Phil’s Blog

March 27, 2007

Moral Awareness

Filed under: Philosophy, Political, Religion — phil @ 10:43 pm

There is a disaccord between the moral structure of human relationship and the practical structure of society. Through the discovery of science, mankind made his world more comfortable to live in. He is far ahead in the knowledge of technology, while at the social level he seems lacking of moral values. His history is mainly the stories of his wars. History can be illustrated through different perspectives. For example, through the scientific evolution of mankind, and his control over natural laws; it can be demonstrated through the ethical evolution of man’s morals, man and his moral values. And, within the practicality in man’s actions, history can be evaluated at a collective level, or, and following one’s opinion in how he may perceive himself, a member of history, history in its making. The discord that exists is the wide contrast between the technological development of society and the development of man’s social behavior. This essay will deal with the discrepancy that exists in the moral evolution of man, within the practical development of mankind. The lack of awareness about the moral structure brought mankind to moralize the immoral. In the action of killing another human being practicality won over morality.
The lack of awareness about the moral structure of society can be underlined through human history. Within two fundamental structures mankind evolved. One, the practical structure of society, which is built through the scientific discoveries. They gave to mankind the tools he needed in his search for concrete knowledge, the scientifically proven reality. In this field of development man gained a higher control over the natural world that surrounds him. This development is defined as the physical evolution of mankind in the realm of the practical structure of society. Sciences are the foundations of the practical structure following which one discovers the laws that affect him; they will be used either to reproduce life or to destroy it.
Mankind evolved also through the social relation within itself, the relationship between human beings. It is defined as the moral evaluation of man’s actions. This philosophical development of human awareness is the essence; its tools are the moral and ethical virtues that defined humanity as a leader in the world evolution. History shows us that in this field mankind is lacking. The discrepancy that exists between the development of sciences and the philosophical etiquette of virtue is enormous. A man can call himself superior to another man, and decides whether or not he may live. While it is scientifically proven that all men had started as embryo, and all will end as carbon. Therefore, a man can not be called superior to another. Still mankind will find a reason to develop a wide variety of weaponry with enormous power; some can annihilate thousands in a blink of an eye. Where are the moral values that originated man creation? For which purpose science is used? To destroy life! In this moral argument practicality won over morality. Man found many reasons for the killing of another human. Mankind desires to live in peace, but he lives in constant wars, not only at a national or international level, but also at the individual level. The battle that each man is engaged in within himself, the struggle between the forces of right and wrong. It is the moral dilemma behind each of his actions. Einstein said: “Peace is the time between two wars.” The war is the moral dilemma that exists in each man. But as he chooses and acts, his actions are to be done in a peaceful manner. In the actual relationship between man peace is a must. Man overlooked morality in its evaluation of the value of life. He putted a price on a man’s life. Now he seeks inner peace, within the daily struggle of his life.
The moral structure that was developed by early philosophers was based on the premise that man is the ruler of his world; the need then to have a high set of moral values was a necessity. They are the foundation to the constant evaluation that a man does within himself. It is between him and his creator. History shows that a man was not able to hold on such a strict moral structure. He started early to show the need of more practicality in his life than morality. Early family disputes ended in the killing of a member of the family. When a Greek philosopher by the name of Socrates stood firm in his opinion that the youth should be taught the virtues of honesty and humility he was put to death. Plato, one of his students, defined a well ordered individual as one who acquired the virtues of wisdom, courage and temperance, and unifying all justice. They are the basis for human development. These moral virtues would be acquired through the teaching of music, gymnastics and philosophy. The power of few men stopped the momentum of the teaching of philosophy and pushed the military training to gain power over other men. Other philosophers tried to bring man to a higher level of awareness. Voltaire, a French philosopher, once declared that it is in the hand of a man to form his path. This is hidden in the famous sentence that ends the book of Candide, “go and cultivate your own garden.” He also published the first philosophical dictionary, from which man will be able to comprehend a higher meaning to his life. Jean Jacques Rousseau a French philosopher from the eighteen century wrote and essay on the origin of the foundation of inequality within mankind. Expressed in the essay is the opinion of one moral for all as the basis for man equality. The social competition between human being forced man to find reasons to abolish morals. It was not practical enough, too serious. The practicality in the battle for success was to acquire wealth, power and fame. To be a moralist was not practical. Still, more people will come and battle on the side of morality. For example, Gandhi in India stood firm in his conviction that non-violence was the way to go. Marthin Luther King would have wished for a peaceful world, where a man’s color will not determine if he will be free or will be a slave. And many more stood firm in their belief that man is the ruler of his world. Still, it seems that mankind developed a different opinion; he is no more that a sophisticated ape. Therefore, he does not need a moral structure to limit his development. To wage war against his own kind, his moral foundation is the one of an ape, no offence to the apes.
It is time to awake, and live peacefully between each other. Through the scientific evolution man perceived himself as a cultivated animal. He will seek power to acquire and fulfill his deepest desires. He will give up the identity of man, man as a higher form. A man that has control on his desires, and does not need to fulfill them. It is time to understand that history is repeating itself. If it is peace that man wants, in his hand the power to achieve it. He needs to start at the individual level and progress through a well established system of education. Where the main purpose is not to have more than others, but to grow as a whole, the growth of humanity. History shows us the need to reeducate ourselves. Each man needs to understand the danger that awaits him in the development of humanity. If evil prevails it is the end of mankind as we know it. The power of science could be used to heal the wounds it produced. The need to develop a higher level of awareness in the realm of collective identity at each individual level should be the priority in man’s development. If he keeps on making weapons with greater power of destruction, he will then use the power of science to destroy life. On the contrary, if man concerns himself in the learning of philosophy, and uses science’s power to produce life, he will then attain a higher level of awareness in the structural foundation of morality at the practical level, in every actions that he will experience.

