The Philosophy Cafe

Helium

2008-03-19T03:48:00.000-05:00

Helium You write articles on basically anything you want and as a result, you get paid. You can enter a variety of contests that range from "write-to-win" to "debate" to "20 topic" to "channel champion" and more and as a result, you earn even more. If you join and refer friends, you earn even more. It's not just a great writing opportunity, it's a great business opportunity and a great source of income, if you donate a lot of time and effort to it. Helium is an amazing website and an opportunity for all writers looking for a source to get their start. Helium is also recommended to any individual with an opinion or general intuition. Their primary focus is universalism. It doesn't matter if you live in South of France or in the outskirts of Hong Kong, you are welcome at this website. Whether you are Iranian, Italian, or Philipino; Straight, gay, or bisexual; a homeless bum or a Harvard grad, Helium needs you. You must be 13 years of age to join. Where Knowledge Rules. Click here and sign up right now!

2008-02-02T08:26:00.000-05:00

Check out...

The Beauty Lounge
Music 143
Science Avenue
The Psychology Lounge
Persian 143 (new blog)
Jewelry 143 (new blog)

and more

Ryan's Thoughts On "Bisexuality"

2007-08-17T14:14:00.000-05:00

I am truly honored to post something from a person I have never met, but hope to in the future. This guy is someone who possesses a very strong intellect. A person who's opinion I value on a variety of wavelengths. He is bisexual and his name is "Ryan".

Anyways, Ryan and I recently got into a very deep conversation on Myspace about bisexuality. People believe that everyone is "Monosexual" and there must only be "Heterosexual" or "Homosexual". I disagree. I believe there are quite a few orientations on this earth. Anyways, this is what Ryan he had to tell me...

As I think I mentioned to you before, Sarah, I truly believe that most people are bisexual to some degree (like Kinsey did). Furthermore, I think that sexuality is a fairly fluid concept - there are many different things that can evolve a person's orientation over the course of their life, just as personality and other likes/dislikes can change. It's important to remember, though, that this has to be an organic change; attempting to force a change in a person's sexuality, no matter how much they may seem to want it, will almost always end in heartache and disappointment. Maybe instead of thinking about sexuality merely as one spectrum (from gay to straight), we should think about it two-dimensionally - like a light spectrum, with brightness/intensity of sexual passion on one axis to match the movement from the infrared of pure heterosexuality to the ultraviolet of pure homosexuality.

The idea of this inherent, universal bisexuality is the main reason that I listed myself on myspace the way that I did. However, in terms of life experience, to be perfectly honest with you, I would say that I am mostly 'straight'. I've never had sex with a man, although I have kissed a few on occasion, and I've also seen gay erotica/porn before, as well. A lot of the friends that I had in high school were very much the 'experimental' type - I went to some very interesting parties in those years, I must say. Because of that, I don't really know if the question of 'in' or 'out' really fully applies - among my close friends, no one would bat an eye if I said I found a man attractive, but that's mostly just because they are all really open, liberal-minded people in general. At the same time, though, I probably wouldn't volunteer that information around people that I didn't know as well. It's not a case of shame, or of wanting to hide a part of me, though - I also wouldn't volunteer that information if there was a woman that I found particularly attractive. That's just my personality in general, though - when I don't know people that well, I can be very shy and quiet, but if I'm around someone that I trust, I'm willing to volunteer almost any personal information.

The differing reactions towards male and female bisexuality (as well as attitudes towards gay men vs. lesbians) is a fascinating thing, though, isn't it? My personal theory is that it all springs from misogyny, and the traditional imbalance of power between men and women, as well as a general distrust of people who engage in sex for reasons of pleasure, rather than for reasons connected to either reproduction or psychological needs. Lesbians are "only" women, so for them to have sex with each other isn't that big of a deal for themisogynistically-minded person; when it's men doing it, though, it's inherently more frightening and taboo-breaking.

I've found that there are also a lot of people who have very interesting attitude about what qualifies as a homosexual encounter. I have heard people express opinions such as "two women can't have sex with each other, because there's no penetration" (something that isn't even always true of lesbian sex), "you're not gay if you're the one doing the penetrating", "it doesn't count as gay if it's only ablow-job , and not 'actual' sex", and "it doesn't count if you're somewhere where there's no women around, like prison or the army". I think it's sad that people can be either so ignorant, or so insecure about their self-identity that they would have to jump through rhetorical hoops like that in order to justify either their own behaviour or their attitudes.

If you don't mind my asking, Sarah, what made you want to ask this? Is it something you'd been wondering about for awhile, or just something that suddenly piqued your interest? If you have anything else you want to ask, feel free to, as well - as I said, when I trust someone, I'm more than willing to volunteer information about myself!

The difference between vegetarian and vegan

2007-05-20T15:36:00.000-05:00

The difference between a vegetarian and vegan is "strictness" in eating habits. Vegans are more strict on a variety of wavelengths, as opposed to vegetarians because vegans avoid any food that has anything to do with an animal in general. Some theorists believe there is much more to contemplate on differences because most of the difference between vegetarianism and veganism has to do with ethics. Some individuals who are vegetarian have a specific reason for choosing the vegetarian route, whereas; individuals who choose the vegan route have more reasons for choosing the vegan lifestyle.

I'm a vegetarian (Lacto-ovo) and although I do not eat meat, I do eat eggs, dairy, and honey. I basically do not eat anything that has a head or once had a pulse. Unlike the Lacto-ovo, Lacto vegetarians do not eat meat, but also do not eat eggs. They do, however; consume dairy products and honey. Individual Ovo vegetarians do not consume meat, but also do not consume any dairy products. Ovo vegetarians do, however; eat eggs and honey. Vegans do not consume meat nor do they consume eggs, dairy, and honey.

Vegans are against animal testing more so than vegetarians are. Vegans are attracted to products not tested on animals and will not use a product tested on an animal, whereas; vegetarians have an acquired opinion on the animal products issue. Vegans will avoid a cosmetic company or any company that tests their products on animals, whereas; vegetarians won't avoid a cosmetic company because they test on animals (although, there are a few that do). Most vegetarians aren't opposed to wearing certain material that comes from animals. These materials can range from leather to fur and more. Keep in mind, some vegetarians are, but not as much as vegans. Vegans believe in the faux persuasion and do not wear anything that is on an animal wavelength.

Individuals who tend to be vegetarian, as opposed to vegan, are more "silent" on the issue because they still do consume certain products that certain individuals consider to be a part of an animal, whereas; most vegans tend to spread radical activism. I have a great friend who is a vegan and she has never once forced her lifestyle upon anyone else, however; she's in the minority in terms of spreading vegan awareness. Although it's common, some theorists believe it can also be the other way around.

