understanding Brahman through Spinoza's lenses (post for comment)

Spinoza

humata, hukhta, huvarshta. a few thoughts regarding our first week.

1- i suggested seeing Brahman as Spinoza's God, i.e., God-as-the-universe, a Godverse.

Spinoza is referred to as a pantheist, but let's be clear. what's important here is the idea of an immanent (and some say transcendent)*  God, which elicits a couple of questions:

(a) does the whole universe = God? (b) or is the universe in God? 

(a) and (b) are different. (b) means panentheism. (a) means "all is God." (i refer you to my simile of the cell in my liver saying "i'm Triff" (ok, but it stretches it a bit). 

it's difficult to be a pantheist and not a monist (the idea being that all can be explained in or reduced to one substance the ONE). is hinduism a monism? well, it definitely has a monistic gene.

Brahman is presented as a trimurti: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. this is not like the christian trinity. this is more a S-B-V a balance of forces: B (creator), S (destroyer), V (worker, vish means "to work" ). Vishnu is a sort of guardian, gatekeeper, a sustainer.

now given this structure let's speculate: does hinduism suggest there is more order than chaos in the universe?

2- is Spinoza's Godverse self-conscious? The answer is not that simple. I side for "no". But that is not a demotion at all. Take into account that  (a) Spinoza doesn't share Descartes' mind/body dualism.
(b) Consciousness for Spinoza is not generic. Not because one thinks one has consciousness.
(c) self-consciousness implies self-positing. If Godverse is infinite, that self-positing presents an obvious tension, i.e., it constrains Godverse's infiniteness.

3- Is Spinoza's Godverse FREE? methinks not. this conclusion demands a clarification.

Spinoza's Godverse is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from ITS divine nature.

all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles (Ip17s1).

the universe's existence is absolutely necessary. that is to say, it's impossible that God should exist & not the universe (thus, the Godverse). This does not mean that God does not cause ("cause" is better than "create" here) the universe to come into being freely, since nothing outside of God constrains him to bring it into existence.

at the same time, God could not have done otherwise. there are no possible alternatives to the actual universe, and absolutely no contingency or spontaneity within that universe.

everything is absolutely and necessarily determined:

(Ip29): In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way. 

and this one:

(Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced.

Here is another determinist Spinozist morsel:

(...) the infant believes that it is by free will that it seeks the breast; the angry boy believes that by free will he wishes vengeance; the timid man thinks it is with free will he seeks flight; the drunkard believes that by a free command of his mind he speaks the things which when sober he wishes he had left unsaid. ... All believe that they speak by a free command of the mind, whilst, in truth, they have no power to restrain the impulse which they have to speak (...)

 4- we got a discussion going on the subject of Hinduism on the subject of moksha or liberation. the word "confusion" mistakenly standing for the moksha link (i suggested for a reason) i was put on the spot. then, i explained the mistake in terms of a problematics of the idea of salvation through the interpretation of the patanjali sutras. i hinted that salvation can be a double edge sword. the topic elicited a spirited discussion (by the way, in theology, the field dealing with salvation is known as soteriology. we'll be talking about it in more detail).   

what are your thoughts? (i prefer if you have your comments posted by tuesday next week. remember:150 words minimum)


NOTA BENE: veronica approached me at the end of the class and asked me to structure more our discussions so that your observations take place after we've had time to present the lecture, sources, etc. i agree. so, next class, the order is: 1- lecture first, then 2- we read and then 3- we get the discussion going. now, that doesn't mean you have to be enforceably silent. if you have a question (not a point) let's address it, f it is a longer point let's wait a bit. in general that has always been the model, only that this is a more precocious class :)
_______________
*transcendent & immanent come together in the scholastic definition of God. transcendent means above and beyond, for example, if God exists above and beyond the universe, God is transcendent. immanent means "remaining within", "inherent". judeo-christian theology has God as "present" throughout the universe. so God is both transcendent and immanent.now, thisview is not without metaphysical problems. this is not the place to explore that.   

Hinduism part 2

So we have extreme asceticism: Hindu wanderers were known as Munis (the silent ones). From the Munis developed the Sanyasis and the entire complex of wandering mendicants. 

