"Life is like an art masterpiece, and yet so few stop to enjoy it”
-unknown author

If your life was a painting, what would it look like? What colors would prevail? Would it be abstract, impressionist, realistic, pop art? Is it still life or is it a defined image with a subtle background?

True, we may not all be Van Goghs and Picassos but we all hold the paints, brush, and blank canvas necessary to manifest out deepest expressive and conceptual intentions. motivated and stirred by our (and even possibly others) daily occurrences, we have the ability and talent to craft striking works of art with our individual strokes and shades. Every day we create new knowledge, skills, and experiences to attach to the final masterpiece.

It’s your challenge in life to make sure that the ultimate piece is as you see fit; if you’re not pleased with what you see on the canvas at this current point in time, it’s up to you to spice it up with something innovative and brand new, or to tone it down with some more subtle ‘tones’. You’re in command of the limitless color selection and styles sporadically splashed or meticulously streaked across the palette. You decide what actions to take, what hobbies to entertain yourself with, who to associate yourself with, and what experience you will pursue. Such choices will lead you toward the finishing work of genius you aspire to fashion.

Oftentimes, you don’t have any clue what the end result will be; and frequently, you’ll get aggravated at the process of finding what you hope for, what you deserve and what you really want. As a little word of relief though, don’t fret…no one honestly has a true clue of what we are doing. All you can do is enjoy the steps, frolic along the always winding paths, savor every experience, and take pleasure in ‘painting’ your masterpiece. As Danny Kaye once so brilliantly advised, “Life is a great big canvas and you should throw all the paint on it you can.” And if that’s not enough to hearten you, always remember, "...godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come" (Timothy 4:8).

Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.

~Berthold Auerbach

Medics regularly claim that music can be a powerful healing aid with patients having any given issue ranging from depression to cancer. As stated by Cheryl Dileo, a professor of music therapy and director of the Arts and Quality of Life Research Center at Temple University in Philadelphia, “Music therapy is an evidence-based practice that can affect changes in physical, psychological, social and cognitive domains.” So does music really have the ability to touch us on a deep, subconscious level, and heal us in ways beyond how any physically medicinal treatment ever could?

Well since 1944, when its current form developed in the United States, music therapy has been researched and studied and many times over has proven to be a noteworthy mood-changer and reliever of tension and stress, functioning on many levels at one time. It is the medical and evidence-based application of music to achieve individualized objectives and to establish a healing relationship between patients and professionals. It has been shown to improve motor skills, social and interpersonal progress, cognitive growth, self-awareness, and spiritual enrichment. It is now considered an official health service categorized with occupational and physical therapy. Music therapy offers a chance for a reprieve from pain, anxiety and stress reduction usually accompanying sicknesses and disease, helps create positive transformations in both mood and emotional conditions.


Countless professionals propose that it’s the beat of the music that has the soothing effect on us even if we may not be entirely aware of it. Experts point out that when we were babies in our mothers’ wombs, we most likely were influenced by the heartbeat of our mother. We react to the calming music at later phases in life, conceivably relating it to the secure, comforting, protective atmosphere of the womb.

One of the initial stress-fighting changes that occur when we listen to a song is an increase in deep breathing. With this, the body's fabrication of serotonin also accelerates. Music has been found to decrease heart rates and to encourage higher body temperature - a sign of the beginnings of relaxation. Merging music with relaxation therapy has become a much more valuable tool in the world of medicine than simply exploiting relaxation therapy or medicinal treatments alone. As John A. Logan said, “Music's the medicine of the mind.”

"Music takes us out of the actual and whispers to us dim secrets that startle our wonder as to who we are, and for what, whence, and whereto."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

In today’s society, cultural heritage is not restricted to material manifestations, like monuments and objects that have been preserved through the years. This idea also encompasses existing expressions and the traditions that myriad groups and communities all around the world have inherited from their ancestors and continue to pass on to their offspring lack This intangible cultural heritage is the mainspring of our cultural diversity and its upkeep is a security of our enduring creativity.

Through oral traditions and expressions, the performing arts, social practices such as rituals and festive events, traditional craftsmanship, and the transmission of knowledge and practices, our musical cultures continue to strive and keep alive the heritage of those before us. In this way, we are carrying on in their footsteps and keeping alive that which makes us who we are.

Music is constantly recreated from generation to generation and between changing/growing groups and communities. In response to environment, a groups’ interaction with nature, or their history, music gives a people a sense of identity, security, and permanence and promotes a true respect for differences and self-expression.

As times change, however, multiple aspects of the intangible cultural heritage behind the beauty of music is becoming more and more endangered, due to effects such as globalization and uniformity. The old appreciation and understanding of truly wonderful music seems to be morphing into some new form, certainly unrecognizable to me.

As a united culture, we need to realizethe purpose and truly priceless worth of cultural expressions and practices. Such elements have opened the door to new methods to the understanding, protection and respect of the cultural heritage of humanity (and it’s invaluable musical traditions). This living heritage provides every bearer of such wealth a sense necessity and meaning, insofar as he or she takes ownership of them and constantly recreates them. So in the words of pop singer Rhianna, “Please don’t stop the music”.

"Music speaks what cannot be expressed

soothes the mind and gives it rest

heals the heart and makes it whole

flows from heaven to the soul.”

-Unknown Author

Having been a concept since the beginnings of time, music is an expression of the pure essence of a person through the exploitation of various instruments and beats; whether you utilize what is typically defined as an instrument or merely slap your leg and clap your hands, music is an individual means of communicating one’s deepest emotions to the outside world.

With instrumental tunes, music is a way to “converse” without actually having to employ the too often baffling and exigent exploitation of the spoken word. And with lyrical melodies, musicians (meaning those average people who simply love to belt out a song, all the way to the professional artist signing a recording contract) anyone can articulate something they found just too tricky to plainly say in the standard day-to-day prose.

