John Vicencio

What is happiness?

2013-05-07T23:01:00.004-07:00

Many people ask if you're happy. Your answer would probably depend on either the mood or the event of that day. The current so-called "happiness research" found out that happiness is caused mostly inside one's psychology then some from external forces (Sonja Lyubomirsky). Whether or not that happiness is dependent on some psychological variables, the question is not so much as to what makes a person feeling happy that is affected by mood or that is the result of some environmental factor. For example, one can greatly feel a type of joy if you're not stress or if you have money.

List all these criteria and what seems reasonable may not seem plausible on the very nature of happiness. What is the atomic variable that makes a person happy? I don't think that the notion of happiness is based on some temporary influences on the person when even if one were stressed I can imagine a case that one could still be happy. A mother who has plenty of children to take care of could be stressed in a hectic home but yet she must have been happy in some way or with a sense of pride of family; that even if one were rich, a family member who died a money could not replace. In any case, happiness is something that is lasting (if not infinite). Although, it doesn't necessarily mean that the happiness research is incorrect; what I think is that this supplements the idea of happiness on a short-term basis.

It seems to me that happiness is based on the way the person handles his or her life. The volition of following some truth to something is what makes one at least on empowering one's will in spite of stress, poverty or political dilemmas. For example, doing something right is empowering since one has acted on one's own decision on doing what is moral (not the subjectivist's idea on ethics that morality is subjective, rather the morality that could be applied on all societies that even the act of killing in some society, in fact, necessarily would not have existed if they have applied it absolutely--a cannibalistic society would not have existed should he/she absolutely kills everyone). In the mother example, she is happy because she must have done something right--of taking care of her family! That the rich entity (individual or ) company such as Tylenol must have done something beneficial in a way good when they recalled the drugs that were released to the public even that economically dented them tremendously (temporarily at least). This act of courage and or will-power to do something good is not something that one should dismissed but something that ought to be practiced. One goes beyond the appearances or what seems difficult in front or surrounding you and live in the state of the idea of happiness!

The effect of doing something good is happiness and the consequence is beneficial to company (Tylenol has now solidified their branding and customer loyalty) and a person who acts with kindness ripples into not just oneself but to the society as a whole.

The reframing in reality this 2013

2013-01-04T00:59:00.002-08:00

The US economy is slowly growing and back to its feet, the two-partied government has finally agreed to end the so-called "fiscal cliff" with a bit of a compromise on the deal. Details aside on $400K (individual) or $450K (family) income tax increase, a deal is usually not perfect; you must admit to this. The future is brighter this year since, after all, we have survived the challenges we faced in this country. The smartphone giants debacle among Apple and Android manufacturers like Samsung, Sandy's devastating hit on NYC, the shooting in Connecticut school where many children died, the presidential election and so fort must have been realized at first somehow to give us glimpses of what must be the ultimate solution to this ideal answer to every social, political and corporate challenges. The general solution is this "reframing of" these nodes that are interconnected whereby the US policy is somehow atomic in nature but must surely slowly connect by making each of them mesh with each other; where the continental Europe has been trying to work from the general to specific type of existential approach. Although, these philosophical approaches are different, I agree more on how they are the same in the sense of trying to make it better for us to see on how we can figure out a global reality of reframing.

Apple Removed a Morally Misguided App Like "Gay Cure"

2011-03-24T06:30:00.000-07:00

I'll introduce a question to be thought of first. I'll also show the details behind this question. Finally, I'll conclude that Apple's rejection of a socio-politically charged based software seems morally sound.

Let's look at this for a moment in a form of a question. Ought one reject a socially charged software that discriminate upon the minority (in this case non-straight people)? There are two main issues here (without looking at the main assumption whether homosexuality is immoral). First, a disregard to the minority. Second, an organization that endorses unacceptable (not just socially but any immoral representations) software. For example, a so-called "gay cure" app, which was approved, then later on rejected, by Apple through their iTunes service (App Store).

Exodus International, a Christian-based organization, developed an app that appeared on iTunes. Apple removed the app due to 150,000 people, through Change.org, who petitioned to demand its removal. Jeff Buchanan, Exodus International's director, states that they are trying to help those who had undesirable same-sex experiences, but not to change anyone else's identity (gay or not). The so-called "gay cure" app is a way to help out those unwanted same-sex experiences as a way to cope rather than a way to change anyone's sexuality.

Leslie Horn, PCMag, reports that Apple's rejection (in spite of approving the app to show on iTunes, in the first place) implies a moral position (a moral approval) because they agree to pull-out a socially (and morally) unacceptable smartphone application.

