Philosophy: Favorite Philosopher

With no new content from my Philosophy of Science class, I made the executive decision to discuss my favorite philosopher — very briefly. It may sound cliche, but I definitely believe my favorite philosopher has to be Socrates. Not only because he is arguably the foundation of philosophy and other deep thinking and inquisition, but because of his dedication. Although he never wrote anything reading everything from Plato's point-of-view makes it that much more impactful. I skimmed over the Socratic Dialogues during my introduction to philosophy class and was immediately captivated. I took the course — at first — solely for the units, but after some time I learned it was something I was interested in, and that all started with Socrates. Back to Socrates, his unwillingness to conform to common Athenian ideology makes him admirable. He died for what he believed in despite all of the disapproval from Athenian officials and that is something that is next level. I do plan on reading the Socratic Dialogues sometime this semester and will definitely publish a formal review and analysis.

Analysis: An Argument for Corporate Social Responsibility

Leslie Timmerman wrote “An Argument for Corporate Responsibility” with intent to inform us not only about the conscientiousness of corporate social responsibility but their “impacts on society and the environment” (Sylvan 309). Opposers of Corporate Social Responsibility would say that corporations sole job is to only generate money and worry about their own assets; however, from facts presented by Timmerman, that’s untrue. Timmerman does an excellent job presenting relevant facts and reliable sources to present her purpose. She uses PepsiCo as an example where PepsiCo was evidently instrumental in bringing back water to a water-deprived area in India. Though Pepsi did not cause the water shortage they were actively involved in bringing the water back, because “the well being of the community is part of the company’s responsibility” (Sylvan 310). It’s crucial for companies such as PepsiCo to take initiative on being a “positive change” in local communities and being conscience of corporate social responsibility. Timmerman grasps her reader’s attention early on with intriguing facts; she can then introduce statistics and academic sources without losing her reader’s attention. Overall, the author does an outstanding job presenting the severity of corporate social responsibility and large corporation’s potential on positively influencing society.

Update: I will definitely include/upload the original article soon.

Update Update: Although I couldn't find the original publication for the article "An Argument for Corporate Social Responsibility" by Leslie Timmerman, here is the textbook I got her article from: "Critical Thinking, Reading and Writing: A Brief Guide to Argument."

(June 6, 2019) Side note: My initial publication to the blog (the paragraph above) sounds overly archaic because it was submitted as an assignment for my advanced English course at my local college. 
What I found most interesting about the article was, quite literally, everything. I had never heard of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and learning about it was incredibly interesting. In fact, when I had first read it I was very confused but then I was able to understand that it's corporates (arguably) responsibility to take care of the area that they take up, like PepsiCo.

I was thinking about some examples, and in regards to one of my favorite shows, The Office, all lot of the characters from the show take great pride in the the town, Scranton, that they live in. So much so, that they host a fun-run for rabies awareness in the community and its pertinence: "Michael Scott's Dunder Mifflin Scranton Meredith Palmer Memorial Celebrity Rabies Awareness Pro-Am Fun Run Race for the Cure." Ever more so, the show Parks and Recreation although not a corporation show social awareness, which is a fundamental common underlying. Overall, I think CSR isn't publicized as much as it should be. I may not be a news junkie but I think I am well caught up with the news, and for me not to know what CSR is shows that other people probably don't know what it is.

Philosophy of Science: Nancy Cartwright

I recently finished reading Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts by Nancy Cartwright (not the voice actor for Bart Simpson) in Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues Second Edition and am just as confused as I was yesterday :)) which is always fantastic. We have yet to cover it during my philosophy lecture but what I can infer from the reading is Cartwright’s bluntness about the laws of gravitation and ultimately physics not stating facts. She did not “beat around the bush” and tackled the problem head-on. What was so intriguing was she was not trying to debunk the facticity of physics entirely, but she claimed the usefulness of physics and others alike. Talking about the laws of gravitation: “Does this law truly describe how bodies behave? Assuredly not.” She refers to the facticity of the law of gravitation with the law of energy because they are contradictory. Which makes sense. 
Cartwright than shortly introduces how vector addition introduces causal powers because when “adding” forces it’s unrealistic or a “metaphor.” When talking about something as imperative as “forces” and gravitation (reasons for why and how an innumerable amount of things are today), we cannot add them like 1+1. This idea of vector addition “is a nice one,” but not something defining the facts of nature. See the source image
Cartwright then introduces Mill, the rebuttal, and says why he would perhaps deny these claims of the un-facticity of vector addition. “Mill would deny this. He thinks that in cases of the composition of causes, each separate effect does exist --- it exists as part of the resultant effect, just as the left half of the table exists as part of the whole table” (Cartwright 876). Cartwright disagrees, these entities Mill is talking about are more temporary than what he is referring them to be. Without delving too much into the issue, it’s important to note that “the laws of physics are to explain how phenomena are brought about, they cannot state facts.”

