When spoken of, magic is usually blow off as a joke of sorts, that magic doesn't really exist. Well this is something I do not completely agree with, I think that magic comes in many more shapes and sizes than meets the untrained eye. The form of which takes the most simple disguise is that of Illusion.
The art of illusion works in a cryptic way depending on how it is being presented to the intended target. The magic itself is standing dangerously on the line between good and evil, for it is in key a magic of tricking the senses into believing something that they are not intended to.
Now back to the part where I mention that illusion is not commonly seen as magic. The use of illusion to simply trick the eyes of another human is quite literally that: a simple trick, so simple in fact that we usually enjoy the fun of trying to figure out what it is exactly that the magician is doing. However, there are much more complicated forms of this art that can be manipulated in an artistic and devious way. I refer to this style of illusion as dream weaving, for the artist is taking the skills of language and persuasion to weave an alternate reality for the listener. There are many forms of this, and all of which are distinctly different in their effect on the mind.
Dream Weaving within Lying
This is a skill that requires the user to issue another being constant belief in something that is not real. The more skilled the liar at remembering everything that has been altered from real existence, the more realistic the illusion becomes. There are two results of this, the beneficial outcome for the magician is that they have taken control of someone else's thoughts, and have the capability to alter reality in their favor when necessary. However, the unfortunate outcome to this use of alteration is that the magician is plagued with the memory of both realities, and these are more dangerous than one would anticipate. When the magician is weighed down to much by the pressure and stress of the brain on memories, it consumes them, and stress will lead to infinite outcomes of punishment to the user.
Dream Weaving within Fear
This is a more horrific skill. Those who become talented in the art of creating fear are truly using the capacity of dream weaving to its darkest purpose. The skill to create the illusion of true fear takes some of its own unique skills. As would be required, the user must have control over their intended target. Once this is established, the user takes that control and finds all of its weaknesses; the more talented the magician, the more things they can find to manipulate another. Then the most dangerous part, the user must give up their feeling of remorse towards any other person, for that remorse will lead to the failing of their illusion. At long last, this person is then prepared to do whatever is available to disturb their intended target. The benefit to this magician is that they have control over the person targeted, and all of their relations. However, the downside to the magician in this case is that they have nothing left to tie them down to reality, they are alone in the world and have forfeited their trust to their talent.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Onesis
As the last post that I am putting up for the class, I wanted to rewrite my theory of human nature on here in case anyone who may have had questions or comments could take them out on here. Also, I would like to point out that I am not done with this blog, when I think of other philosophical things in the future I will still post them here, so feel free to check back here every once in a while to keep your mind busy. Otherwise, thanks for participating :-)
Theory:
:: We exist for a comparatively short amount of time, and then we die.
:: We spend most of our life chaotically looking for answers about the world around us so that we can happily come to terms with what our life is supposed to be.
:: The path for coming to the complete understanding of these answers comes in three parts for those who are truly looking:
Part 1. Onesis
Onesis (Oh-knee-sis) is a term that I have made up to describe a path of coming to your own true self maturity; a sort of life epiphany, and this is what it looks like:
This path displays the timeline of an average person on their path to Onesis. I put the title "middle/high school" on the general age of about 17/18. This is the last part of the graph it is typically consistent between people, before the amount of time begins to change rapidly between how long it takes to get to the next step. The reason for this is that there is no way of telling exactly how long it will take you to reach Onesis, and as such, only you can come to this conclusion, for even though I am showing your the path, you are the only person who can discover what it really means.
When Onesis is understood, what you choose to do with it is up to you, as is represented by the break in the paths, and the symbols at the end of life, which stand for:
(+) Positive Influence, (-) Negative Influence, and (n) Neutral Influence... in Life.
These symbols also come with an analogy, where in life you choose to be the Coyote (negative), Sheep (neutral), or Sheepdog (positive).
Part 2. Logos
Logos is a word that stand for "word" and "reason", and it has a place on the path of life once Onesis has been understood. This part of life is when you have reached Onesis and you are left to choose what you want to do with the rest of your life (i.e. the Positive or Neutral path).
Logos is the second part because it represents what you do with Onesis once you understand it, and it is separated into its two parts:
:: The term "word" means that you come to understand the language in which you have most versed yourself in (i.e. music, science, art, etc.) and you slowly become more masterful in your capability to create and describe things using that "word".
:: The term "reason" represents the why in your life. Once you come to understand the "word" you are left to choose what you do with it, and reason is there to help you choose your influence on the rest of life.
Part 3. Telos
Telos is the final part of life, and literally means: "end, purpose", and "goal". This has been added to the path of life, because: "By understanding that which life consists of, we prepare ourselves for death".
Theory:
:: We exist for a comparatively short amount of time, and then we die.
:: We spend most of our life chaotically looking for answers about the world around us so that we can happily come to terms with what our life is supposed to be.
:: The path for coming to the complete understanding of these answers comes in three parts for those who are truly looking:
Part 1. Onesis
Onesis (Oh-knee-sis) is a term that I have made up to describe a path of coming to your own true self maturity; a sort of life epiphany, and this is what it looks like:
This path displays the timeline of an average person on their path to Onesis. I put the title "middle/high school" on the general age of about 17/18. This is the last part of the graph it is typically consistent between people, before the amount of time begins to change rapidly between how long it takes to get to the next step. The reason for this is that there is no way of telling exactly how long it will take you to reach Onesis, and as such, only you can come to this conclusion, for even though I am showing your the path, you are the only person who can discover what it really means.
