1.4: The Origins of Philosophy - The Greeks and Us
- Page ID
At the time of Socrates (472-399 BC) many Greeks were no longer believers in the stories of the gods and goddesses. Those stories had provided them with guidance for their lives. They had believed that they could not go against the decrees of the deities and that they should follow the examples of the gods and goddesses which they knew of through the stories they all heard and memorized and repeated. They accepted ideas such a fate and destiny. Now they were hearing the stories being challenged and some declared their disbelief. The playwrights were raising questions on the stages. Some thought they could choose from among the tales those stories that supported whatever courses of conduct they choose. They believed that they could show that some god or other approved of the conduct because the god had done something similar. There were many who believed that morality was individual and relative.
Greek culture was undergoing a major revolution during this time. They were transforming from an oral culture to a literate culture. They were acquiring paper and so they could write down the stories and the plays and important ideas. They no longer needed to memorize what they heard and repeat it as exactly as possible in order to transmit ideas. Plato could write down ideas and examine them. He could write questions and reasoned arguments for readers to reflect upon.
Today, there are many people who no longer effectively believe in the stories of the one God. There are many who are convinced that there are no universal moral codes and people need to determine their own morality. Further, the world is being transformed from a literate culture to an electronic culture. We are at the beginning of a period in which we are attempting to develop a morality for the new age.
Many no longer accept the idea of universal truth. We shall be examining how we arrived at this point starting back with the Greeks at the time of Socrates. What Philosophy became then and offered to people, is still true today and could offer to all of us if we were to pursue the philosophical approach to handling the issues and key questions. All of the key issues in Philosophy were quite apparent in the works of Plato and Aristotle. We shall take a rather brief look at the Greeks in order to understand how Philosophy arises within a culture and at the key issues. We shall also make comparisons to the present time in order to appreciate the relevance of all of this for each of us today.
This text shall make use of a theory about education that pushes the belief that learning moves through stages. These stages are:
It starts with
- a story, and
- a problem.
There is not much critical thinking at all. In the second stage there is a great deal of critical thinking focusing on the problem and paying attention to
- coherency, and
In the last stage there is a return to the flights of imagination again as the mind applies what is developed in the second stage and then apply it further.
There will be a good deal of storytelling in the next chapter. You may find it very interesting and even a bit entertaining. In the remaining chapters the thinking will become more focused, intense, and demanding.
Belief Systems, Post Modernism, and Uncritical Thinking
As people grow and mature and learn they acquire beliefs and an entire belief system. They do so through receiving and accepting as true stories about how things are in this world and in a realm beyond this one and through the beliefs implicit in ordinary language and its usages. Thus are acquired assumptions and presuppositions for the thought processes entered into through life. In the beginning those acquiring such beliefs want to be accepted and even valued by the various groups of which they are or desire to be members, so there is an emphasis on acceptance of the beliefs shared by members of those groups and not on review or criticism of them. There is little, if any, reflective thought or critical thinking taking place. Little is needed if the majority of group members are operating with the beliefs without questioning of them.
Once acquired the belief systems function as a basis for the acquisition of additional beliefs. As another idea is presented it is placed within the context of the previously acquired beliefs and if the new candidate for inclusion is consistent with or coherent with the prior beliefs and ideas it is accepted as also being true. This is the Coherentist Theory of Truth. The problem with that approach to truth is that there needs to be some other method for the establishment of the fundamental beliefs or else the entire structure of beliefs while internally coherent might not be supported by any evidence external to the beliefs themselves.
As belief systems expand they can reach a point where beliefs and ideas have been accepted too hastily and when a culture or individual reach a point where reflective thought can be afforded inconsistencies and perhaps even outright contradictions may appear upon reflection. Upon the first realization of problems, the belief systems will not be abandoned altogether and will not even be thrown into serious doubt. Rather there will be attempts to preserve the belief system through the introduction of qualifiers and alternate interpretations designed to account for what are to be termed “apparent” discrepancies. This process will continue until the introduction of the qualifiers and alternative interpretations reaches a point where they generate the need for even further such qualifiers and the process then becomes so burdensome that the fundamental beliefs and ideas may then come under the most careful scrutiny and there is an acceptance of a need for an alternate set of beliefs that are more internally coherent and satisfying to demands of reason and the desire for external grounding.
