What is Enlightenment? (Final Draft)

 

What is Enlightenment?

By: Caitlin Warner

Before we discuss what enlightenment means to Immanuel Kant, let's first discuss who he was. Kant was born on April 22^nd, 1724 in what is known today as Kaliningrad, Russia. However, back in Kant’s day it was named Königsberg and was the capital of Prussia. He was the 4^th of 9 children, but the eldest surviving child of 5, and the only child to obtain an education. Kant began college in 1740 at the University of Königsberg as a theological student, but later became drawn to mathematics and physics. After graduating he became a tutor, and 15 years later he was appointed to the chair of logic and mathematics. Kant was a German-speaking philosopher and one of the central Enlightenment thinkers. His thorough and methodical works in epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics have made him one the most influential figures in modern Western philosophy. He embodied new trends which originally began with rationalism (stressing reason) by René Descartes and empiricism (stressing experience) by Francis Bacon. Kant passed away on February 12^th, 1804 in Königsberg. During his lifetime Kant published several essays, but in 1784 “Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?” was a published essay. Let’s imagine that we are back in Königsberg, Prussia during the year 1784 and are having a discussion with Immanuel Kant about his interpretation of Enlightenment:

“Kant, what exactly is Enlightenment?” the student asked.

“Enlightenment is a man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage,” replied Kant.

The student enquired, “Nonage? Whatever is nonage?”

“Nonage is the ability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance,” responded Kant.

“So, what you mean to tell me is that nonage is like being underage, not literally but more like intellectual immaturity,” the student answered.

“Yes! You’re catching on. Almost as though every thought that ever comes into their brain had originated from somewhere else. This is a state of nonage.” Kant declared.

Questioning this, the student wonders, “How does one avoid this state of nonage?”.

“Have the courage to use your own understanding,” Kant explains.

“But Kant, this goes directly against what the bible tells us to do… we must trust him with everything we do,” muttered the student.

“Enlightenment places itself against these authorities, I believe it keeps people in a state of nonage. Laziness and cowardness are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remains minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance,” argues Kant.

“There appears to be a large emphasis on nature and the natural order of things, am I correct in saying that?” the student responded.

“There most definitely is,” stated Kant.

Immanuel Kant believed that the world had turned people into individuals other than what nature had originally intended us to be. He believed this was caused by institutional structures that hold people back (religious and secular).

               “They are the reason why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscious, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on, then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think. If I can only pay, others will take care of the disagreeable business for me,” Kant declared.

               The student replies, “That’s an excellent point, we do have a lot of people telling us what to think, believe, and do.”

               “Thus, it is very difficult for the individual to work themselves out of nonage, which has become second nature to him, and they have even become to like it. At first, they are really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it,” Kant explains.

               “Basically, nonage is something that is conditioned? Is it similar to Plato’s story of the cave dwellers?” questions the student.

               Kant responds, “Exactly!”

               “Then what is necessary for enlightenment?” asks the student.

               “The public can enlighten itself indeed if it is only given freedom. Enlightenment is almost inevitable. Enlightenment requires nothing but freedom and the most innocent of all that may be called freedom; freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters.” Kant responds.

               “Or in other words, freedom to express yourself and what you’re thinking in public,” the student says.

               “That’s right,” Kant replies

               “Well, then which restrictions are harmful to enlightenment? Which ones are innocent? And are there restrictions that advance enlightenment?” The student inquires.

               Kant explains, “The public use of one’s reason must be free at all times and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.”

               “Are we now living in an enlightened age?” asks the student.

               “No, but we live in an age of enlightenment. As matters now stand it is still far from true that men are already capable of using their own reasons and religious matter confidently and correctly without external guidance. Still, we have some obvious indications that the field of working toward the goal of religious truth is now opened. What is more, is the hindrances against general enlightenment or the emergence from self-imposed nonage are gradually diminishing. In this respect, this is the age of the enlightenment,” Kant details.

               Many people back in 1784, and still to this day live in a state of nonage by blindly following without question, and that these institutional structures hold us back from truly being free. Kant argues in his essay that people are individuals who by nature have the sacred right to be free, think freely, and decide the course of their own life. That we must think for ourselves and to trust our own capacity to judge and understand things. We must be able to trust ourselves because nature has given us the intellectual capacity to be free.

