Hello?

Is this thing on?

Polytickles

Why do we still live in a republic? Does that seem strange to anyone else? I am perturbed; hear me rant. Or don’t, it is pretty long…

First, let’s make sure everyone is on the same page about exactly what type of government the US has. An unfortunate number of Americans believe that we live in a democracy. We do not. We live in what is called a “democratic republic.” We are ruled by powerful individuals, who make decisions for us, so the United States of America is a republic. Since we get to pick the guys that rule us, as opposed to recognizing a God-given sovereignty or a dynasty line, we get to throw the word “democratic” around.

There are a few key differences between a democracy and a democratic republic. In a democracy, the concept of a president would be meaningless. Congress and Senate would be dissolved, as their roles would be filled by every citizen willing to vote. Every policy issue would be left in the hands of the people, directly. A democratic republic tries to keep the power in the hands of the people, while simultaneously circumventing the difficulties involved in gathering and counting votes for every minor decision. Instead of citizens voting on policy changes, citizens vote to chose which people should have the right to vote directly on policy changes.

This system is highly flawed. While the people do possess some power, it is minimal. We vote on an individual’s stances (or a political party’s stances, if you are a sheep), but there is nothing in place to ensure these people stick to their campaign promises. We are also subject to the decisions these people make, even if the overall public opposes them. This cannot happen in a democracy, but it happens with decent regularity in a republic. A good current example arises from the Marijuana debate. Even though most people don’t care about the drug, it is illegal in most states and also at the federal level. The country’s immature and ineffective handling of the drug is so apparent, that our extremely politically-influenced mainstream media is filled with pot jokes. It is clear that this prohibition is not supported by the people, yet the people have no real say in the matter. Ron Paul and Barney Frank are currently trying to push a bill decriminalizing marijuana federally, so the states make the decision themselves, but the chair of the Judiciary Committee (Lamar Smith) is refusing to allow the bill to be voted upon by his committee, meaning that literally one man can keep this bill from passing. There is nothing the common people can do to make this bill pass, beyond petitioning Lamar Smith to change his mind (which is exactly what is happening right now). Regardless of your opinion on drug reform in this country, it is painfully clear that this issue is not being handled democratically.

When the Founding Fathers decided to create a government based on democracy, they were cornered into accepting this heavily modified version by the technological limitations of their time. It would have been practically impossible to tally up votes from all thirteen states (or colonies, or whatever is most correct) for every minor decision. Responding to an emergency would have taken so long that the early country would’ve quickly been torn apart. I do not feel that the Founding Fathers made a mistake in their decision – the government they created (after the epic failure that was the Articles of Confederation) was probably the best they could have done. I certainly don’t have a better solution for their problem without bringing modern technology into the mix.

Speaking of bringing modern technology into the mix, I think we’ve reached the point in this article wherein I bring modern technology into the mix. I’ll start with: The only thing standing between the American people and a pure democracy is the current government, or specifically, the people in power. It would take a lot of work , of course -  no one should try to deny that. We would have to either heavily modify our existing government, or throw it out and start from scratch (though not necessarily in that order). With modern technology, however, I firmly believe that we could create a system which fairly allows all legal citizens of age to vote on any and all policy changes.

With the plethora of pocket-sized electronic devices available, it is not difficult to imagine how such a voting system might work. A wireless-ready voting pad could easily be designed and produced, with security being the largest concern (and one that I am not computer literate enough to address myself). With the prevalence of free wi-fi nowadays, and the obvious expansion of such services under this kind of system, policy changes could be voted on democratically and efficiently. Is this not our ultimate goal, as a nation of people constantly rallying in the names of freedom and democracy? I would say “yes.”

Why, then, has this not happened? Why isn’t it happening now? Why aren’t the people in charge moving in this direction, if they truly work for our best interests? Three things I can think of, but first, a disclaimer. I have only dabbled in the study of sociology, so keep your salt shaker poised over these ideas. For one, this idea seems to not be very common. Not a lot of people have thought about this. Ignorance. People don’t realize that there could be a better way, so they do not fight for a better way. Education begets change, so if you like these ideas and would like to see them happen, talk to your friends and family about them and help us overcome this first blockade.

