The Importance of Presentation

     Man, by nature, tend to judge the values of a thing by its observable presentation. When a food smells terrible or looks disgusting, we tend to not eat it. When we see a person being aggressive, we tend to think that the person is aggressive often. With this in mind, when working for a cause, one must be weary of his presentation to be more effective with accomplishimg his cause.

Putin being "attacked" by Femen activists. He doesn't mind

     I have seen many times how presentation is crucial. For example, many people have a negative view of feminism. Some have a notion that feminism is an ideal that strives toward female superiority, and some have a notion that proponents of feminism are full of raging, man-hating, radical women. Feminists are of course offended by such views. But can they really blame other people of thinking in such ways?

 There certainly are women with aggressive and unacceptable social behaviors who identify themselves as feminists. When promoting women's rights, they sometimes try to make cases that have nothing to do with gender issues into a gender issue. They are blind to truths based on reason. When their reason fails, they call others out as being sexist or being "overly judgmental". Seeing these kinds of people, can you blame someone for having misinformed view against feminism?

    On a personal note, I have once made a comment toward these women with unacceptable behaviors. And sure enough, they called me out as a misogynist. How are they so unable to take a constructive criticism? Should they, who criticize old and barbaric practices of human race in the past, be available to criticism? Why do they hinder progress of a good cause with their misdeeds?

I'm sure you've seen this plenty of times.

     Christianity is something that I have often seen to be misunderstood by many. Many call Christians hateful bigots and uneducated fools blind to scientific facts. Some believe that Christianity is a cult, full of brainwashed idiots. Christians are of course offended by such beliefs. But I cannot blame them for holding such views against Christianity.

     There are people who identify themselves as Christians that use slogan "God hates fags", displaying socially unacceptable and hateful behaviors. There are people who identify themselves as Christians who believe that the earth is only 7000 years old, and that the earth is the center of the universe. There are also pastors that use peer pressure to force people into unwavering blind faith, making the church nothing short of being a cult. When these people are prominent, I cannot blame people who hold negative views toward Christianity.

     Christian faith teaches love, not hate. It teaches that science cannot be in contradiction to the faith, for God has created the universe to have sciences available to us in the first place. And also, Christianity offers many roads to faith. Rational reason for faith is offered to people who are skilled in the art of logic, and emotional reason for faith is also offered to people who are more emotional than logical. Why, then, do some pastors use brainwashing techniques to have people submit to blind faith when they should be making intellectual and emotional source of faith readily available? I cannot say.When they identify themselves as Christians, it appalls me to see how they contradict the most basic foundation of the faith: reflecting Christ.

     Presentation is indeed important. It can clearly be seen how people can judge an ideal by people who identify themselves with the ideal. With the knowledge that people tend to judge the values of a thing by its observable presentation, one should work to possess proper presentation when identifying himself with an ideal. Polishing civility and virtue, I think, is a good start.

Casual Sex: Moral Implications

Objective

     Through the trend of postmodernism, many virtues that persisted through the ages and different cultures are being discarded. Sexual restraint is one of them. This post will combat the notion that casual sex has no moral implications to it.

Moral Implications

     Most people in the first world consider casual sex to have no moral implications, under the assumption that it is okay to pursue whatever that is pleasurable. However, there is a moral principle at work when two people engage in an act of casual sex. The moral principle at work is "means to an end".  For example, a rapist uses the victim to satisfy his sexual desire. Thus, the victim is a means to his end that is his sexual appetite. The victim, in turn, is dehumanized in the process by being brought down to the level of an object, void of distinct human characteristics. 

     The primary goal of a "hook-up" is to have sex. That is, to satisfy one's sexual appetite, or any other insecurities that rose from lack of however many sexual partners. So to satisfy this appetite by means of hooking up is to use the partner as a means to satify sexual desire. When there is no agape (Greek for unconditional love, or, in romantic terms, true love) related to the act, the partner is brought down to a level of an object, not a person, because there is no stigma toward reciprocal pleasure out of appreciation between the two. 

     Using another person to satisfy one's sexual desire is an act of injustice, since such an act disregards distinctly human characteristics, e.g. spirituality, and dignity; it is a dehumanizing act, thus immoral. But also, submitting oneself to be used as an object of sexual pleasure is also immoral, because by submitting, one depreciates oneself by dehumanizing oneself, an offense against what it means to be sentient and human. 

     Allow me to put this in blunt terms. Perhaps this would make you understand better of the philosophical babble stated above. If a man and a woman engage in a casual sex, the man is just shy of being a dildo, and the woman is just shy of being a porno magazine, because they are but means to an end. By the moral principle that is means to an end at work, one might as well be masturbating with another person's body. The moral principle at work is the same as the one that is at work with rape. 