March 18, 2007

What can end the war in Iraq?

Filed under: Political — phil @ 12:21 pm

In Response to an article
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6517&news_iv_ctrl=1261
What can end the war in Iraq?
Friday, March 9, 2007
By: Richard Becker
It may be true that both parties in the US use propaganda to achieve the imperialist goals, but we too, the revolutionary movements use propaganda to appeal to the masses, usually the poor. As you stated it has been a long history of imperialism, and little has been done by revolutionary powers, as they reach their goals, and achieve power, they left the poor in the dark.
Mao’s revolution has put to death as many innocents as the imperialists did.
Stalin was a brutal dictator, and Lenin was not much different, even if they were pro the revolution and against imperialism, they used the same tactics of oppression and extermination.
The Palestinian issue was born in 1968, under Yaser Arafat, a born Egyptian, when Israel took the “west bank” from Jordan. When Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt, Gaza was not wanted by the Egyptian, why? To permit a continuation of a struggle against the Jewish state.
The Palestinians are not in accordance with themselves- since the birth of their movement they have killed each others as much as Israel has killed them. (Remember the black September 1969-when Palestinians ran inside Israel for protection)
I do not like any war, but when Palestinians can bomb a bus full of children, they should not complain of being treated as murderers. In war there are no rules, all apply, there are no innocents just casualties, and this is also true for revolutions- If we are ready to use violence, we should accept that violence will be used against us.
Wars and imperialism has been since the beginning of times, and will not end now, it is an illusion to think that we have any power to change the way this world is going. We can as it appears to me, wait for the time when we blow ourselves into pieces, for nothing seems to change.
We the revolutionary groups are not even in coordination with each others, each wants its agenda put first. Solidarity has been just a word with no meaning for too long. We march on the street for a day or two, and then go back to the comfort of our homes, slipping our wines and tasting our delicatessens, while watching the news, waiting to march again.
We keep on being good workers for the system, paying our bills on time, and giving our taxes to support the imperialist forces. And then we ask ourselves how can they keep on going? They do it with our help.
Wars are done in the interest of the few, and it always has been that way, so let us not act surprised that it is so. This country had an amendment in its constitution giving the right for a militia to form and train and remove any regime that is abusive to its citizens, where is that militia? Asleep at the wheel, drinking their beers, and doing their women. I have yet to see them in action, saw their pitiful training however, a joke in my opinion.
You want the system to listen, stop working, stop consuming, and just live on strict necessity. If you destroy the economy you destroy the foundation for their power.
But I am still waiting to find others who will live with practically nothing.
You appear surprised that this new congress is not doing anything different than its predecessor, did you really expected something different? I did not, and I am not very smart, but this is common sense. Even Plato in the Republic once warn that those in power will do all to keep being in power, and those wishing to gain power will tell anything to get there.
PEACE NO WARS

The Value of Democracy

Filed under: Political — phil @ 12:19 pm

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.