A different homelessness: The Munis choose a homeless life, without wife, children or possessions of any sort, except robe, staff, begging bowl and drinking cup. These wondering saints are destitute yet, honored by most. What is the purpose of asceticism?  It brings human nature closer to a spiritual disengagement from life, but also it becomes a way to understand the limits of the body-experience before the physical phase of the death experience is upon oneself.

The Aryan Component: The Aryans invaded the subcontinent shortly after 2000 B.C. They came from the north and settled in the Hindu Valley (where five tributary rivers flow from the lower Himalayan regions). Later, around 1200 B.C. the Aryans moved to the central Ganges region (between the Himalaya Mountains and the Ganges River). They bring with them some interesting ideas:

Yajna (sacrifice): This worship through sacrifice is characteristic of the Aryan people in the early period. The most common sacrifice is the drinking of soma (a fermented drink). There was also the horse sacrifice, an elaborate ritual which took years to perform and required a large number of priests. The transition from sacrificial act to ontological absolute happens because the sacrifice was considered the dynamic whereby the entire cosmic-human order was sustained in existence. 

Atman/Brahman: Inner self of all things, supreme reality. Both designate the final reality, the inner support of beings, the One behind multiplicity. "Thou art that" means that the deepest subjective reality is identical with the absolute manifested objectively in the world without.

The Union of Traditions: Maya: The term refers to the creative power of Brahman, came later to mean the insubstantial nature of the visible world, a phenomenal world which is "unreal"; (the appearance of things).

Samsara: The world conceived as a constant endless, cyclic, process of change, of birth and death and rebirth. At the time of death,one form gives way to another form according to a process designated as reincarnation.Another body of the human, subhuman, or suprahuman succeeds the dissolution of the body.

Ineffability: The sublime character of Brahman the ultimate truth, which cannot be understood in any adequate manner. In the Kena Upanishad it's represented as "unthinkable form... not understood by those who understand it and understood by those who do not understand it."

Karma: The law of moral causality. Every deed, good or evil, has an inevitable consequence leading either toward final release from the birth death cycle, or toward further immersion in the painful cycle of unending change. The law of Karma is known as sowing and reaping. Some point to the fatalism involved in the notion of Karma. Others rejoin that a person is always free to perform deeds that will lead to salvation or a least to an improved state of existence.

Moksha: Salvation by union with Brahman. Salvation meant a liberation from the confining, limiting world of time and an emergence into the more expansive world of the eternal and infinite. It means the extinction of phenomenal existence and absorption into Brahman.

Bhakti: Intimate devotion to a personal deity. In centuries before Christianism, Hinduisn developed an amazing awareness that the supreme way of salvation is through the love of God.

let's get to know some of the gods

One of the principal Vedic deities was Indra, the god of war and thunder; nearly one quarter of the Vedic hymns are dedicated to him. A great warrior, a symbol of courage and strength. Gossip: Indra is as quick as the wind and carries a hook, sword, conch, noose, a rainbow and the much feared magic weapon Vaijra. His kingdom is situated near Mt. Meru and Indra's love for Soma is legendary.

Varuna, the sky god who maintains cosmic order and protects moral action. He is shown as a fair-complexioned man riding a monster fish called Makara, which has the head and legs of an antelope. He may have two to four hands and in one of his right hands he carries a noose. 

Mitra, the sun god who stimulates life and brings prosperity. Sometimes Mitra & Varuna are combined into one god: Mitra/Varuna. Mitra has four arms, and comes with the sun and a chariot.

Rudra, (Shiva) the god of violence, destruction, disease, and death.  You know him because he has a Trident in the right lower arm, with a crescent moon on his head. He has aid to be fair like camphor or like an ice clad mountain. He has fire and Damaru and Mala or a kind of weapon. He wears five serpents as ornaments and a garland of skulls. He presses with his feet the demon Muyalaka, a dwarf holding a cobra. He always faces south.

Soma, (Chandra) the god of the moon, the god of the intoxicating juices consumed in ritual.

philosophy and LSAT, GRE & GMAT scores

GMAT scores

LSAT scores

GRE scores

nothing against science (on the contrary!)

you want to get into medical school. you think you're better off with a science major (instead of  philosophy? think again.

the answer? philosophy is a form of science!

the art of war, what war?

