On Ideology in Health, Governance, and Beyond

Introduction

A lot of ideas are on backorder (have some jotted down), but I didn't want to let this particular one slide away. I very briefly ran this basic idea by a professor today and he suggested I look into "The Idea of Justice" by Amartya Sen - I ordered the book and look forward to reading it. In the meantime, I figured to write up some of my thoughts. The ideas I hope to share are undoubtedly incomplete, but at the very least getting this on 'e-paper' will hopefully be an enjoyable experience (and perhaps for anyone reading it as well).

I've had a few questions fermenting the past couple of years regarding ideology and its effectiveness- specifically in the fitness and politics sphere.

There are very experienced and knowledgable people in the political/economic realm that espouse a certain ideology, and you have equally qualified people espousing the opposite side. Take the conservatives vs. liberals; we've seen the story play out throughout history. This isn't just limited to the political sphere. In fitness world you can have people who hold the vegan diet to be the healthiest and equally qualified professionals saying people should eat in accordance with the paleodiet.

My question has been two-fold: How and why does this happen? Can anything be done to get around this?

While I don't think I have the answer, I think that we should step back and try to look at ideology for what it is. And hopefully, in the end, create an open and respectful forum where we can put our common set of beliefs on the table and work towards implementing the appropriate steps in light of the common goals we seek to achieve. 

With Regard to Fitness

I first would like to quote a part of my fitness/health blog. I was discussing the question of the various diets out there and the conjecture in the fitness field:

http://blog.trainerjb.com/2012/08/new-data-on-cr-diet-no-one-size-fits-all.html

"Each diet does something different. There are thousands of metabolic processes going on at each moment, and each one of those processes is in turn affected by how we eat. As nutritional science progresses, what is "the best" diet might be more of a question of what exactly are you looking to gain, and what you are willing to sacrifice…I think this kind of approach could apply to a lot of different fields in life where there is a lot of contention (politics, for one) but I won't bore you with any of that for now."

(Now's the time to "bore you" :))

The same applies to various training ideologies within the fitness sphere. There are all kinds of different training regimens out there. Even if we were to be able to figure out exactly how a particular training regimen affects a particular person and to which varying degrees, the question of what the goals are remains. High intensity training will affect certain things to varying degrees in a different way than volume based training will. What are we really trying to promote? "Best" in that case is a question of what you are trying to attain (again, all assuming science gets us that far), and one based on overlapping effects (that in turn affect other things…).

And yes, this similarly can be seen in governance.

With Regard to Governance

A few observations I'd like to make regarding an ideology related to governance:

- Ideologies (at least the way they are commonly 'used') are applied to justify/guide various actions in all different kinds of scenarios. That's not to say "X" politician gets up and says "we should do this because of my ideology", but I think we'd be naive to think that there isn't an ideology behind X when X says "let's lower taxes" or "let's increase government expenditures". This, however, just prima fascia seems to be a bit of a brazen approach for politicians to have. Can we really expect a particular ideology to fit an ever-changing society in all different circumstances?

- Further, trying to isolate the variables to prove which particular ideology is "better" is extraordinarily difficult (assuming we can agree what "better" would even look like). Different forms of governance affects many different things in varying degrees (even more so than like in fitness). 

I wrote a research report in September of senior year on Reaganomics. In my concluding remarks I mentioned that in the end, judging the efficacy of a particular theory is difficult. In writing this post I dug it up from the archives. Talk about a blast from the past! "First, in the type of globalized economy that the United States is part of today, there are far too many outside factors that affect the growth of a particular nation (other nations’ growth, wars, etc.) – supposed economic indicators such as GDP growth are not too helpful, since it is nearly impossible to isolate factors and determine what the cause really was (i.e., the president’s policy, or another nation’s actions). Another problem arising when analyzing the outcomes of a policy and one that is especially pertinent to Reagan’s time period, is the question: “did it help the economy recover from the recession?” No one can give a verifiable answer. President Obama claims that he will save “millions of jobs”, the assertion, however, cannot be affirmed; at the end of the current recession, no matter how many jobs will be lost or gained, we can never know how many jobs would have been there without Obama’s particular policies."

Looking at Washington and A Possible Method

In regard to the actual situation in Washington D.C. - 

What we currently get in the U.S. government is no one particular pure ideology, but a mixture of primarily two and its resulting gridlock. Keeping an open mind about the imperfect nature of ideologies could perhaps lend a certain level of respectable discourse in the political realm. The debates right now revolve around which ideology is right. It instead should revolve around: what are the empirical facts as we currently understand? What kind of society do we wish to promote? How do we do we promote such a society based on the existing facts?  What conclusions make sense without coming from an ideological perspective?

So what should we do? Take the example of the post office. Instead of debating something like that with the backdrop of ideology (big vs. small government), let's look at the facts and see its current standing in consideration of the revolution of communication. Let's than look at how it fits in within our mutual understandings of the goods of society. We then can see whether it needs to be reformed or possibly even removed given the evidence of how to best achieve our mutual goals. 

A More Reasonable and Moderate Approach

Taking this case by case approach to governance can be quite difficult, and possibly impossible at times.

This notion is also prey to the fact that empirical research is undoubtedly incomplete; and perhaps we even still need ideology is some forms. But here we should distinguish between empirical research and just looking at the world through an empirical lens. The former is complicated and incomplete, and the latter is a holistic approach that will allow for more commonality in understanding. We should first look at the world empirically, evaluate our numerous beliefs, and outline the goals we would like to pursue.

From there we should abstract flexible ideologies to help us, acknowledging that there are different ideologies based on people's individual experiences in life, and that there (for all intents and purposes) is no perfect ideology found. We should respectfully engage in discourse based on the facts, and based on the goods we seek to promote. The result is not one particular clean ideology of how the governance fits with the world, but several different ideas of how particular things work (based on this flexible abstraction of ideals) in different circumstances. It's not about having one overarching idea of how the world works. So someone who thinks that in one particular case we should have a more involved role in government education in a particular public policy should feel just as comfortable in believing the government should have a more limited role in something like a policy on health care.

(By the way, I think we are starting to see this in some cases room for flexibility. Take the question of the multiplier effect for deficit reduction and spending. I was reading about how this tool is tweaked in different ways by economists to take into account GDP and other economic metrics. But even this is still crude. Cutting and spending on different things in the context of various global-political shifts can cause different results.)

Elections should be based, then, not on the party a voter fits into, but the particular goals a person seeks to achieve within the context of the person's particular value and belief system. No one person fits into a box, let alone a country a 300+ million people from all different backgrounds. Let us not treat our box-shaped ideologies as if they can actually fit.

A "Perfect" Ideology?