When Onesis is understood, what you choose to do with it is up to you, as is represented by the break in the paths, and the symbols at the end of life, which stand for:
(+) Positive Influence, (-) Negative Influence, and (n) Neutral Influence... in Life.
These symbols also come with an analogy, where in life you choose to be the Coyote (negative), Sheep (neutral), or Sheepdog (positive).
Part 2. Logos
Logos is a word that stand for "word" and "reason", and it has a place on the path of life once Onesis has been understood. This part of life is when you have reached Onesis and you are left to choose what you want to do with the rest of your life (i.e. the Positive or Neutral path).
Logos is the second part because it represents what you do with Onesis once you understand it, and it is separated into its two parts:
:: The term "word" means that you come to understand the language in which you have most versed yourself in (i.e. music, science, art, etc.) and you slowly become more masterful in your capability to create and describe things using that "word".
:: The term "reason" represents the why in your life. Once you come to understand the "word" you are left to choose what you do with it, and reason is there to help you choose your influence on the rest of life.
Part 3. Telos
Telos is the final part of life, and literally means: "end, purpose", and "goal". This has been added to the path of life, because: "By understanding that which life consists of, we prepare ourselves for death".
In Response to Austin
I think that your question at the end here is very interesting for conversation.
Personally, I do not think that there will be a perfect world peace for people all across the world. My reasoning behind this is comes in a few parts.
First off, I don't think that there can possibly be a universal world peace simply because there are too many people out there who have anger in their life. The problem with this is that the many individual angry people contribute to overall anger, and when they find enough people to follow them, that is when worldly chaos happens.
Additionally, in my mind there is no single thing that could possibly bring everyone alive to come together and live life in harmony with each other. Plus, even if there was some singularly glorious thing that brought every single human being to the same bliss or world peace, there would be one major issue. The big problem would be that there is worldwide institutionalization; meaning that we are so embedded in the way of life that has already been set, and there are so many of us, that there would be no way of making that big a change happen.
As unfortunate as it sounds, I think that we are stuck here. But in the greater scheme of things, don't worry; because as it is right now there are still ways to find your own personal happiness, you just have to keep looking.
Personally, I do not think that there will be a perfect world peace for people all across the world. My reasoning behind this is comes in a few parts.
First off, I don't think that there can possibly be a universal world peace simply because there are too many people out there who have anger in their life. The problem with this is that the many individual angry people contribute to overall anger, and when they find enough people to follow them, that is when worldly chaos happens.
Additionally, in my mind there is no single thing that could possibly bring everyone alive to come together and live life in harmony with each other. Plus, even if there was some singularly glorious thing that brought every single human being to the same bliss or world peace, there would be one major issue. The big problem would be that there is worldwide institutionalization; meaning that we are so embedded in the way of life that has already been set, and there are so many of us, that there would be no way of making that big a change happen.
As unfortunate as it sounds, I think that we are stuck here. But in the greater scheme of things, don't worry; because as it is right now there are still ways to find your own personal happiness, you just have to keep looking.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Response to Bryan's Post
Bryan posted this question about believing in greater forces: "Do you think the idea of believing in something greater should be separated from believing in God specifically, or are the same thing?"
I think that the question at the end of this post is really fascinating.
I am not honestly sure that there is a difference between believing in something greater and believing in god. The way I see it, the belief of god is supposed to represent the idea of "something greater", not as the Christian god so to speak, but any god that you look up to. The real problem is that these day's things are sort of blown out of proportion, so we forget what it means to believe in something greater, it is similar to the tap water issue: if you drink bottled water consistently for long enough, then the taste of normal tap water becomes strange tasting, even though it was probably better for you than the bottled water.
In the end, I think that everyone needs to believe in something higher than themselves, because we all work stronger when we aspire to something beyond our capability. The thing is, we each need to find that thing which we truly believe in, that thing that makes the most sense to you personally. Then a personal understanding of believing in something greater will make sense to anyone who does not believe.
What do you think of this?
I think that the question at the end of this post is really fascinating.
I am not honestly sure that there is a difference between believing in something greater and believing in god. The way I see it, the belief of god is supposed to represent the idea of "something greater", not as the Christian god so to speak, but any god that you look up to. The real problem is that these day's things are sort of blown out of proportion, so we forget what it means to believe in something greater, it is similar to the tap water issue: if you drink bottled water consistently for long enough, then the taste of normal tap water becomes strange tasting, even though it was probably better for you than the bottled water.
In the end, I think that everyone needs to believe in something higher than themselves, because we all work stronger when we aspire to something beyond our capability. The thing is, we each need to find that thing which we truly believe in, that thing that makes the most sense to you personally. Then a personal understanding of believing in something greater will make sense to anyone who does not believe.
What do you think of this?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
A Question For You... Yes, You
In terms of theoretical situations, this one is among my favorites:
Say you were to create two robots: one that could see and explore the world with fast moving legs, and talented eyesight; and one that was very slow and had no vision, yet had arms and built in schematics for creating new robots like itself and its companion. The only purpose for this couple of robots is to create more robots like themselves, and to use any means of surrounding materials to do so...
Would this be like recreating the Garden of Eden? What sort of things would we learn about ourselves if we watched their experiences?
