new changes. Hume wants to know if man can trust the guiding principle that leads to the judgments he makes each day. An example that demonstrates this doubt is the formation of water from two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen.

Hume’s argument is that man does not know the most basic working principle that makes Hydrogen a compatible element with oxygen to make water. Chemists are able to manipulate the two elements to make water by using appropriate ratios, but they do so based on their experiments or experiences. But they do not know what makes protons and electrons in Hydrogen and Oxygen to form water instead of oil. Hume says, “Yet he has not, by all his experience, acquired any idea or knowledge of the secret power, by which the object produces the other…” (28). Hume’ qualm is if the properties of the two elements change, which might be possible because man is not in control, then will man be able to cope with that change and live? What certainty is there that Hydrogen and oxygen will combine to form water? Is there any evidence to prove this as a fact, beyond reasonable doubt? Hume is looking for proof that two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen will definitely form water. Hume wants to know if there is real evidence about the certainty of the supposed matter of facts around him.

Hume arrives at this doubt when he considers the difference between matter of facts and relations of ideas. Unlike the relation of ideas where an axiom is definite, such as in 3 + 5 = 8 which never equal anything else, according to Hume, matters of fact have contradicting possibilities of equal weight. It is a matter of fact the sun rises every day. Hume says that is one possibility, but there is also another equally pressing possibility; the sun will not rise every day. The idea that the sun will not rise every day could be true. Hume argues that man does not know the most basic principles to determine why things happen. When concerned with the sun’s rising, man does not know what universal principle prompts the earth to rotate on its axis at a fixed speed. Man has not experienced the sun not rising. But all knowledge cannot be contained in his finite experience, due to his short life span. Therefore, Hume reasons that no argument–whether the sun rises or it does not– is superior because man does not know the real reason why the sun rises. Hume considers that since man does not possess knowledge of the basic principles, they can change at any time leaving him without anything to go on. Man experiences the sun rise, Hume is looking for the evidence to prove that this matter of fact is more favored than the other possibility, which is the sun not rising. Hume wants to know what gives the one possibility of a fact– the sun rising each day– precedence over the possibility over the other equally opposite fact.

 David Hume believes the solution to his doubt about the evidence that leads to the certainty of one possibility of a fact over the other, is the pre established harmony. He believes there is a world-order, which drives everything like an automaton. It is this pre established harmony that makes the earth revolve on its axis and force Hydrogen and Oxygen to form water instead of oil. Hume points out that this evidence what he has been seeking. The harmony points to one matter of fact over the other, such as the sun will rise each day, instead of it not rising. The harmony is vital because it forces man to think a certain way and gives him certain experiences. The harmony forces man to experience the heat from a flame instead of cold. After experiencing pain, he will keep his hand away from all flames. Thus, it is his experience that fire causes burns and keep away from it. The pre established harmony forced man’s experience to keep away from fire, because the harmony itself decided that fires should burn rather than freeze.

Thus, using these experiences, man lives each day of his life on earth with assurance. But through experiences he knows enough to manipulate certain axioms in the world to his advantage. An example would be energy. No man had seen energy embodied in a physical state such as a solid or liquid. The most sophisticated machines can only detect the transfer of energy in chemical reactions. The products are seen after the reaction, but the actual component of energy, as in one gram of it, is not seen. But man can still manipulate energy to catalyze reactions that enable him to have the technological advances he has today. Though man does not understand the most basic workings of the universe, such as the comprehension of energy, he can gain sufficient knowledge to manipulate his surroundings based on his experiences. Man gains these experiences by interacting with the pre established harmony. The solution-man lives in a world that forces him to think and act certain ways with a few freedoms to live his life peacefully.

David Hume’s doubts concern the evidence regarding the possibility of one aspect of a fact over the other. To answer this doubt, the solution Hume proposes is the presence of a pre- established harmony prevalent in the world. Thus, the pre established harmony drives man to make certain decisions, by using the experiences he gains. The pre established harmony has the sun set to rise each day instead of not rising. Man, based on his experiences that the sun raises each day, gets up when the sun rises, and then when it sets, goes to sleep. In this process, he lives each day guiding his decisions while being guided by the world order.

Hume influenced the thought of many subsequent philosophers including Adam Smith, Rousseau, Fodor and many others (Image via Wikipedia)

Works Cited

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Eric Steinberg. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.

How was Bin Laden tracked down by his location?

