I Don't Want To Grow Up...

What does it mean to be a grown-up?  When do we know that we have "made it" as an adult?  Or do we ever really make it?  Are we always part child?

Is being an adult simply a physical phenomenon?  Certainly there is a time in which, biologically, we stop growing and are able to reproduce.  But does physical maturity equal adulthood?  Even if it is one part, is it the most significant aspect of adulthood?  If it isn't that significant, is it possible to be an adult without physical maturity?  For instance, can a girl who can't have kids of her own but who takes care of her siblings like a mother-- does she count as an adult, even though physically she isn't "grown up"?

What about emotional maturity?  If a person has self control and is master over their own stresses and can make reasonable decisions, is that adulthood?  What if a person is emotionally mature and rational, but they don't have enough experience to really know all of their options?  But how many adults actually know all of their options?  Isn't experience and emotional maturity a process, a spectrum that we all fall short of reaching the final amount of experience and control necessary?  Are we not really mature until death, the final experience we all must share?

What about responsibility?  Once we are responsible enough to care for ourselves, whatever family we have been born into, adopted or created, then are we really grown up?  Once we can provide for all of the needs, can make decisions as to how to best organize the life of the small group, then are we really adult?  What about adults who are poor and can't make ends meet?  Are they not really adult unless they can properly take care of themselves and their family?  Are the homeless over 40 not really adults and must be treated and cared for like a child?

There are other aspects of adulthood that must be considered: Moral maturity, choosing a lifestyle that works in society at large, the specific cultural and social markers that indicate adulthood, whether that be turning 18, driving a car, getting married or living in one's own space.

What other aspects of life make a grown-up?  When did you feel that you were really adult? 

Are Emotions Necessary?

In a world of logic, emotions have no place, so says Mr. Spock.  And we can see the difficulty of emotions.  Emotions can cause violence, or cause breakdowns-- either too much or too little action.  They can cloud our thinking by causing us to jump to conclusions or to hide significant pieces of information.  But are emotions always bad?  In fact, can we even function without emotions?  For what reasons do we have emotions anyway?

Emotions give us personal information.  While emotions may not always help us understand the world around us, they can give us information about ourselves and how we are responding to that world.  How do our emotions show us what is significant to us?  How do our emotions communicate what we fear or what we hope or what we long for?

Emotions drive us to action.  If we did not have emotions, for what reason would we do anything?  If our emotions were absent, would we care enough about anything to act with appropriate drama when necessary?

Emotions are one form of communicating.  Were it not for our emotions, would anyone else know what was significant to us, whether positive or negatively?  If we always spoke in even tones of voice, would we be effectively communicating not only information, but depth?

Emotions help us process events.  Could we process what needs to be done in a short period of time without emotions?  With anger, we instantly see options for injustices done-- perhaps they are not the best options, but they give us options to begin the process of judging and determining right courses of action.  Depression may slow us down, but this is important for us to do after a time of significant stress.  Fear may lead to fight-or-flight, but when we see that these are only the first responses to a varied situation, but often the instant response is the correct one.  Without emotions would we accomplish what we need to do, as quickly as they need to be done?

In the end, the question is: are emotions necessary, or should we get rid of them?  As useful as emotions are in these ways, could they be better replaced by more rational, thoughtful responses?  Or do we need the instant, intuitive, personal response-- is it a part of being human?  Could we even reason appropriately without emotions?  Is it possible, or desirable, to live on planet Vulcan?

What is Love?

"The Beatles sang, 'All you need is love', then they broke up." -Larry Norman

Most of us acknowledge the importance of love, in general terms.  Love is a central theme in our societies,  movies, books and songs.  But when we talk about love as being central, what do we mean?  When the Torah says "Love your neighbor as yourself" does that mean the same thing as Donna Summer singing "Love to Love You Baby"?

In a sense, they could be.  Perhaps love just boils down to one's needs or desire.  We need our neighbor, so we will act in a positive way toward our neighbor.  To love your neighbor as yourself is to put oneself in the center of the world and everyone else is receiving of the love that we have for ourselves. We desire sexual satisfaction and we express that sexual need/desire to others, and they may share such need and so we express it.  It is a psychological principle that expressing love to others usually is reciprocated.