Say you were to create two robots: one that could see and explore the world with fast moving legs, and talented eyesight; and one that was very slow and had no vision, yet had arms and built in schematics for creating new robots like itself and its companion. The only purpose for this couple of robots is to create more robots like themselves, and to use any means of surrounding materials to do so...
Would this be like recreating the Garden of Eden? What sort of things would we learn about ourselves if we watched their experiences?
War on Nature
While in philosophy this week, we talked about Darwin, and this was what came to mind during these conversations:
With the way that the world has been changing since the introduction of humans to the puzzle of oh so many pieces that make up the earth, there has been a constant increase in methods to avoiding the natural way to do anything. Some examples you can keep in your mind for the rest of this chat include: going out to find food, curing natural diseases, creating genetic clones of people/animals, even in some cases physically talking to another person.
The question that is reoccurring in my mind is that: will we ever fully defeat nature at this game? Is there going to be some point in time where we will fully break away from nature and create our own advanced style of living to which there are no natural flaws?
Well my argument to this is that nature's weapon of mass destruction is the ability to create variables to situations that seem to have no flaw. Nature's variables (like animals that are designed to kill us, diseases, and weather) are what it has to our advantage in this fight. The reason behind this is that unless we can defeat every single possible variable, then nature will always have a way of snapping back at us to keep humans in line.
But the tantalizing topic point here is: what if we could actually defeat every variable that nature could have provided? I think that the answer is simply this: if we manage to break away from nature, then nature’s last resort would be that it created humans with the incapacity to be completely efficient in its work. Thus the flaws that humans defeated within nature would only lead to flaws within the design of sed human creations: leading to new "human made" variables.
The answer is that even if we could defeat the nature that was given to us, we would only have become nature in the process, creating new flaws for other creatures to deal with.
Do you think that there would be a different outcome?
With the way that the world has been changing since the introduction of humans to the puzzle of oh so many pieces that make up the earth, there has been a constant increase in methods to avoiding the natural way to do anything. Some examples you can keep in your mind for the rest of this chat include: going out to find food, curing natural diseases, creating genetic clones of people/animals, even in some cases physically talking to another person.
The question that is reoccurring in my mind is that: will we ever fully defeat nature at this game? Is there going to be some point in time where we will fully break away from nature and create our own advanced style of living to which there are no natural flaws?
Well my argument to this is that nature's weapon of mass destruction is the ability to create variables to situations that seem to have no flaw. Nature's variables (like animals that are designed to kill us, diseases, and weather) are what it has to our advantage in this fight. The reason behind this is that unless we can defeat every single possible variable, then nature will always have a way of snapping back at us to keep humans in line.
But the tantalizing topic point here is: what if we could actually defeat every variable that nature could have provided? I think that the answer is simply this: if we manage to break away from nature, then nature’s last resort would be that it created humans with the incapacity to be completely efficient in its work. Thus the flaws that humans defeated within nature would only lead to flaws within the design of sed human creations: leading to new "human made" variables.
The answer is that even if we could defeat the nature that was given to us, we would only have become nature in the process, creating new flaws for other creatures to deal with.
Do you think that there would be a different outcome?
Response to Megan's Miraculous Animals
In response to Megan's stories about particularly intelligent animals:
(http://darkworldjazz451.blogspot.com/2010/04/response-to-alex.html)
I have been thinking about this story with the horse and it is really fascinating to me. I think with respect to that specific story, I would need to have more information (to the point that I would argue that I would have needed to be there to fully appreciate the situation's intensity) so that I could appropriately argue the truth behind it.
But that is more trailing away from what I got excited about in the first place, for it is the mystical side of this specific story that is catching my attention so strongly. I think that I would like to believe that animals have certain senses that are just amazingly more talented than humans to the point that they can provide miracles as suggested in that story. But part of me can't shake the idea that even if they had the ability to tell these certain things, why would they be so interested in helping the human beings that are keeping them captive? It seems frighteningly selfless of a horse that has been locked up its entire life within a barn community to decide one day that it is going to help a little girl with her tumor situation. This makes me think that if they actually had the capacity for that much compassion, then they would indeed have a superego that is present; that they would help when they felt it was appropriate. The sheer lack of other examples of this compassion leads me to believe that it is unfortunately not present...
But then again: it did happen, and I can't deny that it was possibly purposeful. So I will leave the open minded idea that in outrageously rare occasions, animals may have brief bursts of superego that is present to give them the ability to help out.
(http://darkworldjazz451.blogspot.com/2010/04/response-to-alex.html)
I have been thinking about this story with the horse and it is really fascinating to me. I think with respect to that specific story, I would need to have more information (to the point that I would argue that I would have needed to be there to fully appreciate the situation's intensity) so that I could appropriately argue the truth behind it.
But that is more trailing away from what I got excited about in the first place, for it is the mystical side of this specific story that is catching my attention so strongly. I think that I would like to believe that animals have certain senses that are just amazingly more talented than humans to the point that they can provide miracles as suggested in that story. But part of me can't shake the idea that even if they had the ability to tell these certain things, why would they be so interested in helping the human beings that are keeping them captive? It seems frighteningly selfless of a horse that has been locked up its entire life within a barn community to decide one day that it is going to help a little girl with her tumor situation. This makes me think that if they actually had the capacity for that much compassion, then they would indeed have a superego that is present; that they would help when they felt it was appropriate. The sheer lack of other examples of this compassion leads me to believe that it is unfortunately not present...
