Worlds?... Word

Since the beginning of philosophy class, we have talked about what philosophy is, what we should expect about death, even that we are or we are not, that we need more things to survive than animals. But one thing that we have not spoken about is about things bigger than ourselves.

There is something in our human nature that always makes us classify things, and this is no exception. Fernando Savater tells us that we classify our world in many different ways. We start little, like our family, closest friend or schoolmates; but it suddenly increases to a point we do not just take people in our country is in our personal world, but also THE WHOLE EARTH. Savater makes a really good point, I think every human alive does this unconsciously; each and every one of us has this divisions in their life.

Even though we have too many worlds to live in, the ones that we feel more comfortable and covet the most are the smaller worlds that we live into. For example, I would choose my family over my friends, and my friends over my neighbors and so on, and I am sure everyone would do the same.

Philosophy over Mythology

People in ancient times have argued about the creation of the universe and everything that composes it. Some people even nowadays, believe that the universe was the creation of God. But to believe in what has already been reestablished before is irrelevant. The advantage of philosophical ideas over mythical ideas is that while philosophizing, we think by ourselves, we come with our own ideas of how things were created. In the other hand mythical ideas are already been said and established, so the ones who believe in them really don’t bother in thinking by themselves, but they only believe what people in the past have said.

Mythical ideas can’t be argued, they are the way they are and like it or not, they will remain the same. That’s why I think mythology is a waste of time, I mean, if I can’t even question it, why do I would like to believe in it? Maybe we never get to a straight answer in philosophy about how the universe was created, but instead of believing what other have told us, we need to think by ourselves. Mythological ideas are personal, they are related to some god but philosophical ideas are impersonal, even though someone said the idea, it doesn’t relate to the person who said it.

To conclude I will like to state my final opinion in simpler words, philosophical ideas will always have an advantage over mythological ideas. Philosophy makes us think, experience and question the universe, something mythology doesn’t allow you to do.

The Universe

Here we are now in Chapter 5, in which the main topic is the Universe. In this Chapter Savater talks about the Universe, his perspectives about it, as well as the way he thinks of it. He also asks himself 3 major questions .

So Savater talks about how we “live” in different worlds, first of all there’s this world called our family, friends, known places, etcetera. Then he talks about the next step, which is like the cultural and social place I live in. He then talks about the subsequent places, in other words, he goes from smallest to biggest until he reaches outer space. Savater basically talks about how we live in mini-worlds.

He then makes a statement to which I totally agree, in Page 73 he states “By the way, what is most noteworthy in this series of worlds is that those most vitally important to me are precisely the smallest and narrowest”.

I agree with this statement because for me and I think, for many of us, this is a truth . Many of us care only about what happens on our world, it could be in our school, home or with friends. Some care more or less of what happens on their city or country, but almost none of us care about what happens in other countries or in the outer world, even though those decisions can affect our lives.

For example nowadays some countries are testing nuclear weapons, I really don’t care because it isn’t happening in my country nor near of it, and I think many of the people whom I’m related don’t even know what’s happening. But I think that we should really care because those decisions or actions can really hurt us in a future. So in resume I think that we should really care of everything, even though it doesn’t really affect us directly, we should care of ourselves and others.

The Three Humiliations

From ancient times, humans have been thinking several wrong suppositions. We tend to think that we ourselves are the center of everything, letting our Honour and Pride to grow and pretending we are a special kind of animal who has more capacities and unique abilities which make us different from other animals, establishing our perfection in spite of other kind of circumtances.

First of all, in the book we find the first humiliation: the works of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler (the Earth, was removed from the center of the universe). This humiliation was really important, it demonstrated us that we are not the center of everything and instead we move around a star.

Secondly, Darwin explained that we are not the perfect image of God, neither created by Him. He explained that we are the result of continue genetic mutations. The Ego and beliefs of what we contempled as Real, were dumpted down and proved incorrect. This means that several pilars of human thinking hd to be substituted now by new ones, radical ones.

The third one was from Freud, who induced us to see how our unconscious impulses found ways to manipulate our conscious. Signifying that from now on people could be informed that theology in general was not as we pictured it.

In all humiliations we learned that we are not what we think we are. We are what we do not wish to be, even if we reject it. I think we shouldn't stereotype ourselves as God's image, but part of God itself, it could be more abstract and not so literal.

Humans, superior to animals?

