Archives For Christopher Hurtado

The Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

Iran feels threatened by neighboring countries on all sides. Furthermore, Iran is seeking to establish hegemony amongst its neighbors. Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is inevitable. However, this does not pose a threat since, as is true in all cases where nuclear weapons are concerned, Iran would only use its nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Furthermore, although Iran supports organizations labeled “terrorist” by the U.S. and Israel, Iran wouldn’t give any of these organizations a nuclear weapon to use.

Stock photo: GasMask - Photo courtesy of http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1388935, Image ID: 1388935

Photo courtesy of http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1388935

Nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East as a result of Iran’s inevitable acquisition of nuclear weapons is also likely unavoidable unless NATO can reassure Iran’s neighbors. However, this is unlikely since Israel and Pakistan already possess nuclear weapons and Turkey also intends to acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the U.S. recently demonstrated to the world that possessing nuclear weapons is valuable in bargaining by taking North Korea off its “terrorist” list as a result of its nuclear program.

Continue Reading…

Arab governments have, for the most part, claimed legitimacy based on Arab nationalism and persist despite being challenged by Islamicists. The oil-wealthy Arab states attempt to buy the loyalty of their people by providing them with goods and services, while precluding widespread political participation. Neither the poor nor the rich Arab countries have produced nation-states based on a broad base of political participation. As a result, the legitimacy of these governments will continue to be disputed throughout the state building process.

Aside from a large, organized and effective Islamicist opposition, many of these countries also face a potentially large, unstable, unorganized mass of discontented urban lower class. To further complicate matters, this group is apt to be mobilized by revivalist Islam or other radical organizations. The response of these governments to these real or potential threats has been attempts at appeasement through strategies such as food subsidies, and to divide and conquer the opposition, pitting one group against another.

Continue Reading…

El conflicto árabe-israelí proviene de reclamaciones judías y árabes de la tierra palestina y de un más amplio conflicto general entre los judíos y los árabes. Existen dos posibilidades para resolver este conflicto: la solución de un estado y la solución de dos estados. Yo estoy en favor de una solución de dos estados.

La solución de un sólo estado les da a los árabes y a los israelís derecho de igualdad ante la ley. El problema principal de esta solución es que el estado de Israel fue establecido a fin de ser un estado judío. Si cambia la naturaleza judía del estado, los judíos pronto serían [outnumbered] por los árabes, ya que estos tienen un grado más alto de fertilidad que los judíos.

Continue Reading…

What is most real, universals or particulars? Plato and Aristotle gave diametrically opposed answers to this basic ontological question and proceeded to build their entire philosophies on the epistemological foundation of their individual answers. As a result, the question has been debated for centuries, some siding with Plato, others with Aristotle, and others still attempting to syncretize the ideas of each. For Plato, universal Forms or ideas are most real. They are imperceptible to the senses, but all that the senses perceive are, according to Plato, a mere shadow of the Forms. Plato sees the universal Forms as ontologically prior to the individual particulars perceived by the senses. His pupil Aristotle, on the other hand, not only affirms that individual particulars are ontologically prior to universals, but that without the individual particulars, there would be no universals. For Aristotle, individual particulars are most real.

In the Categories, Aristotle asserts that substances are, “in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word” (2a11-13) individual particulars, such as this computer or that telephone (2a13). He asserts that only individual particulars are “neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject” (2a12-13). Aristotle explains what being “predicable of” or “present in” a subject means in chapter two of the Categories. Being predicable of a subject or not, is simply a distinction between abstract universals and concrete particulars. The particular man, Codell Carter, is not predicable of any subject, but the universal “man” is predicable of Codell Carter. My particular copy of A First Course in Logic is not predicable of any subject, but the universal term “book” is predicable of my particular copy of A First Course in Logic. In other words, universal terms are predicable of subjects, while particular terms are not. As for being or not being in a subject, this refers to the possibility of independent existence. Aristotle describes a subject as that which is “incapable of existence apart from the said subject” (1a22-23). Thus, that which is not in a subject is the subject itself. Since the “Arctic Silver” color of my BMW, for example, cannot exist separately from my BMW, said color is in a subject. But the BMW itself is not in any subject, since the BMW is the subject (3a10-16). Thus, Aristotle distinguishes between attributes (which are present in a subject) and entities (which are not present in a subject) (Hsieh).