But is love only about desire and what we want?  Is that even the primary basis of love?  Is romantic love simply selfishness?  Is there no benefit for the other involved?  In fact, could love only be about the benefit to others?  Is "love" in its pure form, focused completely on the Other, not on the self?  Although to "love your neighbor as yourself" begins with the self, isn't it actually teaching us to move beyond ourselves, to leave the self behind?  

And is there a different category of supernatural love?  Or is the love of God and for God simply aspects of human love?  Is God's love for people simply desire, for God's own attainment?  Or is it other focused, not having anything to do with the self, other than knowing what the self requires?

But do the desires and needs of God actually relate at all to human needs or desires?  And what about between humans?  Can the needs of a human male be the same as the needs of a human female?  And if we loved trees or loved dogs, would we give them the same kind of love we would give a spouse or a cup of coffee? Are there a variety of loves, or only one?

If love is really what makes the world go around, then why is it so confusing to even figure out what it is?  How does one express love politically?  Or is that even possible?

What Does It Take For Everyone To Be Just?

I just saw a young man speeding off in his car and a young woman, futilely chasing after it, screaming, "It's all I have.  I've got nothing!"  Why are human beings so cruel to each other?  Why do we think we have the right to ignore the clear pain of another person?

Of course, the young man felt like it was his right to leave with everything the homeless woman had.  Perhaps she had done something to him.  Whatever it was, is the theft of her bedding and belongings on this cold fall day worth the "crime" she had committed?  Of course, the local police find it easy to tear up the homeless folks' bedding and tents, leaving them with nothing to sleep with.  The local gangs attack other gangs because of an insult enacted a year ago.  A nation kills innocent civilians because of the supposed crime of their leaders.

This is all based in the human brain.  We all have mirror neurons, which cause us to identify with other people.  But we also have a way to block mirror neurons, to make some kinds of people those we refuse identity with, so we can actually treat them as less than human.  But if we refuse to identify with those of the opposite sex, those we consider "criminals", another group, another nation, then we can easily justify inhuman actions against them.

How, then, can we stop this?  If this is a natural process, what must be done to see others, ALL others as human beings?  How can it actually be morally possible to treat our neighbor as ourselves?  Are we simply not built for it, even as we all recognize how necessary it is?

Is there a social response that would help us all treat each other fairly?  Jails and prisons clearly don't work-- in fact, in some ways, they only increase the separation between humans allowing us such dehumanizing terms as "inmate" or "felon".  Can we put social pressure on each other to be fair to all people?  Can we train all children in school how to resolve conflict in peaceful ways that is fair to all sides?  If so, would it do any good, considering that our human makeup demands unfairness at times?

Is there a medical solution? What about hormone therapy?  Those with high testosterone rates often demand more respect and react more harshly than those who do not have such high rates.  But is demanding such a procedure acting in fairness to their "normal" state?  Can we demand unfairness to some for a more fair society? And, of course, unfairness is not simply a medical condition.  We are all unfair at times, especially when excessively stressed.  We are occasionally unfair to our children, to our employees, to our students; and conversely, we are occasionally unfair to our parents, employers and teachers, by applying to them unjust motives that may or may not be true.

Is the best we can do to make an ideal of fairness, of equality?  To apply objectivity and lack of judgment as a universal standard, not just a standard of courts and journalism.  And then, perhaps we can train and model the art of apologizing when we are wrong, because we all make mistakes.  If we admit our unfairnesses, and do what we can to not repeat the wrongs, can we get closer to a society that sees fairness as a true, practical standard?

Can War Be Moral?

War is an armed conflict between groups, often nations.  Every war has been justified, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad.  Of course, war is justified by those who participate and perpetuate it, but often war is claimed right by those outside of the conflict.

But if we looked at the true cost of war, and the outcome, could war ever be justified?  Is there ever a war that did not kill children?  Recognizing that children always die in war, although always unintentionally, could we ever justify the death of even a single child?  What about the death of other innocents? What would be worth the cost of a helpless innocent?  A political ideology?  An economic system?  The comfort of an entire nation?  Once we have agreed upon this cost, then perhaps we would see that we are still making the demands of the ancient King of Crete, who requested Athenian youth for the sake of peace.