Some critics believe that vegetarian and veganism are both unethical, however; the same can be said about any eating habit, let alone lifestyle.

http://www.helium.com/tm/338425/difference-between-vegetarian-vegan

Lasting principles of friendship in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

2007-05-13T11:56:00.000-05:00

In Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle speaks about life on a variety of wavelengths. I've had the pleasure of reading this and I was quite satisfied with what I read. Although Aristotle speaks volumes of what is right and wrong, as well as, ordinarily accepted, it's approach to friendship is riveting. One of his primary focuses is friendship and although it is implied throughout all ten books, friendship is extremely and radically focused in books eight and nine. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle elaborates that friendship is more than just a bond between two people, but something that should be valued. Aristotle discusses strengths and weaknesses of friendship and focuses on their value, as a result and also discusses everything from the beginning to the end, of a friendship.

Aristotle states in the beginning of book eight that there are only three kinds of friendships, but he does not describe them specifically. He states that in order to maintain any friendship, you must not change. There are instances, I agree, but life is not perfect and therefore; cannot agree. What if you meet someone who is physically unable to communicate from a trauma or what if you meet someone who has a sexual addiction and is in need of help? These are some thoughts to ponder. He then continues to speak about individualism in his own words and if people do not remain themselves or true to themselves, the friendship will eventually die. I think that is truly important, so I can understand his reason for stating such. Although, he uses examples of actions he does or doesn't like, some I do not agree with include his stereotypical words about Persians. As he gets towards the end of book eight, he starts talking about the origin of differences in friendships.

What was extremely impressive was in beginning of book nine when, Aristotle quoted in the beginning that "In all friendships between dissimilars it is, as we have said, proportion that equalizes the parties and preserves the friendship". I believe that Aristotle was simply saying that "we have the ability to like and love individuals who are different, despite our differences". He then continues to talk about reasons for maintaining a friendship based on action and not way of thinking, as everyone is different, therefore; has a different opinion on such issue. He continues to talk more about worth and goodwill and their relations to each other. Just because one does good things, doesn't mean they are good, although may seem good in a beginning of a friendship. I think he was basically stating that "things are not what they seem" which is very true. If you meet someone you think is a nice person, they may or may not be a nice person. As Aristotle continues, he talks about friends and specific reasons why individuals are friends and he starts to talk about presence and it's importance in a lasting friendship including how it makes an impact on one's reputation, as a result. Towards the end of book nine, Aristotle analyzes consciousness and focuses on how it develops through friendship. He also talks about improving oneself to save a friendship, but doesn't specifically state how to do so.

I like Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and truly recommend this to anyone who wants to be inspired or who appreciates life, as well as, value, love, and friendship.

http://www.helium.com/tm/326379/aristotles-nicomachean-ethics-aristotle

What is equalism?

2007-05-13T11:50:00.000-05:00

Everyone is individually different and possesses a lot of uniqueness that separates them from being the same. Since individuals are in fact different, does that mean they are not equal? Equalism is simply a promotion of equality that embraces the conception, all people should be treated as equal, despite their differences. This can be anything from the color of their skin to the religion they follow and much more.

The term "equalism" was created by philosophical originators and later applied to promote activism, including feminism. Equalism is most commonly known as a philosophy, based on it's premise of substance, but others believe it's more of a tool or guide to promote equality. Individuals who are more "pro" towards equalism believe that if an individual is black or an individual is white, despite the color of their skin, they are equal because they both bleed red.

Although it's been stated that equalism only applies to gender, race, and society, it applies to much more by association alone. In fact, when it comes to equalism associated with a person, a place, or a thing; equalism elaborates standard differences, but specifically promotes their equals and provides reasons for believing why.

Equalism plays a role in life and despite it's negatives, it's positives exceed as a result. Some theorists believe that equalism is a way of being "blind" to not just people, but to individual right from wrong. However; if someone's right is right for them, does it mean that it is right for you? Those are some thoughts to ponder.

http://www.helium.com/tm/326066/everyone-individually-different-possesses

What is liberal feminism

2007-05-13T11:48:00.000-05:00

As one of the biggest civil rights movements in the 60s - 70s era, liberal feminism is simply a form of feminism that believes inequality can be cured on a variety of social and political wavelengths using social and political influences. Unlike radical feminism that believes in inequality of sameness, liberal feminism is the opposite. They strongly believe in fairness and only react if one of their own is devalued. Also known as liberalism, liberal feminism embraces the conception of individualism, despite the negatives and positives, as a result.

Individuals who are more "pro" towards liberal feminism tend to value tradition over anything else. The origin of liberal feminism is considered to be based on freewill, rather than laws and regulations. Liberal feminists tend to be more supportive and believe in promoting "pro choice" as a result. These women support everything from individual stereotype to prejudice to employment and more. Whether you are black or white, gothic or raver, you have their support. Liberal feminists are also very supportive of a variety of issues such as gay marriage and abortion, prostitution, and more. Liberal Feminists strongly believe that it's a woman's choice to do what she wants do with herself, including her body, regardless what it is or is not ethical to someone else.

Although some liberal feminists are praised for being not only deep thinkers, but free thinkers, some theorists even believe that liberal feminism ignore the moral values of life.

http://www.helium.com/tm/326030/biggest-civil-rights-movements

What is radical feminism

2007-05-13T11:45:00.000-05:00

Radical feminism is one of the biggest civil rights movements of the 60s persuasions. When we often think of "radical" we assume something is "awesome" or "cool", but that isn't the case with radical feminism. Radical feminism is simply a form of feminism that challenges the status quo system of oppression. Radical feminism embraces the conception of rights, despite gender and the minor issues associated with it. In fact, some theorists often refer to radical feminism as "the sexist movement".

Individuals who are more "pro" towards radical feminism tend to believe that the origin of inequalities is responsible for the adversity women face in today's society. That origin is considered to be the power of patriarchy. Radical feminists believe in strengthening the average expectation and creating a society that prevents women from being dominated. These women also are known to do anything they can, to find the truth. Some theorists even believe that radical feminism ignores the economical wavelengths of life and despite criticism towards finding a reason to objection, individuals who are do not object to this movement are skeptical about social and political views towards radical feminism or feminism in general.

Some critics are known to objecting radical feminism due to it's "anti-sex" regime and often imply radical feminists as "lesbians", however; it's been stated that radical feminists are not anti-sex, heterosexual sex, nor are they against men. They are, however; against patriarchy.

http://www.helium.com/tm/325951/radical-feminism-biggest-civil

The literary significance of Julius Caesar's The Conquest of Gaul

2007-05-13T11:43:00.000-05:00

During the time of 59 BC, Julius Caesar was governor of only northern Italy and some parts of southern France. Despite the fact that Julius was intelligent, he was also opinionated. He was more than just a deep thinker, but a free thinker. Some praised him to be the best and some praised him to be the worst. Some idolized him and put him on the same wavelength as good and others hated him and put him on the same wavelength as evil. He always attempted to find something so small and make it big for his own satisfaction. Julius needed a reason to conquer anything, as long as it gain him respect, as a result. Julius didn't care about the power nor did he care about what he could have. He was in it strictly for the glory alone. He wanted to be praised, as well as, honored for winning. In fact, Julius was so determined that only in his second year of command, he was radically determined to conquer the entire nation.

