The Voters have spoken! Yeah right.......

Today President Obama was giving a speech where he said that the voters have spoken, that they want progress and for Washington to just be politics as usual. This seems to be referring to his reelection. But by my count, nothing has changed at all in washington. It seems like the voters are ok with this gridlock and divided Government. Yes, The president won reelection, but so did the majority of republican house members as well as Democratic senate members. This seems to say that the voters wanted nothing changed. I simply don't' follow the logic any other way. The argument seems to be, that since Obama was reelected, the voters aggree with his agenda and want it passed and are against the obstructionist measures of the republican congress. There are two problems with this. It is arbitrary to label the house the "obstructionist" since it requires both houses to pass a bill, and the senate voted down several of the House's bills that were passed, so they are probably more obstructionist than the house. Secondly, if the voters were so against the house, why were they elected? It seems to me this argument is bunk, and that the voters do want a continuation of business as usual. However counterintuitive that may seem.

Oh america.....

I'm watching the election returns and while its still to close to call... well that's my problem. To me it seems anyone who's taken any intro economics class or even taken a math class as high as college algebra should be able to see that the fiscal plans of the Democrat party are what is sending us over the so called 'fiscal cliff'.  Tax and spend is the name of the game for so called "forward thinking" and "progressive" economic strategies, and economically they never work. While the idea of "just tax the rich!! they can take it!!" sounds good and the stance of "Give the poor people all the monies!!" feels good, math is against you. The first rule of taxes in economics is that you don't control who pays them. All taxes will in some way be spread out through the entire economy. The resulting lift in prices is just deadweight loss to the economy and slows production. This is based on an almost unquestionable economic principle:

1. People will always act in their own financial self interest.

Now this isn't to say people will break laws all the time to help themselves, but they will do what they can legally to save and or make money. For example, if there are two identical vending machines next to each other, one that has items at a lower price than the other, a customer will almost always buy out of that one unless its empty. This same logic applies to taxes. People will do whatever they can legally to pay the least amount of taxes. Notice this isn't saying they'll attempt to 'dodge' taxes necessarily, though they may. Rather, it is simply the case that people will live,buy, and act in the way that costs the least taxes for them so long as they can. This means taxing the wealthy will only 'trickle down' those costs to all working class consumers, and as a result less goods will be purchased. Add to this the massive inflation of all the Quantitative easing the federal reserve is engaging in and you have a recipe for a double dip recession.


In my opinion the great divide in this country that's holding back our political progress is Social issues. While its quite possible the majority of the "independents" lean fiscally conservative and agree with less taxes and spending, they just can't side with the republicans on social issues. Whether its Gay marriage, abortion, or even drug legality, the swath of moderates side with the democrats. It is for this reason I think the Democrats have been so successful in recent national elections. Between the margin that agrees with tax and spend fiscal policy and the margin that agrees with more liberal social policy, the Democrats are the proverbial "bigger tent" and that is huge in such a divided nation as ours.

My solution, specifically if i ever get into politics, is to move one of the parties towards a truly "moderate" platform and take away many of the "bullets" of the other side. My prefered Situation would be to move the Republican party to accept in policy, but not necessarily in value, the social issues of the left. I say this because to much of the Democrat party is tied up in the idea of spending money as a way to "pay" for votes and getting them to reject that concept is wishful thinking. However, getting the Republicans to accept for example, Abortion, drug legality, and even gay marriage; while probably difficult, would swing national politics in a drastic way. Half of the Democratic weapon is social issues, without that, I doubt they would be able to win a fiscal Debate and this was evidenced in the first Presidential debate that focused on these topics. How I pray for a day when this sort of party arises....

Oh Parsimony, you are a Cruel Mistress

I have made several posts on Parsimony, this one will be focused on Race and its role in the current election. General Colin Powell has endorsed Obama for reelection. A close Romney adviser has suggested this is due to race and not due to issues. Of course Obama supporters have jumped on him for being racist, this much is to be expected. However I think we're overlooking the part Parsimony plays in this discourse. It has be said even beyond the level of Ad Nauseum that those who oppose Obama are mostly racist, and do not infact oppose his policies.

This position attempts to use Ockham's razor to shave away parsimonious distinctions in relation to peoples opposition to the president. It attempts to say that; given both racism and ideological differences, Racism is a more accurate and simple explanation for people's dislike of the president, therefore we can shave other reasons, like ideology, away and disregard them. The problem with this use of the razor is it opens up a parallel argument to be constructed in the reverse position:

Given both racial affinity and ideological agreement in support of the president, racial affinity is simpler and more accurate. Therefore we can shave away more parsimonious distinctions, such as ideological agreement.

In other words, the only reason people vote for Obama is because he's black and they're black, or else they feel some reason to support him based on race, either white guilt, or because they  are also minorities. This is essentially what the Romney advisor said about Powell. Why is he so attacked when its a logically identical position to so many of Obama's supporters? Why are they not attacked? I think we should all use this as a clear example of why Race shouldn't even be mentioned in our political arena. We are all americans, no longer try to label yourself black, white, asian, etc. These distinctions only divide us. I hope we can rise above this at the ballot box this year.

I think He forgot.....

 In the third and final presidential debate that occurred this past Monday, the main topic was supposed to be foreign policy. However, when given the chance, both candidates switched to talking domestic economic policy. This is to be expected as that is the hot button issue of this presidential race. One topic that stood out to me was the issue of the auto industry and the bailout they received from the gov't that Obama supported. Romney stated emphatically that he believed the best way to solve that problem was to have the companies (GM and Chrysler) go through managed bankruptcy with gov't guarantees. He stated that he did not approve of gov't support in the form of bailouts or stock purchases. Obama seemed to focus on the 'no gov't  help' part to attempt to paint Romney as a 'flip flopper' on the issue because Romney has stated he was in favour of gov't guarantees. This is a strawman argument of course, because it misstates Romney's position. Guarantees are not bailouts, nor are they stock purchases, however this demarcation was lost on the leader of our nation.

The more important issue to me was the seemingly untouched assertion that somehow the auto industry is doing well and that the bailout assisted to that end in any way. It has been hinted at in several speeches given by the president himself and the vice president as well that somehow they 'Saved Detroit'. To me this is a straight up lie. I offer that the bailout only served to preserve the labour practices of the UAW despite these practices and Legacy costs contributing to the collapse of their employers, and that the bailout achieved nothing in the way of saving the companies from bankruptcy, as Chrysler did file for bankruptcy and GM is still not out from under the monetary aid of the federal Gov't.