There is one thing that might be worth the death of a child and this is the deaths of many others.  In order to save the lives of many, we might allow the death of an innocent.  So that thousands of lives might be saved, we might sacrifice one baby to the flames.  But would we sacrifice that child if there was only the threat of thousands killed, but we didn't know if that threat was carried out?  Would we sacrifice that child to get revenge on thousands that have already been killed-- is that worth it?  

However modern warfare takes place in occupied cities, with missile attacks.  So civilian deaths are not counted on our fingers, but in the thousands-- sometimes the hundred thousands.  What is worth such a cost?  The death of millions?  Perhaps.  But an ideology?  A racial hatred?  To alleviate a nation's anxiety? Economic comfort?  To save the lives of hundreds?  What is worth the lives of thousands of non-combatants?  Of people dying because other people of other nations make the decision to kill?

Is war the natural order of things?  If so, should it be?  

Time Keeps On Slipping, Slipping, Slipping...

Einstein shows us that time is a dimension.  This means that it is a length that one measures, like depth or height.  And time becomes more important for our lives when we measure it more precisely.  In the ancient world, the day was divided into eight hours, or watches, but now we can have a meeting at 7:45 or determine the fastest runner in the world in the hundredths of a second.

But time is not always so precise.  It has been measured that time moves slightly slower on an airplane than on the earth.  Of course, this has been explained by Einstein's theory of relativity.  But what isn't explained is how time is so different in our minds.

Is time really slower when we are in a desperate emergency?  Certainly, we experience a lot more in a shorter period of time.   Why do some events take so long and other events so quick, but the same period of time is measured?  How is it that as we grow older, time goes quicker, so the years pile up?

How does our mind play with time?  Now that we can measure time we can determine it by the ticks of a clock, but why does it vary so much in our mind?  Which is more important, the time in our minds or the time of a clock?  Is personal time less significant than objective time?  Can we communicate something about ourselves by how our mind measures time?

And do different experiences of time change how we relate to others?  Oliver Sacks observed people who's personal time frame is so slow that they can no longer meaningfully participate in society.  Do we all experience such time differences?  Do "A" type personalities experience time at a different rate than "B" types?  And what about the significance of objective time?  Should we consider people "rude" because they do not have as much of a grasp of objective time and so always run late?  And what about different cultures that treat time differently?  Is our relation to time primarily a cultural, societal experience?

Truth in the Library

When I introduce the parts of the library to my children as preschoolers I show them the basic sections: there is fiction, which is not true and non-fiction, which is true.  Of course, my statement is a lie, as are many things we tell preschoolers: babies appear in a mommy's tummy; the tooth fairy takes your teeth; the sky is green (don't you tell that to YOUR preschoolers?)  Anyway...

Non-fiction, of course, isn't true, in some ways.  There is a literature section of the Dewey Decimal Code (800s), which is as full of fictional narratives as the fiction section is.  And we have a lot of books which give, at best, spurious opinions-- political pundits, spiritual wackos, celebrity narratives-- which might give a version of the truth, but certainly are not completely true.

But what about other books on the shelves?  A self-help book is non-fiction, even though it won't actually help most of the people who read it.  A children's book about another nation can be misleading because it deals in such broad generalities.  And isn't that basically true about history?  If history is supposed to be a narrative about the past, then why does history need to be re-written by so many people with so many perspectives?  Isn't history just a fiction built up with facts?  The actual past is so complex it couldn't fit into a book.

And couldn't we say the same thing about almost any book?  It isn't actually the "truth" but it is a perspective on the truth.  Is there any kind of book that is actually "true"?

Of course, fiction has it's own kind of "truth", and it is simpler because we know the story isn't true.  Or at least most of it.  A lot of novels contain aspects of real people, especially autobiography.  But we don't concern ourselves with that kind of factual truth in fiction-- that's not the point.  The point is the narrative truth, the truth behind the details.

Is there any such thing as truth in details?  Or if we try to say anything about "facts" are we simply stating our opinion?  Certainly one opinion is better than another, suits the facts better than the other, but will we ever have enough information to make a determination of truth in any area?  One year eggs are good, the next they are bad, the next the egg whites are good and the next we are told its all good in moderation.  What about next year?  Will we ever discover truth, or is truth simply the opinion of the moment?