From culture to culture and person to person, music tastes vary drastically from strictly structured compositions to improvisational to those random pieces composed through the application of chance. Yet, somehow, from culture to culture, person to person, music has always been a way for people to connect; whether two people bond on a favorite band or disagree over a preferred genre, music is always a successful conversation generator. Oftentimes in a culture, the music of a people can even come to define who or what that society is. Ask anyone about New Orleans, Louisiana, and what genre is most frequently thought of? Most likely the response is Big Band blues and jazz. How about Latin America? Probably the reply will be salsa and meringue. And Jamaica? Reggae and Bob Marley certainly would pop up in my mind. To any given individual, music can be used to energize for the big game or to relax into a deep slumber. While a certain song may make one person weep in profound emotion, it could make another want to leap up and dance around in utter ecstasy.

In our everyday lives, music has become somewhat of a habitual tradition. The instant you turn on your television, every program and commercial is set to some jingle; when you go to a store there’s always music to hum along to as you peruse; go to the movies and there is a score for nearly every scene; go on the internet and an add pops up with a catchy beat. Music is a facet of life at every turn. So go ahead and sing along to the beat.

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

-John F. Kennedy

On March 20, 2003 the continuing conflict of the Iraq War, also referred to as Operation Iraqi Freedom or the occupation of Iraq, began with the United States-led invasion of Iraq by a multinational coalition made up of troops from the United States and United Kingdom and backed by smaller troops from Australia, Denmark, Poland, and other nations.

At the commencement of the conflict, officials stated reasons for the invasion to be as follows: in concern of the Iraqi people and the abuse of their rights under a failing government, to extend democracy, and for the protection and securing of Iraqi oil reserves. And in his pre-election State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush elucidated on his key reasons for occupying Iraq, stating that Saddam Hussein had supposed "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" (WMDRPA). They were buried everywhere... And any day now, proof of such weapons is bound to turn up somewhere, right?

The Bush administration’s grounds for the Iraq War have faced weighty criticism from innumerable sources both within and outside of the U.S. As stated by the Center for Public Integrity, President Bush’s administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s supposed risk to the U.S.; in only two years, the administration in control of our country (and, essentially, our lives) made nearly a thousand slip-ups. Now I don’t know about all of you out there, but that sure makes me feel just oh so pleasantly safe and sound. Both advocates and adversaries of the occupation have also condemned the actions of the war effort along a number of other lines. Most notably, proponents have attacked the Bush administration for not assigning enough troops to the mission, while opponents have assailed the administration for not efficiently preparing and planning for the problems that would undoubtedly be posed in a post-war zone Iraq and for allowing (and oftentimes even being the cause of) insidious human rights exploitations. As the war continues, critics have also found both lofty human losses and soaring financial costs to be a topic of highly-legitimate concern.

An estimate of the number of people killed varies from over 150,000 to more than 1 million in all. The financial cost of the war has been over $845 to the United States alone, and more than $9 billion to the United Kingdom and other nations. As of yet, total costs to the United States economy are estimated to be at around $3 to $5 trillion. Talk about being in debt, eh? I definitely don’t see the U.S digging themselves out of this hole any time soon.

Personally, I do not see what people deem as “success” happening anytime soon in this war effort. Yes, it is true that we have accomplished some of our goals such as removing the Saddam Hussein from power, giving aid to Iraqis in need, and securing the nation’s oil fields; at this point, however, I think the Bush administration has covered their eyes and ears to the screams of the people and is now more concerned in protecting their foreign interests in the oil industry. The Bush administration has to take a step back and really decipher the catastrophe that has been fashioned from this war. Too many lives have been lost, too much money has been wasted, and there are too many other local problems that should be taken care of at home in the U.S. before we take on the troubles of our neighbors (although it’s a little late to go back on our word and abandoning the chaos we’ve created in Iraq). If we don’t terminate this conflict soon, it will undoubtedly only escort us to an existence of yet more misery and obliteration.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-Samuel Johnson

Not everyone is as optimistic as the feelings expressed in my previous post, however,when speaking of patriotism.

Advocates of "patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel" believe such a theory not because there is no such thing as genuine patriotism, but more owing to the fact that its meaning and utilization tend to get obscured with all of the garbage out there on the topic. More often than not, people appeal to patriotism to justify principles that they can't reasonably support by any other means.

It is my belief that patriotism is an “allegiance” (if I may) to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one deems (in their personal opinion) to be the finest (for their particular situation) in the world but which most have no wish to force upon others. When defined as “a love for and dedication to one’s country”, patriotism can only work to make us stronger as a united nation.

The national government may have the ability to speak for a country but it is the duty of a nation's citizens citizens to speak out when convinced that their country is following a foolish or unjust action. One must not conform to all of government’s policies and actions simply because they are the norm.

I consider true patriots to be those individuals willing to fight against those who pilot us (the people) down a slippery slope to losing liberty, those brave enough to fight for what’s right for the people when the government has no clue. Others are only the cowards who follow the path of least resistance and naively assume that all is well.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

-Mark Twain

At one time, patriotism meant possessing the enthusiasm and courage to challenge government rules and regulations regardless of fashionable opinion. Today, though, the meaning of patriotism has become a vague subject.

Americans like to think of themselves as patriotic. Women and men, old and young, rich and poor, whites and blacks, urbanites and farmers: nearly everyone agrees that they are “patriotic”.

But really how frequently do you hear someone actually elucidate on what they mean when they pronounce themselves as patriotic. The meaning of patriotism has always been somewhat of a moving target. It has different connotations for different people at different periods throughout history. It is ceaselessly open to reinterpretation, and has been a loaded term called upon to make the case for a variety of issues such as military sacrifice, unity and opposition, inclusion and exclusion, anti-Communism, anti-Catholicism—the list could go on and on.