But even as science and economics gets better, we still get to the question: which of our goals are actually better for society? That, however, is a far better discussion than the current one that falls back on imperfect ideologies on how governance and policies work. I say "imperfect" as I'd be surprised if one of the two main political ideologies presented in modern political American discourse happened to be the best possible.

And here is the difference between health and governance ideologies. In fitness/health it is easier to study and isolate variables. Experimentation is easier, the empirical evidence more quantifiable, and the goals a bit clearer. With governance, however, we can't really risk experimenting with a government dealing with millions of lives, and the goals of governance are all but decided upon (you would think our founding documents would be enough!).

Are we then lost to find the perfect guiding ideology? 

"Perfect" is used not as in the one that solves all problems, but as in one that is best suited to promote the goods/goals decided upon. With that said, it may be the case that "there exists A ideology such that A is the best ideology through which to govern" - but if we are to arrive at A, it must first be through looking at the world empirically, evaluating the values and beliefs that we hold, build goals that we wish to achieve, and abstract a governing ideology that takes into account our ever-changing and complex world.

It's not that people won't disagree - after all, people hold different sets of values (even after evaluation). But at least we can see those values for what they are in the current discourse in recognition of our varied life experiences, without being tethered to particular ideology.  

Not Just Health/Fitness/Governance

I believe this applies to many of the polarizing ideologies out there in the world. Why? The world is so complex, almost infinitely so. Humans have occupied this earth for such a short period of time - who knows what discoveries and paradigm shifts we go through in the future. If we are to hold one ideology it is this - let us be humble and honest with ourselves and let us be respectful with others.

Being "Smart": The Toolbox Analogy and Franklin's Pragmatism

Preface: It's been a long time, and truthfully, I figured I'd take a few minutes to put out this quick thought. And  though I've held this idea for years, I thought it useful to put it down on 'paper',

The word 'smart' is thrown around quite a lot. Smart: Acute, adept, brainy, bright, brilliant, clever, genius, good, intelligent, keen, on the ball, sharp, shrewd, whiz, wise. What really does it mean?

An analogy will help elucidate where I'm coming from. Think of a person's degree of smartness as a tools as a function of how they solve/fix problems. The more tools you have in the toolbox, the better your chances that when you encounter life's many challenges, you will have the correct or best-fit solution. But, one must know how to use the tools. It's great if a person has a shed filled with thousands of high tech gadgets, but if a person does not know how to use them,  it contains little relevance to life. You might have a person with few tools, but know hows to use those tools really well that the particular person is more able to solve issues.

We often hear "street-smarts versus book-smarts". Street-smarts is knowing how to use the tools and book-smarts is the number of tools a person has.

Someone may know a lot of let us say, biology, but how is that person applying the knowledge to every day life? When a person has a problem, how effectively can s/he utilize there storehouse of knowledge?

Sadly, is learning often compartmentalized into classic institutional educational systems. That is to say that when a person learns a particular fact that goes into the 'need to know for school' bins in a person's mind, rather than 'important to know because either A) it may one day come in handy B) it develops new connections in the brain that leads to creativity and new ideas C) Any other particular reason the person may have at the moment. But if a person cannot come up with a reason except that which is for the strict purpose of a GPA or grad school, one must reevaluate their position in the institution.

Benjamin Franklin was a pioneer of pragmatism - knowledge was useful insofar as it produced practical gains in society. What tends to occur in modern day institutions is we don't see the relevance in the material for practical purposes and it gets stored away and we end up with a shed full of tools. These stowed-away tools is coupled with not only a lack of understanding of how to use the tools, but with no realization that it should be used.

Final point, and my most important: Smartness is acquired. Yes, some people may seem to be at a disadvantage, but what it comes down to is the acquiring of ideas with the experiences of an open-minded approach to life that teaches you how to use them. There is no one 'smart gene'. So though a particular person may not have a so called genetic-disposition to the acquiring of history facts, if the person has the allows his/herself to make connections, if the person dedicates his/herself to rigorous study (for a purpose!) then a seemingly genetic handicap can be overcome. Look no further than 5'3" basketball star Muggsy Bogues.

Once one truly works on those pathways in the brains, the remarkable plasticity in the brain will show that there's no real genetic disposition to being smart, and if there is, it's irrelevant. What's important is what you do with it in life.

Life is too short to let it go by without giving back to world. It is our duty as human beings on this earth to make the most of our brains, and through that the most of life, regardless of the particular code our DNA may have.

Morality, Ethics, and the Separation between Church and State

The idea of separation between church and state has always been a major issue in politics. Wikipedia: “According to recent surveys, 83 percent of Americans claim to belong to a religious denomination, 40 percent claim to attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent claim to pray at least weekly. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives...”  What does that mean for the separation between church and state? The staunch opposition to abortion has in the past been substantiated by the notion that life begins at conception. But the question is: from where is that viewpoint being derived – from religion or from reason? And can the two be reconciled in the political arena?

The first defense of having religion in politics is this: Religion, as a belief system, is no different from any other belief system. Not many would argue a separation between Church and State when it comes to someone whose policies is formed around, let’s say, Aristotle.  Whether it is someone’s classification as being Aristotelian, Atheist, or Protestant, there is no difference. Just because some belief system is qualified as religious, it should not prohibit the particular religion from being expressed in politics. Ah, but this line of argument does not hold water for one important reason; religion in most cases includes some sort of authoritative figure. It is this which separates a set of beliefs from religion. I will come back to this idea of an authoritative figure later in the post.

The role of separation of church and state really only comes into effect regarding moral and ethical dilemmas, like the aforementioned question of abortion. But I think if we take a step back, we will realize that we don’t strictly derive our morals from religion. When it comes down to it, we play the part in imposing our interpretations on the Bible, Qur’an, etc. All people must interpret the text in some way, even the Sadducees who famously took the Bible literally, still have to interpret, for example “an eye for an eye”. What does that mean? Does it mean takes someone’s eye out who took out yours? Let’s say if you just injured the eye? Let’s say?...Translation by its very nature involves some sort of interpretation. Interpretation of what the text is trying to say is necessary. The question: “What is the text trying to tell us?” is in its nature a question of interpretation.

There is no religion without interpretation.

So if it is really our interpretation that counts, where are these moral and ethical answers to questions on topics like abortion/stem cell research derived? They can be derived from three things.

First, certain evolutionary biologists might argue that morality comes from a certain innate feeling built into human DNA (that gut reaction human beings have to cold-blooded murder) - why? In order that society can survive, natural selection would favor the genes of a race in which order can be maintained. An instinctive sense of what is right would most definitely help humans (or their precursors) evolve. It can also come into play when analyzing religious texts.  For example, if we were to look at the story in Exodus, when Moses kills the Egyptian hitting the Israelite, one might ask: was that the right course of action? Our innate sense of right and wrong can come into play when answering this question.

