J. DeVore

1. J. DeVore

2.  Midterm grade: A

3.  List all of your posts here for the semester and all of your extra credit. 

3.1 Why was Socrates sentenced to death? Be sure to provide context and details and history background to give a fuller explanation.

According to Bertrand Russell there were a lot of people in Athens around when Socrates was alive that were geniuses. This means that Socrates came out of a community that had very smart people in it. (Bertrand Russell, History Of Western Philosophy, 1996 edition, pp. 85-91). Instead of making art or putting on a play Socrates confused the hell out of people. In Plato’s Apology Socrates says that his first accusers say that he makes what is good seem bad, and what is bad seem good. Because Athenians were confused about what was good and what was bad they were ready to hear charges up against him. The charges that were made against Socrates were corrupting the youth, not believing in the city’s gods and believing in other gods. He seemed to be corrupting the youth by making the children believe that what is good is bad and what is bad is good so people were afraid of children doing the bad things as good. Socrates keept telling Euthyphro that his version of what he believes is wrong. When most people make you second guess yourself you tend to not appreciate them as much as you used to. When Socrates questioned the status quo he was judged. This was why Socrates was on trial. According to Plato’s Apology Socrates asked for free meals for life at public expense as his punishment for his charges. The jury seemed to be insulted by this request and so the jury sentenced Socrates to death.

3.2 Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion? Dive deep into the very definitional debate that was illustrated in the film Mysterium Tremendum, both parts.

There is conflict for some people between science and religion because people feel depressed when they hear that they are made up of matter and this comes from science.  This would bring up religion because religions say that we are made up of more than just matter. Matter is more than just dead stuff; it is particles in more than one place at the same time which is an example of how matter can give you the feeling that comes from religion. Matter is more than one thing. Our use of matter keeps us from seeing the experiances of matter. Matter can also have religious meaning. Matter can also be the center of religion. Religions don’t have to be against science if religion is open to being corrected. A lot of religion gives more of a dogmatic system and in religion you just get commanded by religious authority figures. We have to give time to different ways of thinking about matter and how it is represented in science. Science needs to have more of a chance at religion’s questions and answers before we give up on science just can’t answer certain questions. So religion can be a part of science. And science can be a part of religion. Consciousness can be a part of both science and religion, even if there are higher states of consciousness that we don’t understand.  (MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM, Resolving the Science Religion Conundrum, Narrated by Davey Lyon). This is why Science and religion should not have conflict between each other. 

3.3 Why are understanding physics and the general rules of the universe so important in doing philosophy?

Bertrand Russell says that philosophy is like theology, by asking the same questions as theology and using scientific procedures to answer those questions (Bertrand Russell, History Of Western Philosophy, 1996 edition, pp. 1-2).

Questions that philosophy asks include what is mind and matter, is there free will, what is the meaning of the universe, are there laws of nature, is there a good way of living and how do we achieve it. According to wikipedia physics “is the scientific study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force”. (Physics - Wikipedia). The importance of physics in philosophy is that using procedures from physics philosophy answers its questions. Just as one example, philosophers and physicists use thought experiments to understand their theories. Philosophy and physics both use logic to reach their answers to their questions. The same kind of reasoning that is in physics is the way of solving philosophical problems.Also the subject being studied in physics has a lot in common with the subject being studied in philosophy. Philosophy is partly about mind and matter or about the mind's relationship with matter and physics is about matter. If philosophy is about mind and matter then isin’t physics important to philosophy? Philosophy is also about the laws of the universe and physics is also about the laws of the universe like the speed of light, quantum entanglement, quantum superposition. So there are two very good reasons why philosophy and physics go together.

3.4 List all of your extra credit here. Provide the chosen work and your essay. You can do more than one that was listed.

I have not done any extra credit. 

3.5 How much of the required reading have you done? Just be transparent, no penalty for honesty.

I have done all of the readings in the second week and in the weeks one to three and four I did as much as I needed to answer my essay questions.

3.6 How many of the required films did you watch? Again, be transparent since there is no penalty for honesty.

I have watched all the films in weeks one and two. In weeks three and four I have watched as much as I needed to answer the essay questions.

3.7 What is the main argument of “being unknowing”? Give specific details concerning the reading and why it relates to Socrates and his own philosophical inquiry. Also relate the same to your own life and how it can radically change how you interact with others.

