An Exposition of a Personal Philosophy of Life

In life, existence is only good when you can genuinely benefit yourself and other people. That in itself is the life and existence of a genuine value producer, in that order. The only time something counts as not valuable is when it is genuinely destructive. Nothing genuinely has the intention of being consciously totally destructive to themselves and others from the start or get go. But everyone wants to feel good and benefit, that in itself is the secret of life, and the question of existence answered.
Logically, self benefit is what we all live for, some go about it rationally, some go about it irrationally. Irrationality is inherently destructive. Rationality is inherently productive. Rationality keeps you "in the loop" or in the action of life. That is where we are going with this article, to the rational. We are discarding the irrational, destructive and unhappy here. From beliefs in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny to the most subtle irrationalities like eating too much sugar, irrationality needs to be banished from life in order to be genuinely successful in life. I know, I sound extreme. But I am using such extreme reality to expose the eminent benefits of being rational in life and existence. Sure, like anyone I am not rational one hundred percent of the time, but a majority of the time, I do my best to be rational, sane and realistic. Because perfection, as they say must be earned and self made, not given or created by others. Yes, perfection is an idea of what works genuinely, in that sense as a concept, it is rationally possible.
Everyone wants the key to happiness, but not the key to sadness, so the key to happiness is rationality, the key to sadness is irrationality. No wonder everyone searches for the key to happiness, but it is always found in one place: In the rational action. Rational action is where the happiness is at, that is where I am going with this article. I am not saying this dispassionately either or even analytically, although I am balancing positive emotions with realistic analytical thought in this article. Rationality allows a broad spectrum of positive actions and good feelings, where irrationality, no matter what the short term "benefit" does not give anything of any real value, positive or negative, in reality.
When I think of honest and real, tangible value, no matter what I feel, it is always rational. Values, no matter what the feelings, are tangible rationality. That in itself is a higher value than anything irrational. So, here I rest my case, for what is rational works, what is irrational does not work.

My name is Joshua Clayton, I am a freelance writer based in Inglewood, California. I also write under a few pen-names and aliases, but Joshua Clayton is my real name, and I write by that for the most part now. I am a philosophical writer and objective thinker and honest action taker.
I also work at a senior center in Gardena, California as my day job, among other things, but primarily I am a writer.

Left & Right-Wing Brains

Several weeks ago a friend challenged me to explain the difference between left and right-wing ideologies.
"Can you do it?" challenged friend. "Moreso, can you do it fairly and without the usual right and left stereotypes and with the history of where these ideological groupings come from?"
Sure. Why not. There's no resolving the esoteric spectra of political ideology - Marxism, communism, socialism, liberalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and fascism, to name just a few - if we can't even tell left from right. If we can't say why we keep leaning either way.
Let's put aside the history of our political divisions, though. History can't explain why people keep slanting left or angling right - while knowing next to nothing about history. In fact? It almost seems like people can't really help their own political inclinations.
That's what research has shown. When it comes to left or right political leaning, people don't just forget their history. They disdain plain facts and otherwise common sense. Both those leaning left and those leaning right will consistently rely on the identical facts when justifying how they lean. Which can only suggest complete disregard for facts. For how consistency gets sacrificed when it comes to political leaning.
Yet more astonishing has been research showing significant, detectable brain differences between people leaning politically left and right. Research so remarkable that mainstream media headlines blared: "Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain".
Could significant brain-differences mean that political inclination is inborn? Genetically hard-wired?
Better not get carried away with that joke. Finding brain differences doesn't mean that political inclination is hard-wired. That it isn't learned. Since learning too, just as well, may account for brain differences. Since we know that learning can and does correspond with presumably structuring events in the brain. Since learning is precisely not inborn or hard-wired. Learning is everything we acquire - albeit not only - by experience.
For the most simplistic analogy, it may be possible to significantly distinguish computers by their operating systems. Would we then conclude operating systems are hard-wired? Of course not. Operating systems are precisely not hard-wired.
What surprises is not that learning or knowing can correspond with variance in people's brains. Rather, it is how deeply fundamental our political leanings must therefore be. How persistent, reliable and robust a division political leaning must constitute. In order to correspond with real, significant brain differences, leaning left or right politically must divide us - how we learn, how we know -- fundamentally.
It would not be surprising to find significant brain differences between, for instance, people who distinguish right from wrong - and people who do not. But we would not expect significant brain differences between people who think it's right to vote for Barak Obama - and people who think it's wrong to vote for Obama. That's what's surprising. How much deeper than just voting choices our political inclinations must go. How political inclination now seems more like being able to tell right from wrong. In terms of the prior analogy, political leaning isn't just elective software. How we lean seems more like a module of our operating system.
Taking a minute to think about it, though? There should be no surprise. Because, in Western societies, political inclination is predicated on our understanding of fairness - and because fairness has replaced god when it comes to telling political right from wrong.
Right and wrong used to be functions of god-given truths. But at least since the American and French revolutions - if not since yet earlier during Western Enlightenment - we have lost every faith in the truths god gave. And absent definitive, pre-ordained, absolute truths to sanctify each social injustice? The alternative has become culturally ingrained in Western societies that humanitarian fairness must decide public morality.
Now, in the West, fairness is the needle in our public morality compass. Fairness has become the vane of political legitimacy. On this much, in the West, we can agree. We have got to be fair.
But fundamental and imperative as fairness has become? We totally can't agree on what it means. When it comes to our understanding of fairness we are utterly divided.
On one hand, there is the belief that fairness must mean relative parity. Such that, whenever observing material non-parity, we have to conclude non-fairness. Any inequality, in itself, must therefore constitute evidence of discrimination, of oppression, of exploitation - of prevailing social injustice.
On the other hand, there is the belief that fairness must mean not only relative parity - but must also reflect relative merit and virtue. Such that we cannot conclude non-fairness from material non-parity alone. Since inequalities could always stem from differences in relative merit - rather than any social injustice prevailing.
The more we believe material non-parity entails injustice - the farther left we have to lean politically. The more we believe material non-parity does not entail injustice - the farther right we have to lean politically.
And when we lean too far - either way? That's when our ideals of fairness turn ideological. Because it is false, absurd and harmful to believe merit has either nothing or absolutely everything to do with people's material circumstances. Sometimes people can shape their material circumstances - whereas, at other times, circumstances can overwhelm anyone.
It comes down to this. Western ideals of fairness are most admirable. Absent such ideals - had we kept faith with god-given truths or just relied on might determining our relative rights - there could never have evolved even partly free and democratic Western societies. But Western ideologies of fairness are turning uniquely absurd - and damaging.
Right-wing brains believing only merit can truly determine what's fair ought to remember that no society can thrive which turns its back on those most overwhelmed by circumstance through no fault of their own. Whereas left-wing brains believing merit has no bearing whatever on fairness had better remember that societies collapse and fall when turning blind eyes to how enduringly only human self-determination and free-enterprise can improve, enhance, augment and ultimately transcend every possible circumstance. That's right - ultimately transcend. Because circumstance and human conditions hinge not only on potentially alienable means of production - but yet more so on potentially inalienable productions of meaning. Because absent comprehensive appreciation for human production of meaning - there can be no real conception of human productivity.
Ideologies of fairness are absurd artifacts produced by genuine cultural ideals of fairness. Ideals of fairness but for which there could never have emerged even partly free and democratic Western societies. And our most extreme ideologies of fairness are also uniquely Western.
Could left and right-wing brains have preceded our ideals and expectations of public fairness? Could there have been left and right-wing brains prior to left and right political alternatives even existing? Even now, can there be left and right-wing brains in the totalitarian Middle East or North Korea? Of course not. There can be no meaningful left or right political alternatives in totalitarian societies. No political alternative can have coherent totalitarian meaning. Since the meaning of totalitarian is to deny all alternatives.
Our ideals of fairness are at the cultural roots of relatively free and democratic Western societies. Yet our ideologies of fairness - ideologies at the expense of real fairness - like rot, are beginning to erode Western societies from inside out. Can Western societies recover - or will left and right political ideologies continue dividing us until we can no longer work and live together?
That's the real question the survey was meant to address. Not whether Bush or Obama hatred has been worst - responses to which, either way, likely reflect only prevailing ideological devotions. Rather, whether any significant proportion of respondents might indicate some rejection of ideology by choosing the third option: "Ideologues left and right are all a pestilence on democracy." Unfortunately, to date, the third option accounted for merely 8% of responses. Meanwhile, the first two - ideologically divisive - options accounted for over 85% of responses.
By way of bad news, these numbers shout for themselves.