The Conquest of Gaul is one of the most complex examples of Roman history, as it demonstrated a lot of "fear". Most people were opinionated because they just couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Although Julius was determined to conquer Gaul, he knew that the people of Gaul were not like any other group of individuals he has tackled before, from other countries and lands. The people of Gaul were upper class on a variety of wavelengths, hence why he was scared. What made The Conquest of Gaul so significant to Julius Caesar's was "fear" hence why he kept a diary of the entire event. Although Julius was a deep thinker, he managed to construct his thoughts moderately to which made him a writer. Julius was a writer and a good writer, at that. In order to conquer Gaul, Julius knew it would be big, hence why Julius's only way to think was big. Julius was intelligent, but despite the fact he was intelligent, Julius knew that it would not be easy and would take sometime, so he came up with an strategic plan.

Shortly four years later, the Gaul was conquered. The people of Gaul were torn apart, as a result. Although the death count is unknown, it's been estimated that millions upon millions of individuals died trying save the Gaul. Most of the individuals that ended up surviving through the war were used for slavery and trafficking. All of this for glory and respect, Julius was satisfied and felt content. One year after the war, a man named Vercingetorix attempted to get Gaul back. Vercingetorix was a resident of Gaul, he was determined that Gaul was not Julius's to take. He didn't want Julius to have Gaul nor be associated with it. Although his heroism was refreshing, it wasn't enough to gain control over Gaul. Eventually Vercingetorix was surrendered and was forced into custody by officials, as well as, frantic submission and never had the opportunity to have a chance at Gaul.Theorists believe that Gaul was challenged many times after, but like Vercingetorix, they had absolutely no luck.

Did Julius Caesar have an agenda? Sure he conquered things for the glory of winning and he wanted respect, but why Gaul? No one really knows.

http://www.helium.com/tm/327485/during-julius-caesar-governor

Recognizing the difference between real people and fakers on the Internet

2007-05-06T08:20:00.000-05:00

The internet is a guide to the entire planet, right from a machine. You don't even have to leave your house to use the internet, because it makes life that much easier. We use the internet for many reasons. The internet is suppose to be fun, exciting, and resourceful. It is most of the time, however; there are other times, other instances, where it isn't. Why, you may ask? Fakers.

People say that the best compliment in the world is having someone use/steal your identity (which includes your name, pictures, etc. on the internet), but that isn't always the case. It's just a unleveled backbone for acceptance and demented curiosity, that fuels nihilists and promotes skepticism. (There is nothing wrong with being skeptic. I am a skeptic, to be honest. What fuels the negative, is when it develops into Paranoia, to which, that is where the line is drawn) It also proves that how easy it is to abuse technology, as well as freewill.

Whether, fakers tend to take advantage of the freedom or personality they have online or whether fakers tend to be insecure, lost, and drown in their sorrows of curiosity content, where they feel the need to seek voyages of someone they aren't. It's truly unethical because it challenges the standards of ethics and values of human nature. Nothing or nobody in this whole world can sway me to believe that false representation is ok, because it is not. Trying to take advantage of technology with or without a purpose is perhaps one of the biggest fallacies on the planet.

Why do people fake? Is it more that they want to portray that person in the photos (or possess that particular identity, ETC) or are they simply curious in a sad, recluse, demented kind of way? Are they child predators waiting for their next prey or serial murders waiting to find their next vicitm? Internet fakers are pointless because sooner or later, they will get tired of abusing the internet, as well as, tangling with human nature and abusing their freewill. Is there "one" reason? Of course there isn't just "one" real reason. Why? Because there would be a solution to this problem.

I have met (and webcammed) with numerous people online, not to mention made signs/salutes for various people and websites. (Including websites such as Myspace.com) I have a webcam, as well as, camera phone, which makes it easier for me to prove who I am (as having a cam of any sort, makes cyberculture or any type of social networking easier) on the internet.

If you are faking or misrepresenting yourself because you feel that you don't level up in comparison to someone that is physically beautiful, I feel it is important that you "Esto versus ad tui" (or in Latin: "Be true to yourself") Whether you are unhappy with how you look or other people are, it is you who has control of who you are. Don't ever be ashamed of who you are. Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder, it's in the soul. Physical beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not beauty as a whole. Everyone has flaws, as everyone has perfections. Everyone's strengths exceed their weaknesses. If you are self conscious, use a picture of something you love. Perhaps your pet cat or the beautiful sunrise you took on your camera phone.

If you are faking and misrepresenting yourself because you are sick (whether mentally, socially, or emotionally) seek medical attention before it is too late. Not only are you hurting someone and their family, you are hurting yourself, as well.

Not only is internet faking and misrepresenting very sad, but a waste of time and of course a waste of life. Internet faking and fraud is one of the many reasons our internet is not safe, however; sooner or later, fakers will get caught.

http://www.helium.com/tm/301654/internet-guide-entire-planet

The influence of philosophy and religion on the Chinese

2007-05-06T07:58:00.000-05:00

The influence of philosophy and religion on the Chinese is so fluent, it is obvious. As the Chinese beliefs' vary depending on the individual and overall faith, it's a fact that Chinese are attracted to faiths that hold several meanings behind them. They are attracted to more than just religions, but guides that develop into philosophies that allow them to possess more than just faith, but hope and the power to believe what they want to.

I believe that when it comes to philosophy and religion, the vast majority of the Chinese quo are heavily influenced by Taoism as it is a combination of several religions, philosophies, faiths, and belief systems linked together to promote a higher extension of beliefs. I think Taoism is so universal and extremely diverse, that it can cater to anyone's remote way of thinking. It's conception is perceived to be diverse, hence it's universalism.

Confucianism is an authentic philosophical system developed in China. It is as complex and as diverse, as the individual who values and appreciates it. I believe that Confucianism has made an impact on the beliefs (including religion and philosophy) of the Chinese and culture, on quite a few wavelengths.

