Justice- A Thought on Love and Evil

Damien Knight

Written as From “Arajuan/Koraki Kanosis”

 

Perfect rage, anger and hatred

These are not evils

No these feelings

They mean you have loved

It is love that is  the root

Of anger, fear and pain.

It is our love that causes

Us to feel loss

What is evil is

Forgetting this love

And becoming consumed

Turning to rage alone

And forgetting Justice

Advertisements

Wednesday Wisedom: YOLO

 

By Damien Knight

To find peace in ash, I cannot sway in the wind, life is but one death.

yolo

 

Life is so complicated isn’t it? It can rush us by surprise like a mass eruption of things to do. These volcanos of expectations and ruined plans they come as if without warning. We ignore the tremors that warn us the eruption is pending and even as the ashes spew we oft turn away in denial. What do you fear? I wrote the poetic line above myself intent to turn it into a full poem, but it is a truth for me.

What do I fear? Why run from the ashes, the pyroclastic flows of doubt and expectations? No, we can face it by not allowing fear to sway us, remain fluid like the flowing molten rock, but steady like an unbowing mountain. It is now cliché but as the kids were fond of saying YOLO!

YOLO! Go climb that mountain! YOLO! Go read all those books! YOLO! Go take that crazy Pilates class! And YOLO stop eating tide pods ‘K or you won’t be living at all. We have but this one life and after it only one death. Leave no regrets!

“I Think Therefore”

By Damien Knight

Descartes philosophy “I think therefore I am” is one of the most famous phrases. Through a series of meditations he at one point decided that he could trust nothing he sensed. As he watched wax melt, he realized he no longer could use his senses to perceive the wax and that lead him to conclude that knowledge is not obtained by sense. Using a pattern of doubt he observed that senses can deceive but his innate knowledge does not. Using doubt of the senses Descartes declared a rationalist view determined that knowledge came from innate ideas.

Hume was an empiricist believing knowledge came from the senses. He came to this much the same way Descartes came to the knowledge came not from the senses. Like Descartes establishing innate ideas through doubt Hume established a skeptical view of knowledge obtained. Whereas doubting the senses established that knowledge is not sense related. Hume denied that we can have knowledge of the world we take for granted. Like Descartes he first acknowledged that knowledge we initially have of the world is our perceptions which make up impressions and ideas. Our impressions being our senses our ideas being our thoughts, He determined that all ideas came from sense impression and therefore knowledge of the world is senses only. His view lead to a similar doubt of the world perhaps not existing at all just a Descartes innate knowledge view did.

I would be more inclined to agree with Hume that everything is sense perception. I am a Biology major everything we study we touch, taste, see and our research is based on what we experience.

A Child Philosopher

By Damien Knight

(This is yet another blog post from a former blog written five years ago)

I talked with my five year old son today concerning topics I learned in Philosophy class. I asked him how he knows a rainbow is real and his answer reminded me of the oncological argument we discussed recently.

He said “because I can think it in my mind and when I see one I know it is a rainbow.”

I asked how he knew his sight wasn’t deceiving him making him believe it was a rainbow when in fact no rainbow existed. He replied he couldn’t be certain but that he would go ask his dad if rainbows were real. His dad, being the kind of person he is, decided to tell Jayson they weren’t real. Jay kind of got mad at him but he concluded that If he believes something is real in his mind that’s all he needed that the senses were not the way he had knowledge of rainbows. Me, I think it is both, reason and the senses.

Philosophy: The Ontological Argument

Written by: Damien Knight

“Can Anselm’s Ontological Argument be considered a valid proof of the existence of God? If not, why not? Re-state the basic features of the argument and address the question.”

Saint Anslem’s argument was an argument that claimed to rely on reason alone. His claim was because “God” is “That than which none greater can be conceived” then god himself must exist. In other words because we can think of a perfect god and that he is the greatest being we can think of than He must exist. There is a problem with this argument. I can conceive of many things including dragons but this does not bring them into reality no matter if I wish it so. I am a spiritual person who follows the “Kemetic” Faith for me the greatest being is Amun Ra and the Egyptian Parthenon but others were not raised in nor converted in my faith therefore their idea of a greatest perfect god will be what they were raised or converted to. Does this mean I am wrong that Amun Ra whom was worshiped for so long is not the perfect god. Does the fact I conceive of him or Zeus or any god make that god real at all? What if I conceived Aliens created human life and control things on earth instead? Does that now mean that is also real because I thought it? For everything it needs a more clear defining and as a scientist I prefer that done through the scientific method of hypothesis, test and hypothesis again until the answers are there.