Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


phil’s week off -imtiaz

Family, Duty, Honor                                                                              Imtiaz

Philosophy’s week off                     

A picture is says more than a thousand words; a common saying that has been reused way too much to gay2imtiazisafaggityfagfagdescribe great works of art and curiously revolutionized the world of art and aesthetics in general. 

During my winter break my family came together from all over the world for the celebration of the New Year. It was the biggest family gathering in the past five years. I struggled to find something aesthetic and while I was trying to find my very own aesthetic experience my parents bought an outrageously expensive painting that had no value in my eyes. It was a superbly crafted painting of a man and his best friend, a black German Shepard; which seemed to be in pain. As my head struggled to figure out the meaning of the painting, I slowly started to overthink and come up with vastly outrageous explanations, on the meaning of the painting. I thought it portrayed the meaning of life and that life was a fragile and delicate thing. Then I convinced myself for about an hour that the painting showed the true meaning of friendship and its value. gay1imtiazisafagAs I studied the painting furthermore I found that the painter Leona desanche carefully and cleverly hid some pictures amongst the grasses and the sky. It hid words such as family in the sky and friendship in the bottom right hand corner of the picture. After that I was sure of the meaning, it only enhanced my other theory that the painting was a mere mirage of life, pain, and suffering. That painting was the text book definition of a painting that speaks volumes, while showing the viewer life and meaning in pictures without saying a single world.

Finally when I began a conversation with my parents on the meaning of the painting they explained to me that the painting isn’t very complicated, they explained to me that “the painting merely shows you the importance of family during troublesome times and it shows and that it showed the true meaning of family.





Wiki leaks vs. the Government vs. Ethics ~imtiaz and Julian

big-brother1“Big brother is always watching you” is a widely used phrase that was written by George Orwell, to emphasize an omnipresent, seemingly benevolent figure that represents oppressive control of individual lives, who is absent in the believe of morals and or ethics.

The government no matter where you live keeps certain facts from the public, sometimes for selfish reasons and other times for the greater good of the country. Kant’s  theory, for the greater good is applied by the government. Big brother decides on your behalf what information should be public and what shouldn’t be, that isn’t exactly a secret; the information that they keep from prying eyes is very sensitive information that in most cases can start some serious internal and foreign conflicts. They decide everything that goes on your daily lives, they can decide what you eat where you work and where you can live and yet they say that you are free. Freedom is the belief to act, speak and think as one wants, but the government strains those rights and makes you think, act and speak the way they want. By blocking certain information from reaching the public they brainwash their people into believing what they feel you should believe in.

Amongst all the Tierney and the abuse of power, there are some people who fight an endless shadow war against “those who oppose true freedom” (Julian Assange).  These so called freedom fighters of the internet believe that information should be free and that no one should ever have the right to block or obstruct any information. Edward Snowden, wiki leaks have one thing in common and it’s to make sure that the people make their decision for themselves instead of the government making the decision for them. The main theory that the shadow fighter follow is W.D rosses theory, which basically states that morality is more important than greater good.

The morals and believes of people such as Julian Assange can be very extreme to a point of endangering innocent lives. They have a tendency to prove their points at all costs no matter what or who is in their way. They have created innocent victims and created false documents at times but they meant well. Their morals are in the right place but the way they acquire the information can be very dodgy at times because they manipulate people but most of the times they invade peoples privacies by hacking into their computers and or telephones. They have been caught for phone tapping at a time but they never used the information gained through unethical mean.

Julians point of view

We are protected by these regulations every day of our lives.  Utopia includes a government trusted by all members of society, that being said, with the exponential increase in education and distribution of information, the world has become more aware of governmental decisions and begins to question them using each individual’s perspective and rate certain actions based on this hierarchical system of ‘what is right’.


In the past decades, there have been many secret operations done by the American government that involved the disappearance of people or causing destruction to buildings and the environment through “needs” of security and war.  Imagine if society became available to these facts and files of history…we wouldn’t be as upset about the actual information, but rather the fact that a nation’s own government (the one organization that is supposed to bring about the most good) would lie to us.  Surely these actions were taken with protection of happiness in mind, as this is the only purpose in lying.  “A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.”  James Madison.  The true downfall of a democracy is when there are too many participants.


We have seen a varied moral decision process occur in the minds of leaders across the world who either distributes the wealth as evenly as possible between that nation’s populations, or rather store it in their own pockets, leaders who have conscripted their people into war and others who have left it in the hands of people to volunteer.  The world as we know it is in constant conflict between deciding what is right and which system will bring about the most good, but isn’t this the very same reason that is slowing down globalization?  The very same reason obligates us to take into consideration all beliefs and potential issues that will come up either in the long run or shortly after.  This very same scenario would occur within a certain nation if even more members who are wanting to be a contributor to the democratic council are open to such information and can form an opinion on what decisions should be made and in what manner, it would develop an even greater cluster than all of the nations of the world find themselves in today.