The labour practices of the UAW are in place to serve the interests of the union members. The sad fact of this is that the interests of the employee are not always the interests of the employer. However there is one common interest: the existence of the employer. If an employer goes under, there are no employees. This to me seems lost on members of the UAW. The chief concern of the members should be preservation of their employer to ensure holistic job security for their industry. It doesn't take long to realize that the japanese auto makers are far and away out competing the american auto makers. The common thing they share: No union contracts. This should give pause to any member of the UAW. If other auto companies are out competing you without labour contracts, doesn't that tell you something about how your 'rights' or 'interests' affect your company? Oh wait, thats right, if your company goes under the gov't will just bail them out! Nothing to see here!

The more interesting thing is the state of both companies today. The 'bailout' supposedly saved both companies, but at what cost? Chrysler was on the road to bankruptcy, so we gave them billions of dollars and allowed the UAW to own some of their stock. What happened? They file bankruptcy anyways! On top of that Italian automaker Fiat buys them out. Result of the bailout: Bankruptcy and foreign ownership; that definitely sounds like its worth billions!!

Now consider GM. The gov't gave them a loan and purchased some of their stock. Purchasing the stock was a way for the gov't to give money to GM without it being a 'loan'. The common thing for supporters of this form of a bailout is to say "well they payed back the loan!!". Well yes, however the Gov't still spent $25 billion on stock, valuing it at around $53 per share. The current share price is around $23. So we haven't even come close to getting our money back on that one. That 'loan' is hardly repaid. They also filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy on top of that! Result of bailout: Bankruptcy, a repaid loan, and billions not recovered in stock purchases. That's definitely worth billions as well!! Obama has managed our money with masterful adeptation!

So as you can see, the auto industry was far from 'saved' but we did give some money to the UAW, who support Obama. So if you like buying votes with the taxpayers money. I guess we succeded!!

Immutability and Parsimony

If you have read or followed this blog, you've seen my piece on Ockham’s razor and parsimony. If you also study any kind of critical thinking or philosophy, you'll also know one should be aware of the far reaching applications of Ockham’s razor and how to look out for parsimonious situations that can be shaved by it. I will propose another one not often thought of in modern thought.

It seems to be a somewhat cause celebre these days to support absolute rights to everything, for everyone. Whether or not these rights are justified or even exist is an entirely different discussion even than what these rights apply to. What am I speaking of? I speak of the movement to grant absolute rights in almost all manners, and prohibit discrimination of any kind, to something known as Immutable characteristics.

An Immutable characteristic is a characteristic that cannot be changed through act of will. Note that this doesn't mean the characteristic cannot be changed, just that it cannot be changed by an act of will, no matter how great. Consider one’s hair color. This is not an immutable  characteristic for you might change your hair color through dying it. By simply willing to do so and having the appropriate means, this characteristic can be changed and thus bears no special status. There’s not a  “blue hair history month” or a “blue hair awareness month” because its not an immutable characteristic. But why do these characteristics receive such special treatment?

The logic behind creating protected classes based on immutable characteristics is that someone shouldn't be punished for what they can’t change. The most commonly agreed on immutable characteristics are: Age, Gender, race, and sexual orientation. There seems to be another that is being called an immutable characteristic that I feel creates parsimonious distinctions and is also an incoherent concept in itself. That is the characteristic known as Gender identity.

The concept of gender identity holds that a person has an identity based in a gender concept that itself is immutable. That is to say, someone ‘feels’ or identifies themselves with a certain gender and this identity is an immutable characteristic. Someone who has such an identity might say “I might be a man, but I’m a woman on the inside” this is often used to justify and build support for Transgender operations and the transgender community in general. The focus of my analysis will not be on the rightness or wrongness of this concept but rather its coherency and potential parsimonious distinctions.

First let us consider the incoherence of gender identity. A person’s gender, by definition, is a physical distinction. There’s no reason to think any ‘ insideness’ or personality traits must be held by a specific gender. What makes you a man is your physical body, what makes you a woman is your physical body. Gender is inherently a physical distinction and should only be viewed through physical concerns. The fact that you like to wear sequins dresses and high heels doesn't make you a woman. Having a uterus does. So to this end I find the concept of gender identity to be incoherent. You can’t be a man but a “woman on the inside” because nothing about your inside makes you a woman. Only the characteristics of your outside make you one. Thusly, transgender surgery should be seen as a purely elective procedure owing none of its reasons to an immutable characteristic.

Secondly, We should address the issue of parsimonious distinctions. Based partly in the fact that gender is a strictly physical trait just like, height and proportions, the concept of gender identity can be considered parsimonious. That is to say, we could describe a person equally or more accurately by simply ignoring there gender identity or ‘shaving it away’ with Ockham’s razor. Suppose someone said “I’m a man but I feel like a woman on the inside” If I then said “ You're a man” would I be wrong? You might say this doesn't solve the problem of feeling like a woman. I would say perhaps you're correct, but the fact remains that they are a man, adding the way they feel on the inside doesn't change that so such a distinction is parsimonious. They might feel that way, but that characteristic in know way exists actionably than any other feeling and thus should not be a protected class. There is also the problem that gender identity combines even more parsimoniously with the other immutable characteristics. Consider the characteristic of Sexual orientation. If we take this characteristic to be immutable then we create a parsimonious situation when combined with gender identity. Suppose I say that “I’m a lesbian woman trapped in a man’s body”.  How is that any different than a straight man? Why even draw that distinction? The simple answer is obviously that such a distinction does not exist in any way, homosexual or not. Some lesbian women even feel that they are “a man trapped in a woman’s body” such that they want to become a man. If I’m a lesbian woman trapped in a man’s body aren't I already there? The idea becomes absurd at this point.

So we have seen how the concept of Gender identity is incoherent and parsimonious. This gives us firm justification for rejecting as an immutable characteristic and as a characteristic in general.

Deontology has no legs

Most of modern philosophical research revolves around the questions of ethics. It’s no surprise either, for the questions of what is morally good, and why we should do those things have profound impacts on our day to day lives. Within the discussion of ethics, there are several different “schools” and categories of though. Probably two of the biggest of these categories are deontology and consequentialism. Deontology comes from the Greek root deon, which means ‘duty’. Deontology holds that the moral value or standing of an action comes from the action itself, not from its consequences. Consequentialism on the other hand states that the moral value of an action comes from its consequences and moral context. I believe that Deontology has no way to actually be put into practice. Deontological frameworks often actually include moral context and consequences and thus are not deontological. Any context they might choose to include are merely arbitrary and have no grounds in the very deontological framework they seem to be supporting. Let’s take a look at a few examples and see how deontology has no legs to carry its view, and how no moral system can be justified on its grounds.