Work Cited

Duignan, Brian. “Immanuel Kant”, Britannica, 25 April 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Immanuel-Kant/The-Critique-of-Practical-Reason

Sutherland, Joan. “Everything is Enlightenment”, Lions Roar, 25 April 2021, https://www.lionsroar.com/everything-is-enlightenment/

“Enlightenment”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 25 April 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

Answered questions: 1/28, 2/2, 2/4, 2/9, 2/11, 2/16, 2/18, 2/25, 3/2, 3/9, 3/25, 3/30, 4/1, 4/6, 4/8, 4/13, 4/20, 4/22, 4/27
Presented Midterm:3/11
Posted Midterm essay: 3/11

Sapere Aude

Dare to think for yourself. https://t.co/TnzqdMmZo9
(https://twitter.com/EthicsInBricks/status/1388041206224019458?s=02)

 Final Blog Post - Gracie Sizemore

Recording 

PowerPoint

I did my project on the Viral Shopping Cart theory.  It was fun and exciting. I sent out a questionnaire to the college students in my surrounding area and MTSU.

( I have posted comments on Feb 10, March 9, April 7th,  April 13th, and April 20th. I can't remember when I posted my midterm project but it was around March 20-30th)

Karl Marx's vison verses modern implementation:

         Karl Heinrich Marx was a German philosopher born in 1818.  He is best known for two of his works The Communist Manifesto, and the three volume Das Kapital.  These main works as well as others that he produced in his lifetime later sparked a world changing revolution of thought.  However many who attempted to bring Marx's ideals to life failed to accomplish the precise nature of the world Marx envisioned.

    To understand why Marx's ideal society is so hard to implement I would first like to present this video that does an excellent job of describing how Marx's ideal society might function.  In addition it will also provide some insight into the political theory of Marx's work:

    This video also ,all be it very subtilty, outlines the critical issue that has plagued any attempt to enact Marx's way of life, the tendency for people to act selfishly.  In a ideal Marxist society all members would have an equal amount of wealth, commodities and anything else one would deem necessary to have, however not everyone has to work the same.  Marx envisioned a world where leisure could be celebrated and enjoyed to the fullest because production had reached a point where a few could provide for all.  The purpose of this was to allow people explore and find things that fulfilled them without being shackled by a system that required most of their time and effort just to shift most of the profit to the rich.

       Unfortunately, Marx's vision in every case it has been used has been adapted in such a way that the very people that it was meant to assist the  proletariat, or working class, have been deprived by their governments in a similar way that the bourgeoisie , or ruling class, has done in capitalist societies.  Several countries like china have seen some success by mixing Marx's centralized government with capitalist economic ideals, however few would argue with you if you said that this development would have disappointed Marx himself...

    In conclusion, currently there has yet to be an implementation of Marx's ideals that did not borrow  in some way from capitalism or some other system.  Some of these systems hold water and are still thriving countries to this day, others have fallen do to complications within their own political systems however, none have achieved the utopia that Karl Marx originally envisioned.

Slavoj Zizek — China and the Future of Marxism & Democracy:

John Rawls’s Theory of Justice (Final Draft)

 

John Rawls’s Theory of Justice

Ethan Little

               John Rawls was born in 1921 and died in 2002.  Rawls published his book called Theory of Justice in 1971.  He was called the greatest political philosopher of the twentieth century by Bill Clinton.  His version of justice describes a society of free equal basic rights and this is referred to as Equalitarian Economic System.  He stated that “all should have access to wealth” but this is not in the same way as in Marxism and socialism.  Rawls said, “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.”  His focus was on “fairness” as an example; a rich kid with a talent for something would have the same education or support as a poor kid with a comparable amount of talent.  This is not saying that everyone should be paid the same amount but that everyone should have access to those higher-paying jobs.

               John Rawls liked to use a thought experiment called “The Veil of Ignorance” and in this exercise, you do not know anything about yourself.  You do not know your age, gender, or ethnicity.  When one is under The Veil of Ignorance you look at something to determine if it is fair or not.  As an example, if you were under The Veil of Ignorance and you were looking at our economic system would you think it is fair?  John Rawls would say it is not because one could be born into a wealthy or an impoverished family then the wealthy kid would receive the best support from his family that others would never get.  This is just one instance in which the veil is applicable.  John Rawls felt that we could use the Veil of Ignorance to critique our society.