Next up is… Stupidity. You guys keep voting in assholes and liars! Stop that. It’s a nasty cycle, the voting process in America. You examine the candidates, cross off anyone not trying to look like an ass or an elephant, and pick the least terrible from the two that remain. It’s the crossing off part that gets me. People think “no one votes for these guys” so they don’t vote for them. Here’s the kicker: EVERYONE IS THINKNG THIS. Very few people vote outside of the big two parties because very few people vote outside of the two big parties because very few people vote outside of the big two parties because you have all basically brainwashed yourselves. Do you want a libertarian president? Then fucking vote for one. This country is denied many social and political revolutions due to our pervasive sheep mentality. Just… Fucking… Stop it! BAD Americans! BAD!

Finally we come to the big one, the issue that usually causes all other issues, the greatest flaw of mankind’s psyche… Greed. There are people right now with power over this country and its less-powerful inhabitants. To use that power fighting towards a pure democracy would be, quite simply, power suicide. They would be using this power to permanently and completely destroy that very same power. Before Obama can be willing to support these changes, he must be willing to sacrifice his presidency. Every member of congress voting against the republic would be voting against their own jobs, asking to be fired so that they may join the rest of us as a truly equal nation. It is only natural that those of us with less power want more, or at least want those with more to have less. It is a sad truth, but it is equally natural for those of us with more power to want to keep that power, or expand it. Natural selection has bred a race of selfish creatures, but as society and technology evolved these behaviors have become less and less desirable and more and more destructive. It seems unlikely that the powers that be would ever willingly give up that power.

Anyways, you guys have fun popping your fireworks and pretending you are free. If fireworks are even legal where you are.

/rant

Philosophy Babbling, Part the First

The other day in Modern we started the theology section. I was a bit apprehensive, as class discussions on this subject tend to include an uncomfortable number of whatever the politically correct term for “idiots” is. Things went, as I told another classmate afterwards, “rather swimmingly.”

Our main point of focus for the day was THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. I will attempt to present this as clearly as possible. Please note that I am neither supporting nor denying this argument, but simply presenting it. Let’s start with a quick summary:

1) If God exists, then evil does not exist.

1a) God is all knowing (omniscient), all powerful (omnipotent), and all good (omnibenevolent).

1b) God is aware of evil, has the power to prevent/stop evil, and desires to prevent/stop evil.

1c) Therefore evil does not exist.

2) Evil exists.

3) Therefore God does not exist.

Obviously this needs some explaining. First and foremost, however, we need to understand how arguments work and the proper way to respond to them. This argument uses the Modus Tollens argument form (thought it would perhaps be more comfortable in the Reductio ad Adsurdum argument form), which only matters if you already know what that means. The important thing to note is that the structure of the argument is fine, and basically beyond attack. To argue against this, you must reject one of the premises or the conclusion. To actually have your opinion considered, you must also provide justification for such rejections.

Now: let’s start by defining the term “God.” This argument is directed only towards deities which are considered to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et cetera). All other deities are immune to this issue.

It may also necessary to elaborate on premise 1 (if God exists, then evil does not exist) and its little sub-argument. In short, if a deity exists that really is omni-those-three-things, it must by its very nature not allow evil. This is the most commonly rejected premise.

The argument then goes on to assert that evil exists. It’s very hard to define evil, but in class we stuck with “pain and suffering,” and I’ll stick with that too. Very few people would contest this premise, but it is sometimes attempted.

The conclusion does follows naturally from the premises, meaning that if you accept both 1 and 2 as true you must also accept 3 as true.

Interested in responding to this argument? Use the comments. You should probably Google “Theodicy” first though.

Adventures in Pictures: Water Garden & The Ritz (Corpus Christi)

Yesterday I enjoyed a picnic at the Water Garden (located outside the Art Museum in Corpus Christi, Tx.) before the downtown Art Walk. We ended the night exploring an old, run-down theatre from the 1920s. The only reason I’m posting these here instead of actually on Facebook is that, well, I just don’t trust Facebook with my intellectual property. All images © Michael Jordan, do not reproduce, blah blah blah.