To some patriotism merely signifies a love and dedication to one's country, being strictly devoted to something and trying to do what is good and right. Patriotism doesn’t necessarily need to imply that we are superior to everyone else; it just means that we are extremely proud of what we as a nation have accomplished and that we have no plans of giving any of it up. It is understood that most of us wish for “world peace”, but furthermore the recognition that there are also those few who want to do us harm and that we must guard ourselves and protect each other from such confused people. As patriots, we are aware that our liberties come with responsibilities and, if necessary, we must defend those rights.

Patriotism does not have to entail nationalism; it is not a religion, nor is it politics. It isn’t limited by time or space, and (although often depending on the subtext) has no correlation to individual gain or personal pain. It is a feeling, a sense of a bond with, and a love for something that is, at once, both deeply your own and legitimately of equal value to all. True patriotism is a piece of one’s soul and one’s conscience, a sense of belonging to something greater than one’s self.

The trouble with always trying to preserve the health of the body is that it is so difficult to do without destroying the health of the mind. ~G.K. Chesterton

Humans’ “appeal to nature” is a commonly witnessed fallacy of relevance (an argument that could in itself be true, but which does not tackle the question at hand). Such an erroneous belief is made up of an assumption that something is good (as in healthy or acceptable) simply because it’s natural, or that something is bad (unhealthy or not normal) exclusively based on the fact that it is unnatural. Numerous issues, however, arise from such an argument.

First of all, the word “natural” is regularly used as a “loaded term” that draws people to appeal derived from feelings and emotions habitually subconsciously linked with “what’s normal”; its utilization in most circumstances is simply a style of bias having nothing to do with logic. For example, humans may have the right/choice to be omnivorous by nature, but it isn’t a necessary “is” statement for survival. And true, omnivores can digest meat, but they can also digest fruits and vegetables and still live just as healthy of a lifestyle.

Secondly, what is considered to be “natural” is rather vague and therefore the declaration that everything natural is good is a rather fuzzy truth. For example, many plants can be found naturally on the planet, but many of these plants are actually poisonous “by nature”. The theory can swiftly be overthrown by a counter-argument exhibiting things that are natural, but which have undesirable properties—take for instance aging, sickness, and death— all very natural occurrences, but all very much undesirable.

Lastly, when thinking of the idea of “the appeal to nature” take for example cocaine. As informed citizens, we are all taught that it is an addictive, dangerous, and often deadly drug that inflicts destruction on the body’s organs. It is, however, an “all-natural” drug derived from the coca plan and was prescribed for years as a remedy for everything from chest colds to depression.

Just because we are trained that something is good or bad according to society’s standards, does that mean that it “is”, in actuality, good or bad? Is whether a product is “all-natural” or not justly an essential determinant of its safety and effectiveness?

Theories are private property, but truth is common stock. ~Charles Caleb Colton

As originally stated by David Hume, numerous journalists construct suppositions about what “ought” to be derived from societal statements about what has been proven to be absolutely true, or what “is”. There seems to be a significant discrepancy between descriptive claims (those declaring what “is”) and prescriptive claims (those stating what “ought” to be). In his argument, Hume urges all writers to be on the lookout for these types of suppositions, making sure that if there is no valid reasoning behind why the “ought” claims allegedly derive from the “is” claims, to be careful utilizing such “loaded terms”. But just how is one supposed to develop an “ought” from an “is”? With one’s understanding of how the world is, is it even feasible for a person to truly know how the world ought to be? It is Hume’s belief (as well as mine) that such a derivation is absolutely impossible.

At present, humanity’s natural “hard-wiring” is being studied in the area of evolutionary psychology and, with any luck, as society expands its knowledge, redesigning the “ought to be” and “what is” claims built into our culture and minds will become much more possible and “user-friendly” to humans, animals, and the environment. As the well-known primatologist Frans De Waal states, “In the words of Edward Wilson, biology holds us “on a leash” and will let us stray only so far from who we are. We can design our life any way we want, but whether we will thrive depends on how well the life firs human predisposition.”

To summarize everything, going directly from an “is” claim to an “ought” claim is just utterly impracticable for, although we can survive based on what “is”, we can never be truly satisfied without our predispositions of what “ought to be”.

Joan Crawford: Darling, rare meat is good for you. The doctor said so. Christina, meat loses its vitamins if it's overcooked.

Christina Crawford: But I've had my vitamins this morning. Pills.

Joan Crawford: [to Carol-Ann] She negotiates everything like a goddamn Hollywood agent. Christina, eat your lunch. You are not getting up from this table until you have finished that meat.

-From Mommie Dearest (1981)

In today’s society with the rising demands for people to lead healthier lifestyles, eating vegetarian can be very costly. So when economic issues become the main reason for people to opt for meat-eating, does it then become a more reasonable excuse to eat animals? In other words, is it right in certain situations for people, in essence, to disregard the question of morality for reasons beyond their control?

In terms of the "ought implies can" theory, i think it's a great thing to choose to be vegetarian; but sometimes it just becomes more of a great idea than something that someone can actually stick with. With economic restraints and a hectic lifestyle, it's a true challenge to remain true to a vegetarian diet.

And if one’s excuse for eating vegetarian is to keep the environment safe and healthy, then why not also trash people for owning a car and driving too much, or for using too much electricity and turning on the lights too often? This would appear to contradict nearly ninety percent of the argument about maintaining a meat-eating lifestyle. I opt to eat meat because it is simply a part of my life; I enjoy its taste (although I am not keen on certain meats such as steak and pork), it is a substantial source of protein and dietary requirements, and, generally, I consume the most carefully raised meat available to me; and, relatively, I don’t particularly eat that much of it.

