Knowledge is free but perking up your intellect can be done in many ways. Teachings picked up from classes or lectures will always be there but the method of delivering and interpreting them in a way so that an audience can properly understand and pick up the fine lines in them is another. In short, it takes a wise person to deliver the goods, opening the minds of listeners who are usually not that fast when it comes to understanding new terminologies and practices today.

This goes beyond business. It can cater to law, medicine or even environmental concerns. The main source of all knowledge are the books that we see, most of which we don’t read from cover to cover. Not all people are made to read books and in these cases, it seems that the need for a mediator in the form of teachers or resource speakers enlighten the subject matter a whole lot more.

Many say that expediting such terminologies is a talent. But if you look at it, it just needs practice and a lot of self-confidence. An audience can fare well and understand topics of various areas if they see that the one preaching it knows it to the letter. Further, enhancing discussions to make it interesting in their eyes is another, a strategy that can perhaps teach many that expanding a certain subject matter can be done by first ensuring that your audience is indeed listening.

People like through around the world perfectionist nowadays but when you use the word are you really referring to – the philosophy or the psychology? Chances are that you’ve used the term perfectionist in both contexts at different times.

Perfectionism in psychology is defined as “a BELIEF that perfection can and must be obtained.” On the other hand, in philosophy it is defined as “the persistence of will in obtaining the optimal quality of spiritual, mental, physical, and material being.” Though they may sound pretty much the same since both aspires for the best possible results, however the major and critical difference lies in that the philosophy of perfectionism does not believe that perfection can actually be obtained.

Another thing that the term perfectionism share whether as a philosophical concept or as the psychological state of a person is that it does not always result in happy people. When it comes to psychology most people are already probably aware of the problems perfectionism can bring. Pathological perfectionists tend to obsess to much about perfection believing that anything less than perfect is as good worthless and since, unless you are a perfectionist, we know that perfection is unattainable then the person ends up disappointed time and again. When it comes to philosophy perfectionism can end up in discord primarily because people usually have differing ideas on what constitutes the best possible life, hence, an individual belonging in group may end up unhappy since the group has decided to strive for something that is not really what that person values in life.

Envy is an emotion everyone has at some point felt and needed to contend with. But what exactly is envy? When can you say that you are envious and when are you jealous? Is there are difference between the two? Is envy necessarily bad? All these questions about envy are answered in by Justin D’Arms’ paper on Envy. There he discussed the nature of envy, its rationality, and its relation to justice.

What interested me most about the whole article though is how he showed that envy is not always irrational and that despite the fact that it is often painted in a negative manner, even being considered to be one of the seven deadly sins, it can actually be benign. However, I we all understand why envy has earned its nasty reputation what with all the negative things that do tend to happen or at least the negative emotions that are invoked when the green-eyed monster makes it appearance. To be able to understand the whole concept of envy though and see why it can actually be benign, one needs to first understand its basic nature based on its definition and according to the following philosophers envy can be defined as follows:

Envy is pain at the good fortune of others. (Aristotle, Rhetoric, Bk II, Chapter 10)

Envy is a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [Envy] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying others’ good fortune. (Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals 6:45)

In short, as D’Arms puts it arises from comparing how well you are doing with others. For the in-depth (and very fascinating) discussion on envy read Justin D’Arms’ article on Envy.

Image Source: Digerati Life

Blame is described in Wikipedia as “the act of censuring, holding responsible, making negative statements about an individual or group that their action or actions are socially or morally irresponsible.” Praise, on the other hand, is said to be “the act of making positive statements about a person, object or idea, either in public or privately. Praise is typically, but not exclusively, earned relative to achievement and accomplishment.”

They may be opposites in that one is negative and the other positive but they share a common thread, which is that assigning blame or giving praise to someone both means assigning responsibility to that person. Because of this the very tricky issue of “free will” has to come into play, after all how can anyone be held responsible for anything without free will. And so the classic debate that is still as ever goes on.