The Art of War is the most widely read military classic in human history.

People think that TAOW is a manual on how to outsmart one's opponent, so that physical battle becomes superfluous. As such, it has found application as a training guide for many competitive endeavors that do not involve actual combat.

I'd like to present a different view. Self-war. It's called dialectics! 
_________________

Chapter 1 

*General is wisdom, credibility, benevolence, courage, and discipline.

*Heaven is dark and light, cold and hot, and the seasonal constraints. Ground is high and low, far and near, obstructed and easy, wide and narrow, and dangerous and safe.

*If they have advantage, entice them; if they are confused, take them, if they are substantial, prepare for them, if they are strong, avoid them, if they are angry, disturb them, if they are humble, make them haughty, if they are relaxed, toil them, if they are united, separate them.

*When it comes to rules and regulations, everyone, high and low, should be treated alike.

*Without deception you cannot carry out strategy, without strategy you cannot control the opponent.

*Force is the control of the balance of power, in accordance with advantages.
 
*Therefore, if able, appear unable, if active, appear not active, if near, appear far, if far, appear near. When strong, appear weak. Brave, appear fearful. Orderly, appear chaotic. Full, appear empty. Wise, appear foolish. Advancing, appear to retreat. Taking, appear to leave. In one place, appear to be in another.

Chapter 2
 
*When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.
 
*When doing battle, seek a quick victory. A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.

*The important thing in a military operation is victory, not persistence.

Chapter 3
 
*Perceiving a victory when it is perceived by all is not the highest excellence.
 
*In ancient times, those skilled in warfare make themselves invincible and then wait for the enemy to become vulnerable.

*Being invincible depends on oneself, but the enemy becoming vulnerable depends on himself. 

Chapter 4
 
*One takes on sufficiency defending, one takes on deficiency attacking.

*Complete victory is when the army does not fight, the city is not besieged, the destruction does not go on long, but in each case, the enemy is overcome by strategy.
 
Chapter 5
 
*Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack.

*Disorder coming from order is a matter of organization, fear coming from courage is a matter of force, weakness coming from strength is a matter of formation.

*The rules of the military are five: measurement, assessment, calculation, comparison and victory.

*Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery.

*If you are formless, the most penetrating spies will not be able to discern you, or the wisest counsels will not be able to do calculations against you.

*If he prepares to defend many places, then the forces will be few in number.

*Therefore, it advances like the wind; it marches like the forest; it invades and plunders like fire; it stands like the mountain; it is formless like the dark; it strikes like thunder.

Chapter 6
 
* Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.

*Calculate the situation, and then move. Those who know the principles of the circuitous and direct will be victorious. This is armed struggle.
 
*In armed struggle, the difficulty is turning the circuitous into the direct, and turning adversity into advantage.

Chapter 7
 
*Near, wait for the distant; rested, wait for the fatigued; full, wait for the hungry. This is the way to manage strength.

*Do not do battle with well-ordered flags; do not do battle with well-regulated formations. This is the way to manage adaptation.

Chapter 8


*He who is quick tempered can be insulted. He who is cowardly can be captured.

*So the principles of warfare are: Do not depend on the enemy not coming, but depend on our readiness against him. Do not depend on the enemy not attacking, but depend on our position that cannot be attacked.

*Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations; contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.

*There are routes not to be taken; there are armies not to be attacked; there are walled cities not to be besieged; there are grounds not to be penetrated; there are commands not to be obeyed.

Chapter 9
 
*If the enemy is close and remains quiet, he occupies a natural stronghold.

*If the enemy is far away and challenges you to do battle, he wants you to advance, because he occupies level ground that is to his advantage.

*If he gives out rewards frequently, he is running out of resources.

*If he speaks humbly, but increases warfare readiness, he will advance.

*If he speaks apologetically, he needs a rest.

Chapter 10
 
*If I know the enemy can be attacked, and know the troops can attack, but do not know the ground in battle, my victory is half.

*If it is not advantageous to advance or for the enemy to advance, it is called stalemated. For stalemated ground, though the enemy offers you advantage, do not advance. Withdraw.

Chapter 11
 
*Attack what he values most.