Humans certainly do not tread lightly on this globe. Most all of us are of the same mind that we need to considerably minimize the footprints we are leaving. I would definitely prefer to dispute needless cruelty and pointless overconsumption for a much more long term and enhanced human and worldly wellbeing, than for an austere regimen that the bulk of the planet’s inhabitants will refuse to follow. I believe people can attend to “eat less meat,” and “respect the rights of all living things” and, thus, I can confidently advocate such ideas. But “eat no meat?” In my opinion, the minority of people will not hear that, nor will they support it.

Do vegetarians eat animal crackers?

~Author Unknown

Now to undertake the outlook of those on the other end of the spectrum: True, eating animals is perhaps considered inhumane but it surely isn’t un-human. It’s conventional, it’s mainstream, it’s a tradition and just about every person in the world who can eat meat does so.

When morals are used as the chief justification of vegetarianism, then how do vegetarians account for the ethical incongruities common in almost all food production? Billions of insects are killed in the production of grain, fruit, rice, and vegetables through the utilization of pesticides. And even if all this food is truly organic (which is often highly implausible), the plowing, weeding, and harvesting of the crops would harm the lives of insects that (just like animals) experience pain as well. And what about all of the animals dislodged from their natural habitats in order to source such “organic” crops.

Humans are naturally omnivorous. Made evident by everything from our teeth to our digestive system, humans are, by nature, expected to consume both plants and animals. To declare that we should never eat meat would be to go against nature.

Eating meat isn’t a habit we must immediately stop doing wholly all at once. It should, however, gradually be weaned down. Numerous health reports point out that we need to consume more fruits and vegetables; and so to preserve our health, we should. Meat shouldn’t be seen as the central fraction of a meal, but some meat intake is vital for a source of protein and essential fats. And fish, as well, preserves the health of the brain.

I highly agree that any living thing able to feel pleasure or pain deserves moral consideration, but I don't deem it morally wrong to eat animals. What I do believe to be immoral is to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. It’s pleasing to spot a well-run farm, with sheep in the field being corralled by hard-working farm dogs, or a yard occupied by chickens basking in the sunlight. I like it best when I can observe humans showing respect and appreciation to these creatures for their sacrifice to us.

Humans are fortunate to exist at the peak of the food chain. It’s a more probable situation for a human to be slain by another human than by another species. With this advantage, however, comes the responsibility to keep animals from needless harm. Whether you are a vegetarian or not, you should always give our fellow living creatures the respect they deserve.

pro vegetarianism

Dear Father, hear and bless
thy beasts and singing birds
and guard with tenderness
small things that have no words.
-St. Clement

To take on the mindset of a vegetarian or even a full out, dedicated vegan: Are you not alert to the harm you’re doing to your body and the environment? Are you not troubled by the pain you’re causing the animals? Why slay animals for food when it isn’t essential?

For the sole reason that man boasts an atrocious ego does he think it is ok that he can or ought to rise above his rank as an animal himself. He introduces mind-made constrictions called ethics and expects that this will miraculously alter the classification of nature. This is a highly asinine and pompous thought. It is precisely human beings’ unique capacity for reflection and self-restraint that compels us to pursue ethical values and think morally about our practices. To quote poet Robert Burns: The eagle from his cliffy brow/ Marking out his prey below/ In his breast no pity dwells/ Strong necessity compels/ But man to whom alone is given/ A ray direct from pitying heaven/ Glories in his heart humane/ And creatures for his pleasure slain. Animals that are carnivores in the wild are obligated to kill or starve – we, as civilized omnivores living in a highly-technological world, don’t need to kill for our food.

Leading a vegetarian lifestyle is also very beneficial to your own health in the long run. Not only are meatsf attening and have a tendency to clog up those much needed clear arteries, but they are also full of hormones, nitrates and pesticides, harmful, man-made toxins present in commercially raised animal products—a few factors definitely to be concerned about. Wrongful preparation of such treated foodstuff is also a too-often seen issue that frequently causes people sickness and disease.

That animal liberation is the rational next stride in the advancing stride of ethical development and a vegetarian lifestyle, is no longer the periphery proposal it was back at its beginnings in the 70’s. A rising powerful movement of ethicists, philosophers, law professors and activists are certain that the grand ethical fight of our generations will be for animals’ rights.

To date, the movement has won some of its greatest triumphs in Europe. Recently, Germany became the first nation to award animals a constitutional right: the words ''and animals'' were attached to a provision compelling the government to respect and care for the dignity of human beings. In England the farming of animals for fur was recently prohibited. The Swiss are modifying their laws to adjust the status of animals from ''things'' to ''beings.'' And in a few other European nations, female pigs can no longer be kept in crates and hens cannot be laid into ''battery cages''

Thirty-seven states have of late approved laws making some types of animal brutality a crime. Following protests by activists, McDonald's and Burger King required considerable advances in the means by which the U.S. meat industry slaughters animals. Agribusiness and the makeup and apparel industries are all fighting to soothe escalating public anxieties over animal wellbeing. A though animals are unfortunately still very much seen as mere objects in the eyes of American law, change is in the air.

You can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and still come out completely dry. Most people do. ~Norman Juster

Clarence Darrow once remarked, “I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure.” Is having faith ignorant? Or are atheists and agnostics the true hypocrites, choosing to question gods simply based on the fact that there is not enough evidence to prove it?

True, many people believe in God merely because their teachers and parents have told them that he exists. And most likely the parents and teachers believe in God due to what their parents and teachers told them as children. Now this is not to say that we should always refuse to believe simply because of authority. The sharing of knowledge is an interactive social phenomenon and strongly depends on evidence. And if one were to believe solely based on what others have told them to believe, then yes, I suppose religion could be considered ignorance. It is up to us, however, as cogent beings to question all that we are told—to go out and test the theories which have been told; then and only then can we be sure that what we’ve been told is now something that we can firmly believe in.

When it comes to religion, though, it’s a bit more complicated. It’s not like we can go out and be introduced to the god that we are simply being told to have faith in.