       

Philosophy Papers: An Example

Requested by the badass Grandpa previously mentioned. Here’s an example of an A paper in Philosophy… Kind of. This is the only thing I’ve written this semester that can be understood without prior research. It’s a draft of the first two sections of a paper, meaning it’s somewhat unpolished and missing the last section entirely, wherein I will present and respond to arguments against my views.

Holbach's Hard Determinism

Baron Paul Henri d'Holbach (henceforth “Holbach”) was a German-French Philosopher of the Modern period. He was a prominent Atheist (under a pseudonym, of course), a Materialist, and a Hard Determinist. It is the last of these that I will be focused on.

For Holbach, the entirety of human existence is subjected to the same natural laws as every other existing thing. To assert that we have an immaterial soul is to assert that some part of us is not subjected to these natural laws; since there is no empirical basis for such assumptions, Holbach rejects the concept of a soul which is immune to basic causation and other natural laws. In his own words, “man is a being purely physical; in whatever manner he is considered, he is connected to universal nature, and submitted to the necessary and immutable laws that she imposes on all the beings she contains.”

Having rejected one of the major (at the time) arguments for free will, Holbach moves on to examine the many ways in which our actions are determined: “He is born without his own consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of those who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting.”

From these facts he concludes that we are always determined, and are never truly free to choose our own actions. He admits that not all of our causes are external – our temperaments definitely effect our decisions. Indeed, all of our desires and preferences have effects on our choices, but they are also completely beyond our control and thereby support Holbach's argument instead of harming it. I never decided to love pizza and hate sushi, so it would be fallacious to assume my pizza-filled, sushi-free diet was chosen freely.

Holbach then turns his careful eye on the process of deliberation, and finds further support for determinism. While it may initially appear that we pause, make a decision, and then move on, a detailed examination changes the story drastically. Deliberation occurs only when two or more options are presented, and we are not immediately aware of our preference. Our mind begins considering the implications of each choice, comparing them to our current preferences and desires to determine which is most appealing. Once this process is complete, we know which option to take. At no point do we actually make a decision; our minds just need time to determine our actions.

Not content to simply destroy the concept of free will in humans, Holbach then proceeds to explain precisely how we became so enamored with it in the first place: information overload. In short, there are so many influences acting upon us at any given moment that it is largely impossible (with current science, at least) to be consciously aware of them all. Because of this, man will always be unsuccessful when attempting to explain all the causes of an action. Those incapable of careful introspection then assume that they somehow cause themselves to act.

I am also a hard determinist, and thereby agree wholeheartedly with Holbach's argument. Some of the implications he pulls from his argument are more suspect (his thoughts on theology and morality, et cetera), but they are not the focus of this discourse. His careful examinations of thought processes is very impressive, and was refreshing to read considering how closely it matches my own methods of introspection. It is thereby not surprising that we came to identical conclusions (we are not free). The processes we examined, however, were sightly different - while Holbach examines the process of deliberation, I examined the more specific process of deliberation when two or more options are equally preferred.

Since philosophers love ice cream, imagine you are trying to pick a flavor. You're three favorites are Rocky Road (1), Chocolate Chip (2), and Cotton Candy (3). You had 3 last time, so you pause to deliberate over 1 and 2. Your mind, unfortunately, finds no reason to put one option over another, and you still haven't “decided.” The first time I went through this process and was consciously aware of it (at Subway choosing bread), I found that my mind still made the decision for me. I looked at the two options, and was suddenly compelled towards one of them. There was no conscious reason for this compulsion, and I truly do not prefer Italian Herbs & Cheese over Honey Oat. Yet somehow I chose one over the other, instead of standing there confused until I starved to death.

Poking and prodding at the minds of others, I have learned that everyone seems to have internal mechanisms for making these kinds of decisions. Many just go with whichever they see first; others cycle through their preferences methodically; and some (like myself) aren't even consciously aware of their mechanism. Not a single person claimed to actually make a decision in these situations.