This occurred in the time of Socrates when the many stories about the gods and goddesses were seen through the eyes of critical reasoning to be inconsistent and incoherent. For Socrates a basis for the grounding of morality and the social order was needed other than that provided by the stories of the Greek deities. In addition to sharing this realization with Socrates, Plato saw that the ideas and theories of the Pre-Socratics were inconsistent and there was needed an alternate view of what made anything real and how one could know anything.
Now for Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle the idea of the Greek deities came to make little sense in the light of reason and so the idea of a more abstract entity emerges with them as more satisfying as an explanation of origins and order. Their ideas satisfy the dictates of reason for which they abandoned the blind adherence to the stories of their ancestors. These are developments that mark the origins of philosophical thought in the West.
With other western religious belief systems there were also prompts to the development of a critical thought tradition. The early Hebrew Deity is one that has apparent weaknesses and is not at all perfect in every way. It is jealous and vindictive and unjust. For the Christians the idea of the Hebrew Deity was not going to be acceptable to those who had come under the influence of the Greek manner of thought. The Christians take the idea of the all perfect being, the source of all that is true, good and beautiful, from the Greeks and layer it over the idea of the single deity of the Hebrews. The ideas about the qualities of the early Hebrew god when combined ideas about the Greek ideal deity have made for many problems. The Western traditions treat the Scriptures as being in some sense divinely inspired or authored and thus, for many in those traditions who are conservative and literalists, they carry the ideas of the early Hebrew deity along with them leading to complications as there arises the need to explain how an all good deity and an all merciful deity can be so cruel and vindictive as in some of the stories in the early books or chapters of the scriptures. The Problem of Evil arises as an attempt to give an account that makes sense as to how an all perfect being could exist at the same time that there exists moral evil. Troubles with a simple belief prompt critical reflection and the desire to use reason to support the belief system. Consideration of the troublesome issues led to Augustine and Aquinas moving beyond the traditions of faith and into philosophical thought and a reliance on reason to interpret and defend key beliefs in the Christian tradition.
In recent times people acquire beliefs and ideas that are originating from several different belief systems and periods: the classical, modern, and postmodern. Unfortunately, most start out by an unconscious acceptance that has them holding beliefs without question despite the many inconsistencies and incoherent features of the resultant collection. They accept the ideas as true as they originate from authorities and as they are shared in by peers. They accept out of a desire to be accepted and to please. The general postmodern culture promotes uncritical thought patterns and so there are no prompts for reflective or critical thought.
Among the contradictory beliefs are the ideas that are held simultaneously of relativism and absolutism, empiricism and idealism, free will and determinism, materialism and a dualism. Among the many odd combinations of beliefs are:
- A single deity must exist and everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they wish concerning the deity and it will be true.
- Reality consists of physical and spiritual entities and reality is whatever any group agrees that it is.
- There are moral wrong or evil acts and whatever people think is morally correct is morally correct for them.
- There are evil acts and there is no one way to declare anything to be evil.
- We must make moral judgments for our safety and survival and that no one should make moral judgments about other people and their behaviors.
- There are true and false claims and truth is not objective.
- There is knowledge and there is no absolute or objective or certain knowledge.
- Science is to be valued and trusted and folklore, mythology, and spiritualism are equally acceptable sources of knowledge.
- Human behavior is the result of causal factors and humans are totally free to decide for themselves what they will do.
Philosophy emerges within a culture when the belief systems no longer answer all the important questions and there are realized to be problems with the accepted set of beliefs. One of the many problems with the post-modern belief set is that there are no contradictions or difficulties with belief sets that need to be addressed because contradictions and inconsistencies are acceptable as there are no objective criteria for thought to satisfy and so there is no need for the formal school system to be developing critical thinking concerning them. Instead there is an exaggerated and harmful accenting of the value of tolerance of all beliefs and beliefs systems. Opinions are not to be distinguished from proven claims, there being no objective knowledge, and every claim is merely opinion. The inherited beliefs and beliefs systems are not examined within the formal educational system as it is infused throughout with postmodern relativism. Many of the teachers are themselves possessed of the incoherent belief systems.
