Class No.

23 Date: 04/30/2021
Name: Thessa Monica D. Abellana
Section: 12.- Amare

A LOGBOOK ON SELF-EXAMINATION
Question 1:

Why does your life matter? Given that there are seven billion people on this planet, how
can you say that your own life is not insignificant? Why do you choose to continue to live when
you can choose not to? As the French philosopher Albert Camus says, "There is but one truly
serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living
amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy" (Camus 1979, 11). This leads us
further back to Socrates' famous dictum: "The unexamined life is not worth living" (Apology 38a5-
6). Try to examine what your life has hitherto been, and, from your examination, ask yourself
whether or not there is one attainment to which you can point and say, with confidence and
sincerity, 'that is why my life mattered.'" If you were to write out a comprehensive list of your
virtues and admirable achievement, how much paper and ink would you need?

Answer:

My Dictionary Has Two Missing Words

“Mama” “Papa”

Belonging and that constant need for affirmation are the greatest needs of a person.
Abraham Maslow a psychologist once suggested that the need to belong was a major source of
human motivation. For me, finding the true meaning of who my parents were, was my motivation.
The words “Mama” & “Papa” were deemed missing in my dictionary. As I seek the meaning
behind them, I always ended up with a blank page. Through years of my exploit, I slowly fell
behind. Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel was impossible as I soon gave up on the quest. I
failed to grasp the definition of “Mama” and “Papa.”

But it used to be different in the early years of my childhood. I knew what my mother’s
touch was – her skin was rough and unusually cold. I remember the scent of my father – his harsh
stench reeked not to mention the burnt cigarettes and beer. However, these faint memories brought
no significance as I later pursued life without them after the age of six. As psychology tells us
individuals need to know that other people care about their well-being and love them. But in my
case, all I felt was absence.

That specific year went by like a second. The screams, bruises, and tears were on repeat,
but it all ended in the courtroom. My grandparents gained custody of me, and from there on, a new
chapter in my life surfaced. It is a blazing chapter that highlights the sweet taste of unrequited love
from my grandparents. They were always astute, present, and ardent towards me. I was contented.
I was grateful and I was happy. It made me feel like life was worth living, and I had felt for the
first time in forever things were to be better.
 Yet, my mind was restless.

I kept wandering around libraries, continuously searching for dictionaries with the words
“Mama” and “Papa.” Even without knowing what is beneath the treasure cove, my mind was
never at ease. I knew my life with them was suffocating but I insisted to linger on. In psychology,
breaking off an attachment causes pain that is deeply rooted in the need to belong, and I felt like
that. When I raised questions about my parents, I was given silence – a dead end. My curiosity
then peaked when I turned seventeen. When I first met my mother after long years without.

My experience with her felt like a rollercoaster. A perfect one! The first few months of our
bond were euphoric. We went on trips, ate ice cream, and even jumped off the top of the waterfall.
While this kaleidoscope of events continued, it suddenly became temporary. Her vicious stare and
unpleasant screams were clouding over me as if I was back to my six-year-old memories. Similar
perhaps to Freud’s experiment of hypnosis on Anna O. The painful memories had separated from
her consciousness and brought harm to her body. And in that interval between spending time with
my Mother and my memories of the past, was all I could feel. I was utterly defeated.

But I needed home. I forced myself to believe she was my home. I respectfully decided to
leave my grandparents and unfold a new journey with my Mother. Although uncertain, I had to
start somewhere. At the start, my ride was rough; we had different beliefs, perceptions, and
opinions. Yet, I was still hopeful. We had disagreements, and my pride was continuously tested,
but what mattered most were the conversations we had. As Socrates once wrote “Be kind, for
everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” And I took that to heart with my Mother. With the
everyday exchange of contrasting standpoints, it unknowingly built a relationship.

Now that I am eighteen, regardless of what I have achieved for myself, my school, and my
community, I owe it to my mother. She crafted a new spectrum of realization for me – that not
everything is in my favor. That I should be versatile, fervid, and strong in my every day journey.
No matter what battle I will be in, using these values as my armor and an open mind as my sword,
I can be triumphant. My trials are no greater but of equal value to others; however, I take pride in
my most meaningful life accomplishment.

I finally found the true definition of the word “Mama.” And this is why my life mattered.
Oh, you may ask why do I continue to live when I can choose not to? Because my journey does
not end here – it is just the beginning. I have yet to uncover what “Papa” truly stands for, and I
cannot wait to tell you all about it soon.

References:

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand. Page 45

Allen, Kelly-Ann (2020). The Psychology of Belonging. Melbourne: Routledge. p. 5.

Baumeister, R. F.; Leary, M. R. (1995). "The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation". Psychological Bulletin. 117 (3): 497–529.

Boag S (2012). Freudian Repression. London: Karnac Books.

Duignan, B. (2009). The 100 Most Influential Philosophers of All Time. The Rosen Publishing
Group. p. 33.

Question 2:

As stated in the paragraph before the section "The Etymological Definition of Philosophy"
in Lesson 1 of Module 1, any discipline or societal sector (e.g., business and industry, education,
healthcare, media, etc.) is susceptible to having a crisis in its basic concepts, which compels it to
reevaluate and redefine the foundations on which it stands. Among the different disciplines and
sectors that exist at present, especially in this time of pandemic, which discipline or sector do you
think should reevaluate and redefined its foundations and why? If it does so, how do you think will
such a discipline or sector look like in the future?

Answer:

The Imperfect Government

2020 has painted the world's most execrated artwork – entitled the Coronavirus. Although
figurative, the truth and reality still dominate, and we are aware of it. The incredible amount of
lives lost has not only been catastrophic but has caused waves of economic repercussions and
massive unemployment. It makes us question, "Is the virus truly the great destroyer of lives, or is
it the failure of the country's government in avoiding the loss of its people?."

This question inevitably brings the spotlight to the Philippine government – once
sardonically referred to as "The Land of Covid-19." Prior to our knowledge, the government plays
the most crucial role in leading the strategic and implementation efforts for public officials and
citizens; however, the Philippine government is anything but equivalent to this. This is proven by
Robles (2020) as he highlights that "President Rodrigo Duterte's administration was too slow to
respond to the crisis." The Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (2020) disclosed
the warnings from 80,000 doctors and about a million nurses throughout the country – "There is
a potential collapse of the healthcare system unless stricter measures and recalibrated strategies
were put in place by the government." This all the more substantiates the inadequacies of both
crisis and healthcare management of the Philippine government.