*Give your troops tasks, but do not reveal them your plans.

*One who does not know the mountains and forests, gorges and defiles, swamps and wetlands cannot advance the army. One who does not use local guides cannot take advantage of the ground.

meet the teen sex swap couple

this news has a lot to do with our discussions in class.

It is hard to believe that just two years ago he was a girl called Emerald and she was a boy called Luke. Arin, 17, and Katie, 19, have both undergone surgery to change their gender. Just over a year ago Katie, a university student, had gender reassignment surgery. Last month Arin, who is still at school, had his breasts removed. He says: “I hated my breasts, I always felt like they didn’t belong. Now I finally feel comfortable in my own body.

free will and evolution, daniel dennett

Professor Daniel Dennett on free will and evolution. Check it out.

is there still slavery in the world?

YES.

Summer A (MWF 8am) Topics for Final Exam

find the topics for the final exam here.

remember to bring a scantron sheet to the final (pencil included).

Post for comment: Do animals deserve rights? If not what?

to go to the post, click here. 

I'll close this post Sunday this week for the MWF class, Monday 11pm for the TR class.

TR 9:50am

MWF 8am

robots will fight future wars, but isn't war without reflection equivalent to mechanical slaughter?

the future of war and robotics in the NYTimes.

more clues that prove evolution

in the NYtimes: Mountain Populations Offer Clues to Human Evolution.

In 2010, Dr. Nielsen and his colleagues found variants of certain genes that were much more common in Tibetans than in the Han, the major ethnic group in China, who have lived for thousands of years at lower altitudes. By a wide margin, the winner was a gene called EPAS1. People with different variants turned out to have different levels of hemoglobin, suggesting that the gene was important to adapting to life at high altitudes. Recently, Dr. Nielsen and another group of colleagues published a study on people who live in the highlands of Ethiopia. They found no evidence that EPAS1 had evolved there as it did in Tibet. Instead, a different gene, BHLHE41, appeared to have experienced natural selection.

human traffic pandemic. can we do something about it? (post for comment)

find the post for comment here. 

TR, 9:50am

MWF, 8:00am

Psych, a soft science

as we discussed in class, Psych is not a hard science.

The alarmed critics of the Ritalin disaster are now getting support from an entirely different side. The German weekly Der Spiegel quoted in its cover story on 2 February 2012 the US American psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, born in 1922 as the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, who was the “scientific father of ADHD” and who said at the age of 87, seven months before his death in his last interview: “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease”

Dharma and Yajna

On Tuesday, (in passing), we touched upon the idea of dharma: Doing what must be done (not meaning acting like an automaton, which would be an example of "inaction"). One can think of dharma the way Epictetus defines as arete "doing the best I can at all times."

Some confuse dharma with anomie or passivity (expecting whatever comes). That's wrong. Dharma means pursuing our duty diligently, intensely. Which duty? The milieu we've inherited (family, commitments, our genes, etc). 

One can see "doing" as sacrifice (yajna), that is, turning upside-down all received notions of economic exchange. We touched upon this idea in our Tuesday class when we discussed ascetism as a possible manifestation of self-control.

Yajna is a form of sovereignty. The old existentialist metaphor of devenir.

Why? In a way, we’re born again every time we choose ourselves. Self-rule is a sign of inner development. The idea of detaching oneself from the fruits of one’s action may seem a bit counterintuitive, particularly in the West.

Could I run a race and “win” it for its own sake? The received notion of victory is defined as he or she who gets to finish line first. Yet, Krishna admits that one can win no matter the outcome. This -according to the Gita- is true action. Surely it’s difficult. It takes discipline (techne). In our post-Capitalist epoch we’re often caught up in a means-to-ends cycle. Yet, with discipline, this idea of detachment is achievable.

Physics is the true genesis

Today I made this point in class: "physics is the true Genesis." Take a look at these interesting videos by NOVA featuring physicist Brian Greene, professor of Columbia University. They examine important topics of physics:

Quantum mechanics, with renowned professors from MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc.

The Illusion of Time, a most see.

What is space?

Universe or multiverse? Which begins with a discussion of inflation. 
________________
 Keep in mind that our observable universe is very large, having a diameter of roughly 40 billion light years, and encompassing hundreds of billions of galaxies, each of which may contain billions of stars.