Sharing My Knowledge on Vedanta - 3

This is intended to be a series of articles on the basics of Vedanta, gradually moving on to the depth with details. Please feel free to comment, ask questions related to the articles. Your comments are the thermometer for my writing skills and contents. I will do my best to write on subjects that interests you. Hope you enjoy my articles.
1. Anubandha- catustaya: The four preliminary considerations with respect to vedantic texts. They are Adhikari, Visaya, Prayojana and Sambandha.
2. AdhikárÄ«: Qualified aspirant. The personalities of an individual, qualified to study the vedantic texts.
3. Viveka: The ability to differentiate between the Permanent & impermanent. (Understanding that Brahman alone is permanent and worldly objects including body, mind & intellect are appearing as real) This is the basis/foundation to climb the spiritual ladder.
4. Vairágya: It is the readiness to lose anything at any time. (Recognizing that except Brahman, everything has a beginning & end. A strong conviction of viveka will support Vairágya)
5. Uparama: The ability to withdraw oneself from the worldly attractions. (Be a part of the world yet, being apart -detachment. When viveka & Vairágya are strong, uparama is effortless)
6. Titiksá: The capacity of the mind to take all kinds of pain and sorrow objectively. Equanimity in situations without forbearance (Ability to forgive & forget and not be affected/carried away by the obstacles on the spiritual path)
7. Samádhána: Single-pointed ness. Ability to stay focused in the spiritual path. (If the mind & senses are managed properly, developed the ability to be detached from the worldly attractions for such a person, Samádhána is an effortless act).
8. MumukÅYutvam: A desire for Liberation. (An intense desire to get out of the cycle of birth & death.)
The defects of worldly enjoyments...
- They have a beginning & end - They cause pain - They sap energy - They give a sense of incompleteness at the end - They lead to a cycle of birth & death - due to attachment through pleasure, memory and an illusion.
Differentiation between Sama from Dama.
Sama is mastery of mind. Mind can travel faster than light and in all directions. To manage the thoughts and keep the mind as your servant is a challenging task. Keeping the mind away from the desires of the worldly attractions and in the spiritual path is Sama. (Mind starts with experiencing the pleasure, to the memory of the past pleasure (recalling) to the yearning of the experience again and when not possible, getting agitated, losing clarity, increases anxiety, thus loses calmness and gets detoured from the spiritual path).
Dama is mastery of senses. Information flows from the senses to the mind. Senses are the entry points/gateways to the mind. If these senses are trained properly in the right directions, managing the thoughts and mastering the mind is not difficult. Monitoring and managing the senses is the beginning step towards the spiritual path to recognize Brahman.
Comparison between 'blind belief' and 'sraddhá
The two terms 'blind belief' and 'sraddhá' are vastly different.
Blind belief is a concept, temporary in nature and does not have to have a truth. It has no logic and gets shattered in a difficult situation. My personal experience is: When I was little, I believed that my parents would be there with me forever. On the contrary, when they passed away, I recognize that the belief that I had, isn't true. My father's sudden demise let me questions as to 'where did father go?' 'Will this happen to everyone?' 'When will I go and where?' "Why did I come here from where?"
Sraddhá / Faith is a trust. The faith that I had & continue to have in God, strengthened me (the ego to be humble) leading to an enquiry mind with an ability to intellectually recognize the permanent from the ephemeral, leading to inner peace. Faith is simply trusting that something IS, even though you cannot necessarily see it or prove it.
From the spiritual point of view, a blind belief is a belief based on pure ignorance. Before Sankaracharya, people had blind believes, practiced rituals without understanding the meaning of Vedanta. Once we learn our philosophy, it gives clarity that performing mere rituals alone is not the life's goal. They're only a means to steady our mind and stay focused and elevate us towards the higher goal - Self Realization.
Unfortunately lots of people's beliefs are of this sort, they let themselves be taken by the popularity of something and they have no idea of what the principles or basics of which those beliefs are built upon. They get attracted to the wealth, fame and popularity due to their belief of what they believe is real in life and gets detoured from the spiritual path.
Blind belief reminds me of blind obedience. When a child is put in that situation & the parents are suddenly out of the picture, the child is unable to survive independently because he/she is raised to follow direction. Faith on the contrary is like a child raised to use his critical, analytical, logical thinking and make the choices of his life.
Regular consistent spiritual practices, study of Vedanta, viveka, vairagya, and single pointed focus on self-enquiry will take us to a higher elevation on the spiritual path under the guidance of a Guru and the grace of Lord.