The main point of “Being Unknowing” is that humans can’t understand everything. We can’t understand everything because our brains are not capable of holding everything. Therefore we should not focus on what we know, but we should focus on the fact theat we can’t know everything. Being ok with not knowing everything gives us some relief because then you donot have to worry about knowing everything. It is natural for us to be unknowing and when we relize that we are unknowing we don’t think that we are in control of the whole universe. For example asking what a crumpled piece of paper is what leads you to what is matter. But we don’t know what matter is. This leaves us in the unknown in the end. Socrates is related to unknowing because Socrates thought he did not know anything and that's what made him wise. Socrates always left people in a state of unknowingness after he would ask them what they knew. In my own life when I don’t know something it leaves me stressed. When I don’t know something in the world I tend to look it up or ask my dad, the professor or my mom. The fact that I know I don’t know things leades me to ask questions and that is a good thing. Does the fact that you don’t know things mean that you're arrogant? No, it means that you are more humble, so admitting that you don’t know things means that you are a better person.

3.8 Why is probability elemental to understanding why certain events transpire? Use examples from the book Just Odds. Also provide some examples from your own life.

According to the book Just odds the probability of any events coming together in interesting ways is bigger than we think. According to Just Odds, miracles happen about once a month which is rather often. The way to open doors is to find the probability of the occurrences that are unique and amazing and notice them. A lot of surprising things are possible if you try for a long time, according to Littlewood’s law of probabilities. If you wait long enough you might get what you want.  You can’t put probability on any one coincidence happening because there is not neutrality and objectivity that would let you put a probability on it. But there will just naturally be a lot of these coincidences happening. One event in my life that seemes like a coincidence is that my sister and I are graduating from Mt. SAC at the same time. But this can be explained by probability. First is that there is only one graduation that happenes from Mt.SAC each year so there are not a lot of changes to graduate so that makes it more likely that any two people around the same age will graduate at the same time. My sister also had two majors so that slowed her down in finshing at Mt.SAC. So basically the probability of us garaduating at the same time is higher than it might seem at first. I think I will use probability to explain coincidences in my life as I get older.

3.9 Give an updated version (in your own words, be creative) of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is like a horror movie because it has shadows and dark walls and someone in trouble and that person in trouble gets free but is violated by the others that are trapped. At the beginning of this horror movie there are people trapped in a basement and they see shadows from the sun of others walking by. In the basement it is so dark that people can’t see anything unless the sun shines through the cracks on the floors. Then one of the people breaks free and finds their way up the stairs and outside and sees everything in color for the first time. The person then runs around admiring the things it sees like a dog, cat, and a tree. Next the person goes back to the basement and trys to tell everyone else what they had just seen but no one believes them. So they try to break someone else free and get thrown through a wall and find others trapped like they were. It turns out that the horror is not from the basement but the others that don’t want to be set free and then it turns out there are more people like you than you thought. The message of Plato’s Allegory plays an aspect in this horror movie because it makes things and the real world creepy just like in Plato’s Allegory of the cave. The world outside the basement is beautiful and bright and cheery but no one wants to go there because it is not what they are used to. 

3.10 How would you live differently if Nietzsche’s myth of eternal recurrence was shown to be true? Here is a link to watch on this:https://youtu.be/CY40og9z-p0?si=sKuhGSZNEZcoPTqH (Links to an external site).

Nietzsche’s myth of eternal recurrence is where you live your life the same as it is over and over again. I think that if you lived the same day over and over again life would get boring. Life would get boring because you would get tired of doing the same activity again and again. If you live the same life over and over again you will know how things in your life are going to play out. But if you don’t live the same day over and over again then you have no clue on what is going to happen. I would live differently if I knew how things were goin to turn out because then things in life will be inerusting and not boring. If you think about it, we live life going by the fact that things are interesting. Also I would live differently by making my life more successful than it is now. I can do that because I would know what choices I could make differently. Also I might live differently by doing more good in the world. I can do this because I know which of my choices do good and which choices do bad. All of my answers have the same thing in common: and in all of them I change how I live because I know more. So maybe the myth of Eternal Recurrence makes you think of how you would live differently if you knew everything that was going to happen based on your actions.

3.11 Who do you think won the quantum debate between Einstein and Bohr? Be sure to back up your argument with key quotes from the readings or from your own research.

