Thursday, February 28, 2008

Questions and Comments


We plan on regularly taking some time to answer starred questions you guys ask in a short post every once in a while. Here's our first edition!

Questions and Comments:

Fletch wrote,
"Though I don't know how fair the analogy of a six-year old is, it's certainly fair to say that Obama lacks a lot of experience in leadership positions. However, isn't the simplest (and best) defense of this to ask what and how all that experience has helped Bush? Is it really necessary? It's hard to say going in - it's not as if there is a class to take, unless you count being a governor, which sounds valid enough to me.

Nevertheless, I'll be voting Obama in the fall with a clear conscience. Perhaps a lack of experience is what is neeeded - I can't anticipate it being worse."


Valid point that Obama's capabilities probably are not as ill suited to the Presidency as a six year old's to Toys 'R Us. However, I do believe that experience being a leader helps people be better leaders. The first time one gives a speech will probably not be the best time.

JerseyJack wrote:
"Hi this is Jerseyjack21 from my view I saw your comment and I came to your blog and I was wondering how you got the digg.com block to show up because i've tried it and it does not work. Please respond.
jerseyjack21@gmail.com"



Of course. If you go to Digg.com and go to the bottom you should see some text and images. Look for a digg tools link. It's pretty self explanatory from there, just click on the image with the desired button and they have instructions. We sent this to you on via email a couple days ago, also.


Ruby Wrote:
"The primitive man vs elk is a bad analogy. Firstly, what we regard as morals are a modern day pehenomena. Ethics, like all other aspects of humans, evolved. Thus, the hunter-gatherer in your story would have felt no moral dilemna, his instinct would simply have taken over.

Secondly, even if you did apply modern day morality to the story, you overlooked one simple solution. Since the competition for the elk is, in your own words, very young and unlikely to have a family of his own, then why not share the elk? Surely, there would have have been enough elk to feed one more mouth?

Live and let live, my friend. Live and let live."


I believe you proved my point, friend. And managed to add a little humor!

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Cogito Ergo Sum


Why should anything exist? Since the beginning of time, man has always been preoccupied with the quest to assign meaning to the existence of the universe as we know it. We have searched endlessly for any kind of evidence that can confirm or characterize existence. We have fabricated myths that attempt to apply meaning to existence. We have approached the question scientifically, using mathematics and the laws that govern the physical universe to attempt to quantify the concept of existence. But nevertheless, we have always found that the more we discover, the more we discover the less we know. For all these ages of searching, what do we have to show? Are we really any closer to the answer than we were when we first began? Is it possible, perhaps, that all along, we have been asking the wrong questions? We yearn to know why there is existence, yet we have no definitive answer for what existence is in the first place.

Could it be that the physical universe is nothing but an idea, a construct of the mind?

Imagine yourself as a human being born into this world, but devoid of any form of sensory perception. With no knowledge, no memories, and no way of perceiving anything that is happening around you, you would have nothing but your thoughts and your emotions. But how could your mind function properly; what would your thoughts consist of, what would they be composed of, and what would your emotions be based on? How would you define your existence? Naturally, you would be unaware of even the concept of any form of physical existence; so what would there be? Perhaps your mind would fabricate a “physical” universe in order to put your thoughts and emotions into context.

Let us take a look at another example. In our dreams, our minds often create alternate universes that temporarily become our realities. So what is the difference between a dream and our waking reality? Well, we are certainly more lucid when we are awake, but then again, lucidity is relative. Dreams generally involve absurd and irrational themes, but they certainly make sense to us while we are still experiencing them, so is rationality relative as well? It seems inconceivable that something so concrete such as mathematics, which is the essence of logic and rationality, might be a humanly conceived notion; but what is the nature of mathematics that makes it so concrete, other than the mind’s own conceptualization of it?

Regardless of our efforts to define existence, it will always remain an enigma to man. So in world where we cannot even be sure of its existence, what can we hang on to so as to base our perceptions of reality on? It seems that the only definitive truth in the universe is, “I think, therefore I am.”

- Voice of Reason


Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Turkey to Issue Re-Evalution of Islam


"Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion" - BBC


Islam, as most people know or should know, is around six hundred years behind Christianity and other western religions(Judaism ect.) in terms of its progressiveness. And so, in a partially politically motivated attempt to dispel European fears and make a bid for EU membership, Turkey will issue a new interpretation of the Hadiths. The Hadiths, the second holiest texts in Islam, are basically a guide for interpreting the Koran.