Theory of Evolution (a series of 5 videos) don't miss this one!

This is a good videos about the Theory of Evolution.

1- Is it just a Theory?

2- By the way, who was Charles Darwin?

3- How do we know evolution happens?

4- Ok, so how does evolution really work?

5- And finally, how do humans evolve?

Gandhi's paralogical logic of ahimsa (a selection)

What follows is a selection from Gandhi on Non-violence.

1- Ahimsa means a steady progress with discipline.

2-  The power of the satyagrahi is greater than if he were violent.

3- There is no defeat in a-himsa.

4- In a-himsa the bravery consists in taking the brunt, not in killing.

5- The satyagrahi should never have any hatred toward his opponent... must be prepared to suffer until the end.

6- ...truth never jimsa a cause that is just.

7- A satyagrahi is never vindictive. He believes not in destruction but in conversion.

8- A-himsa presupposes the ability to strike.

9- ...injustice must be resisted. A-himsa is better, but where is does not come naturally jimsa is both necessary and honorable.

10- So long as one retains one's sword, one has not attain complete fearlessness.

11- A-himsa is impossible without self-purification.

12- A weak man is just by accident. A strong satyagrahi is unjust by accident.

13- A satyagrahi is dead to his body even before his enemy attempts to kill him, i.e. he is free from attachment to his body and only lives in the victory of his soul.

14- A non-violent revolution is not a program for a seizure of power, it's a program of transformation of relationships ending in a peaceful transfer of power.

15- No man has been able to describe God fully. The same goes for ahimsa.

16- Man as animal is violent but as spirit is non-violent. The moment he awakes to the spirit he cannot be violent.

17- It's better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts than to put the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent. (impotent = no reaction)

18- If we remain non-violent, hatred will die, as everything does, from disuse.

19- Ahimsa cannot be preached. It needs to be practiced.

20- Ahimsa succeeds only if one has faith.

21- Ahimsa is the supreme law.

22- Ahimsa is the only true force in life.

23- If one has pride & egoism there is no ahimsa. Ahimsa is impossible without self-control.

___________
All excerpts taken from Ghandi on Non-Violence, New Directions Paper book (New York, 1965)

a pleasure!

ok,
don't
be
strangers now.
you know where
to
find me.

now that your're working on the first draft of the paper, some useful ideas

now that you'll submit your first drafts keep these ideas in mind:

1- do research your topic. the more you know about your topic the better. don't presume you know the issue, there are tons of developments to be found by authorities and specialists on the subject. the more you find, the more your palette of options. it's better to have more stuff to pick from than have less or none.

your argument is as good as the independent sources you bring.

2- do not misrepresent or oversimplify your counter. your paper is as good as your counter's presentation. it's the counter that makes your discussion worthy of analysis.

3- READ OUTLOUD. keep revising and tweaking your thesis. revising your title, etc.

4- make your sentences short and to the point. avoid unnecessary rambling.

5- don't go in tangents! keep focus with two arguments! if there's a point that is not relevant, shorten it or delete it.

6- make the sentences like pointers in the ongoing discussion. just in case, here are some examples of starters for sentences:

"X argues that"
"X's argument is that"
"X states"
"X asserts"
"X denies"
"X contends"
"X rejects"
"X claims"
"X concludes"
"X contradicts"
"X assumes"

7- your conclusion is a short one:

"I hope I have proved (demonstrated) that..."
"Even if ____(my position)____ could still elaborated some more, I believe I have demonstrated that..." 
"I hope i have shown that..."

how much happiness?

check this interesting article in the NYTimes.

The danger — particularly for a society as rich as ours — is making pleasure the central focus in the pursuit of a happy life. This is done explicitly in some versions of utilitarian ethics, which regard happiness as simply the maximal accumulation of pleasurable experiences. But pleasures themselves often induce a desire for their repetition and intensification, and without moderation from a reflective mind, they can marginalize the work that lies at the core of true happiness.

i bring up the subject because how it relates with the broader issue of morality.

reporting animal cruelty is now cosidered "terrorism"

read this article in the new york times.

exploring the roots of animal cruelty is important in our discussion of ethics. this week, i'll publish a post for comment touching upon this difficult topic.