Although, Buddhism is a popular religion/faith introduced to China by India and remains to be important, I believe that some Chinese (and when I say "some" I don't mean all) are disgusted by the fact Buddhism is a foreign influence, rather than an authentic influence. I do believe that this philosophical faith is influencing, but not as influencing as Confucianism or Taoism.

http://www.helium.com/tm/314819/influence-philosophy-religion-chinese

Bisexuality: A Separate Orientation

2007-04-19T16:13:00.000-05:00

Bisexuality: A Separate Orientation

Bisexuality is a sexual orientation which refers to the aesthetic, romantic, mental, or sexual attraction to individuals of both sexes. If you are bisexual, you basically find both men and women appealing, however; (and this is very important to keep this in mind) not every bisexual individual is equally attracted to men and women.

Do you I believe that bisexuality is a separate orientation? Yes, I believe that bisexuality is, without question, a separate, sexual orientation. To say that only heterosexual or homosexual orientations exist is like saying the world must be divided into dogs and cats, when in reality the world is mixed with both. As there is so much to contemplate, it's quite obvious that people possess a lot of views, to which bisexuality is so diverse, it's problematic. However; time has changed and science has proven that bisexuality does exist. Not just in theory or in human development, but also in the animal kingdom.

In the 1950s era, there was an American biologist named Alfred Kinsey. He taught entomology, botany, and zoology. Kinsey always had an obsession with sex, but never really discussed it in the open until the 50s persuasion (and if you read his biography, you would be fascinated with his story). Keep in mind, in the 1950s sex was more private and talking about it was sort of shocking to vast majority of the status quo population. Anyways, as time proceeded he became a sexologist and became open about his thoughts on sexology. He developed an interesting theory called the "Kinsey Scale" in an attempt to measure sexual orientation. The scale was exactly 7 points and went from 0-7. If you were a 0, you were exclusively heterosexual and if you were a 6, you were exclusively homosexual. If you were a 1, you were technically bi-curious and if you were a 5, you were bisexual, but more leaning towards homosexual. If you were a 2, you were bisexual, but not open and if you were a 4, you were bisexual, but more curious about homosexuality, although not technically leaning towards homosexuality more so. If you were a 3, you were basically just bisexual. I believe his theory makes sense and proves that bisexuality is it's own orientation. If you would like to know more about Kinsey, I highly recommend watching the movie "Kinsey" which stars Liam Neeson.

Another interesting theory called the "Klein Sexual Orientation Grid" (which is similar to Alfred Kinsey's "Kinsey Scale") by Fred Klein was developed to further expand the Kinsey Scale in measuring sexual orientation. 1 simply meant "other sex only" (or opposite sex/heterosexuality) and represented heterosexuals and 7 simply meant "same sex only" (which constitutes for homosexuality). Although, similar to the Kinsey Scale, the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid is different and bases it's experiments on sexual attraction, behavior, fantasies, as well as, social and emotional preferences. Fred Klein also provides evidence in "The Bisexual Option" a book that was introduced to the public in the late 70s, that was entirely devoted to bisexualism.

People often mistake bi-curiousity with bisexuality because bi-curiosity is hetero and homo flexible, therefore; critics and nilihists believe that bisexuality is not an orientation, but a feeling or choice of action upon curiosities, that develops in time, for the same sex (or the sex to which you aren't usually attracted to). The term passively-bi may also apply to be an exception to the rule. Some people may also believe that bi-curiosity is a bit ambiguous and assume bisexuality is the same way. In fact, some heterosexuals, as well as, homosexuals find bisexuality a threat. Individuals who are bi-curious often are heterosexual (most commonly) or homosexual. When someone is bi-curious, it does not mean that individual is bisexual, unless that individual feels closeted or in denial. Bi-curiousity is not an orientation, whereas; bisexuality is an orientation.

The difference between a soul and a spirit

2007-04-08T13:16:00.000-05:00

When it comes to the soul and the spirit, they appear to be similar, but in reality they are different and opinions may vary wildly.

A soul is something that is eternal, yet pre-existing. A soul can be mortal or immortal. It is the essence of our being. A soul educates itself and develops naturally. When something has soul, they have feeling. To have a soul, is to have life.

A spirit is a deeply situated aspect of the soul. A spirit may or may not eternal. A spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of the living being. When something has spirit, they have color. A spirit is the energy within us.

There Is More "Good" On The Internet Than "Bad"

2007-03-25T18:49:00.000-05:00

There is more good on the internet, than bad. Here is proof:

good

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,390,000,000 for good (google)
1 - 10 of about 1,730,000,000 for good (yahoo)
goodPage 1 of 339,581,239 results (msn)

bad

Results 1 - 10 of about 655,000,000 for bad (google)
1 - 10 of about 649,000,000 for bad (yahoo)
badPage 1 of 155,027,157 results (msn)

and there you have it... ;o)~

Afsharism

2007-03-25T18:02:00.000-05:00

Afsharism

The philosophy developed by Sarah Afshar that embraces the belief that if you are true to yourself, are compassionate towards others, and respect all living things, good things will happen to you naturally. This philosophy also embraces the conception that the world is meant to be balanced by both good and bad, with the good exceeding the bad.

More about Afsharism in the future.

Vegetarianism

2007-03-23T14:36:00.000-05:00

Vegetarianism

I choose to be a vegetarian because I want to. I am rather "silent" on the issue and I don't force my lifestyle upon anyone else. In fact, since I am a lacto-ovo, it would make no sense to force my lifestyle upon someone else. It is purely a subjective truth, as I can't say that it is universally right to be a vegetarian and that there are many individuals in this world, who would disagree, however; I can state my reasons for being one.

I believe that it is clearly unethical to create life for the sole purpose of killing it. Over two billion animals are killed on a daily basis annually. Even if the entire planet would become vegetarian, it would not accumulate the amount of animals being slaughtered. Sacrificing the complexity to save another lifeform to increase my own would be selfish to me. If you were a chicken, a calf, a pig, or any other animal, would you want to be raised to be eaten later on? Knowing there are other sources of food that exist, would you want to be chosen to be the one eaten?

The vegetarian lifestyle has become more "pro" as of late and has a lot of benefits. In fact, the positive exceeds the negative regarding the lifestyle. As most individuals who are vegetarian follow that particular lifestyle, most do it for ethical reasons, others do it for nutritional reasons, others do it because they don't like meat, and others do it because they just want to.

I believe that our ancestors probably did get by without eating meat. Real predators have reduced digestive channels, which humans do NOT have. It can be argued on physiological and psychological wavelengths, that eating meat is not natural, as our stomachs possess inadequate pH levels. I think once someone had the opportunity to taste meat, they just couldn't leave it alone. This has developed into a "meat eating persuasion" and therefore; created objections towards the vegetarian lifestyle.