Awesome Power is an organization committed to encourage, motivate, inspire, coach and support individuals to believe in themselves and reach their fullest potentially in life.
The author of this article is a motivational speaker, a professional writer, personal coach dedicated to public speaking, writing articles to make a difference.
The author is also deeply interested in spiritual studies and believes our life is the consequences of our own actions and that the spiritual study is the way for inner peace. We are on this earth to realize that all is ONE and that ONE is in all.

Sharing My Knowledge on Vedanta - 2

Sastra granthas are texts that cover several topics pertaining to a subject whereas prakarana-granthas focus on a specific topic in detail. Ex: Prakarana grantha is like covering Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Calculus individually whereas sastra grantha is like covering Mathematics as a whole.
Prakarana grantha support the students to focus on a specific topic that she/he is interested in and avoid non-essential topics, which may not pertain to the interest of the student, who wants to go deeper into one specific subject to a particular topic.
Mangalacarana is an invocation of the Lord and/ or the Guru or both before we start any event/challenge/projects. Sometimes one single word is used to invoke both the almighty and the Guru.
Ex: Sankaracharya mentioned the term 'Govinda' as a single word to invocate both the paramatma and his Guru Govinda Bhagwat pada in Vivekachudamani. All vedantic texts start with mangalacarana. Why?
To remember the Lord and the Guru before any challenge or event is to make one humble, pure and devoted have the strength to undertake the challenge. We can accomplish all things only by the Grace of the Lord and guidance of Guru. This also diminishes the ego in one, as one believes that we one need the grace of the Lord & Guru for the outcome.
I read somewhere Lord Krishna's flute symbolizes this. We all are like the hollow flute thru' which flows the enchanting music of Lord flows. It is His power that animates this body.
Prakarana grantha in the very beginning states explicitly the four preliminary considerations with respect to vedantic texts. They are:
1. Adhikari: A person who is qualified to receive the knowledge imparted in the text.
2. Visaya: The subject matter of the text
3. Prayojana/Phala: The results achieved by studying the text
4. Sambandha: The relationship between the subject matter and the text.
Every text is normally given to a certain class of students that have a set of qualities who alone can benefit from. For ex: Anatomy & physiology are directed to health professionals, Physics & electrical/electronics to engineering students, Accounting & Finance to commerce students. So also qualified aspirant alone can benefit from the study of Atma Bodha, while others are encouraged to aspire to study the text.
Sankaracharya says students who are fit to study Atma Bodha need to have certain discipline.
1. Adhikari:
An individual who has
1. Weakened his wrong tendencies and purified his heart through spiritual practices and study of scriptures - Ksinapapanam
2. One who has found mental calmness without any agitations - santanam
3. One who has developed detachment from worldly objects, relationships and situations - vitta-raginams
4. One who is s a sincere seeker, wanting to liberate oneself from one's own bondages and the cycle of birth & death - mumuksunam
- alone is fit to study Atma bodha, says Sankaracharya.
2. Visaya:
Atma (Self) Bodha (knowledge) is the study of self-knowledge. This is the knowledge of one's identity with the Brahman (the all pervading consciousness), which is termed as jiva-brahma-aikya.
3.Prayojan/Phal:
The result of the study of Atma bodha is indicated by the phrase 'mumuksunam apeksyo yam' which is the purpose of seeker's liberation. This liberation is the freedom from the cycle of birth & death. This is the supreme (highest) result of the study of Vedanta.
4.Sambandha:
The relationship between the text and the subject matter which is defines as ' bodhya-bodhaka-bhava-sambandha' is the relationship between the explainer and the explained - the grantha and its content.
Example given in this chapter is if one is hungry and does not know the food that is available can remove hunger, he will not make any effort to eat it.
It is important that we impart the consequences of every action - both benefits and otherwise so that youngsters can make appropriate choices. If they do not know the consequences, they do not allow themselves to choose the right response to any situation.
Studying the Vedanta is a choice and one will choose to read if they know what they'll get out of it.

