Philosophical Works 2015

By Gregory Coffin

The following is a collection of works that I have written that address a wide range of topics, including politics, economics, and morality; though in 2015 there was more of an emphasis on politics, religion/faith and abortion. I've placed the works in chronological order, but have included a Table of Contents with categories and links to make it easier to find specific topics of interest.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Gregory Coffin
• Release date: Jan 17, 2016

Gregory Coffin

Morality first; pragmatism second.I have earned PhD in Psychology (cognitive and evolutionary focus), and a Masters of Science in Forensic Psychology.Contributor in Volume 1, 2013 of The Voluntary Voice.My 4 fiction books (Sterling Honor, The Gospel of Reason, A Social Carol, and The Justified Trilogy) are available as audiobooks at Audible.com, and in print at Amazon.com.

Book preview

Philosophical Works 2015

by Gregory Coffin

Other titles include:

Sterling Honor

The Gospel of Reason

A Social Carol

The Justified Trilogy

Philosophical Works 2010-2014

The following is a collection of works that I have written that address a wide range of topics, including politics, economics, and morality; though in 2015 there was more of an emphasis on politics, religion/faith and abortion. I've placed the works in chronological order, but have included a Table of Contents with categories and links to make it easier to find specific topics of interest.

The links provided with bring you to different websites where updates on my work can be seen.

Main: www.GDX1776.com

Blog: http://gdx1776.blogspot.com/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/GregoryCoffinauthor

Twitter: @GDX1776

Table of Contents

Politics and Economics

Chris Kyle: A War Hero Who Did Not Fight For Our Freedom - A Brief Review

Killing Democracy... Or How I Learned To Stop Falling For Statism And Love Liberty

Common Good, Common Need and a Common Cost [healthcare costs, a brief review]

Sometimes, Violence is the Answer and a Weapon may be the Punctuation

Dear Members of Law Enforcement, Your Good Intentions are Irrelevant…

Dear Members of the Military, Your Good Intentions are Irrelevant…

Psychology and Philosophy

How Do We Know What We Know

In Defense of Offensive Speech: Maybe Your Mother is a Bitch, or your God is Evil

The Structure of Your Mind

Religion and Science

A Rhetorical Evaluation of the Concept of Life

What is important is not what your Holy Book actually says, as what it says to you in how to act

The Bible didn’t change; you’re breaking Biblical Law

If abortion is actually killing children... or is it?

How Do We Know What We Know

[Originally posted January 14, 2015]

[Hu]mankind is not the rational animal; he is the potentially rational animal. He can be every bit as reactionary and mindless as any other animal; however, man has the capability to reason which takes more effort, or can just react which is easier. Whether through reason or some non-reasoning method, we can claim knowledge, rightly or wrongly.

The way by which we gain knowledge comes in one of three different ways: by revelation; by experience; by authority. These each have their respective place in the accumulation of knowledge, but that does not mean they have equal value. They differ in where the origination of knowledge comes and from where it is understood.

Revelation is the formulation of an idea without empirical input; it is generally sudden and taken as divinely inspired. or a 'gut feeling'. Most often, this is embraced through the emotional experience that one 'felt' the presence of God, and therefore how correct is the knowledge. There is a second kind of revelation that is not actually revelation, though it gets attributed the same - that type will be addressed later.

Experience is based in empiricism, and expanded to concept formation through processing and contemplation (i.e. reasoning), that can again be affected by empirical findings. Things are expected to be and act in accordance to how our experience of them says they should be, with the expectation that things of a similar nature will act in a similar way unless there are other factors to understand before a different expectation can be expected: e.g. we know that water will freeze at a certain temperature and know that all liquids will also freeze, unless there is something else to change the results, such as a sufficient amount of alcohol to prevent freezing of the liquid.

Authority is the taking of knowledge as granted by another, because they said so. A minimum degree of ethos is granted to whomever, and from that we take their word that what they say is true because their ethos grants them that status. For example, if the question was regarding the nature of volcanoes, a vulcanologist would be best, though because of the nature of scientific inquiry and the related aspects of the fields, a geologist's advice would (should) be more valuable than the advice of one whose specialty is in medieval literature. It is expected that whoever is talking, knows their field well enough to be able to speak from and about it.

Revelation is by itself in that it can be wholly subjective. There does not need to be any reference to empirical validation in any way as the verification of the knowledge through revelation is the emotional sensation that accompanies it. Experience necessarily is objectively based as it is empirical, for one experienced a thing or event and takes the learned information through sensory organs to store for processing and later retrieval. Though the interpretation may have subjective elements, it is based upon an objective event in order to be interpreted. Authority is the deferment of either revelation or experience, granting the knowledge to a third party as a valid source to speak on behalf of actually having the revelation or the experience.

Most of the knowledge we have is based upon authority. Believe that the Koran or Bible is the word of God?-that is based upon authority. If one believes they actually existed according to their respective texts, no one is alive today who spoke to Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, or witnessed any of the acts or 'miracles' they are purported to have done (one reading this definitely did not see them), so authority is granted to those who told the believer: that would be the messengers of today, and the long line of authors who transcribed and 'spread the word' ultimately to the authors themselves. Each has to be granted authority to believe what is read is actually real. Believe in the theory of evolution?-unless you are a scientist working on the theory, your belief in evolution is based upon authority. If you did not conduct the experiments, you grant authority to those who did perform the experiments; authority would still be granted to others in one's field of study. But whether this is from another’s revelation or experience, as a deferment the issue remains that the one who originated that which is taken as knowledge either did so based upon their subjectively or objectively-based perception of reality.

This brings up the crucial distinction between revelation and experience, whether one’s own or deferred through authority: it is the difference between that which is verifiable and that which isn’t. Experience is that which any may have and come up with similar results – the more similar the variables, the more similar the results. For example, if different people take a certain amount of water with the same composition and apply the same heat to it in the same environment, it will turn to vapor in nearly the exact same manner; however, if some variable changes through different attempts, such as the environment in elevation then there will be a change in the results by some degree. The more variables that are introduced, the greater the variability in results, such as different chemical makeup, heat source and the like. Anybody can take the same events and variables and come to the same conclusions. The issue in life is finding the appropriate variables, and reading them properly.

Revelation is not tied to experience of the world, but of a feeling of something inside oneself. There is no way to confirm it, for it is wholly subjective; there is nothing that anyone else can do to verify one’s revelation, for by the nature of revelation it is granting authority to one who said they had it. There is no way to externally verify it. Revelation is actually a claim to come to knowledge from an outside source, but without experience of any means of accumulating or transmitting said knowledge; it is to be a direct inspiration from God or another divine source directly into one’s mind/soul. How can an individual attest to that the revelation was correct?-he ‘feels’ it, but how does he know that feeling is correct? There is nothing outside of that feeling. If they point to an external source, then it is experience and subject to interpretation.

This brings us to our last point: regardless of whether it is through revelation, experience or authority, each method of accumulating and processing knowledge is done through our mental makeup from our biology, evolution, society, education and more: the base from which we make our understanding of what we take as knowledge. For experience, it is the reason why we know nature is not playing tricks upon us when we see a bent stick when it is partially submerged in water; for revelation, it is the reason why remote and primitive tribes who never heard of Christianity or Islam don’t attribute their revelations to Jesus, Muhammad or other Abahamic figures, but to their own interpretations of divinity – the reverse is true with why Christians and Muslims don’t attribute their revelations to the deities of those remote and primitive tribesmen.

Each level has its potential for contributing to knowledge in its own way: experience is limited to what we have done ourselves; authority is letting the expertise that another has earned contribute to our knowledge; revelation, on the other hand, is valid in