Suppose I told you that I punched someone. Is that a morally right or wrong action? You might say you need to know more than that in order to make the judgment. This however, is not deontology. Even if I added that the person I punched was a criminal in the process of robbing an old lady, this is moral context and consequence, in this case such a judgment based on the moral context in not deontological in nature. A deontologist might say that, ‘well you said you punched a person and punching a person violates their being so we can judge it as wrong’. Well, even in this extreme case adding an object to the verb of an action is really adding context. Saying, I punched X, whatever that X is constitutes moral context. So on a pure deontological foundation all you could examine is the fact that I punched. Try to answer that question without any appeal to context: is it right or wrong to punch? This seems like an absurd question to ask but one that you must ask in order to be a deontologist.

Let’s take it one step further and add some context, assuming that’s compatible with deontology, which I feel it isn’t, and see how deontology would judge it. Suppose I told you that I punched and knocked out a little girl who was only six years old. Now at first glance this seems like it would be easy to judge on deontology. A six year old girl should never be knocked out by a grown man! In fact, we have a word for that, child abuse! Even though this is an extreme example, I feel it shows the faults in deontology very well. Suppose the six year old in question was about to push a push a button on their vest that would detonate a bomb that would kill millions of people. Is it still wrong that I punched and knocked out the child? In a perfect world we wouldn’t ever want to have to punch a child but it seems intuitive to me that the lives of millions are worth a good wallop to the head of a child. On deontology however, you could not factor in these consequences and would have to judge the action itself. This to me shows a very large void of power in deontology to judge things morally and I Hope others see this too.

Its like Coupons

On October 3rd  2012 Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their first presidential debate. Whether or not you like either one of them you can’t really deny the fact that who becomes president has a large impact on our lives and our country. It would also be hard to deny that the policies either of them would employ could at least potentially have a large impact on our lives. I will be addressing a single aspect of the debate and that is Tax policy. I feel there is entirely to much misunderstanding regarding it and this leads to both unintentional and intentional Straw man arguments. A straw man argument is a formal fallacy where an opponent of an argument or position, misstates or mischaracterizes the argument in a way that allows them to easily defeat it. Think of it like talking to a child. Imagine a child said “mommy I’m hungry!!” and the mom replied “you just ate a few minuets ago you don’t need food right now” and then the child said “you must want me to starve!!”

Now the mother certainly doesn’t want the child to starve, but by characterizing it in this way the child bypasses the mothers argument in favor of one (the starving one) that’s easy to defeat or cast doubt on. In this way I feel the tax policy of Mitt Romney is being mischaracterized and results in a large amount of misinformation, and it just might, mislead some voters who would otherwise agree with it. The main crux of it is the fact that people attack only the part of it that would result in a weakness without dealing with the holistic aspects that make a robust and sound policy.

In the current fiscal environment of Washington, the deficit is out of control. There seems to be a consensus belief on how to reduce it: increase revenue to the federal government and reduce the spending of the federal government. One of the main attacks towards Romney’s plan is that it doesn’t effectively achieve this. He certainly is clear that he wants to cut spending, however he wants to cut taxes as well, and without increasing revenue how will he pay down the deficit?

The answer is simple; his plan to cut taxes is being mischaracterized and the key parts that would increase revenue are being ignored in order to make his plan look bad. His plan has two main parts: Reduce the rates, and reduce Deductions. The part where he reduces the rates is the part where he wants to ‘cut’ taxes and is attacked for not raising revenue. The part where he reduces deductions is the part being ignored.

Imagine that the revenue to the federal government worked like a large super market. In this supermarket you have various products at various prices (tax brackets). The store raises and lowers the price of these products to attempt to raise their revenue. However, there exist these special coupon’s that customers can use (deductions) these coupons have no limit and there is not tie in or special by that you have to do to get them, if you have them, you get the discount. So people who by the more expensive items (the rich) get more benefit out of the coupons. The problem arises when the company is losing money to all these coupons. Then imagine someone said “hey lets just raise the prices!” well this doesn’t solve anything because all of the coupons that people can just use. If you raise the price, they can just use more coupons. Then imagine that say, Romney, begins managing the store. His plan would be to eliminate the coupons, and to compensate for that, he would lower the prices some. So while the prices are lower, people are actually paying the prices. This is very analogous to our current tax system in place.

People complain about the rich not paying taxes, but the problem isn’t the rate of the taxes. The rich, due to the fact that they own more property, have more income, etc; have access to more tax ‘coupons’. Romney’s plan is to lower their rate a bit, but get rid of these coupons. This will actually raise revenue while making the math a lot easier when filing your taxes. There won’t be as many weird forms to fill out to get the full refund, and the rich won’t be able to wiggle out of taxes by taking large deductions. This is balanced by the fact that the rate will be lower, but it will actually get paid instead of skirted through loopholes and deductions.

God Shaves with Ockham's Razor

It should be no surprise to anyone who has read my blog that I am a Theist. This means I believe in the existence of God. However, there are those who don’t. We commonly refer to them as atheists. While there are several different arguments for atheism I will be addressing one. That is the natural indistinguishability argument, or the argument from Ockham’s razor. The argument’s basic sketch is that if God exists, since science has shown natural explanations for all observed phenomena, his existence is indistinguishable from nature. Therefore we can use Ockham’s razor to ‘shave’ away God and can justifiably be atheists. There are two problems with this. First, it commit’s the fallacy of composition. That is to say, that because the parts of a whole have some property, then the whole also has that property. This is false. Just because all the parts of nature have natural explanations, that doesn’t mean nature as a whole has a natural explanation, in fact, that would lead explanations ad infinitum. I will be focusing however, on the second and I feel more damaging problem with this argument. That is, even on its own basis, it defeats itself. I will show that the argument fails to apply the full scope of Ockham’s razor and given the razor itself, Theism is actually more preferable in light of the evidence.