But then again: it did happen, and I can't deny that it was possibly purposeful. So I will leave the open minded idea that in outrageously rare occasions, animals may have brief bursts of superego that is present to give them the ability to help out.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Life is Absurd My Dear
One of the more interesting conversations that came up in our class this week while talking about existentialism is this statement that "Life is Absurd". The thing that is said to explain human life as absurd is this fact that we choose to continuously occupy our time with activity for no apparent reason.
I think that my answer is two sided, for it is biological and artistically amazing that we choose to use our energy as we do. We occupy ourselves with projects that will consume our time alive as a result of all of this energy that we have, and it is just the most amusing way that we can utilize it. In the long run of things, all living forms on earth do the same thing: why does a plant grow? what is the point of a tree? The amazing part about humans is that we enjoy creating, and we are really good at it, because no other life forms on earth have the same capabilities that we do in our creativity. The reason this is a cool argument to me though comes in two parts:
The fact that we create with no reason is true, and it is absurd; however, in creating we have come to using our creative abilities to please and impress other humans, as a beautiful art form of expression: and thus not so absurd as it was just moments ago.
I think that my answer is two sided, for it is biological and artistically amazing that we choose to use our energy as we do. We occupy ourselves with projects that will consume our time alive as a result of all of this energy that we have, and it is just the most amusing way that we can utilize it. In the long run of things, all living forms on earth do the same thing: why does a plant grow? what is the point of a tree? The amazing part about humans is that we enjoy creating, and we are really good at it, because no other life forms on earth have the same capabilities that we do in our creativity. The reason this is a cool argument to me though comes in two parts:
The fact that we create with no reason is true, and it is absurd; however, in creating we have come to using our creative abilities to please and impress other humans, as a beautiful art form of expression: and thus not so absurd as it was just moments ago.
Response to Jenna's Question
This is an answer to Jenna's question about "kill thrill" and wether or not it is occuring because of what kids are taught these days.
I think that this is an interesting question, because the biggest problem on the table in this argument is the statement that children should know better because of what they are taught. I think that since you mentioned it I have been wondering why there isn't a basic "morals" kind of class for kids who are young. Then the thought that came into my mind is that it is probably because up until recently in our history, it was just expected that you learned morals from your family... but I think that this is an ideal that is dying away quickly.
So my thought for the answer of this would be that those kids who are involved in "kill thrill" are probably not getting their expected dose of morality while at the family dinner table, because half the time they probably don't have a full family at the dinner table to begin with. Perhaps the best solution would be to teach basic levels of morality through public school... but I feel like this would end in controversy; what are your thoughts?
I think that this is an interesting question, because the biggest problem on the table in this argument is the statement that children should know better because of what they are taught. I think that since you mentioned it I have been wondering why there isn't a basic "morals" kind of class for kids who are young. Then the thought that came into my mind is that it is probably because up until recently in our history, it was just expected that you learned morals from your family... but I think that this is an ideal that is dying away quickly.
So my thought for the answer of this would be that those kids who are involved in "kill thrill" are probably not getting their expected dose of morality while at the family dinner table, because half the time they probably don't have a full family at the dinner table to begin with. Perhaps the best solution would be to teach basic levels of morality through public school... but I feel like this would end in controversy; what are your thoughts?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Ponder This:
This post is dedicated to subjects that I have been keeping tab on recently that I have not had the time to sit down and make any official posts about... if one of these subjects gives you some inspiration for topic discussion, fire away in my comments section and I’ll continue any discussions that spur from this, because they are all pretty interesting topics for consideration...
Freud Topics:
1. Does coming to a perfect understanding of individual "forms" allow us to understand and use our Superconscious Intuition?
(Superconscious Intuition: the ability to realize that there is something wrong before it happens, i.e. having that unsettling feeling in your stomach right before you enter the spooky looking house that might collapse on you).
2. Can we somehow quantify the unconsciousness? And if we can... would Freud be right about his assumptions about what was going on in the unconscious?
Hobson and Soames:
3. If dreams are repressed thoughts from being an infant, then what do infants dream?
4. If dreaming is a very deep powerful state of otherworldly consciousness, then do the states of "high" and "hallucinating" just alter our consciousness enough that we are still awake, but feel like we are approaching the familiar state of dreaming, and thus allowing ourselves to explore our unconsciousness more thoroughly? (Have fun with this one)
Freud Topics:
1. Does coming to a perfect understanding of individual "forms" allow us to understand and use our Superconscious Intuition?
(Superconscious Intuition: the ability to realize that there is something wrong before it happens, i.e. having that unsettling feeling in your stomach right before you enter the spooky looking house that might collapse on you).
2. Can we somehow quantify the unconsciousness? And if we can... would Freud be right about his assumptions about what was going on in the unconscious?
Hobson and Soames:
3. If dreams are repressed thoughts from being an infant, then what do infants dream?
4. If dreaming is a very deep powerful state of otherworldly consciousness, then do the states of "high" and "hallucinating" just alter our consciousness enough that we are still awake, but feel like we are approaching the familiar state of dreaming, and thus allowing ourselves to explore our unconsciousness more thoroughly? (Have fun with this one)
Response to Julie's Post
This is a response to Julie's post about perfect society.