The hunt for Osama was conducted over many years. Bin Laden was finally identified through one of his personal and most trusted couriers in 2007 after several investigations by the CIA of and other intelligence agencies in the US.

Somewhere in 2010 Osama Bin Laden was tracked down to be living in a large compound in Abbottabad; an affluent community in Pakistan.

In February 2011, it was confirmed by the security agencies that Bin Laden was living there in that mansion in Abbottabad with some family members.

How much skepticism is there?

Lots of doubts and conspiracy theories arose and circulated just minutes after the announcement of Osama’s death.

Some believed the news of Obama’s death was not true especially people and Pakistan and others believing he was dead. 

President Obama said: “There are going to be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is, you won’t see Bin Laden walking on this Earth again.”

Was Pakistan involved in the operation?

According to official reports by the US, it planned and carried out the raid alone but informed the Pakistanis after the operation.The reason was that it was necessary to the security of the operation and the personnel involved. Actually not even all key people in the US government knew of the planned operation.

Some controversies however arose as certain commentators doubt that the US aircraft could penetrate that deep into Pakistan evading Pakistani air defenses its knowledge.

It was later out that a Pakistani intelligence official told the BBC off the record that it (Pakistan) was told a raid was under way against an unidentified “high value” target immediately US helicopters entered the Pakistani air space.

Why has the US not released any pictures of the body?

You probably are not the only one asking this. Several people keep asking since that is a reliable evidence to prove the death. 

Security officials in the US have said there are pictures to confirm Osama’s death but after several debates as whether to release the photos or not, it was deiced after consultation with President Obama that the photos should not be released saying “We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies.”

He also stated that the images could inflame sensitivities.

Did the Pakistani army know Bin Laden was living close by?

Pakistani officials are reported to have said they had no idea Osama was living there in-spite of the conspicuousness of the compound.

How is it possible for such a huge and unique mansion with heavy security be built in such major garrison town without anyone in the army knowing Bin Laden was living there. A question many are asking.

However, Osama’s Yemeni wife said she had been living there with him for five years.

A Pakistani official said the mansion had not been on the ISI’s radar. He added the agency was extremely embarrassed by its intelligence failure.

Was the killing of Bin Laden legal?

Another big question everyone is asking. It is still not clear if the killing was legal or not. Killing someone who was unarmed makes one guilty as in the state of the US but the US believes its defense is sorted. US Attorney General Eric Holder said the act of the US was lawful and legitimate every way.

Other fellows in of the national security said it is right and lawful as Bin Laden also launched a deadly attack against the US.

Could this stand up under international law?.

Under the US executive order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan, it says that: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”

It is clearly stated, but the term “assassination” has never been fully or clearly explained. Making the whole issue complicated.

Mindful of its need to stress the military nature of the killing and the need to abide by conventions, the US has also said that Bin Laden presented a clear danger to its troops.

Lots of people however believe the truth and full story of Osama’s killing has to be known before issues of its legality can be determined.

IDEAS:

·        Argues against reductionism

o   We need scientific pluralism – recognition that there are many forms and sources of knowledge

o   Reductivism is bad because it says that one fundamental form underlies everything

·        Motivational balance

WICKEDNESS IS NOT REAL:

·        If words are nothing more than arbitrary labels, then evil does not mean anything

·        Nowadays, in the Western World, there is a decreased belief in objective right and wrong

·        Is there a universal truth? No, there is just my truth or your truth.

·        Question of free will: the more we learn about human genes…

RELATIVISM:

·        Each person is unique and has their own right and wrong (individual level)

·        Social Relativism – ?

·        Cultural Relativism – ?

ENLIGHTENMENT MOVEMENT:

·        Started with skepticism – believing that we should doubt the very existence of God because we shouldn’t base conclusions about things based on unproven beliefs and theories

·        It says that in order to achieve knowledge, we must rid ourselves of all thoughts and ideas about which we have any doubt. (With the rise of modern science, they had the critical tools to question authority… before they relied on religion and you weren’t allowed to have your own opinion)

·        MIDGLEY’S VIEW>

o   The happy perspective – the enlightenment liberated people from authoritarianism (intellectual bondage).

o   The bad perspective – you can critique things so much that you don’t see value in anything anymore… can lead to you to becoming a relativist

o   We live with the inheritance of enlightenment in good ways and in bad ways.