Awesome Power is an organization committed to to encourage, motivate, inspire, coach and support individuals to believe in themselves and reach their fullest potentially in life.
The author of this article is a motivational speaker, a professional writer, personal coach dedicated to public speaking, writing articles and books to make a difference.
The author is also deeply interested in spiritual studies and believes our life is the consequences of our own actions and that the spiritual studies is the way for inner peace. We are on this earth to realize that all is ONE and that ONE is in all.

Sharing My Knowledge on Vedanta - 1

Of all the creatures in this universe, human birth is very rare. A human being with sattvic qualities is rare and the one who is on the path to dharma with a total commitment and steadfastness is much rare.
The verse written by Sankaracharya 'Vivekachudamani' lists nine blessings. They're:
1. Human birth (nara-janma)
2. Manhood (pumstvam)
3. Sattvic attitude in life (Viprata)
4. Steadfastness on the path of righteousness (vaidhika dharma-marga-parata)
5. Correct knowledge of the deep significances of Vedas (vidvattvam)
6. Differentiation between the Self and not Self (atma-anatma-vivecanam)
7. Direct experience (svanubhavam)
8. To be established in the awareness of the identity of the Brahman & Atman
9. Liberation (mukti)
Among all creatures in this universe from unicellular amoeba to ants, elephants, birds and all species, human birth is considered to be very rare. Not because of the physical or the intellectual power, though, they're admired, but human birth is considered noble because of the following reasons.

1. Only human birth is blessed with the ability to observe one's own thoughts, words and actions. They alone have the ability to change their thoughts and recourse the way they think.
2. All living beings live in an instinctive mode. Human beings alone have the power to choose their responses to a given situation.
3. Finally, they alone have the ability for diving pursuits. They alone can question their existence, reflect on their thoughts & behaviors, question the purpose of their existence and ask 'who am I? Where did I come from? Where am going?'

Pumstvam' (manhood) is a firmness of determination, detachment, intellectual hardiness, steadiness of composure (emotional management). These are not the softness, attachment and sentiments that normally some possess.
Thus pumstvam' (manhood) is not in reference to the physical body but to the intellect that is free of attachments. Manhood in spiritual context simply means courage, strength, constancy to pursuer with steadfastness, dedication, commitment and the strong will to pursue in the spiritual path.
Bhagvad Gita describes Viprata/sattvic attitude as self-restraint, austerity/strictness, purity, forgiveness, righteousness/honesty, straightforwardness/truthfulness, knowledge and intense belief in God. A human birth with all these values is considered to be a 'brahmin' - a rare combination of all divine qualities.
Due to our action in our past several births, we have come this point to focus on spiritual path.
Therefore, it is our responsibility to pursue in this path until we reach the destination of Self-knowledge which can liberate us from the bondages and finally from the cycle of birth & death (samsara)
Manhood and noble attitudes in life are good and will lead us to Godhood as we steadfastly pursue in that direction.
Practice of spiritual disciplines is the ritualistic approach and is a good stepping-stone to Godhood but we cannot stop there. We should develop the habit of reflecting on our existence, question our existence, and try to find who we are. We can observe our thoughts by meditating and be a witness to our prana/breathing & our thoughts. We're not the body, mind or intellect.
Worship, prayer, bajan can help us purify our mind and are actions based on the belief to reach the higher goal. Understanding the deeper meanings of the scriptures is the action at the intellectual level. Fall is eminent, we need to be constantly aware of our position and commit to move forward in the spiritual path. In this world of maya, distraction is plenty.
Vedanta is deep and needs a faculty of perception to understand the deeper logic. People who reach this level of understanding are much more rare than the people who follow the spiritual disciplines without having a deeper understanding. When one reaches this level of vidvattvam, should focus on the next level to be able to differentiate between the Self (the pure consciousness that resides in the physical body) from the material objects outside the body and the body itself & the mind. 'Self' separate from the BMI (Body, mind and intellect) - 's' is the non-Self. Those who are able to reach this level of differentiation have further advanced in the spiritual path. This is again at the intellectual level.
Svanubhava is the personal experience (subjective experience which cannot be described) is higher than the intellectual understanding. Reaching this state is extremely rare.
A person may experience a flash of awareness but that is not enough. One must continuously be aware of Self, as the witness in the physical body and abide in the understanding of this Self in me, 'Atman', the Self - is the same 'Brahman' everywhere. That realization is the purpose of this human birth. Such a person is glorified as jivan mukta in Upanishads, Shista-pragya (one who has transcended the three gunas Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic). Such a person is totally liberated from all desires & bondages, is selfless and has no rebirth.
Sankaracharya declares that his state cannot be had without thousands of lives lived with commitment to spiritual advancement.

Awesome Power is an organization committed to to encourage, motivate, inspire, coach and support individuals to reach their fullest potential.
The author of this article is a motivational speaker, a professional writer, personal coach dedicated to public speaking, writing articles and books to make a difference.
The author is also deeply interested in spiritual studies and believes our life is the consequences of our own actions. We are on this earth to realize that all is ONE and that ONE is in all.