Let's say that Apple's rejection of an unacceptable software is morally sound. However, the issue at hand is about homosexuality (what was assumed immoral by Exodus International). Should Exodus International, were right, the notion that Apple made a morally sound business decision making would not have been right either.

Some people think that homosexuality is immoral because God said so in the Bible (I'm just trying to illustration an example, but not to try to exclude other monotheistic religions like Judaism and Islam). Some think that homosexual act is unnatural because a man is made to procreate with a woman (after all, one cannot procreate with a same-sex act). These anti-homosexuality arguments are big among many monotheistic religions. But, then, God is a loving being. As such, he/she loves any of his/her creations. Some think that God loves everyone (even homosexuals) but the "same-sex act" isn't acceptable because it is a sin. Of course, even the devil who was created by God and evil (which was the result of anything influenced by the devil in some way) isn't endorsed by God.

Here's the main point:

1. Homosexual love exists
2. Any "true" love between any beings is good (morally permissible)
3. Therefore, homosexual love is good

If love is between two (adults who are consensual) people who have desirable feelings towards each other (not just sex or friendly love such as the love between friends), then there is genuine love. Genuine love implies that it is morally permissible. So if love exists between two same-sex individuals, then this is morally acceptable. But, then, God doesn't permit this because it is either a sin or unnatural (in a sense that the purpose of procreation is implicit upon the sex between two opposite sex not between same-sex inviduals). So then, if God were all knowing, he/she knows that truth is something he/she could not contradict because his nature is good (not evil, not being wrong, not contradictory). If something approves truth, then God must simply agree for, otherwise, he/she would be contradicting him/herself; God's nature is all about the truth. Even when knowledge-limited human beings can see some glimmer of truth (2 + 2 =4, murder is wrong, Nazi made an immoral unconscionable action, etc.). At the very least, why would love not exists between two consenting adults irrelative of their sexualities? If you say that love is relative upon sexuality, this implies that love is "selective" that doesn't applies on everyone. The policy of love in regards to same sex individuals is impermissible. But, somehow, God genuinely applies this "policy of love" only to opposite sex. Although, it isn't clear that even procreation is the "real" purpose of sexual acts between two individuals since God seems to have used the flood to clean earth due to some human degradation; overpopulation, surely isn't what God would want, if everyone would die from overcrowded due to health concerns, it seems. Why, then, are there natural events that appear to be the direct response on overpopulation. Shouldn't one see same-sex acts as natural responses to overpopulation when the overpopulation is the direct result of procreation?

The bottom line is that, even if, the argument from some supernatural being sounds a bit dogmatic (an argument which isn't rational in the first place), any beings (supernatural or not) must logically follow truth value (sound and valid views) since, otherwise (logically), the result is false. Can homosexual love exist between two opposite sex and not two same-sex individuals? If so, this implies prejudice where some Good Being allows a Good Policy only to Good People (so-called opposite sex individuals) as opposed to Bad People (so-called same sex individuals). If so, this implies a contradiction as well. Why would a Good Being mandate good policies onto some but not all individuals (selectively)? If such a Good Being is good, he/she must necessarily and consistently follow truth, inconsistency would be a contradiction (unsound, invalid, unreasonable). Surely, such a Good Being would not allow nor act on false premises and inconsistencies.

In conclusion, Apple's rejection on a "Gay Cure" app that asserts the wrongness of homosexuality in general is morally right. Even a Good Being must necessarily show that he/she is a good person who follows justice, rightness, truthfulness; that implies soundness of any policies (homosexual love or not). A morally permissible actions are those that are true whatsoever, whether or not an argument is against any so-called "belief" of any groups, factions, religion, or even sane people.

[PCMag]
[CNet]

Experimental Method and Philosophy

2011-03-19T15:08:00.000-07:00

What if you could use an experimental method (just like what behavioral scientists do, both social and psychological studies) in order to help clarify some of the aged old questions in philosophy?