I suppose agnostics are acceptable in the fact that they refuse to believe one way or the other--they simply accept that they do not now, and cannot know.

But when agnostics are denying that there is a not a god based on the fact that there is not enough evidence to prove it, how do they fight the fact that there isn’t enough evidence to disprove it either?

When it comes down to it, I guess it isn't necessarily what you personally believe, but that you are open to all views. To be a truly reasonable, persuasive critic of religion, one must have a vast knowledge of the topic at hand. And, ultimately, one must accept that "The utmost extent of man's knowledge, is to know that he knows nothing" (Joseph Addison)--we are only human and we will never have all the answers...and that's the one thing we can ever be fully sure of.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear". --Thomas Jefferson


Many people see agnosticism as the “gray area” or even a transition phase between theism and atheism. Well with so many varying definitions of what exactly each faith entails, it’s often very difficult to make the ultimate decision on which belief system is which. But with people labeling themselves as agnostic-atheists and atheist-agnostics, is it really necessary to have a single definitive title?

Agnosticism is often described as more of a concept than an actual religion. It’s a conviction associated with the existence or non-existence of God. Many atheists, however, have affixed a moral code, practices and the like to form a belief system with a lot of of the characteristics of a religion. Agnostics proclaim they do not know if there is a god, and therefore don’t believe and don’t not believe.

When compared to atheism, however, I think the two are completely different belief systems.
For one definition of atheism, E. Haldeman-Julius recommends that an atheist is one who fully believes that no gods exist saying:
“The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn't fit in with a calmly reasoned and realistic view of life. The atheist therefore denies the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming."

In a second definition (the definition of atheism used by most Theists) an atheist is one who holds no belief in any gods, “Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. The term "Atheist" is derived from the Greek words "a" which means "without" and "Theos" which means "God." A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God's existence.”

It may be true that many agnostics sway to one side or the other, becoming either atheists or theists, as their experiences grow and change their convictions on and perceptions of the world and the supernatural. But it is also true that many agnostics remain agnostics until their dying day.

I believe that this theory of agnosticism as a “gray area” is somewhat gray itself. Who decided on such final definitions? Religion, as I’ve previously mentioned, is a personal preference and, therefore, every person’s definition of it will vary, even if it be in a simple subtle manner. There may never be a single definitive definition of each religion. I believe that every individual has the personal right to decide if they wish to follow a single religion, to combine several religions to form a belief system, or to completely renounce the request to label oneself as anything.

Religion in Politics

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics know not what religion is."

-Mahatma Gandhi

As I’ve formerly stated in my blog, “Truth is analogous to culture, and therefore every culture will have varying worldviews on what is accurate.” It stands true that many Western civilizations are much more faith-based than out too-often materialized American culture. Is it right that we as a society have so extensively accepted pragmatic empiricism to be the ultimate means of democracy? Is it accurate to wholly close our eyes to religion in politics so as to simply avoid conflict?

The United States has a long-standing practice of separating church and state, yet in recent years, an even more potent tendency to subtly blend religion into politics. Throughout American history, the majority of the momentous political and social movements – from the 1865 abolition of slavery to the 1921 women's suffrage movement to civil rights throughout the middle of the 20th century to modern disputes over abortion and gay marriage – have adopted religious establishment for moral authority, motivating guidance and organizational strength.

So should there be a separation of church and state to allow for diversity of religion, or should there be an established common bond in this sense? As a read in a recent article, an August 2007 poll was taken by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press which revealed that the majority (69%) of Americans think that it is essential for a president to have firm religious principles. On the other hand, though, a considerable bulk of society (63%) believes that churches should not support candidates during voting campaigns. As Benjamin Whichcote once stated, "Among politicians the esteem of religion is profitable; the principles of it are troublesome."

Personally, I believe that both religious values and political stances are personal preferences, and should be treated separately as so. But with religion becoming more and more deeply woven into the fabric of our political system, it looks like the 2008 presidential campaign will pose more of a religious battle than any election ever before.

Faith

“A little philosophy inclineth Man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
-Francis Bacon

Throughout history, most philosophers have held some kind of religious beliefs. Is it true that humankind is dependent on empirical evidence for intuition/faith? Or does it actually stand accurate the other way around (we rely on intuition/faith for our practical convictions)?

As I’ve previously mentioned, it’s very tricky to trust in anything (or at least believe in anything firmly) without substantial tangible evidence. To have faith in a conviction wholeheartedly without any physical substantiation is a true test of one’s devotion; it often takes years of practice trekking through murky waters find one’s true self, and (when successful) results in wisdom beyond many people’s comprehension and which only few will know.

For individuals ground in faith, many are very infrequently seriously stirred by any of the endeavours to challenge their beliefs; but oftentimes they do find themselves re-examining the truths, placing their faith in abeyance so to speak, until the doubt is trounced. And then everything is fine and dandy until the next qualm arises.It’s true that this is very much more to faith than simple logical assessment of evidence (such as knowing/feeling a real connection with God), but it’s still a very testing obstacle to have a purely faith-based existence.

As a Christian myself, I believe it is normal for people to seesaw between uncertainty and faith. If there actually is this "true faith in God" then there is certainly not as much of a need to lay so much reliance on our rational capabilities.

Pluralism

“True pluralism...is always universal pluralism, (or integral-aperspectival): you start with the commonalities and deep structures that unite human beings--we all suffer, and triumph, laugh and cry, feel pleasure and pain, wonder and remorse; we all have the capacity to form images, symbols, concepts, rules; we all have 208 bones, two kidneys, and one heart…And then you add all the wonderful differences, surface structures, culturally constructed variants, and so on, that make various groups--and various individuals--all different, special, and unique. But if you start with the differences and the pluralism, and never make it to the universal, then you have only the aprespectival madness, ethnocentric revivals, regressive catastrophes.”