The Bohr and Einstein debate puts the debate about matter in your face. The debate became intense at the Solvay conference of 1927. The debate was over Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which stated that you can’t know where both the place and the momentum of a particle are at the same time. The uncertainty principle had been proven with the slit experiment. So Einstine thought by moving the slit you could tell when the light particles were going through the slit. So by controlling where the particles can go you can know where the particles are at the same time as you know their momentum. Bohr said you can’t know where the slit was moving and how fast so you couldn’t know how fast the light was getting through. Einstein and Bohr kept arguing about this debate for years. Einstein would come up with thought experiments and Bohr would say that does not work. I think Bohr won the debate because he was able to provide evidence that Einstein's thought experiment did not work. I also think Bohr won because people today are still trying to figure out Einstien’s side of the debate. No one so far today has found a successful way to measure a particle’s position and momentum at the same time. Physicists are still trying to find answers to the question of quantum Indetermanicy. When I say I think Bohr is the winner it means that there are limits on human knowledge and that means that human are unknowing.

3.12 Why was Bruno regarded as a heretic for his views?

Giordano Bruno was born in 1548 and died in 1600 by being burned at the stake in Rome. Bruno was Italian and a philosopher, poet, and astronomer. Bruno apparently believed that god was everything. He believed that earth was not the center of the universe and that the universe was infinite and divine and conscious.  Bruno also thought that the other planets had life on them and that there were other planets outside of our solar system that rotate around stars other than our sun. (Giordano Bruno - Wikipedia). Bruno was charged with heresy because of his belief in other worlds in 1592. People told Bruno to give up his belief in multiple worlds but Bruno refused to do so. Bruno’s big ideas were that the universe has a mind of its own and that the universe is unlimited and has no end. Because the universe has a mind of its own and has no limits therefore the universe is god. The universe does not have a center but instead there are other planets that have people on them. Bruno’s reaction was that it was a beautiful thing and he believed in the universe’s ability to be god. (The Infinite Universe and Divine Mind - Giordano Bruno). He was regarded as a heretic because he was different from the Church in the belief that there was one center of the universe but Bruno believed that there was more than one center of the universe.  The Church also did not like the idea that the universe was divine.

3.13 How can Darwin’s theory of natural selection explain the emergence of consciousness?

Natural selection is just like human selection by letting the natural traits that help species survive and reproduce a lot. Meanwhile species that don’t inherit the traits get eliminated. Natural selection lets traits appear by mutation of the genes and then those traits help species do well in their environment. (177799) Natural Selection - YouTube) Consciousness is when your brain is awake and aware of what is going on. Basically, all animals seem to have consciousness. Consciousness seems to be a result of animals’ genes. Natural selection helps living things thrive so therefore consciousness is a trait that helps beings survive. For example when a person is going to cross a street consciousness lets people see and think before crossing the street. For another example consciousness lets people think and see before buying things in a store like healthy things that can help them or bad things that can harm you. I am an animal science major and I see that consciousness helps animals survive in their everyday life like making sure they tell their owners when they need food or need to go out. Consciousness seems to come from the animal’s brain which is a complicated part of a creature. Consciousness had to develop over a long period of time. There has been time in the history of the earth for this to happen.  What seems to have happened is that the first animals in the world had a brain that was simple and over time the brains in different species have developed to how capable they are today.

3.14 Why did Darwin and Wallace part company over the human mind?

Both Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin were writing books based on natural selection and writing them at the same time. They both did their research about animals on islands. Darwin was richer and arranged for Wallace to have a pension because Wallace was poor. (Wallace, Darwin's Forgotten Frenemy). Wallace said that the minds of humans were not created by natural selection and Darwin stated that the human minds were created by natural selection. The brains are created out of matter and Wallace thought that  the human brain was at such a high level of orginization that natural selection could not explain it. Darwin said that the brains are naturally selected and are from matter. So Darwin said that Wallace was wrong. ( The Darwin-Wallace Debate on the Mind of Man / How Far Does Natural Selection Extend?). Wallace said that natural selection alone will not give humans brain power because of the things he saw with tribes not having modern technology who had equal brain power as the other humans. Natural secection would not have given them as much brain power to survive in their environments, thought Wallace. Human morals do not seem to be explained by natural selection either because they often seem to go against the survival instinct.  (How Darwin and Wallace Split over the Human Mind | Science and Culture Today) I think that there has to be something more to the human mind than just atoms. I also think that both Darwin and Wallace are partly correct about natural selection and the brain.