Excess consumption of red meat is linked to a number of age-related disorders, especially atherosclerosis. Red meat's detrimental health effects outweight the anti-glycation benefits, that are used in any con vegetarian argument. Although, individuals who choose the vegetarian lifestyle are said to be lacking "carnosine" (which is found in meat) they are said to achieve a higher life expectancy than individuals who eat meat. This expectancy varies upon individual, but can achieve a range of up to 80%. According to Dr. William Castelli, M.D. "vegetarians live three to six years longer than meat eaters". Animal products are high in sodium, which causes the blood to retain water and also causes plaque to build up in the arteries, lowering blood flow, which are major causes of high blood pressure, one of the biggest killers in the world. Although, individuals who are "con" towards vegetarianism elaborate that individuals who choose the lifestyle will lack certain nutrients that are found in "meat" they seem to also forget that vitamins exist for that reason. Also, don't forget that tofu and spinach, along with nuts, and other foods possess a lot of key nutrients that are found in meat, i.e. Animals who are killed for food sources, eat vegetables. Humans who choose to eat meat, are not eating pasture animals. They are eating animals that feed on crops. Most individuals who object the vegetarian, vegan, and fruitarian lifestyles seem to debate that eating crops is unhealthy; but what do they think they are eating?

I believe in respecting all living things, regardless of how they treat me. It's not really trivial, it's just an ethical way of being. I can understand if you need an animal to save your life or you are being attacked and the only way to save yourself is to react, but to kill a living thing, a lifeform, purposely for a food source, that has feelings, emotions, and most importantly, a life, is unethical. Eating meat effects not only animals, but the environment in which we live. Should an animal be subjected to such pain afflictions? There are numerous studies that prove animals do, in fact, feel pain. Should the environment? Although, it is radically debated, animals do you have freewill, as well. The concept that in order for a living thing to have a right, they must take on responsibilities is a fallacy. Rights and responsibilities apply to everyone, including animals.

The only argument would be eating plants, as they are considered to be "living things" and if you object to such a lifestyle, you wouldn't be objecting vegetarianism or veganism, you would be objecting fruitarianism. Animals are capable of feeling. They have strong emotions. Animals respond because they can not just feel, but they can see, hear, etc and possess the same senses as humans do. Plants have no nerve tissue. This makes them ethical to eat. I say this because they are physically incapable of feeling anything. (Along with milk, eggs, cheese, etc.) I don't think "milking" a cow, will murder a cow. Do you? Do you believe that disrupting the natural ecosystem is ethical? Ecologically speaking, vegetarianism is valid and introduces positive awareness in monoculture.

Wild animals that must kill another animal to live is part of the ecosystem, the circle of life. Just because it is natural, does NOT make it moral. Of course, that animal must kill to survive, but as a human we don't have to "kill" to survive, when there are alternatives. Do you have to kill to eat tofu, grains, soybeans, etc? Several species of animals are constantly being driven into exstinction because of human actions. A vegetarian diet is said to decrease species. Are there divine ethics of eating? Does one believe that if an individual chooses the vegetarian lifestyle, that the vegetarian is wasting food? Does one who objects vegetarianism believe this creates a major imbalance to the world, in which we live? The same can be said to those who eat meat or over-eat, in general.

Vegetarianism, as well as, veganism and fruitarianism is only unethical, if the lifestyle is forced upon another individual who eats meat on a daily basis. This can be said about meat-eaters, as well. Keep in mind, not all vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians force their lifestyle upon anyone, let alone use cognitive dissonance to prove a point. In fact, a majority of individuals who choose the vegetarian lifestyle are rather "silent" on the issue and are often referred to as "silent vegetarians". There is absolutely no justification for individuals who eat meat and to attack the industry is wrong. It has been stated that because meat can be produced without factory farms, becoming a vegetarian is a logical fallacy of guilty by association. If this true, what about the suffering and overall welfare of the animal being sacrificed? That is like saying "just because Adolf Hilter was evil and Adolf was a vegetarian, that all vegetarians are evil". I suppose that one who believes vegetarianism is guilty by association, also believes that just because the entire KKK make up is caucasian/white, that every person who is caucasian/white is racist.

If eating meat and objecting the vegetarian lifestyle is unethical, explain murder? Does that make murder ethical?

Does eating meat and objecting the vegetarian lifestyle actually contribute to the world's balance of good and of evil? Is it required to interact with such distinction? It does not mean it is appeals to tradition.

If GOD were to be a vegetarian, does eating meat make the meat-eater a barbarian? If "meat eating" was created in evolution, does it make it natural? Just because it is natural, does it make it ok? Does this affect the appeal to nature? If so, then everyone must believe in one, universal ordinary.

Must the world be a food chain?

The morals and ethics of a vegetarianism, whether pro or con are not universal. They are tied to personal decisions and other influences in our lives. As sad as it sounds, the rules of physics don't care about suffering. If vegetarianism, veganism, and fruitarianism were unethical, explain why energy hasn't stopped because of suffering. Arguing that the chemistry of meat is superior is a rather lifeless argument.

Solipsism

2007-03-11T10:13:00.000-05:00

Solipsism

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that exists". Solipsism is an epistemological and metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis, which many philosophers have struggled to defend against.

There are three types of Solipsism. They are:

Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which maintains that the individual self of the solipsistic philosopher is the whole of reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no perceptual independent existence.

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question, or an unnecessary hypothesis rather than actually false.

Methodological solipsism is the epistemological thesis that the individual self and its states are the sole possible or proper starting point for philosophical construction. The methodological solipsist does not intend to conclude that one of the stronger forms of solipsism is true, but rather believes that all other truths must be founded on indisputable facts about his own consciousness. A skeptical turn along these lines is cartesian skepticism.

My opinion:

Solipism embraces the concept that the "mind" is the only thing that exists, but anything outside of the mind is unjustified. I object. I believe that is simply an opinion, based on one's awareness. I believe that solipism is simply a perception. I believe that in order to have a perception, you must think about it, while conscious. For example: In one's mind, they believe that it is ok, it is their perception that makes it ok, to do something that is completely unethical because in their mind it is ok. This is like saying that entire world must possess the same perception, without thinking about it because it only exists in the mind. I believe that in order for the mind to exist, that "matter" must also play a role. I do, however; believe, that the mind trumphs over matter.

I do believe Solipism exists, but only in few individuals. These include:

- Individuals who are not developed (newborn babies and infants)
- Individuals with special needs (depending on type of need and factor, as well as, percentage of the brain that is affected, etc)
- Individuals who are near death (seniors in nursing homes, hospice, etc)
- Individuals who suffer from extreme mental illness (this varies, depending on the illness and percentage)
- Individuals who are huge drug addicts
- Zombies.

The Inning and Outing of Homosexuality

2007-02-23T08:50:00.000-05:00

The Inning and Outing of Homosexuality

While "outing" often refers to an outdoor excursion, it also refers to a system of exposing something or someone, by "outing" that something/someone. However; in most recent years, it has developed an entirely different meaning. It is the practice of taking someone "out of the closet" and basically announcing that this someone is infact "gay" or a member of the gay community.

