...AND BOYCOTT BIG TECH

NOTHING IS A COINCIDENCE

GET TO A SAFE LOCATION*

ASSOCIATE OFFLINE

FIND DECENTRALIZED NETWORKS

_________

NEVER BAT AN EYE AT THE ULTIMATE POWER STRUCTURE OF LAW

REMEMBER THAT MONEY AND POWER ARE ALWAYS AT THE CORE

_________

UNDERSTAND YOUR PRINCIPLES

UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT

UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT OF YOUR OPPONENT

CREATE MEDIA FOR THE MASSES

DO NOT SUPPORT MEDIA FOR THE ELITE

_________

BE THE CHANGE

BE THE ISOLATED, HOME GROWN, COUNTERCULTURE THAT EXISTED PRE-INTERNET

BE THE CHANGE!

__________

BUY LAND

READ BOOKS

STIMULATE YOUR BRAIN WITH KNOWLEDGE RATHER THAN NONSENSE

MASTER YOUR AIM

UNRAVEL YOUR MANUFACTURED SENSIBILITIES

THIS MAY TAKE A WHILE

Reasoning and critical thought behind the force of politics

Logic is the language of philosophy. The ability to advance with the laws of nature is absolute and the ability for proper reasoning is crucial. The further that we stray from logic, the further we stray from ethics, morals, and our natural sense of being. Logos means reason; reasoning is needed for proper argumentation derivation. Logic derives theory. It is the explanation of the inner workings that make a thing, in fact, what it is. We need logical, critical thinking in this time of connectiveness of ourselves that form instantaneous response, but we must also question whether this instantaneous response is detrimental. Critical thinking is crucial in our short, brutish lives.

There are symbols littered throughout the world. These symbols are utilized to solve problems, no matter the complexity. A concept is symbolized to at least attempt a better understanding of it, then this technique is applied to varying concepts to increase knowledge. Hidden answers require arguments, and arguments require a pattern by means of proving the result. The conclusion must be derived from proper premises proven through logic; the world runs on this form of communication. Logic is used to evolve words. The focus is on the structure rather than the content itself. Symbols rely on the relationship between premises and conclusions. Correctness of a system should be available and is determined insofar as it sheds some light on logical consequence or logical truth about the target of the system. Logic is a force needed to think and act in regard to reason- the basic human function.

Aristotle discusses that as humans, we are not slaves to instinct or to what is required to survive. We can hurt ourselves, such as by means of suicide. Rather than a concern for harm, we are concerned with a life worth living, but we must determine what that life is via purpose and aim. Value is required that is rational sustained and must be applied to discover and implement the highest good. Political philosophy dictates rights and presuppositions, making it the capstone of ethics. [1] Additionally, science is of the highest good, and ethics is the science of politics. Studying ethics is an investigation into the highest good.

What can be addressed in the study of the philosophy of law? Family, social, and political relations are all apart of law. Nature is not the sole actor in dictating what we do; the exercise of our willing reveals how we are a product of the decisions made and what we choose to do regarding those decisions. There is a reality of freedom, but this reality requires law. Implementing this law must be done in a proper manner with a thorough analyzation of constitutionality and legislation. Politics then results as the pursuit of the meaning of life. The work of society is to use logic and reason to implement proper conduct that exists as a method of achieving an end. Politics is sovereign and intrinsic because of its total rule.

A new legal system introduces a new area of rights that offer an understanding. There is a right to have rights upheld by a legal system, so law must be expanded to contain a duty to uphold rights, which includes the rights of property owners, social relations, economic relations, and family relations. Exercising one’s economic freedom can only be done through resources and expertise which should be provided by the legal system. A legal system should make all citizens free to the degree that they are slaves to the law[2] and shall be free of bias to refrain from an unjust system that lacks an impartial sense.

[1] The Just State p. 126

[2] Law in Civil Society (paraphrasing Cicero) p. 3

Hobbes’ and Aristotle’s clashing yet analogous suggestions on the individual citizen and the society in which he resides

Social political philosophy addresses pursuits in relation towards the individual’s integration within their community and society. The correlation between a member and the society that he is apart of is crucial to the writing of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes, although each philosopher approaches the idea of the natural state of the human in varying ways.  

For Aristotle, the collective interest of an entire community holds more power than the interest of an individual, which is like Hobbes’ philosophical offerings, but Aristotle believes that man is social by nature. It is natural for humans to form groups; living and working within a community is only natural and is needed to obtain virtue. This virtue is then used to understand what a just action is and how to take these just actions and apply them to self and the community. The community creates the city by working together by means of communication and just action. The human is naturally supposed to live in a polis (city).