So, many students arrive in high schools and colleges with poor habits of mind and beset with beliefs that are incoherent and contradictory. Further, they are possessed of beliefs that make the development of their critical thinking skills very difficult. They believe that all claims are opinions and that there is no reason for them to examine ideas and beliefs that they hold as they are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they choose to hold and they choose to remain within their social sets and to do so they believe that they need to continue to hold the belief systems that are popular with those groupings and in some cases define those groups.
Mental habits and belief systems are not easily disturbed or called into serious question when they perform useful functions for the believer and do so in a powerful manner. If a belief system offers hope and consolation in the face of death of a loved one or anticipated death of one’s own self then there is a very strong impulse to retain those beliefs for fear of the intellectual chaos that is feared would result by the rejection of the familiar belief system. Further, there is the fear that in accepting another belief system one is disloyal to those groups to which one belongs that hold that belief set in common. Perhaps most influential in the decision to retain the beliefs that comfort one is the desire to have a soul that survives the death of the physical body and to have an eternal life in unimaginable pleasure which are thought to be lost if the belief system is rejected for another in which such desires are not guaranteed to be fulfilled.
The ability to have control over one’s beliefs may also be so valued that many would exercise the choice to maintain the old comforting beliefs as a display of that ability thus maintaining the illusion of control rather than to view the choice of examination and possible revision or rejection of the belief system as another experience offering evidence of the ability to control some aspect of one’s life. It is far simpler and economical to conserve beliefs than to consider revisions thereof. Accepting and continuing beliefs that one is presented with is far less taxing in effort than the careful and critical examination of belief systems and the evaluation and decision making involved in the development and maintenance of a belief systems that is coherent and supported by evidence.
People want to hold whatever beliefs that they choose to hold and give no account for them other than to assert their right to hold whatever beliefs they choose and to insist that they must be tolerated in doing so by all others. One of the accepted beliefs is that of tolerance as a value of the highest social importance. Tolerance is a value expounded upon in a postmodern culture as supportive of the relativism that is an essential component of the postmodern epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Tolerance is not to be questioned as a value as it is promoted as a cornerstone to a desirable social arrangement.
Yet tolerance itself is a disvalue as post modernists would have promoted it. Tolerance is not respect. To be tolerant is to put up with something. It does not include accepting it or considering it as valuable or worthy. Tolerance of people and beliefs is promoted but it is misguided and harmful whenever to be tolerant of behaviors and ideas would hurt individuals and groups in physical and emotional ways. Those who advocate tolerance cannot possibly be sincere I doing so. This is so because they do not advocate being tolerant of:
- Child molesters
- Intolerant Groups and Individuals
They cannot be tolerant of such people and expect their promotion of tolerance to be accepted by others.
Postmodern pluralists continue to promote tolerance as if it were unqualified for they do not and expect no one else will subject their promotion to critical examination for such an examination would not be popular or “politically correct”. They continue to promote tolerance as if it were unqualified for they do not hold careful and critical thought as being valuable as they believe that such thought challenges relativism. They also mistakenly believe that critical thinking is somehow intolerant of individuals, groups and behaviors and beliefs they wish to have accepted. The formal educational system promotes an uncritical tolerance and the belief in such and value of such.
Philosophy, Opinions and Right Answers
Most folks think very little about Philosophy. Of those who do many have some erroneous ideas about the discipline and its history. One of the most troublesome, for Philosophers, is the mistaken idea is that it is about opinions. This idea when followed by the ideas that opinions are all humans have with which to think and all opinions are pretty much of equal value, these two ideas run directly opposed to what philosophers are attempting to do. Philosophers quest after wisdom, which for John Dewey is the quest to use what we know to gain what we most value. Philosophers do this by using critical thinking concerning all that humans claim to know and to value. This quickly becomes a quite involved process, examining the meaning of the word "knowledge" and other ideas such as; reality, truth, certainty, and value, among many other basic terms. Philosophers take positions on the questions, issues, and problems faced by the most critical of thinkers examining the most basic concerns that humans can entertain with thoughtful reflection.
