Answer

Philosophy

Activity 1: “Timothy Leary & Ram Dass,”

Why did Ram Dass find more appeal in the Yogic path, rather than in LSD?

Ram Dass found the Yogic path more appealing than LSD because it gave him a sense of purpose and continuity of awareness beyond the brain. His desire to discover the means of how to integrate and retain the expanded state of consciousness made the Yogi path more fulfilling because through it he was able to discover who he was (a spirit) and understand what happens to individuals once they die (Quesada, 2018). In other words, the Yogi path answered most of his life questions including the existence of God, life after death, and his main mission on earth (Quesada, 2018). On the other hand, the effects of LSD were only temporary and equated everything to material things.

What did you find most compelling, or interesting about these two icons of the 60’s Cultural Revolution? 

The most compelling aspect about Timothy Leary and Ram Dass is their beliefs/ worldview. For instance, Leary believes that there is a neurological and anatomical explanation behind everything including the altered states of consciousness (Quesada, 2018). He is also convinced that the soul hangs around the brain and that the Gurus were using the heart as a bad metaphor in making people believe that it houses the soul (Quesada, 2018). In contrast, Ram Dass views the world from a spiritual perspective and emphasizes that the soul is in a subtle form and situated at the lower right hand corner (the heart). In this regard, both philosophers began their journey together in their search for an identity and purpose and Ram Dass ended up choosing the spiritual path that was aimed at union with God through love, whereas, Leary remained a philosophical materialist. 

Activity 2: Movie Review: Cowspiracy

The sustainability Secret, is a 2014 environmental documentary that uncovers the negative impact of animal agriculture on the environment and provides a global sustainability path for a growing population. The film is directed by Kip Anderson who investigates a number of environmental organizations including the Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, Surfrider Foundation, and Sierra Club to evaluate their role, policies, and involvement in addressing the issue. In this regard, the documentary portrays and discusses why animal agriculture is among the leading causes of greenhouse gas emission, deforestation, water consumption and pollution, among other effects. Below is a review of the film.

The documentary begins by explaining why animal agriculture is one of the most destructive industry in the planet. According to the film, animal agriculture uses about 55 percent of water in America which is higher than the amount consumed in most households (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). For instance, it takes about 2500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and 1000 gallons for one gallon of milk (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). In this case, given the growing shortages of water that is being experienced in the country, animal agriculture is going to be unsustainable in the long run. The documentary also depicts how animal agriculture is responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emission in the U.S. In other words, animal agriculture is estimated to emit approximately 18 percent of greenhouse gases which is extremely high compared to other industries such as transportation which produces about 13 percent including land, water, and air transportation (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). As a result, the government and other relevant stakeholders need to come up with an effective intervention to address the problem in question.

The documentary blames the growing demand for animal products on the negative effects of animal agriculture, particularly, on the environment. It links the industry to climate change and deforestation. For example, the rising demand for animal farmland is attributed to be the primary cause of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). As a result, it is estimated that in 20 years’ time, 40 percent of the rainforest would have been destroyed to clear room for more animal farmland if no action is taken to resolve the problem (Vignieri, 2015). In this regard, the rapid destruction of the rainforest is more likely to enhance the negative effects of climate change leading to unpredictable weather conditions, increased droughts, wildfires, and storms, among other implications (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). Furthermore, it will affect the species living in the forest which may impact negatively on the tourism sector in the long run.

The documentary concludes by providing a few recommendations that could mitigate the effects of animal agriculture. It discusses how consuming more animal products such as meat, milk, beef, and eggs is more likely to worsen the current situation. In this regard, the film proposes that changing what we eat and being conscious about our environment could curb the effects of animal agriculture (Vignieri, 2015). In other words, eating more vegetables and a plant-based diet will minimize the production of animal products thus minimizing the effects of animal agriculture. In this case, the solution to the current problem lies with the people and not the government. However, the government and other relevant stakeholders can intervene to help the community understand the impact of animal agriculture on the environment and come up with effective policies and interventions to resolve the problem.

Activity 3: Rationality is a Myth

Rationality is an aspect that plays a primary role when solving problems or making important decisions. It refers to the ability to think reasonably/logically (Sen, 2014). According to the article by Dionne Lew, (2016) pure rationality is a myth for a number of reasons. First, the writer argues that it is not possible to be fully rational because people are often influenced by various factors including their environment, cognitive biases, as well as, the fact that all information exist in some context. Secondly, she states that every individual is irrational to some extent and knowing about it cannot prevent irrationality. Lastly, the article claims that rationality is neither bad nor good, neither is irrationality. In this case, based on the reasons highlighted in the article, I agree that pure irrationality is a myth.

I support the philosophy that pure rationality is a myth for various reasons. For instance, I believe that people’s thoughts and ideas are often influenced by their surrounding as highlighted in the article. In this regard, studies have pointed out that individuals are more likely to resolve issues or make decisions based on their beliefs, cultural practices, and literacy level which are all influenced by their social environment (Sen, 2014). Similarly, the concept of rationality may vary from one person to another. In other words, what one person considers to be rational may be viewed differently by another person depending on their cognitive biases. Lastly, I agree that being irrational is not good or bad as long as it produces the desired results and does not affect individuals negatively.