AMBIVALENT NATURE:

·        We are often at odds with ourselves

·        Animals are not radically different from us – we are relatives

·        We are not just disembodied minds, we are animals

CULTURE:

·        Culture is made by people

·        We can’t always blame culture for bad behavior

MOTIVES

·        We need to inquire and debate our motives and what we should be doing

·        We have a wide set of tendencies and dispositions, but our nature does not give us a read-made priority system

·        The ability to reflect is a promise to the future… but we can easily become confused

·        She says Socrates, for example, over-emphasizes rationality: “no one does wrong willingly, but only out of ignorance” … if you act badly, it is because you don’t know … if you really knew what you were doing, you wouldn’t choose to do it

·        We are thinking-beings, but we are beings of perception

·        Human nature is more complicated and frustrating than Socrates is willing to admit

·        Midgley says our system of motives is more complicated

·        Nietzsche – one basic reality – the world is the will to power; everything is a matter of power relations (reductive approach)

·        Sigmund Freud – reductive thinker

·        Midgley says in principle, we have a wide range of motives. But what can happen is that one motive gets over-emphasized, and the other motives shrink. Then there is trouble because there is imbalance. If we look at evil as motivational obsession, then we can make sense of it.

·        Midgley says that many bad acts stem from selective negligence. We decide to ignore some factor. Then you’re left with an unfortunate motive.

·        Midgley says that the range of acts available to us is large. Most of the time, we can figure out people’s motives. People typically act on a small set of motives.

·        Any motive can be dangerous if it gets out of control.

NATURAL EVIL:

·        matter of physical or material factors

o   Outsides causes – physical pains, diseases, economic shortages and dangers

§  Even if certain outside factors led to evil, they wouldn’t develop if you weren’t prone to them. We are capable of both virtue and vice (we have freedom)

o   Cultural factors – bad teaching, bad organization, bad example

·        We are not machines. We have a basic set of emotional dispositions.

·        Evil comes in many forms

·        We are complex –evil and good

o   We aren’t consistent

·        The problem of evil – if we fail to recognize the sources of wickedness in our human nature, we will view evil as an alien force intruding on us.

WICKEDNESS – POSITIVE & NEGATIVE

·        She uses wickedness negatively

·        Wickedness is an evil thing; it is not a positive force; It is a lack of good

·        We need to recognize motives – “aggression, territoriality, possessiveness, competitiveness, dominance” (all have good and bad aspects concerned with power)

·         

HUMAN NATURE & PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY:

·        We often find ourselves uncomfortable with the idea that everything is determined

·        We need to develop a better understanding of our human nature (our motives)

·        The ideas of internal causes and personal responsibility are linked

o   We can’t blame society for every sin

·        We didn’t choose our human nature, but we are responsible for what we choose

·        We are not totally plastic

Mephistopheles Says ‘No’

(*this is a demon who wagers his soul against the devil in a German legend*)

·        The negativity of evil

·        Evil is essentially the absence of good … and we can’t  understand evil apart from good

·        Incontinent person – you commit a bad action and you know you are doing something wrong when you’re doing it … weak-willed person … caving into temptation

EXPLAINING EVIL:

·         “Problem with evil is an important and difficult problem about individual human psychology. We need to understand better the natural tendencies which make human wickedness possible.”

·        This is hard because:
(1) wrong is usually only explained by external causes;
(2) we need to avoid fatalism (the thought that all events are predetermined);
(3)people are skeptical about the very existence of sin or wickedness

PRINCIPLE OF GOOD & BAD:

·        Dualistic approaches – they are at war

·        Midgley is not a dualist; believes world is a single system (but complicated and inconsistent)

·        We can’t impose an artificial informant on human nature

MORALITY

·        She says that if we believe in moral justification, then morality is a gamble

·        Moral justification is a matter of luck

·        Moral justification is arbitrary

·        We should not reduce reality to a ‘spectator view’ (looking down from above) or reducing it to a ‘gamble’ (mere luck or chance)

QUESTIONING BELIEFS

·        Agrees that Nietzsche contributed by giving a variety of critical tools to question our existing beliefs

·        We should question our existing beliefs because we might be wrong

·        But… if we question everything relentlessly, you might end up believing nothing

·        And… when you take the spectator’s view, you are looking at all perspectives and they will end up having the same weight as yours

·        You can refuse to take a stand on a ‘theoretical’ level, but in real life, you have to (you can think abstractly, but you can’t life abstractly)

SKEPTICISM:

