Phil’s Blog

Once a man’s words were value, no need for contracts, if one man said: “I give you my words” then it was sufficient.

Today, a man’s words are meaningless, words are to manipulate and not stay truth.

Instead of evaluating toward a human identity, mankind regressed toward, a human-animal identity. We are more preoccupied with survival, than self development.

I am rereading “the Discourse on Inequality”, however in its original version (French), and I am sadden to see, that even then already, those alarming concerns were brought to light, and as it seem in our state of mind today, little has been learn. We are more Animalistic than Humanistic.

According to the last blog, we agree that indeed man is free, free to define himself and the principles he will choose to follow.
Furthermore, we agree that the tool used to make choices is rationality.
Here we are at an impasse, for freedom and rationality are interdependent. If one is free then one can choose, and if one is rational, then one needs to be free, if not there will be no reason for rationality.
So in reality, our impasse is our solution, and it shows that if man has logic, which all we can agree on, then by deduction we just agreed that he is free. And if we agreed that man if free, than by deduction we agreed that he is rational.
But not so fast, I hear in the background, man can be free, but not rational, he may have logic, but unable to use it. Look around, crimes, rapes, murders, wars, thefts, all man made, choice of man, choice of free man, but no rationality for them, just emotional desires. As my friend earlier stated, they are survival beings, and not much more.
Indeed and it is there that lay the foundation of the inequality among man, we are free rational beings, but some choose to use that rationality, that tool, to develop themselves, while others, and to my dismay, the majority, refuse to use rationality in their decision making. They just follow impulses, what feels good at the time, just to fulfill a need, physical, emotional, the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
While some, no matter if their basic needs are met, are already ready to seek understanding, and use rationality to achieve the ultimate goal of their freedom, the development of their uniqueness.
And this is true freedom, free even from Maslow’s hierarchy.
And how do I know that I live it. I experience it, and that why.
Peace No War

Part two of Are We Free?
The last blog ended with:
If human I perceive myself to be, since that form I carry, then rationality and analysis will help determine what I define to be a human, if such I do, then I too determine the characteristic for all human.

First assumption was that freedom is restricted by the system of laws in one’s society, and by such in that sense of the term we are not free.
Which brought us to the second assumption, that then freedom must relate to something else, and this is to our perceptions, which make us unique.
And last to the statement above, as a unique human, in my hand the tool of rationality to define myself, and forge my philosophy, and by association determine the concept of humanity.

During the argument, my friend stated that we are only survival beings in a chaotic state, just following the motion. I then responded that in such condition the difference in our position, is that in his view mankind is reacting to the circumstances of live, and such would not define one’s existence. While in my opinion, mankind is an active member, acting rather than reacting, and by such has the power to define one’s existence. But I had to agree with the proposition that mankind has no control over the circumstances of live, those are similar to the society laws as previously discussed, and by such would not affect our freedom.
Moreover, if such is the definition of mankind, a survival being, then laws will have no meaning. The only law that will matter would be the natural law of one’s existence, but none of man’s law. And furthermore, morals, values, and principles would be useless, for to survive one need just to be the strongest, the smartest, and the cruelest. The strongest since the strong keeps on living while the weak would die. To survive one will need to be the smartest, so as to manipulate the weakest so that they help support them in their survival, at their own detriments. And to survive one will need to be the cruelest, as to eliminate any opposition or obstacles to one’s survival.
If such is « Notre raison d’être « then morals would be unnecessary, and we should just butcher each other and see who will stand last, and this would be the survivalist winner.
To which my friend responded: that in a sort it is so, just look around, and what do you see mankind doing? Mankind is busy exploiting each other, abusing each other and butchering each other. We are fighting to gain access to life resources, and are ready to massacre anyone standing in the way.
I told him, that indeed it appears to be so, but then why we at that moment are discussing peacefully those ideas? We are not fighting each other for access to resources, but rather sharing them between us. We are not exploiting each other, but rather supporting one another, and are we not human? So if as human we can do so, the fact that so many are not, does negate us to be free to choose otherwise and this is what I called to be free. We are not just surviving being, but living entities, free to choose our way of life.
And to choose we are using the tool of rationality, the logic of all logic.

To be continued.
Peace No War

I had a wonderful evening this Saturday. I was invited to a small dinner party at a friend’s house. There, I had one of my best conversations. It has been a while since I was able to converse so freely, almost like I do on myspace, but face to face. It feels so good to be yourself, and spoke your mind with no fear among friends; many of which I just met, so similar indeed to this forum. Philosophy we spoke, arguing, seeking to see if mankind is free, and what does that mean?
What does that mean to be free?
We all agreed that in a society of law we all live. Laws that control our doings, and by such limits our freedom, which really take right over our own liberty, for if we disobey we may find ourselves in jail if caught, so freedom can not be the associated with actions alone. And if in jail I will not be free, than freedom does not exist.
Freedom, is the uniqueness of ourselves, we perceive the world, experience it, and defines what we feel, what we understand, what we conclude to be, this no one can take nor do for you, this each is free to be.
Each of us lives it. And as one of my friends then stated, tells the slave that they were free, that there slavery was not of matter?
To this I responded, did their minds were enslaved, were they not free to think? Were they not free to believe in a god of their faith? Were they not free to set their own morals and values? Toward themselves and towards others, if honest they wished to be, fair and compassionate, not matter the hardship. I understand that their life was run by the master, that in misery they lived, but still this does not reduced anything from the individual power. True, slaves they were, in their movement, and being—someone else was the driver of their body—but can some one take away their thoughts, what they perceive is it to be?
If human I perceive myself to be, since that form I carry, then rationality and analysis will help determine what I define to be a human, if such I do, then I too determine the characteristic for all human.

I will continue this argument later on.

Peace No War

Is Democracy the best system?

The principal element of democracy is the voting power the nation’s members.

It is said that the leaders represent the views and philosophy of the masses they govern. So, when leaders lie, corrupt, behave unethically they represent the mentality of the masses.

Or did the masses, when electing their leaders, did not use logic to evaluate each candidate, but, vile emotions driven by media propaganda. Or is it that politics has become more the art of manipulation, than a service to the public.

I recall a passage in the Republic, where Plato suggests that philosophers be rulers, but the problem is that philosophers would not seek such position, for it entails a great obligation towards the citizens of the state. The leader can no more think, and seek personal goods, he or she must think for the benefit of the whole. This aspect of being a servant to the public is gone from our system, and only the term “public servant” remains.

So it is not only the fault of the masses, but also of those politicians that the democratic system has become a masquerade.

It is also Plato, which mentioned that in a democracy, the leaders would decrease the liberties and freedoms of their citizens, as to better enjoy the fruits of their elite position; which will bring revolt and Anarchy.

It is why; in my opinion democracy is not the best option. Anarchy or self ruling seems to be more to the level of Human.

A Human, free, because he or she commands oneself, as Pythagoras wrote: “No man is free but who commands himself.”

A Human that would live to his or her great potential.

A rational Human.

It is apparent that the human specie has spread itself across the globe and even beyond, placing itself at the top of the food chain, and proving it to be quite adaptable. Moreover, since the human specie has created societies bound by laws, it is evident that the specie associates itself with characteristics such as: choice, critical thinking, analytical thinking and awareness of one’s existence.

Choice requires logic, comparison and evaluation; critical thinking, demands integrity, and creativity, and analytical thinking feed on the desire to discover, and learn.

If all this is true, than the specie has yet to show its great potential.