Ockham’s Razor: Protection from parsimony

First consider the formulation of the principle of Ockham’s razor. The razor is named after William of Ockham who famously said “we need not multiply causes beyond necessity” and is often used when God is seen to be a ‘cause beyond necessity’. I however find the application only applied to causes to be far to narrow in its scope. Ockham’s razor is almost always used to judge the more preferable of two competing hypotheses and chose the one that better explains the evidence. With this being the case I feel we can reformulate the razor to be stated as: “the less parsimonious explanation is preferable” This formulation preserves the original intent while allowing it to be applied to non-causal hypothesis analysis. The more parsimonious hypothesis is the one that is more ad hoc. That is to say; the one that, in order to accept it, you are required to accept more additional hypotheses than the other.

Atheistic explanations are parsimonious

Let us then consider the stance of Atheism in relation to a question about reality. We shall examine the atheistic position and see what additional hypotheses are required to hold this world view. Lets us then consider the nature of reality. How is it that there exists something rather than nothing at all? On the atheistic standpoint physical reality is on some level a brute fact. This means that it is possible for physical reality to be necessary, that is, a brute fact. Count this as one additional hypothesis that must be accepted to proceed. Now we find ourselves with a problem. Physical reality, at least what we can observe of it, cannot be necessary. The first law of thermodynamics predicts the heat death of the universe in which all matter and energy will eventually cease to exist. Things that cease to exist cannot be necessary. Therefore, on atheism, there must be some higher physical reality that provides for the existence of the one we see, itself being necessary and a ‘brute fact‘. Count this as the second additional hypothesis required for atheism’s account for reality. This is just one example of the atheistic worldview and its parsimonious conclusions.

Conclusion: Theism is preferable

As we have seen, atheism requires additional hypotheses to hold its world view in light of a meaningful question about reality. Theism has no such problem. There is only one hypothesis that is required to hold Theism: that it is possible that a Being such as God exists. Given this hypothesis, God’s being easily provides the answer to the question. This being the case, we can use Ockham’s razor to shave away atheism as the more parsimonious viewpoint. So stay smart and keep thinking!

Poor Sportsmanship in the NFL

       Anyone who has watched the NFL this season and its associated coverage is aware of a problem in the league. The normal Referees have been locked out by the NFL due to labor disputes. In their place, the League has provided replacement refs. They are referees from college, and semi-pro leagues. The result is games that are called very differently than they would otherwise have been, or so most sports pundits would have you believe. Aaron Rodgers of the Green Bay Packers spoke out recently against the replacement refs. The call made on Monday night cost the packers the game, and it followed another controversial call on Sunday night that cost the Patriots a game. The NFL has backed up both calls and yet players, coaches, and sports reporters alike continue the mantra of : Replacement refs are ruining the game.

        However, it seems to me this is a bit misguided. I will concede, as a fan of american football, that perhaps these refs are not perfect nor are they acceptable. We should expect better performance from the officials of the game. This does not in anyway absolve the participants of the game from their lack of sportsmanship.There were two important calls this past weekend that are most complained about. One is the field goal by the Ravens that was close, even if it did go through. The other is the touchdown catch in the endzone on the final play in the Packers-Seahawks game. Several fans, players, coaches, and reporters complained that these calls were egregious errors and show the need for the regular refs. Every year there are several calls that greatly impact the outcome of the game, and yet no one has complained at this level. Both calls, after review by the NFL, were upheld. To me the key difference is that, in these games, the calls favored the team that was not favored to win. Also, the fact remains, that only the ones who lost or were put at disadvantage by these calls are the ones who seem the most upset by them. I understand that you would feel bad if you felt a bad call cost you the game. I personally, can relate to those emotions. The question that I have is how come no one who benefited from these calls seems to complain about the refs on a general level? I understand they wouldn't believe a call that gave them the game was incorrect, but they should still be upset at the general level of disregard for calling certain penalties. This makes it apparent to me that those who complain are merely sore losers displaying poor sportsmanship.

        I would like to bring attention to the fact that I agree the regular refs are preferable. I also agree that the replacement refs have made some bad calls. So why think these complaints are illegitimate? It is because both teams have to play with equally bad refs. In this manner there is no in-equity. The refs are equally bad for both teams, and yet, only when they lose do the players and others associated with the game offer up such vitriol for the replacement refs. This is a text book example of poor sportsmanship and sore loosers. While it is true that we should expect better out of the Refs, we too should expect much better sportsmanship from the preeminent, even the professional sportsmen themselves.

The Argument from Adequate Reality

   Warning: The following discusses God, a controversial topic



       Rene Descartes was a 17th century French Philosopher. He is commonly referred to as "The father of modern Philosophy". He contributed so much to science and philosophy, you certainly now more about him than you realize. His most famous principle is that of Cogito Ergo Sum, or, I think therefore I am. I will be discussing one of his arguments for the existence of god, based in the Principle of Adequate reality.

       The principle of adequate reality states: An idea must have as much formal reality as it has objective reality. What does that mean?

1. Formal Reality: The actual reality of the thing, its exemplification in the world
2. Objective Reality: The Contents of the Idea its self, the reality of the objective.

    The most common example of this principle is that of a unicorn. On the PAR in order for us to have the idea of a unicorn, we must have the idea of as much Formal reality as the unicorns objective reality. We have the Idea of a horn (formal) and the idea of a horse (formal). By putting these together we get the idea of a unicorn (objective). On the grounds of this Principle, Descartes felt he could prove that God exists based on the fact we have the Idea of him.


The Cartesian Sketch

       The argument can be sketched as follows: If we have the Idea of God, then there is as much formal reality as Objective reality in the Idea. So if the idea of God were made up, there would be less formal reality  in the concept itself. This, on Descartes view, was due to the fact that no one in a state of not-having the idea of God, could make it up based on the world around him. So to Descartes the only way man could come to the Idea of God is by experiencing the formal reality equal to it, that is; God's existence. I think we can update this argument for today's reasoning by establishing premises in a deductive argument.

The Three Formal Realities

        I contend that we can establish three possible ways that a person could have the Formal reality for any idea they might have:

1. Experience: This one seems obvious, If you experience something, you have the idea of it. This would provide ample formal reality for any idea
2. Impartment: This is to have the Idea 'Imparted' to you. That is to say, given to you by someone else. If someone draws you a picture of spider man, or describes him to you, you now have the formal reality to hold the idea
3. Synthesis: This is to literally 'make up' the idea. You can't however, think of something you have no idea of, go ahead try it. Whatever you think of you would have some prior experience of its parts and you would synthesize them together to get your idea. Think of Spider-man. Someone who doesn't already have the idea can take a spider's abilities, give them to a man, and have the idea. Now someone who has know idea of a spider could never give those abilities to a man. So for someone to have that idea, he either has to be given the idea of a spider or else experience it himself.