·        Midgley lists 3 aspects of skepticism:

o   No acts are really wrong (because there is no real “Truth”)

o   Nobody actually commits wrong acts (you as an individual are not an agent of freewill; you are only a product of material an social factors; you do what you do because of genetics, economic factors and cultural pressures; there is no ‘you’ in the middle of all that)

o   People do commit wrong acts, but they never do it on purpose (it is never intentional, so they are not responsible)

·        In relation to relativism: yes, we should recognize and accept the fact that there are cultural differences, but we shouldn’t lead ourselves to be morally paralyzed. (we often become occupied with hard to understand ‘border line’ cases)

·        One-way skepticism – midgley is concerned with how intellectual life often favours destructive technique

RESPONSIBILITY & DETERMINISM:

·        Public wickedness vanishes into a social problem

·        Private wickedness vanishes into a mental illness

·        Midgley talks about losing the individual; she wants to save the individual

·        We lose the individual when we over-emphasize determinism (everything is inevitable)

·        If a person is “nothing but product of genes and culture” than free will doesn’t exist and there is no individual human being

·        Midgley does endorse a kind of determinism; but, she is a “compatible-ist” she believes in the reality of determining factors/causes, but still, she believes in free-will

INDEPENDENCE:

·        The corporate theoretical view has come to be the only proper kind of thought; but that way of thinking annihilates the individual view

·        We are free and we have truly the ability to choose

·        We are not ‘exquisitely independent choosers’ because we have motives and realities

·        Existentialism – has an inflated approach of autonomy (free from external control) to Midgley

·        We still have to retain the concept of agency (the individual – having the power to act, choose, and bear responsibility)

VICE:

·        If you are a viscious person, you don’t realize that you are (you think you’re normal)

·        If you are an incompetent person, you realize what the right thing is, but you are weak

·        Midgley says we should take Aristotle’s view: you are responsible for what you do

·        Your habitual actions turn into your character; and you are responsible for your character

PHANTOM MORALITIES:

·        She gives ‘naziism’ as an example

·        These perpetrators of bad actions have their own morality – we just can’t understand it

·        If they have their own morality, then they can offer their own justifications for what they do, then we don’t have the right to judge them…

·        We condemn these people though… Midgley says that you will discover points that you can seize on to criticize; we can investigate them and come to real judgments

EXCUSES:

·        Sometimes, people do have excuses for what they do, but she doesn’t want us to excuse wickedness and bad behavior all the time

·        Why do we try to excuse inexcusable acts? Midgley says we often refuse to pay attention to the consequences of our actions and our principles on which we are acting.  It’s not easy to be vigilant, but Midgley is calling for permanent mindfulness.

o   In the CLIP from the movie: The journalist says that the American government never took into account the Cambodian people… the American government refused to see the real consequences of its actions.

o   The ultra communist party tries to remake the entire society. The cities are de-populated, people starve to death, die of disease, killed…

o   The year “Zero” – everything is starting ‘new’

o   To achieve this perfect egalitarian society, they believed you have to kill lots of people and force them to live unsuitable lives.

AGGRESSION:

·        She says aggression isn’t always bad. The problem lies in aggression that isn’t properly balanced by other proper motives. (eg. proper regard for other people; proper priority system concerning action;

·        If we focus too much on aggression, we end up with an unrealistic notion of wickedness (some alien force that gets into us)

·        Midgley makes two claims about aggression:

o   (1) not all wickedness is aggression – some wickedness is non-aggressive (eg. sloth, fear, greed, bad habit)

o   (2) not all aggression is wicked – (eg. if you aggress in order to save someone from harm)

·        Midgley says fear is alright in motivation. “both fear and anger are necessary elements … they are responses to evil… there are always some evils that ought to be feared…”

·        There is nothing intrinsically wrong with fear or anger. It is all in context.

·        The essential thing is not to get rid of these motives, but to direct them rightly.

·        The trouble is that we are always confronted with better or worse possibilities – what our response will be.

·        Aggression is not the same thing as destruction. Aggression might arise out of a passing feeling, but destruction goes beyond that. Destruction is hatred.

·        Destruction is a considered attitude…meaning that it is not something spontaneous.