Albert Camus - The Stranger

I recently finished reading The Stranger by Albert Camus and it was very — odd. I don't enjoy books that do not have a definite ending and this one fell right into that category. The book itself was very complex, not the writing itself but the character, Meursalt. There were so many reasons for why Meursalt was the way he was but none of those felt just right.  The language at the beginning is surely indicative to the kind of character Meursalt is, but by the end we see a drastic change. From using extremely basic language to somewhat advanced syntax was notable. I came to the conclusion about Meursalt that maybe what was so peculiar about him that maybe there wasn't anything peculiar about him. He had not ambition or desire like the other characters. There are moments when he is, quite literally, doing nothing. On the other hand, the other characters each seem to have something to do or want. Raymond want's to hurt the girl that betrayed him and Marie wants to marry Meursalt, but Meursalt clearly has no desire to do anything but go on with his life. Although, by the end when he faces death we see the most "human" Meursalt has been throughout the book. He spewed a dramatic stream of emotion and anger that was shocking because he hadn't displayed this kind of emotion when his mother died or even when he shot the Arab. In the end, Meursalt is definitely a dynamic character and it's extremely unfortunate he was ordered to be beheaded in front of everyone just when he seemed to discover a new side of emotion. I write this to you 30 minutes from my biology exam because I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know, bye :).

Philosophy of Science: Feyerabend

Lets Talk About It

Ok, so recently, in my Philosophy of Science course, we went over Feyerabend briefly and studied his fundamental thoughts and ideals. In my class, we were asked who thought he was rationalized in his views and I was the only one to raise my hand. I don't know why nobody else raised their hand, but Feyerabend is justified in his reasons for believing in alternative theories in avoiding scientific imperialism. Although my professor made Feyerabend's ideology to seem to border radicalism, taking a layman's word over that of a scientist or expert somewhat makes sense.
I am not saying that we should stop listening to the monumentuos amounts of evidence proving vaccines affective, for example, but that sometimes listening to alternative theories is beneficial. By listening to ideas that were once thought "odd" it only gives whoever more chances to further solidify their own theories. In order to further solidify (since nothing is truly right or wrong) our theories and ideas, we can use Popper's idea of falsifying: always trying to disapprove your theory, to only make it more "solid."
That was just my small input, and are we not going to mention how Feyerabend sort of looks like the main character from The Shining (Jack Nicholson).

Sidenote: Also, I have a a biology midterm tomorrow morning but I've opted to wait until the last minute to study and I have a rough draft due for my English class Thursday. Best wishes.

Introduction(ish)

Hello Everyone.

My name is Santos (he/him) and this is my first official blog and hopefully it will last. I primarily want to cover some of the new philosophy things I am going over in some of my courses but also want to cover some of the topics in my other academic courses (ie. biology, English). Now I get to share what I am learning at the University of California, Berkeley! I am only a philosophy enthusiast, thus far, without qualification. I hope you all enjoy my insights and reflections on various philosophical readings and other miscellaneous things. And please feel free to leave comments about what you think (or any crituques) about any one of my posts.

Now, about the blog, I got the name after my first philosophy class I took about 3 years ago. We were asked about what quote or phrase we live by, and I sat there thinking, flummoxed, not knowing what to say. Then, my professor mentioned that he likes to go by "cogito." I probably had the same reaction you guys had when you read the header to this blog. But, as he went on to talk about what cogito meant, I left that day thinking about the word for a long time.

My dog: Fluffy

The word's actual meaning is definitely up for interpretation, but it is most commonly recognized from the latin translation of Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am": "Cogito, ergo sum." Consequentially, instead of looking at the word by its dictionary definition, I like to think of "cogito" as "I think" from Descartes' widely known philosophical proposition.

As of 2020, an undergraduate at the University of California, I hope to establish this forum as a place for my political and law portfolio, where I can look back and reflect when I am hopefully a judge, lawyer, or politician.

Feel free to email me about any concerns or to discuss the nature of a particular article, at santoscandelario02@gmail.com