I think that my favorite piece of this whole statement is that you specifically say that there is no perfect organization to what can and must be. This is such a true statement, and a lot of people underestimate it. What people don't realize is that no matter how much you disagree with certain things about life, there can never be something that satisfies every single opinion. We each need our own little slice of heaven that is reserved for the ones that you are compatible with, and can share a view of perfection.
When it really comes down to it though, you are sort of right, we need some chaos in life to make things interesting from time to time. We are tragic creatures, we strive only for our own perfection in the world, but even if we could have it, there would be so little to occupy our mind, because in the "perfect world" there is nothing left to strive for.
This is a tricky problem to overcome, but the real answer is humbling: we can only have true perfection when we allow ourselves to enjoy the simple things, like gardening for food, and sewing your own clothing... (Whats so bad about doing the dishes by hand sometimes?) My point is that we don't need to spend to much time looking for a group to conform to, we should just be, and appreciate how much fun it can be to just exist. :-)
I think that my favorite piece of this whole statement is that you specifically say that there is no perfect organization to what can and must be. This is such a true statement, and a lot of people underestimate it. What people don't realize is that no matter how much you disagree with certain things about life, there can never be something that satisfies every single opinion. We each need our own little slice of heaven that is reserved for the ones that you are compatible with, and can share a view of perfection.
When it really comes down to it though, you are sort of right, we need some chaos in life to make things interesting from time to time. We are tragic creatures, we strive only for our own perfection in the world, but even if we could have it, there would be so little to occupy our mind, because in the "perfect world" there is nothing left to strive for.
This is a tricky problem to overcome, but the real answer is humbling: we can only have true perfection when we allow ourselves to enjoy the simple things, like gardening for food, and sewing your own clothing... (Whats so bad about doing the dishes by hand sometimes?) My point is that we don't need to spend to much time looking for a group to conform to, we should just be, and appreciate how much fun it can be to just exist. :-)
Saturday, April 3, 2010
If Only I Had a Superego...
In class this week we discussed a mess of interesting topic discussions that related back to Sigmund Freud. One of these particular conversations was about the differences of the "Id, Ego, and Superego" amongst different species and living creatures on the planet. This conversation became fascinating to me when it came to describing the differences between what life is like when you only have certain pieces of this equation.
The example that we had discussed in class was that of a dog. A dog has an Id and an Ego, but lacks that of the Superego. The dog has an ambition for the pleasures of life, and it knows full well that its actions have certain effects on its ability to receive such pleasure (i.e. getting a treat for doing a trick). However, a dog does not have a superego, the dog has no ambition to get out some cleaner to go and fix what it has done to the rug when it decides to pee on it.
This conversation is interesting to me specifically because at some point in our developing as humans we came to understand and utilize this "superego". So the question that is on my mind is: what if other species are in the process of becoming fully aware and capable of understanding the same way that we understand things? Do we even know if there hasn't already been a case where other creatures can reason the same way that we are with respect to the Superego?
In class we also discussed that some birds literally use their ability to sing as a means of pleasurably making music, just for the sake that it is pretty.... are we even going to have the capability in the future to communicate with these creatures to understand if they are indeed that intelligent?
It is an interesting topic, what are some of your views?
The example that we had discussed in class was that of a dog. A dog has an Id and an Ego, but lacks that of the Superego. The dog has an ambition for the pleasures of life, and it knows full well that its actions have certain effects on its ability to receive such pleasure (i.e. getting a treat for doing a trick). However, a dog does not have a superego, the dog has no ambition to get out some cleaner to go and fix what it has done to the rug when it decides to pee on it.
This conversation is interesting to me specifically because at some point in our developing as humans we came to understand and utilize this "superego". So the question that is on my mind is: what if other species are in the process of becoming fully aware and capable of understanding the same way that we understand things? Do we even know if there hasn't already been a case where other creatures can reason the same way that we are with respect to the Superego?
In class we also discussed that some birds literally use their ability to sing as a means of pleasurably making music, just for the sake that it is pretty.... are we even going to have the capability in the future to communicate with these creatures to understand if they are indeed that intelligent?
It is an interesting topic, what are some of your views?
A Response to Bryan's Post
This response corresponds to the conversation taking place on Bryan's Blog, found here:
http://bacton.blogspot.com/2010/03/do-not-forget-we-are-talking-about.html
To catch you up on things, currently me and Bryan are talking about how to perfect a socialist utopian society. As a response to his post, I felt that there may be some things to add to my original argument, these are my revisions to the plan:
For starters, this conversation we had was very basic and in the birth of its coming to completion. I think that the equal wages with freedom to spend it on what interests you is still a very valid argument, it just needs some help with other potential circumstances to encompass the things that you think would be wrong with it.
With respect to the jobs situation, equal wages has to be rephrased a little bit. The real solution to that statement would be that jobs would pay differently based on how much you have to do / contribute to society. Rather than saying that everyone gets equal wages, it would be a statement of everyone gets appropriate wage caps based on their contribution to society.
Another important part to this conflict is that of the self being frustrated with this system. What you had mentioned is that the normal person would notice that they don't need to do as much work as expected and still make the same money. This is a very true statement, and thus my solution to it is that there must be a form of punishment (whether to the wages you make or the job itself) for not complying with the job that you are participating in. This would work very similarly to firing someone from the job that they are clearly not adequate for, expecting that the person who will now not have any wage coming in will find a different job that they will actually participate in.