2010 catena malbec, picasso's les demoiselles d'avignon and the nature of aesthetic judgments (post for comment)

atRifF

hi kids. last friday, we had an interesting discussion. judgments are "statements about." there are many different kinds of judgments: scientific, moral, aesthetic, etc. let's revise what they do.

1- scientific judgments are about the nature of reality.

2- moral judgments refer to the nature of actions.

3- aesthetic judgments are about the nature taste.

we briefly touched upon 2 & 3.

i wanted to stress the salience of these judgments by talking about food. then about art. le't take a look a these two statements: 1- "i hate this wine." 2- "this wine tastes awful." 

the difference between the two is that 1- is a subjective judgment. one is talking about one's experience. with 2- there is a difference. one is making a judgment about s state of affairs, i.e, the juice.

suppose john doesn't know much about wine and makes a judgment of type 2- about this wine, a moderately-priced malbec from argentina. this is an excellent wine for the price (what i mean is comparing price and taste). this is the consensus of people that understand wine.

& what's in the taste? when you sip the juice you get nuanced complexity of spice, tobacco and plum, all balanced with a finish of soft, supple tannins and good length.

so, how are we to treat john's 2- kind of judgment? let's say that john is wrong. he doesn't know enough about wines to make that call (remember that in 2- he's talking about the juice).

what john is doing is committing a fallacy of taking his subjective reaction to the juice as an objective property of the juice.  but they are not the same. much less coming from a person that's not educated in wine tasting.

the same goes with art. talking about art is not that simple. for example, suppose paul has no knowledge of modern art. he visits MoMA and looks at picasso's famous 1907 painting les demoiselles d'avignon. john says: "this painting by picasso sucks!"

pablo picasso's demoiselles d'avignon, 1907

again, there's a difference between,

a- "i hate this painting"
b- "this painting by picasso sucks"

ok, let's agree that catena malbec 2010 can be experienced in a substantially different manner than picasso's painting. nonetheless, there is a way to apply a similar criteria to the one used above.

a- is totally ok.
b- is more problematic.

consensus: the reason is that one has to understand cubism to properly critique it. this is not your regular realist rendition of a 1907 paris whorehouse. paul doesn't understand the conventions of modern art. he doesn't know, for instance that picasso has deliberately changed the way artists depict, thus becoming a catalyst for modern twentieth-century art.  the general consensus of art historians, critics, artists is that this is a landmark.

actual properties: to examine demoiselles d'avignon properly one has to wear cubist glasses. why? because there is a shift in perspective here. picasso is not painting "as a realist". he had already left that behind, as in this: 

yo, picasso, 1901

the young painter was absorbing influences. the piece above has a kind of spanish impressionist flavor.  the painting from 1907 is breaking with all that.  

so, it's not only about consensus. we need an additional "harder" criteria. which is why i talked a little bit about the painting's properties.  

of course, there is always the question, what if art historians are wrong? could they not be?

yes, they could. but it's more difficult to disregard the consensus' weight than paul's uninformed claim. don't you think?


(to be continued)

What's next with the paper?

I've been discussing the development of the paper with each class:

These are general observations:

1- Thesis: "In this paper I'll defend the idea that" "In this paper I will argue in favor of..."
2- Avoid long wordy paragraphs that go nowhere. Go straight to the point.
3- Don't try to overreach yourself. It's better to discuss a couple of points than pretend to cover the entire subject matter.
4- Avoid sounding bombastic, "I will analyze" instead of "I will logically analyze."

I'd like to have two-and-a-half pages, this Thursday (for T,R 9:50am class), Friday (for MWF 11-1:50am class) and next Tuesday for (T 5:40pm class). 

This should include, revised title, revised introduction, your position, your opponent's position and about one or two paragraphs into the discussion. 

The paper is to be sent to my email address: atriff@mdc.edu

Please, in addition to your name, specify class & time. for example:

Philosophy Paper, John Doe, Phi 2010 MWF 11am

Format: Times New Roman, 12 point font. Double spaced. Spell and Grammar checked  

same sex marriage is the thing!

for those of you who picked same sex marriage as a paper topic.

how the justices could rule.