3.15 So far, what is your favorite film?

So far in the class my favorite film is the first film that was about Socrates because it explains why Socrates died and he was an interesting character.

3.16 LIST ALL OF YOUR POSTS AND PASTE THEM WITH THE TEST

Discuss the implications of acknowledging our limitations in knowledge for personal growth and intellectual development.

I think that when it comes to personal growth and intellectual development there is power and weakness. There is power because knowledge is power because it lets us know the world that we are then affecting. There is weakness in knowledge because it can cloud your gudgement of the world and what you have learned so far about the world. Acknowledging your limitations you are saying that you are ready for correction and making progress toward your personal growth. The limitations that we set upon ourselves help us with our personal growth through the seeing of mystery in life. By stating that we know little we are saying that we want to know more and that makes us want to learn more. The fact that we are wanting to figure out why we don’t know things is the reason that we want to learn more. Knowing the world's limits is knowing the knowledge that we have learned in the world. Even by making our brain more advanced we still have limits to certain imits in the world. Having limits are beneficial because they push our brains to grow and develop more with diffrent and new things to learn by using different technology.

Analyze the relationship between the scientific and the mystical as presented in the text. Do you agree with the author's perspective? Why or why not?

I agree with the author’s perspective. I agree because the relationship between scientific and mystical is a part of the world and the knowledge that we have learned. Mystical is related to science because in science if we don’t know something then there is a feeling of mystery. When we don’t know something, it is like we are a part of a mystery in the world. No matter how much mystery is solved by science there will always be mystical things in the world. Having mystical things in the world is always going to be a mystery. For example, we have no idea what matter is but we have thought of what matter is like: we don’t really know what it is made up of even though we have concepts like protons, neutrons, and electrons. Even though scientific questions about matter exist we still have mystical questions in the world. The part of us that thinks is not always conscious of the matter that is in the world and the mystical part of the world. Reality is a mystery and even the scientist who studies this mystical field does not know it. No matter how much a scientist learns they keep coming back to a mystery.

Analyze the author's argument against invoking quantum physics to explain coincidences. Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?

I think that quantum physics can have a part in coincidences because why not? Quantum physics can have a part of coincidences because quantum physics is a part of the universe. Quantum physics says that a particle can both be in a place and not be in the same place at the same time: therefore, quantum physics allows consciousness to decide where things end up. Therefore, consciousnesses can make coincidences happen. The author argues that we do not need quantum physics because math and statistics state that coincidences will happen every month or so. The reason behind this argument is that because math and statistics will measure coincidences in the world and find that a person will experience a coincidence every thirty-five days out of the year. This means that coincidences really happen around the world naturally.  But just because math and statistics say that coincidences can happen does not mean that quantum physics can’t also make coincidences happen in the world. Maybe some coincidences just naturally happen but other coincidences happen because the mind makes them happen. This is why I don’t agree with the author about his statement and why quantum physics can maybe bring coincidences. It's a mystery.

Analyze the conceptual model that Darwin uses to explain the divergence of species (the "tree of life"). How does this model help explain the relatedness and diversity of species?

The tree of life helps model the diversity of life in that each period of newly growing trees is divided into branches that kill all of the overcrowded and old or dead branches just as species in life have beaten older species in life. The branches that go into different directions are all part of different families of species and they become diverse. Older branches have new branches as their descendants just as older species have newer species as their descendants. Most past species have died out and left no descendants just as branches have died out and have no more leaves or off branches. Most of the earlier branches have died and fell to the ground and now are fossilized, just as most past species died and now only exist as fossil. Sometimes multiple branches are entwined with each other just as old species are sort of interbred together and the branches might survive if they are in a lucky part of the tree just as old species if they are in a lucky part of the Earth. The new branches replace old weaker branches just as ols weaker species are replaced by new species that are stronger and take over. 

Discuss the importance of variability and inheritance in Darwin's theory of evolution. How do these concepts relate to the formation of new species and the adaptation of organisms to their environments?

Species have to inherit their genes. If any inherited genes help the species to survive then the genes are likely to be reproduced and thrive.  Traits that are inherited include for example the color of the eggs from the chickens, or the caterpillar in the cocoon stage. Natural selection is just like human selection by letting the natural traits that help species survive and reproduce a lot. Meanwhile species that don’t inherit the traits get eliminated. Species have inherited traits from lots of ancestors, and this helps species develop more thoroughly. Traits can only be inherited by only males or only females and traits in one or the other sex can help the species survive. Variability comes from the conditions in which the species live and from using traits in order to survive. Variability can be very small to help a species survive better. Variability can either come from a large population or a smaller population that is diverse as long as those variations can be inherited by some of the offspring. If species are around for a long time the species tend to have a lot of variation. Variability and inheritance create new species in different environments over a long time.