However, not all people are equal, and not all who live in a polis are considered to be a citizen. A citizen is one who participates in reasoning and deliberation of governmental powers. Women, children, and slaves are ruled for their own good rather than only for the good of their ruler. All units working together in this manner progresses the polis by the natural desire of the human to want to work together in a communal aspect.

Hobbes focuses on social contract theory, of which he emphasizes in Leviathan. In sharp contrast to Aristotle, the natural state of the human is to be erratic and to act solely in the interest of the individual rather than being social by nature. Put simply, man’s natural state is one of constant war and conflict because of his individualistic desire. Man acts in regard to his own self-interest. In order to gain a community with cooperative action, a structure must be implemented that promotes the well being of the entire community rather than just the individual. This is desirable because man wants to benefit himself, but this egotistical mindset is difficult when everyone contains this conceited attitude with rage of natural war and conflict. Without structure, everyone would end up killing each other and no progression would be achieved.

A community must be artificially induced (rather than by nature) to prevent further war and bloodshed. By doing this, the individual sacrifices a bit of freedom in order to gain a tranquil society. This society works together as a unit because it realizes that by doing so a better life is achieved for the participating members. The individualistic mindset is detrimental and must be somewhat stifled and replaced with a community mindset so everyone can benefit from societal progression. Working together to achieve good is better than working alone, because working alone pits the members against each other and results in an unaccomplished, broken community that lacks a sense of security. The rebellious man must be tamed for the successful progression of the society in which he lives. Hobbes suggests that by entering this social contract, some freedom is relinquished.

For Hobbes, all men are equal and “every man is an enemy to every man” (Leviathan, Ch. 13). Men will often come together and form a society, but it is not out of interest of the entire society, but rather interest solely in oneself and self-progression. By coming together and forming a society, each member suspects a benefit from the alliance. This act of self interest resulting in a formation of a society is deeply rooted in the desire to progress oneself; it just so happens that by sacrificing a bit of freedom and working together as a unit will benefit the self in a better way than simply working alone. This differs vastly from Aristotle’s suspicion of natural community and sense of the individual, although both philosophers agree that a community is needed for progress to be made.

Applying Law to an Emerging Digital World by Means of Philosophical Analysis

As a human being alive in 2021, I have arrived in a dream state[1] that is almost a perfect replica of my real-life state[2]. This dream state, which is eerily similar to the virtual world that has infiltrated the lives of the human in the Corona age, is rather off. The notion of law and order has been removed and replaced by nothing of the sort; it seems as though I must start from scratch and rebuild society before it buckles under lawlessness and the animalistic human instinct that results from the discovery of living in this newly lawless land of the dream state (or virtual world or the Internet- whatever you want to call it)[3].

This dream state must become organized in order to preserve the entire community. Without organization, the community will become ridden with selfish action instead of the desire for the common interest of living a good life. A social contract, or law, must be implemented in one way or another, but arriving at a successful implementation is difficult, for many factors and circumstances are dependent on the application process as well as the current status of the community. The application of law has been discussed in various ways for as long as man has been able to use reason. Aristotle’s idea of government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of government hold particular interest because of the opportunity to compare and contrast the two ideas. Both philosophers find that government has been overtaken by those who only want to reserve an advantage for themselves and not for the good of the entire community, but their structures differ between the rationality offered. Aristotle relies on a type of natural, inherent social contract based on human experience whereas Rousseau relies on manufactured social contract that is of man’s descent. The latter enforced that an individual’s needs and interests were not always going to be the same. The virtue offered by the two ideas of how a government should be structured should be analyzed in order to gain perspective into how to apply virtuous nature towards this newly implemented dream state/virtual world/Internet. Put more precisely, we must break down the ideas of government by philosophy in order to obtain the proper application of law to be used towards the new, digital world that has been thrust into our lives.

Aristotle teaches that humans realize themselves (i.e have the ability to hurt themselves) therefore humans are concerned with a life worth living, resulting in a purpose; an aim. To achieve this goal, subsidiary actions must occur. For instance, war, which is the master activity, is not simply just to be violent and kill people, but rather for an end goal.

Happiness is the prized possession in Aristotle’s Ethics; it is the aim for a life worth living. Humans take part in activities that yield results that are good. An act is not done because it is expected to yield a bad result. These activities are usually building blocks towards something else that is a means to a higher end. An activity that is an end in itself must be the highest good, which Aristotle claims is happiness. Happiness contains the end goal of being happy; happiness results in happiness. Success and money are not means in themselves; I can accumulate wealth, but I cannot really aim for something that depends on other things because it is then contingent and not a means of itself.

