For those who have been enjoying democracy, they should be thankful to their forefathers for the great job that they have done in establishing and propagating the idea of democracy. For those who are now only getting a taste of what it is and what it can do, well that’s not a very simple matter to contend with. Most of the former communist countries, who have started to embrace Western culture and some form of democracy it is a very scary story indeed. A society that has evolved to be a workforce that does all the leaders of their countries tell them to can be intimidated by the prospect of having to choose whatever and whoever they wish to become. Like the children in China who are now being taught in school of the concept of democracy who were dumbfounded by the ideals and differences that it had to their own society.

For now, the world is evolving as well as human society. The financial crisis of times past and the many natural disasters that have plagued us ever more frequently have opened many doors for people who have usually been left in the dark about the rest of the world. True to this, to ask the question of “Why Democracy?” is not only a very difficult one but quite sensitive for many a wealthy nations are still run under rule of a monarchial government. Some still follow time honored traditions that were reminiscent of the medieval ages when we had kings and queens and that succession was a right rather than a voted upon right.

Democracy might not be for everyone but it may be time that all of us embrace it for it allows us the freedom not only of society but of the global scene and the part that we can play in it if we were all allowed to participate. No society is ever self-sufficient for all those that have tried have miserably failed. We humans have a built-in drive to do what we want, when we want it and where ever we want it to be. Many say that there is no such thing as a democracy but we must always remember that democracy is a form of government that can be defined on paper and is subject to personal interpretation. So for now, democracy has still offered the best tools for the growth of countries around the world. The famous philosopher Kant predicted 200 years ago that democracies don’t go to war with each other but with those who do not embrace it and promote it. In a way this might sound true but a discussion on that must be left to another day. So till then enjoy life and embrace it for all the good and bad. It’s not about the trip, but about the journey that has passed and we currently are on….

* Liberating from the stereotypes concerning history of philosophy;
* Dialogue of rationalities;
* Cultural self-consciousness in the era of globalization;
* Philosophical images of human being;
* XXI century’s technological challenges;
* Values and the dialogue of cultures;
* Philosophy for children;
* Common cultural grounds of the national self-consciousness of the nations of CIS and Baltic states;
* Teaching philosophy in multicultural context.

The first World Philosophy Day was held last November 24, 2005 in Chile. It was instituted by UNESCO with the primary purpose of “making philosophy accessible to all.” With this in mind everyone is encouraged to participate in the celebration, wherever you may be.

Some ideas to celebrate World Philosophy Day:

*Invite a speaker to expound on any relevant topic.
*Read a philosophy book.
*Have a costume party where people are required to dress up as philosophers or a concept.
*Get together with a bunch of your philosophical (or just plain argumentative) friends and have a healthy debate on the following pesky topics (courtesy of David Bain’s article in BBC):
1.Should we kill healthy people for their organs?
2. Are you the same person who started reading this article?
3. Is that really a computer screen (person – since you’ll be in front of your friend) in front of you?
4. Did you really choose to do what you are doing right now?

Enjoy!

Lately I came across Michael C Dorf’s article “What is Sonia Sotomayor’s Judicial Philosophy?” and just feel that I have to share his wonderful insights on “formalism” and “legal realism”. According to Dorf, “formalists believe that legal interpretation is a matter of finding the objective meaning of formal legal materials, such as the words of statutes and constitutional provisions.” He says that ideology has no place in formalism and the judges are seen as “simply a vehicle for the expression of the law.” On the other hand, he says that legal realists assert that “formalist’s view of the law is false, or at least radically incomplete.” He further explained that “legal realists believe that formalists are not being honest (perhaps, not even with themselves) when they disclaim any influence from their own values upon their judicial decision making. Nor, they say, could matters be otherwise in a complex and evolving society in which legislators and constitution writers cannot possibly have anticipated all of the circumstances in which the provisions they wrote would be applied.”

So it is quite clear that the contention between those that want to confirm Judge Sotomayor and not is caused by the differing jucidicial philosophy. The question of course lies in who is right – the formalist or the legal realist? I leave it up to the senate committee to sort it out.

So what were the things he said that landed him the honor of being considered to be submitted by yours truly to Open Court? Here are snippets of his controversial comments during the panel discussion at the annual Boao Forum for Asia last April 18.