Discuss the role of thought experiments in the development and interpretation of quantum theory. Provide specific examples and analyze their contributions.

A thought experiment is when you present an image that lets you test out an idea in your brain without setting up a physical experiment. One way that a thought experiment was an interpritation of quantum theory is that it allowed Einstein to think over his ideas before making the physical experiment. He tried to disprove quantum theory with thought experiments. One thought experiment that Einstein came up with was the light’s split that would let someone move the curtain to determine the velocity of the light going through the curtain. However, Niels Bohr was saying that if you move the curtain then you can’t tell the velocity of the light or the curtain's velocity. Bohr was able to disprove Einstein’s box experiment. Another way was Schrodinger’s cat experiment where the thought is that the cat in the box is both alive and dead. Schrodinger’s experiment represents quantum theory because it shows that particles are both in one place and in another place at the same time just as the cat is alive and dead at the same time. Altogether thought experiments make your brain think of other ways to do the experiment and they are easier to understand than math or scientific experiments.

Explore the implications of quantum entanglement for our understanding of reality, causality, and the nature of space and time.

Quantum entanglement is where one particle could instantly cause another particle to spin the other direction or another direction even though the particles are not right next to each other. Where two electrons spin opposite directions, they are connected together and when one spin changes the other spin also changes in the opposite direction.  The two particles are entangled even though they might be galaxies apart and the idea is that they have to change with each other. Einstein hated quantum entanglement and called it “spooky action at a distance” but it is proven to be true. This means because the spin change happens instantly that the change happens faster than the speed of light which Einstein thought was impossible. Bohr thought that this was possible; he did not know that Einsein was wrong. In 1982 an experiment at Orsay looked at entangled photons and showed that they did change each other instantly. Actions really far apart from each other can happen instantly cause changes even faster than anything can travel between them. Other people after Einstein tried to come up with ways of explaining quantum entanglement without “spooky actions at a distance.” So there is no way yet to solve Quantum entanglement.

Explore the concept of the Socratic Method as demonstrated in the dialogues Euthyphro and The Apology. How does Socrates use questions to expose contradictions and lead others toward self-examination?

Socrates uses questions by making Euthyphro questions himself. Socrates got Euthyphro to say what piety was. Euthyphro said that piety is what he was doing that was putting his dad on trial for murder. Socrates replies that there is more than one act of piety. You can’t say that putting your father on trial for murder is the only act of piety. Euthyphro then says that piety is what the gods like. But Socrates points out that if some of the gods like the same things that the other gods hate so Socrates says that this would make the same things piety and impiety at the same time which is impossible. Another point that Socrates makes is that the gods did not specify what is just and unjust. In this case Euthyphro does not know what is just or unjust because the gods did not specify whether letting the hired worker die was just or unjust. So, the pattern is that Socrates is trying to make the hearer understand what piety is and how it is used by the gods and how piety is complicated to everyone even the gods because they don't agree or make their opinions known. And you can probably do this with other qualities in the world like beauty.

Compare and contrast the accusations against Socrates in Euthyphro and The Apology. What do these accusations suggest about the nature of Athenian society and the challenges faced by those who question the status quo? 

In the Apology Socrates says that his first accusers say that he makes what is good seem bad, and what is bad seem good. The accusers that Socrates is most afraid of are his very first accusers. The second accuser is Meletus who says that Socrates is corrupting the youth, does not believe in the city’s gods but does believe in other gods.  In the Euthyphro Socrates is on trial for making up new gods and renouncing the old gods. What matches about the accusations is that Socrates does not believe in gods but believes in other gods. The thing that is not matching is that Socrates makes things that are good seem bad and bad seem good in the Apology and corrupts children in the Apology. But these accusations do not come up in the Euthyphro. In these dialogs the status quo is getting complicated by Socrates and therefore the Athenians do not like this because it makes discussions hard to understand. When most people make you second guess yourself you tend to not appreciate them as much as you used to. When Socrates questions the status quo he is being judged. This is why Socrates is on trial.