As verified by the World Health Organization, 12,837 lives are lost as of January to March
2021. It has been a year since the first infected Filipino. With the plateauing number of cases and
deaths, can we say that the Philippine government has fulfilled its duties in protecting the citizens'
lives and means?

The epidemic is already exasperating enough for humanity. Can the government sector,
especially for a third-world country like the Philippines, at least contribute its efforts for the benefit
of the people? The government officials took no stand on the COVID issue and downplayed it.
The distribution of financial budget is rather leaned on defense contracts and tax reform to benefit
larger corporations. It is disappointing that the Philippine government has its priorities all over the
place. They unquestionably failed to coordinate with federal partners and support at full capacity
the health care, emergency, and management response systems. CNN Philippines reports that "it
became immediately apparent that there was a staggering shortage of masks and alcohol in
hospitals, forcing PGH to launch a call for donations." Not only does this prove the government's
negligence of its priorities, but it showed the failure of responsibilities for all the Filipinos.

There are more than enough reasons for the Philippine government to change, and
Coronavirus is just one of them. Addressing the deeply rooted problems of the country's leadership
is impossible to solve at once – but it is right to start now when the country is at its most depressing
times. Despite the fact that the government is weak to its core, it can improve policy choices, fiscal
priorities, and institutional design. During the pandemic, the government can enforce
municipalization to privately-owned hospitals and medical facilities to cater to those without
healthcare access. Through this, good governance might as well be possible for the Philippines.
As crises are inescapable, the Philosophy of Kintsugi is perfect for a time like this. For the time of
the Philippines' fall during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, it is essential to think outside the box and avoid reaching a dead end. In light of
the situation the country is currently facing, this epidemic is bound to end. The change that the
government must enforce must not only be limited in the hands of the pandemic but to the future
of its country as well. Even though the Philippines is a third-world country, it is not a reason for
defeat. Instead of appeasing big corporations and lobbying for big interests, it is vital to change
government spending and instead support the foundations of public interest.

If the Philippine government succeeds in remodeling and refining their administration, then
we can assume that the future for this country is not far from being formidable. If change is
accomplished then maybe, the country will face crisis, economic regression, and unemployment
with a stronger spear and shield that citizens will no longer pay their lives as a price for the
government’s failures. This future is difficult to achieve but it is definitely not impossible to reach.

References:

Baticulon, R., 2021. OPINION: The Philippine health care system was never ready for a
pandemic. [online] cnn. Available at:
<https://cnnphilippines.com/life/culture/2020/3/20/healthcare-pandemic-opinion.html>

Kravchuk, M., 2021. Gov’t Response To COVID-19 ‘Reactive’; Years Of Neglect Weakened
Healthcare System – Study | OneNews.PH. [online] OneNews.ph. Available at:
<https://www.onenews.ph/gov-t-response-to-covid-19-reactive-years-of-neglect-weakened-
healthcare-system-study>

Doh.gov.ph. 2021. Improving Access To Quality Hospitals. [online] Available at:

<https://doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/basic-page/chapter-four.pdf>
Robles, A. (2020, August 17). Philippines failing to contain coronavirus, despite multiple
lockdowns. South China Morning Post; South China Morning Post.
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3097707/philippines-failing-
contain-coronavirus-despite

The Philippines, Covid-19 and debt: Left alone to deal with the pandemic. (2020). Eurodad.
https://www.eurodad.org/the_philippines_covid_19_and_debt_left_alone_to_deal_with_th
e_pandemic

Philippines: WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. (2020). Who.int.

https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/ph

Question 3:

Although philosophy teaches us to break away from conventions and not to be "servile in
nature," we have to admit that to continuously do so is not exactly healthy, not only for our
individual selves, but also for the rest of society. There would be constant disagreement among
people and the world would be led nowhere. Thus, when, or which particular moments, do you
think it is acceptable for us to break away from conventions? Explain why.

Answer:

Tradition Is Not Your Ticket

Cultural norms are predestined and evolve throughout the years – it is unfortunate however
that some cultures promote aggression, violence, and abuse. The trampling of human dignity is
enough to prove that the oppressed must be freed from prehistoric traditions. It takes a lot of will
and wit to break into the gates of ‘culturally accepted’ norms in different regions globally since
the influenced societies continually tolerate these due to choice, domination, and generality.

In order for true development, one has to break away from the conventions of the past.
Being defiant with the rules is not the point here, but rather, the willingness to question things that
are not morally and ethically right is highly encouraged. Child marriages in Ethiopia, legal
beheadings in Saudi Arabia, female genital mutilation in Africa, are just some of the manifold of
cultural ideals that are wrong in nature, but compliant societies will claim that it has been part of
their culture for years.

The question then arises, “If I base my standards from my society’s tradition to judge
another culture’s civilization, is my judgement then considered wrong? Or does it mean I view
their culture from my own moral and ethical compass?”

It is important to recognize that the status quo (current situation) is a bias thing. Countries
who have clung to their cultures will stay the same and those who refute are still voiceless. It is
difficult to stick to this prejudice, particularly in culture, because growth necessitates change.
Though customs are inherited from the past, neglecting human rights and forceful practice should
not be acceptable.
 Tradition and culture are used to deploy an excuse to discretely undermine human right
and dignity. Whether in my own moral and ethical compass or not, serious discriminatory elements
are practiced and definitely impedes, rather than enhanced, humanity’s social, political, civil,
economic, and most importantly, cultural rights. It is of great importance to break away from such
ideals as it halts the advancement of human rights and basic freedoms. It is best to have thorough
understanding of how to promote a culture-rich environment and to rather not use “tradition” as a
ticket to flout the most basic human rule – which is respect.