March 1, 2007

Iran Nuclear Development

Filed under: Political — phil @ 4:53 am

Why should Iran stop developing nuclear energy? Even if their intent is to make a bomb, is it not their right? Are they not member of the non-proliferation treaty? And why the US does not required Israel to dismantle it nuclear capability, or in the same token to all nuclear power?
Was it not the US that armed Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war, causing the death of millions on both sides? And furthermore, was it not the US that armed the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets invasion?
“No more war, no more bloodshed” (Anwar Sadat)
This president (Bush) has already shown that he can do as he wishes, was not the invasion of Iraq illegal?
12 years of embargo causing hundreds of thousands to die needlessly, the very young, the young and the old, all innocent’s civilians that already had to suffer the hardship of their own leader. So now, he wants to turn to Iran, and do the same to the people, are they not suffering enough from the oppression of their government?
Rather than helping then in their development and showing compassion, the US imperialist power, wishes to force them to submission.
Enough is enough, let the people be.
War appears to be the only way this country, the US of A knows. It will not talk to Iran, because the leader refuses to accept Israel, so what the US doing, refusing to accept Iran? Refusing to talk to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to Hugo Chavez, to Fidel or Raul Castro, and the list can go on. Who put the US at the top of the world, the dictator of all nations?
In regard to Hamas and Hezbollah, I may not agree with their tactics, but nor do I agree with the tactics of this government (US). However, can I take arm against it, as they do against the people of Iraq? Or intend to do with Iran? Or I am supposed to follow the democratic process and make my voice heard in a peaceful manner. So why does this government do not do as it orders its citizens?
Why should he now listen to his congress or his people? The cowboy is having fun, but not for long. I hope that he will be soon removed from office, so the carnage can stop.
I feel for the people of Iran, not only do they must deal with their own government, but also with the imperialist pig. I am sure that they remember the US support for the Shah (a dictator, puppet of the US).

War From a Soldier Point of View

Filed under: Political — phil @ 4:51 am

A soldier in a combat unit is not train to befriend the enemy, his mind must be on alert, it is a kill or be killed. The enemy includes all individuals member of the invaded country, especially, when the enemy is engaged in guerilla warfare–IED, and suicide bombing- and moreover, when the enemy does not have a uniform–all members of the country are enemies.

My experience: 1982 Lebanon War, IDF

I was in the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon fighting Hamas and Hezbollah fighters. On patrol I told my officer, that if anyone approaches the vehicle, I shoot to kill-

Do not bring me drinks, flowers, or food- I am a soldier at war, I have a gun in my hand–Logic says: stay away from me.

The officer told me that it was unacceptable. One is allow shooting only if a gun is seen, or shoot at.

If I am the enemy, then I use these idiotic rules against you. This is one of the reasons, for so many casualties.

There is nothing nice about war. A soldier is send to butcher people whom he or she doesn’t know- Just because he or she was ordered to do so-

Let the soldiers do their war.

The politicians are quit to use the soldiers to do their dirty work, in the name of national security, so at least let them do their work, for which they have been trained.

Does not use soldier as policemen; this is two different jobs, with different skills and requirements.

What do they do to a soldier in is first day of arrival to a boot camp?

They shave his head; give him a uniform, and a number by which he or she will be identify. Then they go on to humiliate, and break the recruit both physically and mentally, to prepare him or her to KILL

Because killing is not as easy as it seems.

And the memory never leaves.

But, if a government going to send troops to war, then let the soldiers be what they were trained to be–KILLERS

Powered by WordPress