Philosophers use critical thinking and reason and evidence to support the claims that they make and the positions that they hold. This is quite different than merely making a claim, a statement, which is supported by nothing and thus an expression of the speaker's opinion. Philosophers are willing to examine all claims and all positions with their supporting reasoning and evidence. They examine it looking for any flaws or problems. They want the most satisfactory and at times satisfying answers and solutions, to the questions and problems.
Philosophy: Looking for the Best Rafts
With Plato and his mentor Socrates we have a description of what Philosophy is about.Humans are on a journey. En route they face obstacles to overcome. Major questions, problems, and issues are like rivers that need to be crossed. Now along one side of the river there are these rafts. When you reach the river you may select any raft you want to use to get across the river. There are many different types. There are more than enough for everyone. They differ in color, shape, materials, method of construction and size. You want to select the best possible raft with which to cross the river. No raft is perfect. Each raft has a problem. Each raft takes on water. Some take on a lot and some very little. Some are put together in a very shoddy manner and some are very well constructed.
Some people select the raft to use based on its color. They like certain colors and have a favorite and that is all they care about. Others select their rafts based on size and they want the biggest one they can find. Each who selects has a reason and a method for the selection. What a reasonable sensible person should want is the best possible raft that will carry its occupants across the river safely.
Philosophy is a method of thinking used to make the best possible selection of the raft which is the answer to the most basic questions that humans have about life, knowledge, truth, goodness, beauty, etc... Philosophers hope to develop the best possible position and hope that it will do well when tested. Over the centuries those positions philosophers thought were the best have been revealed to have problems. New rafts were constructed and tested and found wanting again.
So, Philosophy is the quest for the best possible raft, knowing that it is highly probable that there is no perfect raft. As humans advance and progress and gather more experiences and develop more critical analysis and evaluation techniques philosophical positions are examined more closely and tested more thoroughly. Philosophy is a process. It is a method of thinking and as our knowledge grows so too will philosophy take all of it into consideration as the method attempts to produce the best possible answers to the most important questions.
Some folks look for the "correct” answer to a question or the "right" solution to a problem. Philosophers have learned that what they do is look for the best "possible" answers and solutions. So we shall look now at how Socrates developed a better method for finding the best answers and then we shall examine several important questions or issues and look at what philosophers have done with them over time. In all of this the focus should be on the method of thinking that aims to arrive at the best possible, if not perfect, answers, solutions and positions.
But perhaps some prefer the comforts of beliefs even of blind faith to the effort at reaching positions closer to the truth. For many this choice is a dilemma or choice has been story of Adam and Eve and again represented in the Matrix.
Dilemma: The Blue Pill or the Red Pill
In The Matrix Universe, an authorized member of a Zion crew offers a prospective human in the Matrix a choice of ingesting a red pill. Doing so activates a trace program that allows the crew to locate the human's body in the Matrix power plant. Once the person is found, commands are sent to the pod to awaken the person.
The prospective human offered the Red pills appear to have either seen "glitches" from the Matrix (e.g. a book continuously reappearing on a shelf, regardless of attempts to remove the book), or have such a nature and/or awareness as to question their life within the Matrix, and refuse to dismiss the strange events - basically those who have figured out the illusion of the Matrix.
According to the character Morpheus, exiting the Matrix can be traumatic, particularly to those who have lived in it for too long. As a rule, crews normally only offer the red pill to those no older than teenage. After that, the risk of denial and psychotic episodes from the reality of separation could increase. This rule was violated by Morpheus in rescuing Neo, who was approximately 30 years old.
The question is asking us whether reality, truth, knowledge are worth pursuing. The blue pill will leave us as we are, in a life consisting of simple belief and blind faith and unexamined habits with what we have been handed and memorize and hold as truth. The blue pill leaves us with the comfort of the many things we believe we will receive if we take part in the everyday world and do not examine much at all. We choose this pill if we believe that we do not need truth to live. The blue pill lets us keep our identities and our allegiances with family and friends undisturbed.
- On the MATRIX
- On being a blue pill slave
- Surveys indicate many people prefer the comfort of the world of the BLUE Pill Click here for a survey.
The Garden of Eden
The Blue Pill or the Red Pill question in the story of the Matrix echoes the old story from the Bible of the Western Religious traditions and the choice of the fruit from either the Tree of Knowledge or from the Tree of Belief in Everlasting Life in the Garden of Eden.