Since humans exist they have considered themselves as the most important living thing that exists in earth. Most of the humans act arrogantly when it comes to consider the human species as just another type of living thing in this planet. For explaining this Fernando Savater uses 3 examples; the first one is when Copernicus and Galileo showed that the center of the universe was the sun and not the earth, this showed that the human species were not the most important thing in the universe. The second one was when Charles Darwin proved that we evolved from the monkey to become what we are today, this stretched more the distance between animals and humans. At last Sigmund Freud said that most of our actions were controlled by unconscious impulses, almost the same as animals.

After this we have to consider, what makes us so superior from animals? My personal opinion is that there are many more things that differentiate us from animals. We can distinguish the good things from the bad, we can analyze and understand why do things happen, we can communicate a lot more than animals, we can express our feelings, but the main difference that I found between animals and humans is that us as human can learn almost things while animals just learn what is enough for them to survive. My conclusion is that we are more developed than animals, not superior or inferior just more developed.

Come On You Chicken...

What do you mean when you say humans are animals? Charles Darwin has proven that we are descendants from monkeys, but we are not the same. Some scientists have made studies that prove that between the chimpanzees and us, there is a 90 per cent equal chromosome, but that does not mean we have to act like chimps. The great thing that differentiates us is we have to learn more to survive that chimps do. We use more our brains, instead of chimps just using their instinct to survive. So we could say we are descendants from the monkeys, but we have evolved to become a smarter more efficient race.

We can be compared with animals but only in certain aspects of our life. People use some metaphorical comments related to animals. For example, when you are afraid people call you chicken, or when you are being really inappropriate or doing something bad they call you something like donkey (ass). But this does not mean we are a chicken or an ass. So even though people impersonates us as animals does not mean we are one. (Even though we are more complex animals). So I think just because people call us something we are not, it just impersonates us.

Animal or Human?

Throughout Fernando Savater’s book, we have been to define ourselves and in this chapter are no different. Savater mainly speaks of what make us different from animals and I found quite interesting some of them. He stated that one of the main differences was that animals do what they do to satisfy their needs, while humans instead of only satisfy them, they create new needs. I think he is right in the way that animals only do what they need to do like feeding, sleeping, reproducing etc. In the other hand, humans are always creating new necessities which really are unnecessary. The fact that humans are always inventing things like internet, cars and creating huge skyscrapers are only because as Savater said “an dissatisfied animal”.

Also I liked the fact that he used Pico’s quote “the most wonderful thing about man is that he remains open and undetermined”. I think this is really a big difference between what we are and what animals are. I think animals are “programmed”. They do what their instincts tell them to do; they have a prestablished way of behavior. In the other, humans have free-will. We decide what to do and what not, we can do something against our beliefs, against the ideas we have been raise with, because we have the privilege of doing what we want, even if we know is right or wrong.

I really liked this chapter because it presents more clear ideas that the previous chapters and I found very interesting some of the points presented in the chapter.

The Characteristic Animal

Chapter 4. As always I have many doubts/questions while I'm reading this book, but let's focus on one that draws my attention. While Savater talks about the similarities and differences there are between us (humans) and animals, there was this statement that says: “...animals use their intelligence to procure what they need, whereas humans use it to discover new needs.”

Here’s my point of view from this statement, I think Savater is correct. Why? Animals only seek to be stable and with their requirements fulfilled, after they achieve this they are okay and they don’t search or start to look for other things. In the other hand, in humans were always trying to be stable and have everything we need to live (water, food, electricity, etcetera), but the problem here is that we are not satisfied with these things that are required to live well, we always try to find new things or seek new ways to make or gather things.

For example, there’s this experiment about the Large Hardon Collider about the particles, even though scientists have stated that it can make a black hole and create problems to Earth, we as humans don’t take it into consideration and want it to make it happen. There are many examples as the one I gave before in this world, examples where humans aren’t satisfied with what they have and are always trying to look for many things, there is never a time where we could say we have finally reached it and have everything. As Savater said before “...humans use it (intelligene) to discover new needs”. In resume, humans use intelligence to live well, but sometimes we want more things that we can't have.

What am I?

