Phil's Blog

Moral Awareness

phil — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:43:32 +0000

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.

Silence in the Night

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:40:51 +0000

Silence in the night

I awake not knowing if it’s day or night
All seem blurring my sight
In silence all alone
I will carry my plight
My heart to stone
My soul to foul
All alone in the dark

Tears drop like spark
Down my cheek to peek
Slowly forming a creek
Drowning me stark
As time approach
To stand and fight
Suddenly goes my fright

Freedom

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:37:42 +0000

What does it mean to be free?

Free to do as I want?

Am I really free?

I am so limited by the form I have,

I cannot certainly fly, even if I wanted too

My only way is with a plane—

Nor can I swim under the sea as long as I want,

My only way is with a submarine,

So what does that mean to be free?

My consciousness does not let me be

In jail in the body it dwells

Giving the illusion that I am free

Free to obey the laws of man

Free to conform to the view of the masses

And if I dare not to obey, nor follow the way of society

Then my freedom is terminated.

Free to do good or bad, when my mind cannot see the difference

Man kills other man and calls it good when the man has a uniform on,

But bad if he doesn’t.

Am I free to think?

When my thoughts are the results of my up bringing.

Am I only free to follow my desires and wants?

And even those, I cannot recall

So tell me what is that Freedom, which soldiers are dying trying to protect?

Purpose

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:34:58 +0000

Look up to the sky

Here I am, wondering why,

I cannot yet fly.

There I go, try and try

But to no vain, there I will die,

So don’t ask why,

There’ re no answers that can apply

Who am I, who am I?

Ask a voice inside

You’ re an old man

Trying to put an end

To the sorrow of a friend.

Can you tell me what is

The purpose of all this.

Forgotten

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:34:08 +0000

Time went by

Since I hold you in my arms

Saw your beautiful smile

Only memories hold in my mind

Wondering over an overlasting end

Wake up at dawn

Darkness is not yet gone

Hardly can I see the sky

So tired I am.

Reflections

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:33:08 +0000

This poem was written in September 27, 1993

Strange isn’t it

For a man to think

How should he behave

When in love

Matters of the heart

They say it is

But he who feels

Knows it’s a nomad path

For love is a sword

Her power is the words

That may fill the heart and soul

With happy moments

Then pierces and destroys

Anything that was joy

With no mercy for the wounded boy

Why do I have to wonder

If it ’s love I feel

For you my sweet dear

Without letting myself fall under

The pressure of fulfilling my dream

To find a friend

A companion, a lover

Is there an end

To the way I suffer

Should I keep looking, searching

Or should I just let go

And yet follow the flow

“Sans Souci” for my sorrow

How strange it is

At my age to see

That all alone I stay

Without a purpose for a better day

What does a man need in this life

Food in his stomach

Clothes on his back

And all alone he can walk towards the light

Knowing that only death can take him apart

From love to death

What else is left

Only the sorrow of the soul

Waiting for the spirit to show

But without an answer to his prayer

He, all alone follows the path of the warrior

Not knowing what awaits

For the chance of success is slim

So no matter what you do

My friend, always

Remember, that me too

I am searching for the way

To achieve the purpose

Look around my friend

Ain’t no need to be sorry

Be happy and don’t worry

That’s the key to a wonderful end.

What can end the war in Iraq?

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:21:10 +0000

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

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:19:58 +0000

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.

On Integrity

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:18:33 +0000

What is integrity?

As defined in Wikipedia: “Integrity is holding true to one’s values”, or it is the value of a man’s words. If one proclaims that one will do a certain action, one must follow up. To have integrity, then, seems to relate to honesty towards oneself-one does not lie to oneself-

If in the pursuit of self development, one realizes than one must change a behavior, if one hope to improve. It is then to one’s responsibility to do so, and change the behavior, not doing so, will mean that one has no consistency, and no integrity with one’s thoughts and awareness. Or, just that one has no confidence or faith on one’s philosophy.

To have integrity, one must do which one knows to be beneficial or good, and if not towards others, than, a priori towards oneself.

Integrity is given to development, for it is closely connected to Will. More one trains oneself to follow one’s commands, then one becomes curiously enough, more free.

So it appears that developing integrity is more beneficial to freedom, than some other option today in the balance.

The Ideological Man

phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:12:27 +0000

This blog is a continuity of a previous blog title: “Simple Observations.”
In the process of self evaluation and development, one first set an ideological view of the characteristics of being Human. Such ideological individual is a moral person that uses reason to set forth the development process. A just man whose purpose is to do good and avoid evil.
What are morals? Are morals man made, given by a god, or found within the natural law? It is suggested that the law of nature is the law of the fittest (strongest) and that no morality is involved. Do animals do bad for the sake of doing bad? Or are they acting upon instincts? When a cat plays with a live mousse and does not kill it, or even after the kill the cat does not eat the mousse, did the cat had pleasure causing harm and suffering to the mousse or is it the way of the cat?
To answer such question, one would have to ask if animals have a conscience that permits them to differentiate between good and bad. I would not say for sure that they do, or that they don’t. But observations would permit me to come close to a conclusion, and I may advance that it appears that the animals do not have a conscience, and act primarily on instincts, as assumed.
However, mankind has a conscience, and knows which is good from which is bad; therefore, mankind has the capability to do harm for the sake of doing it. And this since to other human I am writing is evident and does not require any more explanation.
From that conclusion, comes forth the concept of morality, which is to do good and avoid evil. So that such characteristic is intrinsic to the Human concept. However, it does not mean yet that all human are moral individuals, it just implies that the concept of morality exist within each of us. It is now left to each one to define a set of moral principles to which one will adhere and forge one’s life. Those morals are the foundation for the standard of living that one will choose for oneself.
It is important to add here; that such concept then obliges another concept which is that mankind has a free will. And with that will, one will decide to either do good or do bad.
But as advanced earlier do all human have that characteristic, and do all human have control or the potential for control to make a decision? Trough observations of oneself, one realizes that many of one’s thoughts and actions are impulsive or spontaneous, and by such do not result from clear reasoning, but from habits. Some pushed through by outside stimulus. In such light it is then evident that not all actions or thoughts are willed. But the potential to gain greater control is indeed a value option, since through reflections (after the actions or thoughts) one has the possibility for change. Those reflections create hypotheses for one’s possible development.
Hypotheses can be defined as either Live or Dead. A live hypothesis is one that appeals to us, and is seen as a real possibility, while a dead hypothesis is one which notion does not make any connection and has no credibility for us.
The decision between hypotheses is called an option. Options can be living or dead, forced or avoidable, momentous or trivial. And a genuine option is one that is forced, living and momentous.
It result that morality is a live hypothesis and a genuine option, and such the ideological human is one that has chosen to be a moral and rational individual not just by desire but as a result of duty, the duty that comes from being a human being. This theory is very similar to Kant’s theory of obligation. For those who will wish to have some further readings I posted a blog on Kant’s theory of obligation.