For a Special Friend

I would like to take this opportunity to wish a beloved friend a very Happy Birthday. I know that this will come across her Google Reader and I wanted to shower her with Birthday wishes. I cannot walk into her office with a bouquet of flowers, or bring her a Starbucks Passion tea, go out all dressed up with her on a Progressive dinner around our favorite town... but I can send her my thoughts and prayers in thanksgiving for one of my dearest friends. She has been there at some of my worst moments and saw me through, she was my cheerleader when it seemed like there was nothing to cheer about; she is a constant in my life and it seems so surreal that we have only known each other for two years, it seems as though we have always been friends. But even though we have not always been friends, I know that we always will be.

This dear friend is for you.

Single Issue Voting...

As I mentioned yesterday, I have been thinking a lot about the comments like "you cannot be a single issue voter" or "everything needs to be weighed, not just one issue". Well, I would agree with this if all things were equal but they aren't.


Lesson: Objective Truth and Hierarchy of Goods

What is Truth? How do we know it? Truth is that which corresponds to reality. But what is objective truth?

Objective Truth means that a specific truth remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that '2 plus 2 equals 4'. No matter where you decide to practice your arithmetic {be it in the classroom or Mars}, you will always get 4. But what else can fall into this category of Objective Truth? Here in America, the land of subjective rationalism, it may be hard to swallow that there are Truths that exist independently of our "feelings", thoughts or the American consensus. More on this to follow in the coming posts.

Hierarchy of Goods:
Hierarchy {defined by dictionary.com} is any system of persons or things ranked one above another. Though this may be another unpopular concept, it is an important one when discussing "single issue voting". In some way or another, everything has a value - whether it be monetary, aesthetic, or intrinsic. Because of this value, in some way everything fits into a Hierarchy of Goods. Let's try an exercise. Rank in Hierarchical order from 1 to 5 {with 5 being the greatest} the following items:
Your Mother
Tupperware
Your Puppy Fido
Your favorite CD
Love

Unless you have a strange obsession with Tupperware I am guessing that did not even make it past 3 on your list. Why was that easy? Why? Because each of these items have value but their values are not all equal.

So, if there is objective truth (certain things are non-negotiable no matter if you are a republican, democrat, libertarian or just a regular John Smith) and there is a Hierarchy of goods, that would make certain items or proposals on a ballot more important than others, say for instance Life vs. money. What would you vote to protect to save?

Breaking News: Bishops speak out

I was writing a post today regarding "single issue voting" after reading a critical post from a friend of mine on the matter. But before I could get it finished, this came across my desk from a fellow Blogger: "Legal Protection for Unborn, Support for Mothers Both Needed, Say Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy"

The Bishops have issued a statement {full text here} which I think would be good for conversation (which will have to happen tomorrow as I am pressed for time).

As the article states, the Bishops issued "the joint statement in response to arguments that the Church should accept the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion as a "permanent fixture of constitutional law"... At the same time the two bishops also responded to those who argue that the Church's efforts against abortion should focus solely on restoring recognition for unborn children's human rights and that proposals to provide social and economic support for pregnant women distract from that effort."

My two favorite quotes from the statement follow:

"The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems."

"Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society's treatment of defenseless human life," they said.

Get a full treatment of this and why it is great news here.

More on this tomorrow.

Hope

Many of you may have seen this Obama ad {although the real one has the word Hope - I could not bring myself to post the real one}... I first saw this a couple of weeks ago, but recently have been seeing more and more of them. However, one of my neighbors just added it to the back of her car and as I was driving away this morning, I had to comment...

As a philosophy major, senior year brought with it a thesis requirement. I decided to delve into the subject of Hope as I set out to prove that there was in fact a human virtue of hope. I used "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl as my main source.

Dictionary.com gives one definition of hope: a person on whom one's expectations are centered. In my study Hope can be better defined as the movement of the appetite towards a future good, which though hard to attain is possible of attainment.

In either definition, one could see why the Obama campaign would want to use this as their "slogan". However, if one looks at his campaign and the "rights" he stands for, what future good are we to expect if he were to be our President? In combing through his website one can find catchy little sayings, like "I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth,"~ Barack Obama.