The “Tree of Knowledge” or the “Tree of Life” (see text below from Genesis).
In the middle of the Garden of Eden was the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Tree of knowledge was of knowledge desirable for gaining wisdom of all things and of good and evil. Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
The “Tree of Life” was the tree of “Belief” and the comfort of believing that one will live forever. Those who chose the “Tree of Knowledge” were expelled from Eden and barred from getting back to the fruit of belief in everlasting life by "a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.” Genesis, 3:21.
The purpose for offering this reference to Genesis is to raise the comparison of the choices being given: Knowledge and Belief. There is no intent here to suggest that Knowledge is morally incorrect or evil or sinful. The contrast is offered as between an approach to life based on faith motivated by a hope of some positive consequence or result such as everlasting life versus an approach to life guided by knowledge. Some may criticize either choice as being in some way incorrect or offering the lesser of a life. Some may even characterize one choice as being morally incorrect. Such criticism is avoided here as not relevant. The choices are presented here as relevant to what Philosophy is about.
Philosophy: The Blue Pill or the Red Pill?
The Red Pill is the path of philosophy and reasoning and critical thinking and science and testing. The Blue Pill is that of simple and uncritical belief and emotional decision making. Which shall it be? Education and the Liberal Arts and Sciences are about the Red Pill.
One of the core themes of The Matrix is the concept that if you want to transform your world, you must first identify how you have been programmed, decide whether the programming is accurate, then decide whether to reprogram yourself. Your ideas will be challenged in a Philosophy class and in many other classes. How will you respond to the challenge that education poses to your beliefs ... to your blue pill world?
You already should be aware that things are not always as they appear to be or as we are led to believe. Think of one such thing in your life. This should open up to the possibility that not all beliefs that we hold to be true are actually true and that it might be of some value to question beliefs and to examine them to determine which beliefs have more evidence and reason to support them and distinguish them from others with less support. Philosophy is a method for doing that examination concerning some of the most basic questions and issues human have ever confronted.
WARNING: The Dangers of the Blue Pill
Thinking that the Blue Pill is the way to go, it will provide you with comfort, security and stability and order will involve great costs to those that use that approach to life. It will imperil a society dominated by this type of uncritical thinking. It exposes those who use it to greater risks of infections and diseases as they will not use the latest scientific findings about the causes of illnesses and the spread of disease. It permits people to hold stereotypical and prejudicial notions of other peoples and to act on false claims. It supports racist and sexist ideas and practices and other forms of irrational discrimination and injustices based on uncritical beliefs. It subjects practitioners of the Blue Pill path to victimization by charlatans and hucksters and those that operate Ponzi schemes based on irrational hope. The Blue Pill path is attractive to those with concern for self over others and for the present over the long term but it too often proves to be quite the opposite of what was hoped for when choosing the Blue Pill.
Belief and Doubt
Belief and Doubt are opposing psychological states. They cannot exist with regard to the same idea at the same time. Philosophy rests on a Process of Inquiry using the dialectical method for thought. Inquiry is a process the mind can enter into to get from doubt to belief. For the method and the frame of mind of Philosophy whatever position is arrived at should be subject to continuing process of inquiry and examination. You cannot doubt your doubts. You can subject doubt to inquiry in order to resolve it one way or another and arrive at a belief. You can doubt or question a belief and subject it to critical examination. You cannot believe a doubt. You simply doubt.
So, Philosophy is about thinking about beliefs and settling on a belief using reasoning and evidence wherever possible. It is also about continuing the process of review of beliefs or positions taken using the continuing dialectical method in the midst of a community of inquirers that serve to reinforce the critical element in careful thinking...
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground,
6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-
7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.
11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.
12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [f] and onyx are also there.)
13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [g]
14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."
16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
1. If you were faced with the Red or Blue pill choice which would you take and why? Be specific.
2. When facing a difficult decision, as suggested by the footprints and arrows, what process do you use to make your choice? Be honest and describe how you work thru to a solution/choice.
3. Compare and contrast the Biblical account of the choice between Tree of Knowledge vs the Tree of Life and The Matrix red vs blue pill. Be specific and account for what differences were brought about by advances in civilization.
Vocabulary Quizlet 1.4