Definition of Philosophy

Celebrating the World Philosophy Day

by

russian_federation_world_philosphy_dayThis year’s “World Philosophy Day” will be held on November 19. However the official international celebration of the Day will be held from November 16-19 in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, Russia. The theme, “Philosophy in the Dialogue of Cultures”, was selected by the host in order to “foster the dissemination of philosophy in all its traditions.” Specific topics to be discussed in parallel round tables during the celebration are as follows:

* Liberating from the stereotypes concerning history of philosophy;
* Dialogue of rationalities;
* Cultural self-consciousness in the era of globalization;
* Philosophical images of human being;
* XXI century’s technological challenges;
* Values and the dialogue of cultures;
* Philosophy for children;
* Common cultural grounds of the national self-consciousness of the nations of CIS and Baltic states;
* Teaching philosophy in multicultural context.

The first World Philosophy Day was held last November 24, 2005 in Chile. It was instituted by UNESCO with the primary purpose of “making philosophy accessible to all.” With this in mind everyone is encouraged to participate in the celebration, wherever you may be.

Some ideas to celebrate World Philosophy Day:

*Invite a speaker to expound on any relevant topic.
*Read a philosophy book.
*Have a costume party where people are required to dress up as philosophers or a concept.
*Get together with a bunch of your philosophical (or just plain argumentative) friends and have a healthy debate on the following pesky topics (courtesy of David Bain’s article in BBC):
1.Should we kill healthy people for their organs?
2. Are you the same person who started reading this article?
3. Is that really a computer screen (person – since you’ll be in front of your friend) in front of you?
4. Did you really choose to do what you are doing right now?

Enjoy!

Originally posted on October 27, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

Have We Gotten over Racial Discrimination in Politics?

by

During the time of Martin Luther King Jr., we can recall how rowdy most of us were as far as colored presidents were concerned. King was certainly disliked and even lead to his assassination in April 4, 1968. He was standing at the second floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel when he was shot.

It is no secret that majority of the people back then had a thing for the blacks. But today, we find ourselves on the verge of having another black President in the person of Barrack Obama.

But unlike before, we do not see rowdy people cursing and threatening Obama. That is excluding John McCain, his opponent of course who has used advertising mediums to get some leverage as far as their race is concerned. Apparently we see that it is all for naught as Obama is still leading thus far and officially.

Anyway, with all the discriminations left in the past, we are in a new era where political philosophy seems to be entirely better. It is more about what the person can provide rather than what he looks like. It has been a philosophy that we normally believe in even in real life. So if a black president can lead us to better tomorrows then why not?

So as long as we are in the era of being more rational and livid, let us keep it that way. We need all the help we can get and it does not matter if you are black or white!

Originally posted on November 3, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

The Sotomayor Hearing: A difference in Judicial Philosophy

by

Obama Supreme CourtWith the Sotomayor hearings pervading the news it is no wonder that I have become a bit pre-occupied with judicial philosophy. The big hoopla the US senators, both for and against Sotomayor’s confirmation, have been making over empathy and it’s role or non-role in the judicial system is a very interesting matter.

Lately I came across Michael C Dorf’s article “What is Sonia Sotomayor’s Judicial Philosophy?” and just feel that I have to share his wonderful insights on “formalism” and “legal realism”. According to Dorf, “formalists believe that legal interpretation is a matter of finding the objective meaning of formal legal materials, such as the words of statutes and constitutional provisions.” He says that ideology has no place in formalism and the judges are seen as “simply a vehicle for the expression of the law.” On the other hand, he says that legal realists assert that “formalist’s view of the law is false, or at least radically incomplete.” He further explained that “legal realists believe that formalists are not being honest (perhaps, not even with themselves) when they disclaim any influence from their own values upon their judicial decision making. Nor, they say, could matters be otherwise in a complex and evolving society in which legislators and constitution writers cannot possibly have anticipated all of the circumstances in which the provisions they wrote would be applied.”

So it is quite clear that the contention between those that want to confirm Judge Sotomayor and not is caused by the differing jucidicial philosophy. The question of course lies in who is right – the formalist or the legal realist? I leave it up to the senate committee to sort it out.

Originally posted on July 16, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

Jackie Chan Worthy of Philosophy Book

by

jackie-chan-bookAfter reading the latest news about Jackie Chan and his comments about the Chinese people I think he’ll make a great topic for the next volume of the Popular Culture and Philosophy® series of Open Court Publishing. The book can be titled “Jackie Chan and Philosophy: Chinese Martial Arts and the Art of Kicking Your People in the Teeth.” Of course since I adore Jackie Chan as an actor the book can also tackle his movie philosophy, his sense of humour, and the real reason behind his seemingly masochistic tendencies when it comes to stunts. These things alone would make for enough material to write a philosophy book on Jackie Chan but add to that his latest anti-Chinese freedom remarks and you’ve got one interesting character to analyze, someone worthy of a philosophy book.

So what were the things he said that landed him the honor of being considered to be submitted by yours truly to Open Court? Here are snippets of his controversial comments during the panel discussion at the annual Boao Forum for Asia last April 18.

“Sure, we’ve got 5,000 years of history, but our new country has just been around for 60 years and the reforms for 30 years. It’s hard to compare us with other countries. But I feel that in the 10 years after Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule, I can gradually see, I’m not sure if it’s good to have freedom or not.”

“I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”

Sources:
Spokesman: Jackie Chan comments out of context
Jackie Chan: Chinese people need to be controlled

Originally posted on April 30, 2009 @ 11:21 pm