FATES, CAUSES, AND FREE-WILL

·        Fatalism

o   Attitude that whatever will be, will be. We can’t change things.

o   Midgley disagrees. She says it is the superstitious acceptance of unnecessary evil.  It is maybe easier to believe that there is a devil causing natural evil in the world.

o   The fatalist is the person who sees the facts about the world as being alien factors attacking us and overcoming us.

o   Fatalism leads to the irrational abandonment of effort.

o    

·        Determinist

o   Things will be what they will be. You’re helpless in the face of these forces.  Midgley says you can be a determinist without being a fatalist. There are degrees of determinism.

o   Her idea of determinism focuses on humble, general facts about the world. We need to recognize these basic realities to figure out how to respond effectively.

o   She is a mild determinist. She doesn’t want us to turn into fatalism.

o   Determinism doesn’t have to be too strong. We have to suppose a measure of regularity in anything.

o   She is a compatiblist. She says that there are some deterministic concepts that are exaggerated (evolution, history, economic laws and forces etc); and take out free will

OURSELVES & SHADOWS:

·        To some extent, it is a matter of self deception. We often fool ourselves when it comes to evil.

·        We often find it difficult to judge our own acts.

·        You are responsible for trying to achieve some sort of integration of urges and values …

·        You are an individual, but you comprise many elements of urges, dispositions and attitudes, so the human being is always ambivalent

·        We are responsible for how we manage our motives

·        If we allow ourselves to be carried away by bad motives, we are responsible for them

·        We often project our unrecognized bad motives onto the world

·        We have a duty to be as attentive as possible to our own motives. Because, when motives go wrong, they often go really really wrong. It matters.

·        The harm that can be done by not thinking is literally immeasurable.

The Investigators

·        The figure of Satan – Does Satan represent a new motive? Midgley says Satan’s great crime is intelligible in principle.

·        In the evil person, there is a lack of motives to balance or overcome the master motive.

·        Distinction between feelings and attitudes

o   Anyone can have a feeling (don’t motivate us solely)

o   Attitude goes beyond feelings; it is how you interpret them and how you perceive them

o   A motive is a lasting attitude towards something; feelings come and go. Motives arise from universal human needs

·        Midgley: An obsession is an exaggeration to which you give consent; you allow it to grow

·        Freud: we have a death instinct; an urge for self destruction

Page 165

·        Reference to the hypocritical vices

·        Humbug, cowardness, etc.

·        Nietzsche and Freud say to admit what you are

·        Often there is conflict between our urges; selfish

FREUD’S DEATH INSTINCT:

·        Freud’s understanding: is that the death instinct is that life is striving, but within life, there is the urge to return to the peace of an existence or world without struggle

·        Midgley: motivational balance is one of her main themes.

o   Evil or the death instinct is motivational obsession; anger is necessary to live life; if you feel angry by instances of injustice, this is normal; we are not just any one thing, we are a set of motives and values; what we should aim for is the best balance we can achieve (integration)

·        Lynch: truth is a fundamental value, but it isn’t the only value we hold; if we didn’t hold other values, then truth would justify other things; sometimes there are other values that outweigh truth

SELF-DECEPTION:

·        We have a deep habit of continuous self deception

·        She says let us be honest toward ourselves, about what we are

·        This means, reject the idea that evil is an alien force; it is not an abstraction, it is us acting on the basis of attitudes; we need to look at those attitudes

·        Midgley is concerned strictly with the human world; there are no human beings that are monsters

·        In principle, we can understand what motivates people, no matter how unusual the motivation

·        If we call someone monstrous, then we are giving up on understanding

·        Midgley: the more alarming sides of our nature are simply disowned; we often push away parts of our personality that we find troubling/can’t understand well; instead of just pushing these elements away, we must admit their existence, and then we should inspect them and then we should see whether we can do something with them;

·        Freud: libidinal energy; energy of life; gives us the concept of sublimation (the channeling and reshaping of an urge into something more acceptable)

·        “it is not possible to … “

·        We don’t positively desire death, but our motives can become to messed up that we appear to positively desire death

AMBIVALENCE: (conflicting feelings)

·        Morality is a necessary remedy for the internal conflicts base

·        Freud: morality represents the reality principle

·        Midgley: reality is fundamentally good because it forces you to think about your disposition and urges; reality is our way of dealing with the up and down dimension of human life; we are ambivalent beings, meaning the solution is critical inquiry

·        Pleasure principle:

o   (selfishness) principle of the unconscious, the ‘id’; the organism wants what it wants in the first instance; the problem is that it might not be achievable = making you angry;

·        Reality principle:

o   you have to modify your impulses; you can’t always have whatever you want

For skeptics who deal with reality without leaning upon the crutch of false hope, we assume that death is the end of existence. There is no proof that our existence survives death and therefore no skeptic can take refuge in the empty promises of religious faith.