I do NOT believe someone who is infact a homosexual, should be "outed" against their will, as they are entitled to respect and a private life. I believe that if someone wants to "come out" they should "come out" when they are ready. Homosexuality is something that I accept and respect. I believe that when GOD created Adam & Eve, he created freewill and the ability to love. However; I know and am well aware, that the majority of the status quo population would disagree with me, hence why homosexuality has a hard time being accepted as normal or ordinary. Of course homophobic individuals or individuals against gay rights, would argue and state that the human race would become extinct if, the majority of the world were all homosexual. If that were true, the entire world would be homosexual right now. The fact is, the majority of the world is heterosexual and will remain heterosexual.

In recent years, homosexuality has become even more scandelous than we realize. People spend numerous amounts of time trying to find out who is secretly trapped inside the closet (or who is homosexual) and devoting their time to "outing" that individual, thinking that he/she wants to be outed, rather than embracing the good, positive qualities of homosexuality, as well as, it's strengths. I have developed a theory called "inning". This concept of "inning" will be used to embrace the good qualities and strengths of homosexuality or homosexual individuals. Instead of "outing" the latest closet case or someone you believe may believe to be gay, why not embrace the positive traits about someone who is already an out & proud homosexual? If an openly gay individual invents something, why not talk about it, exaggerate it, and embrace them or what they invented? I believe this would credit the gay community in a positive direction. Think about it, individuals who are NOT gay or individuals who are anti-gay, would develop a better understanding of homosexuality and would seperate the individual from the orientation. They would stop judging and come close enough to recognizing, it isn't a person's orientation that makes us like them, it's their character. "Inning" would NOT only benefit the gay community, as well as, gay individuals, but family, friends, aquaintences, i.e. of gays and it would make the community appear bigger, look better, and eventually, people who are in the closet, would feel comfortable enough to "come out" on their own, without having to be "outed" against their will.

Plastic Surgery

2007-02-14T20:47:00.000-05:00

Plastic Surgery

Plastic surgery is special surgery that uses a variety of techniques to enhance someone's physical appearance. Plastic does NOT refer to plastic, as in the element plastic; but a technique used to mold or sculpt one's physical stature.

Plastic surgery has existed since ancient world. It was started in India. It wasn't performed until the 15th century, where it became a rise in Europe. Up until techniques were mastered and anesthesia was introduced, people actually died as a result from complications of infections. It wasn't until the inventions of antibiotics, as well as, sterile techniques and disinfectants, that infections were reduced and the result of risky surgery was decreased. The first plastic surgeon in the US performed his first surgery in the 1800s

There are two major forms of plastic surgery. They are...

Reconstructive Surgery - Surgery that is necessary for enhancement due to significant problems that effect a person's physical ability. Surgery you do need, but also may want/not want. Some examples are: Contracture surgery for burn survivors and Mastectomy for women with breast cancer.

Cosmetic Surgery - Surgery that is for personal enhancement purposes. Surgery you don't need, but want. Some examples are: Abdominalplasty (or "Tummy Tuck") and Breast Augmentation (or "Breast Implants")

As I have never had any plastic surgery in my life, I believe with any surgery of the sort, there are risks. I have to admit though, there have been instances where I have felt ugly and depressed, but I have learned to pick myself up. I am my biggest critic, my worst enemy, my best friend until the end. Right now, I am content with the way I look, so I'm not considering plastic surgery right now. However; I may consider plastic surgery in the future, but right now I am satisfied.

Human Cloning

2007-02-14T20:03:00.000-05:00

Human Cloning

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing, human being or clone tissue, from that individual. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning; not human clones in the form of identical twins, which are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction, by birth.

Like many scientific phenomenas, human cloning has it's pros and cons. As the pros, exceed the cons; the cons are much more relevant, as they define the truth and the deficiencies of such experiment.

I believe that human cloning will NOT work. I say this (and this is with my religious opinion aside) because when an individual is cloned, the clone is born being the same age as the individual (or doner). Not only would the clone be at severe risk for premature aging and senescence, but the clone would also be at severe risk for developing several diseases and retrovirus. Meaning, the clone would eventually die and not achieve the expected life expectancy.

Iranian-American student at UCLA being tasered for not having his I.D.

2007-02-04T15:46:00.000-05:00

What are your thoughts about the Iranian-American student at UCLA being tasered for not having his I.D. on November of 2006?

I have been asked about this quite a few times. Someone recently brought this issue back to my attention and asked me to address my individual thoughts on the situation. I watched the video a few times, as well to kind of understand the incident. I watched it quite a few times (in case I missed something relevant); I, then, realized the horrible distinction and example it gave.

I always praised cops and still do, but now I know that "dirty" cops do exist and the UCLA police are some fine examples of what "dirty" are potrayed to be. I think the cops are incompetant and truly an insult to the uniform. I say this because I believe that it was truly unethical for the UCLA police force to taser him (as in UCLA Iranian-American student), let alone 5 times for extended amounts of time.

Just because someone is cocky or has a bad attitude, does NOT mean it is acceptable to taser them. Tasers are used as a last resort, before a gun. They are a weapon. They are for defense purposes only. I can understand if they tasered him once (even though, that is unethical), but they tasered him continuously, even after he was completely defenseless. He was completely unintuned after being tasered the second time.

When someone is tasered, they lose mobility and control. The loss of mobility varies per person/per shock, from the taser. The muscles spasm and create an immediate paralyzing sensation that can last for a long period of time (which again, varies). Although, it is temporary, it's been said that there are deadly effects from taser guns resulting in death. Infact, there have been 75 cases of death in a 4 year period from taser usage. Yes, there is no question, you can die. I can understand if they tasered him once (as I stated previously), but they did it five times. The UCLA police asked him to "get up" and continued to taser him, when he couldn't get up, let alone speak. He was completely unintuned from the effects.

The UCLA police abused their authority and went way out of their jurisdiction. Even after the Iranian-American student was completely defenseless, they tasered him multiple times, after he was already tasered twice. The police could have escorted him out (he was defenseless and they outnumbered him), instead they continued to abrasively taser him, until he fell to the ground. All for what? Because he gave an attitude and didn't have his I.D. Very wrong.

Abortion vs Euthanasia

2007-02-04T14:50:00.000-05:00

Abortion vs Euthanasia

Even though they appear similar, they are both different. When someone/something is aborted, they don't have any chance at life. When someone/something is euthanised, they have a chance at life or have already lived their life to some degree. Ethically speaking; they are both chooses, but they are both sins, with minor exceptions.