It seems clear that when we deliberate, we are simply allowing our mind to compute a solution. It also seems clear that we cannot choose our desires, and that we cannot dismiss our desires when considering new stimuli. This is a pretty damning picture for proponents of free will, but belay judgment until you've heard both sides (like any good philosopher ought to do).

Stuff I Like

Dogs and cats. Fuck choosing, they are both  primarily made of  awesome.

Wal Mart. There’s about an eighty five percent chance that they have whatever it is I want at any given time.

Good looking women. I’m not that picky – anything above a six and I’m in love. Just talking to them makes me feel better.

Music. Okay, only some of it, but if I didn’t have my music I’d probably be dead. Literally.

Pants. I’d be so fucking cold right now if I wasn’t wearing pants!

Adrenaline. “GodDAMN I am all kinds of tired. I could jus- HOLY SHIT THAT CAR ALMOST HIT US!” /me is awake and alert for a solid three hours.

Good books. Add unobtrusive music to the background and I can ignore everything ever.

Video games. Real life is pretty boring sometimes, but Mario’s life is fucking amazing all the time.

Sleep. ESPECIALLY with a cuddle partner. No explanation necessary.

StumbleUpon. What the Hell else would I do at four in the morning?!

Psychoactive chemicals. Feeling down? Not if this loaded bowl has anything to say about it! Or, you know, green tea or whatever legal bullshit you prefer to be addicted to.

Food. I’ve always loved food, and it’s actually starting to show.

Good body shape. I’m not sure if I love this more than food just yet. Still working that one out…

The internet. Fuck yeah.

Premarital sex. If God really has such a problem with the best activity ever, which is only so much fun because HE FUCKING MADE IT THAT WAY, then I’m not sure I want to live in his house…

God. Please don’t kill me or punish me for all of eternity due to that last statement. I’ll sacrifice a goat, or whatever Leviticus has laid out for this situation, if I have to.

Conservatives. They’re all so stupid, it’s hilarious. They also tend to be the easiest to offend.

Offending people. If you can’t take a joke about it, you haven’t really accepted it as fact. I know my mother’s dead, and I’m okay with that now. Make jokes about it, I don’t care. If I got offended you would know I was still struggling with it. This applies universally. If you can’t take a joke about your religion, it’s because you don’t really believe in it.

Turning humorous, pointless lists into philosophical arguments. Seriously, that wasn’t intentional. This always happens to me. It’s like a disease. Or… Or an addiction. I just can’t stop…

Ending addictions, just to see if I can. Kind of like

Real Life Super Heroes, Volume The First!

OR: Why Ronald Duhan is a badass.

This man once backhanded my mother so hard she flipped  backwards over a couch. Before you pussies start crying about beating children, know that she had recently lied to him about her plans for the night so she could go do coke with a friend. Also know that when I say “coke’ I’m not talking about fucking soda – I mean cocaine, that terrible white powder that is only SLIGHTLY less dangerous than Anthrax. Bet she stopped talking shit after that one.

This crazy bastard was in Vietnam too, and you better believe he didn’t shoot any goddamned kids! In fact, he was so feared by the natives, they wouldn’t even shoot at him. He refused to go home without a bullet in him though, so one of his friends shot him in the spine one day while marching to the mess hall. He walked that shit off though, ‘cause a little lead in the spinal column never hurt anybody. I used to tell people he got shot in the back while clinging to a helicopter's landing equipment after a covert operation, but nobody ever believed it because it didn’t sound badass enough for him.

Oh, did I mention that he’s a pimp? His family nickname is G-Pimpin, and no, that’s not  irony. He brings home strippers like nobody's business. At one point he was dating two of them. They were both named Kimberly, because how the fuck else was he supposed to remember their names?!

He’s also had cancer a few times (he doesn’t keep count). The first time he quit smoking for a little bit, but he got bored and started up again. The second time he smoked through Chemo, because fuck cancer.

BEST GRANDPA EVER. Happy Father’s Day, you crazy old man you.