Now with these formal realities, lets apply them to the concept of God:

Objection, Impartment: You only have the idea of God because your Parents/Minister/Bible gave it to you etc.

Under this argument this is completely true. However its not problematic. Whether you take the creationist view of mans existence or evolution, either way, there was a 'first man'. So even if we've all just been 'given' the idea of God, the buck has to stop somewhere. Think about it, who could give the first man the idea of God? A less-evolved monkey? Where did he get it? And on and on ad infinitum. It stands to reason someone had to have the first 'idea of God' But how did he get it?
Thus we can discard this Objection.

Objection, Synthesis: You could come up with the idea of God all on your own.

This one, if successful, is problematic. However we have good reason to think it is not. Remember that the Impartment objection fails. So the man to synthesize God had no prior concept of him. That is to say; to take this view, you must believe that a relatively recently evolved human could look around at the world, and add its elements together to arrive at an infinite being. Lets ponder this. It seems easy that he could posit the Mental or 'intelligent' aspect of god, as he is such a being. Then he would add attributes to an abstract concept of man. He has the strength of two men, no three, no four, etc. However, to completely synthesize the Idea of an Infinitely strong being, he could never stop synthesizing. For on our intuitive concept of God, even a being as powerful as 10^100^100 Suns would not be as powerful as god. Immensely powerful for sure, but not to 'God' Status as it is commonly understood. Add to this the concept of a non-spatial and timeless entity, which we have no experience of, and it becomes an arduous and parsimonious belief to hold. The Reply to this is that these properties are merely the negation of finite properties. That is to say, we negate time and space and thus we have the concept of timelessness and spacelessness. This however seems problematic to me. For think of a man with no concept of God at all. If he negates Both time and space, sure he negates them in his head, but how then does he arrive at any coherent concept of what it means to be non-spacial or a temporal with all the other properties? This incoherence of these properties has long been an objection to God By atheists, such as David Hume. However, This only supports this premise as by some fortune, we DO have the idea of God! So I feel, while this will be the most debated, we are justified in rejecting this Objection


Putting it all together:

So we have seen The three formal realities for an Idea. We have seen ways you might come to the idea of God by these formal realities. We have also seen their shortcomings. This leaves one option that must provide for our Idea of god. Our reasoning thus far can be summarized as follows:

1. The Concept of God is due to either Synthesis, Impartment, or Experience
2. It is not due to Impartment or Synthesis.
3. Therefore, it is due to Experience

The only addendum then is that one cannot experience something that does not exist, as that would be a contradiction. So then we can say if we have experienced god, he exists! Now this is a deductive argument, so in order to deny the conclusion you must deny one of the premises. I acknowledge that the debate over synthesis might be so deep that it will be the focus of any case that uses this argument. So unless you're prepared to debate that, I wouldn't use this argument on an Atheist. Stay smart and keep thinking!

Number 50 is not so good

        Claire McCaskill is running for reelection to the United States Senate. A new campaign video on her website tries to show that she is the most moderate member of the Senate. In the video, she brags about how 'compromise' isn't a dirty word for her and how she works across the isle. I contend that in one sense, compromise is a dirty word and distasteful. I will also discuss how our entitlement programs are untenable, and that no matter how much we like them, somethings got to change.

        Compromise is one of those loaded terms that always seems to generate a 'warm and fuzzy' feeling among the electorate. A common complaint of voters today is that they disapprove of the 'do nothing' congress, and how they wish that both sides would compromise. When it comes to compromise, I believe there are times and categories in which it is inappropriate. Most notably, when in relation to principles. Compromising on some numbers here or there is one thing, compromising on principle is wholly different. I'll give you an example, an extreme one, but a very apparent one nonetheless. Suppose the following bill was being discussed:

                    Side A: "Why can't we come to agreement on the resolution to kill babies? We understand you don't like killing babies, and we're willing to compromise on how many babies we kill. So why can't you agree on some compromise so we can get something done?"

                     Side B: "There  is no compromise to be made on killing babies. It is against our principles, and killing even one baby is to far for us to go."

       Here you see an example of a refusal to compromise. Side B stands against killing babies in principle, and thus to compromise on this would be to compromise the very beliefs that are fundamental to their world view. Side A offers to lower the amount of babies killed, but this doesn't change the fundamental disconnect between the two sides. Its a total loss for side B to compromise on the killing of any babies at all. Thus, they are justified in standing on principle and cannot be attacked for 'obstructing progress'. Perhaps you disagree with their views, but you can't attack them for 'not compromising' as a supporter of A, should your side compromise on principle, you'd likely not care that they 'compromised' the degree to which they let their principle slide.

Objection: Killing Babies is a far to extreme example, what example of such a principle could be found that can show such a disconnect between the parties?

        I offer, that the principle in question, is spending. The Democrats and Republicans have a vastly different view on spending, and thus, it becomes hard to compromise on this subject. The Democrats have repeatedly offered to increase spending less, but still increase it. This is no compromise for the Republicans, as they view the spending situation in this country as untenable and any increase at all is harmful. The fact that you may increase it a little, but still increase it, doesn't solve the problem.

      Now it is true that the Democrats have offered a solution to the spending problem: raising taxes. This is however another topic, as I feel we should remain focused on the issue of spending itself. The reason is, if raising taxes is the solution, you still have the problem of not capping spending. If you raise taxes, you can spend more, but then you need to raise taxes again, and again, ad infinitum. Despite the fact that this is politically unpopular, as we have seen in Greece, the hair of the dog can't out run inflation. Eventually you have to pay the piper.

Example: Medicare

         I will now give an example of how the spending disconnect manifests itself in policy. Entitlements are inextricably linked to spending as they require funding. A large majority of the spending of the United States Gov't is on Entitlement programs. The resulting dispute is that Republicans want to lower spending, and that means cutting Entitlements, Democrats feel that since people rely on these programs, it is wrong to cut them. I offer that not cutting them is tantamount to harm for those depending on them, as well as the fact that people depending on these programs is harmful in itself as it perpetuates the problem of their needing a haircut.

          It should be common knowledge by now, that medicare only has 12 years of solvency left. This means that unless it starts bringing in the required amount to operate as well as an additional 12th of its deficit a year, it will go bankrupt in 2024. Now given inflation projections for the next 12 years, it is highly improbable that any increase in revenue will save it. So our other option is: Cut spending in Medicare.

Objection: People Depend on Medicare, so cutting it will harm them.