The second thing is the socio-political environment in which one finds oneself.  An example to this would be the question of polygamy. It is a question whose answer is largely derived from the environment in which one finds oneself. It is up to the individual to interpret the religious text in his/her sense of morality. A part of one’s sense of right and wrong is derived from society. And as a side note, this has proved to be convenient throughout history. Religion provides a justification for the moral values one already possesses. It reinforces the values and in certain circles can keep order. One can admonish the rebels in society by pointing to the text, thereby keeping status quo (whether for good or for bad).

The first two ways to derive morality from religious texts (evolution, society) does not actually involve the particular text, it is merely a reflection of the person and society; does that remove the authoritative element of religious texts? It depends. This brings me to the third place morality can be derived – tradition and its system of interpretation. If you hold by a tradition of interpretation, then there are three ways morals are derived, not just the former two ways. And being that nothing in life is black and white, but a spectrum, many people fall somewhere in between.

The Old Testament, for example, represented a revolutionary break from the past system of morality. The treatment called for slaves was very humane. This system of interpretation is what is passed down via tradition. Without this orthodox approach to religion, we are left to the first two ideas of where morality comes from, and consequently, with only two ways to interpret the religious texts. Whether orthodoxy or the more liberal sects of religion is better, is a question whose answer would fill up bookshelves. But just one point – a major factor that causes the condemnation of ultra-orthodox factions is their lack of acceptance of the social and political climate in which they live. They maintain just one side of the interpretive coin (that being tradition) and as a consequence live in a bubble. This is a shame. (Though the one good thing is that ensure that this one particular side of the coin never gets lost.)

So just to reiterate a really important point – there are three parts to interpretation of religious texts from which morality can derived. The first involves evolutionary biology, the second involves society, and the third involves traditions passed down, which at times can maintain a sense of objectivity. There is a saying among certain Orthodox teachers of the Bible: “The Bible was spoken in the language of man” – calling for the necessity of all three ways to interpret the Bible. Others disagree and maintain that the first two are only  necessary. Again, that particular discussion for another time.


What I am getting at is that it is more important who is interpreting the text than what is being interpreted. Many point to the Qur’an as the source of Islamic Fundamentalism. I think history has clearly shown that it has not always been that way and there are plenty of modern day Islamic worshipers who are opposed to fundamentalism. A little though experiment – have Protestants and fundamentalist Muslims switch religious texts for a while. The Protestants will simply reinterpret the Qur’an to make it fit their normal lifestyle and the Fundamentalist Muslims will take the Bible and justify Jihad anyhow.

Many religions have their sour moment in history. The Spanish Inquisition is not one of the kindest moments of Christian history, and not many would say that the sentiment felt by Christians in the 15th Century is felt today. It is not the Bible that has changed in the last 500+ years, but society. Society has evolved, and so has the interpretation of the text.  Also, the fact that not every Church-going Catholic will agree on a set of ethics means that it is not the text that is informing the decision, but the interpretation.

 So, if one’s morality is chiefly a reflection of oneself, one’s society, and one’s tradition, when does separation between church and state actually come to play? Tradition is not a factor regarding church and state, because when one includes tradition, it must necessarily include the other two ways of interpreting (or one ends up living in a bubble) – therefore, in totality, it maintains its individualistic interpretive quality due to its symbiotic relation with the other two modes of interpreting.

The answer lies in diction. It is separation between church and state, not ‘Bible’. What we want is not a separation between Bible/religious text and state (for that is fine, as it is simply a person’s relative interpretation), but between the religious institution and the state. The religious authorities and institutions are the ones who we need to have separated from politics. When America elects someone, they aren’t electing that person’s Pope/Rabbi/Caliph/etc.

In a historical context, this makes perfect sense. America’s founders were (by and large) religious men.  “In God we trust”, “One nation under God:”…but despite this we have a separation of Church and state (though to be fair, they might not have anticipated the growth of Atheism).  A Judeo-Christian Law system is fine, as long as it is not the religious authorities who are interpreting it. It is fine if the religious values are the reflection of the individual, but once one takes the position of an authority and brings that into the state, then problems arise. For then the Pope/Rabbi/Caliph is running the state, and not the elected representative. What would become of an American system of democracy if an elected president then turned to a religious authority for his/her interpretation? The state is on the road to a theocracy (and possibly like Hayek’s book title, Road to Serfdom). Look at Iran. Case and point.

Since our interpretive quality to the text is inevitable, separation between bible and state is fine. In fact, the major difference in the values derived from the Qur’an, Bible, and other religious texts is by those who interpret it. The fact that there are still many Muslims who live in modern society proves that it is not the text/religion, but the fundamentalist people that are waging war. For the fundamentalists, the religion acts as a justification for their hatred towards the west. Any other text could have been used.

Religion can be a great thing, it can be used for good, but it can be used for evil. It is up to our generation to make the best out of it in the political arena and in all aspects of life.

Dreams, Human Potential, and the Progress of Civilization

So about a week ago I had a fairly heated conversation with a few guys. The basic argument was about whether anyone can get into the NFL. I was of the opinion that yes, it is possible (though for some the window of opportunity may have passed due to age; some may have to start young). Everyone else claimed that no, some people just have the inherit ability, and some don’t.

Now, I’m not going to restate all the points I made; I’m not looking to talk about that now. But the reason why I’m mentioning this conversation is because after the argument transpired, I was pretty frustrated. No, it was not because of anything in particular that was said; but I was upset because of the opposing’s viewpoint from which the argument was made.

What I mean by that is this: the conversation wasn’t an argument about the NFL in particular, but about the potential of the human being.  It seemed to me that the opposing viewpoint was taking the easy way out by saying ‘No, it’s just not possible; I can’t’. Why in society should the default be “I can’t”?

I think the “I can’t” default of our society stems from two things which each complement each other.  The first is the underrated capabilities of the human being. The second is the repression of dreams in our culture.

It seems that many people throw away their dreams because they just don’t think it’s possible. Now, that would be valid except for the fact that I’m not talking about dreams that defy the laws of physics. I’m talking about the dreams to be the President of the U.S.A; to play in the NFL; to climb Mount Everest. Even something as simple as running a marathon – it’s amazing how many people that I’ve talked to think that they would never be able to run a marathon. It just took a little bit of common sense arguments to convince them that it is far easier than many think!

A person growing up out of the boundaries of society is free to dream without reproach; no one will tell him/her that the dream is impossible. But in Western Civilization, society at large under appreciates the human potential and in turn, represses the human spirit. How deplorable that part of maturity is seen to include the relinquishing of childhood dreams.