Philosophical questions have been formally addressed since the pre-socratics (about 2,500 years). Methods (if you would like to call them that way) have been mainly based on conceptual analysis. Mental experiments are thought of in order to make a scenario that would counter the general premise. If the premise can be debunked (or even with stand the argument), then that would be the test of an argument being sound and valid. Ideally, speaking, of course, if conclusion were to be true, the premises supporting it could never be false. So if you were to think of a scenario counter to any of the premises, then the conclusion would not hold. For example,

Premise 1: Socrates is a man.
Premise 2: All mortals are men.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In standard logic, this argument is valid and sound but if you could think of a way to contradict any of the premises (1 or 2), then the conclusion would not follow. Many philosophical concepts are really hard to mimic in a social environment. For example, how can you have experimental method of "justice"? How can you have a controlled environment that doesn't violate ethical concerns? Whether or not there are complications in real life scenario, it would be a nice supplement (but not a compliment) of philosophical endeavor. For example, there are many areas in medical ethics that need to be researched in forms of not just some philosophical backings on its depth and breadth but also on its significance in social context.

[RedOrbit]

Unemployement, Deficit, Ethics Biggest Concern Among Americans

2010-08-17T12:16:00.000-07:00

It seems that when democrats are in power there's this general concern among the opponents (generally replubicans) on tax increases. The concern is even more intensified when democrats have dominated both the Executive and Legislative (House of Representatives and the Senate) branches.

An interesting poll suggests, however, that Americans' top worry is the unemployement and deficit at 48%, next to it is ethics in government at 47%, and healthcare at 45% (although, this increased after the health care reform). Tax increase concern is at 38%.

Another insight to this poll is the ethics part. Since the collapse of the financial institution due to fraud and extreme unethical behaviors (example, executives taking advantage of the market by pushing underwriting requirements to Americans who could really not buy houses), this affected our economy not just here in the US but gobally as well. The lesson? Just do it right! (Otherwise, it'll come back to hunt us as a society. Remember the Enron fiasco?).

All in all, the focus should be both on economic and ethics issues, particularly on unemployement/deficit, ethics in government, and healthcare. If you're a politician, I suggest to use this for your political tactics to win the midterm election. If you're a regular citizen, it's a good idea to be mindful of these issues at hand.

Source:
The Hill

The Logic of Infanticide: A Moral Truth Defense

2010-06-20T19:32:00.000-07:00

Last time I've discussed the Aristotelian principles of logic where the truth could never be, and at the same time, false. Whatever the A is, it is A. There is no room for A and not-A at the same time; either it is an A or not-A not both. There were demonstrations on how this could be applied on defending the objectivity of truth. I also discussed what ethics is. I'll conclude that ethical values (moral values) are objective as opposed to them being subjective through a demonstration on the notion of infanticide (a counter argument against subjectivism).

Another area of the objectivity of truth is the moral truth. It is easy to make a case that claims about morality are subjective because there are many standards among many different societies. For example, infanticide (baby killing/murder) is a crime in many modern societies, yet it was important to some societies (specially in the old days) when children were sacrificed. The argument goes by this format:

1. Moral truths are different from one society to another.
2. One society may find infanticide immoral but another moral.
3. Therefore, morality could never be objective. Or there is no moral truth, since it is subjective.

Such argument is important to keep in mind because it shows that no society should judge any society on any (subjecive) moral grounds with any regards to other society's culture. There are different societies with different cultural backgrounds. Disregarding such argument is insensitive and unreasonable. Such argument is viewed by a moral subjectivist or a cultural relativist. A moral standard is subjective and it is relative to the culture. It is true that a careless thinker should be sensitive to other culture and must be mindful of what the culture values. But such "moral relativism" is good in a sociological/anthropological aspect of things. An insensitivity and a disregard to other people's culture is unfair but doesn't necessarily mean that it disproves the theory of moral truths. To stretch moral relativism as a proof against the theory of truth (in this case, the objectivity of moral truth) does not hold water. For example, let us imagine the world of society that practices infanticide (baby murder). Some society, it seems, that infanticide is wrong. Also, let say, that society A (an American society) does not practice infanticide. But, then, a moral relativist in society A could not say that society X that practices infaticide is wrong. There is no objective criteria of truth. But, then, if infanticide were to be practiced (as a matter of culture), such culture could not have existed from the very beginning because it would have required (at least) a mother, a father, and a child. If there was a mother and a father alone where each time both parents decide to kill all their babies, a family unit would never have been created. No individual could have a child if infanticide were to be practiced all the way. Therefore, there would never have been a "culture". If there was such a culture that practices infanticide, then such culture could not have practiced infanticide absolutely. Perhaps, such culture only practices infanticide to some female babies so that a family could be created. Perhaps, such culture lives in an environment where survival is important; where a male hunter is a cultural practice. If infanticide weren't practiced absolutely, it must have been practiced partially in order to create culture (a family unit) in the first place. But, then, partial cultural practice of infanticide is, itself, a unique case of the objecivity of morality. Because individuas do not practice infanticide absolutely, there is a sense of moral reservation in order to preserver their own culture. The practice of infanticide only exists because of some complex anthropologica/sociological/environmental issue that such practice is necessary to do so. In principle, such society do practice morality but it was done in such a way that prevented them to do due to some other condition (evironment, some sociological facts, and so on).

