weel 11
Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?


I would say that in order to have an equilibrium between the individual and the state we have to have some of the both sides. Even though I think Marx is a little extremist, I agree with him "that a society that's run by and for the people and that guarantees everyone a living wage, education, health care, and cultural enrichment is a society in which there is true freedom for the masses". On the other hand I have to agree more with Mills and his statement on liberalism where he defends the freedom of speech and the individual autonomy where he says " the state cannot intrude on the sphere of your personal life." We see that going on today with gay marriage.

Week 10
Anarchists argue that government is never justified in its exercise of authority. Locke argues that government is legitimate so long as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights. Hobbes argues that government has a much broader authority to secure peace, and keep people's natural selfish instincts in check.

Which of the perspectives above do you agree with the most? Do you think your answer depends on what you think human nature is like (i..e. whether people are basically selfish or essentially good? Explain your answer on your blog.


I most agree with Locke's theory that "government is legitimate so long that as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights." I like when he says that prior or after we form a government, we possess God-given inherent rights.
The way that I see this subject is that sometimes the government forget about the citizens itself and worries about the State interest only, loosing a little bit of humanity of what means to govern. Hobbes argues that "the government has provided us with education, with roads, with protection by the law and the police" and he mentions all of this as "benefits". "Benefits" that we have to pay for. However my problem with the system is not the fact that we are paying but the fact that not everyone is receiving the benefits and that's what I thought the government was supposed to be doing, take care of its citizens.

Week 9
According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.
Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

I think it is possible to live according to Buddhism in the U.S. but there is a conflict between both of them. In our society we are raised to be a competitor, you have to be “strong” in order to get a successful career and a lot of times you set a side some values that Buddhism consider essential. The passage in the text that I think that shows what I am trying to say is “ we are like a child who has reached into a jar of candy and gotten his hand stuck. He doesn’t realize that the cause of his distress is that his hand is clenched into a fist around the candy, making it too large to slip out of the opening. If he would just let go, his hand would be freed…from our desires come frustration, resentment, greed, selfishness… that cause suffering.” I am not saying that we should give up our dreams, but I think we should know how to balance the material and spiritual life in order to accommodate both in our lives. And that’s not easy, because most of the times we let one side talk louder then other. And in our society usually, the material side is the stronger side.

Week 8
This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective.
In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's relgious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument).

I think that religion it in a very complex topic. I grew up in a catholic family going to catholic school and I was thought to never doubt the existence of God. I still don’t doubt and I think that’s my faith is bigger than the doubt, but as one grows up we are exposure to different experiences and different kinds of believes, and because of that we start to wonder what religion is all about. I think that we need to believe in something to be able to accept our existence on earth, and for me this “something” is God. I agree with some physicists and gastronomists that “A series of breakthroughs in physics and observational astronomy led to development of the Big Bang and the discovery that the Universe is highly structured, with precisely defined parameters such as age, mass, entropy…” But I believe that something much bigger than that made this whole process happened.