References:

Wuilbercq, E. (2020, May 14). Hundreds of child weddings thwarted in Ethiopia as coronavirus
locks girls out of schools. U.S. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-
ethiopia-childmarr-idUSKBN22Q344

Davis, C. (2020, April 21). Saudi Arabia breaks its own record for executions, beheading over 180
people in 2019. Business Insider; Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-
arabia-sets-record-beheading-over-180-people-in-2019-2020-4

Reid, K. (2021, January 29). 6 facts about female genital mutilation (FGM) | World Vision. World
Vision. https://www.worldvision.org/child-protection-news-stories/female-genital-
mutilation-fgm-facts

Question 4:

Does everything happen for a reason, or does everything happen by mere chance or
coincidence? If everything happens for a reason, then what is the point of any of our choices?
Would freewill still even matter? If everything happens by mere chance or coincidence, then are
the things that we are doing not ultimately done for nothing since there is absolutely no reason for
doing them at all? Does this mean that all actions (even harmful ones) could be made morally
permissible?

Answer:

Your Own Destiny

There are some that claim that daily human occurrence are far from just or simply perfect
and predestined. But there is an explanation why such things happen to us in the first place – failure
and disaster are designed this way. They are a part of nature's chisel, chipping away at us in the
hopes of bettering our lives. It does not happen, though, by moping about and wallowing in self-
pity. Although the phrase “everything happens for a reason” bring comfort to those who lean
towards this belief, the truth rather brings the opposite.

There is a grand design, despite not seeing it now, that the things that happen for a reason,
do not tamper our free will but rather utilizes it. In spite of the fact that free-will is justified as the
freedom to make any choice we wanted, it relatively contradicts the realistic reason as to why we
make our decisions. Making choices are rather influenced by our past experiences and all other
factors that led up to that decision. Eventually our personal resolve, together with the influence of
other people, are the ones that shape our future. Although our paths are predetermined, these are
not master plans carved out by some deity – since our paths have a high range of discrepancy and
variability.

God said to the nation of Israel: “I have put life and death before you . . . and you must
choose life.” (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20). We do not have to put religion into this context but the
wisdom in it perfectly encapsulates my stand. That we are the only ones that can shape our own
destiny and maneuver through the paths of life – especially in going against failure and disaster.
In essence, we still have our own choice and free will, as living beings. However, it is up to us to
find meaning behind these decisions. It is up to us to choose a path we can detour in unique ways
and continue to prosper in the direction we end up choosing in our lives.

References:

If everything happens for a reason cant possibly have free will. Read steffon66s opinion before
agreeing or disagreeing. (2014). Debate.org. https://www.debate.org/opinions/if-
everything-happens-for-a-reason-cant-possibly-have-free-will-read-steffon66s-opinion-
before-agreeing-or-disagreeing

Fate vs. Freewill: How to Fulfill Your Life’s Purpose – Live Love Simple. (2011).
Livelovesimple.com. https://livelovesimple.com/fate-vs-freewill/

Question 5:

Will there ever be a time in which humanity acquires complete or absolute knowledge?
How do you think would that be possible?

Answer:

What Humans Can’t Achieve… Yet

Epistemology, is arguably the most medial topic in Philosophy. Plato himself, has his own
share of defining knowledge or alternatively, in justifying true belief. There are numerous
considerable logically necessary conditions that must be fulfilled in order for something to be
considered as knowledge – the tripartite definition of knowledge is perfect in this case. However,
these are still deemed not to be the absolute truth. Even when such knowledge is possible,
humanity is yet to reach such feat.

It is apparent that not all knowledge is guaranteed. It is in fact fallible, changeable, and
defeasible. But as humans, how can we measure our own, human knowledge? How much do we
actually know or to what extent can we know? Can we solely base on reason, senses, human
testimony, and certain resources to acquire knowledge? It is safe to say however that we are
surrounded by unknowns of the world – or even the universe. These do include the several beliefs
of different civilizations worldwide that are either inherent to past traditions or new-era ideology.
 We are creatures capable of exploration and to certain beliefs that differ from others.
Although knowledge calls for belief, not all beliefs are comprised of knowledge. Beliefs are
evidently common in humans but these do not prove universal knowledge. Simply because what
some believe as true, others may contradict to such. The difference in beliefs and ideologies
justifies the fact that we, as humans can never acquire absolute knowledge. I believe that acquiring
knowledge is just adding to our true beliefs while, through time, minimizing our false beliefs.

What can be unified though, for humanity is our priori knowledge to certain truths in life
but what remains absolute is that we can never rule out the possibility of the unknowns. There are
some unknowns that will forever stay, quite possibly unknown or unchangeable – such as beliefs
and ideologies. Though human evolution is infinite, for some reason, human intelligence is not.
Therefore, it is to be assumed that absolute knowledge is in fact not achievable for humans – yet.

References:

DePaul, M., & Hicks, A. (2016). A Priorism in Moral Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology-a-priori/

Hakob Barseghyan, Overgaard, N., & Rupik, G. (2021). Absolute Knowledge. Pressbooks.pub;
Pressbooks. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/introhps/chapter/chapter-2-absolute-
knowledge/

Does certainty or absolute truth exist? (2012). ResearchGate; ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does-certainty-or-absolute-truth-exist

If it is difficult for a person to figure out what she is really meant to do, then would it not
be easier for her to be defined by others instead? Is it not a privilege to have a life that is planned
out for you?

Answer:

Her Dignity, Your Respect

Your life, whether laid out or not, should never be in the hands of other people but yourself.
As René Descartes once said, “I think therefore I am,” – so pride yourself with dignity, ownership,
and self-worth. Regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, status, and etc., every human being deserves
respect – defining other people’s worth but yourself, is the opposite of that. As human dignity is
intrinsic to everyone, we should give due respect to all of humankind – despite of course certain
circumstances. Nevertheless, every person is entitled to their own dignity and honor thus, subject
to their own freedom of belief and choices even when unsure.

According to Kant, human beings with respect for human dignity should not possess any
irrational wills against their fellow human beings and the generally acceptable societal norms and
values. Our moral duties as humans, should uplift our kind rather than degrade. Human dignity has
also been developed or more so, worsened through the influence of religious and cultural
perspectives. Take for example an ustazah in a school incident that forced female students who
claimed that they find it difficult to pray during their time of the month. The baffled students are
absolutely having a hard time figuring out whether they should pray or not – unclear of what they
are really meant to do – since the school checks their underwear to validate truth or dishonesty.
Should the school be given the right to define the female student’s sincerity or is this the work of
an abuser? Whether the reason of carrying out duties and values as a school this act is just
disrespectful to its core.