Simulated reality ~ Imtiaz

“Reality is merely and an illusion albeit a very persistent one” (Albert Einstein). Einstein is right, reality Is nothing but an allusion and that allusion seems to persist within our daily life’s. It’s an allusion that is so deeply engraved within our minds that we cannot tell the difference between reality and a simulation.

Reality is a topic, in which there can be many theories to explain life, experience, and knowledge. We can’t really prove any of those theories but we assume, hope and belief that it’s true.  Everyone has a different theory to explain life and reality some theories like the theory that we were all created by “god” is the most common theory to explain reality. Almost every major religion has this common belief, which means that their theories on reality are similar but not exact. We know that each theory falls under a different paradigm, some fall under religion others fall under science but we can all assume that the theories can be true until proven false. We all have different ethics, thus we all fall under a different paradigm, some of us believe that robbing and murdering people is the only way to survive and others suppose that being kindness and respect is the only way to live. Our ethics form our opinions and the idea that god had created our reality is open to interpretation, just like the theory of simulated reality. Simulated reality is open to discussion and can be interpreted in many different just like religion but they are on equal grounds because both of them may be true.

Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality could and is being simulated, for example in the Matrix there is a simulated reality where people can enter a simulated earth in another parallel universe and fight bad guys. In the Matrix everything looks normal and exactly alike in the real world, so it’s hard to differentiate between what is real and what is a simulated reality. So in theory even if we were in a simulated reality we could not tell the difference because our brains could not comprehend a paradigm shift that large so we don’t search for the answer because the answer would ruin us. If humans were to find out that there entire life is merely just a video game, it would make life worthless just like if we were to find out that you are the only person alive on the planet. People don’t want to find out the truth because the truth may be too much to handle, so we distract ourselves with “what is” and forget about “what can be”. For example if there were two houses right next to each other and they both look exactly alike and the only way you could tell the difference was to enter the house. If you entered the house knowing that whatever may be inside may change your paradigm and your entire life, would you do it?

Nick Bostrom a philosopher that expanded the theory of simulated reality said that in order for his theory to be true one of three things have to be true. His dispute was based on the fact that one of his three arguments are likely to be true thus proving simulated reality in a sense.

 Nick Bostrom’s Arguments

1. Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.

2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of “real” entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as, diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.

3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.

In broader detail Bostrom is trying to prove tripartite disjunction which is the basically the theory that there is sufficient technological advancements then it is possible to simulate the every man, woman and child on this planet and create an alternate reality. A reality that is simulated but with enough technological progress we can imitate life, feeling, and everything that the average man does. It can give us wisdom, emotion and create a reality where people exactly like us can roam around not knowing what they really are, or maybe we are those people.

We can’t prove nor disprove the theory of simulated reality so the theory can be true until proven false and from word the words Mr. Unger give them their flat screen T.V, a football game, and some beer and they will call you god.






Imtiaz 2013









Perception and reality ~ Imtiaz

Perception constructs our memories, shapes our thoughts and creates our reality, and yet it is a difficult concept to understand; knowing that people have different perspectives and think differently is a start. All objects have different meanings for different people because everyone has had a different experience with said object. The object that I happened to stumble upon was a tiny miniature Pokémon, on the beaches of Tofino. Although the object might not say much to the “average Joe” but to me, it reminds me of my entire childhood and prompts memories that I had kept dormant for years.

The contradiction that I am faced with is that perception does not create one’s reality because there is only one reality. Reality is tangible in the eyes of the beholder and there cannot not be another reality just because there are different perspectives. Reality is everything around us from the keyboard I am typing on to the man groaning next to me and to the dread work environment that they call a library. It’s all happening now and it’s all real; just because I have a different perspective on whether or not the work environment is dreaded, it’s still a work environment in our reality that cannot be changed nor altered. There can be different opinions about the environment and or the stuff around it but you cannot call a keyboard an ipad just because you have a different perspective on what is really is. In reality the Keyboard is not an ipad but in fact it’s nothing less than a keyboard that is being used to type these words.