–Ken Wilbur from One Taste

In the philosophical realm, the idea of pluralism claims that ultimately there are countless sorts of essences, no consistently common set of truths.

In metaphysics, pluralism states that there is a multitude of fundamental materials that constitute the world. This metaphysical pluralist standpoint boasts that there is no singularity when it comes to conceptions and perceptions, no cohesive set of rules that define nature—only that there are an innumerable amount of basic divisions of ideas.

When taking a more epistemological stance, however, pluralism declares that there are a number of contradictory but still very accurate explanations of the cosmos. Since there is no sole correct method of breaking apart the universe into fully universal perceptions, there will be multiple equally select/limited, wholly precise descriptions of the world. Truth is analogous to culture, and therefore every culture will have varying worldviews on what is accurate. And since truth is also relative to success, and success is linked to the objectives on sets according to their interests, the right group of “truths” will be contingent to every individual’s diverse passions.

Although I disagree with Clark’s conspicuous tendency towards naturalism, I do agree with his belief that, when it comes to standards in a democratic society such as ours, it’s essential to maintain a commitment to empiricism. Through the implementation of the First Amendment, modern society has come to acknowledge a vast diversity of faiths, religions, and spiritualities. By upholding an empirical stance (at least publically), our culture evades inflexibilities in thought and logic, basing its practical (notice, not ethical) substance on fact alone. Empiricism is the intellectual foundation which sets the stage for democratic pluralism; with such a system, every individual, despite the obstacles presented by such extensively varying beliefs, can accept the idea of an “ultimate reality” and can thus successfully communicate (if not even relate) to others both sympathetically and peacefully in our “this-world” reality.

Reason is our soul's left hand, Faith her right.
~John Donne

There are two well-known Latin phrases that state “CONTRA EVIDENTIA CREDO” and “CREDO QUIA EVIDENTIA”. Translated into English, these bring up the debate over “I believe despite the evidence,” versus “I believe because of the evidence”; in other words, faith versus science.

In today’s technology-based existence, it is sometimes difficult to define that contentious line between the very contrasting worlds of naturalism and supernaturalism. On one side, it’s very easy to see how people often need tangible confirmation for things; it’s difficult to believe in something when your convictions are based purely on faith alone. On the other hand, when an individual is so deeply rooted in their faith (whether it be devoutly religious or more spiritual), it’s a thorny situation to try to persuade them into anything scientific that contradicts their committed beliefs.

When it comes to society, as Clark points out, “in the realm of faith there is often little agreement”, so it’s necessary to base societal standards on what is at hand—the concrete, scientific evidence. As most politicians see it, it’s reasonable to ethical values influenced by faith, but when it comes to a public whose beliefs vary from Christian to atheist, it’s fundamental to their success to stray from religion and ground political stances solely on rational facts, something available to every citizen no matter what beliefs they hold.

In my opinion, the best route to pursue is that of pragmatic empiricism—a practical reliance upon experience. It acknowledges a view of “this world naturalism”—you know what you’ve experienced; it doesn’t try to answer all the questions, but agrees that we all live in the same world and thus have much in common; and it focuses on “reality-based” issues that of direct significance to us in the here-and-now (a very important motto for me as previously mentioned), without having to agonize over the clash between the colliding worldviews.

Albert Einstein seemed to put it best when he said, “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Ultimately, it doesn’t boil down to which view is accurate (naturalism or supernaturalism), but that they all unite at the core to reward us all with the choice to have an independent will and a vibrant passion for life.

"I can't control my destiny, I trust my soul, my only goal is just to be. There's only now, there's only here. Give in to love or live in fear. No other path, no other way. No day but today."

Johnathan Larson

“A famous philosophical argument says that, if the future were real, then it would be fixed now, and we would not have the freedom to affect that future. Since we do have that freedom, the future can't be real.”

I suppose that the future is psychologically real in the sense that we can perceive ‘yes (as far as we can hope) tomorrow will come, and life will continue. However, can the future ever be physically real? For, isn’t it true, that once it becomes physically real, it will then have transformed into the present?

I believe that at one point the past was real (of course, technically speaking, it would then have been called the present…), but I’ve never seen a positive example of someone living in the past. To my thinking, it’s impossible to get back what has already happened; and, therefore, it is fairly damaging to live such a life advocating only the past.

It’s also vital to take a few other things into consideration when mulling over such a topic. First of all, we must reflect on the multitude of definitions for “real”: it can be something that is tangible and existent, (advocating the Presentist theory), something that absolutely occurred (supporting that the past is, in fact, real), or something actual as opposed to possible or potential (again encouraging the Presentist theory…the future could never be actual as it is only a potential because it hasn’t happened yet).

Now if that’s not puzzling enough, it’s crucial to also consider the question of choice versus fate/destiny. If one advocates that choice is what determines your path, then they will most likely take on the Presentist viewpoint—all we have is today and the choices we make now will influence what tomorrow brings. If one supports the idea of a predetermined destiny or fate, on the other hand, then they will probably conceive the future to be a very real entity—your path has already been laid out for you, and therefore, it is not simply a possibility but an actuality.

Personally, I believe that our path is crafted by a combination of both choices and fate. I think that we have a general direction that we are meant to head in (somewhat of the idea that we are born to be inherently good or evil), but also that we choose individual ‘off-roads’ through the many choices that we make (whether good or bad); and it is these choices that ultimately determine our end. I prefer to live a life encouraging a somewhat Presentist outlook. To some extent, I believe that we can only recognize and accept present objects and present experiences to be “real”; and that we, as “conscious beings”, must be innately aware of the extraordinary brilliance of our experience in the here-and-now.

“During history, a variety of answers have been given to the question of whether time is like a line or, instead, like a circle.”