               John Rawls believed that justice is fairness and there are two principles to achieve it.  The first is “Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all.”  The second is “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”

  John Rawls also spoke about what he called the “Difference Principle.”   this principle states that any distribution of goods must be to the maximum benefit to the least advantaged.  This serves as a way to level the playing field and make it fair for everyone.  I feel that this is a great example of John Rawls's beliefs and a splendid way to summarize his teachings.

  In conclusion, John Rawls was one of the greatest political thinkers of his time.  Many of his theories are still applicable to us today and will likely still be used far in the future.  John Rawls seeks justice that envelops fairness for all.

How to embed a video, etc.

After clicking on New Post,

1. Click on the "Insert video" icon above (to the left of the smiley-face).

2. Click on YouTube

3. Click on Search

4. Paste the URL of the video you want to embed into the search box

5. Select the video, and paste it into your post

==

How to link to a word or phrase:

1. Highlight the word or phrase.

2. Click on the link icon above.

3. Copy and paste the URL you want to link to.

Bullseye

LISTEN. What is the living center of William James's vision?

That's the question we'll end our James Independent Readings course on, my very senior student and I. (Congrats to you, Graduate, on your latest degree!) [The graduate here, FYI, is my 75-year old retired lawyer/student who came back to school to get a philosophy degree... Congrats to all of you too, when your time comes to walk!]

In the spirit of James, it's important to stress, we're ending the course but not the inquiry. Nothing has "concluded that we might conclude in regard to it"--that was central to his vision, right up to his terminal breath not long after he'd published those words in A Pluralistic Mystic and set Henry Adams straight on thermodynamics and what it has to do (not much) with our capacities for delight. "In short, the last expiring pulsation of the universe's life might be, 'I am so happy and perfect that I can stand it no longer.'"

Robert Richardson rightly effuses over "this magnificent outburst, the last stand of William James for the spirit of man. What can one say about the philosophical bravado, the cosmic effrontery, the sheer panache of this ailing philosopher with one foot in the grave talking down the second law of thermodynamics? It is a scene fit to set alongside the death of Socrates. The matchless incandescent spirit of the man!”

A will to believe in the universally instructive force of direct personal experience is part of the vision James shares with Emerson. “The point of any pen can be an epitome of reality; the commonest person’s act, if genuinely actuated, can lay hold on eternity.” James and Emerson took everyone's experience seriously. Richardson begins First We Read, Then We Write: Emerson on the Creative Process with Emerson's arrestingly emboldening statement of encouragement to young scholars.

“The first sentence of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s that reached me still jolts me every time I run into it. “Meek young men,” he wrote in “The American Scholar,” “grow up in libraries believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote those books…”

 James applauded the sentiment. We each possess a unique and original relation to the universe, though so many of us sadly neglect to own it.

Richardson spoke here of James and Emerson as possessed of similar spiritual yearnings. And here he was (and so was I, see the discussion after the lecture) at the James centenary in Chocorua in 2010.

A commitment to hope, "the thing with feathers," is definitely on target too. Avian imagery is big in James, with all our conscious and instinctive flights and perchings, and with the gulls skimming the Amazon etc. 

Remember when old December's darkness is everywhere about you, that the world is really in every minutest point as full of life as in the most joyous morning you ever lived through; that the sun is whanging down, and the waves dancing, and the gulls skimming down at the mouth of the Amazon, for instance, as freshly as in the first morning of creation; and the hour is just as fit as any hour that ever was for a new gospel of cheer to be preached. I am sure that one can, by merely thinking of these matters of fact, limit the power of one's evil moods over one's way of looking at the Kosmos. (Letters, 1868)

Birds also symbolize poetry for James, with its valiant attempts to supplement our inadequate volleys of new vocables with songs that transcend words."Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation..."(VRE)

"It would be an awful universe if everything could be converted into words, words, words." (Letters, 1892)

And, a resolve to be as healthy-minded as temperament and circumstance allow is near the center ring of James's aim.

So what is dead-center, the ultimate pragmatic-pluralist-radical empiricist bullseye? 