Determinism and Punishment

An attempt will be made to discriminate between a compatibilist and an incompatibilist account of free will. To complete this objective, a description of determinism must first be presented. The following questions then arise: to what extent may punishment be defended, and what role it should play in these worldviews?
Determinism is defined as the idea that all events are simply the effect of a previous causal incident in combination with the laws of physics or nature. Every present and future occurrence are necessitated and could not have occurred in any other way. If it is decided that determinism is a true account of reality, then one is confronted with the issue of free will.
Free will is the question of whether rational agents exercise a freedom of control over their own actions and thoughts and thereby decisions. An individual who maintains the belief that determinism is in accordance with reality, and that rational beings do maintain control over themselves is convinced that free will is congruent with determinism, and are called compatibilists. One who believes in determinism and yet does not believe in free will is named an incompatibilist. To further articulate the differences between the two, a more in depth description will be given for each account.
The classical compatibilist view is that a person exercises free will only when the person wills an act and when other acts are capable of being done. It was classically agreed upon that a person's free will is deprived during acts of rape, imprisonment, murder, and other forms of constraint on the person's actions. This coercion overrides free will. It was also argued that even though the options for the person are restricted in these circumstances, irregardless, they still make decisions based on their own desires and preferences. Later compatibilists expanded the debate further by introducing the hierarchical mesh idea of first-order and second-order desires. All three alcoholics may have no choice in having another drink. But below that, in the second-order, one may not want to drink it, one may want to drink it, and one may not even consider the second-order desires. The basic notion is that a rational agent is capable of acting in a multitude of ways that are unpredictable to others.
Incompatibilists would say that any action taken by the rational agent was predetermined by outside forces, including genetic, neurological, and environmental reasons, the laws of nature, and past events. The main argument for the incompatibilist view is one of a causal chain. Whether a rational being can make voluntary choices or not is not the issue, but whether they are, themselves, the prime initiator of this choice. For this to be the case, then one must dismiss all of the preceding events and actions taken, and all of the reasons previously listed. The issue generated by incompatiblism with the largest impact is one over the view of responsibility and punishment.
Society holds people accountable for their actions and delivers praise or blame, except for some cases of mental retardation and psychosis. But for this to be the most appropriate way of handling punishment and reward, one must accept that people have free will. Incompatibilists find it hard to justify punishing someone who's actions were already predetermined since the birth of time. The question is one of how a person can assume moral responsibility for actions out of their immediate control. Some incompatibilists will even give the notion that the person possibly had options and made the wrong ethical choice in that present moment, but that doesn't excuse determinism from the situation. They were still forced into the situation and then many outside issues helped form the decision made. On the other hand, compatibilists say that determinism is a prerequisite for assuming moral responsibility for one's actions, otherwise the decision was governed by a random process in the central nervous system. A view that seems to reconcile both sides it that is a person is determined to act in a specific fashion due to the past and his surroundings, then punishment plants the seeds to change his future actions for the better.

How to Read a Philosophic Text

Philosophy, the pursuit of wisdom, can be an extremely rewarding subject, if the student studies it in a manner conducive to learning. Unfortunately, many new students to philosophy do not understand the deep reading required for an in-depth study of the subject. As a result, many perfectly capable would-be philosophers are discouraged from further study because of frustration over their lack of understanding. By following some simple guidelines on deep reading, however, anyone, given enough patience, can understand, even the most complicated philosophical topics.
In elementary or primary school, most of us are introduced to one method of reading: extensive reading. Such reading is done purely for the pleasure of reading, and we are not always required to absorb all of the information. Such reading is conducive to pleasure reading, e.g. reading novels, comic strips, magazines and newspapers. In these situations, we are simply reading for the pure pleasure of reading. What most people do not realize, however, is that extensive reading is not a good way to read for academic subjects and that another method of reading is needed if we are to fully grasp the essentials of any academic text, especially a philosophical text.
We need to read a philosophical text in such a way that we are able to absorb the details the philosopher is putting forth without loosing sight of the big picture. The type of reading we need is intensive reading. When we read intensively, we are reading for details and information and, as a result, need to shift our attention fully to the text at hand. While you may have been able to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in a public park or while a relative is watching television in the same room, such practices will only serve to distract you attempt to read a dialogue of Plato or a treatise by Nietzsche. There are several steps we can take to ensure we are intensively reading at our maximum potential.
First, make sure you are in a quiet area where you are unlikely to be disturbed. Family, friends, roommates, television, and pets will only serve to break your concentration and force you to examine material again you have already covered. Philosophy, and any academic subject for that matter, is best studied without interruption so you can fully absorb the material at hand.
Now, research some background on the philosopher, work, and subject at hand. If you are reading Plato's allegory of the cave from The Republic, you could research and find out that Plato was a student of Socrates and often wrote in a dialectic style with a fictional representation of Socrates as the main character. You could research the significance of The Republic as a political work and the allegory itself as it has influenced various philosophers through the centuries. You could also research the significance of caves as a symbol in philosophical works. What have caves represent in philosophy? At this stage in your study, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published and maintained by the Stanford University Philosophy Department, is an invaluable resource, and one of the few reliable philosophical databases on the web.
When you are finished with the background stage, you should skim the reading at hand to get an idea of what it is about. Look at the table of contents and read the titles of the chapters in the work. Read through the chapter or passage and look for keywords and headings in the piece you are examining. Read the first sentence of each paragraph to get an idea of what is actually said in the work. By skimming the work, you will not have to concentrate so much on what is being discussed and can focus more on the details of the work at hand.
Now, read the selection completely through once, not worrying much about absorbing details yet. At this stage, you are continuing to gain familiarity with the work and are not so much concerned about the details as you are the big picture. When you are done with this, take a thirty minute break to recharge and gain a fresh perspective. You will be surprised how much difference in comprehension a short break will bring, and you will feel refreshed and recharged for another round.
When you have finished your break, get out your highlighters and a pen: it's time for deep reading! Read the work once again, paragraph for paragraph. As you read each paragraph, highlight the main idea in one color. Highlight any ideas you find personally interesting in another color. Some people find it helpful to write marginalia in the work, or questions and comments that come to mind as you read. Others prefer to write notes in a study notebook for future reference. Whatever your style, make sure you are recording your thoughts about the text as they come to you for future reference.
After the deep reading, it will help if you attempt to summarize what you have just read. Some people like to verbally summarize the material to another student, a friend, or a family member. Others write paragraph summaries of the material they have just read. Still others like to outline the material for future reference. Whatever your prefered method, you should make sure you can summarize what you just read; it will tell you how well you have comprehended the work and whether further study is warranted. If you cannot adequately summarize the material, repeat the above steps as many times as necessary until you feel you feel confident in your grasp.
Above all, utilize your professor, teaching assistant, and other students. Bring your notes and questions to class and don't feel shy about raising points in class. You will not look stupid for asking a question and, in fact, will be engaging in the very spirit of philosophy as championed by Socrates. There is never truly a dumb question in philosophy because questions lead to discussion, discovery, and reinterpretation.
Philosophy can be one of the most rewarding academic disciplines you can pursue, and the skills you will learn from intensive reading of philosophic texts will help you the rest of your life. (It's one reason why so many philosophy undergraduates go to law school.) With a little patience and discipline, anyone can properly read and understand the writings of the great philosophers and share in the wisdom they have passed down to us through the ages.