One of the most prominent debates on the topic of time is over whether it is cyclical or linear. Advocates of the cyclical theory give the evidence that events have reoccurred throughout history. Is it possible that this is true? Or do minor disparities in each event make each ‘recurrence’ unlike any other, thus supporting the linear theory?

I believe that, broadly speaking, the cyclical theory holds true—everyone is born, goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood, old age, and ultimately returns to dust. When taking a closer examination, however, the cyclical theory is far off—I may go through the general stage of adolescence, but the experiences I undergo are vastly different from those my parents or grandparents may have gone through; the world is constantly shifting, times are changing, and thus, each individual’s experiences and perceptions of the universe are uniquely exclusive to them.

The Hebrews created the view that times progresses from event to event in a linear method—not precisely a straight line, but at least aiming towards some objective and the goal is always the predestined future (for those religious beings, a destiny determined by a higher being). To demonstrate this, recall some typical Biblical stories—sins always have inevitable consequences and ethical choices constantly result in positive outcomes.

On the other side of the spectrum, the ancient Greeks, Chinese, Aztec, and Mayans as well as the Hindu culture accepted the cyclical theory as true. They believed that, in time, the beginning always leads back around to the end, at which point the cycle starts again. Time is intricately entwined and events recur throughout history.

So which theory is the “ultimate truth”? There will never be a definitive answer to that question. All that we can know is that, if time is in fact “real”, all we can do is wholly live the life we have (whether we are passing through time, or if time is passing us). As someone once wisely advised, “Live life fully while you're here. Experience everything. Take care of yourself and your friends. Have fun, be crazy, be weird. Go out and screw up! You're going to anyway, so you might as well enjoy the process. Take the opportunity to learn from your mistakes: find the cause of your problem and eliminate it. Don't try to be perfect; just be an excellent example of being human.”

What then is time?

What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. ~Saint Augustine

As certain as it is that 8:30 will arrive to spoil every morning of my existence, time is a very bona fide part of my life; only my experience of it is subjective. Human beings surely lead frenzied lives, but examine the rest of surrounding existence; there is a universal clock guiding everything from the cosmos, to nature, and even highly superior living things that contemplate the actuality of time itself.

I suppose that it’s fully acceptable to deem psychological time as relative; the existence of physical time, however, is absolute and can be witnessed all over. Everything we know and do is, in essence, nothing without the concept of time. To our ancient relatives this would have all appeared as supernatural; but through evolution, humankind has deciphered the multitude of cyclical patterns through the years. Animals are quite aware of when it is time to voyage south, when to hibernate, the ideal times for harvesting or reproducing; solar and lunar eclipses recur on a sequential schedule. Time is a piece of the essential composition of the universe, a dimension in which events happen in succession. All living things—from the simplest to the most advanced—have a primary notion of time.

It’s true that psychosomatic time was fashioned by man; it is a completely human mechanism for managing our day-to-day living. Physical time, on the other hand, has been around since the dawn of creation. Essentially, modern man is really a creation of time. Those pesky numbers on the clock counsel us when to work, sleep, and eat. We have affixed unreal articles and numbers (February15, 2008) for the exclusive intention of helping us in our understanding and measurement of time, but to disprove its physical authenticity is absurd.

Although physical time is the only sort of time that can be demonstrated as real, psychological time is essentially the only thing that matters to an individual’s conceptions of the world. A point in time that may have been exceptional to me, may be completely insignificant to another—no two people will have the same exact experience of psychological time (although their physical time experience will be perfectly alike). No one can ever really grasp what time is; but then again, can anyone really 'know' what anything is? For all we know, everything may be nothing.

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become."
-Buddha

Say the color of these words:

Red Green Blue

Blue Red Blue

Now again...

Red Green Blue

Blue Red Blue

This is the Stroop Task—a psychological test that shows our tendency to read words faster than we can name colors.

In my opinion, this test deals with the brain…things relating to mental fortitude and adaptability. Scientific studies have shown that the left side of the brain functions in a logical way while the right is the intuitive side. If it’s possible for the right and left brain to function independently of one another, then it’s easy to recognize how to distinguish between science versus experience, intuition and gut feeling, and the physical brain versus the mind and soul.

Through the utilization of a medical example, it’s possible for a person to be completely brain-dead, yet their mind is still active. Patients have woken up out of years-long comas and been able to recollect certain meaningful instances that (while at the same time that they were said to have zero brain function) occurred, such as the encouraging and healing words of a loved one. Oftentimes, these subjects have also encountered collisions with the noumenal realm, experiencing phenomena such as “the light” or contact with a love one who has passed.

To say that the mind and brain are not two separate entities is like saying the word reads green when it clearly says red. Mind-independent reality deals with those things that are fully separate from every human mind—cats, trees, rocks, etc.—they exist not because we conceived them, but simply because they are; this, however, is quite different from saying all of these such entities are independent of the brain. The brain deciphers these things as they are, while the mind opens up the creative juices and interprets them for what you wish/are taught to see.

It’s completely understandable to think of a brain-independent mind, but it’s slightly more challenging to conceive of a mind-independent brain. The mind, in my opinion, is the dominator—it can clearly alter your brain’s perception of things by taking into consideration other factors, such as learning from experience and the ‘knowledge’ of others. The brain tells you facts, while the mind is a more comical branch that plays games with your thoughts and emotions.

As our brain plays the Einstein, the mind is entertaining our inner Picassos. Like the legendary phrase tells us, “it takes two to tango”; to be wholly functional and intellectual as a being, it’s necessary for the mind and brain to serenely coexist. As H.G. Wells once stated, “The forceps of our minds are clumsy things and crush the truth a little in the course of taking hold of it.” It’s up to us to distinguish between reality and perception, facts and feelings, Einstein and Picasso.

Everything you can imagine is real.

~Pablo Picasso

..................................