A life worth living is not only to satisfy brute desires; man must scarify desires for virtue, but mere human nature is to fall privy towards brute desires. According to Aristotle, the human function is to think and act in regard and reason while leaving behind the brute animalistic life for a life worth living that is engaged in proper conduct. Happiness is achieved in the life of this resulting fully virtuous person.

The chief human good of happiness is obtained by a complete life of excellence by virtue. Instead of merely acting accordingly, a fully virtuous person knows the right thing to do by nature and requires no threat to perform the virtuous action. Fear is not required in order to make this person act virtuously; inherent virtuous character makes this person act virtuously. The right act and the why of that act is known by the fully virtuous person. Aristotle makes it clear that the not-fully virtuous person relies on the rules/laws set and follows them without further ponderance of the why or how these laws were established. He argues that fully virtuous person does not need to follow the law because of law’s nature to train a population. The law gives information on the correct thing to do, but a fully virtuous person already contains practical wisdom by nature. Aristotle expresses that a decision to perform an action as a virtuous person must stem from rationale and knowledge rather than from a different source, such as law.

The development of reason, discourse, and language, what is commonly referred to as a part of logos, occurs naturally for Aristotle by means of human existence. Humans’ existence equals an inherent investment in the social contract. Engagement in life makes the human political, here meaning an engagement in interest of self and environment. Being a human results in being a citizen of a society, which results in the questioning of what the good life is as well as a query into the notion of common interest. The society engages in politics, according to Aristotle, and the government is the society writ large. The people who are focused on living well make up Aristotle’s constitution or politeia.

In Politics, he famously states that “even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.” Law is sufficient but not appropriate for every situation, so a fully virtuous man is needed to dictate proper discourse. The application of abilities of reasoning, wisdom, and emotional separation from human nuances result in a virtuous representation. A life filled with this virtuous contemplation is a life filled with happiness containing the never-ending presence of the highest good.

We have established that the goal of politics is happiness. The main concern of politics is to organize specific noble actions. Living a virtuous life is achieved by political immersion. One must be a part of politics in order to be an ethical and virtuous person. Being political in Aristotle’s sense requires a virtuous character. Simply knowing how to be good but not acting good does not make a virtuous person. A virtuous person must apply his theoretical knowledge towards knowledge of emerging life. A person must become developed through life experiences and then make ethically correct decisions through this experience.

Intentionality is clearly necessary for further analyzation of what composes virtuous action since “virtuous action” is arbitrary. For instance, a virtue cannot be a virtue if it is used excessively. A virtue can quickly turn into a vice when utilized irresponsibly. Balance is a key part of Aristotle’s ethic, made clear by stating that “virtue then is a state of deliberate moral purpose consisting in a mean that is relative to ourselves, the mean being determined by reason” (Ethics 2.6). The mean, which is the balance, is only able to be found through the use of proper reason. Human nature allows for inherent evil, which must be practiced against by consulting moral purpose rather than animalistic urges.

This legal system is based off Aristotle’s interpretation of virtue, which focus on habituality and disposition rather than action of state of mind. Virtuous actions need virtuous laws for a virtuous society. Clearly this is an arbitrary account and is interpreted differently by each person who comes across it. Aristotle insists that virtue is the highest good because it is the highest good, A = A. However, in order to make this system of law work as intended, a better definition is needed that leaves little to interpretation.

Protecting the legislative will is a key element of Jean- Jacques Rousseau’s philosophy, which is related to Aristotle’s quest for the good life through common interest. Rousseau separates legislating functions from functions of governing unlike Aristotle who kept the functions together. Rousseau famously begins On Social Contract with “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” Natural liberty is given up by means of social contract, which allows for a developed civil freedom that then allows for rational thought in a developed society. A social contract is needed in order to preserve a community, which was also understood by Aristotle. The sovereign, which is introduced by this act of preservation of community, has its own will and is the supreme authority of the state. The general will of the sovereign is to always promote the common good, instead of merely narrowing in on the individual private will of a citizen which has an aim that only has a personal benefit rather than a benefit for the population.

Law is then established by a separate government from the sovereign and must be beneficial to the entire population. Conception of law cannot occur by using reason alone because of inevitable arbitrariness- an issue Rousseau was keen on. Liberty must be protected and the common good must be advocated for by a sovereign legislator separate from government who carves a path of law. This legislator will teach the population and prevent infiltration from private interests that threaten all parties involved in the process. Rousseau states that “nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests in public affairs, and the abuse of laws by the government is a lesser evil than the corruption of the lawmakers which is the inevitable result of pursuing particular views…the state is altered in substance, and all reform becomes impossible” (On Social Contract 3.2). In short, the general will is protected when government and legislative powers are separated.