To me, moral relativism should not be used in the theory of truth (perhaps a sociological theory) because it doesn't have an objective criteria to decide what is what. Also, I think that moral truth exists since it defines the very existense that we live in. What standard should a person live by? One could not just do whatever on a whim with no sense of what the truth is.

So, then, there must be a criteria where a person can judge if living in such life is right or wrong. This is the reason why:

1. A moral relativist views that "there is no right or wrong since morality is relative to a particular culture".
2. But a moral relativist belongs to a particular society (some society Y).
3. Therefore, a moral relativist from society Y should never be seen as right either.
4. Therefore, moral relativist (based on his/her) own view that moral relativism isn't correct/right either.

A moral relativist might object and could say that there are anthropological and sociological phenomena such as infanticide that are clearly wrong (yes, that's true) in some society but right in other (that is true as well). A moral relatavist, however, would like to stretch this view in order to claim that facts about the society is a discredit to the objectivity of moral theory (many social scientists and subjectivist philosophers hold this view). But, then, such sociological phenomena (i.e. infanticide, cannibalism, and so on) are not arguments against the theory of moral truth, but rather the facts about societal practice. If infanticide, cannibalism, or other forms of killing were to be immoral, they are only immoral if they can be practiced absolutely given that the sociological condition permits it. In other words, all things considered, infanticide is morally impermissible since even the society that practices it (due to uncontrollable sociological and environmental variables) doesn't practice it absolutely. Infanticide is immoral in principle (it's the rule, not an exception). But, then, even any sociological facts about killing could not have been used as arguments against moral theory of truth because they could not have been true either. Such sociological facts are not the criteria for the moral truth. Morality, in principle, exists because the very existence of society depends on whether or not individuals must live rightly. Otherwise, society will cease to exist since everyone would have done things his/her own ways on whim without morality. Morality doesn't depend on any culture, society, any individual background, or any religious beliefs. Morality is grounded on truth (reality) alone.

Reality and Tarski’s Truth

2010-06-14T21:22:00.000-07:00

Philosophy seeks about truth. It even asks whether or not 'truth' itself true (well, you know what I mean). Nietzche attacked the objectivity of the claim on truth. For example, language decieves us and the speech we use about the world is a lie. The western god (a type of a Nietzchean metaphor for the truth) can only be interpretations. Truth and falsity are illusions. Reality as we represent it is gravely misrepresented by these western dead philosophers (Plato including).

Although we can learn a lot from the German Nietzche such as his view about the ubermench, to stretch his view to the theory of truth will itself collapse.

If one were to propose a view that 'truth is a lie', this essentially implies that 'there is no truth' or 'truth is not truth' because truth is not something that is of itself (a lie). But this proposition p, itself, is not true because if it was it is a lie per its own proposition. So then this Nietzchean view on truth cannot be the case because it cannot hold its own standard since it is itself a lie. One can very well abandon that proposed view. And so, there must be a better proposition than the Nietzchean skepticism on the theory of truth. In other words, there must be a truth-value.

The best representation of the theory of truth is Tarski's concept of truth. To illustrate it:
"The snow is white" if and only if the snow is white.

This means that if s ("the snow is white"), it is true in virtue of its real representation in reality. Truth exists. So s cannot be true when snow isn't white in the first place.

A statement about the world must contain a truth-value. It means that a particular statement s must either be true or false, nothing in between. If a statement cannot be agreed upon, in principle, or that it is unclear in a sense that the best a person can say is a 'maybe' (a seemingly neither true or false value), that statement has more variables embeded into it which makes it not an atomic statement. An atomic statement is the most basic view that no rational individuals can disagree since it cannot be that the case that such s is both true and false, rather it is either true or false. In other words, once a statement is examined enough in its atomic level, truth and falsity will appear. Many atomic statemetns can be found in math and logic. Many molecular statements (with complex statements) can be found in social sciences (yes including philosophy) and religious studies. Many philosophers, then, will attempt to clarify "concepts" in a rigorous examination in order to scrub the statement to its atomic level. In doing so, one can determine truth or falsity of a statement.