If death is a state of non-existence, we have already endured it because we did not exist before our parents conceived us. Our non-existence extended in the past beyond our ancestors and the first stirrings of life, to the beginning of time or for eternity, depending on your view of the cosmos.

And our non-existence did not trouble us.

The greatest of the ancient Greek philosophers and the founder of Western philosophy, Socrates, related this best after being sentenced to death at his trial in Athens. He reasoned that if death is like a night of dreamless, restful sleep, it must be a great gain.

If death is a dreamless sleep, it cannot be unpleasant. There will be no pain, sorrow or awareness of our condition. We will not yearn for life nor miss our loved ones. So what is there to fear?

As for the claim that death is a state of torment, we can dismiss it as a fabricated tool of intimidation designed to manipulate people in THIS life, the only life. We should dismiss the hells of religion due to lack of evidence.

Having demolished the notion that death is a thing to fear, some might remain discomforted by the ageless questions that perplex us: Is there a purpose for existence and if so, what is it? How can we have purpose when we will inevitably meet annihilation? How can we be content when faced by harsh reality?

These questions are beyond the scope of this article and perhaps beyond our current understanding of the cosmos. We must resolve, however, that human beings are capable of dealing with reality courageously. We must search for answers while resisting the temptations of wish-thinking. We must accept the truths we discover no matter how uncomfortable they make us. The ancient rise and fall of millions of extinct species must lead us to conclude that we are not here to be comforted.

Above all, relish each sunrise and savor each sunset. Live each day to its fullest and never allow fate to tarnish the joy of living.

In postmodern society there is a skepticism towards universal truths, what followers would say would be questioning the validity of what had come forth as a body of knowledge. It means being critical of what many see as historical fact, knowing that much of what was written and passed down to students in history books is often biased with little reference to the vanquished or whole military campaigns being disregarded. It meant that even the way stories were written and told would be revamped because the so-called narrative order was too contradictory.

Critical post-modernists were of the historical narrative that probably influenced writer like T.S. Eliot to write his narrative like Wasteland in the modern period, lamenting on the poor state of society. The post-modernist attempted to say why make any sense of the disillusionment that Eliot wanted to portray. It was then that the idea of the mini-narrative style came up as a way of challenging the attempted order making, covering societal frailties and contradictions that the previous literary period wanted.

Sociologists here are aware of a global cultural view that has shaded historical accounts to favor a universal body of knowledge and that has prohibited people of being aware of individual social issues, or issues which would favor independent studies of social phenomena. The individual social issues were described in the narrative poems of Ginsberg and Ashbery that broke from the complex form of the modern period.Godard typified the movement in his films, that films were about personal visions and not collaborative efforts between colleagues. He broke with prior conventions to make movies where the line between cinematic narrative and essay was less distinct. Burroughs had his own relaxed style of writing, which brought in the element of what was previously kept out of literature; the lovemaking that his couples partook was a statement that blurred the distinctiveness of high culture from popular culture.

A consumer-based society became more evident as people were buying from ads running on TV channels and through mail-order catalogues. There was a sense that man was just a spectator, going through the mechanisms that modernism had laid the basis for; he would be  a victim of his own waste oriented economy as foreign markets were being flooded with cheaper goods and those markets would eventually dry up and others would be generated in their stead.

Postmodernists expressed their own voice through a separate view of society and culture that stemmed from the social sciences. In literary circles it would be known as a period of consumer capitalism, the advent of pulp fiction novels. To Frederic James. A literary critic, it was a period of culture being processed under the pressures of capitalism. The spatialization or arrangement in space of cognitive materials like maps used to describe population shifts was another way of distinguishing postmodernism from the previous modern period.

Whereas modernism was concerned with unity and identity, postmodernism question objectivity and fostered a view towards plurality and skepticism. It lead to a softening of distinctions between the gay and straight, white versus black, overtly academic versus straightforward, as people were less concerned with identities and politically polished constraints than before.

.

In addition to being a humanist, I have few more specific philosophies related to various areas of my life, and these do not contradict human; indeed, they go very nicely with humanism. In science, I am a skeptic. I believe in the scientific method because how successful it is, and I question claims that are not backed up by empirical evidence. In politics, I am a libertarian because I believe in the importance of economic and social freedom. In religion, I am an atheist since I don’t see any evidence supporting the existence of God, and rather, I see a lot of evidence supporting his inexistence.