Christopher A. Rothbauer holds a B.A. in Philosophy and English from Indiana University Southeast and is currently a postgraduate student in Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, where his interests lie in metaphycis, personal identity, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and philosophy of film. In his spare time he enjoys traveling, hiking, and watching films. His webpage is located at http://www.redfarmer.net, where he records his thoughts

An Overview of Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead

"The Fountainhead" is a book which Ayn Rand uses as a vehicle to express her philosophy. Her philosophy may be summed up as follows: A man should live for himself, rather than for others. The mind of a single man is the most powerful thing that we know of, and all great achievements and works of art throughout history have risen out of the mind of a single man. The virtue of altruism is a disease, a great evil of our world, which encourages mediocrity.
Ayn Rand is well known for her philosophy of "Rational Selfishness". At first glance, selfishness as an ethical code appears contradictory and absurd. One thing that is important to understand is that Rand doesn't use the word "selfish" in exactly the same way as everyday usage. For example, stealing isn't selfish behavior in her sense of the word. Rand would never approve of stealing. Stealing is taking something from someone else. A truly selfish man doesn't concern himself with others. He would never take or expect anything from them.
The book is divided into 4 major sections, each titled after the 4 main characters:
Part One: Peter Keating
Part Two: Ellsworth Toohey
Part Three: Gail Wynand
Part Four: Howard Roark
Peter Keating spends his life chasing success, but he does so by pleasing others. He gives up his early dream of becoming a painter to become an architect. He ends his life dejected and unfulfilled.
Ellsworth Toohey is a man that chases power by manipulating others. He encourages men to adopt the ideals of altruism, charity, and service. He tries to destroy all great men such as Roark by calling them selfish egotists.
Gail Wynand is a man that begins life as a poor man, but he climbs to the top of society on the strength of his own industriousness. He becomes the owner of a newspaper and media conglomerate. He is a man of great taste, but he "sells his soul" by giving people what they want in exchange for money and power.
Howard Roark is the hero of the story. He is a talented architect who thinks that Greek, Roman, Classical, or Gothic architecture were great - the first time they were done. He has no desire to produce replicas of them as all his peers do, and so he finds it very hard to find any work. Roark is the perfect man in Ayn Rand's eyes. He is a man of integrity who never compromises his ideals. He always lives for himself and never for others.
"The Fountainhead" is a good book and a great place to start for anyone interested in learning about Ayn Rand's work. Her most famous work is "Atlas Shrugged," which is much longer and is a further elaboration of her philosophies.

One thing that confused me about the book was that such little emphasis was placed on the types of trash cans used by the characters. To make up for this deficiency, I have created two websites. One is about the Rubbermaid trash can, and the other is about the competing

Can One Place Plato's Allegory to Be Accurate?