“Sure, we’ve got 5,000 years of history, but our new country has just been around for 60 years and the reforms for 30 years. It’s hard to compare us with other countries. But I feel that in the 10 years after Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule, I can gradually see, I’m not sure if it’s good to have freedom or not.”

“I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”

Sources:
Spokesman: Jackie Chan comments out of context
Jackie Chan: Chinese people need to be controlled

Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He is best known for his book Animal Liberation, which is credited by some for the formation of the animal rights movement as we now know. With a utilitarian approach to ethics he asserted the principle of minimizing suffering in his book and argued that animals have rights and these rights should be based on their ability to feel pain. Singer’s latest book, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, is fresh out of printing. Though I haven’t got hold of a copy yet but it promises to be a riveting read based not only on the topic itself and Singer’s reputation but from the first few paragraphs shown in the book’s website.

With such a distinguished guest it is no wonder Prof. Andrew Bailey of Guelph’s Philosophy Department feels that they are indeed fortunate.

We may not all have a Ph.D. on philosophy but that doesn’t mean that we should give up learning and pondering on philosophical ideas. One of the best things that you can do with your spare time is to engage in activities that will enhance your knowledge and understanding. And one such activity is the seminar that Endicott College in Massachusetts is holding.

On February 6 and 7, the college will be holding a seminar on philosophy and pop culture. This seminar is going to held at the Visual and Performing Arts Center in campus. The event starts at 4 in the afternoon of the first day (Friday) and will end at lunch the next day. The whole seminar is open to the general public, as long as participants register. If you want to partake in the meals, there will be a minimal fee charged.

What can you expect as a participant in the seminar? Undergraduates from several educational institutions – Endicott, Gordon, Clark University, Salem State College, and Boston College – will be serving as panelists and giving their take on various aspects of pop culture with a philosophical twist. The presentations will be answering two main questions:

1. What can pop culture teach us about philosophical issues?
2. How can philosophy help us understand the workings of our culture?

If you are interested, do register asap and get in touch with Willie Young, assistant professor of humanities, at 978-232-2242, or at wyoung@endicott.edu.

For one, how can such a move be based on the fact that big companies such as Lehman Brothers and the ongoing sale of some others like Morgan Chase Bank be the basis of it all? Are we forgetting the concept of probably mismanagement and bad business practice? Let me reiterate, where is capitalism and what has happened to it? If this becomes a trend, what would stop smaller companies from demanding and seeking aid from the government?

That is why the philosophy of making sound decisions in office is entirely crucial. You simply cannot please everyone. But the fact remains, while such a move is viewed by many as a common good for all, you really cannot generalize at this point. How can you explain such a financial bailout plan to the smaller companies that simply fold up and not ask for help?

In fact, some may even call it a discriminate move. It is true that the US is teetering on the brink of economic disaster but still, political intervention is something that is bound to get a lot of attention. Wise move or not, the fact remains, that this economic crisis that the US is under is far from over.

Just imagine the betting odds before the fight where Dela Hoya was practically given a 100% chance of winning over Pacquiao. Laying down the odds of how it is easier to step down to a weight level rather than move up was their only basis. Yet after all that has been said and done, we saw smaller and faster fighter prevail in what many call as an upset. For a fighter winning all but one round is hardly an upset.

Saving face for the sake that they never gave the small fella chance should not deprive him of his dedication and hard work. This is totally foul. Why call it an upset when Pacquiao practically destroyed Dela Hoya from the opening bell? This is totally unfair and goes way beyond the proper means of providing respect for people who have proven their worth.

Regardless, size is not always the reason for winning. Heart and determination are still important. In the case of Manny Pacquiao, it was all about preparation and determination. That is why he has gotten the tag best pound for pound fighter today.

It is no secret that majority of the people back then had a thing for the blacks. But today, we find ourselves on the verge of having another black President in the person of Barrack Obama.

But unlike before, we do not see rowdy people cursing and threatening Obama. That is excluding John McCain, his opponent of course who has used advertising mediums to get some leverage as far as their race is concerned. Apparently we see that it is all for naught as Obama is still leading thus far and officially.

Anyway, with all the discriminations left in the past, we are in a new era where political philosophy seems to be entirely better. It is more about what the person can provide rather than what he looks like. It has been a philosophy that we normally believe in even in real life. So if a black president can lead us to better tomorrows then why not?

So as long as we are in the era of being more rational and livid, let us keep it that way. We need all the help we can get and it does not matter if you are black or white!