          My contention agrees with this statement. However, with this being true, we have two options:

1. Don't cut medicare, and it goes bankrupt: if this happens, then no one has medicare, this I believe is far more harmful than the current enrollees having to deal with less for a few years.
2. Cut medicare, enrollees have less, but it remains solvent: This option rarely gets a good listen. There are several options available for cutting medicare, and I'm not endorsing a specific one. Its either one of these, or loose medicare.

In Conclusion: Putting it all together

        We have seen an example of how compromising on principle is not a good thing. We have also seen an example of a principle that manifests in policy. Now the only question is: How does this relate to Claire McCaskill and Her ad? It does so in this way:

       McCaskill brags about compromise in a principally divided congress. So either you're fine with her not having any principle to stand on, or else, you agree that spending isn't a problem in spite of the evidence otherwise. If you think spending isn't a problem, then its fine that McCaskill doesn't stand on a principle in relation to it, its fine that she does whatever is necessary to pass a bill, regardless of contents. I personally Find her position untenable, and would rather have a dopey-minded Republican voting on principle, than a highly educated Democrat who lacks on altogether.

Heidegger's Hidden inchoherence

       Martin Heidegger was a 20th century German Philosopher who belonged to the school of Continental Philosophy. Continental philosophy is a school that differs from Analytic philosophy in that it seeks to ask questions, and answer them, on the basis of understanding ideas as a whole and their history, rather than Analytic philosophy which seeks to treat each statement as an independent claim and judge their truth independently and then draw inferences on them. Heidegger specialized in the field of Ontology and Phenomenology and the philosophy of time. He is best known for being the one that asked "The Question of Being". 

       The Question of Being is really just that. It is external to the usage of the word "being" and all of its conjugated forms such as "be", "is", "are", "it" and to some extent "that". It really boils down to: "What is Being?" and by that Heidegger meant; What is it, that all things said to have Being share that classifies them as having Being? Heidegger saw the classical metaphysical definition of being: "that which is" To be tautological, circular and lacking. Technically, this occurred before Carnap had developed Internal vs External Questions and the distinction would have been useful to Heidegger. Basically, if being is "that which is" that really doesn't tell us anything about it. For as Bill Clinton once asked "what is is?" or rather, "is" being a conjugated form of "being" creates a rather circular statement. For if being is "That which is" is that not different from saying "being is that which has being" or "to be is to have being". As you can see, we're not really getting anywhere, for the meaning of being has not, and cannot on Heidegger's view, be built or predicated on its own meaning. This is circular reasoning and is fallacious as well as being question begging in argument form.The fundamental problem is, after asking these questions and getting these answers, do you really feel like you know anything about "what it means to be?" or "what is being"? Think about it, you could certainly repeat the answer, but if you asked someone "what is being?" and they responded "that which is!" and you were then asked to go explain that and how it works to someone, wouldn't you think it incoherent babble? Well that's because it is.

     Today we can recognize that Heidegger's Question is use of external language and could most probably receive a more fair shot or answer if it were attempted today. I even plan to do so with a new semantic theory I'm working on I call "semantic quantification". In my estimation the post-Russell philosophers have veered away from this topic due to its heady nature, as well as most people holding the misconceived presumption that Heidegger had the final say that was of any meaning on the topic. However I will show that is not the case.

       Most of Heidegger's contemporary criticism was that in the form of language. His contemporaries said that he made parsimonious use of language that was either unintelligible, necessarily complex, or only served to obfuscate his argument. This, however, I feel can best be attributed to the fact that he was right before Carnap and the study of Semantics had come a long way in the short time after his main work was completed. I also feel it is due to his hidden incoherence as I will show.

       Heidegger's fundamental methodology employed to answer the question was formulated in two ways. First, he posited the thought experiment of Dasein which is a being concerned with Being. Heidegger's view was that all being was pointed at or 'concerned' with something. If we conceived of a being who was pointed at Being, it could perhaps give us insight into how to answer the question as well as some insights to the nature of what exactly we were questioning. Second, he took the continental approach. He sought to attempt to understand the meaning of being by examining its use through the history of metaphysics and examining the fundamental assumptions of the original Greek philosophers. He did this by "deconstructing" the layers of inferences and definitions that relied on an understood meaning of being and attempted to understand it comparatively in relation to its associated inferences.

     I feel Heidegger's fault lie in his use of language, but not in a manner of obfuscation. It is his reliance on an understood meaning of being that under girds his rejection of the Greek metaphysical systems. This can be attributed to the fact that he used internal language to answer an external question, or rather, he simply underestimated the profound depth to which his question shook the whole of thought. For the primary director of his inquiry was the circular nature of the previous definitions of being. That is to say, he believed that tautological or circular answers didn't tell us anything nor did they answer the question in a meaningful way. Can you see the incoherence? That is to say, he rejected the circular definitions because; "There cannot 'be' this sort of reasoning if it is to have any meaning". How is that? How can there not 'be' this sort of reasoning? We have not yet cashed out what it means to 'be' to any effect that it can serve as a criterion of value. How can the answer not 'be' "that which is"? We still have no recollection of this "being" is or what things that posses "being" have. How can we know anything about what can 'be' at all? At least, we can't until he answers the question. This is why his question remains unanswered: Because his motivating principle, his controlling law, itself was predicated on self-defeating logic.

       Now, a proponent of Heidegger might say: "This seems skew to his argument, as he was asking continental questions and analyzing logic is obviously analytic" well this is true. I don't feel this saves his reasoning as just because you ask continental-style question, this doesn't make self-defeating logic valid. There is also the response that it was just a semantic mistake and that he unknowingly went back and forth between internal and external language. Even if this is true it doesn't save his failed approach. I offer that this question cannot be addressed with an ontological predispositions, as it is the very question of ontology itself. This doesn't mean we can all of a sudden make statements outside of logic and have any meaning, though, it just means a different approach is required. In conclusion, I will say I agree with Heidegger in one respect: I believe the best way to answer the question is to look at it as a relational definition. That is we should ask the question of "what is being?" in a sense that takes its relation to other concepts as a dividing or discerning principle. Stay smart and always ask questions!