"He who steals little steals with the same wish as he who steals much, but with less power." - From Laws book XII by Plato. 

The above quote by Plato has an infallible logic. And thus logic dictates:

He who engages in a casual sex to satisfy his sexual appetite does so with the same wish as he who rapes, but with less power.

Social Implications

     While recognizing the moral implications, we must also consider the application of these moral principles in a social setting. As we are all human, we all falter out of ignorance and imprudence; we all harm others and the ideal of justice without knowing. Thus we must restrain ourselves from prejudicial acts against human character, since it is a form of injustice in itself. There is a social stigma that socially penalizes women who sleep around with multiple men. I am referring specifically to "slut-shaming". All deserve to be tolerated and loved. That is to say, the person must not be shamed, but educated upon moral matters.

     However, tolerance of people does not equal to tolerance of their immoral actions. Immoral actions must be criticized for the sake of higher moral order. But in criticizing, we must refrain from offending the person's dignity.

     Also, the society has a habit of romanticizing sex to a level of transcendence, when, in fact, sexual pleasure is nothing but a combination of simple biological functions that propel us to engage in sex and produce offspring. Sex is almost deified in our culture. It is glorified and worshiped by the pop music and trending dance styles. Furthermore, a lot of the pop songs objectify a human being to their physical attractiveness. These examples of modern culture is reflective of sexual habits of many young men and women.

"Sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited, from being the sign, place, and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other’s richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts" - Saint John Paul II

An example of how media tends to glorify sociopathic, dehumanizing sexual behaviors.
No, it's not legendary, Barney. It's a coerced rape. 

Pornography: Moral Implications

Objective

    In recent news, porn actress and Duke University freshman Belle Knox has been getting an unusual amount of attention. She has been claiming that the porn industry should be socially acceptable. Strengthening her position, a number of individuals support her, saying that there are no moral implications in porn industry, because all have their rights to do whatever they desire with themselves. To combat this view is the objective of this post.

Moral Implications

     The moral concept that will be at work here is "means to an end". Using a person as a means to an end would be to deprive or ignore the distinctively human characteristics vested within that person. Slavery and rape are good examples. 

     To enact the concept of means to an end would be to go against the natural law, which suggests that all beings in existence should be able to live as they were made to function. For example, lions are made to hunt, and zebras are made to prance about the safari. We humans use them as a means to achieve an end that is spectacle. We do the same to fellow human beings. 

     When an individual is jerking off to a porn film, he or she is using the people in that movie as  means to an end. The end being sexual satisfaction. Watching porn for the sake of sexual pleasure is to degrade the actors to their basic animal function - sex. This process deprives individuals of distinctively human characteristics. Depriving what is due to individuals (human characteristics, in this case) is to enact injustice.

     The same goes for the actors. When an actor is working for the porn industry, the individual has degraded his self to his sexuality. They are fully aware of why people watch porn, yet they self-degrade themselves to a level of an object that can be used by others. Such an act of self-degradation is an offense against human dignity. 

     Certainly, all human beings can do whatever they please with themselves and with others. However, can is not synonymous to should.

No it doesn't.

     

Does God Exist?: A Rational Inquiry

Does God Exist? 

 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." - Romans 1:20 

     The question we are about to inquire is to be a rational one. Through reason, I will attempt to answer this question that has been asked by mankind for as long as it has become sentient. With that said, I will not attempt to rationalize whether Christ is the Son of God, or the concept of salvation; only the existence of God. If you are curious of full rationale behind Christian theology, I highly suggest you to study theological works published by the Church.

     Before we begin asking the question, we must have a correct mindset. First and foremost, we must establish what we mean by God. We are not talking about god or gods. We are talking about God: the Supreme Being, the Creator, the Eternal. Secondly, we must abandon the notion that empirical science alone can prove the nonexistence or the existence of God, for natural science such as physics deals only with the temporal, not eternal. We cannot see beyond the laws given in this universe, which has a beginning and an end. Thirdly, we must rely on our ability to reason. No scientific data or contextual interpretation of holy texts can be relied on to answer our question, but pure reason may come in handy. Now, have you equipped yourself with the correct mindset? If so, let us ask the question: Does God exist? 

1) Observations on Logic

     I should remind you first that this inquiry will be a very hefty load to digest . To be better organized, let's divide our inquiry into steps. I have stated that our ability to reason will be the primary tool in this inquiry. Let us start from there. Mathematics is the first that comes to my mind. It is a reasoning discipline. Mathematics is one of the most common tool by which we can use to peer into the unknown and the undiscovered. After all, according to Galileo Galilei, "mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe". 