Basically, if s, it is either true or false. To test that, s must be real. If s is true, then it is a good (valid and sound) view. If not, then it must be abandoned.

Kicking it here at Arnie's with Mark for an Avatar viewing

2010-06-05T22:32:00.000-07:00

Kicking it here at Arnie's with Mark for an Avatar viewing

Confronting Ethical Dilemmas in Workplace

2010-06-04T10:11:00.000-07:00

What would you do should your boss force you to fudge the numbers to hide sales production? How does the recession affect ethical decision making among new job candidates? What must a new employee who is a woman or a minority do when a direct supervisor belittle her or him? These questions are few questions that Kirk O. Hanson, a professor and a director at Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University discussed: the ethics and the dilemmas that new employees face in the workplace.

Ethics (or moral philosophy) deals with what is the right thing to do. Assuming that ethical truths really do exist (not based on some cultural relativism, which is another topic to discuss), the right thing to do (assuming such action is really the right thing to do) is an ethical principle that individuals (people, employees, managers, etc.) must follow autonomously (then, as a society, create laws to concretize sociatal policies).The way you can tackle ethical dillemmas are by applying basic ethical principles into more complex issues such as workplace ethics. One basic principle is when you universalize any situations and determine if such situation affects socialtal stability (Kant's universalizability principle). If an employee 'lies' (assuming this is clearly a lie not just some basedless belief) and you universalize that situation, when all (or at least many) employees lie in a work environment, no customers (or at least many of them) will trust such business and hence its products and services. As a result, such business will collapse eventually (remember, Enron?).

In business (i.e. workplace etc.), however, there are more variables involved here such as economic condition (recession decreases ethical decision making in the light of job security with new employees who could not say no from bosses who force them to fudge sales productions chart), psychology (being complacent with bad behaviors as part of business culture), and sociological (the persisting taking advantage of those who 'have' against those who 'have not' such as the male dominant business world preference as opposed to women or minorities). Ultimately, however, the question is, ought one do the right thing to do? Well, obviously, yes; but be mindful of other variables involved. Should one lie, at least, one aknolwedges that there is something wrong, which means that either ethics is simply emotional in nature or metaphysical (meaning, based on reality not on any "subjective" or even "relativity" notion). I think it is based on reality because the very fabric of society is this non-tangible principles that keep society together (the reason why there are laws, contracts and policies is the reason why ethics must be real in some way); for if not, individuals in the society would not have "recognized" some elments in nature unique to society. If 'ethics' had been created through social convention, would have shown to be subjective, where it's truth value is subjective as well. But, then, if that was so, lying would have been a good policy, but it isn't! Ethics is discoverable, but not invented.

John S. Vicencio

Source:
Hanson, Kirk O. (June, 2010). "Workplace Ethics: The High Cost of Compromise." Bloomberg Businessweek.

Aristotle, Identity, Noncontradiction, and Excluded Middle

2010-06-02T22:39:00.000-07:00

In light of Tarski's formula on truth where something is true so long as a statement has existence in the world. If a particular the statement doesn't refer to the world, its representation doesn't exist and it doesn't have a reality. Tarski's formula on truth is a direct attack on the subjectivism, a view that truth is based on non-objective criteria (including perspectivism, relativism, and other variation of culturalism). A subjective truth can be interpreted in so many directions that can result to contradiction, inconsistency, and nothing to go by.

Back in ancient Greece, Aristotle (was Plato's student who, in turn, was Socrates' student) formulated three principles of logic:

1. The principle of identity.
2. The principle of noncontradiction.
3. The principle of the excluded middle.

As I established from my last conversations, atomic claims do have truth-values. Claims, in these cases, are statements about reality. For example, one can claim that President George Bush is the president of the United States. If I assume the context of this statement (Bush is still the US president in 2007), then the statement itself 'George Bush is the president of the US' is true. Let us extract the general view of this statement. Let us say that such-and-such claim is the statement x. To see the Aristotelian principles of logic in regards to statement x, an example of each can help one understand the meaning of such statement.

According to the first principle (identity), statement x is equally the same as x (x = x). Some would argue that there is nothing informative about such principle because one knows what x is, namely x. To be emphatic, it is better to be clear than sorry. There is nothing wrong with being redundant so long as it is worth repeating. In other words, if one claimant says that such-and-such is x1, when another claimant is talking about x2, even when both are x's, x1 isn't the same as x2. Did you get the point? One is maybe talking about a similar viewpoint but not the same exact viewpoint.

