In class on Tuesday, we discussed the concept of attaining enlightenment at the end one's life. It's easy to see how one from a Judea-Christian viewpoint can mistakenly equate the concept of heaven with enlightenment.
In my opinion, the biggest difference is the idea of judgement. Judea-Christian followers believe that they will be judged by God upon their worldly death. The Hindu concept of enlightenment is similar in some regards yet very different in others. A person's Karma is dependent on their attainment of enlightenment. This has nothing to do with being judged; one's actions, and Karma, merely contribute to reaching the metaphysical idea of enlightenment. One either does or does not attain it at the end of a life, regardless of any judgement.
My one question is this; if Karma is based on action, what about intent? Action A can have drastically different "ripples" for persons B and C.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
CLP: The 'Hegemonic Consciousness' of Law
"[Gramsci]...observed that social order is maintained by a system of beliefs which are accepted as 'common sense' and part of the natural order- even by those who are actually subordinated to it. In other words, these ideas are treaded as eternal and necessary whereas they really reflect only the transitory, arbitrary interests of the dominant elite" (Wacks, 95).
Gramsci's (marxist) theory makes the most sense (for the sake of argument) with law regulating or deregulating economic policy, and the judicial review thereof. For example, while the Supreme Court struck down a good deal of progressive, worker friendly legislation in the 1920's, the New Deal court stepped aside during the presidency of FDR. While there are clearly many different actors and variables which contribute to the situation in which the Supreme Court exercises judicial review, its worth considering that the will of the power players in our country (big business in the 20s, and conversely, the enormous popularity of FDR) have an affect on the decisions of the courts.
Gramsci's (marxist) theory makes the most sense (for the sake of argument) with law regulating or deregulating economic policy, and the judicial review thereof. For example, while the Supreme Court struck down a good deal of progressive, worker friendly legislation in the 1920's, the New Deal court stepped aside during the presidency of FDR. While there are clearly many different actors and variables which contribute to the situation in which the Supreme Court exercises judicial review, its worth considering that the will of the power players in our country (big business in the 20s, and conversely, the enormous popularity of FDR) have an affect on the decisions of the courts.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
CLP: Judges as "Literary Critics"
Ronald Dworkin gives the example of the story of morality and law as being one of a giant chain novel, and the judge as a novelist, and when he interprets prior novels (i.e., using precedent in hard cases). However, do judges "make" laws? Or interpret them? Are those terms even distinguishable?
While some legal positivists would say that the judge does indeed make decisions, in some cases, based on "personal discretion," Dworkin argues that every decision is an interpretation, and every interpretation contains evaluation. Evaluation inherently contains some kind of moral judgement. Therefore, every decision contains moral judgement, considering, of course, his premises hold up. If every decision contains moral judgement, and laws are merely legislated forms of moral judgement, than do judges make laws, or uncover them?
More accurate and constructive "interpretations," of the United States Constitution have led to judicial decisions which confirm universal human civil rights, suffrage, ect. The fact that some of these decisions came along later than others does not imply that they have not always existed within the human race, for our entire existence. With that being said, are those laws created, or as John Marshall famously said, do judges merely, "say what the law is." One cannot create or make what has always existed.
While some legal positivists would say that the judge does indeed make decisions, in some cases, based on "personal discretion," Dworkin argues that every decision is an interpretation, and every interpretation contains evaluation. Evaluation inherently contains some kind of moral judgement. Therefore, every decision contains moral judgement, considering, of course, his premises hold up. If every decision contains moral judgement, and laws are merely legislated forms of moral judgement, than do judges make laws, or uncover them?
More accurate and constructive "interpretations," of the United States Constitution have led to judicial decisions which confirm universal human civil rights, suffrage, ect. The fact that some of these decisions came along later than others does not imply that they have not always existed within the human race, for our entire existence. With that being said, are those laws created, or as John Marshall famously said, do judges merely, "say what the law is." One cannot create or make what has always existed.
WR: Can Illusion still make "ripples?"
We touched on the complex metaphysics of the Hindu religion in class this week, and ended up with the seemingly paradoxical concept of the unchanging Self versus the ripple affects that our actions (Karma) can have on others. Our discussion merely grazed the depth of the concept, but one pertinent question asked, how can we create change when everything we physically are and see could be an illusion?
I think perhaps that, supposing this were true, illusion would not necessarily entail the inability to create "ripples." If persons A and B have experiences based in illusion, what's to say that their actions would not have effects, in their disillusioned experiences, on each other?
I think perhaps that, supposing this were true, illusion would not necessarily entail the inability to create "ripples." If persons A and B have experiences based in illusion, what's to say that their actions would not have effects, in their disillusioned experiences, on each other?
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Introduction
Hey Guys!
My name is Dominick Cooper, and I'm a second year student at MCLA. I'm double majoring in Political Science and Philosophy, with a minor in American History. I didn't really find philosophy until I came to MCLA, although I've found philosophical thought to be one of the most intellectually rewarding endeavors I've participated in. With that being said, I'm really looking forward to the class this semester!
My name is Dominick Cooper, and I'm a second year student at MCLA. I'm double majoring in Political Science and Philosophy, with a minor in American History. I didn't really find philosophy until I came to MCLA, although I've found philosophical thought to be one of the most intellectually rewarding endeavors I've participated in. With that being said, I'm really looking forward to the class this semester!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)