I think it must be pretty close to what he said was Henri Bergson's: sympathy, the heart of life and hope. He explored that in On A Certain Blindness, and in A Pluralistic Universe. "Place yourself similarly at the centre of a man's philosophic vision and you understand at once all the different things it makes him write or say." 

"When you have broken the reality into concepts you never can reconstruct it in its wholeness. Out of no amount of discreteness can you manufacture the concrete. But place yourself at a bound, or d'emblée, as M. Bergson says, inside of the living, moving, active thickness of the real, and all the abstractions and distinctions are given into your hand: you can now make the intellectualist substitutions to your heart's content. Install yourself in phenomenal movement, for example, and velocity, succession, dates, positions, and innumerable other things are given you in the bargain. But with only an abstract succession of dates and positions you can never patch up movement itself. It slips through their intervals and is lost. So it is with every concrete thing, however complicated. Our intellectual handling of it is a retrospective patchwork, a post-mortem dissection, and can follow any order we find most expedient. We can make the thing seem self-contradictory whenever we wish to. But place yourself at the point of view of the thing's interior doing, and all these back-looking and conflicting conceptions lie harmoniously in your hand. Get at the expanding centre of a human character, the élan vital of a man, as Bergson calls it, by living sympathy, and at a stroke you see how it makes those who see it from without interpret it in such diverse ways. It is something that breaks into both honesty and dishonesty, courage and cowardice, stupidity and insight, at the touch of varying circumstances, and you feel exactly why and how it does this, and never seek to identify it stably with any of these single abstractions. Only your intellectualist does that,—and you now also feel why he must do it to the end. Place yourself similarly at the centre of a man's philosophic vision and you understand at once all the different things it makes him write or say. But keep outside, use your post-mortem method, try to build the philosophy up out of the single phrases, taking first one and then another and seeking to make them fit, and of course you fail. You crawl over the thing like a myopic ant over a building, tumbling into every microscopic crack or fissure, finding nothing but inconsistencies, and never suspecting that a centre exists. I hope that some of the philosophers in this audience may occasionally have had something different from this intellectualist type of criticism applied to their own works! What really exists is not things made but things in the making. Once made, they are dead, and an infinite number of alternative conceptual decompositions can be used in defining them. But put yourself in the making by a stroke of intuitive sympathy with the thing and, the whole range of possible decompositions coming at once into your possession, you are no longer troubled with the question which of them is the more absolutely true. Reality falls in passing into conceptual analysis; it mounts in living its own undivided life—it buds and bourgeons, changes and creates. Once adopt the movement of this life in any given instance and you know what Bergson calls the devenir réel by which the thing evolves and grows. Philosophy should seek this kind of living understanding of the movement of reality, not follow science in vainly patching together fragments of its dead results." APU

That's it. Drop the excessive post-mortem conceptual analysis and the "dead external way" which is our native blindness to one another's springs of delight, try and place yourself at another's angle of vision. Catch the movement of reality, return to life--"the music can commence again;--and again and again..."-- And soar.

“Hope” is the thing with feathers -

That perches in the soul -

And sings the tune without the words -

And never stops - at all -

Michael Collins, ‘Third Man’ of the Moon Landing, Dies at 90

My favorite astronaut, Carrying the Fire...

Orbiting dozens of miles above the lunar surface, he kept solitary watch of the Apollo command module as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin embarked for the moon.

"My windows suddenly flash full of sunlight as Columbia swings around into the dawn..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/science/michael-collins-third-man-of-the-moon-landing-dies-at-90.html?smid=em-share

==

Collins tweeted, just six days ago,

I am certain, if everyone could see the Earth floating just outside their windows, every day would be#EarthDay

. There are few things more fragile or more beautiful than Earth, let's work together today and everyday to protect our home.

Study AND think

"To study and not think is a waste.
To think and not study is dangerous."
- Confucius pic.twitter.com/BN2EvRuGgP

— Ethics in Bricks (@EthicsInBricks) November 14, 2020

Final Blog Post

 The Law of Attraction  by Pai S Ning (section 8)

The law of attraction and Placebo Effect 

The Law of Attraction suggests that happy thoughts attract happy things while negative thoughts attract negative things. For the placebo effect, if you truly believe, it may work for you. Some people believe the Placebo effect is The Law of Attraction in action. 