If you are interested in delving more into the free will, blame, and praise issue a must read would be Garrath Williams’ article “Praise and Blame”. There he “contrasts three influential philosophical accounts of our everyday practices of praise and blame, in terms of how they might be justified” including the Kantian approach (where the subject of free will is discussed), the utilitarian approach (discusses praise and blame in relation to their usefulness in terms of social benefits), and the Aristotelian approach (focuses on mutual accountability and moral education).

Philosophy is a very broad area of study so that if you’re interested in just one specific branch of philosophy other branches might as well be relatively alien for you. To remind us just how wide and varied the topics are that can be studied philosophically I’ll be going back to the basics and list down the main areas of study, which include the following:

Metaphysics – This area of philosophy deals with the nature of being and seeks to understand the nature of how and why things exist. It’s traditional branches are cosmology and ontology.
Epistemology – The study of HOW we know things, it is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. Epistemology is used by philosophers to decide or at least try to decide the limits and boundaries of what can and can not be known.
Logic – Logic is what’s used in all areas of philosophy to arrive at conclusions. Logic can be represented in symbols via mathematical logic though philosophical logic is still very much in use.
Ethics – Deals with morality. An area that is very much a cause for debate but is very important since it answers the questions of how we should act and react with other people. Aesthetics
Politics – The study of government and its relationship to its citizens and the communities that make up the government.
Language – Philosophical approach to the nature, origins, and usage of language.
Aesthetics – This is the study of not only beauty and art but seeks to explain how and why we classify things as beautiful as well as the degree to which we consider things beautiful.

Having watched “Bicentennial Man” yet another time last week I found Stephen Law’s article, “Could a Machine Think?”, really apt for my mood. The article obviously delves on the complex issue that has become more and more relevant with the advances in technology. The day when robots with super advanced artificial intelligence becomes a reality is no longer something that we can consider to be far-fetched. These are days when things from science fictions are becoming a reality. And as that day approaches we know that the day when a dilemma of titanic proportions is also drawing near. Will robots become advanced enough to achieve self-awareness? If so, what do we do then? What will be the right moral standpoint? How will we accept it and how will the AIs react to how we receive them?

These questions are all discussed in a very engaging manner in Stephen Law’s “Could a Machine Think.” This article is written in a script style showing the discussion between a machine, Emit, and its owner, Geena. This article is a great read whether or not you are interested in philosophy because it reads like a story. However, the questions posed are ones that will really make you think and the points raised shows sophistication in philosophical argument.

The “Could a Machine Think” is just one of the articles available in “Think”, a philosophy journal published for the Royal Institute of Philosophy. What makes “Think” really great is that the journal is aimed at a wide audience making the articles both interesting and readable for everyone from philosophers to laymen. Free online articles can be found at the Cambridge Journals website. For full access to “Think” journals you will need to subscribe.

We all know about copyright and the laws governing them but do you know about the copyleft?

According to the GNU website, “Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.” The main difference of a product/program that is is “copyleft” from one that is simply not copyrighted or made available to anyone freely is that it ensures that all other programs and products arising from the original one remains free as well because “Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it.”

Now with such a nice spirit of sharing why isn’t everyone adopting this new way of thinking and “copylefting” their works? The answer isn’t always just plain economics since you can sell copylefted products thus allowing for a profit. What CANNOT be done is simply disallowing anyone else to your software in whatever way they want to. However, you have to acknowledge that the “copyleft” makes for minimal profit since the creator’s “power to control” his creation is limited to simply saying that others need to also share. No more decades of getting royalty from outdated but important works that were the basis of other works.

What’s interesting is that what many people don’t realize is that there are other ways out there to “copyright” [or not] your works. In this digital age knowing how to protect your rights/wishes or at least the rights of your users is a must if you really wish to attain your goals.