And there are truths from different points of view.  An ancient war looks very different from the winning general to a soldier on the losing side to the peasant who owned the land the battle was fought on.  Is there actually truth to be found, or only perspectives?  And we find that the more we talk about our memories, the more we rehearse them, the more they change.  So the memory we have today of an event yesterday isn't the memory we will have next week after we talked about it ten times.  Is next week's story as "true" as this weeks?  Is the imaginary event in the mind of the listener "true" at all?

Is there any such thing as truth?  And if there is, must it be so carefully worded as to be not worth listening to?  Are we better off just sticking with fiction because there we know what kind of truth we are dealing with?  Or should we not have a "fiction" and "non-fiction" sections in the library, but just a big sign over the door that says "OPINIONS"?

Is Pornography Moral?

Pornography has existed as long as men have.  Some of the earliest cave drawings are that of nude women and phalluses.  There is no question to pornography's effectiveness.  But when we speak of pornography being good or evil in general terms, then we head in murky waters, certainly.

The only religion that absolutely condemns pornography is Christianity, which rests their idea on a word of Jesus: "You have heard it said Do not commit adultery, but I say to you if any of you look at a woman with lust in your heart you have already committed adultery with her."  Other religions are more flexible.  The major divide on porn isn't between one religious standard and another but between women and men, and it seems tied to their idea of the basis of sexuality.  Is sex an end, in and of itself, or is it related to relationship?  One tends to be a male attitude and the other a female attitude, so men tend to be drawn toward porn and women toward romances.  Is a romance or soap opera just the female equivalent of porn?  Are both simply the outgrowth of fantasy, which, with age and experience, tend to fade in light of reality?

Certainly porn can do damage to some relationships, even as alcohol does.  But does porn do damage to all relationships?  Or does porn allow some excess sexual energy to be released?  Is porn innately addictive, or are some addicted and others can partake but not get addicted? (The same question could be asked of the internet)

Is porn, by its nature, damaging to women?  The majority of woman who are enslaved are captured for the sex industry, of which porn is its most lucrative branch.  Should no one watch porn because we do not know which women are paid and which are enslaved?  Doesn't porn cause men to see women as objects for sex only?  Does porn encourage men to see certain kind of women as sexual objects instead of human beings?  Or does porn only reflect this tendency?  Does porn for women avoid this tendency?

Who is porn most damaging to: women or the consumers of porn?  Does porn encourage isolation?  In this way, can it contribute to the lack of empathy and care and intimacy in general?  Does porn encourage sexual violence?  Can it contribute to criminal behavior in general?

What does the popularity of porn communicate about society in general?  Does it mean that we are starved for real sex, or that easy sex is simply more pleasurable?  Does the billion dollar industry indicate that we don't have enough sex or that we simply can't communicate anymore?  Or has the desire for this kind of industry always been there, but only recently has it been so easily and privately and cheaply accessible?  Is porn an indication of a problem in our society, or in humanity at large?  Or is it simply the way things are?

The fact that there is great debate about the morality of pornography, does this indicate a moral issue or a societal divide?  Is pornography, like abortion and homosexuality, unable to be discussed rationally?  Is it an accident that all three of these subjects have to do with sexuality?

Relationships: Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em

Most of us have had the thought of living on a desert island from time to time.  People just a mess and they make things so complicated.  So full of need, so demanding, so judgmental, so... different than ourselves.  And there are so many of them!  And yet we remain with people.  Most of us live in cities where thousands-- millions!-- of people are crawling over each other like ants, involved in customer relations, traffic, apartment buildings and the internet.

Why are we so involved with other people when it is so hard?  What kind of drive do we have that constantly draws us to more and different kinds of people?  Why are we attracted to the opposite sex when we know that they will act in an insane manner?  

How close do we need to get to other people?  Is intimacy significant, or can we live well with a number of casual relationships?  If we do not have intimacy can we be emotionally and socially mature? 

Do our relationships not only determine our activity, but our very identity?  If we were without any relationships would we be different?  What kind of personality would we have if we didn't have relationships? 

Why does it hurt so much to separate from another person with whom we have been deeply involved, whether it be a broken marriage or an estranged relationship with a sibling?  Why is grieving at the loss of a loved one so painful?  What is it that we are missing when we grieve?  