It’s great to dream, but how many of those who dream take the first step towards its realization, and despite shaky ground, resist the temptation to turn back? It is better to dream and fail than never dream at all. And I’d even go so far as to say that it’s better to have never dreamt at all than to have dreamed but never tried – ignorance, some say, is bliss.

Many people don’t attempt to attain their dreams because western society looks down upon (unintended) failure. But failure is how humans learn! At times people are afraid to dream; getting a glimpse at greatness that one is already convinced is impossible to attain will just cause anguish.

And even if one does give it his/her all, and despite that, ‘fails’, it is important to note that It is not about the destination, but the journey.  The most important thing is to go after one’s dream.  Life has so many twists and turns – but as long as we do our best to fulfill that dreams, we can live peacefully with no regrets.

What can be observed in society is this sort of caste system; someone is born into the lower class and never attempts to get out because society frowns upon the dreamer, frowns upon the one who dares to do ‘too much’. Then we have those who attempt but do not attain the goal, and society knits their brow as if to say “what a waste”. The only real waste is of human potential due to this attitude.

Now, there are those who dream, but never attempt to fulfill the dream because they recognize the sacrifice is too great. Ok, I can buy that argument. As long as the person recognizes the possibility.

No worries, I have not forgotten talk to about an idea so fundamental to American culture, that of The American Dream. Why does it seem to be that when we picture a story of the American Dream, we often think of the immigrant? I think the answer sheds some light onto our culture. Many of these immigrants came to America with this notion of the American Dream. They traveled on ships from all over the world, sometimes taking weeks or months, holding on to this light at the end of the tunnel. Thus, upon arrival in Ellis Island, they didn’t let the “I can’t” of society tell them different. And on a different note, the immigrant pool is self-selective. The ones who immigrated were the ones who were willing to make a major sacrifice in the name of a dream – the American Dream.

What we need is a rekindling of the American spirit, of the American Dream, of Horatio Alger's novels – the American pulling him/herself up by his/her bootstraps.

Every day neuroscience is making amazing discoveries onto how the brain functions and just how powerful it is. A book came out a while ago called “The Brain that Changes Itself” – showing the plasticity of the human mind. We need to understand our amazing potential; we need the default to be “I can”.

The same way entrepreneurial spirit is vital to capitalist society, the dreamer is vital to the advancement of society as a whole. The human race capable of so much progress. Imagine the advances that would be made in science, philosophy, physics, fitness, etc. – if only we tried to fulfill our potential.

I was talking to a friend and he brought up an interesting point – from an evolutionary standpoint, we were made to take the path of least resistance. A good example I like to use is that of water (got the idea from the bit I learned about Taoism in freshman year history class) – release water and it will follow the easiest, least complicated, more often traveled path; something Robert Frost in a Road Not Taken argues strictly against. I can understand the Taoist idea, for after all, natural selection in the wilderness would most likely favor the one who can take the easy way out. But as Frost says, we must fight this inclination, and take the road less taken.

Dreams are the seeds in which hard work and determination water the plant into a blossoming fruit tree (and I say specifically a fruit tree because the fruit continually gives back to the laborer). Society (and by society here I mean the institutions who contribute to the socialization of citizens) can either help by adding nutrients to the water, or hurt by poisoning the water; it seems to be the latter is winning out – causing many to give up nurturing the plant at all.

I’ll  close on a few main points:

-One of greatest crimes of humanity is to sell it short.

- If people put their mind to something, the possibilities are endless.

-As children, how much did we dream? How much did we give up as we ‘matured’ as proper citizens of western society – where dreams are just dreams and to pursue them is a waste? 

-Dreams aren’t just meant to be dreamt. Dreams are a means to the greater ends of pursuing them and fulfilling them.

-The only dreams that are realized are by those who dared to fulfill them.

Communitarianism vs. Rawlsian Liberalism - An attempt at reconciliation

Ok, so the argument I'm going to look at here I think is best exemplified by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/#DebOveSel):

"Communitarian thinkers in the 1980s such as Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argued that Rawlsian liberalism rests on an overly individualistic conception of the self. Whereas Rawls argues that we have a supreme interest in shaping, pursuing, and revising our own life-plans, he neglects the fact that our selves tend to be defined or constituted by various communal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or to a religious tradition) so close to us that they can only be set aside at great cost, if at all. This insight led to the view that politics should not be concerned solely with securing the conditions for individuals to exercise their powers of autonomous choice, as we also need to sustain and promote the social attachments crucial to our sense of well-being and respect, many of which have been involuntarily picked up during the course of our upbringing."

I was reading a book called Justice, by Sandel, and I was torn between my gut instinct to say we are all individuals, not tied to anything with the communitarian idea that we are what we inherited. We love to inherit all the good things from our parents/ancestors (money, high status, connections, etc.) then how can we eschew the bad ones if one's ancestor, let's say, was a slave owner? Are we responsible for what our forefathers did in centuries ago? Are present day Germans responsible for what some of their grandparents may have done to Jews?

Now, I will begin to argue the merits of Rawlsian liberalism versus Communitarianism. Because quite frankly, all I know about these political philosophies comes from a few articles and a couple of books. Might point is to reconcile the two idea and show that they can coexist (in a way).

I could probably say it in a very convoluted matter (which is usually much easier than saying it simply), but in light of an article I read Lucidity, Simplicity, Euphony by Somerset Maugham, I will try to say it as simply as possible.

Communitarianism, that being the assumption of one's 'Personal Narrative' - that you inherit your history, your family and religious tradition, etc. - you are essentially "Storytelling beings" (as MacIntyre puts it) cannot be imposed on a person by some government or other party. The party, in the name of Rawlsian Liberalism, must respect a person's individuality in relation to other parties.

Meaning, when one interacts with another one, one must respect and treat one as an individual, not in a communitarian fashion. But, when that particular person chooses to act, the person must look at him/herself as a communitarian, that you really do inherit certain narratives.

In order to respect people's full rights, as Rawls' argues, people must look at other people as individuals. But when that person reflects upon themselves, they must understand that they are indeed storytelling beings.

Communitarian ideology pervades one's relation to his/herself. Rawls' liberal theory of individuality must govern how we treat each other - as independent and free people.

Running Sneakers and Drugs - The Abuse of Support

First, you might wonder what running sneakers and drugs could possibly have in common. The connection will be clear in just a bit.

First off let me start by recognizing a big movement taking place in the running world: the barefoot/minimalist running approach. The basic idea that the less support in a running shoe, the better. This new approach is antithetical to the idea of the conventional running shoe. Most people think that running shoes should have support - this new movement is claiming just the opposite.