The contradiction can solved in some ways but will be difficult to understand because of its sheer intensity. Everyone on our planet has a different meaning for everything. The meaning may be similar to one another but there are slight changes to it; the same applies to reality. People can shape their own reality because their brain can create an alternate universe in which they achieve all their goals; although the universe is not “real” and never will be real it is still there in his mind. Every time we learn something new or find out something that is cool, the brain can incorporate it in to their reality. Again the reality isn’t real but instead is nothing less than a figment of your imagination. Perspectives build your life’s by giving everything you know a meaning. It lets you understand and tells you how to feel because you have a perspective on everything.

My philosopher doesn’t really solve this problem but instead gives brief explanations on reality and perspective. Al-ghazil, my philosopher says that perspective is the key knowledge to understanding god  and that without perspective we would be nothing less than animals. I think what he meant by that is we have a perspective for a reason and it’s to be used to acquire more knowledge about god and his teaching. My group members on the other hand think that there are different perspectives that build different realities. Realities can be different for every individual but there is only one reality in which we all live in. Our perspectives is what build and shapes our reality and creates our very own version of “real”.

This meme says alot………




Al-Ghazali The Alchemist of Happiness ~imtiaz

There are a lot of Arabic words here that you probably won’t understand but I’ll do my best to try to explain to you what it means… Before you start reading here is a picture of what he may have looked like..


Al-Ghazali is one of the greatest Islamic theologians, metaphysician and philosophical thinkers. He was born around 1058 in Tabaran a town near the district of Tus, Which lies in current day Iran. He learned various branches of traditional Islamic religious sciences in his home townand was active in Sufi practices from an early age. The man was appointed head of the Nizamiyyah “College” at Baghdad, which at the time was one of the most prestigious “colleges” in all of the Middle East. As the head of the Islamic community, he was busy lecturing on Islamic ways and rules at the College. He had no time to learn from other people point of view and was slightly self-centered.  Four years after , al-Ghazali fell into a serious spiritual crisis and finally left Baghdad, renouncing his career and fled to Syria and Palestine. After another 2 years he returned to Tus, where he was engaged in writing and teaching in the college about Sufi practices until his death in 1111.

Al-Ghazali wrote at least two works on theology, al-Iqtisad fi’I-i`tiqad (The Middle Path in Theology) and al-Risala al-Qudsiyya (The Jerusalem Epistle).  Both of his book summed up had on key concept in common. The creation of the world and its subsequent changes are produced by God’s eternal knowledge, will and power, but this does not necessarily mean any change in God’s attributes in accordance with these changes. According to al-Ghazali, God has attributes such as knowledge, life, will, hearing, seeing and speech. One of the main issues of theological debate was the relationship between God’s power and human acts. He emphasizing the divine justice, that God cannot place any obligation on people that are beyond their ability. He believed that God must do what is best for humans and must give rewards and punishments according to their obedience and or disobedience. He thought that god’s acts are beyond human ethical judgment and all creatures belong to God therefore, whatever he may do to his creatures, it cannot be considered unjust.

Some of his ideas and beliefs have been in some ways incorporated in Middle Eastern cultures but many of his ideas seemed a little too extreme from some people point of view. The ideas that were somewhat sane were incorporated into some sunni and shia cultures. The idea that god must do what it best for humans, no matter what the cost is still present in some middle eastern cultures and religions. Although his words do sometimes get mistaken and applied to an extreme extent, his believes in my opinion seem pure. Every now and then there are people who take and twist what he said in his book about god too seriously and defend him to a fault. By that i mean, a small amount of people who happen to extremist use his words to convey their point, when what Al-Ghazali was really trying to get across in my opinion was that we shouldn’t judge each other on our believes or opinions but let god judge us.

I will add more improve what i have said later……


^^^^^If you have time, Go watch that its documentry about him.. its really long^^^^



Van Orman Quine~Leon, Tyler, Imtiaz


Van Orman Quine was a frustrating man to understand and his theories were difficult to grasp. Quine in lesser words basically said that it’s hard to find an exact definition of a word, so it becomes impossible to use as a basis for a hypothesis or a theory. Every word has a definition, but the it’s hard to know the exact definition of the word. For example,  a definition of a word is someone’s opinion and everyone’s opinion is unique; therefore there are many types of definitions for every word. The definitions are not correct nor incorrect because its an opinion and opinions vary for every individual. I think Quine meant that science is an opinion, because everyone has a different definition of what science is, even if the definition isn’t necessarily factually true, its still valid. Its an opinion and opinions can be factually false and still valid. So if you were to ask Quine is science objective, he would say no in fact its subjective because everyone has an opinion and the opinion may be very similar to one another, but it will always be different. What Quine basically meant by that is that science is subjective. Science is subjective to the man or woman studying it or learning about it. everyone will have a different experience with science and that will create a different opinion, whether be it a good experience or bad, science will always be subjective.