I have tried yoga but like most people these days that do yoga I don’t really practice the philosophy of yoga. Nowadays, yoga has become an exercise fad. What many don’t realize though is that the breathing and postures practiced in gyms worldwide are but two of the eights limbs (aspects) of the Yoga philosophy. What this means is that because you know some poses doesn’t mean that you can claim to really know yoga. If you want to really do yoga you have to first understand all the eight limbs of yoga, which are the:

1. Yama: Self-control or restraint from violence, lying, excessiveness, stealing, and coveting
2. Niyama: Stresses things one should do—purity, contentment, austerity, study of the sacred texts, living with awareness of the divine
3. Asana: Physical exercises, postures
4. Pranayama: Breathing exercises
5. Pratyahara: Drawing inward
6. Dharana: Concentration
7. Dhyana: Meditation
8. Samadhi: Realization

Obviously the part of yoga that most people know about is the Asana and the Pranayama but if you wish to stay true to yoga’s philosophy, which is to seek universal truth and achieve equanimity in the process, one has to practice the other aspects of yoga as well. In the end, practicing yoga should result not just in a healthy body but a healthy mind as well.

When I was younger my family for me was simply my dad, my mom, and my siblings. Things were much simpler then. I didn’t even question the role of the family, never though about. A family just was and no one can make it any different. Then I started growing up. I had my first classmate in 4th grade whose parents were divorced. I heard from my older sister how one of her friends was the 2nd family of their dad. My concept of family was shaken and a philosophical debate raged in my head, the process of which I wasn’t aware of. I realized then some families just wasn’t – JUST WAS. I didn’t know what to make of that.

Then I went to high school and things got even crazier. I met a friend who shared to me one time during a quiet night how her own uncle used to rape her when they visited his house. Now this totally flipped my world around. I got really mad and kept on pushing my mom asking her how bad things like these can’t happen. I never told her what the real case was though. I learned then that not family members fulfill their roles and some family you can end up hating. I also learned that even when you are the child sometimes you have to be the one to shield your parents from the truth. That was when I started growing up.

Now, I have my own family and each day I am re-learning the beauty of family. Things don’t always go the way they should but we just have to sort things out in our mind. I sometimes wish things would be black and white and the horrible side of some families can be wiped clean but then again my definition of family has changed. It’s not family is just is, it’s not just the family you are born in, it’s who we choose to bring in our lives and chooses to bring ours in theirs. It’s the good with the bad and hopefully more good than bad.

Till now there are days when I keep turning the concept of family over and over in my head but what I have learned is that more important than the concept is simply being there with and for our family. And THAT is my family philosophy.

Ever wondered about the area about politics that makes it so ideal and pristine, Ethics. As it turns out, the very first philosopher to ever suggest the relationship between politics and ethics was the famous Chinese philosopher Confucius who emphasized personal and governmental morality. As we all know, most governments are founded on a set of rules or laws that have been refined and revised throughout that specific country’s history. The great civilizations of the ancient times such as the Egyptians and the Maya’s have their forms of governance patterned after nature and that in nature there is a supreme being that makes all things happen. This supreme being (which is embodied by a king or other form of ruler) can and has the right to revise and formulate laws as they see fit based on either personal preferences and historical facts (which is the written or oral history of the race or tribe which states or defines the role of the leader) however long the said culture might have existed. These cultures may have come and gone but their influence and views on how the world, life and self-governance happens is history. The English, French and other major civilizations of Medieval times went through several upheavals in government because of corruption and other related matters. The Greeks began the study of philosophy as part of their quest in understanding the why, what, where and who’s of life. Why did the sun set at night, why do the flowers bloom during spring and many other questions people might ponder about were thought of an explanation collectively by scholars and philosophers of the day.

Confucius is recognized worldwide as a philosopher whose works and theories have shaped the lives and governments of many Asian civilizations. His work in linking ethics (which is the study of how one should behave in relation to others) and Politics (which is the institution of governance) and how these two should begin at the personal level. The Romans have recognized the principle and was said to be one of the reasons why people got to the Senate. To be a good responsible citizen who is part of society, one must become part of the senate to show he has nothing to hide. This is true but man has a way of twisting and turning history and faith using it for personal benefit which can be seen as far back as recorded history can remember. Much of the works of the great philosophical fathers such as Socrates is known only through the writings of his student Plato who is also a philosopher who might have changed a few thoughts as he reviews and records them in writing. History is written memory of people and cultures that have long gone and much of our lives today will become the history of tomorrow. As the great Confucius would have put it, how have you lived today and what have you contributed to society. The good of the many, greatly outweighs the good of the one.