The idea behind the barefoot running movement is that support ruins the natural running gait humans were meant to have. Shoes with support promote heel striking, a very unnatural way to run. "Working with populations of runners in the United States and Kenya, Lieberman and his colleagues at Harvard, the University of Glasgow, and Moi University looked at the running gaits of three groups...more than 75 percent of Americans -- heel-strike, experiencing a very large and sudden collision force." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134241.htm) By contrast, a barefoot runner will land towards the forefoot, utilizing all the muscles in the arches, forming a more 'springy' stride.

(Here's a fairly long, but informative video, by the Harvard Professor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jrnj-7YKZE). Humans were born to run barefoot. It was built into our DNA via evolution's natural selection. If you didn't chase down that gazelle, there goes your meal, and possibly your life. From the same article mentioned before: "For example, says Lieberman, our early Australopith ancestors had less developed arches in their feet. Homo sapiens, by contrast, has evolved a strong, large arch that we use as a spring when running."

Running shoe support, does more hurt than help. The support of the shoe does not allow one to use one's arches - the support in the shoe is doing the work. So not only do we have atrophied foot muscles, but because we are using an artificial means of support, it doesn't allow a runner to develop the proper running gait, hence the heel striking (which creates an enormous shock up the leg) which leads to a myriad of runner injuries.

Now one may contend: but I have weak arches! I need support! Well guess what, I've got weak arches as well (I have high arches that collapse). Now, if someone has weak biceps and want to play football, we don't say "wear an arm sleeve to prevent injury" - for two reasons: A) That doesn't solve the underlying problem of weak biceps; and B) wearing the arm sleeve, having that additional support, can cause certain arm muscles to atrophy, as one is not engaging all the muscles one would normally use. As my mom used to say "USE IT, OR LOSE IT" (I'd like to point out she was talking about my brains.)

So what do we tell this aspiring football player? Two things: 1) build up your biceps by doing calisthenics and/or weight training, and 2) engage those muscles in football practice in order to strengthen the muscles. But be careful to do this slowly (the muscles will take time to adapt) - or one will risk injury.

The same thing applies to barefoot running: when you allow support to do the work for you, your arches weaken. On top of that, the support will promote an unnatural and unhealthy running stride.

So what does this all have to do with drugs?

Let's look at antibiotics. Many people are beginning to realize antibiotics are not all they are meant out to be. Antibiotics kill the good bacteria in the body and do not allow one's immune system to strengthen and fight the bug naturally, making one susceptible to future illnesses. Like support in running shoes, where the shoes weaken the feet (analogous to the killing of good bacteria) and make one more injury prone in the future by not allowing proper gait (being the prevention of the immune system function to help heal in the future). And of course, in evolution: just as are feet were molded through evolution to run, so too our immune system has evolved to heal us in remarkable ways.

Or take ritalin: there are a good amount of students out there that use ritalin to help them get through those late night, study cram sessions. Well, it does help them focus, and it may get them better grades. But in the long run? In the long run the body will 'grow' on it. Better to learn to focus without artificial means. Anti-depressant pills are another example: better to try natural means (like running!) rather than growing on an artificial drug; so when you are off the drug, you lose the ability to cope by yourself.

Notice, however, I titled this post, "...The Abuse..." Meaning, support, when used properly, can be beneficial.

For the injured runner with, let's say, plantar fasciitis, using a supportive shoe may be good while in rehab (followed by proper strengthening, of course). Or someone with an illness that he/she cannot get rid of by natural means, antibiotics should be used (followed by a healthy diet, and some pro-biotics to help restore the body). Or a depressed person that no matter how hard she/he tries, she/he cannot come out of the rut - anti-depressants may be the way to help start 'the ball rolling' and allow for the person to use more natural techniques in the future.

In summation:

What I am trying to get at is that support should be used as a last resort - when natural means that work with the body do not and cannot work.

Nowadays, many people are looking for the quick fix. It's easier to pop an antibiotic pill than to follow a strict diet of raw garlic and lemon juice to cure an illness. And no, I'm not one to believe in that voodoo science stuff. I believe in what works. I had strep a week ago (I was traveling to a different country, and was probably exposed to a foreign strain), and three days after testing positive, I tested negative. How? I made sure to sleep, eat healthy (as always) and pop in the occasional raw garlic clove, drink lemon juice, and gargle salt water. These natural means have helped me over the years heal quickly and build a strong immune system. The placebo effect you say? Well guess what: regardless, it worked - and the point is, it's antibiotics that doesn't work as well.

We must stop looking for the quick fix in artificial support and instead try to strengthen our bodies naturally; our bodies have been finely tuned by evolution for thousands of years. We must stop looking at the bleak short term view and instead glimpse into the bright future.

The Science of Nutrition, and What it Means for Religion....yes, religion

The science of nutrition is a fairly new science. You have dietitians who recommend meat, you have dietitians that abhor it. There are those who look at sugar as poison, there are those who think 'natural' sugar is ok. There are those who think eggs are healthy, there are those who think the cholesterol in eggs is in a dangerous dose. Basically, no clear consensus.

Not only is there much disagreement over issues of health foods, but many argue over foods that we really don't understand. What do I mean? Well as nutritional science gets more and more precise, we are breaking down the elements of nutrition into finer parts, finding new 'benefits' to certain foods. It went from the basic 'protein, carbs, fat and fiber' to several different amino acids, a bunch of ___ose's (ose being the suffix for carbs), trans fats, saturated, polyunsaturated fats, etc.
Take bioflavonoids for example - it's a relatively new concept in nutrition, changing the way we look at fruits and vegetables. Many intuitively think of veggies and fruits as healthy, they don't need to hear about the presence of some sort of chemical compound to get them to understand the health benefits. Another example: I subscribe to Runner's World magazine and they have a column on nutrition in which every month showcase another 'wonder' food. One month it said how cinnamon is great for runners due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Another week it was turmeric. If I tallied all the foods they've showcased over the years, it would probably include most of the foods I already am eating.

Let me be clear: I am not against the search for these nutritional elements - in fact I applaud such efforts. It's just when people get caught up in the roller-coaster ride of nutritional science that some people get a bit sick.

So what is my point? And what has this got to do with religion?

Ok, so as a bit of a health nut, I find that the only way to navigate this nutritional data is to have an overarching philosophy, one that can withstand the daily ups and downs of nutritional science. My personal philosophy is that we should eat as naturally as possible. I won't go into too much detail about my particular philosophy; that is a story for another day. But basically, picking a philosophy (and sticking with it) will allow one to filter through the constant bombardment of nutritional studies, many of which contradict each other. Over time, however, one is expected to make adjustments to his or her dietary plan, based on the prevailing science. BUT that same overarching philosophy stays the same, unless there is a reason to believe the philosophy was ill-conceived.