Let's pretend, for now, that we push aside all the aged-old technical debates regarding this principle and to move on to another principle. The second principle (noncontradiction) simply states that it is not possible for such statement x to be, at the same time, not-x (cannot be x and not-x). Do you see the connection between this and the first principle? If I represent love just like the love of couple or love among the family (x1) and another represents love as an erotic bond between two individuals (x2), love is NOT x1 and x2 but rather it is only x1 and not-x2. Or x1 is not the same as both love and not-love.

Finally, the third principle (excluded middle) says that statement x can either be true or false (either statement is actually x or not-x). In other words, there is no middle value (either), only that statement x is or not. Shakespeare would turn around and ask, "to be or not to be…" In other words, x1 is either love or not-love, but not both.

An intellectual might object to the Aristotelian principles of logic. I will point out three in this discussion but that these objections may not be limited to these: fuzzy logic, quantum mechanics, and nothingness concept. First, an intellectual might say that the Aristotelian principles of logic are old and linear-thinking (based on "predicate logic") since there is such a thing as "fuzzy logic" (approximate logic). Second, she might provide a counter-example, namely the quantum reality as oppose to, what physicists might point out as, classical physics (Einstein's theory of relativity can also be a variant of such counter-example). Third, she might, altogether, disregard the Aristotelian principles because there are principles that seem to point out that something exist and at the same time do not exist (such as the Ying-Yang principle and the Hegelian notion of being and non-being). These are serious objections. Nevertheless, these three objects do have something in common: subjectivism. As pointed out earlier, subjectivism collapses in the end just as if one were to stretch a rubber band long enough, although flexible, will lose its elasticity in the end.

Fuzzy logic deals with approximation of truth of statements. For example, such-and-such is 50% true. Whereas, the predicate logic (Aristotle's principles) is either such-and-such is true or false. So if 1% of the claim is false, it is false altogether. Fuzzy logic, however, deals with the quantitative nature of statements rather than its quality. For example, a glass of water is half empty but half full. So in the sense, the glass of water is both empty and full. But the question is, is the water empty? Assuming the context of a paradox that some quantity of H2O is still present such as moisture in the glass and does not count as water (since no one can drink moisture in the first place), the answer would be no. The measure of what is empty does not necessarily show that its quantitative nature must interpret the nature the way fuzzy logic dictates, but rather the concept of emptiness can give rise to qualitative nature of things. If George Bush is the president of the US (provided we are talking about the year 2007), he is either a president or not. The quantitative nature of a half full glass of water (x) is exactly the same as half empty glass of water (x), only the terms that we used (qualitative nature) are vague. If something is empty, then it is but cannot be at the same time not. Fuzzy logic is excellent in its own way but will collapse in the end.

Another objection can be pointed out using the quantum mechanics theory, which is a lot different from the classical theory in physics. For example, to measure the position of a particle it is uncertain to say so in the quantum world but not in a physical world. This really says that the two worlds behave very differently especially when one interprets the measurement of an entity. A famous physicist and a theorist, Heisenberg, regarding quantum mechanics mentions the uncertainty of the position of an entity in the so-called "Heisenberg uncertainty principle". This is a direct opposition to the classical physics of Newton's physical laws and even Einstein's theory of relativity, in which, at least, the position of an entity can be determined. For example, a moving object will continue to move so long as nothing was stopping it. Although, Heisenberg's uncertainty theory can explain may physical phenomena and many physicists can work with its theory, why do they need be bothered with anything else?