Continue Reading…

In his masters thesis, entitled “A Comparison of Muhammad and Joseph Smith in the Prophetic Pattern,” Todd J. Harris (2007) discusses a number of similarities and differences between Muhammad and Joseph Smith. In my analysis of Harris’ thesis, I will focus on the similarities and differences between Muhammad and Joseph in terms of patterns of revelation and of the books of scripture each produced, namely the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants, respectively. Muhammad can be seen as a prophet in the typological sense. In other words, he fits the general pattern of individuals claiming divine inspiration. In keeping with the prophetic pattern, and in like manner to Joseph Smith, Muhammad was called of God through an experience of the divine, was charged with challenging the customs and practices of the people of his day, received revelation later recorded as scripture, was commanded to declare that which was revealed to him, and faced enormous odds. Muhammad also meets the definition of a prophet, based on its Arabic and Hebrew etymology, as one in the state of announcing the message that was given to him. Like Joseph, Muhammad can also be seen as a restorer in that he restored monotheism among his contemporaries. As a restoration prophet, Muhammad received continuing revelation on an as needed basis throughout his life, as did Joseph, to aid him in fulfilling his calling.

Although there are differences in the manner in which Muhammad and Joseph received revelation, the similarities are striking. Both prophets had an initial vision followed by a period of silence. During this period of silence, each of them questioned their standing before God. In both cases, the silence was broken by an angelic visit. Each prophet was tutored on an ongoing basis by the same angel who had made the aforementioned visit. As restoration prophets, both Muhammad and Joseph received instruction from their respective angelic tutors regarding the logistics of the restoration each carried out. In addition to the angelic visits they received, each prophet also received revelation indirectly. Sometimes Muhammad received revelation directly from the mouth of an angelic visitor, and at other times indirectly, in a manner which he described as reverberations that only ceased when he became aware of them. However, the Orthodox Muslim position is that Muhammad had no bearing whatsoever on the language of the revelations he received. Orthodox Muslims maintain that Muhammad received revelation in God’s own words. The pattern varies slightly for Joseph, who received revelation after the manner of his own language, and according to his own understanding, yet the pattern is still prevalent and still evidences divine influence. Further evidence of the roles of Muhammad and Joseph as restoration prophets lies in the large amount of revelation each received.

Receiving revelation was strenuous for both Muhammad and Joseph. Joseph became accustomed to it and tired less from it over time. When section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants was revealed to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, Sidney was exhausted. Joseph, who seemed unaffected, commented that Sidney wasn’t used to it, as he was. Muhammad never got used to it. He said that the experience of receiving revelation was always like having his soul torn away. His wife Aisha noted an instance in which sweat ran from his forehead as he was receiving revelation on a very cold day. Both Muhammad and Joseph struggled to put into words the revelations they received. Both Muhammad’s and Joseph’s revelations compare each of their revelations with those of biblical prophets before them. While Joseph became accustomed to the physical rigor of receiving revelation, he struggled to put it into his own words, whereas Muhammad, according to tradition, struggled physically to receive revelation directly in God’s own words. Despite this difference between Muhammad’s experience and Joseph’s, their seems to be a similar pattern in which, according to the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants,  the Lord speaks to the hearts and minds of each prophet, and they in turn arrange and amend the revelations they have received as they gain greater understanding. Another similarity in the revelations each prophet received, in the pattern of prophets, who tend to become more schismatic over time, is the increasing divisive nature of the revelations each received later in his life. In the case of both prophets, revelation evolved as the religion of each prophet developed. Over time, Muhammad and Joseph received revelation as needed, and for each of them, a new religion and its accompanying doctrine gradually unfolded.

Muhammad and Joseph both follow the prophetic pattern of receiving revelation latter written down by either themselves or their followers. While Muhammad’s and Joseph’s followers both hold the word of God sacred, Muhammad’s followers take this further than Joseph’s. Muhammad’s followers take the Qur’an to be god inlibrate (in book form,) in much the same way as Joseph’s follower take Jesus the Christ as God incarnate (in the form of a man). While this represents a difference between Muslim and Latter-day Saint views on scripture and there are other differences between the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants, these two books bear many similarities as compilations of situational revelations (revelations given in response to immediate needs or questions). Each of them was revealed over a period of time. Both are similar in length. The Qur’an consists of 114 chapters, called surahs, while the Doctrine and Covenants consists of 138 chapters, called sections. Each book contains shorter and longer revelations varying between a few sentences and several pages in length. Both books are written mostly in the first person in the voice of God, although the Qur’an is written in the voice of God the father (Allah) and the Doctrine and Covenants is written in the voice of Jesus the Christ. The revelations contained in both the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants came severally, according to the needs and questions of the prophets who received them and their followers. Just as the current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants has chapter headings giving historical background information to the revelation that follows, some edition of the Qur’an provide the same type of information for the same reason.

The Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants both address a very small and very particular group of people at a specific time and place in history, yet both continue to provide guidance today. Both were revealed in parts, “line upon line,” and “precept upon precept,” as the Doctrine and Covenants puts it. There is a pattern in the gradual manner in which Muhammad and Joseph received revelation for themselves and their followers. Both the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants deal intimately with the issues Muhammad and Joseph and their followers faced, respectively, because the revelations contained in them were given in response to the needs and concerns of these people. Because these revelations were given to fill in gaps in previously revealed knowledge, they lack continuity. Each book of scripture contains revelations given in order to correct previous scripture, whether it be the false beliefs of the Christians and Jews from a Muslim point of view, or the errors and omissions of the Bible from a Christian viewpoint. Both the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants confirm or clarify biblical writings, remind their readers of forgotten laws, and give specific situation guidance. Lacking a unifying theme, these two books of scripture seem to ramble disconnectedly. Both the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants contain relatively short revelations received over a period of 20 and 23 years, respectively.

The situations Muhammad and Joseph faced led to the gradual revelation of truths and practices that informed the development of Islam and Mormonism, respectively. This unfolding happens chapter by chapter in the Doctrine and Covenants, as its sections are mostly organized chronologically, according to the date on which the revelation they contain was received. The Qu’ran is instead arranged from longest to shortest surah. Each book breaks with its respective pattern of organization once, namely in its first chapter, which is placed at the beginning as a preface. It is apparent that both Muhammad and Joseph intended for their revelations to be compiled in book form. Joseph oversaw and directed the publication of his revelations, which were usually written down by scribes, in two books before he died. The sections from Joseph Smith added after his death had all been received and recorded while he was yet alive. As for Muhammad, his followers either memorized his revelations or wrote them down on whatever was ready-at-hand. The Qur’an also indicates that Muhammad himself wrote down some of the revelations he received. A semi-official version of the Qur’an was available about two years after Muhammad’s death and about two centuries later, a standard version was produced. An important difference between the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants is that the Qur’an is a closed book as revelation ceased with the death of Muhammad, whereas the Doctrine and Covenants is an open book, subject to addition or alteration by a living Latter-day Saint prophet. Another important difference lies in the belief that the Qur’an contains God’s word as it was literally dictated to Muhammad, wherefore any translation of it is considered interpretive. In fact, the poetic beauty of Qur’anic Arabic, which is generally lost in translation, is considered evidence of its divine origin. The Doctrine and Covenants, on the other hand, is still regarded as scripture even in translation.

The many similarities between Muhammad and Joseph and the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Coveants cannot be dismissed as mere coincidences. It is unlikely that either Muhammad or Joseph forced his life into the prophetic pattern, as many of their circumstances were beyond their control. It is also unlikely, considering the difference in time and place in which each of them lived, that the similarities between them can be attributed to the human psyche either.  It is interesting to note the differing ways in which Islam and Mormonism viewed revelation after their respective prophets died. For Muslims, revelation ceased with the death of Muhammad. For Mormons, revelation continued through Joseph’s successors, the later presidents of the church.  Nevertheless, both Muhammad and Joseph received revelation and produced scripture, in keeping with the prophetic pattern. Both the Qur’an and the Doctrine and Covenants were intended to confirm previously revealed truths and to restore lost truths. Both Muhammad and Joseph were, therefore, restoration prophets. Both of them were viewed by their followers as opening a new and last dispensation, leading up to the end of the world. Their followers believed that accepting them as prophets and adopting their teachings was crucial to their salvation. This, too, is in keeping with the prophetic pattern.

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” (Author unknown)

In his search for true and distinct knowledge, after overcoming skepticism, al-Ghazali found there to be essentially four groups of those who sought the truth in the Islamic world of his day. Al-Ghazali sought to align himself with the one and only true and correct source out of the four. Similarly, in the modern Western world, there are four equivalent sources to which one might turn for truth. Although the Islamic world of al-Ghazali’s day and the modern Western world are very different, these sources of knowledge are very much the same.

The four sources of knowledge in the Islamic world of al-Ghazali’s day were the mutakallimun, who were conservers of the creeds of orthodoxy; the Batinites, or Ta’alimites, who and their Infallible Imam; the philosophers, who relied strictly upon reasoning and logic; and the sufis, who were mystics who sought come closer to God by ridding themselves of all that is ungodly. The four modern-day Western equivalent sources of knowledge in the modern Western world are the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches as conservers of the creeds of orthodoxy, Protestantism with its theological concept of solo scriptura, the philosophers, and the restored Church.

