The Art of Philosophy

The Art of Philosophy I entered college naive and uninformed. Other than the Bible, which no one read, there were very few books in my family’s house. I knew little about history, was the world worst speller, had read almost nothing of significance, and had no idea what I was choosing when I selected an introductory course in Philosophy as a last resort to meet credit requirements. I expected the course to be a boring account of ancient Greek and Roman blogs and, in part, I was right. But there was more to the course than I expected. The recorded dialogues of Plato and Socrates, and the writings of Aquinas, Spinoza, Locke, Hegel and others contained interesting concepts that began popping up in other courses unrelated to philosophy. Philosophy seemed orphaned when science became more inductive than deductive and followed science’s lead and split into many disciplines but I continued to take philosophy courses and continued to have my perspectives adjusted and broadened. I searched for an all encompassing definition for the collage of thoughts collected under the academic discipline called Philosophy but never found one that satisfied me. My career choices after college were more adventurous than academic, but philosophical concepts stuck with me and resurfaced often. I now see philosophy as more of an art than a discipline and have my own definition. Philosophy to me is; “The Art of creating useful insights and perspectives by explaining the obvious” How we look at something is just as important as what we look at. This is true even in something as static as mathematics. New branches of mathematics, from number theory to tensors, are the result of a new or adjusted perspective. The same holds true in most areas of human knowledge. Which window we use to view our surroundings frames and limits our impressions and we have many windows to choose from. I see the philosopher as a guide, taking people from window to window, pointing out obvious differences in various views. The philosopher is an artist that uses words to paint perspectives and create questions that linger in those exposed to each new view, questions the philosopher prompts but rarely answers. Hemlock anyone?

Evangelism. Its dangers and degrees

Degrees and Dangers of Evangelism Faith is described in the Bible as, “a commitment to things unseen”. But the things to which one commits have to be explained and learned before one can commit. If one does not know of Buddha’s teachings they cannot follow Buddha’s advice. If the writings of Joseph Smith have not been explained the Mormon faith cannot be followed, similarly the teachings of Christ or Mohammad cannot be followed until one has been exposed to the tenants of the faith and indoctrinated. Faith requires commitment and for any “body religious” to survive it must recruit, it must “evangelize”. Even monasteries reach out to recruit and train future monks as a way to insure the future of their spiritual sanctuaries. Evangelic messages all have common elements in spite of divergent beliefs. They all proclaim their faith to be the only true path to a relationship with a god and immortality. Hidden in any evangelic message is the statement that; “ you are missing the truth, need to be corrected or informed, and it is my duty, according to my faith, to challenge your beliefs, or lack thereof, and save you from your delusion.” This need for the religious to challenge other belief systems is innate in all evangelical activities. It creates deep lines of distrust between groups of people trying to live together in assemblies created by other forces, like, geography, migration, and war. In this sense, the evangelical, no matter how sincere and peaceful their intent are creating dissent, and the level of dissent is directly proportional to the emotional level of their evangelic activities. The sacred directives of the world’s dominant religions all contain directives for confrontation that clearly distinguishing between true believers and infidels, the faithful and all others. These directives are in the Torah, as Abraham is directed to destroy all others to make room for the twelve tribes of Israel, In the teachings of Christ as he excludes the uncircumcised as unworthy of Gods grace, In the papal bull of Pope Nicholas V declaring slavery appropriate for non believers, and in the Koran as it declares death to the enemies of Islam being a responsibility to be rewarded. Human history is filled with wars and genocides generated by evangelical fervor and only recently has Man’s evangelical confrontations been set aside because a few wise men followed the advice of John Lock in his 1688 “Letter Concerning Toleration”. John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, and others, after much debate, brought the colonies together by putting aside their many religious differences and establishing the first secular national state. Under this arrangement matters of state are settled by reasoned debate without religious tenant interventions and the state in turn is restrained from interfering in church matters and is pledged to protect the right of all citizens to choose their religion without coercion. Most European countries have now adopted this separation of church and state as beneficial to both the state and religious freedoms and, until recently, our wars have been over other ideological differences. But, evangelical levels have once again risen to a dangerous level and coupled with our newly developed mass media communications and internet capabilities are inspiring radical acts and, in our desperate response to terrorist acts, we are undermining our greatest bulwark against such ideological intrusions, “The separation of church and state”. Faced with a militant form of evangelism the faithful in the US have responded politically by inserting protestant Christian beliefs directly into government through gerrymandering and well financed primary elections. These covert evangelical political campaigns are as dangerous and divisive as any other evangelical effort and have the potential to undermine our constitutional system. If they succeed, the religious loose the protection of the secular state they have undermined and their dominant position will be forcibly challenged by secular and other belief systems. The goal of Isis is to create a religious war. The most foolish thing we as free people can do is to give it to them by undermining our secular government traditions. The irony of young Mormon missionaries from the US being injured in Brussels by radical Muslim missionaries exposes an extreme difference of evangelical method but identifies similar evangelical goals, (go abroad and recruit). Evangelical efforts can be passive as in leaving the windows of a church open to allow passers by to hear the sermon, Indirectly active as having a quiet religious discussion at Starbucks, active as in passing out literature, knocking on doors, or sending missionaries to other countries, or militant using intimidation, imprisonment or execution. Any form of evangelism, religious or other, establishes a “we” / “you” distinction that is divisive and dangerous especially when individuals or other groups of believers are told their beliefs are false and need modification. Evangelism is a social irritant of significance and the “good” the evangelist assumes they are doing may actually be a major cause of violence and suffering. A rational discussion of differences where compromise is an option is the alternative the secular state offers to irresolvable differences in tenants of faith. Isis will be with us as long as hypnotic religious diatribes continue to turn rational individuals into emotional robots, and until we understand how religion is able to override reason we won’t understand the radicalization process and can’t defend against it. Religion and science have been at odds since serious investigations into natural processes began, and serious investigations into the effects of religion on emotional responses and survival instincts have been off limits as a breach of god’s connection to man, but god’s connection has either been subverted or misunderstood as benevolent. It is time for the leaders of the faithful and the leaders of citizens to begin a serious dialogue regarding their relationship and the common danger we face from a subverted evangelical missions ability to disrupt and destroy what the common efforts of Man has built.