Imagine a tree in a hurricane: It is the tree with strong roots and flexible limbs that survives. The philosophy that can maintain its roots while slowly swaying with prevailing science is the one that will survive the test of time. NOTE: I am not commenting of a particular philosophy, but rather on how to approach it.

The same thing applies to religion. Without commenting on the validity of a particular religion (just like I refrained from commenting on a particular nutritional philosophy) the religion that lasts is the one that has strong roots, yet can change with the winds of time. If a religion is being approached in a very traditionalist and rigid manner, it will eventually get swept up in a sea of change - as no one can live in a bubble forever. If a religion is being approached with weak roots, it will have the same fate as well - except the reason being a inundating flood of change.

Strong roots and flexible limbs. That is the key. In religious circles, some call it contradictory, some call it controversial - I just prefer modern orthodoxy.

Language as Artistic Expression and Communication; and it's not just language.

There is something fascinating about language. We use language as a practical means to communicate with people. We also use language to express ourselves; solely for the sake of human expression. Some take the latter use of language to the extreme. Take Louis Carroll for example, an 'expert' (if such can be said) at nonsense poetry. In his famous Jabberwocky poem he writes:

 ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Pretty strange, huh? Well yes, it's kinda meant to be. In my opinion (and mind you, the opinion of someone void of any real critical literary education) because it is nonsense, you can take whatever meaning you want from it, without having one right answer. This type of poem seems to be one that the writer lets the pen do the talking.

Anyway, back to the topic: so language comes in a varied spectrum. What's the big deal? Well language is an art just like any art. A painting is not just a means of expression, it is a means of communication. The reverse is true as well. A Tale of Two Cities is not just art as a means of communication, but as a means of expression. Dickens' is in the novel; his way of relating to the world is deeply rooted in the novel. A photo is a means of both communication and expression.

Art comes in different forms: in books, in dance, in photos, etc. What unifies the arts is that they contain the communicative element and the expressive element. The most amazing thing is that both elements go hand in hand. The communicative element is the way for the artist to convey his or her expression - but through the medium of art each and every viewer may interpret the masterpiece in a different way.

Getting back to Lewis Carroll and his nonsense poetry. One may argue that his Jabberwocky poem is just a form of expression, with no communicative element. If that was true, then it wouldn't be art. I will not only wager that this is art (and thus contains a form of communication) but it is the ultimate form of communication: anyone can take the nonsense poetry and find his or her own meaning to it. It's like static communication versus dynamic communication (just to let you know, I have no idea if these terms even exist) - static being "And Jane left the store"; dynamic being "And fillipiding scrumptopulous Jane flew the coup" (my own nonsense for ya). 

Static communication has virtually one meaning, dynamic has many.

Language is beautiful, it allows one to be both expressive and communicative at the same time. But the same applies to all other forms of art.

Art, in essence, is one's expression in the form of communication - that is how emotions and feelings are shared, that is art.

Drugs in America

So I just watched Bigger, Stronger, Faster, a documentary about performance enhancing drugs in America. It got me thinking (thinking enough to write in this blog after a long break).

America has encountered 'performance' (I use that term loosely) enhancers in various areas of life. Let's tackle the question of just why this is by answering it topic by topic

- In sports: anabolic steroids were used by Barry Bonds to achieve so called Baseball Immortality; erythropoietin (EPO) was used by cyclists in the Tour de France for years to endure the three brutal weeks of hell - Floyd Landis was buried in debt - drugs got him out);

- In school: Adderall - the so called "study drug" used by students to focus and get there work done.

- In cosmetics: Botox and the rest of the drug line up to make people look twenty years younger than they really are; this applies to both men and women.


Drugs in SPORTS: Let's begin by discussing performance enhancers in sports. Anabolic steroids - is the supposed dangerous side-effect the only thing that separates steroids from other body-building supplements? Let's say steroids didn't have such a bad side-effect, should it still be illegal? Because guess what, there are legal drugs out there that have way worse side-effects than anabolic steroids (just listen carefully to those drug commercials: "side effects may include but are not limited to: drowsiness, headache, soreness, liver cancer, heart disease and death" - ok, you get the point. Just like any drug, it must be used appropriately.

Steroids' stance in society is a rather interesting one: its illegality in league sports (which is 100% legitimate) is being superimposed outside of sports - why can't the average joe who wants to reach that 250 lb. bench press mark get some help? After all, look at all those weight loss products on the market. I think the reason why we tend to superimpose the illegality of certain drugs in sports onto 'regular' life is because of America's strong ties to sports. Us Americans, whether it's Monday night football or the July Fourth hot dog eating contest, take our sport competitions seriously. Taking drugs illegally in sports is cheating - once drugs like anabolic steroids are associated with cheating in sports, it will be associated with cheating outside of sports.

Furthermore, we live in a culture where sports figures are idolized -what message does it send when athletes are doping?

Just imagine the U.S. was obsessed with Beauty Pageants like it is obsessed with sports; kids all over America looked up to them like they look up to Babe Ruth. And in this imaginary U.S., beauty pageants ban certain cosmetic drugs. Would we be surprised to find those banned cosmetic drugs illegal America? I don't think so - it's very similar to the anabolic steroid case.

On another note:
Youtube video accusing cyclist Cancellara of 'Mechanical Doping'
Basically, because of this video and this new fear that has come with cycling, officials will be testing for this 'mechanical doping' in the Tour de France.
Just like steroids, officials at the Tour clearly have a right to say that rigging a bike is illegal. But can the government say you can't rig your own bike at home when you ride in the local park? What's the difference between this mechanical and biological doping? Is it just the side-effect issue? Can't be since I've already shown that the steroid side-effects aren't worse than other easily attainable legal drugs...Food for thought...


Ok, now for the next topic.. Drugs in SCHOOL: This is a very intense issue, because it brings up a fundamental question in ethics which may impede future scientific progress. You will see what I mean in a moment.
First off, we all know that students in schools are using drugs to get them better grades - and you know what? It's working. I was watching 60 Minutes and they showed this poll of students who took these drugs - I cannot recall the exact numbers but basically, a majority of students believed that taking certain drugs like Adderall had increased their GPA by a full letter grade, others thought it increased it by two letter grades (I guess they were at least C students to begin with...). And these drugs are readily prescribed by doctors for ADHD and the like - it is easy to get a hold of them and students don't seem to have any major side-effects.
Now let's say if these drugs were improved and scientists developed a pill that made people do significantly better on a wide range of academic tests. Is that a good thing? After all, the more Einstein's the better...right? Well, that is a blog post for another day.