Rousseau was aware that this authority was not enough to introduce and rectify a general will. It must be ensured that power is not seized, but if a power separates itself from the ideals of the sovereign, it will be more than likely to be at odds with the sovereign- an issue that Aristotle would have with Rousseau’s form of government. Three forms of executive power are offered to attempt to deal with possible usurpation. Large communities should be ruled by a monarchic ruler, aristocracy should be introduced to mid-sized states, and democracy should be promoted in smaller states. Lawmaking should be done by all citizens in order to preserve sovereignty and teach virtues. For Rousseau, a healthy government is one where civil religion instills positive dogmas within people to encourage proper behavior as a citizen who respects the social contract and law.

Rousseau stresses the importance of the maintenance of the legislative will, leading to a creation of a separate government. He keeps a divide between the sense of rule from administration in order to create a system of checks and balances. Aristotle, in keeping legislative and executive powers as a unit, does not separate manifestation from determination. He instead argues that some things are means in themselves. Administration cannot dictate what it means to live a virtuous life. However, he knows that there can be an issue of conflict of interest as personal interest can interfere with general interest; the arbitrariness is again prevalent. To be virtuous, one must meet a certain standard of qualifications, but this is limited by the established of Aristotle’s classes in society. Rousseau, on the other hand, strays away from political by nature and instead argues political by injection. If political nature is artificial, then Aristotle would argue that because it is artificial there is a chance of opposition to the good of a population. Because of this chance of revolt, political nature should be observed as inherent rather than artificial. Instead of having to conjure up a separate government that may establish for itself a chance to revolt, a unit should be kept in order to retain community and engagement towards common interests. Allowing for a separation allows for further separation, and before it is even properly realized there are several deviations from the main idea of community, some of which are bound to have different ideals than the main entity. Having governments at odds with each other is prevented with the restriction of separation.

The dream state/virtual world/Internet must mirror a government that allows for the flourishing of the entire user base. The lack of law-and-order results in a transfer of crime from the offline world to the online world.[4] From our analysis of ideas behind government, we can conclude that if Aristotle were living in the digital age, he would surely advise against parsing in order to retain legitimacy and control. The arbitrary nature of Aristotle’s system is of concern, however; the interpretation part is what Rousseau attempts to stray from with his establishment of the sovereign and a separate government. This allowance for separation is dangerous, though, and arguably worse than that of allowance for interpretation. Although Aristotle seems a bit hopeful that proper ordinance will be set in place by virtuous folks with virtuous intent (and admittingly that ordinance will be altered as time moves forward in order for better adjustment), this hopefulness lays better framework for approaching government rather than spreading out resources. If the individual is the only focus in the digital age, then the digital age will continue to be a lawless land that contains no structure for the betterment of the people, but only structure for the betterment of the head honchos, namely Big Tech. If there is no law in the digital world, then the separation (Big Tech) will grasp that law and define it according to their standards instead of the established government taking proper control. This dream state of 2021 is no longer a dream; it is increasingly becoming our permanent reality. Because of this merge of the offline and online selves, it is now more important than ever to implement government on the digital that benefits the entire Internet community instead of only benefiting Big Tech. Without successful ordinance and legislation, we may be hurdling ourselves into the future of a broken system that lacks interest in the common good of the people and their rights to data and privacy, but rather focuses on the greed of the individualistic nature of Big Tech.

[1] Online world

[2] Offline world

[3] It is helpful to mention that in referencing the lawlessness of the virtual world, I do not mean that there are no laws in the virtual world. It is clear that there are certain thing that I can or cannot do on the internet that may break real, “offline” laws. I am making the point that many crimes are committed online, such as the buying and selling of personal, hacked information and that there is not much legislation behind the rights of data and privacy. What happens when my information is “leaked” by a data breach? What are my rights? An approach to government must be established for this new, digital world.