Without dignity, our self-esteem and self-value are challenged or possibly even non-
existent. Dignity is our launch point wherein we could engage in life to avoid being a slave to other
people – hence being defined by them. Should you be disregarded by the perspective of someone
else’s, allow access for your given freedom of thought and speech to defend yourself. Even with
elders, culture, and tradition, these do not serve as a reason to trample upon other people’s dignity.

References:

Rice, E. (2018, December 3). Your Worth Is Not Defined Through The Eyes Of Others. Norhart |
Blog; Norhart | Blog. https://www.norhart.com/blog/2018/12/03/your-worth-is-not-defined-
through-the-eyes-of-others/

MAHATHIR, M. (2013, September 11). The value of human dignity. The Star Online.
https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/musings/2013/09/12/the-value-of-human-
dignity

Question 6:

Is it necessarily the case that every conceivable question has an answer? Or are there
questions that really cannot be answered? If there are questions that really cannot be answered,
can such questions still even be considered questions? For is the relationship between question and
answer not analogous to the relationship between cause and effect, such that for every cause, there
is always an effect? So, in like manner, should it not be the case that if there is a question, there is
or will always be an answer?

Answer:

When Will Our Questions Be Answered?

Is the universe finite or infinite? Why does time exist? Why can’t we predict the future?
What is the purpose of death – or more ironically, what happens after we die? These questions
remain unanswered that neither science nor religion can fulfill. Although both fields have backed
these questions with research and logistics, it seems as though it is still, scarce or indefinite.
Humans are curious beings – we live to know more. And the more we think, the more we discover
the unknowns of the universe or even at the comfort of our own home.

In some point in our lives we have questions that randomly pop up in our minds – why are
apples red or why do wounds heal? We scurry around our google search trying desperately to find
answers. Once understood, we are satisfied. However, there are some people who study underlying
questions branched out from previous unsolved phenomena, mystery, or even basic human
activity. Some of which are successfully answered but some, remain unknown – despite being
equipped with technological advancements or professionals.

The continual search of answers however, is the only drive for human evolution and
advancement. Without our innate capacity and curiosity, questions and answers would cease to
exist. Think of it this way, there will never be answers if nothing is questioned. Questions are the
cause and answers serve as the result for such. It is still debatable though whether the unknown
will forever stay that way. Will there be answers to every question? No. But eventually, through
time there might be. As human evolution continues to grow, so does our capability as humans to
decipher the unknown – maybe not now, not tomorrow, or a hundred years from now but certainly,
there will be a time it will be.

References:

Frey, T. (2013, March 22). 10 Unanswerable Questions that Neither Science nor Religion can
Answer - Futurist Speaker. Futurist Speaker. https://futuristspeaker.com/futurist-thomas-
frey-insights/10-unanswerable-questions-that-neither-science-nor-religion-can-answer/

Stafford, T. (2014). Why are we so curious? Bbc.com.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120618-why-are-we-so-
curious#:~:text=We%20humans%20have%20a%20deeply,will%20never%20come%20ba
ck%20to.

Mackiel, A. (2018, December 12). Human Evolution and the Generation of Infinite Knowledge.
Medium; Age of Awareness. https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/knowledge-and-
human-evolution-ef43593e75d9

Question 7:

Summarize Peter van Inwagen's understanding of what metaphysics is as shown in the

video. In the video, van Inwagen says, "If somebody says there is no ultimate reality... that seems
to be a description of the way ultimate reality is." Explain what this quote means and share your
thoughts on it.

Answer:

Peter van Inwagen's Metaphysics

Metaphysics like any other term, is difficult to define but through Peter van Inwagen’s
simplification, we got a chance to grasp its meaning. Metaphysics unlike other branches of
philosophy is an attempt to get at the nature of ultimate reality. Because of the limits of our
perceivable appearances, there is more to what we think there is – therefore explains the
deceptiveness of appearances. We as humans, though being consciously aware, are still incapable
to fully understand the reasons as to why things are the way they are – even despite being equipped
with science and the revelations from supernatural beings. Both cannot simply be relied on but
stepping outside science and revelation is the path to ultimate reality – although it is not absolute.

In the video, van Inwagen says, "If somebody says there is no ultimate reality... that seems
to be a description of the way ultimate reality is." Explain what this quote means and share your
thoughts on it.

The absence of ultimate reality is the reality that forever remains for humanity. Our kind
is apt in discovering and questioning the truths of the unknown however, some things will
inevitably stay unknown where human intelligence and capabilities cannot reach. The limits of
what we can perceive is our true reality – our present knowledge in a sense. Thus, makes it
impossible to know everything. It is through the absence of the ultimate reality that puts us back
to our place. We are mere humans – capable of knowing and evolving but definitely not capable
of uncovering what lies behind the ultimate unknown.

References:

Closer To Truth. (2016). Peter van Inwagen - How Does Metaphysics Reveal Reality? [YouTube
Video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_85DRqbwLQ&t=99s

Question 8:

Is morality objective or relative? On the one hand, if you say that morality is relative, then
why do we insist that events such as the Slavery in the United States or the Nazi Holocaust are
wrong? Furthermore, if you say that morality is relative, then would that not mean that human
rights are mere social constructs and that all actions that are considered violations against human
rights can be done to you? On the other hand, if you say morality is objective, then why is it
acceptable for some cultures to practice cannibalism or for some countries to implement death
penalty? Should these cultures and countries conform to what the majority of the world considers
moral, or should they be allowed to continue practicing their customs? Furthermore, if you say
that morality is objective, what are your justifications for saying that your standards for what is
moral and immoral are the correct standards, i.e., the standards that should be followed?

