Ethics/Morality

What is morality?  Is morality a set a social, political, and religious norms?  Or could mortality be a set of universal laws that every human follows out of basic instinct?  How does morality affect our lives? Plato says the good life is defined in terms of the moral life.  This means that one may judge the quality of one's life by how moral that person is.  Aristotle says the moral life is defined in terms of the good life. This means the opposite of Plato's theory.  So how is right?  Another view is Rational Egoism, which says that the good life overrides the moral life.  This means that personal well being overrides any moral obligations.  Contrasting ths view is Utilitarianism, which says that the moral life overrides the good life.  This means that one must hold moral obligations above personal well being.  For those who have seen the movie Watchmen,  one of the main characters makes use of Utilitarianism (but I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet).  I personally view morality a set of socail, political, and religious norms.  If these rules were not given to us, it is hard to tell if would still act civilized.     

Free Will

What is free will? This a question that philosophers have asked for centuries.  The definition of free will ultimately comes down to one's view of the Macro.  The Macro is the view of one's control of the future, and more importantly whether we have control or not. In philosophy, there are three main views on free will.  The first is strict determinism, which states that free will is an illusion and the future is already determined.  According to the SD's point of view, one has no control over their own future because everything is a product of the material world.  The second is strict indeterminism, which states that free will is personal choice.  According to the SID's point of view, the future is made by your personal choices and everything is purely subjective and random.  The third is compatibilism, which states that free will is the act of manipulating a determined future.  The Comp's point of view follows the SD's closely, the only difference being that by realizing the determined future, one may be able to avoid certain things.    

 

Identity

Philosophers have always thought about and disputed over true identity.  Over the years, philosophers have sided themselves along three main identity criterions.  There is the single-soul hypothesis, which states that true identity lies with an immaterial soul.  The SSH follows a Mentalist point of view, believing that every being has physical and non-physical properties.  According to the SSH, you are where your soul goes.  Next is the psychological criterion, which states that true identity lies with one's mental states.  Those who follow the PC believe that the brain holds everything that makes up one's personality, including memories and thoughts.  According to the PC, you are where your brain and mental states go.  Finally, there is the bodily criterion, which states that true identity lies with one's physical properties.  Those who follow the BC believe that everything about identity comes down to the mere physical world, thus there is no spooky stuff. The BC follows a Materialist point of view, pointing out that the only true things are those things that can be touched and proven.       

Consciousness

What is consciousness?  Many philosophers have pondered this question for centuries.  Is consciousness a inheret, biological function?  Or is it an intentional concept that we use to think and percieve?  Consciousness is most easily defined as working memory and awareness.  One view of the the conscience is the intentional view, which states that the conscience is the ability to represent other states of affairs.  The intentional view is based on concept and what we supposedly understand.  Another view is the phenominal view, which views conscience as the qualitative aspect of our subjective feelings.  Phenominality is based in perceptions, such as feelings and taste.  One could also consider conscience from the Functionalist point of view.  Functionalism states that everything, including consciousness, is a mental state defined by biological functions.  I personally find the phenominal point of view to be the most interesting.  

Mentalism vs. Materialism

In the world of philosophy, there are two sides who theorize of what we call reality.  There are the Mentalists who view the world through an Idealist point of view.  They view everything as a subjective experience, in other words, to be is to be percieved.  According to mentalists, nothing is concrete, the things we touch, see, smell, taste, and hear are nothing more than sensations.  Since they are nothing more than percieved sensations, it is impossible to conclude that something truly exists.  Mentalists also view the mind as its own entity, operating in ways that are impossible for humans to understand.  Then there are the Materialists, who view everything that can be sensed is reality.  Materialists don't believe in supernatural forces or mysterious entities.  They view the mind as an organ that functions as a product of the enviroment.  They believe that reality is constant and does not change according to people's perceptions.  So when it comes down to it, both sides have good cases.  Personally, I find myself siding with the Mentalist point of view, just because I like the idea of the supernatural. 

Reality

What is reality?  That has been the big question philosiphers have been asking for centuries.  Is reality a constant, unwavering thing? Is it a variable, changing into what the individual perceives it to be? Pherhaps it may be both of these things.  Maybe reality is a constant for us, but a variable to some higher power.  Maybe God changes our reality to suit whatever he sees fit.  Those who believe in the idea of realism, the idea that reality remains and never falters to anyone, make reality concrete and easier to grasp.  Those who believe in idealism, the idea that reality is only what we percieve, make reality more flexible.  Then there are the skeptics, those who question the actual existence of reality.  My view on reality is that one should not dwell to long trying to figure out what it is, lest they drive themselves mad.  Take a cue from the Beatles and "Let It Be".

Media

Media has long been thought of as a giant propaganda machine.  Everyday millions of people around the world tune in to the television or radio to get the latest breaking news.  To make sure everyone gets it, there are thousands of different media sources to feed the need.  With such a large number of media sources there is a great deal of variety to suit everyone's taste.  The personal beliefs and preferences are what dictates which media source is viewed.  Of course the liberal democrat will watch the liberal news, and the conservative republican will watch the conservative news.  This "give the people what they want" type of media can get in the way of the truth.  Each type of media will give the perspective they know their core audience will respond to best.  It just wouldn't make sense for Fox News to advocate tax increases nd huge bail-out plans.  In this effect the media becomes a shadow on the wall of Plato's cave, in that they are what we want to see and not what we are really seeing.  If one were to look at all the different media sources around the world, they would get thousands of different perspectives on the latest breaking news.  The headlines in the U.S. might read "Terrorist bombing kills U.S. troops", while another might read "Freedom fighters liberate their home from American infidels."  Media is all about spin and perspective, and while it's perfectly normal to have a preference, it would be benficial to look at the other side once and a while.