[4] the risk is lower due to the notion of anonymity and the lack of danger to physical being, i.e the dangers of robbing a convenience store versus the dangers of selling information online

The Mindful Error of God Infused Idealism

Discovering a computer 

George Berkeley’s cease of the existence of matter brings about the question of the origin of sense perceptions, in which he promptly responds by means of his realization of idealism. If I discover a computer, then I am perceiving a computer, making this computer a perceived object instead of an unperceived object. Perceiving something that is unperceivable is a contradiction;  to be is to be perceived, but understanding the direct cause of sense perceptions is difficult when Berkeley strips away physical matter. He persists that I do not have a full understanding of my own sense perceptions and that there “must be some other mind wherein they exist.”1 Through Dialogues, Berkeley establishes the existence of God because sensible objects (ideas)2 can exist outside of my human mind. God is constantly sustaining us by constantly perceiving us, ultimately being the cause of sense perceptions. However, Berkeley’s presupposition of a mind without diving into further detail of what a mind is made up of is a sharp hindrance to his proposal of God (the infinite mind). The human mind must surely be different in experience from God’s infinite mind. Sensible objects exist forever, from before I was born until after I die, because of continuous perception by the infinite mind, but this argument for the existence of God must also address the construction of said mind(s). An attempt at explaining this would work in Berkeley’s favor, as his motivations would be clear with detail of what constitutes the mind instead of a lazy linguistic insertion without foolproof philosophical derivation.  

Continuous perception of this computer

An idea cannot exist unless it is in a mind. Ideas would continually fall in and out the realm of existence if they truly existed only while being perceived by me. My idea of the computer would only exist while I am perceiving it; the location of this idea becomes unknown and outside of my realm when I am not perceiving it. Another mind (Berkeley’s God) must exist with the ability to house the idea of the computer while I am not perceiving it that I then access in my own realm when I am perceiving the computer. Through God’s mind, all ideas are accessible by knowledge coming from experience. I am given access to ideas housed in God’s mind through gaining knowledge by means of experience by perceiving ideas in my life. These ideas never cease to exist because God is infinite. Just because I am not perceiving the computer does not mean that it does not exist because God’s infinite existence proves that ideas are always being perceived by God.  Berkeley’s God exists because of the sensible objects that exist inside of this infinite mind, but sensible objects are simultaneously defined by the mind that contains them. If ideas exist because of minds and minds exist because of ideas, the classic conundrum of “well, which one came first?” quickly becomes apparent. An idea cannot exist unless it is within a mind but a mind cannot exist unless there is an idea within it. 

Finding the computer in a different state

If I am no longer sensing the computer, the idea of the computer leaves my realm. I assume that the computer would remain in the same state as I left it in because I am not actively perceiving it. If I return to my room to find the computer screen to be smashed in, I must ponder why a change occurred when the computer did not exist while I was not perceiving it. The availability of this specific idea of the computer, when not being accessed by me, is in God’s realm, which is fully accessible by someone else (another mind). What is this relationship between these minds? Mental causes mental though this interaction of God’s mind and human mind, according to Berkeley. My perception of the smashed computer is given to me by the agent of God’s mind. I may ask whether we are separate minds or a part of God’s mind. Berkeley would surely argue that I am a separate mind but I can come to know God’s mind through experience. Limiting the definition of the mind to being “something that contains ideas” raises concern of the relationship between the infinite mind and human mind – a pantheistic issue that Berkeley does not want to acknowledge. If God’s mind is truly the infinite mind that is more powerful than the human mind, Berkeley might want to detail a list of functions of this human version and infinite version as well as analyze the relationship between the two instead of refer to them as the same. He might refute this by stating that a mind is something that houses ideas, something that the human version and infinite version can both do, but I do not see this as a qualification that should be the labeling factor. Wax and ice both have the ability to melt but are not called the same thing simply because they share a common factor that makes up their substance. The human mind and infinite mind both happen to have a common ability but that should not make them the same substance that should share the same label of mind. 

Conclusion – We Must Define the Mind

Berkeley claims that there cannot be a world that is independent of the mind, so our reality must be through God’s mind,  but without a detailed definition of this mind I find the soundness of Berkeley’s argument to fall flat because of the lack of guaranteed truth from non explanation. His rather circular “which came first” thesis about how an idea cannot exist unless it is in a mind while a mind cannot exist unless there is an idea in it shows that he was a bit too excited to flat out rebuke Locke’s primary qualities by ushering in a rash justification of assuming God’s existence through that of the infinite mind without a proper consideration of the resonating effects on the soundness of his arguments that come when one attempts to dissect this mind any further than “something that contains ideas.”  

In Response to Descartes

The Argument of Distinction Between Mind and Body

In his sixth meditation, Rene Descartes determines that the mind is separate from the body. A thinking, extended thing is separate from a nonthinking, nonextended thing. He then details the faculties in which the mind and body appear to contain different properties, therefore making them different things. The pre-establishment of I am a thinking thing by Descartes prescribes that I can be certain that my mind exists, and I cannot be sure that my body exists.

Premise: I can be certain that my mind exists and I cannot be sure that my body exists.

Premise: My mind is not extended and my body is extended.

Conclusion: My mind and body are not the same thing.