Answer:

Morality and the Word ‘And’

Despite the debate between morality being objective or relative, why is it always associated
with the word ‘or’? Why not ‘and’ or ‘both’? Couldn’t we say that morality is both objective and
relative? My stand here is clear, morality is nothing but a complex topic to deal with – it is not
always simple. Morality, at all costs, has numerous underlying factors that changes its shape in
societies. Culture, belief, motivation, and circumstances are likely the evident effects of a person’s
or a society’s morality. Although these differences do not refrain us from our own moral
judgements, these also do not mean that our standards (in making judgements) are not objective
nor relative. It simply means that it varies through complexities and sensitivity towards a certain
concept.
 Despite the large gap in deciding the true nature of morality, majority still have large
attempts in leaning only in one side of the debate – whether they are moral objectivists or
relativists. But first, it is important to understand the nature of each side. As a general rule or rather,
universal morality, we humans have a shared understanding on what to do and what not to do. This
means, despite the differences we have, there are some moral truths that can be applied to almost
everything at almost all times. “Do not steal’; “Do not kill”; and so on are some of the basic moral
rules that humanity have gradually followed. It has somehow been planted in our ideals as a decent
human being that led to all societies sharing certain values necessary for a society to function
(Edinburgh, n.d.). This then becomes the strong argument that moral objectivists have – that reason
> feeling offers society a better chance at problem solving.

However, these ‘rules’ are not absolute and are definitely subject to change. In bringing
the aspect of “stealing” some, if not many, believe that it can be permissible under certain
circumstances. If a lost and starving traveler were out in the wilderness, came across a cabin.
Would it be wrong for her to go inside and consume a can of beans to suffice her starvation? If
this is the only means for her survival, should we really restrict her from such act? Some might
say that the implication of “Do not steal” must persist. This might be true for some but, it might
not be the same for others. And that, presumably, is the stand for moral relativism.

The difference now is clear. Philosophers who think everyday morality is objective should
examine the evidence, argues Joshua Knobe (2016). It is as though as important in keeping both
objectivism and relativism balanced on each end of the scale. When it comes to culture – like
cannibalism – it is important to understand the substantive roots behind this practice. Suppose that
a culture encourages children to eat the flesh of their deceased parents. It is of course horrifying
for those uninfluenced of such but it is through ingestion do they fully enable their parents to live
on their life through – literally – eating them. It is a ceremonial practice to pay respect and to
bestow life longevity. We now ask whether it is morally permissible to consume our dead parents’
flesh. Well, it depends. In the context of people outside their culture, it is considered unacceptable
and deduced by law and order. However, to cultures that practice these, it might not be wrong. So,
our morality in the end, is defined through the different culture, belief, motivation, and
circumstances a person or society is influenced of.

Whether morality is believed to be objective or relative, it is not absolute. We must consider

different judgements and perspective when it comes to morality. What we can negotiate in
agreement though is that some morals simply do not change and there are some that do (Boring-
Bray, 2021). What we find immoral can be moral to others, and it is up for our interpretation to
understand the complexity of morality. Once we are able to accept this complexity, we will no
longer be glued to simplistic, universal rules (“It is wrong to steal”). But instead, we will be able
to create nuanced, adaptable judgements (“It is wrong to steal clothes when you already have
plenty” and “It can be acceptable to steal unwanted food for survival”). It is simply up to us on
how we progress towards this change then maybe, morality can soon be both objective and relative
in nature.
References:

What Is Objective Morality & What Can It Teach Us? | BetterHelp. (2018, September 20).
Betterhelp.com; BetterHelp. https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/morality/what-is-
objective-morality-what-can-it-teach-us/

Philosophy Now. (2012). Philosophynow.org.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Is_Morality_Objective#:~:text=Heusweiler%2C%20
Saarland%2C%20Germany-
,Morality%20is%20objective.,can%20agree%20on%20their%20truth

What Is Objective Morality & What Can It Teach Us? | BetterHelp. (2018, September 20).
Betterhelp.com; BetterHelp. https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/morality/what-is-
objective-morality-what-can-it-teach-us/

Is morality just relative? (2021). Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/philosophical-perplexities/200910/is-morality-
just-relative

Question 9:

How can philosophy help us in this time of crisis as explained by the thinkers who are
featured in the article? Which of the explanations strikes you the most and why? In what other way
can philosophy help us in this time of crisis?

Answer:

Philosophy's Power During the Pandemic

“Philosophy is like sand, it gets everywhere”, a saying by Will Bentick protrudes the very
essence of philosophy during the present-day Coronavirus. The confusion as to where Philosophy
stands during the pervasive onslaught of the virus however, is evident. Articles on top of articles
try to justify their stand. The Irish Times is one of those who carefully articulated an article that
secures Philosophy’s utility amidst the pandemic (Coronavirus: How can philosophy help us in
this time of crisis?, 2020).

Philosophers are not medical doctors but they definitely are, sought after – especially
because philosophers, as said by Charlotte Blease, are the most practiced when it comes to self-
isolation – and isolation currently prevails globally. But, why does being the most skilled matter?
Well, such formidable experts – in this context, the Philosophers – are the reason behind the ‘real’
and evident difference in terms of “political, healthcare, and personal decisions”.

Especially that such a global matter is occurring, as Skye Cleary specified, disruption,
disinformation, disbeliefs, and denial are opulent however, it does not change the fact that ‘we
share responsibility for one another”. Philosophers have provided sets of questions for individual
thinkers to ponder on – “How should we distribute financial aid? Who is an expert, and why? What
constitutes evidence in modelling the new virus?” – are just some questions from Blease, to take
into account. With such questions, people then become more vividly aware of the situation, more
conscious, and definitely more careful.

To condense the whole idea of Philosophy’s role, Vittorio Bufacchi says this;

“Perhaps the most important lesson philosophy can teach us in this time of crisis is that each
and every individual has a moral responsibility to do what’s right, notwithstanding what our
government tells us, or fails to tell us. The Hippocratic Oath, primum non nocere (first, do no
harm), does not apply exclusively to the medical establishment, it is a moral principle that
everyone must follow, to the best of our ability, even if the personal costs are high, and that
includes losing money on a holiday or missing out on the Cheltenham Festival.”