Skepticism is untenable

       Skepticism is a position of questioning or doubt. On its face, this may seem innocent, even beneficial. For how do we come to knowledge if we do not ask questions? Also, how do we refine our knowledge if we do not first doubt it? While both of the preceding questions raise valid points, these are internal questions, which also exist in common parlance. So to that end, I will not be attacking 'skepticism' in this sense. The mere act of doubting or questioning in and of itself is not at issue. Rather, I will be addressing Skepticism; the philosophical view point of Epistemology. Epistemology is the study and theory of knowledge; what is it, and how to we come by it? Skepticism in this regard rejects, on some level, the very existence of knowledge. On the extreme end we have Philosophical Skepticism which states that all knowledge is unobtainable, and on the conservative end we have the practice of merely doubting the truth of a proposition. I will be addressing three specific aspects of skepticism:

1. Philosophical Skepticism: The belief that all knowledge of all kinds is unobtainable. Beholdents of this view make their statements meaningful in respect to incorrigible beliefs. Rather than say "I know I have  hands" they would say "It seems to me that I have hands" Thus preventing any reason to require justification for knowledge.
2. Skepticism Hypotheses: These are hypotheses that try to support some sort of Skepticism (Most often Philosophical skepticism) By propounding the possibility of a premise, who's very possibility undermines the very core of our knowledge (an example would be the hypothesis that we are all in The Matrix, etc)
3. Grounded and Ungrounded Skepticism: I seek to show that there is a new distinction to be made in the different forms of skepticism and that only one is tenable.

       I find the positions of Skepticism to be untenable. This is to say that one cannot rationally hold to its consequence without finding one refuting your self, or else being incoherent. I arrive at this belief upon reasoning that Skepticism invokes a view that refutes itself. As we know, a position or view that refutes itself cannot be true, and this fact justifies us in discarding it. The argument can be summarized as follows:

1. If Skepticism is self refuting, it is untenable
2. Skepticism is self refuting
3. Therefore; Skepticism is untenable.

Premise (1) is true by way of the nature of self-refuting propositions, and (3) follows logically by the law of Syllogism. Therefore, we really only need support one premise, and that is premise (2) for if in fact Skepticism IS self refuting, we have grounds for dismissing it. How then, do we support premise (2)? I offer,  that is is more plausibly true than not that (2) is true, and my justification is the following:

Philosophical Skepticism is Inherently Self-refuting.

       Philosophical Skepticism is, as you will recall, the belief that all knowledge is unobtainable. We shall deal with this particular view in the most swift fashion. For on its very precepts, we can reduce this view to a single proposition: All knowledge is unobtainable. Without the need to address any of the possible support for this view we can dismiss it. This is due to the fact that the statement references, or in the very least, is capable of referencing itself. So then we shall apply the statements very criterion to itself. If all knowledge is unobtainable, how then do we know it is unobtainable? How do we know we have not obtained it? If we do not know that knowledge is unobtainable, why believe it is? One might say, "Well, I don't know that knowledge is unobtainable, that's just how unobtainable it is!" If we do not know knowledge is unobtainable, then it is quite possible that it is obtainable. That is to say that the statement "Knowledge is unobtainable" is not necessarily true, or that is to say, that knowledge is possibly obtainable. In this way we see that the statement refutes itself. For we can never get to a point, by its own meaning, in which we can believe it. This gives fairly good support to Premise (2) of our argument.

Skepticism Hypotheses are incoherent.

       A Skepticism Hypothesis, is a hypothesis that, while remaining possible, aims to strike at the very foundation of how we come to knowledge. This usually is constructed in some way as to show that the data we receive from our senses (hearing, seeing, feeling) is not reliable or veridical, based on the possibility of our sense data being false. A great example would be The Matrix. A skeptic might say, how do you know you are in the United States? You would respond that all data you have available through your senses tells you that you are in the United States. The skeptic would then counter by saying; "Well, it might seem that you are in the United States, but what if you're in the matrix, and it is only an illusion?" Well, in this case, if you were in the matrix, it is very likely that you would be deceived in believing you are in the united states when in reality you are in some holding-pen for members of the matrix. The problem with this type of skepticism arises when we examine its own conditionals. Consider this question: How do you know its possible we're in the matrix? For if we were in the matrix, any faculties that allow you to infer the possibility would be false or unreliable. So in that sense we cannot know if its possible if we're in the matrix because it is possible we're in the matrix. This is of course incoherent as its very possibility undermines its own assault on knowledge. For if we cannot know if its possible that we're in the matrix we are justified in believing we're not. This is ironic as it is the very type of conclusion they're trying to avoid. The aim is to show that any justification for knowledge you could have is undermined by the possibility of it being false. However this possibility's justification is itself undermined by its own possibility! For these reasons, we can discard all Skepticism hypotheses. This lends more support to premise (2) of our argument.

Grounded and Ungrounded Skepticism

       As we have seen, Skepticism as a view and as a hypothesis is largely untenable. How then, do we meaningfully go about asking questions? Or rather, how do we go about questioning the knowledge we claim to have? I offer that skepticism is salvageable in its current form. This will be done by distinguishing between different types of skepticism and showing that for one distinction, its questions have meaning. The Distinction will be as follows:

• Grounded Skepticism: Skepticism or questioning of knowledge that itself is based in, or reliant upon, Some outside knowledge. That is to say, questioning some knowledge on the grounds of claiming some other knowledge.
• Ungrounded Skepticism: Skepticism or questioning of knowledge that is only based in the doubt of the truth of its subject. That is to say, questioning without grounds on which to question.

       Most all of the skepticism we have examined to this juncture is that of ungrounded skepticism. That is to say, the skeptic asks questions on the basis of trying to deny some knowledge in the process. The skeptic in these cases never claims to have any independent knowledge, and when investigated we find that the lack of independent knowledge is the core failure of his inquiry. What should happen, then, if we were to be skeptical and ask questions on the basis of claiming some other knowledge? We intuitively do this whenever someone tells us something we at first don't believe. We most often question it, due to the fact that we believe we have some knowledge that contradicts an important part of their claim. Consider the following:

Mary: "Hey guys! Just 10 minuets ago I saw Bob stealing someones bike!!"
Larry: " I don't think that's correct, 10 minuets ago I was with Bob and we were purchasing sodas"

Clearly Larry is skeptical of Marry's claim due to the fact that he claims some knowledge that is contradictory to hers. This would be Grounded Skepticism and he can meaningfully question whether or not Marry knows what she is talking about. Now Contrast that with the following:

Marry: "Hey guys! Just 10 minuets ago I saw Bob stealing someones bike!!"
Larry: "How do you know Bob was stealing someone's bike? Its possible it was his bike, its also possible he doesn't even know what a bike is! How do you know you weren't mistaken? Isn't it Possible you were mistaken? Why conclude that you saw Bob stealing someones bike?"