A thought experiment can better illustrate this objection. Let us pretend about (and not to object the unethical aspect of) Schrodinger's cat in a box. Let us say that the box has a tube where one doesn't know whether or not the cat in the box will be dissolved due to acid that can go through the tube towards the box. One can decide whether the cat is in the box or not and at the same time one while one doesn't know the cat was dissolved due to the acid. As you can see, the existence of the cat in the box cannot be measured due to the unknown variable (random acid secretion in the box with the cat). Based on this experiment, then measurement is impossible to consider. If one says that the cat is in the box or that the cat isn't in the box, this is unverifiable. What is apparent is that the cat is both exist and doesn't exist in the box. Heisenberg's theory presupposed that as soon as one observes an entity in a quantum world, its position could not be measured. How can one suppose that either the cat is there or not or that the cat is both at the same time there and not there just because one has a limited epistemological capacity of understanding the situation? In other words, just because one could not really observe the "very" small world of quantum mechanics, it doesn't follow that such limitation proves Aristotelian principles of logic wrong. Surely, if the cat happens to be in the box but that one doesn't "know" it is in the box, it doesn't mean that the cat isn't in the box or that it is and not at the same time (based on some fuzzy logic). On another hand, if the cat happens to disappear due to the acid, it doesn't follow that the limitation of knowledge affects reality. If we stop for a moment and think about a classical scenario that the falling tree in the forest without anyone looking at the tree falling, it doesn't follow that there is no falling tree. One could not just say that the tree isn't there at all just because one cannot know about the event. It is not the case that the world is dependent upon our knowledge but that knowledge is dependent upon the world. Knowledge does not create reality but it is the other way around. The world created knowledge. In other words, knowledge will not exist if there was no world. Knowledge exists because there is a world. The quantum world (if it was a reality at all) doesn't depend on knowledge where the limitation of our perception and interpretation (uncertainty) shouldn't be the measure of it. One just doesn't have the tools to observe the very small worlds. Either an entity x is located in a quantum world (space) and at a particular moment (time), but not in one location and another at the same time. The uncertainty of the position (epistemological limitation) isn't the measure of reality (including the quantum world). If one happens to use the uncertainty theory and can be applied in physics, it is due to pragmatic view not on the basis of realistic view. To stretch this theory into the theory of truth (metaphysics--study of reality--not physics) would be a mistake.

Finally, the idea of nothing has its own noble philosophy including the Asian philosophy about nothingness such as Buddha's concepts of something empty. The stretch of it can also collapse. Based on the above premise, the existence of nothingness is a contradiction in terms. If nothing exist, there is no existence at all. This isn't a matter of semantics or language game. If there was something in the world, it has to exist and nothingness is just that: no existence. Let us pretend that there was nothing in the world. How can there be an existence in nothingness? How can existence begin from nothing (Hegelian notion)? Perhaps, there was something first, in order to have another something?

These three objections are very good. They do play stimulations in human intellectual endeavors and also show how the world can be interpreted in many angles. But one should remember that if there is truth, contradictions do not exist. There are only many perspectives. But just because there are many views about the world, it doesn't show that there are many truths about the world. The truth t1, t2, t3,... tx maybe many, they are truths just so long as they don't have contradictions. The world operates on its own. Perspectives are many. But all of the perspectives point to the world. Only perspectives have contradictions. The cure is clarification, examination, and rigorous thinking to understand the world better not that the world should clarify things for us. Nothing is laid out for us rather the world is there to be discovered.

(Note: unedited)

Truth, Lies, and the Death of a (Nietzschean) God

2010-05-31T13:31:00.000-07:00

When a skeptic doubts existence, there is this imagery that an evil genius could have created an illusion so deceiving that reality itself is not what it seems (except, of course, there is a god that won't allow that to happen but that is another story).

To stretch this further, let us focus our attention to a simple thought experiment. Let say that one looks at several leaves from the same tree. Each one of these is different (although similar because leaves are from the same tree). One is greener and the other brown. One is bigger and the other smaller. One calls this thing "a leaf x". The word that one describes about this leaf is the elements of language that anybody uses to describe the world (generally). Can one honestly point out the existence of a leaf (from the same tree) when not one is exactly the same? Nietzsche pointed this out because the language that human beings use does not accurately describe reality. The language regarding reality is a "lie" and the accuracy regarding truth collapses. The talks about 'truth', from Plato and onward, are exaggerated including the western talks about 'god' which is dead in Nietzsche's mind. Conceptually speaking, god (not necessary the Judeo-Christian God) is dead when the accuracy for the truth collapses. If there was no accuracy for truth, the language one speaks of about reality is a lie. Therefore, there is no such thing as truth only interpretations of it (perspectives, a form of subjectivism). But, then, the concept of perspectivism itself is maybe a lie in the first place. That, my friend, is another argument I'm afraid.

Descartes's Evil Genius on the Proof of Existence

2010-05-25T21:02:00.000-07:00

One can very well claim that everything one sees exists in virtue of its perception (looking at an object, hearing noises, feeling a hard surface, tasting food, smelling perfume, looking at a planet using the telescope or by looking at a bacteria using a microscope and so on). But there are times when perception fails. For example, one can fail what really is there when looking at a mirage or sometimes when one simply gets confused. Another thing is that sometimes when one dreams of things that seem very real such as falling from the building. One could not really make sure for certain if the object one sees really does exists. Therefore, I doubt the absolute clear proof of existence through perception since it could very well be a dream.