One revolving takeaway we can all obtain from the article is responsibility. With joint and
implemented responsibility, we will then be one step closer to saving humanity against the virus.
As hopeful as we can be, practicality still remains in the realms of reality – and Philosophy still
remains ubiquitous. That means, we could ask ourselves questions that provide perspective for all
questions we demand answers for – questions like: “How will I move forward? What matters to
me? Where are my priorities? Will I remain virtuous despite the fact that I’m scared?”(Simmons,
2020). With these philosophical questions, we then get to decide our succeeding courses of action.
We can be subservient to others by simply isolating ourselves even when we are not sick. We can
also learn more of what we can do – or quite possibly, expand our capabilities – such that providing
more help towards healthcare and the under-privileged.

Philosophy is again, everywhere. It might be safe to assume that decisions made during the
pandemic is deemed to be chosen through the influence of Philosophy – because we questioned
before deciding. As Socrates once said, “Philosophy is not a body of knowledge, but a mindset, a
questioning”. Philosophy works behind the curtains however, it definitely has the biggest impact
despite us, not being aware of it.

References:

Humphreys, J. (2020, March 26). Coronavirus: How can philosophy help us in this time of
crisis? The Irish Times; The Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/coronavirus-
how-can-philosophy-help-us-in-this-time-of-crisis-1.4205889

Philosophy Is Like Sand, It Gets Everywhere by Will Bentinck – Ragged University. (2012, October
28). Ragged University. https://www.raggeduniversity.co.uk/2012/10/28/philosophy-sand-
bentinck/

https://plus.google.com/+UNESCO. (2020, November 18). The importance of philosophy in times

of crisis, theme of World Philosophy Day 2020. UNESCO.
https://en.unesco.org/news/importance-philosophy-times-crisis-theme-world-philosophy-
day-2020

Colmenares, C., & Colmenares, C. (2020, April 13). Philosophy for the pandemic - Furman News.
Furman News. https://news.furman.edu/2020/04/13/philosophy-for-the-pandemic/
Question 10:

Attached to this post is a photo containing two dialogues that demonstrate how
philosophical questions are arrived at. Your task, therefore, is the following: Read the dialogues
in the photo and construct a dialogue similar to the ones in the photo. Your dialogue should contain
not less than eight lines, and it should lead up to a formulation of a philosophical question in the
last line. (Remember that philosophical questions are highly general and highly fundamental, so
take that into account when formulating the philosophical question.) After all of that, in a separate
paragraph, provide your own response to the philosophical question that you just formulated.

Answer:

The Dead vs The Living

Dialogue:

A: Someone had the audacity to call me rude and impolite today.

B: Why so?
A: Because I chose not to sit beside a black man during a funeral. But what was so rude about that?
B: What made you think that was not disrespectful?
A: I find no reason to find it disrespectful. It all based on my opinion.
B: But I oppose your statement. I find that disrespectful in spite of you not agreeing with me.
A: Oh, well, at least I paid my respect to my deceased acquaintance. Isn’t that enough or even,
much better?
B: Yes, it is enough, but respect does not only entail for the dead for but for the living as well. And
choosing not to sit beside a man you do not approve of is bound to be disrespectful and in a sense,
biased between the living and the dead.
A: But that would be unfair. The dead are to be respected and sympathized, not the living who
continue their sinful lives.
B: That makes me I wonder. Why do people respect the dead more than the living? Why should
one decide who to truly respect in this living world? Is respect any lesser for the living compared
to the deceased? Does that mean human freedom is limited to certain aspects such as respect?

The cases of disrespect amongst living people are extensive and evident to its very core –
bullying, murder, racism, and stereotypes are just to name some. We might fall victim to such –
and in some cases, become a perpetrator. Despite not being aware of it, the underlying truth behind
this strange mentality that circulates humanity is this: we deem no merit to people but once death
claims them, it all turns the other way around.

People might argue that the dead are more respected since they are defenseless. But what
about the starving African children? What about the Syrians in the middle east? What about the
illegal immigrants globally? I believe that we, as mere humans respect the dead but hurt the living
is all due to our limitations of our knowledge. Death is simply, or definitely, the most complex,
mysterious, and unknown thing for us, mere humans. The very fact that we do not know what
happens after death is the very reason as to why we respect it more. We respect the complexity
and peculiarity of death and the deceased because in some subconscious way it might somehow
be related to afterlife – as believed by the majority.

However, some would say we do not respect the dead but rather those who mourn for the
dead. Despite this confusion – whether or not we really respect the dead, one should have the
common sense to respect both the living and the dead. It does not begin or end with a decision but
through basic human decency. Perhaps people just tend to choose who to pay respect more because
of societal standards. If one would utter “He deserved to get shot and killed” during the lowering
of the casket, he would not be spared by those who mourn. Rather, people behavior towards the
deceased is geared towards the commonly accepted norms in the society – to pay respect to the
dead no matter the grudge, jealousy, or tradition you have.

So, it leads us to one agreement: that there is no excuse for disrespecting and outweighing
either the dead or living. There is no excuse for someone to spit on a grave and that goes the same
for someone who disrespects the living. Respect is not a rule and it is not resistive to our freedom
to choose – or to our free-will. Despite having freedom and inherent human rights, these are not
absolute – it is limited. Being completely free on our decisions on who to respect or not, will make
us intolerant to others – completely immoral and heartless human beings. If freedom is given
without limits, it creates more injustice and even lesser freedom. Remember, without the
limitations such as respect and basic human courtesy, the freedom to impulsively do anything
would yield towards the extinction of the human race.
References:

4 Permissible limitations of the ICCPR right to freedom of expression | Australian Human Rights
Commission. (2011). Humanrights.gov.au. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/4-
permissible-limitations-iccpr-right-freedom-expression

Why should we respect the dead? (2017, August 11). The Philosophy Forum.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1822/why-should-we-respect-the-dead

McGuinness, S., & Brazier, M. (2008). Respecting the Living Means Respecting the Dead
Too. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28(2), 297–316. JSTOR.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20185373?seq=1

This Is Local London Staff. (2020, February 29). Why do we respect the dead more than the
living? By Zoe Wreford, Radnor House School. This Is Local London; This Is Local London.
https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/youngreporter/18272018.respect-dead-living-zoe-
wreford-radnor-house-school/

Question 11:

Although all human beings, according to Aristotle, are rational animals, it is an observable
fact that some human beings are more capable of rational thought than others. For this reason,
Aristotle, in his political philosophy, admits that some human beings are natural-born slaves, who
are good only for physical labour. Aristotle defines the term "slave" as follows: "he who is by
nature not his own but another's man" (Aristotle 2001, 1131). Aristotle justifies his position by
arguing that it is a fact of nature "that some should rule and others be ruled [and it] is a thing not
only necessary, but expedient" (ibid., 1132). In other words, those who are more capable of rational
thought should control those who are less capable so that the state will not fall into chaos by being
usurped by the unruly actions of not so rational men. Another justification by Aristotle is that
"nature would like to distinguish between bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for
servile labour, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in
the arts both of war and peace" (ibid., 1133). While the practice of slavery might suggest the
possibility of the abuse of power on the part of the master, Aristotle cautions that:

The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body
and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily
frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and
have a common interest (ibid., 1134-1135).