This leads to the next interesting issue of running out, and or wasting away the wage money that you are expected to use appropriately. My solution to this brings the whole argument to a level of finally making sense. For if you have been fired from your job, and or you have been wasting your wages away to the point that you can no longer survive without government help, then you are sent to jail. This would have to be a slightly different kind of jail than what we have now though. It would have to be more of a rehabilitation to society program; where you take these people who have wasted their money away and have them do community service without pay until they make up for what they have done wrong. Once they have proven to be humbled by this means of service, they are sent back out to try again with the expectation that they can now appreciate their wages.
This concept of the jail would also make up for the people trying to take advantage of the system. For you can go back to jail as many times as you want, but it would be more efficient to keep your job and try and save your money for what you want; rather than a means of taking advantage of others.
This concept of the jail system would also take the blame on the government out of the people's eyes, because it is a standardized system that would work efficiently without bias to any one person who ends up there.
What do you think of the revisions?
http://bacton.blogspot.com/2010/03/do-not-forget-we-are-talking-about.html
To catch you up on things, currently me and Bryan are talking about how to perfect a socialist utopian society. As a response to his post, I felt that there may be some things to add to my original argument, these are my revisions to the plan:
For starters, this conversation we had was very basic and in the birth of its coming to completion. I think that the equal wages with freedom to spend it on what interests you is still a very valid argument, it just needs some help with other potential circumstances to encompass the things that you think would be wrong with it.
With respect to the jobs situation, equal wages has to be rephrased a little bit. The real solution to that statement would be that jobs would pay differently based on how much you have to do / contribute to society. Rather than saying that everyone gets equal wages, it would be a statement of everyone gets appropriate wage caps based on their contribution to society.
Another important part to this conflict is that of the self being frustrated with this system. What you had mentioned is that the normal person would notice that they don't need to do as much work as expected and still make the same money. This is a very true statement, and thus my solution to it is that there must be a form of punishment (whether to the wages you make or the job itself) for not complying with the job that you are participating in. This would work very similarly to firing someone from the job that they are clearly not adequate for, expecting that the person who will now not have any wage coming in will find a different job that they will actually participate in.
This leads to the next interesting issue of running out, and or wasting away the wage money that you are expected to use appropriately. My solution to this brings the whole argument to a level of finally making sense. For if you have been fired from your job, and or you have been wasting your wages away to the point that you can no longer survive without government help, then you are sent to jail. This would have to be a slightly different kind of jail than what we have now though. It would have to be more of a rehabilitation to society program; where you take these people who have wasted their money away and have them do community service without pay until they make up for what they have done wrong. Once they have proven to be humbled by this means of service, they are sent back out to try again with the expectation that they can now appreciate their wages.
This concept of the jail would also make up for the people trying to take advantage of the system. For you can go back to jail as many times as you want, but it would be more efficient to keep your job and try and save your money for what you want; rather than a means of taking advantage of others.
This concept of the jail system would also take the blame on the government out of the people's eyes, because it is a standardized system that would work efficiently without bias to any one person who ends up there.
What do you think of the revisions?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
A Response to Yvonne's Post
So you say that the heart and mind should be balnced, but what are the extreme's of either argument?
Alrighty, this is an interesting set of statements that I want to talk about. For starters, I agree, life must consist of balance, for balance is what lets us survive most peacefully as a whole. The Heart and the Mind are an amazing example of this, for the two of them separately are each one extreme, but together, they create one flourishing system of complete understanding.
The benefit to living in the extreme of the heart is that you will endure the life of a character, as if your actual life is that of a play. For the heart is the center of all that is love and giving, and thus you will experience great happiness, and great sadness. Some people are absolutely in love with this style of life, for it leaves the idea of epic free to explore within one's personal life, which is something that should not be ignored. But be warned that great sadness is a powerful thing to deal with, and not everyone is ready to handle it.
The life of extreme knowledge is the exact opposite. You are that of a computer, one who must weigh out every decision as if it would end your life if you chose wrong. This ideal of life is beneficial since you appreciate the things that are potentially dangerous, and thus live a long safe life. But alternatively, this life will leave you with an empty feeling in the bottom of what you will think is your stomach (but it’s really your heart). You will never fully appreciate all of the stupid things that other people have done and got away with, the adventures that you could have had. But these things are also not for everyone, and cannot be forced, so let them be.
In the end, the wise warrior will appreciate what things are truly too dangerous, but will leave themselves up to take advantage of all aspects life has to offer that won't kill them. They will be fulfilled with adventure and knowledge, and thus live a happy life for the life that they have actually lived.
Alrighty, this is an interesting set of statements that I want to talk about. For starters, I agree, life must consist of balance, for balance is what lets us survive most peacefully as a whole. The Heart and the Mind are an amazing example of this, for the two of them separately are each one extreme, but together, they create one flourishing system of complete understanding.
The benefit to living in the extreme of the heart is that you will endure the life of a character, as if your actual life is that of a play. For the heart is the center of all that is love and giving, and thus you will experience great happiness, and great sadness. Some people are absolutely in love with this style of life, for it leaves the idea of epic free to explore within one's personal life, which is something that should not be ignored. But be warned that great sadness is a powerful thing to deal with, and not everyone is ready to handle it.