Continue Reading…

Speaking in front of an audience is one of the biggest fears among our society today. Such reluctance infects the speaker’s confidence and causes people to feel like calling in sick rather than keeping their commitment to speak in front of an audience. Not many people seem to be natural-born speakers. Are those who speak well in front of an audience gifted? Or, have they improved over time through practice and learned techniques? To find the answers to these questions, we researched Toastmasters International.

Toastmasters understands the common fear most people experience when it comes to public speaking and helps victims of anxiety find their voice. (Toastmasters Find). Enhancing communication skills and fostering communication effectiveness is the ultimate goal of Toastmasters (Toastmasters Find). To help its members overcome anxiety, Toastmasters builds confidence through a deliberate process of building upon strengths while eliminating weaknesses through practice. Continue Reading…

My Life in Language

Christopher Hurtado —  December 15, 2005

There is nothing I am more passionate about than languages and culture. My entire life revolves around words and their meaning. In fact, it always has; and my lifelong goal is that it always will. I grew up bilingual and bicultural. I began translating and teaching languages professionally at a young age. I have also become a published author and a public speaker.

From the time I was born, my parents spoke to me in English but to each other in Spanish. My mother was a Spanish teacher born in New York and raised in Baltimore. My father is a Venezuelan. When I was eight, my family moved to Venezuela. Although I’d heard Spanish all my life, I hadn’t learned to speak it. Now I had to. At first, I struggled to communicate, but I became fluent in less than six months. I lived in Venezuela for eight years. During those eight years, English was predominantly spoken in my home and Spanish outside of it. In school, ESL was a required subject. At age 12, I started tutoring my classmates in English after school. My parents divorced when I was 16, and I returned to the United States with my mother and sisters. At 18 I dropped out of school. Around the same time, I made a trip to Venezuela for a short visit with my father. While in Venezuela, I did my first paid translation job. My father accepted and delivered the job, but had me do it and paid me once he was paid. I’ll never forget that job. The topic of the translation was “the chemical composition of the Moore pecan leaf.” I still keep a copy of it to this day. I was thrilled.

Continue Reading…

Civil Society

Christopher Hurtado —  December 12, 2005

The Church of Ascension on London’s Blackheath has a small metal plaque set into its wall that reads “Fellowship is life and lack of fellowship is death, but in hell there is no brotherhood but every man for himself.” John Ball, the leader of the Peasants’ Revolt, spoke these words nearby in 1831. Ball would not have thought of himself as part of “civil society,” but citizens who join groups, form associations or volunteer to defend or advance the causes they believe in have, in effect. echoed his sentiments down through the centuries (Edwards 1). However, “citizenship is not a cure for spiritual malaise but spiritual malaise is a roadblock to citizenship because it impairs the capacity to create the community institutions on which a civil society and a democratic culture must rest” (Barber 275). It is through our participation in the institutions that make up civil society that we learn what it means to be a citizen (Barber 276).

Citizenship can be defined as belonging to a community, or can refer to the quality of our response to our membership in that community, or how actively we participate in it. (Merriam-Webster Online). Civil society can be defined as “the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations or institutions which form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force backed structures of a state” (Wikipedia). According to the London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society these organizations and institutions act “around shared interests, purposes and values,” and are separate from the family and the market as well. Examples include “charitable organizations, community groups, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups” (Wikipedia).

Continue Reading…

Mandatory Term Limits

Christopher Hurtado —  November 19, 2005

I am vehemently opposed to mandatory term limits, especially at the state and local level, and find great weakness in the argument made for them by their advocates. Mandatory term limits were first considered by our Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and rejected by its delegates. They didn’t make sense then and they don’t make sense now. What does make sense, and was chosen over mandatory term limits by our Founding Fathers, is short terms, or in other words, frequent elections. James Madison, who was one of the Constitutional Convention’s delegates who opposed mandatory term limits recorded in his notes the words of another delegate, Roger Sherman, who also opposed them: “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election.” This argument makes sense. The argument for mandatory term limits doesn’t.

Given mandatory term limits, a politician ineligible to run for re-election would be stripped of his incentive to please his constituency and would become easy prey for special interests. Our Founding Fathers not only recognized the need for frequent elections to keep politicians responsive, they recognized as well that this was most important at the level of government closest to the people – the House of Representatives. It stands to reason, therefore, that this is what is needed at the state and local level as well. Our Founding Fathers knew that the best way to restrain a politician would be to periodically put his performance on trial by the electorate. What better way to keep politicians loyal to their constituency? What need have we for mandatory term limits? What more could they do for our system of government than the frequent elections instituted by our Founding Fathers? This system has kept in office for as many terms as was deemed appropriate by the people of the United States, according to their performance in office, the likes of John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Sam Houston, James Madison and Daniel Webster.

Continue Reading…