Savater says that if an extraterrestrial comes to the earth and he sees our daily life, it would probably think that everything is part of me, like my house, my car, clothes, even cell phones. We would try to explain to this being that our possesions are not part of us, that we are our body, but what about the thing(?) that allows us to be unique?... I think we are more than just flesh and bones, we have that "something" which makes us different from inanimated bodies. We feel anxiety, sadness, happiness, we can laugh! Many people would say we have a soul. I think so too, I feel like this thing called "soul" is the one that is constantly connecting our movements with what we call reality, concreting what it wills, like a force that cannot be seen nor touched, but you know its there. There have been many critics about this, and maybe people is not wrong or right, but close to the answer. Let me explain, from ancient times people have narrated about events which involve the recognition of the spirit of bodies, like ghosts, astral voyages, etc. And they sometimes agree that the body misses like a "sparkle" when it looses the soul, so how can people perceive this? is it a kind of "matter" which we know nothing about it? There are so many things we don't know we can't be sure of anything. I think at least my body is connected with that something we haven't yet identified, and also that it belongs to like a Force that is greater than only one body.

Reality or Illusion?

Would you believe someone, if he or she told that everything you have lived is an illusion, or maybe a dream that a higher force is controlling. Probably you would think of that person as someone who is completely insane. Well, Rene Descartes one of the major philosophers of the seventeenth-century came up with this idea. He put forward the idea that what we consider to be a reality could be a simple dream. This idea that I read on the book “The questions of life” made me think about what is real and what isn’t.

I thought a lot about this idea, which Descartes brought up, but I came to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter if it is true or not, it could even be impossible to know if what we live is a reality or an illusion, what matters is that even if you find the answer for this it would not make any difference, we would continue to live our lives the same way as if nothing had changed for us.

The conclusion that I get from this is that we should not worry about what is real and what isn’t, life is too short to be asking this kind of questions, we should enjoy life as much as we can and live happy.

Reality?

Every once in a while, I stop thinking about what is happening in the world, and ask two simple questions how do I know everything we experience is real? Even more personal how do I know I exist?  The funny part of all this questions is that I was not the first person that asks this question, and I am certainly not the last person to ask this question. Before me, a lot of people have been asking this question and fortunately for me a person answered this question so I could understand a little bit more about my existence.  Rene Descartes came with the quote “I think therefore I am” which pretty much says that because we think that we exist because we think of us existing. I think Descartes does not really have a point because he says we have to be conscious that we exist to actually exist.  But how do we know that someone created that conscience to think that we are conscious and this is actually real. But we are never going to be certain of what is real and what is not. The only things we can do is live our life as this is real, and keep asking questions until we get to a real answer.

A dream or not?

What if someone you don’t know came to tell you that everything you see, touch, smell, hear and taste is an illusion. You probably would think the same way as I think, “This person is completely insane”. While reading I inside, I outside, Descartes said that “Those thing we perceive, and those events that appear to happen, could only be incidents within a dream”.

I reasoned this statement and I think that I can’t be sure about nothing. There is no way to prove or deny Descartes thought. But what I’m arguing about his quote is what difference would it make if everything is a dream or not? I would live my life the exact same way because if and only if is “proven” to be right, I will still be in my eternal dream and I can’t do nothing about it. As Savater says, “To be always dreaming would be the same as never to dream”. If we were always dreaming, we wouldn’t know what reality really is. If this was the case, we have never experience pure reality. So it doesn’t make a difference, a dream or not a dream, we exist in some way that is for sure.

In conclusion I don’t think we have to worry about this, in fact, if everything is a dream, why would I care in writing this blog, right?

I'm in and out...

In this chapter we realize that there are some philosophers that contradict each other, or well have similar thoughts. In this chapter I was amazed by the thinkings of the french philosopher René Descartes. The thing I was most amazed of was the one where he says that everything even us form part of a dream. That’s when I started to think that eventhough he defends his sayings by telling many other things, I do not agree with him. First of all how reality can be part of a dream if we are alive and have a soul or who can say that there are two people playing a game and we are part of it (the players are the God and the devil), how can you prove it.
I think that we are alive and we are in a reality not in a dream, we are people that have the ability to think, dream and interact with many other people that have almost the same characteristics as us.
Where I do agree with Descartes is with his famous quote “I think, therefore I am”. , This quote proves us that we actually exist and therefore I think this help us realize that we are real, exist and therefore are part of a reality and not a dream.
Each of us can have different points of view, but this is how I see it. In resume, with just the simple fact that because we have a soul, we exist and believe in a god we are part of reality nor a dream. Happy holidays!

"The TRUTHS of Reason"

How can we know something is true? What processes do people use to know that something is true?

