Philosophy Blog

Civil disobedience, if I understand correctly, refers to situations in which "breaking the law" will be a lesser evil than observing it. First, I would like to consider the formal legal point of view. If we take into account the fact that it is impossible to take into account and list all life situations in the law, the law seeks to be universal. Since the legislator understands that there are exceptions to each rule, it can supplement many general legislation with special rules i.e., amendments to the public law. I believe that civil disobedience is permissible if the government exceeds or abuses existing laws. If we are talking about the "moral (ethical) obligation" to break the law, then we must first determine theories. As human history shows, the "common good" for the sake of which it is possible to "break the law at all" was understood by different societies at different historical stages; differently, there is no agreement on this issue even today. My opinion is that in modern society, people are often morally obliged to violate laws from one side or another. For example, to protect your family with weapons in states where guns are prohibited, protecting yourself from robbers who have entered the house. I could agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is not a law" Since I do not think that I should follow, observe a law that I do not respect and do not believe in its suitability.

I believe that Mills, like Marx, support freedom but each in its own way. I like the ideas of both. I also think that if we combine their ideas together, we could come to a kind of ideal theory of freedom. Mills supported the theory of human freedom from the perspective that people should have complete freedom of action until it does not harm anyone i.e., if the state does not tell us what and how to do it does not dictate its own rules to us, then we are free. Marx, in turn, says that the financial inequality of people in one way or another affects freedom. Marx believed that the economic system is essential so that people have a right to how they can use their finances, but this should be under some control. He believes that direct government intervention is necessary to maintain order in society. If Mills considered personal freedom as a priority, for Marx, economic freedom was a priority.

The main source of our suffering is our affections as well as our preoccupation with our desires. A person always strives for something, wants something, has certain desires and longs to realize them. We are attached to our loved ones, to delicious food, to a comfortable life. We are afraid to lose it all; we worry and suffer if we lose something. No wonder we always want more and better. Who doesn't want it? Since our opportunities do not always coincide with our desires, we are always trying to increase our capabilities, improving ourselves to achieve what we want, we are setting up new goals, and strive for them. Therefore our entire life is a struggle and tension. As soon as we reach the goal, as soon as our capabilities coincide with our desires, our desires immediately increase. We are setting up new goals; we again strive for something exert ourselves and, most importantly, again suffer from the fact that the desire is not matching reality. It turns out that our desires are a rapidly disappearing horizon. Our life is a constant pursuit of the unrealizable and impossible. Many, if not all, suffer because of that. We struggle to get what we can not have, and therefore I do not think that in the contemporary world, we can live according to these teachings. To get rid of suffering, maybe it's true that we need to get rid of our affections and desires. Maybe we need to be calmer about what we have or what we want, and of course, about what we do not have and what we don't need in our lives.

I think that cosmological and design arguments can influence and, even to some extent, change people's religious beliefs. The foundation of religion is faith in God. Faith is what a person/society believes in. The foundations of philosophy are reasoning about our life. We cannot believe in the existence of God unless we talk about how people first appeared on earth. Therefore, people come to God through deep reasoning about our being. Philosophy helps us to consider religion from different angles, i.e., to study and learn what we did not think about before. Yes, I believe in God, my religion is my Faith, and yes, my views cannot be a good argument for the full concept of religion.

If we compare the programming of computers and the "programming" of humans by society, I would say that YES, as humans, programs a computer, society "programming" humans. Although a person is free and independent, nevertheless from birth, we are given specific "programs" by society, such as "What is right and what is wrong," how we should live, how many years we should study, and what we should study. We do not grow and develop as "Mowgli" we are all subject to public opinion, rules, we all fulfill the programs laid down for us by society. Many programs define human life. Yes, of course, we can program our life ourselves and not perceive society "programming," and partially, we do it. Still, we also do not hesitate to accept programming or programs laid down to us by the society that worked before us and will work after us as they are a kind of base.