The Future of Philosophy: Neuroscience

Many new discoveries have occured due to advances in neuroscince.  Many items we have connected to a "soul" or a "mind" we have found places for in the ever-expanding brain. We found that the brain is much more complicated than we ever imagined, and our interpretations determine the reality around us.  There is no color, except in our brain, no sound except in our brain.  What does this mean for who we are and what is the place of interpretation in connection to reality? 

What is the center of self? Is the self completely embodied? If the self is completely embodied, then is the mind dependent on the well-being of the body?  Are all decisions embodied decisions?  Can decisions not be trusted if the body cannot be trusted? 

If the self is embodied, does it mean that the soul does not exist?  Can there be a soul without a body, a self without a body? 

Can a self be transfered to a different kind of body, such as digital, and it still be the same self? If changes are made in the body-- such as brain surgery-- does the same self exist, or is that self destroyed? If so, is that tantamount to murder? As a body grows and goes through major changes (for example, hormone shifts) does that self still exist?  Is our current self responsible for what a past self does, if that self changes?

Is the self only a similar set of memories?  But memories have been shown to be re-created by the brain... can memories be depended upon at all?  Is our self only reacting to a contextual fiction that we have created with others?  Does it matter what fiction we choose to live in? What is the best fictional narrative to exist in?  Is our contextual narrative dependent on our embodiment?

The Future of Philosophy: The Internet

Both philosophy and theology are dogs on a walk.  It looks like they are in the lead, but any major direction changes are directed by culture.  When we have new ideas, new experiences, major events, that changes the direction of thought in general and philosophy and theology are directed by these cultural markers.

So what questions might philosophy deal with in the next 50 years, given the state of things now.  I suggest that philosophy will be answering these sets of questions because of the direction society is heading in.

One of the areas that is changing everything is the internet.  It isn't just computers, rather the internet is changing how we relate to each other and how we understand relationships.

What is relationship?  Does relationship demand physical interaction? What is community?  Can community be something different than being in physical proximity?

 Is the lack of physical really spiritual?  Is, then, the internet spiritual connection? What is missing in relationship that does not have a physical connection?  Can a relationship be complete if you can see and hear and understand the person without ever touching them?  Do we obtain information about others outside of sight and hearing?  Is that information important?

What is "friendship"? What different levels of friendship is there? Can we be socially and mentally healthy when we have deeper connections with people whom we've never seen than those around us?

If "property" has no physical existence besides a pattern of electrons, can it truly be sold?  If intellectual property is spread throughout the internet, can it be owned?  What kind of ethical regulations determine property that cannot be held or kept under lock and key?

How does ethics change in an internet environment? Besides property, how does one care for another on the internet?  What is the responsibility of one when an idea on the internet turns into a crime in the "real" world?

How Do We Create Peace?

Peace isn't controversial.  Almost everyone wants peace.  We want to be without conflict, or major conflict anyway.  We want to be a peace with everyone.

But what is the context of peace?  How can peace be achieved?  That is the real conflict. Should we bring peace by having a standard culture which everyone adheres to? But those who cannot fit in will not feel peace, will they? Is it possible to have peace by allowing everyone to do whatever they want?  But what happens if someone wants to use their freedom to harm or even kill others?  That doesn't create peace at all. 

Can we create peace by making peace a prerequisite for one's own self interest?  For example, to grant everyone economic well being if they promote peace?  But we will always have idealists who will fight and kill for what they believe in. How can we encourage them to act for peace?

And what about people who are poor? If people do not have their basic needs met, will they ever accept peace before they have their needs met?  Wouldn't they more likely fight in desperation until their needs are met? Is a prerequisite to peace creating people's well-being first?  But how do we do that?

And what about the paranoid or the severely mentally ill who look to violence because they see reality differently than the rest of us?  Can they ever participate in a society of peace?  Can we have a society of peace that includes everyone without exception?  If not, who would be excluded?  And what would we do with those excluded?

What Makes Art Good?

Art is like pornography.  We can't define it, but we know it when we see it.  Or do we?

There is a variety of viewpoints about whether something is art and whether a specific artistic endeavor can be called "art" or not.  Are there any guidelines to help determine art?  Must it be original?  Provocative? Beautiful? Must it invoke emotion?  Be intellectually challenging? Could different kinds of art do different things to a person?