I say this because Euthanasia isn't murder. It is choice based on freewill. If anything, it is suicide. It only becomes murder, if the person who is due to experience the euthanasia, doesn't have the choice to become euthanised. (For instance, if a mother or father had their son euthanised for whatever "reason", it's considered murder) The doctor contributes to that person's suicide, but it is victim's freewill that makes it their option to choose that route. I do not believe in euthanasia and believe that death is natural. Suffering or not. If one uses this route as a form of suicide (which, is what it basically is) their option challenges their values and logic, as well as, overall responsibility of their worth. There are other alternatives.

Abortion may be considered a "conflicts of rights issue" if the mother is at risk of death because of the pregnancy, but that is very rare. It is 2007 and the risk for that happening is very very slim. A woman has the freewill to enter an abortion clinic and the right to kill her unborn baby. The baby has no say at all. To have an abortion as a form of contraception, is unethical and generally evil. The "guilt" risk is very high, as well as, the "health" risk. Also, it's been said that many women who subject themselves to such, end up having trouble conceiving later on, in life. I do not believe in abortion and I believe there are many alternatives for prevention (ECP after sexual encounter, birth control pills, protective sex, i.e.) as well as, other alternatives (Adoption, i.e.)

I would never have an abortion, let alone subject myself to euthanasia, as I do NOT believe in either, however; I am rather silent on the issue. The doctrines are elevated and everyone has a different insight. I have always believed that people should beable to have a choice. I just don't understand how one can see euthanasia or abortion as "ok". I can think of many alternatives before ever imagining swinging pro towards either option. However; as much as I want to use my voice and speak against someone who chooses abortion or euthanasia, I can't. If people choose to abuse their freewill and allow themselves to choose either options above, that is their own perogative. I just disagree.

The Importance of Philosophy

2007-01-21T08:18:00.000-05:00

The Importance of Philosophy

When it comes to Philosophy, the reasons why philosophy is so important, vary. One of the reasons is Interest. Philosophy is the Love of Wisdom. To pursue philosophy on an intellectual level, allows you to discuss it's importance. As your true conception grows, it allows you to find your moral discipline and opens the doors to investigation. Whether that include nature, causes/effects, or principles of reality. Philosophy challenges what we already know and what we have yet to find out. Knowledge is power, but a power that trumps a systematically challenged value, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. We can only inquire so much, without wanting to learn more about what we have inquired. There is much more to an analysis of fundamental assumptions and standard beliefs. Philosophy disciplines us and makes us "wake up". It allows us to realize we can't control everything in our life. You can create theories upon theories based on ideas, beliefs, and activities; and most likely, you will not have the correct answer.

Philosophy could also relate to someone's personal ordinary way of thinking. Not just their basic beliefs, opinions, and attitudes; but the standards they set for themselves and others around them. Philosophy contributes to one's growth and is crucial, yet effective to oneself. Some may "brush off" philosophy, but that is their philosophy. The intelligent seek knowledge, the wise seek knowledge for. Philosophy is for individuals who are both intelligent and wise. Those who seek a specific kind of knowledge and/or knowledge for another end, instead of truth are merely intelligent and not wise. Individuals who seek all knowledge in relation to the truth are both wise and intelligent and therefore deserve to be commended with the label of the "Philosopher". Everyone is different, therefore; everyone has a completely different perception.

Is a right something that is given to you by freewill or is a right something that cannot be taken away?

Is everyone's conception influenced by history, culture, and attitude towards life?

Is philosophy only required to find a way from unhappiness to happiness?

Personally, I take philosophy very seriously. I do not like to treat the matters in trivial form as it entails the beliefs of others and not just our own self. You can speak for yourself, as you should; but allow others to understand your remote way of thinking. Philosophy is an analysis of the concepts that we take for granted, an analysis of the concepts that we use to understand our relation to the world and our relations with each other. "Love of wisdom" really is passe, at least since Descartes. Philosophy no longer aims at "absolute truth" and creating systems, but at accurately describing what is before us. The post-modern collapse from monism to multiplicity (Nietzsche, Deleuze, Derrida, i.e.) entails that philosophy can only interpret and that it has a fragmented access to the world. Heraclitean difference, it seems, has won over Parmenidean monism. Contemporary philosophy is essentially Heraclitean. We use Philosophy to question our naive beliefs, to free ourselves from narrow ways of thinking. It teaches us to analyze critically, rather than to calculate and tabulate. While some branches of philosophy are in danger of collapsing into psychology, there is much more to philosophy than trying to figure out what happens in the brain. There is moral philosophy, political philosophy, social philosophy, and many "philosophy of's" such as the philosophies of religion, art, technology, music, ETC. Granted, each of these different branches of philosophy may and do deal with psychology in their own respects, but once again they are not exhausted by it. Unless these skills are useless, philosophy will always have a place in the world, regardless of whether it spends its time coming up with new ideas or just studying the words of dead Europeans. Science may be the way of the future, but Philosophy is the guide of the future.

Whether you are a graduate of MIT with a doctorate degree in five different forms of Philosophy or a homeless person using the computer terminal at the local library and regardless, of your stance or view on a particular issue, the world needs you.

The Existence of GOD

2007-01-13T09:09:00.000-05:00

The question still remains about the existence of GOD. Still to this day, many question the existence of GOD. Monotheists believe he is the supreme reality. GOD is believed variously to be the sole creator of us. Since there is no universally accepted definition of GOD (which is described in a non-specific sort of sense), GOD creates a lot of controversy.

Does GOD exist? Is GOD just one person? Does GOD mean all? Are there several GODs? The question of GOD's existence still remains unanswered to many people.

I write about this topic because I would like to enlighten you with why I believe GOD exists. I have quite a number of theories (and not just from my experiences that I will share today, and I will explain those at a later date.) Sure my faith is strong, but today it is even stronger than it has ever been. Without hesitation, I do believe in GOD. You might believe I am crazy or have a different opinion of me, but that is entirely up to you. I could give you syllogismic equations about existence in general or speak about several Epistemology theories from other individuals, who have their name carved in stone dated back to B.C. but I think I'll post my "reasons" why I believe in GOD.

Reasons why I believe in GOD...

My first reason I believe in GOD has to do with my near death experience I had at 18 years old. When I was 18, I tried to commit suicide. I thought it was the only way out. At the time, I was convinced this was the only solution for me. I took hundreds to thousands of pills (and I am talking about strong stuff ranging from Percocet to Endocet to Aspirin, etc). I literally knew I was going to die, because I took these drugs in large quantities. I have done enough research to be aware of the effects. After I took them in an upset rage, I felt like I was starting to feel clear. I remember laying down shortly after and falling into a sleep that I would never forget. I had a near death experience, to which I saw things that were talked about in the Bible. (Keep in mind, I have read the Bible previously to know exactly what it was) I felt like I was lost in a dream. Kind of trapped, but not in a negative way against my freewill. I pinched myself and I could feel it, so I knew I wasn't dreaming. I knew I was elsewhere. I felt at peace and right there I questioned whether or not it was my time to actually go. After dreaming (which I will go into exact detail another time) I woke up. I felt like an entirely different person instantly. I woke up throwing up. It wasn't until then, I realized I had died and came back to life. I cannot believe I survived. Why me? This is question that remains unanswered, still to this day. Mainly because of the pills I took and how many I took. (I know of people who have taken not even half of what I consumed and they died). My faith has grown so much stronger since and I have gained a much more grasped conception of life. I thank GOD everyday for saving me.