The allegory of the cave is a story from the book 'the republic' written by Plato, in it consists of two characters the Socrates who is a philosopher and his young follower named Glaucon. He explains to him that human beings are ignorant with the knowledge of knowing only what they have been told, and in the quest to know the truth, when faced with a little challenge they back out, in the sense that they go back to their ignorance. The Allegory of the Cave can be interpreted in many ways; one way is to make a comparison between the story and the way of thinking by individuals in a closed society. Socrates states that the cave is a world many of us would like to see, but are not really how the world is. It is almost like the movie "The Matrix", where Neo, the main character is to discover that the world he lives in is not the real world, but a world generated by machines and computers. Only in Socrates' allegory, the world is not created by computers, but by individual minds. Socrates wants Glaucon to be a wiser, better-educated man, who will later become a ruler of the State. He wants him to know not only the right, but also experience the wrong, because only a man, who knows the bad, can truly understand and appreciate the good. Socrates does this by telling him a story, to let him better understand the principles of life.
He illustrated what he meant by an example he gave saying the prisoners in a cave from their childhood whose limbs and heads have been chained, will see their shadows reflected by a ray of light from an opening as other people and when they hear the echo of their voices, they think it is the people they see talking. And if one of them is released, when he realizes that all he saw was an illusion he will definitely take what he has believed in since childhood until he is forcibly dragged on to see the real thing then he'll come up with certain theories. And a personal understanding of his illustration is him using the cave as the world, and the shadows cast on the wall are the particular things of the world. The fire in the cave is the sun. Outside the cave is the world of ideas. The prisoners who can only see shadows are non-philosophers who can only know the individual things of the world which are only shadows of the essential things. The prisoner who escapes and goes outside the world is a philosopher who rises above this world of senses and goes into the intelligible world, the ideal world. The chains on the prisoners are passions, prejudices, and sophistries.
The metaphysics which deals with the essence of being and the study of ultimate reality is explained with the idea of the released prisoner seeing what is reality deals with the metaphysics and also where he is able to discover the sunlight and other earthly bodies was the metaphysical knowledge of plat the writer and Socrates the story teller. We are all prisoners watching shadows in a cave this metaphor contains a puzzle. The specific platonic form of the philosophical predicament of attempting to say that if we are prisoners in the cave watching shadows, how could we have known that this is the case? If we only have experience of the shadow world, how can we come to see how it really is? They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows. So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says "I see a book," what is he talking about? He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word "book." What does that refer to? Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in Gruber/Reeve gets the point correctly:
"And if they could talk to one another, don't you think they'd suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?"
Plato's point is that the prisoners would be mistaken for they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato's view) to the real things that cast the shadows. If a prisoner says "That's a book" he thinks that the word "book" refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He's only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word "book" he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around. Plato's point is that the general terms of our language are not "names" of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind. But if we are prisoners of a bench watching shadows we take for reality, Plato is also a prisoner and finds himself watching shadows, so Plato's description of the cave is just another shadow, and if it is a shadow, it cannot also be a true description of how things are. And if it is not a true description of how things are then, then Plato's theory of things not being in true physical is not the true description as he himself watches shadows too. So that could initiate that there is no truth.
The epistemology questions the certainty of knowledge, that is whether knowledge is possible or not. It deals with such issues as sources, scope, validity and limits of knowledge. Well in the allegory of the cave, we see that the prisoners acquired their knowledge through what they saw, therefore we could tell that it was actually not real that it was all illusions; hence we say their knowledge wasn't valid. Also their knowledge was limited in the sense that all they knew was what they had seen in the cage they had not been able to explore more in other to acquire a quality wide and valid knowledge. Suppose they were aware of the outside world beyond the cave, they would have sort or search out ways out of the cave as man's curiosity and search for knowledge is in his nature and cannot be denied. However, that search for knowledge was not possible as the cave was seen as the only home in existence and thereby they used their physical sense as the source of their knowledge. Plato maintains that true knowledge, is not acquired through sense perception because true knowledge is universal, objective and infallible. Hence the object of knowledge must be stable.
Plato believes that most people live in mental caves of ignorance and never perceive the truth. Assume, for sake of argument, that Plato is correct. How can the study of philosophy help remedy this situation?
Assuming Plato is correct is assuming that to attain the status of being able to see the truth, you have to be able to see past the shadows on the wall and realize that you can turn your head to the minds reality and see that there is more to the truth of being then what you can physically see with your own two eyes. In other words the study of philosophical means enabling our minds to see the truth about reality. Also, if Plato is correct, the soul of man inherently contains knowledge of good but can only perceive this in degrees of experience until the highest level of knowledge is attained. Does it have mathematical meaning, explain a vision of the whole world, or is it just a comparison to the field of social work? I personally feel that "The Allegory of the Cave¨ is a great explanation of how people in the world live. People are just like the men chained inside the cave, people only know and believe what he or she might have seen.
Well religion has to do with the study of the nature of religion and religious beliefs. During the life time of Plato he said wonder was the beginning of philosophy and religious philosophy came as a result of wonder. It was also contemplated through thoughts in which the things of time participate. Before the theory of the allegory of the cave, Plato said there is something above called "essential form of good". Plato had many ideas on how one's mind, body, and spirit came together to perform actions and thoughts. One important idea he broke down, was the conception of the soul in "Allegory of the Cave". He broke this idea into three different parts and each of these parts played a role in the feelings of man. These parts were referred to as the sun, the line, and the cave.
The sun symbolized the Form of the Good; the ultimate object of knowledge, according to Plato. The prisoners in the cave looked at nothing but shadows on a wall from the statues which was made to make them believe that the shadows are the most real things that are in the world. In order to reach the Form of the Good, you must be able to see what's real, resulting in a prisoner's release to the outside world.
The prisoner released is now able to look at the fire and the statues, but is in disbelief that the shadows are not the most real things in the world. This is where the line comes in. The line represents the four stages of cognitive activity that a human being is capable of doing. The prisoner now believes that the fire and the statues are the most real things in the world.
After the prisoner is dragged into the outside world, he sees real objects. The cave illustrates the effects that education has on a human being. The prisoner doesn't have to imagine what real things are because he now knows what the most real things in the outside world are. He sees real trees, real flowers, and even the sun, which he learns is the cause of the real objects being seen.
The Allegory of the Cave is a process of the growing mind. We grow from imagination, to belief, to forms, and finally, we grow to understanding. This is the closest thing in Plato to traditional conceptions of God.
Plato's aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by "naming" the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in. The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word "book" refers to something that any of them has ever seen. Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive. This hereby explains the saying of man's nature seeing is believing as Plato believes that what you see is inferior to what you believe which explains the fact that the eternal holds more hope for the non philosophers than the physical...
Politics' focus is on one social institution- the state and seeks to determine its justification, ethical composition, and organization. And also who should rule, and how best to rule. In the allegory of the cave, I really don't see any relations to ruling except that; the people who chain these prisoners should let them go so that they can be able to discover the truth. That is the people of this world should set free and go in search of the truth they should become philosophers and be no more ignorant of reality and the truth. Plato is of the view that non-philosophers should have no place in government as they are still in shadows and have no knowledge of the light. He believes that those who should be in power are people in experience. A philosopher king should be the one to rule. He believed that the unlearned should not have any business in government whatsoever as they will only act on impulse and not with knowledge. He believed that those who are to govern must visit the dark after the light so that they can be ten times better than those in the dark. He says that;
"And you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst."
He believed that the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy and that those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task for, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight. He believed that those whom they should have as leaders should be the men who are wisest about affairs of State, and by whom the State is best administered, and who at the same time have other honors and another and a better life than that of politics. Plato was an idealist who believed in an ideal state