Is art completely subjective?  Is art entirely in the eye of the beholder?  Or can art be held to any objective standards?  Can a movie be objectively "bad"?  What about a poem or painting?  Or can a four year old's drawing be "good" art to his mother, but to everyone else it is awful?

Can a four year old actually create art or only random scribblings?  What is the difference between Jackson Pollock and Marla Olmstead?

Is art better if it has a compelling story behind it, or is is only more popular?  Is there a difference between popular art and good at, except in the opinion of the individual?  Since everyone has an opinion about art, why should critics be paid for their opinion and others are not?  What makes a critic's opinion better than anyone else?

Religious Tolerance

Most people think that religious tolerance is a good thing.  We should live and let live and if a group wants to believe in something, even if it is weird, they should be allowed to do so.

But what if one's belief is that all other beliefs are wrong and that they would be severely judged if they continued to believe in the wrong thing?  Some might go to extreme measures (and many have) to convince others that they need to believe the same as oneself.  Does "live and let live" extend to beliefs that cannot accept a "live and let live" standard?  Frankly, any religion that holds itself exclusively (such as most monotheistic religionists) cannot accept tolerance as an overall standard, because their beliefs are too serious, too much a matter of life and death for it to be taken lightly enough to easily tolerate other beliefs.  Can all religions really be tolerant without compromising their faith?

And should all religions be tolerated?  Some worshipers of Kali acted on the belief that anyone not worshiping Kali should be killed.  How different is that from the 30 Years' War in Europe, when hundreds of thousands of people killed each other over which version of Christianity they accepted?  Or the Crusades, who killed people in the name of a belief?  Should such religion be tolerated?  

What about doing something less than direct killing? What if a religious practice (or a belief in general) doesn't trust modern medicine based on a scientific model?  What if they believe in an alternative model of medicine?  What if they insist upon faith healing and prayer without medicine?  Is our medicine so foolproof that we must demand that they take it?  Must we demand that they give it to their children, even against their beliefs?  Can we legislate lack of trust?  Can we afford not to?

And what about cultural tolerance?  Many religionists want to teach their children instead of sending them to public school, so they can promote their world view without outside influence.  Doesn't that warp the children for their whole lives?  Isn't that a form of enforced belief, even cult behavior?  Or are they right that legistlating public education is also a form of enforced acculturation, enforced belief?  If we don't know who is right and who is wrong, does anyone have the right to believe as we believe?

Does one cultural group have the right, ever, to enforce their beliefs on others?

Who is the Greatest Literary Artist?

A line in Time magazine says that to create lists of literary art is a great obscenity.  Yet, we do make lists of art.  I am constantly listing out my favorite films and books.

But if we are going to consider a great literary artist, we have a lot to consider.  Command of language.  Influence. Breadth of subject. Intricate themes.

There are also many questions: What is literary art?  How is this different from popular literature, or is there any?  Can we call one artist "greatest" or even discuss it?  Do we have the right to determine a personal favorite?  Is it okay to determine that Douglas Adams is the greatest novelist of all time?  Who should we consider?

On this last question, I do not have answers, but I have suggestions.  Here are eight literary artists who continue to influence many and whose literary art is of the highest standard, in my opinion.

William Shakespeare-- Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, and numerous plays and sonnets.

Dante Alighieri-- The Divine Comedy (Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso), plus lesser works.

Homer-- The Illiad and the Odyssey

The Deuteronomist-- The editor of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky-- Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot and other novels.

Leo Tolstoy-- War and Peace, Anna Karenina and numerous novels and essays.

James Joyce-- A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Ulysses, Finnegan's Wake, and other novels and short stories.


Plato-- The Republic, Apologia, Symposium and many other dialogues. 


Who might you include on this list?

Who Is Poor?

This man is poor.  How do we know this?  Well we can see that he is crippled.  We see that his clothes are dirty, at least partly from lying down in the dirt. He has a beggar's dish, so we know he is begging.  How much does begging make?  Well, in India, where he is from, begging doesn't make very much.  There's a lot of competition.  We suspect that he has no choice but to beg.  So he probably doesn't have much money.