Drugs in COSMETICS: This is fairly simple, and it reveals a reason why performance enhancing drugs exist in schools and sports. People use drugs that improve there looks because they don't think they look good enough - insecurity issues I'd presume (that's pretty obvious). People take drugs in sports and school because they aren't happy with there performance.

It seems that we are just never satisfied with the way we are. Now, I don't me to suggest that you shouldn't try to be the best you can be - as an endurance triathlete who spends several hours a week training I would be the first to say that it's a phenomenal goal to try to be your best. But the point is to be your best, not you+your artificial substances' best.


I think many would agree that this insecurity issue stems from pop-culture.
In sports we look at Bonds thinking he is perfect (when he is juiced) and try to be like him though you cannot.
In school we look at the 100 point grade system and think that 100 as a perfect score is universal, when in reality your best score may be a 87 - and that is perfect for you (which is debatable, I am of the opinion that everyone can attain 100, in general tests aren't so 'biased' that only 'smart' people can get 100's). Or you look at your friend who always pulls an A+, but guess what you are not your friend.
In cosmetics we look at model photos (who are caked in makeup, and digitally enhanced) and assume that is the perfect look.
-All these things that we think are perfect are really NOT perfect, they are fake.
Each person has there own level of perfection - we must stop looking around and instead look within to reach the highest level of personal satisfaction and excellency.

Update: Reflections on being "Selfless"

I think all along I missed something critical.

Yes, it might be in our DNA to selfless, and though that may be selfish in itself, the definition of selfish that I have pinned to the word is so broad that anything that one does would be selfish; that is because I made it as if humans do not have free-will. Therefore, if humans are 'programed' to be selfish than that is all they can be. We are simply robots programed to do as their genes do.

I am sure most people would not take that as the definition of the human being - people like to view the human being as a person that can do what it wishes, that can 'go against' its 'selfish' nature. That is precisely why I would assume many find my previous post controversial.

Throughout my argument in the previous post I made certain suppositions that most people would not agree with; but they are suppositions that nonetheless I find hard to disprove using logic.
That, regardless, is a topic that I will perhaps touch upon in the future.

But suppose it is in our gene's to be selfless (i.e. it is selfish to be selfless) than would that mean that humans by nature are good? For if it weren't true, if selflessness were not part of our nature, than would man be evil?

Perhaps that is the core of the argument:
There are those who think man by nature is evil because he is selfish
There are those who think man by nature is good because he is inherently selfless.

Reflections on being "Selfless"

Us humans are motivated by our own needs, wants and desires. Can we do things purely for the sake of a third party?

When we do a good deed, why are we doing it? Is it possible to do something for a purpose unrelated to oneself?
If I help an old lady across the street, am I doing it for the old lady? Or am I doing it so I will feel good afterwards because I did a nice deed?

Adam Smith (as told in his book, The Wealth of Nations) believed that in an economy, when humans follow their own interests, everyone else benefits (that's where the whole "invisible hand" theory comes into play). Does that apply to everything else in life?

Can humans do things against their own interests? I'm not so sure. It may be built into our evolutionary DNA to act selfish for survival tactics. That would mean acting selflessly would be going against human nature....

Perhaps it is selfish to act selflessly; the selfless action just manifested in a selfish biology.

So a few days ago I was in Wallgreens and I overheard a man with a very heavy accent asking people where the "French cologne" was. I approached the man and directed him to the cosmetics and perfume department; no employee was stationed there so I asked a cashier if she could get someone to help this man out. I waited just to make sure someone was coming. After 15 minutes and a few more requests from the cashier, someone finally came. Turns out there they had no French cologne, and this man was adamant on only having French-made cologne/perfume. I asked him "Why only French?" He replied that he was from Haiti, and he wanted to remember his French-cultured childhood. (I presume that the recent earthquake may have been the impetus for the visit to the store.)

So as the man and I both parted ways, I felt sad that this man was unable to get his product. I searched on my phone web-browser for a place where I could find French cosmetics. I found an appropriate store, and then I ran out of Wallgreens, found the man about 20 feet away from the entrance, approached him and let him know the phone number of the store and where it was located.

And that was that. And you know what? I felt really good about myself after doing that deed.

----Ok, know you may be wondering why I just told you that whole story. As I approached the man at first, was I really consciously saying "I will help him so I will feel good after"? I do not believe so.
But was it subconscious? Possibly...

Someone told me: religion may be the only thing that we do for selfless reasons. Interesting point, yet if one holds that religion itself is for selfish reasons (to prevent the feeling of insecurity...and I will hopefully have a post on that concept and religion in the coming days) than this does not hold true.

But I see a silver lining (and a big one at that) in this very dim outlook on human nature.
Perhaps it is in our DNA to be selfless, and humans, by nature, desire to do selfless acts.
Why? maybe because when someone does a selfless act, they feel that they become part of something greater than the cells that currently comprise their body - they become something bigger, something greater.
-Now isn't that selfish also? (As it is masking up certain insecurities of feeling not important.) Possibly. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Because that would mean that humans, by nature, have the desire to be selfless.

Progress and Abnormality - A Love Story

To “act normal” is to conform to society and is relative. In a cannibalistic society, eating humans is '“normal”, but in America, no one would make such a claim. Acting normal is, quite simply, acting as one’s society does.

Most people would agree that being normal is a good thing. Society (the majority of citizens) after all, consist of normal people - why would someone yearn to be anything more than normal?

Though many people look at abnormalities as a bad thing. However, they are, more often than not, not bad at all. Einstein and Confucius were abnormal as were Gandhi and Beethoven. When one conforms to society’s norms, progress ceases. Progress is, by definition, a deviant act.

Following up on my previous blog post regarding history and change, if everyone acts normally then change will halt - and history will repeat itself.

To act abnormally is to break the shackles that bind one to society’s standards; it is in this act that people exhibit true freedom. If truth is to be found outside the boundaries of society, then one has the duty as a rational being to cross those borders.

Now, I want to just note that one can deviate from the norm and make society regress and not progress...

Do what is right, don't go down conventional paths, for it will be because of you that society puts one step forward.

Will We Ever Learn? – A brief investigation on whether the human race can learn from its mistakes.

“History repeats itself”. The quote has been used enough times to make me wonder: just why? Why does history repeat itself? Is it inevitable?

The first thing that must be examined is whether the human race, as a whole, can change. We know that humans, as individuals, can change, but does that mean that the human race as a whole changes? Not necessarily. For example, just because a machine is made of lightweight parts, it does not mean that the sum of the parts (the machine) is lightweight. A machine made up of 1,000 one pound parts would be pretty heavy (this line of logic has a special name, though the name eludes me).

