Rawls and Social Contact Traditions

I have a problem with Rawls' idea in relation to the "Original Position". Firstly, how would we institute such a system now with humans already in jobs, in ranks in the world? Secondly, if we got passed our current positions and somehow managed to wipe our brains clean of all we knew before, how would we keep such a system intact? After the first generation passes on, what would stop the second generation from changing the rules? There really is no real way to keep this system in play. Eventually, somewhere down the line, it will get messed up.

I give Rawls snaps for trying to solve the equality problem in this world, but I really do not think it's humanly possible.

Beliefs.

I keep mentioning this, most likely because I have such a problem believing that God is THE intelligent designer, so I'm sorry. I'm just totally unsold on the idea of there only being one intelligent designer. As I mentioned in class, if God was the intelligent designer of the world, an intricate creation, then God himself, an intricate creation, MUST have a designer as well. The problem with this argument is, in fact, that that is an infinite problem with infinite outcomes.

Also, people claim that they believe this theory, even though it doesn't legitimately prove to be true. They say their belief in God helps them to believe the theory. My argument to them would be then, why can't I just believe (with no legitimate proof of accuracy) that the Big Bang created Earth?

Argument of Design & Argument of Causality

In class last Thursday, Professor Piper brought up the argument for a God that something had to create the universe. If that is true, and something - God - had to create everything, then who created God? The argument of design argues that everything must have been created by something. EVERYTHING. For that to remain true, something had to create God, if he created everything else. The argument is seriously flawed. According to it, there would be an infinite amount of creators, one new one for each "God" or creator of the last.

In the argument of causality, Aquinas gives the argument that there cannot be a linear series of causes that stretches back to infinity. There has to be a root cause, a first uncaused cause - God. Logically, this cannot make sense. There really can be no such thing as an uncaused cause. Everything has a cause.

Question my Own Beliefs

I always thought that I was set in what I believed. My beliefs were something set in stone, and nothing could change them. But as of late, I see my beliefs growing and changing for the better. Prior to this class, I believed in God the father. I believed that there was a higher power out there watching over the world that he created. It didn't matter that there was both good and evil; there needed to be a balance for the world to work properly.

Now, I find myself question the existence of God, of any god. I struggle to believe there is such a thing. Without tangible physical proof, I cannot believe that there is a supernatural being out there responsible for my existence. I'm not disputing the possibility, but I just don't know if He exists or not.

Learning

I am proud to say that over the past few weeks, my understanding of philosophy has changed quite a bit. That's not to take away from Professor Mazuoe at all; it is in addition to what I've learned in the first half of class. Before enrolling, I never really knew much about philosophy except that it was a way to answer some of the tough questions in life. That attracted me to the subject, because I enjoy thinking outside the box and challenging the normal realms of thought.

I find it interesting that as I continue on in this class, I find more and more question in which the answer teeters on a line that is very blurred.

Which is More Important

Which is more important: practical wisdom or theoretical wisdom?

I think practical wisdom is more important. You could have all the intelligence in the world, all the scientific knowledge, but if you cannot understand human beings, it is useless. Practical wisdom means you understand and can handle individuals. Without it, theoretical wisdom is irrelevant.

How Philosophical am I?

I think I am a relatively philosophical person. I may not be completely theoretically philosophical, but I would like to think I have the practical side down pat.

For one thing, I would definitely consider myself "people smart". Out of all my friends, I am generally the one everyone comes to for advice. Not only that, but they almost always take it, and they almost always end with good results.

Also, I am a fairly empathetic. I care strongly about quite a few things and am not afraid to express my opinions and feelings to others.