We can take note of the interactions between the mind and body that are necessary to function, ultimately producing a necessity factor needed for certain abilities. These interactions, however, are relatively unknown and under the assumption that they are made of different “stuff” than of what the observation of dualism is compiled. Certainly, the mind affects the body based on action; the mind makes the decision to act on an impulse and the body physically produces the result. Senses of the individual are being utilized, showcasing the connection between mind and body. However, in order to destroy and rebuild the argument of dualism, the conclusion that my mind and body are not the same thing will be observed in a way of assuming that the body is a physical thing, and all physical things can be doubted since Descartes repeatedly states to doubt everything in order to find truth. The mind, lacking physicality, cannot be doubted because of its status of being a thinking thing. The mind and body have at least one distinct difference in their properties, qualifying them as separate entities. It is understood that the mind and body are intermingled in particular ways, but Descartes’ focus here is elsewhere.

If two things happen to share a property, that does not make them the same thing. My senses can deceive me, or I could even be told something that could have been false. Say I am led to believe that there are two different people with two different names that I had ascribed various qualities. This thought experiment, commonly known as the Masked Man, can highlight the exploitation of a truth that could have been false, as well as the inaccuracy of the senses at play when I make the discovery that the two people I thought to be different were actually the same person. My mind is playing tricks on me, forcing an acknowledgment of the existence of my mind. To take this notion a step further, maybe there is a precious gem that is referred to as one name and called another name in a different part of the world. A person hears these different names and then believes that they are two different gems. However, this a supposition based on cognitive ability lacking in proper awareness from limited subjective experience. The prior acknowledgement of access of the “mental” proves that a “mental” must exist, even when it makes the mistake of one person being two people. Because of the suppositional activity, I am participating in a mental state. I am thinking right now demands the existence of an “I,” which is displaying the ability to ponder. Therefore, I am a “mental having” thinking thing.   

You, the reader, are now named Hannah. Hannah (your body) and you (your mind) are working together. Hannah’s bodily head hurts, so her mind propels her to the bathroom cabinet for medicinal relief. This does not mean that you are Hannah. You are not Hannah. You are not identical to Hannah. You are simply assisting Hannah in a task. The observation of thedistinction between truths that could have been false and truths that could not have been false is relevant here.I could state a truth of that I am a lawyer. This could be false; I could be an artist. The absolute truth located here is that I am either a lawyer or I am not a lawyer- a clear example of truth(s) that could have been false. A thing cannot fail to be identifiable to itself- a clear example of a truth that could not be false. To clarify, Hannah cannot fail to be identifiable as Hannah, because if I say Hannah is Hannah, which is a necessary truth, then this is an absolute truth that cannot be false. Say it is true when her name is Hannah, but if she actually had a different name, then it could have been false. This is a different but related truth. This second truth is solely based in linguistic value with the name/label of Hannah and the possibility of an incorrect assigning of it to a being. The concept of Elvis could exist without this physicality of an actual, in the flesh man- he could exist in a movie. The label of Elvis, however, is a conditional truth.

Pain that is understood by an individual is based on an experience, which is a mixed bag of mental and physical phenomena. When you refer to an experience, you are referring to the pain, and when you refer to pain, you are referring to an experience. The necessary connection between the two phenomena of experience and physical is unclear, therefore unequal, but still recognized as presently occurring.  Model logic maps out how the idea of identity can be true across available realms. Since it appears there is a possible realm where mental phenomena and physical phenomena are not identical, that means they cannot be identical in any world, which is a nod towards dualism.

A new argument is formed stating that if there is truth that you are a soul, then it could not be false that you are a soul. The second premise states that it could have been false that you are a soul and is located within the realm of the abstract world. Logically speaking, A=A and ~A = ~A. If premise A is equivalent to premise ~A, then A is equivalent to ~premise A. If premise A =~A, then A=~premiseA. There is a suspicion of the real mind not knowing if the soul is equivalent to the body, allowing for the notion of dualism. True and false are separate, as well as real and imagined. Asserting the soul lays foundational beliefs in dualism, as the belief of the soul allows for the existence of something that is not the soul and clearly separates the soul from the body.

It is epistemologically possible that we can be without our bodies, but metaphysically it might not actually be the case that it is possible that we can be without our bodies. Imagination is the only available option for exploring epistemological ideas, since the only available support for we can be without our bodies is that it is imagined to be that way. The possibility of our imagination is sorely limited to the best of our knowledge, which is based on experience that we have had during the period of personal existence. This subjective nature of being, a potential candidate of qualia, is difficult to replicate and linguistically express.