But what makes him poor?  We "see" he's poor, but what is the source of his poverty?  Is it that he is crippled? Does being crippled make you poor?  Well, no, there are many people who are disabled who are doing fine.  Is that he is crippled in India?  Again, there are people who are doing quite well being disabled in India as well. Is he poor because he doesn't have much money?  Is it possible to have all one's needs met without much money?  Is it possible to have a decent income and still be poor?

What is real poverty?  Is it simply a matter of economics-- if you are below this income line then you are poor? Can't people not make a single penny, but be a part of a wealthy family and so not be poor?   Or is poverty more about relationships?  If you don't have people to help support you, then if you have a bad time economically, you remain there?  Or is poverty how people see you?  If you are rejected or pitied by society for economic reasons, or because you "look" or "act" poor, then aren't you poor?

Can we make a universal definition of poverty, or is it dependent on society?  If a person lives without electricity in one nation they are poor, can another without electricity not be poor in another context? If a person chooses to live without electricity and has all their needs met are they poor?  What if they have their children taken away from them because they don't have electricity, are they poor then?   Is poverty an objective standard?

Is poverty a measure of need, but one's need is dependent on various issues including personal characteristics and culture?

What Does Justice Look Like?

Justice has not as much to do with individuals as a society.  It is certainly possible that in order to establish justice that some individuals must be separated out to the rest should be kept safe, but justice mostly has to do with how a society at large functions.  But justice cannot be seen as strictly punishing the wicked.  Punishing is a negative and justice is a positive and we cannot create a positively just society by negative action.

But what does a just society actually look like?  Does every person have what they need?  Or do they just have the means to obtain what they need? Is justice a society that considers itself safe?  How much safety is required for there to be justice?  Does a society have to both enforce their fears and their anxieties?  What is the cost of a society without fear?

What is the basic foundation of justice?  Many people consider that law is the foundation of justice.  What law?  Who can create a perfectly just law?  How should such a law be enforced?  And can law and enforcement, by themselves, create a just society?

Others think a just society is created by giving everyone basic rights.  What kind of rights?  Can freedom of speech give justice to everyone?  If someone has the freedom to threaten, then is that part of the foundation of justice? If some rights cannot be allowed, and justice is based on rights, then where is justice found?  What balance of rights can create justice?

Discovering Evil

It is tough enough to figure out what is good, but at least we can have a basic agreement as to what is good for people in general.  But what is evil?  Does it even exist? Can we actually nail down what evil is?  Is evil anything that harms another person?  or is there an outer standard of evil so that one might think a person was doing good, but was really doing the worst of evil actions?

What is the source of evil?  Where does it come from?  Does it come from a personal source, like Satan or certain people?  Is evil systemic, so it mostly comes from an improper government or institution?  Or is evil found everywhere, in every heart, in every animal?  Or is it found nowhere, in no heart, in no place, in no system?  If evil can't be found, then was Hitler evil or Stalin?

Is evil about action or about motivation?  Is it the intent that matters, or what a person actually does?  Can a person be evil without actually having done anything?  Can evil exist by not doing good?  Or does one have to perform an evil act in order to be actually evil?

(BTW, I love Invader Zim.  Especially Gir.  "I love-ed you piggy... I love-ed you...")

Is Faith Essential?

Is faith believing in what cannot be proven?  There are different kinds of faith, in reality.  Faith is a kind of trust, but the amount of "proof" one has isn't essential.  One could have a lot of proof, or not.  The important part is the trust.

Does faith only have to do with religion, or is it important in other aspects of life?  Is faith just certain hope, or is it based on a relationship?  Or is faith a firm belief in a concept?

Is faith, in an of itself, a benefit?  Does it matter what or who one has faith in?  Is faith a virtue all by itself, or only if it is accompanied by other virtues, such as reason or ethics?

Do any of us lack faith in anything? Is there such a thing as a human without any faith?  If there is, what does that look like-- complete skepticism or maybe complete isolationism?  Does lack of faith make a better person, a worse person or does it really matter?

Implications of Questions

Some think that to ask a question is to express doubt, which lacks confidence and faith.  But is that what a question does?  There are many reasons for asking a question:

-An openness to examine a subject critically
-An opportunity to hear another point of view
-A confession that you may not have all the answers, yourself
-A re-examination of something you may already know
-An opportunity to bring others down a path of inquiry you have already gone down

Are there times when questions imply weakness?  Or is it humility?  Are questions controlling, trying to determine the agenda?  Or are they serving others? Can questions be manipulative?  In what context can they be one or the other?