Elliot Sober mentions that personal philosophies are important to how one lives his life, but are difficult to prove. True, they are difficult to prove. But, I can give a lot of reasoning and evidence as to why I hold on to one philosophy as opposed to another. Why am I a skeptic? That is because history shows us how superstitious human beings can be, and how a lot of “paranormal” phenomena can be explained using science. Science can provide perfectly natural explanations as to why people supposedly see “ghosts.” And, I have Ockham’s razor on my side.

Why am I an atheist? That is because empirical evidence shows how unlikely it is for God to exist. Honestly, the previous sentence really isn’t a matter of opinion. It is about as much of an opinion as this sentence: Empirical evidence shows how likely it is for atoms to exist. A lot of theists agree with me on this point and take God on faith.

As seen, I cannot prove that any of my personal philosophies are “right.” But, I can provide a lot of evidence and reasoning to show why they might be “right.” Honestly, I think my personal philosophies are more “right” than others, for lack of a better word; if I did not think this way, then I would not hold on to my philosophies. (One of you is probably going to say, “This isn’t a matter of right or wrong!”)

I find the last question to be somewhat vague. In any case, a lot of philosophers have their own personal philosophies, though many want to be thought of thinkers and nothing else. If they do have their own personal philosophy, it may influence the way they teach philosophy and “do” philosophy. It may very well influence their own philosophical ideas, to the point where their ideas become a part of their personal philosophy. Some philosophers though, like Nietzsche, are so varied in their philosophical ideas that it is hard to say whether or not they have a personal philosophy, or if their philosophical ideas are influenced by their personal philosophy.

Though, I still have to admit that some of my thought patterns can be considered mythos in that they are irrational and somewhat superstitious. There is no place in my life for religion or faith, so in that sense, I am not mythos. (And yes, I do consider modern religions to be myths, in the sense that ancient Greek religion is now considered a myth. The only reason we don’t call modern religions myths is because people believe in them and we want to be politically correct. We certainly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.) But, there are certain belief that I hold, none of which I can name off the top of my head, that are somewhat superstitious and I look down upon them with disdain, though I still hang on to them nonetheless. I strive to be as rational as possible and to rid myself of these beliefs, but it is hard to be completely rational. At least I can pride myself in the fact that I am probably more rational and less superstitious than the average human being.

Is Science the Western mythos? I don’t exactly understand what is meant by that question. From my understanding of the reading, mythos and logos are simply two different approaches. Mythos is a superstitious approach that strives to explain things by evoking the gods and logos is a rational approach that strives to explain things with science. In that sense, to say that science is superstitious is inaccurate, since science is the opposite of superstition. Perhaps the question is suggesting that science is the western counterpart to mythos; that while the rest of world was seeking supernatural explanations, the West relied on science. That may be somewhat untrue, since there was science in the rest of the world and there were supernatural and religious elements in the West as well. But, this is more a historical question and I don’t think I know enough to answer it.

Or, maybe the question is suggesting that science is like religion, which is absurd. Many elements of religion, including superstition, rituals, faith, and moral beliefs, are absent in science. Science attempts to explain phenomena through the interpretation of empirical data, rather than through superstition. And, it certainly does not advocate any moral beliefs. If it were to do so, it would no longer be objective or reliable. When scientists advocate certain ethical actions, they are no longer engaged in science. Science is cold and completely indifferent to your feelings. And that is how it remains objective and incorruptible.

The works of skeptics like James Randi and Penn and Teller were really enough to convince me to reject mythos, not that I was superstitious to begin with. After reading more about skepticism, it is obvious how easily humans can be fooled by taking advantage of placebos, our greed, our willingness to trust, ability to see patterns out of randomness, and our willingness to assign meaning to random events. Instead of believing in supposed psychics and alternative medicine, we should test these pseudoscientific claims using science. And this is where logos comes in, because logos adopts this scientific and logical approach and this is the approach that I admire.

As previously mentioned, God (the Judeo-Christian one) is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and he did create the universe. Some people posit that God lives in a dimension or universe separate from ours. Whether or not God has emotions is something religious believers sometimes argue over. In any case, in both the Old and New Testament, God does at times get angry and he does at times become happy. Religious people usually believe that God is knowable only to a certain extent. We can know and understand certain aspects about God, though religious folks usually don’t believe that we can know or understand him completely. And, since God is omnipotent, he should have the ability to take over the human form. There is nothing contradictory about that.