Our sensory driven conscious experience allows for brain function, from input and output to cognitive reflexes. Actions (output) are based on will (input) that is processed by connections in the brain, raising question to other phenomena being utilized. Mental responses are invoked by physical events from the physical world. Inputs and outputs can be affected in infinite ways, such as cause and effect in the physical world translating into the mental world, as well as the mental world “playing tricks on the mind.” Dualism cannot be limited to only the physical and mental because of this; a concept such as qualia must be available, upgrading the dual system to a tripartite system that consists of mind, body, and qualia. Additionally, a mental-driven world based on the virtualization of our selves via the year 2020 is scraping away at our established physicality and has challenged Descartes’ notion of dualism in a technological avenue. If I am wearing a VR headset and am virtually experiencing a walk through the Amazonian rainforest while physically laying in my bed, then my mind is in the rainforest. I know for certain that my body is attached to the VR headset which allows for access to the mind. I do not know for certain if I am accessing the physical region of the rainforest or the virtually replicated space reserved for “rainforest” offered by the VR company. These two contrasting ideas deem it troublesome to proclaim that my mind is simply visiting the physical rainforest. Based on this technological concept the location of the mind is irrelevant, but the separation of mind and body is solidified, and Descartes’ argument is sound.

Is the “mind” not located elsewhere? My real self, composed of the consciousness experience of being, whatever the hell that is, is what I am searching for. Bis dann, the simple, flat out rejection of dualism limits the knowledge of the unknown self and does not allow for a better understanding of the new technological world that is rapidly unfolding.

How can anything be true, really?

A person can neither be simply good or simply bad. We all portray qualities of “good-ness” as ell as qualities of “bad-ness.” What is fascinating is that the description of both of those words are completely subjective. I cannot even come to label myself as simply a good person; sure, I attempt to do good and live a life that I personally deem good, but that does not mean that it is a good life to someone else. I believe that I am a good person, but what does that actually entail? I could believe this notion but rob a bank. The act of robbing said bank is inherently bad, notably by law and social cues, but in a bank robbing club, wouldn’t it be a good thing to pull off the heist?

An action cannot simply be right or wrong. An action is simply committed, and the decision making that comes afterwards that determines the “good-ness” or the “bad-ness” is based on the determiner’s beliefs in regards to the action. And that decision of morality is not necessarily valid. 

A universality of “good” or “bad” cannot be established due to worldly conditions, such as personal experience resulting in diversity. Every single one of us contain a variety of nodes that cannot be replicated but still qualify each of us as human. These nodes change over time in a variety of ways, creating many different types of people in many different types of cultures.

I would like to restructure “a person can neither be simply good or simply bad.” The human is composed of basic nodes that make them human, such as the need for survival and food. These nodes are within all of us at birth and immediately start changing when interactions with the local environment begin. I will describe the phenomena that comes from firsthand experience as qualia, and I will assign this notion of qualia to randomized nodes that compose human beings. Two kids could never be exposed to the piano but one of them can show a natural ability and be able to understand how the piano works faster than the other kid. Let us say that various influential factors, such as a pianist parent or musical household, are completely absent. The random nodes are in effect and begin to adapt and change as the human does. These nodes also lay a basis in the “goodness” or “badness” of the individual. If someone is intrinsically considered to be “bad” based on whatever the idea of “bad” is, such as cheating and lying and committing crimes (which most people would agree that these are harmful acts), then their nodes are considered “bad” and must be altered in a way that promotes the ”good.” But it is quite unclear on how to change someone, especially when certain values have been in their environments for their entire lives. If someone grows up watching their father committing widely accepted heinous acts and get away with them, it is likely that that individual will assume that those actions are “good” and that they should also attempt them. Their nodes have been established to consider these actions as “moral” or “good,” showcasing the subjectivity found in what is actually “good” or “bad.” I would like to believe that most people would consider certain crimes to be inhumane and “bad,” but I cannot rely on my personal experience of the world, which I spent with most people from the same area as me, and apply my own qualia to the world and assume that everything interacts with each other in the way that I personally see fit.

I still agree with my original offering of the inability to label a person as “good” or “bad” since both traits are subjective. I believe that all people display certain qualities of “badness” and “goodness” in their actions, but what I consider to be under those terms is not universally accepted. There is no universal “good” or “bad,” since the determiner’s belief in regards to the action committed is biased because of their qualia and personal life experience in the culture that they flourished in. My rejection of universality also rejects universal morality for the same reasons; cultural experiences are vastly different because of the diversity that has been adopted into the world, therefore a likeminded groupthink is not possible.