 Placebo effect-  According to researchers Cheston and Becky, the placebo effect dates back to the 18^th -19^th century when a religious movement called “New Thought” rose as, “part of a broad reaction to the ideas and constraints of Christianity.” It says that “Mind holds sway over matter and thinking creates reality. New Thought attributes disease, unhappiness, and misfortune to incorrect thinking. Consequently, correct thinking—having faith in a universal being—heals all ills.” Cheston and Becky also claimed that, “many of the New Age ideas of the early twenty-first century are based on the basic premise of New Thought, from hypnotherapy, the laws of attraction, the power of positive thinking espoused by Norman Vincent Peale, and the prosperity gospel, to the writings of thinkers such as Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, and Eckhart Tolle.”

The law of Attraction- In the foreword of the book “The Thought of vibration or The Law of Attraction in the Thought world,” by William Walker Atkinson, he said, “The growing soul must realize it has within itself all that it requires.” He is basically saying humans have power that they need in order to survive. He also talks about people having a force--a manifestation of energy, that can attract what they desire to themselves like magnet just by thinking of it. It is quite interesting how he used gravity as an example to define what The Law of Attraction is. To quote his exact words, he said “we recognize the power of the law that attracts bodies to the earth, that holds the circling worlds in their places, but we close our eyes to the mighty law that  draws to us the things we desire or fear, that makes or mars our lives.” To summarize, he is saying everyone has the power in their mind that attracts positive or negative things depending on what their choose to focus on. 

What do I think of The Law of Attraction and Placebo effect? 

Even though it has no scientific basis, I think the Placebo effect may be true, and effective for people who truly believe. Their mind tricks them into believing what they're told because they don't have any hint of doubt in their mind. Some studies show 35% of those patients who are given placebo drug or treatment actually recovered.  

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645221500740X?casa_token=2LnCPR1AnD8AAAAA:WFAzBcwNSgmojla0dE-1FY-wsGWSAQwh0B3diuM6oOvIZb0Pei5qHtDrHikwx7dFdeeATvvKo2Y

On the other hand, The Law of Attraction cannot really be proven scientifically, thus cannot really be a "law". It is said that positive thoughts attract positive things while negative thoughts attract negative ones which is awfully similar to the "positive thinking" concept for self-help; it is actually proven to be effective. Studies show that positive thinkers are healthier, happier, and live longer than negative thinkers. I don't think The Law of Attraction is real because for one, it really is just a bunch of self-help concepts put together with words like "energy", "attraction," and "law," and two, it can create delusions if not interpreted correctly. There is no way to attract a million dollars just by sitting at home constantly thinking about it. 

The book Throw Away your Vision Board: The Truth about the Law of Attraction, by Nell Farber M.D, Ph.D., goes in depth explaining how The Law of Attraction isn't really true. You should check it out when you get a chance. 

So, what do you think of The Law of Attraction? 

Have you ever experienced something that you think cannot be explained by science? 

The Law of Attraction

 Definition of the Law of Attraction

 The Law of Attraction is a universal Law that says, “That which is like unto itself, is drawn.” - Abraham Hicks

 This is further explained in the book The Law of Attraction (by Esther and Jerry Hicks) with 

“When you say, ‘Birds of a feather flock together,’ you are actually talking about the Law of Attraction. You see it evidenced when you wake up feeling unhappy, and then throughout the day things get worse and worse, and at the end of the day you say, ‘I shouldn’t have gotten out of bed.’ You see the Law of Attraction evidenced in your society when you see that the one who speaks most about illness has illness; when you see that the one who speaks most about prosperity has prosperity. The Law of Attraction is evident when you set your radio dial on 630AM and you expect to receive the broadcast from the transmitting tower of 630AM, because you understand that the radio signals between the transmitting tower and your receiver must match.”

“To better understand the Law of Attraction, see yourself as a magnet attracting unto you the essence of that which you are thinking and feeling. And so, if you are feeling fat, you cannot attract thin. If you feel poor, you cannot attract prosperity, and so on. It defies Law.”

Everything Is Energy & Everything Is a Manifestation

To fully understand the Law of Attraction you have to know that everything is made of energy and everything in your life is a manifestation. When you hear, you are translating energy vibration into sound, when you see, you are translating light waves into different colors, and so on. Even your thoughts are energy. The other important concept to nail down is that EVERYTHING is a manifestation. The Law of Attraction is not a process you apply when trying to achieve a goal. It is a Law that applies itself to everything at all times. What you want to do is alter your thoughts so that the Law of Attraction works in your favor.