By taking into account the foregoing, what is your assessment of Aristotle's view of slavery
(from a moral, political, and/or pragmatic standpoint)? Is such a view an indication of a limitation
of the definition of the human being as a rational animal?
Answer:

Is Aristotle in the Wrong Scale Of Justice?

“Some human beings are more capable of rational thought than others,” such bold
statement from Aristotle surely becomes a conversation piece – especially on the mindset of the
21st century individual. Rationality when brought up, has been a widely discussed term. From
economists to philosophers, each has had their own share on such a broad and complex topic. But
what exactly is it? What is rationality?

Wedgewood (2017) defines it as the way of thinking “properly” or “well” – to put it bluntly,
to think as one “should” think. Philosophers further assumed that the central notion of rationality
is a “normative and/or an evaluative concept,” where it is, in a sense, good thinking and the
opposite of the “bad” irritational way of thinking.

So going back to Aristotle’s statement “some human beings are more capable of rational
thought than others,” can be hypothetical in nature. Though his argument is purposeful and valid,
discussion can still be derived from such. As what Aristotle claims in the said statement, the
incapable are deemed “natural slaves” in the essence of:

“Such a person would be a natural slave, Aristotle claims, meaning that they would
inherently lack the capacity to rationally direct their own lives. Such people would need to be
directed by those who can rationally deliberate. Since this authority should be distributed to those
most able to exercise it correctly, Aristotle argues that owning such people would be just. And
since someone without the capacity for rational forethought would choose badly if left to their own
devices, slavery is even beneficial for them, Aristotle argues.”

In summary for Aristotle’s arguments: (1) slavery is just and beneficial for the slave and
owner if the enslaved is “naturally less deliberate”; (2) Some human beings naturally lack the
capacity to deliberate; (3) enslavement then becomes beneficial to those unfortunate of rational
thinking; (4) enslaved human beings lack the capacity to deliberate; (5) therefore, slavery is just.

When we evaluate his argument, despite being an honorable Philosopher, his premises are
questionable. First, the term beneficial alone, turns a blind eye to the century-old abusive and
discriminative nature of slavery. Second, those who lack the capacity to deliberate might be true
in some cases – such as those who are in a comatose state, brain damage, or illnesses, but surely
these aren’t the people Aristotle had in mind. Third, Aristotle seems to believe that the lack of
capacity of the slaves to deliberate is inherent. Although it was rather caused by the absence of
education and forced for lifetime labor, this is rather not the innate nature of the slaves but the
result of slavery itself.

So the statement, “the more capable of rational thought should control those who are less
capable,” is always open for debate. Aristotle’s claims might be used throughout history but it can
always be changed in accordance to moral and ethical standpoints. As what Richetti and Tregoe
(2001) emphasized in their book entitled “analytic processes”, rational thinking has a process of
its own. As our experiences, opinions, surrounding people, facts, and data come first – rational
thinking then comes second. Then produces sound conclusions to derive to our desired output – or
“way of thinking”. With the given process of rationality, we can then say the factors in the first
step, differ from person to person – cultural differences alone varies among us.

And despite the differences, we human beings share one thing - we tend to seek our true
essence as humans. Whether or not we are “rational animals, speaking and laughing animals”.
These actually do serve as the best distinguisher from all other species. So yes, I do believe that
we are, in a sense, “rational animals”. Despite rationality accused of being the original source of
human difference but, we see such rationality in different animals as well – not just our species
but in all, living and breathing species as well. (This is proven by Chrysippus, The Stoic
experiment on the dog and his hunt for its quarry).

So, can we ever measure our own or the rational thought of others, knowing that other
species have rationality as well? How can we ever decide who can control us and who cannot?
Although the answer can now be seen within our scope – especially in our era, democratic
governments can be considered a reasonable way in deciding the rulers of a country. We can
simply conclude that by mere speculation and “social status” (as based on historic times of slavery
– ancient Greek society and antebellum American south) cannot be the determinant of who is
“more capable of rational thinking and who is less.”

Slavery in the end is still, a broad and complex topic. But, slavery in the context of
Aristotle’s arguments can be narrowed down to being a one-sided, uncultured way of defending
such topic. Those on his side, are the privileged members of societies of the past – or even the
present – that were reluctant to comprehend the injustices of slavery. His defense for slavery
clearly shows that even the most accomplished philosopher, can give in to the likelihood to
uncritically accept and embrace the practices of one’s own society. Maybe, this exists in us as well.

References:

Rational Thinking as a Process. (2021). Ascd.org.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/101017/chapters/Rational-Thinking-as-a-
Process.aspx

What is the value of rationality, and why does it matter? | OUPblog. (2017, December 16).
OUPblog. https://blog.oup.com/2017/12/what-value-rationality-
philosophy/#:~:text=In%20the%20past%2C%20most%20philosophers,while%20irrational
%20thinking%20is%20bad.

Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2008). The Development of Rational Thought: A
Taxonomy of Heuristics and Biases. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 251–
285. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2407(08)00006-2

Smith, N. D. (1983). Aristotle’s Theory of Natural Slavery. Phoenix, 37(2), 109–122. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1087451
INTELECOM. (2018). Humans As Rational Animals [YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teDSk3wdjT8

Fritsche, J. (2019). Aristotle’s Biological Justification of Slavery in Politics I. Rhizomata, 7(1),

63–96. https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2019-0003

Question 12:

Plato and Descartes are both dualists, but how do their dualisms coincide with and differ
from each other? In other words, identify similarities and differences between Plato's dualism
and Descartes' dualism. Afterwards, answer the following question: Between the two dualisms,
which do you agree more with? Explain why.