The Concept of Absurdism

The theme of absurdism has been replicated through out the novel with the categorization of Meursault in the Novel," The Outsider". In this context, Albert Camus has considered the philosophy of the novel as lonely and sensual by highlighting Meursault's characterization in light of absurdism and existentialism. As per authors view, Meursault has refused to hide his feelings and the people of society felt panicky because of worldly involvement with actions and reactions as a normal flow life. The people who live luxurious lives have no faith upon truth happening in the present or in future moderation. In considering an outsider, he has tried to detect the truth of compilation as because he has minutely lived and thought about some outskirt styles of absurdism in effect in his sky of absurdism as well as existentialism. He has led his efforts in a separate philosophical banner where he finds a picture of societal actions. Hence the author has remarked, "As I always do when I want to get rid of some one when I am not really listening to, I gave the impression that I was agreeing with him. To my surprise he was exultant".
In order to perpetuate the memory of his mother, he has never hesitated to reflect the model and characteristics of his mother. Absurdity has been reflected in the novel 'Outsider' with different inner sequences as a symbol of loneliness in course to instinct, existentialism, and excitement, inertness of spontaneity and overall growth of desolate exp-unction of life. The author here expresses some outpourings of common absurdism which does not cope with his own demonstrative voice towards his mother in course of performing her funeral. He wishes to have her blessings and graceful responses so that he becomes stronger to live alone far away from societal actions and reactions in this eternal world. In culture, friendship and love he finds breach of trust, lies, magnetism of wealth, too much greed and jealousy which spoils his luxurious goal. Far from lacking all sensibility, he is controlled by a tenacious and as such profound passion, the passion for an absolute and truth to retaliate his real life situation. As per style of author's philosophical attitude and feelings, the truth which is publicized as a negative effect, the author may be considered as a veteran truth-born lively fellow, but without which no triumph over the self or over the world will ever be outweighed. Suffice it to say, it is evident that if a man is habituated in such deeds full of absurdism where the definition of life has perpetual meaning. It is evident that he is a very hardened soul man because the magistrate doesn't find any reason why Meursault is agreeing to admit that he is wrong and he wouldn't lie about his fault, the writer has set out some ethical prospects with which he yearns to be adorned with various qualities of human ornaments. In this context, the author says," The sun was getting low outside and it was not hot any more- differentiates the guilty and not guilty"
In view of the above, it is evident that the presentation of the theme absurdism as well as its social reactions has been highlighted in the novel on a large scale. One wouldn't be far erroneous in judging the outsider who without any heroic pretensions agrees to die for the truth. According to the author, a man who is fighting for a just cause is always a great man. The author has reflected a character like silhouette which enmesh everyone to be dispersed from worldly affairs. Despite all deeds revitalized in the novel, the author has virtually pointed out some defects of social and cultural life tentatively. This is the philosophy of the novel, "Outsider". In this virtual event, the author says," For the first time I realized that I was guilty". In fine, the philosophy of social absurdism has been vivaciously reflected throughout the contrasts of Meursault's characterization.

Kh. Atiar Rahman is a distinguished author and a poet. He has many publication in national and international media.

An Appreciation of Charles Webster Leadbeater, Clairvoyant Author

As I prepare ezine articles I am surprised by the output of information from people I appreciate. I knew Charles Webster Leadbeater (1854-1934) as a result of a visit to a used bookstore in Kansas City in 1987 where I picked up three of his books about the occult. During research for this article I found that a wealth of material flowed from his pen. He produced 40 book volumes plus a plethora of pamphlets and journals. The modern interest in the occult truth is largely due to his ideas; Theosophical terms and principles are used by today's writers. A few of his volumes include:
o Reincarnation (1898)
o Thought Forms (1901)
o Man Visible and Invisible (1902)
o The Inner Life (1911) in my library
o Man, Whence, How and Whither (1913)
o Vegetarianism and Occultism (1913)
o The Hidden Side of Things (1913) in my library
o Occult Chemistry Book (1916)
o The Chakras (1927) in my library
Leadbeater's discovery of the young Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1909 was a high point in his life. Krishnamurti was believed to be the vessel for a "World Teacher" who would embody the pattern of Moses, Zoroaster, Christ, and Muhammad bringing a new religious teaching to the World. Both Krishnamurti and Leadbeater believed they could read past lives and published 30 such past lives in The Theosophist. Although Krihsnamurti contributed much to mankind in his life he did not attain the status of those before him.
In 1910 Leadbeater conducted deeper research into the akashic records at the Theosophical Society Headquarters in Adyar, India, and the results were recorded in this book Man: How, Whence, and Whither. He predicted the future society of Earth in the 27th century powered by atomic energy.
He collaborated with Annie Besant beginning in 1895. They investigated:
o The cosmos
o Beginnings of mankind
o Chemistry and the elements
o Visiting the masters in their astral bodies
In many religions the word occult is considered to be on the dark side as a bad thing. My experience was positive. The world of the unseen is mysterious and inviting. The depth of the unseen is often unclear in our everyday life but each person needs something to believe in to lighten the burden of supporting the material world. I find solace there. Life is an adventure and lifting the veil through the eyes of a clairvoyant is rewarding. My trip to that used book store opened new vistas to explore and broadened the search to find myself.

• My biggest FEAR in life is becoming dependent. • The idea of depending on my boss, a medical doctor, expensive insurance or the government for my health care does not feel right. Are there Solutions? The answer is YES