Moral universality cannot be achieved because of certain unique phenomena from firsthand, personal experience

Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy attempts to establish a form of moral groundwork to avert humans from unnecessary distractions. A generality can be applied to most situations that lacks the detailing of specificity but rather expresses that pure motives are the underlying cause of action, where fear for the law is removed out of respect for moral ethics. Kant’s universal law reveals that our own personal moral judgements are full of relativism, but the universal aspect removes the problem of relativism. An act is moral/correct when it is done in regards to moral law, but the idea of one’s personal freewill is quite indescribable, as well as one’s personal qualia that they have experienced based on their life growing up in their predetermined conditions. Moral judgements release humans from pure instinct and promotes freedom. When choosing an action cloaked in freedom, one is acting based on reasoning, whether that reasoning is moral or not. This reasoning is also the base of morality; Kant claims that therefore freedom and morality go hand in hand.

Everyone’s environment is extremely different, especially when they are growing up and being shaped into an adult. Some kids are great at sports right off the bat, and some kids never find the ability to swing that bat. Some kids perform actions based on “what they know” based on freewill instead of a rational decision. Sure, these examples are of young, influential people that are still going through the stages of early human development and are quite susceptible to picking up habits from their local environment, but this set of morality that is established early on will continue with the individual for the rest of their life. Their qualia define who they are, and this varies vastly from person to person. I argue that this can be altered based on various experience that we have yet to be able to measure in a large degree, which is why the notion of morality cannot be universal. The morals of someone growing up in rural Mississippi differ greatly from the morals of someone who grow up in Seoul, Korea or even India. I will now offer a set of Basic Human Functions that are universal, such as the desire and need to find water, food, and survive. BHF are a set of basic nodes implemented within every human in order to reproduce the human race and survive worldly conditions. BHF are comparable to Basic Computer Functions; certain basic functions make a computer a computer. Certain basic functions make a human being qualify as a human being. This is a universal fact, since distinguishing a human from another being is relatively easy (with a disregard to new technologies such as deep fakes or robots- I will refrain from tackling this topic in this paper). Each individual takes their BHF and develops it based on their natural qualia and personal life experiences. Because of the notion of free will and determination, everyone’s set of BHF transforms into Individualistic Human Functions (IHF) that cannot be currently replicated or described via our natural language. Because IHF are solely based on qualia and differentiate differently from person to person, a universal morality cannot be established. The nodes are set via varying weights, making my ideas of good versus bad differ from an individual across the world. The morality found in committing a murder is absent for someone as they might feel no remorse from attempting such an act; their morals are not universal. It is clear that this assumption can begin the exploration of mental illness and morality, but I also will refrain from such a topic in this paper. My main point is that qualia is not universal, therefore morality is not universal. Personal experience is greatly influenced by environment as a young person, which cannot be replicated from person to person. Of course, there are vast similarities between certain individuals, such as folks that grew up in rural Mississippi. One could argue that all those people are likeminded and have the same goals and desires in life based on their ideas from growing up. However, because of free will and sets of nodes like BHF available, each human adapts and changes these nodes over time into being IHF, thus ultimately creating a unique individual with a unique set of nodes that lacks the ability to currently be replicated. These IHF can still change over time and are not set to have an ending point, except for ultimate death, but they set us apart from each other and create variability in the idea of what is moral and what is immoral.

Kant believes that the appeal of law showcases the universal ability of notion. The validity of a universal moral judgement is based on law. According to Kant, law offers the ability for universalism which allows for personal experience to not only be reserved for an individual but to apply the ability of moral standards from experience to bigger populations, thus creating a universal morality. Law is the bridge between rational human minds and offers a connection that develops into universal morality. Kant claims that law is determined for ourselves by reason, which illustrates our freedom. Morality is based on the idea of our freedom, but the concept of freedom and freewill cannot be showcased.

Prior conditions determine understanding and actions taken upon the world, which is another reason why a universal morality cannot be established. Moral universalism attempts to apply universal ethic to all, regardless of features such as race and sex, but cannot be accomplished due to phenomena such as qualia. Kant’s ethics of the categorical imperative cannot be applied equally to all rational beings when these rational beings grow up in differing environments with different basis in religion, world views, and even morals. Universal morality is unattainable because of the diversity of the human being. Diversity does not equal universal, therefore universal morality can not compute. A shift away from the idea of diversity could potentially give a universality to ethics such as morality but stripping diversity from the human that has taken years to achieve will only be a hindrance on human development as a whole. If morality is universal, then it is restricted and not able to adapt over time to new conditions and new diversity. Limiting the idea of morals to be one established notion does not promote reshaping of society but instead promotes close minded thinking that is based on prior experience.