In this scenario, Larry exhibits ungrounded skepticism. He doesn't question Marry's claim on the basis of some independent knowledge, but rather, simply on the basis that he can ask a question. He calls in all sorts of possibilities, such as the fact that Bob might own a bike. However, he has no justification for thinking this is the case, he also leaves out that the probability is low that it would even appear as thought Bob were stealing a bike if it were in fact his. He also brings into question Marry's visual faculties. He questions whether or not she can rely on what she thought she had seen. Again he has know independent knowledge claim that could serve to justify his question, and thus leaves Marry no reason to question her visual faculties. If Marry is to question her visual faculties, then it is in fact possible that she isn't even seeing Larry such that she might be questioned by him! This has all the same problems as the previous forms of Skepticism; they are questions that get us nowhere. This gives us good reason to discard ungrounded skepticism, and gives good support to premise (2) of our argument.

   In conclusion, We have show that Skepticism (at least when ungrounded) is untenable. We have seen how the Philosophical position of skepticism refutes itself, how skepticism hypotheses are incoherent, as well as how we can distinguish questions in a way that still allows them to have meaning. We have given and supported a deductive argument that supports the statement: Skepticism is untenable. I encourage you to be on the look out for ungrounded skepticism and skepticism hypotheses, as they can take many different forms. If you learn to do this you'll be one step closer to that ever elusive lady; Truth. So stay smart and keep thinking!

On Semantics: Internal and External questions

     I plan to make several posts concerning different topics in philosophy. I understand that it is a field that is mostly misunderstood as well as seeming somewhat arcane to those without training. One crucial aspect of philosophy that must be understood before any meaningful endeavour can be made into it's questions is that of Semantics. I'm sure you have heard before in political debates or any debates that are of a particularly deep substance, someone being accused of "just using semantics". This is both an accurate and inaccurate way of using the word 'semantics' in the context of a debate or discussion. The accusation is usually laid against someone who has merely attempted to manipulate the meanings of several words or ideas in such a way as to give them a positional advantage in the debate, or get out of a particularly problematic argument. However, this does is an unjust casting of semantics. Semantics is far more than mincing words to suit your purpose.

     The word Semantics comes from the Greek word: sēmantiká, which loosely translates as "the meaning". Semantics is a study and practice of just that; meaning. Semantics has no 'hard' rules or views such as other branches of philosophy (Ontology, Epistemology). Semantics is simply the practice of assigning specific meaning to certain words so they have a clear and consistent definition when pertaining to a specific debate or discussion. This is due not only to the fact that certain words have multiple meanings, but also to the fact that in reality words have no meaning at all. Words as we properly understand them, both their written and spoken forms, are merely representations for meaning. When you think about it, take the word [Lizard] for example, the meaning represented by the word is of vertebrate life form of any variety that belongs to the general family of reptiles. If I tell you that the word [Mackosplatis] for example, refers to a vertebrate life from belonging to the general family of reptiles, am I wrong? Maybe in common English parlance, but really, if I created the word, can I not create it's meaning? This is the chore of semantics. Identifying problematic terms and deciding an agreed upon meaning that everyone will use when discussing certain topics. A good example is Life. In common parlance the word Life has several meanings that are all contextual. However, In the Semantics of Biology, Life refers to a very specific set of criteria an object must conform to in order to be classed in the category of Life.

Internal and External Questions

      Semantics, however, does not only deal with the meaning of words. It also deals with the meaning of entire phrases or 'propositions'. It does this in relation, specifically, to questions. Much of philosophy is asking questions, and as the adage goes, you have to ask the right questions to get the right answers.

     The philosopher Rudolf Carnap recognized this and provided a system to better understand it. In his system there are 'Internal Questions' and 'External Questions'. Identifying what type a particular question is provides great insight not only to its answer, but how to find its answer. The main difference between Internal and External questions is how they treat their subject. To put it simply, an external question asks about the subject itself, while an Internal question asks about properties or relations of the subject.

Consider the following examples:

1. Its late. Where could they be?
2. What does it mean to be?

In the above example we have both an Internal and External question. Question (1) is an internal question as the term 'be' already has a very understood and applicable meaning such that it can be used in the way it is. Internal questions require that certain aspects of their subject be grounded already so they can make meaningful statements about it. For if what it means to 'be' is still a mystery or up for discussion, then the statement "where could they be"  would seem meaningless. Internal language allows us to make these meaningful statements that include a particular subject. External questions on the other hand, like (2), are questioning how we can make meaningful statements pertaining to the subject in question. They could also be statements that exist out side the semantic framework of their subject.
Consider the following:

1. What are the properties of this car?
2. Properties don't exist

    Statement (2) is made with external language compared to that of (1). Even though this isn't a question, the language used is still external to the subject. Be careful to see someone using external language in response to internal questions or statements, as it really muddies the waters for discussion. This is especially useful this year, as politics is in full swing and you can count on some semantic slip ups here and there.

     In conclusion, Semantics is a deep and complex field of philosophy, and one that shouldn't only be used as an insult to someone who has debated poorly. Keep on the look out for instances of Semantic distinctions and see how you feel about them, you'll find yourself asking questions you thought you already had the answer to! This is the excitement of philosophy!

New School year, new thoughts!!

Hello fellow classmates:

                     My name is Joseph Davis. I'm a transfer student from OTC where I studied electronic media production. Upon realizing that wasn't what I wanted to do with myself, I transferred to MSSU where I'm currently a secondary education major. When I went to register for my classes, there was no comp II class available on campus. Since I didn't want to wait another semester to take this class, I chose to take the online version as I have never taken an online class. I welcome new challenges and look forward to learning with you. I'm also very fond of the study of Philosophy and more specifically Metaphysics and plan to study those topics when I attend graduate school.

Things you can expect from this blog:

1. Posts related to, or being, assignments for the class
2. possibly random and out of context philosophy musings
3. some context to go with those random musings
4. numbered lists (like this one). 

So there's a short introduction to my blog. If you're wondering what kind of philosophical things might be posted here: I'm currently studying Sartre's discount on the primacy of the Cartesian foundation of Cogito Ergo Sum. Being that his entire system is built on it, I seek to show its problems as well as lay a foundation for a metaphysical system of my own. Its key points will be the nature of being, ontological accounting for logic, solving the problem of induction as presented by Hume, and establishing a protection from parsimony regarding categories and their use in ethics.