Q&A #5: Question Two

The second question I had this week regarding time is how we can deny the existence of time as force of nature altogether. I can understand that due to the inability to properly define the stages of time (past, present, future) concretely, we may become skeptical about the use of such terms to describe the passage of time. I do find it difficult however to deny the concept of duration, as for practical purposes we need this concept to live in our day to day lives as a species. We cannot deny that a human life is finite, no matter how we measure this duration in years or otherwise, human beings do not live forever. Not only do human beings have a finite existence but a majority of the material and perceivable world around us does not have an infinite lifespan. Again for the purpose of trying to find meaning in our lives and to support our species physically, we have to accept some concept of time so that we can survive. Aside from this I am still wondering whether a person can dismiss time altogether and still function day to day in our society successfully.

Q&A #5: Question One

The first question I had about this weeks topic of time is in regards to the block theory of time. If the past, present, and future already exist, it implies that the world is predetermined . If this is so then the contentious debate about whether we have free will in a deterministic universe is bound to arise. The author brings up some points about this topic saying that we may eventually commit a particular action of our own volition, so in that sense free will does not disappear in a determined system. It seems to me that accepting that we will one day perform a particular action seems fatalistic, it seems to remove some responsibility for the action as a proper defense of an immoral act would be "well I was going to do it anyways because it is inevitable". If there is a moral system in a predetermined universe, it seems it would have to be based on intention, I can hope for the best when committing a certain act but whether I do something immoral is already determined. I can still intend to do the right thing but inevitably I am bound to perform whatever action I have already committed in the already existing future.

More On time

The link below provides some further reading about scientific theories form physics relating to time

http://www.timephysics.com/

More on Nationalism

The links below provide further readings by theorists Gellner and Andersen who have contributed greatly to the socio-anthropological understanding of the modern nation state.

http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/anderson.htm

http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/gellner2.htm

Q&A #4: Question One

One of my question's this week was whether or not the term itself patriotism was inherently morally complex or if the complications arise more in its application. At face value it seems that there is nothing wrong with the notion of having a special affection and sense of duty to one's nation, however what kind of policies and actions this sentiment is used to defend is where issues seem to arise. I can have pride in my nation and believe that I have an obligation to contribute to it, but when I use the term patriotism to defend an unwavering and unquestioned support my nation's military intervention in foreign nations, the term has taken on more than it's textbook definition. As we discussed briefly on Monday internationalist sympathies were combined with American nationalism to defend military intervention in many parts of the world, the most recent examples would obviously be in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again I do believe it is compatible to be a patriot and an internationalist, but it seems that political interests attach meanings and obligations that are not inherently a part of what it means to love one's nation.

Q&A #3: Question One

My first question based on this weeks reading we touched on briefly during the last class conversation: can science provide the human life with validation and purpose? We discussed briefly how evolutionary theory would suggest that our purpose is to further the species and ensure its survival, however I would like to suggest an alternative. Perhaps the methods of scientific inquiry and the fact that we are seemingly always trying to find answers, could be evidence that as conscious and sentient beings, our purpose is to keep looking for answers. As organisms with the ability to categorize, analyze, and interpret sensory data, perhaps it is the purpose of our being to eternally search for knowledge and the nature of the world in which we occupy. The obvious objection to my suggestion is what evidence am I using to base my claim off of, aside from the observable fact that there are many unanswered questions about our existence still. Personally the idea that I am purely here to procreate leaves many questions about the human experience, and so I am contemplating whether the pursuit of knowledge itself is enough to justy

Q&A #3: Question Two

My second question after reading this weeks article is about what the criteria for a faith based epistemology would look like? Obviously empirical evidence would not be a strict requirement, but how would we validate intuitions and feelings as being evidence of truth about the world? Is there a hierarchy in which some people's intuitions about human nature or the existence of the soul are more accurate? It seems that one aspect of this epistemology would be the claim that: since there is no scientifically explanation for phenomenon X, then X must be explainable by supernatural explanation. Ideas such as human consciousness are often used in this debate, as psychologists, neuroscientists, and biologists still cannot locate the anatomical processes which we label the conscious mind. Even if some phenomena are not explainable by scientific inquiry thus far, it does not mean that this will be thee case forever. My other speculation is that a theistic epistemology would be based on the Scriptures and the literature of clergymen and other faith workers. If this is so, then wouldn't their system of knowledge be based on human writings and thus be based in the natural world?