3.17 What is quantum superposition?

Quantum superposition is where particles exist as if they are all along the curve of a wave at the same time. But you can’t tell where exactly along the wave the particle is until you take a measurement. The fact that a particle could be anywhere along the wave means that the particle is in superposition. It is as if the particle is superposed as being in lots of places at once. So because the particle is in superposition you don’t know where in its possible movements it will end up. When it is in the wave you have to think of the particle as in multiple places at once. You only know which one place the particle is when it hits one spot on the wave. Quantum superposition is shown through Schrodinger's cat. Schrodinger’s cat is a thought experiment where a cat is both alive and dead at the same time. The cat is in a superposition of being alive and dead. You learn which the cat is only by opening the box and see which state the cat is in. Superpositions don’t just apply to the location, but it also applies to where a particle is spinning. What this is saying is that the particle can be said to be spinning in two directions at once. You only know what the direction the spin is going when you look at the particle and you only measure one spin direction. Superposition is important because it helps make your brain work better by making the superposition hard to understand. Source: Superposition Explained (Schrödinger's Cat) | Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.  

3.18 Analyze the following film from a philosophical perspective, explaining what it implies about human beings and their behavior. https://youtu.be/G-K8Usdy71k?si=3sxWv9EQxnCnuRV0Links to an external site

In the story “Three Hermits” by Leo Tolstoy. A bishop went to an Island by boat to see the three Hermits. The bishop askes the three Hermites how they pray. The Hermites show the bishop their prayer and the bishop answers them by saying the lord's prayer back to them. They say the lord’s prayer over and over again. Then the bishop goes back to the ship and does not fall asleep that night. The three Hermits ran on the water to the bishop and they asked the bishop to teach them the lord’s prayer again because they had stopped saying the lord’s prayer and forgot it. The bishop says in reply that their own prayer is good enough. This story implies that all humans are unpredictable. The story shows this by the Hemits talking and going to the boat, by the captain of the ship letting the bishop take a boat to the island, and by the bishop saying no to teaching the Hermits the lord’s prayer again after he spent so much time already had tought them the lord’s prayer. The story says that the memory of humans can fade like with the Hermits' memory fading after being taught the lord’s prayer. Like the other people on the boat, memory is fading because they saw the Hermits differently than the bishop did. Humans are unpredictable by doing things that people would not expect to do just to learn more about something like the hermits did because they wanted to learn the lord’s prayer again.

3.19 Any questions?

I have no questions at this time.

4. Compare and contrast the philosophy of Errol Flynn with those of Tom Blake? Where do they have agreements? Where do they depart? What can one learn from both? Where do you depart company with their ideas and why? 500 words or more. These two films are your key.

Errol Flynn was a movie actor like in Robin Hood. He lived from 1909 to 1959 due to a heart attack and his liver having problems due to all the alcohol and tobacco he consumed. He believed that having pleasure is the most realistic way to spend your life. He tried to have pleasure through sex, tobacco,  drinking, travel and sailing. Errol Flynn was okay with contradiction and he believed in laughing at contradiction. He said that humanity was unpredictable and he was okay with this. He said that women are objects for sex. Errol Flynn said that he was not scared of death and he did not follow rules. Errol Flynn said he had no system of philosophy. I agree that he did not have a system of philosophy.

Tom Blake did not graduate from high school due to the Spanish Influenza. He was a good and famous surfer. He pianered equipment like a torpedo buoy and rescue ring. Tom Blake also built surf birds and was a champion swimmer. He believed that nature equaled God. This was his interpretation of Einstein’s E equals MC Squared. Tom Blake was a Pantheist which means he believed everything is God. He did not believe in an afterlife. He thinks that we go back to being cells as atoms. He believed that not killing a human should go the same way for animals and he also believed that eating meat was unhealthy and so he became a vegetarian. Tom Blake believed in Karma which means if you do something bad something bad will happen to you in return. He believed that Karma came from Einstien’s energy. He believed that education came from the ocean first and schools second he believed we should trust experience more than authority and lived his life looking for knowledge from the ocean. I think that Tom Blake does have a philosophy.

One thing that Tom Blake and Errol Flynn have in common is that they both love the ocean. Another thing that they have in common is neither of them had a life long partner or companion so in a way they were kind of solitary. Both are not scared of death. Both Errol Flynn and Tom Blake did nto follow rules. Another thing that they had in common is that they did not believe in traditional religion.