Truth, corresponds to reality. How can a man who does not want to respect the lives of unborn children promise to govern with truth or use hope as his endorsement? What higher good will this country ever attain if we continue to kill its future citizens? It seems to me that we should be asking Obama what are his first principles when it comes to governing. It seems to me that based on what he keeps talking about - the Economy seems to be one of them. Economy which by its very nature will constantly ebb and flo {isn't that part of econ101?}... so instead of a higher good {LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness}, we have money?

American Papist has a good conclusion as well as an additional article. Read it here.

Bottom line: I disagree that the Obama campaign is "powered by hope" but is definitely powered by his first principle, money.

Squeezing orange juice from a rock?

As the Presidential Election draws very near, stem cell research is the daily buzzword in the media. Everyone bantering back and forth: "he" is for it, "she" isn't, "he" only supports some types of research, etc. It goes on and on. I decided to do some research on the topic {moving beyond what I studied in college}, because there were some questions that came to my mind. When federal funding of stem cell research is discussed, how much money are we talking about? What sort of benefits are we seeing from stem cell research? What about embryonic stem cell research - have there been any benefits from the research thus far? But I wanted real answers, not what the media is telling us.

Here are some of my findings: "Adult stem cells, such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs), are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases."

The Numbers : $641 million is the amount to be spent by the National Institute of Health {NIH} on all stem cell research in FY2007 . New York State alone plans to spend $600 million on stem cell research. Read the report for more details on much goes into this.

My conclusion {of sorts}:

Why are we spending so much on embryonic stem cell research if little to no progress is being made? The moral issues that envelop this topic will be covered later; however if we know that adult stem cells are actually able to treat human diseases why not focus our attention on this. In that equation, the embryos would be left alone {therefore negating any bio-ethical debate regarding this} and we would still be able to treat diseases {which makes everyone happy}. It seems to me that in this quest to research how we can benefit from embryonic stem cells we are trying to squeeze orange juice from rocks... when we have an orange grove at our disposal. Why? Doesn't this seem a little nuts?

Additional thought: I am newly married and my husband and I are trying to set a household budget. As we are just starting out, we do not have a lot of money and life as we know it is expensive. So, we are trying to cut and save wherever possible. If we really are in such an economic crisis, wouldn't it be a wise decision to save a couple extra {million} bucks and cut back on research that isn't going anywhere?

definition of terms

When studying, it was drilled into the minds of my classmates and me, when you began a paper, you were to lay the terms upon which your argument would develop.


Thus, as we are at the beginnning, it would be wise to lay the framework from which we will continue our discussions.


We shall proceed on the basis that there is objective truth and man is a composite being made up of both a physical nature and a spiritual nature which informs the physical material. {if you are reading this and disagree with either point, stay tuned, there is evidence that shall be used to explain}

We shall also return to the roots of philosophy using as our foundation the three classic laws which are attributed to Aristotle and informed the scholastic tradition.

1) The Law of Identity which states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A.

2) The Principle of Non-Contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g.: "A is B and A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

3) Law of Excluded Middle: Everything must either be or not be.
We will use the following example: Sophia is married. The law of excluded middle would hold that either Sophia is married or Socrates is not married is true by virtue of its form alone. That is, the "middle" position, that Sophia is neither married nor unmarried, is excluded by logic, and therefore either the first possibility (Sophia is married) or its negation (Sophia is not married) must be true.

Additional favored principles:
4) Nemo dat quod non habet: Nothing can give that which it does not have.

5) Principle of Sufficient Reason: For everything that is, there is a reason why it should be as it is rather than otherwise.

More time shall be spent developing all of these themes as this blog is developed.

Metaphysics 101

As the first post to this blog, it would seem obvious to lay the framework, the why, the reason, for which this blog was made.

It has been a desire of mine for quite some time to have a space to put my passion for truth and wisdom and the study thereof into words. A creative outlet and also an educational space.

Why meta101? For a very simple reason. If every single man and woman were to take a basic metaphysics course that presented the basic human questions while imparting both answers and basic philosophical principles to these questions, the world would be a much different place. If you don't believe me, keep reading.