My second reason for believing in GOD has a lot to do with observation. In death and dying there is a lot of discussion which bases it's premises on sensory organs and consciousness in general. My grandmother was dying (she unfortunately passed away in 2004) and as she lay on her death bed, she would say things that made no sense to me. I say this because even though she believed in GOD, she wasn't spirtual and she never discussed GOD. Very rarely she would discuss GOD. This lead me to believe she was either atheist or agnostic, however; I didn't judge her and kind of never discussed GOD with her, as she never talked about GOD. I witnessed many things when she was dying. She would ask my deceased grandfather to get her a cup of coffee. She would call out her deceased sister's name. I had some minor belief, she had already crossed over to the other side. What made my observation extraordinary was the other person she had a conversation with was GOD. She would have conversations with GOD. She would say things like "I want to go now" or "Let me go", ETC. and she would bring GOD up. She would also mention Jesus Christ. (I know this is a bit off topic, but I would also get these horrible headaches during her dying. Like the worst pain I ever felt. I remember being in the hotel room and taking a percocet and still having horrible pain from these headaches. I actually think I took two and still had the pain. When she died, they went away. How awkward is that?) How strong is the possibility for someone who never mentioned GOD nor Jesus Christ to suddenly mention both?

Ever since I tried to commit suicide, I would have ongoing, sparatic, premanitions. I have had them mainly in my dreams, although; some days I would be completely conscious. Like in February 2003, when the spaceshuttle crashed, 2 weeks before/prior I had a dream I was an astronaut in space. I saw the shuttle crash. I woke up in tears, never even imagining this would ever happen. In 2001, right before the twin towers incident, I had a dream that I was in a taxi with Usama Binladen. I had never seen this guy before, so didn't think much of it. Later did I realize, that was the man responsible for everything at that time. In February of 2005, I had a prediction that a hurricane would hit us. I had a dream that I was in a horrible rain storm. I had another dream two months later that I was in that same storm. I had a dream that occurred right after my mother's friend's suicide. His name was "Jim" and his lastname was "McKeon". He shot himself in May of 2003. I had a dream that he was in a prison cafeteria of some sort. On top of the prison were the words "suicide" in big letters. A boy in high school named "Jason" with the lastname "Miller" committed suicide in 1998. He was sitting near Jim. The people were arranged in alphabetical order. I was so shocked. I remember what made it quite shocking for me was seeing people that I have never even seen in my life in this cafeteria. I could not believe it. The dreams happen on occassion. They go from often to just once in a while. Why? Is this a sign from GOD?

I am well aware that people don't like rap music, but regardless Tupac Shakur (a well known rapper) was a poet. He said once "Reality is fake, but Dreams are for real" and it got me thinking about the dreams I would have. Anyways, I had a dream that I was in heaven. This occurred in 2005. If you have read the holy bible, the way heaven is described is amazing. I actually thought I did die at this point, as I couldn't wake up. I felt trapped in that state. I felt at peace, but I still questioned my life and whether or not I was actually gone, considering I have/had nothing wrong with me for me to die. It wasn't until shortly after seeing the meadows and realizing I was in Heaven, that I forced myself out of it. I felt like I wanted to be in that state forever. When I was back into this life, it took me a while to really question what I had actually seen.

The examples I am stating, my experiences, ETC is only the icing on the cake in terms of this issue. In Quantum Mechanics, certain "things" exist because of GOD, based on the relation to certain conjugate variables. Music is an example of this. Technology is another example of this. The entire theory of unity is so diverse. This is why Issac Newton's law of univeral gratification is so accurate even though it interferes with Einstein's theory of relativity, because it's true. If GOD didn't exist, why is he talked about so much and referenced in questioning why theories and experiments work/don't work?

Someone asked me about dualism and if my experiences and theory were related to biological naturalism and property dualism. This is much more of a mental phenomena, ladies and gentlemen. This is something that trumps a lot of unanswered questions. This is experience. My experience, in which I choose, to share with you. Something that has moderately affected my life, my state of well being, as well as, my senses. Something that I can explain, but cannot expect you to believe.

The existence of GOD remains a question, yet I know my own thoughts on this subject.

Do you?

Please do NOT hesitate to post your individual insights on this topic.

Fakes

2007-01-08T21:00:00.000-05:00

The internet is supposed to be fun, exciting, and resourceful. It is most of the time, however; there are other times, other instances, where it isn't. Why, you may ask? Fakes.

People say that the best compliment in the world is having someone use/steal your identity (which includes your name, pictures, etc. on the internet), but that isn't always the case. It's just a unleveled backbone for acceptance and demented curiosity, that fuels nilhilists and promotes skepticism. (There is nothing wrong with being skeptic. I am a skeptic, to be honest. What fuels the negative, is when it developes into Paranoia, to which, that is where the line is drawn) It also proves that people abuse technology and their freewill.

Whether, fakers tend to be insecure, lost, and drown in their sorrows of curiosity content, they seek voyages of the need to be someone they aren't. It's not only very sad, but a waste of time, waste of life. Nothing or nobody in this whole world can sway me to believe that false representation is ok, because it is not.

Why do people fake? Is it more that they want to potray that person in the photos (or possess that particular identity, ETC) or are they simply curious in a sad, reclused, demented kind of way?

Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder, it's in the soul. Physical beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not beauty as a whole.

I have met (and webcammed) with numerous people online, not to mention made signs/salutes for various people and websites. (Including Myspace) I have a webcam, which makes it easier for me to prove who I am (as having a cam of any sort, makes cyberculture easier) on the internet.

I wanted to start a blog with this topic, because a few people have questioned my identity. I am actually glad they did, as I am a skeptic and would do the same. I know this is a philosophy blog, but I post this topic because I believe there is a solution to people's problems, who feel the need to fake.

I feel it is important that you "Esto versus ad tui" (or in Latin: "Be true to yourself") Whether you are unhappy with how you look or other people are, it is you who has control of who you are. Don't ever be ashamed of who you are. Everyone has flaws, as everyone has perfections. Everyone's strengths exceed their weaknesses.

"Pretty Is In the Eye of the Beholder, Beauty Is In the Soul"

Please do NOT hesitate to add your views/thoughts on this topic.