Willard Van Quine, a professor and student of Harvard University, was considered to be the biggest philosopher in the 20th century. He challenged the thought of science being subjective. “One man’s observation is another man’s closed book or flight of fancy” – William Van Quine. This quote tells everything about William’s thoughts of whether or not science is objective or not. By careful analysis, we can figure out that Quine thinks of science, as well as life, to be based on multiple perspectives. Experiencing something is very different from being vicarious. In the quote above, Quine is trying to say that people have different observations and opinions. These observations are unique to every individual, and there are no same observations. This can be applied to science as well; everybody has a different observation about science. Everything is based on experience, and science is only a fraction of it. Therefore, we can conclude that science is subjective.

Leon’s Blog Opinion

Willard Van Orman Quine was thought to be a negative philosopher, primarily concerned to criticize others. He caused doubts on terms other philosophers take for granted. Quine never thought there was a term that was meaningless but it not worth a place in an objective account of the world. In his work “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” Quine had assaulted scientific objectivity causing the separation between objective science and subjective metaphysics. Even though it was never his intention, Quine forever changed the empirical, determinist, realist, materialist character of Western science and philosophy. To him, there was not objective facts, only linguistic meaning.

All three of our opinions on what Van orman Quine would have said if he was asked the question “is science objective” has one key aspect in common, which is science is subjective. Quine in almost every one of his books and quotes talked about many different things but from his perspective as an atheist philosopher who dedicated his entire life to science he found that science is nothing less than subjective.



Potato Logic ~ Imtiaz

Potato logic

A quote that I understood but never caught was “you are what you eat” and I could never really understand what Ludwig meant by it.  I understand that eating unhealthy will in turn makes you unhealthy but I was never turned into what I ate. I thought too hard on a simple quote with a simple meaning.

i am what i eat

I ate a potato

/therefore I am a potato

My argument I think is valid but factually incorrect because it’s impossible for any man to be a vegetable. Maybe somewhere in the future it won’t be impossible but for now humans cannot be a potato, unless it’s Halloween. The logic in this argument stems from me having a craving for a potato so I decided to eat a potato thus I became a potato. But seriously the quote basically means that if you don’t’ eat healthy items you wont’ be healthy since our body’s energy and immunity comes from what we eat. If you eat meats, vegetables and fruits your body will get much of the vitamins and minerals it needs to function properly. If all you eat is junk food and don’t pay attention to what your body needs then you will not operate properly. Well you will still be alive but you won’t feel very good about yourself. Think of your car if you don’t but good gas and oil and anti-freeze and if you don’t take care of it on a regular bases it won’t work properly the same applies to your body.

X is Y

Y is Z

X is Z



Happiness logic ~ Imtiaz

Happiness logic

“Happiness is not something ready made it comes from your own action” the dali lama. Everyone on this planet wants to be happy and no one knows the secret to happiness except for me.  The secret to happiness is obviously to do drugs because drugs are the source of all things happy.

All humans want to be happy

Drugs make you happy

/ all human should do drugs

The war on drugs has failed!… There has been an ongoing war on drugs for decades in which the United States alone spent billions of dollars, to stop the war but nothing happened. The illegal narcotic industry is bigger than ever and the amount of narcotics that is flushed into the Americas is insurmountable. Sure the war did some damage to the drug industry but the damaged done is very little and did nothing to stop the boom of drugs. The government sees marijuana as the “devils lettuce” and enforces strict laws into preventing the distribution but what they don’t notice is that there are plenty of other drugs that cause much more harm to humans. Drugs such as alcohol and prescribed medicine such as oxycodone are much more harmful for the human body and the government sees that as perfectly normal drugs. The drugs debate has been going on for years and I can’t think of a solution to the epidemic and neither can any politician.

All x want y

Z makes y

All x should z



Grand Theft Auto influences killings? ~ Imtiaz

An eight-year-old boy picked up a loaded gun and shot his grandmother in the head a few minutes after playing Grand Theft Auto IV. Obviously every big media station blamed the actions of the kid on the the video game instead of focusing on the real problem at hand. An eight year old kid was given a mature game to play, which in the U.S has an 18 + rating and the stupid parents of that child were ignorant enough to leave a fully loaded firearm on the table.. What more could have the parents of the child done? Well if they had any sense of logic they would have never bought the game for thier son and or leave a fully loaded gun on a coffee table.

Parents buy thier kid a mature game

The kid then kills his grandmother after playing the game

/Videogames greatly influence the young and stupid


Article link