The BBC because it is a European news agency, and pre-occupied with appeasing Britiain's(and Europe's in general) unruly Muslim minorities*, is understandably blowing it all out of proportion. Keep in mind throughout the rest of the column that this is one government agency, in one country, issuing a recommended Hadith interpretation.

The new interpretations are unlikely to catch on in countries like Saudi Arabia(where it is illegal to build a church), Iran(where the government is controlled by a non-democratically elected fundamentalist ayatollah) or Sudan(where Christians and non-Muslims are in the midst of a government sponsored genocide).



Even in the less fundamentalist dominated Muslim states(fewer and farther between) these interpretations will take at least a few generations to catch any fire. Muslim culture is arguably even more dominated by reactionary fundamentalists than pre-reformation Europe. In Europe there was not much worry of outside influences corrupting the Church; Islam's fundamentalists today have been weeding out horrible progressive ideas for at least a generation.

The Hadiths supposedly were all written by Muhammad. Felix Koerner, however, claims that some "
can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society." The article then skips(the BBC does this a lot) to Koerner talking about how some Hadiths justify female genital mutilation; whether these were actually written by Muhammad the BBC conveniently leaves out.

Impressively, they didn't entirely miss the target. The realized that many of the 1,400 yr old Hadiths are no longer relevant and will be removed, an important step.

But basically the article can be summed up as this. A great thing, blown one thousand times out of proportion. The BBC is doing a disservice to the original Britons by publishing this type of article. People on the left will gobble it up, and it will be easier to ignore the fact that right now extra-legal Sharia Law Courts are being set up in the country.

We have a long way to go before we see an Islam committed to progressive principles, at least fifty years until the oil money runs out and from then probably a hundred years before we see a new religion. A religion not committing genocides around the world, subjugating over 50% of its population to discriminatory laws worse than Jim Crow in the US or sponsoring terror and honor killings.


- Spero


The BBC Reports - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm

*




Sunday, February 24, 2008

Introduction

I am thrilled to be the second columnist for In Cogito, and I believe my first post should offer an adequate introduction of myself, so that you know what to expect as a reader. My most important goal is to approach every issue I address as purely objectively as possible, of course while at the same time maintaining an appropriate level of rational human subjectivity. After all, one could always argue under any circumstances that all human logic and rationality is an illusion. Thus, even our perceptions of reality are utterly flawed, which would effectively render any issue and any discussion pointless and redundant. So, unfortunately, I must generally neglect such an abstract school of thought in my writings. But I digress.

I do not belong to any political party in particular, nor do I adhere to any kind of established general political ideology. I follow my own political agenda, which has been known to vary, and besides, is too complex to go into in this introduction, but you can be sure that you will hear more of it in the future.

I am an Atheist zealot, and will undoubtedly be attacking various theologies in my column, but I will focus primarily on Christianity. I have nothing personal whatsoever against Christians, but because I have been surrounded by Christianity for my entire life, as my own mother is a Christian, and Christianity is the most influential, imperialistic and widespread religion of all, I find that I am most knowledgeable about this particular faith, and therefore it is the easiest one to target.

For future reference, if any readers are religious, please do not be offended, as I am only advocating my “beliefs” in the same way that you would advocate yours. My beliefs are all based on my own rationalizations, not fairy tales, but I am ready and willing to listen to any counterarguments you have to offer, or even any attempts you may wish to make to convert me, as admittedly I have imposed my opinions upon you, so it would only be fair for me to allow you to do the same.

Thanks for reading, I am looking forward to writing more for In Cogito.

- Voice of Reason

Friday, February 22, 2008

Obamania

I'm going to post two articles in a row, both I believe to be quality. But don't worry, expect a post by another author tomorrow or the next day. That said:

I'm sure every six year old has grand aspirations of running Toys 'R Us, but would a six year old child really be capable of doing so? Well the average six year old would certainly have the necessary enthusiasm, creative capacity, charisma, and loads of idealistic notions of how to run a company as well; so what could go wrong if we were to simply hand them the keys?

This is the same logic that the Democratic Party and the American people are using to hand over the nomination to Obama. He's definitely charismatic, he's definitely a talented orator - but we have to stop and ask ourselves what he has done to prove himself.