This reasoning, however, would not apply if we were able to say that humans, as individuals, share the same properties as the human race. If such were the case, then, hypothetically, we would be able to say that the human race can change. I just have a problem with that rationale. Humans change within their lifespan, and once a human dies, his/her ‘changes’ are lost in the dust of his/her coffin – so once a whole generation dies, their ‘changes’ would be lost to humanity…There is one thing, however, that can prevent the human race from forgetting these changes…what’s that you ask? History.

Yes, you guessed right, the only way to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself is to learn about history itself. (I’m sure many of you thought about that conclusion already, I just thought giving my own little explanation on how to get there would be a bit interesting). I will remind you, however, that the answer depends on whether a human race as a whole can change.

The aforementioned answer, I presume, also sheds light onto why history is recorded at all. Do we record our generation’s history for our own sake? Or for future generations? Trick question. We record history for our own sake, but our ‘sake’ is rooted in the future generation.

What do I mean by that? Well most humans (and I would argue it is part of human nature to) desire immortality, or at the very least, have that immortality manifested in ‘our mark on the world’. Now, if individual humans are similar to the human race (as I spoke about earlier) then the human race will also crave that desire for immortality –aka to make a mark on the world. History provides the means for leaving one’s mark on the world.

Generations record history to leave their mark on the world (which, of course, would include their changes). By recording history they affect subsequent generations.

Out of the human race’s ‘selfish gene’ for immortality, we learn from our mistakes and progress (change) is made.

A Human Clone?...A New World Era?...

The year was 1997 and the birth of “Dolly”, the first mammal clone (it was a female sheep). Since then, scientists as well as laypeople have wondered: Does that mean we can clone humans?

Well we first might ask: why even bother with human cloning? What are the benefits? The first thing that comes to my mind involves the thing that humans try to avoid most. No, not your ex, but death.

Take this scenario: A newly-wed has their first child. At 3 months old the baby falls out of his/her carriage and dies on impact. Had human cloning technology been available, the baby might be able to be ‘reborn’, as some sort of twin.

But is it really that easy? No. Cloning technology is still in its infancy. Currently, only 1%-2% of cloning experiments produce viable offspring. Out of that small percent, 30% of the offspring develop some sort of disability. Experimenting with human cloning would mean killing numerous human embryos in the process. For those who believe life begins at conception, that would be considered murder. For those who believe otherwise, I guess they’d be ok with that.

Ok, so that’s that. Now let’s say that we, hypothetically, understood how to clone a human perfectly. Imagine what that would mean for our society…With genetic modification technology becoming more precise – who knows? Will we be cloning ‘perfect’ humans? What value will life have then?... This also reminds me of the movie The Island – needless to say, the movie is not a comedy…

I think we may be entering a new age of time. There will be those who believe science that should advance at any cost; and then there will be those who are afraid of what advancements in science may hold...

Welcome to a whole new world:

You got the future right there... Ok maybe not exactly, first minus the Yoda dude and then you have our future.

On an Inquiry of Prison Systems

The field of neurology is quite new, and it has brought some astounding discoveries.
We now know that a person's self control/will power is largely determined by his/her prefrontal cortex.

"Weak interconnections between the prefrontal cortex and the rest of the brain have also been observed in criminals, sociopaths, drug addicts, and schizophrenics."

A quick story to illustrate:
The perfect 4.0 GPA valedictorian at "X" University one day goes on a shooting spree and kills 6 people. An MRI reveals a tumor in the prefrontal cortex. What do we do?

Can we punish someone born with (or who involuntarily acquired) a "disability"? Maybe prisons should just be medical facilities?...

We all know about the horror that occurs in many prison systems. Is that really the way to treat someone who possibly belongs in a hospital?

All this begs the question: Are you at fault for your biological nature (even childhood nurture)?

But suppose then that the weak prefrontal cortex in criminals is due to a refusal to exercise control, and not an involuntary disability; what then?

It seems to be a paradox/self referential problem that will ultimately lead to the denial of free-will . If we believe in plasticity and the ability to willfully change, that would imply that 'you' do control your brain, and not the other way around - but how would that be possible if the nature of our brains control us? As that clearly implies that there is no free will...

So it's like you can't have it both ways, either:
A) the nature of our brains do not control us and plasticity allows us to change willfully.
B) the nature of our brains do control us and the only way we change our brains is by self-correcting mechanisms already in place in the brain, and not from willful change...

So who controls who? Am I my brain? Or something more?
The answer to these questions will provide us with knowledge on whether prison systems are a legitimate moral institution.The advent of neurobiology may be the death-blow to the current prison system. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that neuroscience will just reaffirm age-old beliefs on human nature. We will just have to wait and see...

Though regardless of what neuroscience will tell us, something must change in the prison system. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, it costs $55.09/day (about $20,108/year) to keep an inmate incarcerated. Though a medical facility may be more expensive, if the inmate is 'cured' (for lack of a better term) they can be incorporated into American society and contribute to the economy, not just suck money out of it.

I understand there are already makeshift medical facilities in prisons, but they do not work.
"650,000 people are released from the nation’s prisons every year... Two-thirds of those who come out of prison are rearrested within three years of release."

Reform is needed. It is not only the right the to do, but it will help make society safer and make our economy grow stronger.

We live in the 21st century. It is time for the prison system to catch up.

An Intro to Politics

As an Independent, I seek truth by eliminating the haze created by partisan ideology. Republican and Democrat bickering only create more confusion. In addition, labeling a person just restricts one to a particular ideology. I choose my ideology based upon observation of human nature and the true reality of the world in which we exist.

I am one who also believes that the study of politics should not exist in a vacuum. Politics, though just one single subject, should be analyzed from the lens of a Renaissance scholar, i.e., from a myriad of different angles. Politics must be viewed from an economic, religious, sociological, philosophical, and even neurobiological perspective.

Politics, first and foremost, revolves around people. As the complex humans that we are, we need to realize that one subject will not cut it.

How can one see this world's vibrant spectrum of colors when one's eye is trained to see only one hue?

What colors do you see? Most see the 7 colors listed: red, orange, yellow...But how many see the infinite colors in between? The key when approaching political ideology is to see the entire spectrum of ideas.

We, as analysts seeking truth, must recognize that when it comes to politics, the perfect political system may not be ideal for the imperfect world in which we live. After all, humans can act upon irrational suppositions, and a government must be ready to respond accordingly. The perfect government is one that is evolutionary, one that can adapt to the ever-changing and sometimes confusing world in which we live.

Was Adam Smith right? Not entirely; and the same goes for Karl Marx and the rest of the political-science philosophers, for no one particular theory can withhold the test of time. Unless, however, we have uncovered the objective truth of human nature, in which case, we have solved life's greatest mystery.