The life of extreme knowledge is the exact opposite. You are that of a computer, one who must weigh out every decision as if it would end your life if you chose wrong. This ideal of life is beneficial since you appreciate the things that are potentially dangerous, and thus live a long safe life. But alternatively, this life will leave you with an empty feeling in the bottom of what you will think is your stomach (but it’s really your heart). You will never fully appreciate all of the stupid things that other people have done and got away with, the adventures that you could have had. But these things are also not for everyone, and cannot be forced, so let them be.
In the end, the wise warrior will appreciate what things are truly too dangerous, but will leave themselves up to take advantage of all aspects life has to offer that won't kill them. They will be fulfilled with adventure and knowledge, and thus live a happy life for the life that they have actually lived.
Only Enough Room for One
In class this week one thing that we had talked about briefly was that of where philosophers get their true ideas. It had been mentioned that "No great philosopher gets his ideas by himself, that there must always be some stealing."
When this was mentioned, I really had to think about the way that it was worded. After giving it some thought, I think that this is an inappropriate statement. The way that I look at it, philosophers are descriptors and pattern seekers of things that are happening and created by other people whom they happen to be surrounded by while alive. This lead to some round about thinking, but in the end I came to this conclusion:
One cannot be a Philosopher without taking the ideas and thoughts as a collection from the people whom they are surrounded, for it is those things that influence and establish their observations. Without people to sit down and interpret and observe, then there would be nothing for the philosopher to describe and appreciate. The real issue is that there cannot be more than one person who is famous for the works that get published within their lifetime, as is similar to the idea that no two people can be singularly famous for the same piece of art.
What are your thoughts?
When this was mentioned, I really had to think about the way that it was worded. After giving it some thought, I think that this is an inappropriate statement. The way that I look at it, philosophers are descriptors and pattern seekers of things that are happening and created by other people whom they happen to be surrounded by while alive. This lead to some round about thinking, but in the end I came to this conclusion:
One cannot be a Philosopher without taking the ideas and thoughts as a collection from the people whom they are surrounded, for it is those things that influence and establish their observations. Without people to sit down and interpret and observe, then there would be nothing for the philosopher to describe and appreciate. The real issue is that there cannot be more than one person who is famous for the works that get published within their lifetime, as is similar to the idea that no two people can be singularly famous for the same piece of art.
What are your thoughts?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Noble Scholar
During class this week we spent a lot of time talking about Hobbes and Rousseau. While discussing the things that Rousseau thought about in terms of his philosophy I started to really think about his idea of "Emile" or what would be the best way to raise a child.
this concept was really striking to me because it is something that I had considered from time to time, but never really sat down and though about, because as it is, it isn't particularly urgent in my life yet. When really thinking about it though, I wonder what sort of things would be said when asked what you think the perfect way to raise a child is.
So this is my general outlook at a good parenting guide, and my question to you is, what would yours consist of?
From birth until schooling the child should spend almost every waking moment with at least one of the parents learning about life within the confines of natural skills (i.e. music, language, communication in arts, science, coordination, and understanding).
The child should be brought out into the real world in all kinds of conditions (like sun, snow and rain) so that they can begin to learn what life is like beyond the confines of their home and begin to explore the worlld around them.
I think that adventuring would be important to their life, but its not necessary that they do it alone, go out on hikes and explore rivers or other surrounding natural interesting things, let them become experienced in the immidiate world with you.
Avoid current stereotypical cartoons and "toys r' us": instead let them watch some charlie brown... break out the old lego's and brio train sets, these are things that would be more educational to them than any elmo toy, trust me.
Play to their interests, if you start teaching them about everything and they pertain to certain skills, let them thrive on that, but make sure not to give up on the other important things for them to learn about.
this concept was really striking to me because it is something that I had considered from time to time, but never really sat down and though about, because as it is, it isn't particularly urgent in my life yet. When really thinking about it though, I wonder what sort of things would be said when asked what you think the perfect way to raise a child is.
So this is my general outlook at a good parenting guide, and my question to you is, what would yours consist of?
From birth until schooling the child should spend almost every waking moment with at least one of the parents learning about life within the confines of natural skills (i.e. music, language, communication in arts, science, coordination, and understanding).
The child should be brought out into the real world in all kinds of conditions (like sun, snow and rain) so that they can begin to learn what life is like beyond the confines of their home and begin to explore the worlld around them.
I think that adventuring would be important to their life, but its not necessary that they do it alone, go out on hikes and explore rivers or other surrounding natural interesting things, let them become experienced in the immidiate world with you.
Avoid current stereotypical cartoons and "toys r' us": instead let them watch some charlie brown... break out the old lego's and brio train sets, these are things that would be more educational to them than any elmo toy, trust me.
Play to their interests, if you start teaching them about everything and they pertain to certain skills, let them thrive on that, but make sure not to give up on the other important things for them to learn about.
Julia's Happiness Machine
This is a response to your thought provoking question about the happiness machine..
I think that it would be hard for me to decide on every single thing that would be different in my happiness machine especially with respect to things that would be physically possible / probable. Assuming that anything could be different in this happiness machine, I would add some fun to life in terms of super natural ability: i.e. the ability to control given surroundings with telepathy, to be able to shoot flames out of my fingertips or the ability to fly :)
however, I think that if given the option to walk into my own happiness machine... Where I am right now I don't think that I would go inside, because my life is pretty happy the way it is, and stepping inside would take away the things that I have worked for to get to where I am now. I would leave it to someone else who needed it.