Let's have, then, a mental experiment. What if there was this mad scientist (Evil Genius) who has the ability to manipulate ones mind in a way that shows what seems to be real but really isn't? Remember the movie Matrix? Well this movie is based on this thought experiment, on Descartes's Evil Genius.

If such thought experiment is happening, the doubt on the claim of existence shows that the human claims for reality is a failure since one just claims that there is existence but yet one is not for sure that the claim is something that exists absolutely.

Descartes shows that the epistemological claim about existence can only be good when one starts from a primary or most basic claim of existence: "I think, I exist." One exists because I (the author, which is "me" John Vicencio) exists due because I'm a thinking being, even if one denies this statement.

Let's pretend that one denies this. She would say, "I deny that 'I think, I exist'." But who spoke the I in the first place? Her!

Another problem comes in here, however. If "I" exist, then what about the "others"? If I say, "He exists," I'm merely claiming that somebody exists, which comes back to the problem of epistemology in the light of Evil Genius thought experiment. Well this is another problem indeed that requires another explanation that Descartes tries to solve in "mind and body" problem.

Philosopher's Stone and The New York Times

2010-05-17T11:06:00.000-07:00

There's a section in The New York Times newspaper where you can find contemporary philsophical issues such as the question of what philosophy is. Philosopher Simon Critchely is the moderator of this newspaper section.

Sources:

The Stone intro: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/introducing-the-stone/
What is a philosopher article: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/what-is-a-philosopher/

Should one deny family relationship even when s/he's the so-called black-sheep member of the family?

2010-04-29T19:05:00.000-07:00

Should one deny family relationship even when s/he's the so-called black-sheep member of the family? No. You're denying a part of the fabric of your being.

I trust that everyone enjoys their Easter inspite of 7.2 earthquake in Baja California

2010-04-04T19:07:00.000-07:00

trusts that everyone enjoys their Easter inspite of 7.2 earthquake in Baja California and rest of west coast

Happy Good Friday!

2010-04-02T08:11:00.000-07:00

Whishing everyone a Happy Good Friday!

Must one maintain control to maximize quality or must one be liberal about it?

2010-04-01T13:01:00.000-07:00

Must one maintain control to maximize quality or must one be liberal about it? Neither since moderation curves up any extremities. What I would do is to be open about it but be mindful to act when control is truely (not just because you feel like it to be) necessary. Or if you prefer to take control as your primary approach, be mindful of the benefits of liberal actions (not political but personal autonomy).

Must one prevent drama?

2010-03-19T15:43:00.000-07:00

Must one prevent drama? Absolutely. But when it happens anyway, you can only do so much. Try to continue your way of life and pursuit of happiness but be mindful of drama, struggle and dread. These make us the way we are--humans.

Should you laught when enemies fall?

2010-03-18T13:17:00.000-07:00

Should you laught when even your enemies fall and collapse? No. Show anyone including the people you hate that you are a friend not the enemy.

Should one settle for contentment and compromise your values for others?

2010-03-12T18:59:00.000-08:00

Should one settle for contentment and compromise your values for others? No. Continue the pursuit of happiness even when others benefit from your kindness that causes you pain inside.

Should you believe pathological liars?

2010-03-11T12:35:00.000-08:00

Should you believe pathological liars? No. Love them anyway since they're primarily lying to themselves.

Good news about the unemployment rate

2010-02-05T11:59:00.000-08:00

Good news about unemployment rate dropped. http://htxt.it/HQ7W

What is philosophy?

2009-09-10T13:12:00.000-07:00

Philosophy is a reasonable view regarding the world because there is reason to believe This view is not simply an opinion nor a claim based on whim. A philosophical view holds something is true (or false) based on some premises. A conclusion cannot be false when premises are true. A said view must also be sound so that such philosophy has a valid argument in the first place (otherwise, it is a bad philosophy). Sound view has all the elements in an argument (a purported true view) that have close relatioinship. If premises A and B are true, conclusion X is true only if A and B are sound. For example: all Greeks are mortal. Socrates is Greek. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Source:
John Vicencio's website: http://www.johnvicencio.com

Poetry published

2009-07-31T11:02:00.000-07:00

John Vicencio has published a poetry e-book that is now available at http://htxt.it/Ahp7 under the Poetry section.

Source:

John Vicencio's homepage: http://www.johnvicencio.com

Unenthusiastic reaction on Arizona's photo enforcement camera

2009-07-24T18:15:00.000-07:00

I'm unenthused about a photography with my pictures driving my rental car via mail. Driving in the Phoenix areas is great, but not without a warning sign like what we have here in California!