This are some questions I often ask myself once in a while and that I haven't had a satisfactory answer for them. Since my childhood I have heard people talking about the Absolute Truth. This Truth that is "eternal, blazing truth". Well, in the chapter Truths of reason I noticed that is was not all as it is showed. I believe many people use the term of "absolute Truth" to be more in comfort, to feel themselves secure of what they trust, and most of all to live without more worries. But what about reasoning? Is the obligation of everyone to use it. We have this skill and still we don't use it. The Absolute Truth is revealed, and I think its not a revelation what we should adore, but the use of reason to seek for the truth. Everybody can use reason, the truths are better understood if everybody contributes for it to be discovered. So it should be not the Truth of some, isnt that elitism or something like that? Let us use a skill we all have: reason and help us each other in every way we can, building up what we consider true by the rationality of everyone and not by the beliefs of some.

Truths and Knowledge

In discussions there’s always people who argue that what they are saying or their arguments are the only truths and that all the others arguments are wrong. Also there is some people who think that they are always right, they don’t make mistakes, so their truth is the only one correct. Some other people think that they have so much knowledge and experience that they can’t be possibly mistaken. This kind of people couldn’t be more mistaken, if I have learned something in the past week is that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. The truth is something relative; this means that each and every person has its own personal truth, so what this is telling us that everyone in their own different way of reasoning and analyzing things find their own personal truth. For example for Astronomy a star in a giant supernova that is thousand of light years far from us, but to Art or Poetry a star is a small, beautiful round thing that supply of us light in the darkness.

I’ve got to be honest until about a week ago I thought that truth were universal or absolute, but since I’ve read this chapter I’ve realized that I was wrong that truths are relative, so it depends on our own point of view. This kind of thinking is called relativist, which means that you believe in relative truths not in absolute truths. So in conclusion everyone lives in their own “world” of truths that vary a lot depending on your culture, religion, ethnicity, etc.

There is Not An Absolute Reason

“Once the people begin to reason, all is lost” I begin with this quote from the great French philosopher Voltaire, because I think it supports what Fernando Savater spoke about in this chapter. I also think that when we start to reason, is the same as when we start to think, we cease our thirst of learning more, and we conform with what we know. But, Who’s reason is the right one? How do we know who is right and who is not? I think no one really has the reason, because, if I think I am right in something, some guy in some other place with the same line of questioning might  think he is right, but with a different answer.

In our times we grow up thinking we know everything and we start to get a little arrogant. But the is a time when we ask, How much we know? And the answer is “we do not know”, and because of this if we think we know something we are lost.  I think we should gather almost any knowledge we can of a certain subject and then make one reason from all that knowledge, it can get close to an absolute reason, but it will never be, and reason will always be relative.

 

Knowledge in Humans

In this chapter Savater talks about knowledge in humans and about reason. We throught our life have acquired knowledge by experience, by studying and also by teachings or tellings from others.
But ther’s a time when we question ourselves if the knowledge we got when we were young will help me survive in the future, or if the person that told me some facts were correct. As Savater says “I must seek arguments that enable me to accept or refute my knowledge”
In my opinion we should sometimes verify if our knowledge is correct or not. Eventhough I think that the knowledge you get through experience is something you can’t seek arguments for or question it because it’s something that you have already tried or used.
In the other hand I think that the knowledge you must check or well, prove it right, is the knowledge acquired by tellings from others. Why? There are many people that could tell you that they are right and have a wrong answer. For example in my family there’s this uncle who always wants to be right and always wants to tell the others that he’s correct in everything and that you can’t never change his mind. One time there was this questions about wether or not a politician should rule the city, he insisted that he shouldn’t, but the others said yes. He got so angry that he shouted “Okay you have the reason” and he left. This is when you see that you can meet people saying that their beliefs or knowledge are the only one’s, even though they could be wrong. So this is when we should verify our knowledge and reason it. And be aware of those persons!

Knowledge?

Sometimes people argue of knowing the truth for everything, they think they are so wise that they really believe that what they know is the only truth possible. Some claim that their knowledge comes from other people, others claim to have studied so much that they know everything, and some claim to have experience so much through their lives that they understand a lot of things.

The question is which one of them can come nearer to reaching the truth? In my personal opinion, knowledge through experience is the better way to come to a truth. Savater in his book “The Questions of Life” argues that sometimes our senses, specially our vision, could blind us from getting towards the truth. I argue against this idea. I think that knowledge through experience isn´t only our vision but all of our senses combined. By using them, we will not only memorize an idea, but really understand it in a practical way in which we will never forget.

For example if you want to know human anatomy, you can either ask someone to explain it to you, go to the library and study from books or you can examine directly into a dead corpse in a hospital. I think that is better to live the experience and realizing for ourselves than learning from others, which we don´t know how reliable everyone else’s information could be.