Answer:

Plato and Descartes

In a philosophical lens, the mind and body are two distinct entities – with one independent
without the other has caused conversations and debate for years. Rene Descartes and Plato, both
renowned philosophers and dualists, arguments are in the contrary. The common ground between
them lies on the connectedness and the independence of the mind and soul. As Descartes revolves
around the mind-body argument, Plato otherwise gears towards the soul-body argument. These
arguments differ in nature but do have underlying similarities we can point out.

Both philosophers seem to believe that our bodies consist of something incorporeal – hence
the ‘mind’ and ‘soul’. And such incorporeal thing, for the time being, chooses to unite with a body
within the physical world. Furthermore, they believe that the mind and soul will survive the demise
of the body – making an immortal lifespan for both entities. The basic premise now, is that they
believe that there are two orders of reality.

The difference between their beliefs however, lies on what animates the body. Plato accepts
while Descartes rejects the assumption that the soul and intellect is identical with what animates
the human body. Simply, Plato argues that the soul is held responsible for a person’s mental and
psychological activities and responses, makes it then, the animator of all living things. But
Descartes opposes. Plato speaks for the soul (psyche) but not so Descartes. Descartes believes in
a mind whose business is to think and imagine only – not to animate any corporeal entity. Plato
also seems to argue that the soul is the source of absolute truth and knowledge but Descartes’ mind
is prone to error.

With the way Descartes offered a sense of imperfection towards the mind, made me agree
more with him. The mind, although he argued to be immortal, he believes that the “body” is what
gives life to the mind – rather not what Plato’s soul, giving life to the body. Moreover, Descartes
argues that the mind’s errors are not to be treated as sins and offences against morality. This is
because he identifies himself with the mind. He neither the mind can exist without the other. As it
is possible that the mind’s existence or its essential activity of thinking depends on the body in
some way. With Descartes more realistic and humane arguments, it leads me towards his path and
rather not towards Plato’s.

References:

Plato & Descartes. (2021). Newdualism.org.

Compare And Contrast Descartes And Plato - 701 Words | Bartleby. (2012). Bartleby.com.
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Compare-And-Contrast-Descartes-And-Plato-
PZ85FJ2FBWR

Broadie, S. (2001, June). Soul and Body in Plato and Descartes. ResearchGate; Wiley.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227883102_Soul_and_Body_in_Plato_and_Desc
artes

Question 13:

The following questions are addressed in relation to the coming-out of Canadian actor
Elliot Page (formerly known as Ellen Page) as transgender. How important are name and gender
to someone's personal identity? When someone changes their name and/or gender, do they take on
an entirely new personal identity or does their personal identity remain the same as the one before
they underwent the change? If the former, does that mean that they can be freed from being held
accountable for all the things that they have done in the past? With regard to the promises that they
have made and the contracts that they have signed while they were still carrying their old name
and/or gender, what will they already mean? Will they be rendered void? And if changing one's
personal identity is as simple as changing one's name and/or gender, is that not too convenient of
a way for one to take advantage of it and tailor it to one's selfish desires? Should such a process of
change, then, be regulated by law? If the latter, then how can the sameness of the person be
reconciled with the difference of their new name and/or gender? Should there be a mechanism in
which, when it comes to certain aspects in life, that person should approach them not as their new
self but as their old self, and vice versa? Would this not be too much of a hassle though?

By referring to John Locke's intrinsic relations view and David Hume's bundle theory of
self, what are your thoughts on the aforementioned questions?

Answer:

Elliot Page

Elliot Page knew that he was a boy since he was young. In a Time magazine article
about him, following his Instagram post revealing his new gender identity, he talked about how
amazing it was to cut his hair short when he was younger. However, being cast into different
female roles made him grow his hair longer and bring out a more female persona to suit the wants
of industry executives and the general public. Yet, now, he has shed his persona before and
revealed to us his true self.
 His new identity.

John Locke’s take on identity is very different from Aristotle’s. He was the first
philosopher to think outside the idea of the soul as an identifier. Instead, he said that people become
who they are by matter of memory. Who the person remembers they are, that is who they are.
However, his arguments have faults in them as you could suggest one doesn’t know themselves
when they are asleep or drunk. This led to David Hume’s theory that what if we don’t actually
have something to describe as a “self.” That, since we are influenced by so many perceptions, these
can’t account to an actual self, but they do make up our identity.

Elliot Page is an example of how important name and gender is to the personality. He works
in an industry that tries to restrict who he is. If we follow Locke’s theory, we can see that, ever
since Page was young, he knew he was a boy. Thus, it would make sense that he change his
pronouns and sex later on in life. In the industry he was put in, they referred to him as otherwise.
Thus, it was important for not only his lifestyle and identity to change his identity, but for his
career as well, so the industry may know him as he is.

I think that a part of them does have a new personal identity, specifically the outside
perception. However, this is only one part. If we follow Locke’s theory and Page’s example, then
we definitely get to see that who they are was within them all along. The way they reveal
themselves to others may be different, but ultimately, they have been who they have always been.

This then would mean that there is no need for a reconciliation between the difference of
their new name and/or gender because the person has identified to be this way their whole life.
Take Page for example he knew for so long that he was a boy. Thus, when he changed his name
and gender, other people were shocked, but he knew all along. The reconciliation would have to
come from the people, but, in terms of personal identity, the actual person doesn't.

I think that other people need to approach Page in this new light that he’s showcasing. As
mentioned before, he doesn’t need to approach himself any differently because he knew who he
was from the start. It is the people around him that should change to fit his “new” identity. If they
think that this is a hassle, then maybe they aren’t the right people to surround Page. It shouldn’t be
a hassle to let someone live their life fully.

References:

Elliot page is ready for this moment. (n.d.). Time. Retrieved April 26, 2021, from
https://time.com/5947032/elliot-page/

Hume, david | internet encyclopedia of philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2021, from
https://iep.utm.edu/hume/

Nimbalkar, N. (2011). John locke on personal identity. Mens Sana Monographs, 9(1), 268–
275. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1229.77443

-END-