Dear Wilson, After receiving your letter on your personal perspectives on philosophy, I would I like to share my own as well.

Human nature, the question of beauty, judge of ethics, and a higher power are all topics that are the pinnacle of the philosophical knowledge I possess. To begin, I will order in the order of questions I have listed before hand. Human nature often comes up in many discussion that involve the the slightest input from our human minds. What does it mean to me you may wonder? Well, I find that it is simply the concept of humans living under the laws of nature, basically operating of the sole principal of living to survive. On a basic scale we are no better then animals nor are we any less. The key element that sets us apart from animals is government. You see Wilson, we are just really animals that happened to have a slight advantage. As Thomas Hobbes believed. ithout strong government we can expect no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short From this, it can be assumed that we will not strive as well as other beings if we had the very thing that sets us apart from animals taken away from us which is government. However, the government we are referring to is a human created concept. Strangely enough nature acts as a sort of universal biological government that is inescapable. It based off of doing what is need to survive, essentially meeting the basic needs in any means necessary. In other words, no matter how different we are from animals in the end we are simply trying to survive. The only thing human government does is further refine nature's biological government in a way that is more efficient so the survivability rate of the human race is greater. an is a conjugal animal, meaning an animal which is born to couple when an adult, thus building a household (oikos) and in more successful cases, a clan or small village still run upon patriarchal lines from this Aristotle quote, it basically highlights humans in a nutshell. More realistically humans use human government as a mere tool to assist us in our efforts in surviving. This government tells us what to do and how to do so specific thing get down and resources are obtain for surviving. Wilson, if you had to choose between moving a boulder by yourself or having help, chances are you would choose the help. This is basically what human government is trying to do. It organizes people in a way that avoids the inefficiencies of working alone so resources can be obtain more effectively. In conclusion, Human nature is the concept of humans living under the laws of nature despite the differences between humans and animals. Now to my next question which is the legitimate judge of ethics. I honestly find that we ourselves are the legitimate judge of ethics. However, this does not mean that everything we do is good and well. When we judge ethics we use previous knowledge we posses and based on that we make a decision. teachers, parents, and influential figures are such examples of people around us that lead our ethical compass. They instill the basic idea of how to be oodor how to live in a manner that is acceptable by society. However there are obvious situations where the influences are not always the most positive. An example of this would be a influential celebrity that is intoxicated. Common sense points towards not following such example but there are times where some people believe this is okay. Besides influences from people there is also knowledge that is gained from the consistent sources available to us. All the information we obtain through reading, watching, and practising are all sources of knowledge that influences our decisions on ethics. For example when you read a quote like he creed which accepts as the foundation of morals 'utility' or the 'greatest happiness principal' holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain: by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. by John Stuart Mills on utilitarianism you start to believe that it is a good method of judging ethics. This reason behind this is probably because you are blown away from the sheer intelligence that seems to relevant to the world around you. So don't be too amazed my friend because this knowledge over time will slowly fade which is an unfortunate down side of this source for

ethics. Another more closely related source are religious teaching. This type of ethical source seems to hit more towards home thus giving some more personal meaning. Although there are some un-desireable teachings in religious for the most part they teach people how to be good people. For example, the 10 commandments from Judaism teaches people how to respect one another and how to not commit dark deeds such as stealing. So after all the indoctrination from various sources of influences, it really comes down to the individual being the true judge of ethics. Now since I am somewhat on the topic of religion I would like to move on to whether or not a higher power exist. Personally I am a follower of a religion so my answer although bias is not without reason. The biggest reason for why I believe there exist a higher power is because of the fact that the complexity the average human is too great to have originated from single celled organism. There has to be a predetermined blueprint created some how. The scientific idea of evolution seems all too coincidental to happen in such sequence to create the human. If a higher power did not directly create the human then the higher power at least imprinted something into the element of life so from that complex beings may spawn as a result. So bottom line is that I truly believe that there is a higher power out there and if that higher power did not create complex beings directly, it was done in an indirect manner. Now last but not least is my perspective on beauty. In terms of physical human beauty, it is the concept of a person's physical appearance being pleasing to the human mind. In addition to pleasing the mind, the desirable physical appearance indicates a high chance of strong off spring. In other words, it is essential a biological program that assist the human mind in choosing a mate that gives the best offspring. So in terms of a computer program it may be seen as If human meets these conditions for an idea mate, then consider the mate as a potential partner for children According to Californian Dr. Stephen R. Marquardt's theory on human beauty, there is an ideal imagine of what humans should look like imprinted on the human genetic code (Just kind of like the computer code that I gave before). This theory further reinforces the idea of beauty being simply programmed into the human mind. So I guess you can even say that we are just simply computers that have been designed with basic principals for survival and reproduction. As Socrates believed, beauty should be judged by utility not just simple pleasure. At a subconscious level, that is what the human mind is doing. While men look for women with a childbearing body, health, and youth, women look for men with strength to protect their young and resources to raise the young. So what Socrates believed beauty should be based on, is exactly what the human mind is already looking for. No matter how much you try to avoid such types of ideals you just can't help it sometimes to stop and say ow that person is rather attractiveHowever no matter how strong these base desires and principals are, external influences can alter our overall perspective of human beauty. So when you look across the globe you are going to end up seeing that not everyone has the same sort of taste. Some people from Asian countries prefer light skin while people in the United states like dark skin. They may be a result of simply enjoying the sight of something that is not so common or more likely due to media. Over the years the media has utilized information to indoctrinate the population into having a changed perception of beauty that is the complete opposite so they can simply make an extra dollar. So as a result the media get richer and sometimes the people get uglier. Despite my ideas and perspectives on philosophy, they are completely open to criticism. I rather have my knowledge be refined then have it be let out in the dark in a Conservative manner. The more I understand, the more I know, and the more I know, the better I can become as a person and soon as a human being. So please, feel free to write back with a letter that disagrees with all my points as long as you give reasoning. From, Lincoln Souphabsila