I agree with Descartes ' Dualism theory that human consists of two substances. Descartes distinguishes between the body and the mind in humans, where the body is our material beginning, i.e., the body can move, change, and the mind has the properties of thinking. The body, in turn, can deceive us, although our body seems to be more accessible to us than our mind. For example ( phantom pain and mirror effect), a mirror box developed by Vinayanur Ramachadram to help people with phantom pain after amputation of a limb. Quite often, after amputation, people have a feeling of "phantom limb" - the feeling that the amputated arm or leg is still in its place. Unlike a limb that was amputated, the area of the brain associated with it remains intact. Often, other areas of the brain perceive signals from this area (associated with the leg or arm) as a sign that the limb is still in place. Vinayanur Ramachandran invented the mirror box, which helps people to get rid of these pains. When the person was placing the remaining part of the limb in a mirror box and saw the reflection of the healthy limb in the mirror, thereby signaling that the limb exists, thus stopping phantom pain. The nervous system connects our mind and the body, i.e., the nerve endings pick up the vibrations of the soul and start the body, in turn, the movement of these nerve endings transmits to the soul all our sensations and perceptions.

Pragmatic knowledge is the knowledge that can be applied in practice i.e., the knowledge that we can apply in our daily life, while feminism considers gender differences in the approach to knowledge i.e., feminism considers knowledge as a social thing and believes that it should be equally accessible to both men and women. I can agree with the theory of pragmatism and feminism because I think that each of these theories should be used to acquire full knowledge, for example, knowledge considered only by one gender will not be complete and objective. Knowledge is a tool that we use every day to improve our lives. Knowledge can be acquired in different ways: through feelings, experience, etc. but each of these ways complements each other so that we have the opportunity to get full and expanded knowledge. I believe as I said earlier that each theory of epistemology is individual but at the same time complements each other, each of these theories contributed to the formation of new knowledge that we use every day.

Empiricists claim that all our knowledge is based only on the use of our senses. I believe that any life begins with the knowledge that was obtained using the senses, and up to a certain age, they are essential. When a child is born, he is born without any knowledge, and for him, sensory experience plays a huge role in learning everything new. For children, all knowledge, such as forms, values, etc. are formed primarily on sensory perception. On the other hand, the same objects can cause different people to have different feelings, which calls into question the statements of empiricists. I also believe that the theory of empiricism can not be applied in mathematics because mathematics works with digital data that can not be supported in any way by our sensory experience.

Methodological skepticism led Descartes to the following conclusion “cogito ergo sum” which in Latin means “I think therefore I am” this is the only thing that he could not question. Most of our judgments and reflections cannot be reliably evaluated. The only reliable fact is the very fact of our doubt, which proves the fact of our existence. For example, if I see a chair, guided only by my vision, I can say that it is a blue chair, that this is not my illusion. The very fact of my doubt and the very fact of displaying the chair in my mind indicates that I exist; i.e., our assessment of the reality of other objects proves the existence of ourselves rather than the real presence of objects surrounding us. I think, therefore, I exist tells us not only about our existence but also about the Self. I think first, and then I exist. In my opinion, we still use methodological skepticism today by putting under the question information from newspapers, TV news, advertising. We can even say that many of us, including myself, are inclined to believe the incoming information until it becomes impossible. I think that only by questioning, doubting, and asking ourselves questions, we can come to the right decision and correctly evaluate incoming information.

Yes, I think that Socrates is right that he is pessimistic about life if there is no philosophy in it. Imagine that we live in a world where no-one asks questions, that we live and do not challenge and do not discuss, we do not learn anything new and do not analyze, we live like those prisoners in a cave in the world of illusions. If you would only think about how much new knowledge we have gained simply by asking ourselves questions and putting under the question answers and beliefs of others. After all, the philosophy is to learn something new by asking and answering questions and, at the same time, asking a dozen new ones.