When we got to the place, I was quite shocked that it was just a building because the first temple I visited was very spacious and it has a garden, etc. However, when I entered the place and saw the various statues and artworks, the disappointment vanished. I was really amazed with what I saw. The place was beautiful. It was clean and it had a good ambiance. The statues were really huge, you will have a feeling that you are being watched and that you’re in a sacred place. Also, what made the visit memorable is that I learned a few things on Buddhism. While we were walking around, Dr. Leslie was making comments which were really helpful. She explained the artworks of the life of Buddha. I also learned about the endless cycles and karma. She said that you should gain a lot of good karma so that you will have a meaningful life.
Lastly, the thing which strikes me most is the notion of the state of the mind. She discussed how the Buddhist focused on this core concept instead of focusing on sin and other aspects. I found these ideas very interesting because they were different from what I am taught in Christianity. The new ideas gave me something to reflect on. I hope I would be given more opportunities to understand Buddhism more and be familiarized with it. Because I believe that Buddhism is a wonderful religion and it deserves our appreciation and respect. Inherent goodness
One of my favorite topics in this course is ethics. I enjoyed learning the various ethical approaches and its core concepts. It is also very interesting because until now, people are still debating on how to classify an act moral or immoral. As a foundation, I learned we only consider human acts which are done with knowledge and full consent of the will. If asked to choose between hedonism, stoicism and Epicureanism, I would choose Epicureanism because it is what is normal. For me, hedonism is too deviant and self-centered while stoicism is too good to be true. The one I chose is what’s right for an average person like me… not too much nor too little. But the real issue lies between being a consequentialist or deontologist. Do you believe in moral absolutes or do you prioritize the common good above all other things? The strength of consequentialism is that it seeks to reduce suffering and create a better world. On the other hand, the strength of deontology is that it is not willing to sacrifice certain goods for the sake of results and there is clarity between moral right and wrong. Honestly, sometimes I am a consequentialist and also a deontologist. But if really asked to choose between the two, I think I would choose consequentialism because it is more practical. You can’t expect everybody to stick to the rules. Deontology is just too ideal.
In relation to the “Kingdom of Heaven”, I agree with what the girl said to the protagonist. I also wished that he had done little evil for the greater good. If only he became a consequentialist even for a while, thousands of people loves could have been spared and peace could have been maintained. And on natural law ethics which for me is the best, I believe that man is inherently good. The goodness of the person cannot be taken away from him no matter what because it is one of his natural inclinations. 
In relation to “The Sandman”, it is very evident in episode 007 that man is indeed inherently good. It is in that scene when Dee thought he defeated Dream and started saying that he would not return to the real world because people hurt you and don’t care. He also said that he would be a wise king and ensure that there would be justice. As you can see, despite all the wicked things that Dee did, deep inside he still want the good. All of us are born inherently good and that makes us human.
After reading Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”, I was really bothered. Before, people used to warn me regarding those types of articles and I just smile and say “I have a strong faith in God”. But now, I begin to question my faith because I admit that Bertrand Russell does indeed have a point when he said those things. I’m in a stage in my life where I attend mass every Sunday, pray to God wholeheartedly (when I feel the urge to do so), and at the same time wondering if Christianity is teaching me the right things or if God really exists. But then again, I wonder whether I can call myself a hypocrite now or perhaps what I’m going through is just normal. Russell had a point when he refuted the First-cause argument. In fact, I kinda agree with what he said. Maybe he’s right in saying the ‘poverty of our imaginations’, we might not be capable of thinking more than that or we’re just tired that we settle with God as the beginning and end of everything. Regarding his refutation on the Natural-law argument, I don’t quite find his claims credible. He said that if we were subject to law, then God should also be subject to law. Well, he is God… how can you demand that he should also be subjected to laws? That’s why he’s God. But on the refutation to the Argument of Design, Russell was able to make me move over to his side. He was able to integrate Darwin’s findings which made his claims more convincing. But of all his refutations, I was really motivated to reflect on his topic on the ‘Defects in Christ’s Teaching’ and ‘The Moral Problem”. I’m not sure whether what Christ said regarding his second coming should be taken figuratively or literally. Well if it’s literal (which I think it is), then we have a problem. Well maybe, he did come back but no one was able to document it or no one even noticed. We don’t know the answer. Now to the moral problem, I don’t remember Christ saying those things but if ever he did, they’re very controversial for me. Perhaps he’s just trying to discipline the people but I guess that wasn’t the best way to do it. Should Socrates and Buddha be really above him in those respects? I don’t know. Too many questions. Too many doubts. What are the answers. Am I really a Christian?
I consider Soren Kierkegaard as one of the greatest philosophers of all time because of the novel ideas he has presented. In a time of conservatism, he was able to muster his courage and challenge the conventional ways of thinking.
I enjoyed learning Kierkegaard’s ideas on taking the leap of faith and his three modes. I don’t know what stage I’m always in but I think I’m between the aesthetic and ethical modes. I have always been trying to become a morally good person yet at the same time wanting to seek the worldly things in life such as material pleasure. I wonder whether that is possible. Nonetheless, there is one idea which I don’t quite get and that is the “knight of faith”. Defying the objective in order to fulfill the subjective (that clearly shows a deviant behavior for me). Yes, I admire Abraham for being able to survive that test of faith but what if it wasn’t a test of faith or anything related to that sort. I wonder how parricide can be considered subjectively ok. Perhaps, the deontologist side speaks up and clings on to the notion of moral absolutes. Right now, I’m trying to comprehend that notion of Kierkegaard.
On the other hand, I do love his critique on Christianity which he explained clearly on the story of the “Christian” and the “pagan”. I agree with his conclusion on that one. Personally, I too would admire the person worshipping the idol wholeheartedly. That story really made me reflect on my faith. I admit that sometimes I haven’t been acting like a true Christian for I have been praying for the sake of praying. I am guilty of that sin. I’m not sure why I do those things though. Perhaps I’m just preoccupied with a lot of things or perhaps I have grown tired of saying the same prayers over and over again. That, I don’t know.