Why does Obama deserve to be President? He has yet to do anything earth shattering(campaign organizational skills aside). He's an active participator in the Senate, and is very bright - but his record reveals nothing exceptional so far. Pinning the hopes of the most powerful nation in the world on the belief that he's more than what he has shown is at best extremely risky.

His supporters would point to his record in the Senate as an indicator of the man's greatness. In a short amount of time he has created a good(not fantastic) portfolio. Yet, the record of a member of the legislative branch may not serve as the best indicator of their executive branch prowess. The same way that your ability to cook steak may or may not mean that you know how to make a great cake - even though they are both food.

Obama says he'll bring change. But then he surrounds himself with a foreign policy group that is older than Stonehenge. Zbigniew Brzezinski his main guy, is over 79 years old and served in the Carter Administration. How, exciting! Changing to be like a man who had one of the most controversial and divisive foreign policies in recent history. Sounds like politics as usual, doesn't it?

He's a big idea man as opposed to Hillary's more targeted reforms. Vision is what we need right now in America, that I have no doubt - and he certainly has it.

Yet for a man aspiring to be the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military ever on earth, he has dangerously little familiarity with our army or military in general. His supporters are not exceptionally pro-military so that issue may not disturb them, but a person kids himself when he believes that the commander in Chief of a nation fighting two wars need not be more intimate with the military.

Bernie at http://plancksconstant.org/, pointed out this video of him possibly fictionalizing a story about the US military.



Captains actually do not actually command platoons. Even given the benefit of the doubt, it exposes a large hole in his abilities.

Americans need to set some more bars for Obama before we get swept away in the tide. He's inspiring and I want to believe him, but we shouldn't be so eager for change that we elect a false messiah.

- Spero



Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Modified Nihilism

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

I'm honored to be one of the first of our columnist group to write for In Cogito, and I know everyone here hopes that this site will grow to become popular and successful. My first order of business then, naturally, is to introduce my basic view on society from which I will base my other columns on. In Cogito's columns are opinion based, so don't be surprised if you get offended by or have different opinions than things our columnists post. Please feel free to voice yourself by posting comments in response to the columns, or on the forums. Our goal is to encourage enthusiastic rational and intellectual discussion, and to create a vibrant community.

Imagine yourself as a primitive hunter-gatherer, arrayed with a variety of pelts to keep yourself sheltered from the winter wind. Food is sparse, yet your family depends on you to nourish them and your newest member - a newborn girl.

It is twilight now, and you are returning from your hunt empty-handed. Suddenly you see an elk bound out from the forest followed closely by another foreign hunter. This may be your only chance to feed your family in the coming weeks so, instinctively, you join the pursuit. To your extreme displeasure, his spear strikes its mark seconds before yours. He's young, too young to have a family to provide for - your anger builds.

He eyes you and moves towards his quarry, what is your course of action? Your family may starve to death in the coming frosty weeks - and genetically with it your lineage. It is imperative to the survival of all that is important(genetically, emotionally, physically) that you take all action to feed your family, even if it means transgressing what we would regard as morals. You know that he will fight you to the death for this catch - yet you must rip it from him. You must ensure the survival of your family. But even moreso, we are vessels of our genes, you only must ensure the survival of your family to be a successful organism.

From this scenario we can establish that it is necessary to transgress moral boundaries sometimes to survive. Since in our natural state we only must always do what best ensures the survival of ourselves and our family at the expense of others, we now know that in its purest form nature is a Nihilist place.

I'm sure you are glad that the umbrella of society prevents people from encountering situations like this on a daily basis. Organized society, we can all agree, is definitely a blessing. Though, if you are like me, you know that society can sometimes constrict you in undesirable ways.

These constrictions are generally for our safety, not all the times to be sure, but on the whole laws exist to keep us safe and happy. The law system of the United States and most every nation give us a set of things that are ok and not ok to do - in effect a system of morals. So if laws are morals that means morals exist to make us safe and happy.

Society is fundamentally a great covenant. Each person makes such a covenant that trades liberties for safety and happiness when a society is formed. This is a fundamental truth for every single society ever founded to date in history. Objectively all societies boil down to this.

This leads to my final observation, societies(all formed under the same covenant with the individual) create the same objective moral truth everywhere. Moral relativism is thusly naive and nonfactual. It seems wrong to us Westerners that a woman should be sentenced to death for being raped; not because our culture is so different than their culture, but rather because it violates the fundamental way we as humans form societies.

- Spero