Because the Law of Attraction applies itself to everything, you don’t only have to think about its effects in abstracts or extremes like world peace, winning the lottery, or war. You can look at your own life: How is your health? How is your timing? How do strangers treat you? How are your relationships? This, along with your emotions, tell you about your “vibrational set-point,” as Abraham Hicks calls it. Your vibrational set-point is the signal or energetic frequency that you are sending out, which the law of attraction responds to. This comes from the essence of your thoughts. It’s important to remember that the Law of Attraction is responding to your vibration, not the words you speak. You can shout “I am rich!” from the rooftops, but if you don’t feel it and believe it, it won’t come to you. 

How do thoughts turn to things?

The Law of Attraction gathers things of the same vibration. So your vibration attracts a thought, which attracts another thought, which leads to an impulse, to an action, and on and on and on. Other people are attracted to you, and you create things and situations together. For another short explanation, watch from 1:06-2:16 of this video of the Teachings of Abraham Hicks. Heads up: They talk a bit fast.

This Part of “New Age” Is Not New

Although the Law of Attraction is considered a part of the “New Age” movement, it has been written and spoken about for a long time. Some of the concepts are even seen in the Bible. People such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, born in 1803, and William James, born in 1842 are mentioned in Joseph Murphy’s book The Power of Your Subconscious Mind. He explains the meaning and language behind many Bible quotes throughout his book. An example of one of the Bible stories that Joseph Murphy covered is Matthew 9:28-30. In the English Standard Version of the Bible, it reads: 

“When he [Jesus] entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.” And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, “See that no one knows about it.”

Jesus’s warning to the healed blind men was to keep what happened to themself because he knew that if they told others, the other people would most likely doubt and subsequently lead the healed men to doubt, which could reverse the healing that was done by their faith.

Abraham Hicks

At Abraham-hicks.com, the first thing you see is a picture of the interpreter Esther Hicks and text that says, 

        “IT ALL STARTED HERE: This is the original source material for the current Law of Attraction              wave that is sweeping the world, and it is the 21st century inspiration for thousands of books, films, essays and lectures that are responsible for the current paradigm shift in consciousness.

Here you will find accurate clarification of the basics of the Law of Attraction and practical applications as well as up-to-the moment leading-edge expanding information regarding the Law of Attraction. (Also known as ‘The Teachings of Abraham’) This is the fountainhead of the information upon which the hit movie, ‘The Secret’ was based.”

The Teachings of Abraham are the clearest, most straightforward sources of information and answers your questions about the Law of Attraction, for the source of the information is Abraham, a non-physical consciousness, who is spoken for by Esther. Click here for a 10-minute introduction to Abraham-Hicks video.

Practical Applications

You may be wondering, How do I work with the Law of Attraction to achieve what I desire?

The most useful book I could recommend is Ask and It is Given by Esther and Jerry Hicks. It covers the Law of Attraction, the basis of life, gives over twenty-two processes to improve what you are manifesting, and answers many introductory and frequently asked questions. But it’s a lot to ask that you read an entire book.

So, to start your journey, here are two videos, one consisting of Neville Goddard’s teachings and the other of the “5 lessons to live by” from Dr. Wayne W. Dyer.

Neville Goddard

Dr. Wayne W. Dyer

RESOURCES to Explore

The Law of Attraction by Esther and Jerry Hicks

The Power of Your Subconscious Mind by Dr. Joseph Murphy

The Teachings of:       Neville Goddard

Alan Watts

Dr. Wayne W. Dyer

Louise Hay

Dr. Joe Dispenza

Aalayis Suggs, Section 8, Final Blog Post

Total of Posts for the Semester: 19 (17 discussion posts, midterm summary comment, final blog post)

A Conversation (FINAL)

 A Discussion Between Zeno, Pyrrho, Epicurus, and Me 

This imaginary conversation will analyze what I believe a discussion would consist of between three famous philosophers trying to convince me to take up their philosophy. 

Allow me to set the scene: Time has stopped, and I have been teleported to an open area where the sun is bright shining, and there’s not a cloud in the sky. In front of me, there sits three famous philosophers that I am able to recognize, sitting upon a half-circle type of stone seating. There, they discuss philosophies – their own philosophies. Just in time, I arrive in need of a philosophy to take up myself. 