One thing that Tom Blake and Errol Flynn do not have in common is that Flynn was a movie star and Blake was a surfer. Another thing is Flynn was not a vegetarian and Blake was a vegetarian. This is because Flynn had no empathy for animals or women and Blake had a lot of empathy for the animals. Blake seems very interested in physics and Flynn does not; he seems to be interested in appearances and feelings. Flynn’s philosophy seems very selfish, and Blake’s philosophy makes him more a part of something bigger than himself. That is why I say Blake has a philosophy and Flynn does not have a philosophy.

5. Give the pro and con arguments to the vegan argument. Which argument is more ethically sound? Why? Where are there exceptions? Provide your own views on this subject. 400 words or more. How does this issue relate to morality in general? The following film is your key. (Film: "Why I  Don't Eat Faces")

The pro argument of veganism is that all the animals have feelings so therefore they should not be eaten. Animals have faces so they are cute and adorable. Faces let the animals show their feelings like pain, sadness, happiness, anger, fearfulness, and anxiety. This means that humans and animals are the same. As I am an animal science major, I feel sadness when someone is going to eat a pig or a cow. That is because I spent time with the animals and got to know the animals’ feelings. Killing and eating an animal would not be very different than killing a human and eating them. This is not the case for plants. This is because plants do not have faces so we can’t tell what they are feeling. So, it has a different impact on when we eat plants rather than animals. 

One con argument against veganism is that vegetarians eat animal products like eggs, milk, and cheese but vegans don’t eat any meat or animal products. It is possible to become an ethical eater without eating faces. The video did not bring up this point at all.  When you buy cage free eggs for example the chickens run free on pastures. And you can buy milk for ethically raised cows. Another con argument is that you have less nutrition with veganism. When you become a vegan, you get less protein and fat, and humans need both of these. There are ways to get fat like olives, avocados, and coconut products and nuts. There are ways to get protein like beans, tofu, rice and lentils. But these products do get you as much nutrition as animal products do and these products are more expensive and harder to find in stores. Veganism is also not natural for humans and their systems. We evolved to be eating meat.

I think that the alien scenario that is in the video is stating that animals and humans should be treated the same. This is because it is possible that there is another species out there that might eat us that is more intelligent than we are. This makes me see things from the other side of things. Maybe there is another species that sees us humans as pigs or cows are seen to us. But maybe we can produce other food products for them without being eaten the way we drink milk or eat eggs from other species.

6. Why is Baba Faqir Chand’s insights on religious visions and miracles important in understanding the nature of human consciousness and its projections? How can Faqir’s views help us better understand religious disputes? Be sure to detail your answers. 400 words or more. Give examples.

Baba Faqir Chand was a sage from India. He was really interested in near death experiences. He was a guru. He challenged his teacher about whether his teacher's religion was the best religion. His students had visions where he helped them like giving the test answers to one of his students that was taking a test and saving a woman from drowning and he had no recollection of being in the visions of his students. Chand said that the visions came from his students and not him. He thought that it is not possible for human beings to have ultimate knowledge. Chand lived in poverty and he rode a bicycle. He did this because he did not think material values were important. He thinks that miracles happen and they come from karma and not from the gods. Chand had positive thoughts when he was trying to conceive his son, and therefore, he thought, his son would have good fortune, which was a form of karma. He questioned all beliefs, such as thoughts about death. He believed in having an open mind about religious and spirituality and supernatural stuff. “Thine own self is the real guru” is what Chand would say. Chand fell asleep during a meditation even though his teacher said it’s good to practice meditation; this illustrates that he was human and admitted his mistakes. He used the metaphor of a hangman’s noose to illustrate letting go of attachments.

Faqir Chand said that visions and miracles are illusions that come from the one who sees them. A lot of vision of real people; they are of mythical or fictional people. The Chandian Effect is where the visions are of the people who are seen in the visions but the people who are seen have no idea that these happen. When he would have visions his eyeballs would roll back and turn white. His visions show that all consciousness is from the mind. He envisions humanity as a bubble of consciousness. Consciousness is above everything, for example sight, sound, touch, and smell. But consciousness is still unknowable for Chand.

Religious disputes are about ultimate truth, and there’s no way we can know ultimate truth, according to Chand. So there should not be religious disputes. Always be agreeable rather than hostile, Chand says. Because you can’t know the ultimate truth, you should not have disputes over the ultimate truth. This what I learned from Baba Faqir Chand.

Final Questions 7-15 appear on the next webpage, due to software limitations.