If I'm correct in my thinking, the aim of philosophy is to spawn thought-provoking and captivating credos; and the aim and fascination of our existence, as seemingly insignificant beings, is to remain forever curious of the supposed bodies and entities surrounding us, perpetually pursuing new theories to answer the ever popular "Who, what, when, where, and why" series. Personally, I believe that experience is the ultimate source for the construction of reality; every individual conceptualizes their own theories through their five senses--what they feel, see, hear, taste, and smell-- and through what they are told from others.

Although it is ultimately true in it's breakdown that each individual is responsible for their own thinking (von Glasersfeld), I also find it to be true that people will inevitably be influenced by others—friends and family, society, media, culture, religion—there will always be outside forces seducing us towards alternate conjectures. It is accurate to believe that two people can hold similar views on certain topics, but no two individuals will ever hold perfectly identical outlooks on the multitudinous perceptions and conceptions of life.

I’d like to recall a story (or if I may call it riddle of a sort, relating to von Glasersfeld's speculations on apples, which i mention in Q&A #2) that I discovered a few weeks ago: In a first-grade classroom, a teacher holds up an apple and asks the children to describe the characteristics of apples. Most of the children say they are red or yellow or green, sweet or bitter, smooth and shiny; one little boy, however, proclaims that they are white. The teacher and all of the students declare that they have never seen a white apple. The boy, adamant in his statement, however, refuses to be swayed. When pushed to explain where he’s seen such an apple, the boy picks up the teacher’s apple, takes a bite and holds up the white inside to the class…”See! It’s white!”

We can never prove that anything, in reality, actually exists the way we perceive it. For all we know, the way in which we just perceived something as we saw, heard, felt, taste, or felt it, could be utterly opposing to the next person to come along. Or, from another viewpoint, that which we just observed could vanish (cease to exist) as we know it, the instant we turn our back. As pointed out on the first day of class, how do we know if the back of a door really exists if there is no object there to perceive it? Or, how do we know that when we shut the closet door, if our shoes remain there or enter into some noumenal alternate universe?

To synopsize my proposition, the actuality of “real” objects and knowledge, in essence, is only an invented understanding of our individual and communal conceptions and perceptions through an experienced existence.

A Mirror-like Distortion

The human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it.

~Francis Bacon

Life’s beauty lies in one simple truth: we generate the questions of the cosmos; and we can find the answers to the questions we create…most of the time. It’s human nature to find effortless satisfaction in breaking apart that which we cannot explain to try to find an answer to the ultimately unanswerable questions. It’s somewhat of a childish egotism to posit that we hold all the answers. Everything in our material existence is infinitely complex, yet insignificantly isolatable at the fundamental core. There are some things in nature to which we will be able to uncover one definitive answer. Take for example the crashing of waves on the ocean shore; it would be inconceivably unfeasible to assume that, as elementary beings, we would ever be able to calculate a solitary moment of waves in the water or that specific instant that they boom on the shore. It’s impossible to slow down or stop time in order to analyze the wave; yes, we can discern the central elements of it, but we will never have an absolute understanding of its entire existence.

At our stage of evolution, there are certain things that a higher power designates as too intricate for us to know and accept without refute and chaos. True, there will always be an aspect of chaos in our nature; but it will never reach its height as long as we keep in mind that there will always be an indubitable amount of uncertainty. The products of such unknowns will forever be encouraging and constructive as they keep beings thirsting, constantly active in a pursuance of auxiliary knowledge.

Each organization maintains an attractive chaos, a striking air of the unpredictable. And vice versa, each chaos is delightfully, and paradoxically, structured. No being (to my limited knowledge) has all the answers to existence. All we can do is accept this as the one truth to be utterly accurate, and that, in essence, we are all identical in this one core facet of our framework.

The Ultimate Truth

"What was once called the objective world is a sort of Rorschach ink blot, into which each culture, each system of science and religion, each type of personality, reads a meaning only remotely derived from the shape and color of the blot itself."

~Lewis Mumford, "Orientation to Life," The Conduct of Life, 1951

In a Rorschach test, a subject is shown a seemingly insignificant "blotch" of an image– an inkblot. The subject is then asked to discuss their thoughts on the inkblot--what does it look like? what does it make them think of? how does it make them feel? etc.--the blotch itself, in essence, however, has no fundamental significance; the meaning is specific to each individual who perceives it. From each distinct interpretation of the inkblot, one can acquire a deeper insight of the emotional and mental formations of the subject viewing it – essentially, how they perceive the universe and, more specifically, existence itself. On an even deeper stratum, we see that this is usually a reflection of the subject's personal perception of their "inner world". These tests have proven that, due to no two people having the exact "same" (taking into consideration von Glasersfeld's evaluation of the word) values, beliefs, and ideas, then there will never be two carbon copy evaluations of any given inkblot.

So it is in the world of -isms. Never will we (or one of our distant relatives) see the day when all of society agrees on a single definition of the ultimate truth. Personally, I know I could never be perpetually committed to one sole concept describing the construction of reality. To be this devout, one would have to be wholly absolute, unwavering in any of their preconceived notions; I have never in my life (although, yes, at this point short lived) met an individual who could (honestly) admit to being so sure of each idea and belief they'd ever cogitated, to truly declare absolutism. In my opinion, such an affair is radically impossible due to the world (both internally and externally) endlessly developing and changing. When viewing the universe with a critical eye and trying to defend the multitude of beliefs of humanity (which undoubtedly vary between cultures, personalities, religions, and individuals) every aspect of life, when broken down, could spring from any given -ism.

My sentiment is that the world is made up of individuals who will attempt to spend a lifetime dedicating themselves (whether you choose to view it as pure stubborness or true allegiance) to a solitary view of the construction of reality; the enlightened dwellers, however, who've espied the fleeting glimpse of the ultimate truth would reveal that"there are no facts, only interpretations" (Friedrich Nietzsche) and, after all, "reality is merely an illusion" (Albert Einstein).