 

Austin: “Where am I?” 

Pyrrho: “Where do you think you are?” 

Austin: “Well I don’t know. I figured I would ask the three people who seem to know where they are at.” 

Pyrrho: “Do you really know where you’re at? Your senses could betray you.” 

Epicurus: “Don’t be such a skeptic. You’ll get yourself killed. Just simply enjoy the pleasures of life and take it easy. Don’t worry about your hardships.” 

Zeno: “We can agree on that, Epicurus. Don’t worry about what’s out of your control, son. Since you’re here for a while it seems, sit down and have a talk with us. We’d love to share our philosophies to you. What’s your name?” 

Austin: “My name is Austin. Why am I here?” 

Epicurus: “It seems this is a place for philosophical unrest. We can’t agree on which of ours is the best, and it seems you don’t have one yourself.” 

Austin: “So I was randomly teleported here?” 

Zeno: “You’d be a good philosopher yourself, kid. Always asking questions.” 

Austin: “Funny. If I’m here to settle on a philosophy to adopt, then let’s hear your guys’.” 

Pyrrho: “You said you recognized us, you tell us: What ARE our philosophies?” 

(LH Ch. 3) Austin: “Okay, well you yourself are Pyrrho. You don’t think anything is real. You--” 

Pyrrho: “Hey hey hey, I didn’t say that. I’m a skeptic. I don’t necessarily believe nothing is real, just that we can’t know if something is true for sure. How do we know our senses and our perception is 100% accurate? That could lead to disappointment. Don’t commit to anything and you won’t find yourself let down.” 

Austin: “Wait, so if you don’t trust your senses, how do you feel pain? You would jump off a cliff?” 

Pyrrho: “How can we know for sure? Appearances deceive, and we cannot know for sure the threat that the ‘appearance’ shows. I live in peace to an extent.” 

(LH Ch. 5) Austin: “Well that doesn’t sound bad, except for the pain I know I’m going to experience. You DO sound rather maniacal though. Nonetheless, I do like the no worrying part, which brings me to you, Zeno. You’re the father of stoicism, something similar to Pyrrho.” 

Zeno: “Don’t compare me to that lunatic. The man runs around crazy; he doesn’t fear storms or wild dogs. How is that even a philosophy? For me, it’s not that I don’t care about anything, it‘s that the point of my belief is not worrying about things you can’t control. The only comparison between me and that madman is I and my followers seek peace of mind. Anything can happen, and you cannot prevent that. The only controlling factor for a stoic is their attitude toward a situation.” 

Austin: “Alright, well what about something major, like death?” 

Zeno: “Even with big events, learn to let go. You do not have the ability to prevent or reverse that. Remain unmoved, and train yourself on resilience to things out of your control. Emotions cloud our sensible judgement, and should be removed wherever possible.” 

Austin: “Kind of like learning to endure your hardships and not let them get you down?” 

Zeno: “There you go kid, now you’re catching on.” 

Austin: "I like that. That doesn't sound too bad. I wouldn't want to risk shutting the world out entirely, though."

Epicurus sits, calmly. He waits for his turn, but is also enjoying the time spent with three new friends – even if they can’t get along. 

(LH Ch. 4) Austin: “Okay, well now onto you, Epicurus. You taught others to not fear death, for the constant fear of death causes stress and darkens your days. You say once you figure out to drop that common fear, things simple out and you can enjoy life.” 

Epicurus: “Correct. Help yourself find happiness in life through the smoothest way available. We all seek pleasure, yes? More precisely, we seek avoidance from hardships. This is actually very simple. The key to life is to be kind to everyone and surround yourself with those who love you. Don’t work your life away. Live simple and make your needs basic, therefore you will never desire for more.” 

Austin: “Simplicity is favorable, but death is scary. How can I not worry about that? What if there’s nothing after?” 

Epicurus: “Why dwell on it? You won’t be there when it happens.” 

Austin: “Valid point, I suppose. Alright, I think I am ready to side with one of you three.” 

All three philosophers glared at him with curiosity. The boy outstretched his hand to one of them, and as they made contact, he was suddenly awoken back in the present day. 

 Philosophers in the rain