     We can predict (or discover) the future number of apples that will be on the table after I put two more on the table. To describe it with mathematical expression: 2+2=4. There will be four apples on the table after I put two more down on the table. But what is mathematics? Just a heap of numbers thrown in together? I believe not. We can deduce our scenario into a mathematical expression, but we can express in another mode: logic. One of the most common logical statements made in our day to day lives are "If, then" statements. So in our scenario, it would be stated: If I add two more apples onto a table with two apples on it, then there will be four apples afterward. It appears that mathematics is but an alternate expression of logic, substituting words with numbers.

     It seems to me that Galileo's statement is true in some sense, but to be clear, I would rephrase it. Logic is the language with which God wrote the Universe.

     To further reinforce my statement above, let me to object to the notion that logic is a human invention. I claim that, and you will see with reason, logic is inherent throughout the universe and beyond. I claim that we human beings are intelligent enough to perceive logic and articulate them with our language and modes of expressions e.g. mathematics. However, we have not created it. Like mathematics, it does not exist in a material form in our world, but rather primarily as an idea. Allow me to clarify.

If a star explodes, then it will create a supernova. 

     This is a logical statement. And this logic exists independently of human beings. Stars dying to create new ones have been the way by which the universe operated even before the formation of our own Sun. Of course, there are statements that only apply to human beings, such as "If Jack explodes a nuclear bomb, then the area of explosion will be radiated." But the very concept of logic supersedes our existence and this universe. The beginning of the big bang must have had a logic behind it: "If X,Y, and/or Z happens, then there will be a birth of a universe". Suffices to say that logic exists independently from this universe or another, or the empty void. It seems to me that we have sufficiently proven that logic is transcendent, that it is eternal. Needless to say, logic just is.

2) Observations on the Concept of Infinity

     Have you digested things that are stated above? If so, continue on with me. Another thing that comes to my mind that is eternal and transcendent, other than logic, is infinity.

     I have stated that natural sciences are not sufficient for our inquiry. However, we may be able to put scientific principles they provide to good use, because they are logical statements existing independently of applicable objects. Let's use Newton's third law of motion as a loose template: "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This law applies to movable objects, such as footballs. However, it also applies to all things in a general sense. This law of motion can be rephrased to apply to all things: if there is a motion, then there is a cause. 

     All things in this universe have a cause. Let us examine the causes. Starting from us humans. 

     How have human beings come to be? Through evolution. How has evolution come to be? Through the birth of organic beings' tendency to adapt. How have organic beings come to be? Through the carbon structure. How has carbon come to be? Through nuclear fusion in the stars. How have stars come to be? Through conglomeration of hydrogen and helium particles formed after the big bang. How has the big bang come to be? Our physics cannot know for certain, but something has caused it. How has that thing that caused the big bang come to be? Through this thing that caused it to be. How has this thing that caused that thing to be come to be? Through this thing that caused that thing that caused the previous thing to be... You get the idea. The questions go on and on and on and on. We arrive at the concept of infinity. 

     Our principle states that all things have a cause. Now this perplexes me greatly. It seems to me that the infinity itself caused all things to be, and that this infinity is the cause of itself. Suffices to say that infinity is transcendent and eternal. It is clear, therefore, along with logic,  infinity also just is.

3) Logos

     We have established that logic and infinity are transcendent and eternal. We have dubbed a secondary alternative definition to both of them: logic is that which is transcendent and eternal; infinity is that which is transcendent and eternal. In our language, we have different words for logic and infinity, but according to the philosophical definition we have dubbed them, they are synonymous, at least in the context of our inquiry. Perhaps they are more than synonymous... perhaps they are the same. Thus this thing we are thinking of can be called "logic-infinity". It is a tad bit harsh on the usage of our language to say: "infinity-infinity", if the two are truly the same. So, for the sake of convenience of language, let us have this "logic-infinity" into one word: Logos (λόγος), a Greek word for reason (logic), or word. 

     There is no empirical or scientific proof of this Logos. But reason dictates that there is Logos, the origin of all things, a being that just is. And this just so happens to be synonymous to our common definition of God: transcendent, and eternal. After all, "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'" - Exodus 3:14. We have not figured out whether this Logos has a consciousness as Abrahamic religions believe to be in this inquiry, but we have proven that there is something that we call the Creator - the origin of all things, the Supreme, He who just is. So we have our answer to our question: "Does God exist?" The answer is yes. There is something out there we humans have preferred to call it God throughout our history, and its nature proves to be the Supreme Entity. Thus, we call it God.


Picture from: link

My thoughts have been influenced from:
Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas
Metaphysics by Aristotle
Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant

"Ἐν  ἀρχῇ  ἦν  ὁ  Λόγος,  καὶ  ὁ  Λόγος  ἦν  πρὸς  τὸν  Θεόν,  καὶ  Θεὸς  ἦν  ὁ  Λόγος." - John 1:1

I hope I adequately transferred my knowledge into words so that others can understand.