Do questions limit knowledge or increase knowledge?

What Is Death?

Some have claimed that death enhances the meaning of life.  However, if humans are simply animals, then why should our deaths have any greater meaning than other animals?  Does the certainty of death encourage us to live better or to simply frighten us, causing us to desperately cling to life?

Is death an unassailable mystery, or is there some way to break through the barrier, to catch glimpses of death? Is death simply cessation of being, or is there a part of us that never dies?  What would be the nature of that aspect? Is it simply other people's memories, whatever physical presence we have left?  Or is there a non-corporeal essence that will exist after our bodies cease functioning?

Is there any possibility to reverse death, to have a second chance at life?  And if there is, and we are convinced at another life, do we live differently than those who believe that our complete existence ends at death?

Are There Absolutes?

How can we know anything?  I mean ANYTHING?

Frankly, it is often a good policy to doubt everything.  And the more information we get, the more we doubt.  Every time someone sends me information, I want to check it out on snopes.com.  But how do I know that snopes is accurate?  We've learned that the maps we learn geography on are inaccurate, that dictionaries are changable, that encyclopedias only give one point of view.  What our grade school teachers taught us is corrected in high school and that is corrected in college and in real life we learn the issues we spent so much time on in school are insignificant (think about the various things we learned about the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving).

How can we absolutely trust any piece of information, let alone answers to big questions?  Is anything we learn actually, permanently true?  Or is it only temporarily true until the next scientific study?  Is our most firm observations and truths that we base our lives on merely guesses?  Are they only cultural artifacts that will be replaced in the next generation?

Is there anything that we can rest on as solid evidence?  Descartes claimed that the only solid evidential proof we can have is "I think, therefore I am".  But even in that, aren't there assumptions in that statement about what "I" is?  Am "I" personal?  Perhaps "I" is not an "I", meaning an individual, but an entity, a machine, or a collective?

And what if we can know nothing in an absolute sense-- does this mean that we cannot make truth claims? Is every bit of truth only able to be proceeded with "I think" or "I believe"?

Question Everything?

I have had times that my questions threatened people.  Just asking a question or exploring a topic frightened them, because they were afraid of what the answer might bring.

Are there questions that shouldn't be asked?  Are there questions that are so dangerous that they would cause the downfall of the world?  Or of a personal world?  Should we ever be afraid of questions, or of finding out the truth?

Is there a wrong time for certain questions?  Perhaps all questions are good at certain times, but not others?  Is there ever a time in our lives that we can stop asking questions-- not because we know everything (that's not possible), but because discovering truth won't benefit us anymore?

Do questions always lead to truth?  Is there a kind of question that leads to a false conclusion, just by asking it?  Is it better to ask questions or to make statements of truth, assuming we know it?  

Can we ask questions which uses a lot of time in deliberation when our time could be better spent doing something else?

Does It Really Matter?

There is a lot of discussion about whether God exists.  Does it really matter whether there is an over-arching being who is behind all things?  Does it change our character any, or change our motivation whether there is or is not a divine presence?

If there is not a God, will anyone change their minds and stop worshiping one?  If there is a God, will that change the actions of any human being, really?  Or is God just an excuse to do what we were going to do anyway?

I am not denying God.  Nor am I affirming one.  I am asking what it really matters.

Finally, is it even possible to "prove" the existence of God at all?  If there is proof, wouldn't the rational atheists be convinced?  If there is a solid proof against God, wouldn't the rational deists be convinced?  Since no one is convinced one way or another, then why discuss the subject?  Is there a good reason to have discussions as to the existence or non-existence of God?

Who Am I?

I am not the same person I was when I was a teenager.  I am not the same person I was fifteen years ago.  So is there a core to my being, an essence of my character, my self?  Am I continuous chameleon or is there something I can call "me" that never changes?  

If there is something in me that is continuous, is that my "soul"?  Can I rely on that, in that I am able to say, "This is what I am like"?

But if there is nothing at my core, if all is potentially variable, then how can the present "I" be held blameworthy or praiseworthy for anything "I" have done in the past?  If I am not that person, I should not accept the guilt of that or the honor, should I?