Why don’t I believe in God? Well, I am very pragmatic and skeptical to begin with. Being an ex-Christian, I am at least decently versed in the Bible and I have read it through entirely (though I may not remember everything). I have noticed that the more I read the Bible, the less I believe in it. To someone as skeptical as myself, the Bible has too many loopholes for me to believe. Certain instances are outright impossible and there are many contradictions. For example, Exodus 15:3 says God is a man of war. Romans 15:33 says God is peace. What? Not only that, but Exodus 35:2 says that if you work on Sabbath day, you will be put to death. The entire chapter of Leviticus 20 has numerous reasons why people should be put to death, including adultery and homosexuality. But, one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”. So, apparently, putting people to death for adultery and working on the Sabbath does not qualify as murder, at least according to the Bible. 

There are passages of the Bible that mention the earth being immovable, which we know today is not true. Certain passages also suggest a geocentric model of the universe. There’s the story of Noah, which seems just outright impossible from a modern perspective. And then, there’s the theory of evolution, which seems to suggest that the beginning parts of Genesis are wrong. There are certain Christian denominations that believe that evolution is perfectly compatible with the Bible and that the story of Adam and Eve may well be a metaphor for the creation of life; the most prominent of these denominations is Catholicism. But, then again, where in the Bible is it suggested that it’s a metaphor? Where does the metaphor start and where does it end? 

So, as you can see, I am very skeptical and I think that the Bible is wrong about a lot of things, so it may well be wrong about God. Although showing the inconsistencies in the text does not prove that God does not exist, it does question his existence and provide evidence for his inexistence.

But then, there are many gods out there so if the Christian God does not exist, it may be that Vishnu or Shiva or Zeus does. True, there are many religions and many gods, but no single religion seems to be making any headway against the others. All the religions that I know of seem to have its equal amount of flaws. There are many religions out there and certain religions are mutually exclusive. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong. Not only that, but I do not have the time to individually consider every single deity out there. There is one thing all deities have and that is their supernatural quality. I focus on the Judeo-Christian God because that is the one I am most familiar with and because it is probably the most well known in the Western world. In any case, this supernatural quality is completely unfounded by evidence and contradicts much of what we know about the world.

But, suppose that there is no evidence supporting or negating the existence of deities. Even so, I would not be a theist. I wouldn’t go around assuming the existence of something just because it is possible that it exists. Why would I go around believing in a tiny celestial teapot just because there isn’t evidence negating its existence? The onus is on the theist, not the atheist. 

Bernard Haisch, an open-minded skeptic, writes that theoretically extraterrestrials should be visiting us and yet the scientific community scoffs at the very idea.  He believes that something very real and important is going on regarding UFO sightings.  Haisch thinks that we should be skeptical of both scoffers and believers, and that the claims of skeptics should be subject to critical inquiry. 

Most skeptics believe that neither common sense nor science has positively identified anything as an alien spacecraft.  Some argue that the UFO phenomenon is nothing but mythology.  Now, instead of angels we have extraterrestrials, making flying saucers the product of the creative imagination.  Skeptics criticize the UFOlogist’s typical evidence as consisting of (1) testimony of people who claim to have seen a UFO; (2) facts about the kind of people who make the sightings; (3) the lack of physical evidence; (4) alleged weaknesses in the arguments of skeptics.  Finally, they claim that UFO believers will attack a scoffer’s motives rather than present positive proof.

An example of the controversy between UFO skeptics and believers is the Majestic-12 documents.  These documents purport to describe a special panel established to advise the President on issues of alien corpses and crashed flying saucers.  However, skeptic Paul Kurtz claims that evidence shows that the documents are hoaxes.  Kurtz says that there are inconsistencies such as the lack of a correct register number assigned by the National Archives.  There is also no watermark which was in use at the time and a security classification is used that did not exist until the Nixon Administration.

As for myself, I use the “a million flies cannot be wrong approach” when it comes to UFOs and the paranormal. In essence, if millions of people are seeing weird things in the sky, then there are weird things in the sky.  Skeptics say that there is no physical evidence of the existence of aliens and alien spacecraft.  There is only witness testimony and circumstantial proof.  Well, both witness testimony and circumstantial evidence are allowed in courts of law.