I think that it would be hard for me to decide on every single thing that would be different in my happiness machine especially with respect to things that would be physically possible / probable. Assuming that anything could be different in this happiness machine, I would add some fun to life in terms of super natural ability: i.e. the ability to control given surroundings with telepathy, to be able to shoot flames out of my fingertips or the ability to fly :)
however, I think that if given the option to walk into my own happiness machine... Where I am right now I don't think that I would go inside, because my life is pretty happy the way it is, and stepping inside would take away the things that I have worked for to get to where I am now. I would leave it to someone else who needed it.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
When in class on Friday, we were talking about the theories of Hobbes’ views of human nature. The thing that absolutely caught my attention when we discussed his philosophies was our quick discussion on Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. When we had talked about this I ended up writing about why I think people help one another out in terms of Hobbes’ idea of psychological egoists. My idea of this is similar to the ideal of the psychological egoist in that we feel like we need to help someone in order to quell our own needs, but the difference in my thoughts is that it is most definitely not a selfish / selfless act situation.
To my understanding, we slingshot each other by doing good acts in order to slowly bring one another closer to the greater good. The great part about this is that even the most simple of “selfless acts” can be put through this test.
As an example, there are two people in the given situation, person “A” and person “B”. If person “A” has fallen on the ground (thus being slightly on the lesser pleasant side of their day) allowing for person “B” to offer a hand up to the fallen one; then person “B” is offering a free ride on the slingshot to happiness. By helping out, person “B” has brought “A” through a very small level of bad and left them better off than they were before, but at the same time leaving themselves back where they had started in terms of happiness. This is just part of the ladder of happiness, and if we can all help one another climb the steep climb that has been presented, then in the end we would all be better off, wouldn’t you agree?
To my understanding, we slingshot each other by doing good acts in order to slowly bring one another closer to the greater good. The great part about this is that even the most simple of “selfless acts” can be put through this test.
As an example, there are two people in the given situation, person “A” and person “B”. If person “A” has fallen on the ground (thus being slightly on the lesser pleasant side of their day) allowing for person “B” to offer a hand up to the fallen one; then person “B” is offering a free ride on the slingshot to happiness. By helping out, person “B” has brought “A” through a very small level of bad and left them better off than they were before, but at the same time leaving themselves back where they had started in terms of happiness. This is just part of the ladder of happiness, and if we can all help one another climb the steep climb that has been presented, then in the end we would all be better off, wouldn’t you agree?
Response to Isreal's Question
This is a response to your question: Should there be perfect balance between logic/proof and faith?
When I really think about this question, there is a lot that comes to my mind. The thing that really stands out though is a theory that I have grown quite accustom to in the recent years of my life. The theory goes as follows: “It is better to ask for forgiveness rather than to ask for permission”. This relates directly to how I look at the balance of faith and logic, for it allows an understanding and fairness to both sides of the argument. The logic side to this is that it allows for you to logically take in and interpret the two situations at hand before making a decision. However, at the same time it leaves open the availability that there is some faith to the things that you end up choosing to do; for in this situation it takes some faith to believe that you will hopefully be without trouble in asking for the forgiveness.
What I am really trying to say here is that there should definitely be some balance in these types of decisions, but that as with all things there must be some moderation in everything that you do. For without balance all things begin to get out of hand, thus leading a life of strict logic would be a life that is too thought out; and a life that is too faithful would be a life lead recklessly.
Do you agree with this philosophy in terms of true human nature?
~Alex
When I really think about this question, there is a lot that comes to my mind. The thing that really stands out though is a theory that I have grown quite accustom to in the recent years of my life. The theory goes as follows: “It is better to ask for forgiveness rather than to ask for permission”. This relates directly to how I look at the balance of faith and logic, for it allows an understanding and fairness to both sides of the argument. The logic side to this is that it allows for you to logically take in and interpret the two situations at hand before making a decision. However, at the same time it leaves open the availability that there is some faith to the things that you end up choosing to do; for in this situation it takes some faith to believe that you will hopefully be without trouble in asking for the forgiveness.
What I am really trying to say here is that there should definitely be some balance in these types of decisions, but that as with all things there must be some moderation in everything that you do. For without balance all things begin to get out of hand, thus leading a life of strict logic would be a life that is too thought out; and a life that is too faithful would be a life lead recklessly.
Do you agree with this philosophy in terms of true human nature?
~Alex
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Platolotics
So this week while in class we had spent a lot of time talking about the Greeks, and their views on human nature. During our discussion on Plato, a very interesting point had come up that i wanted to elaborate on.
The statement was that: "Life leaders should not be a group of people who are all rich".
I think that this may or may not be one of the most clever solution statements that I have heard of in terms of politics in a very long time. The reason that this makes so much sense to me is that it would allow for so much more personality and equality in our society in terms of how things are run for the everyday people. Another thing that I think I really like about this is that it would be kind of scary at first to just elect people who were seemingly "unworthy" as we see it currently, but at the same time it would open up a lot of doors in terms of understanding, and I think in the long run of things really help.
The most important difference in my mind is simply this: how can someone who has been elected based on their money and importance in offic understand the poor side of civilization in their area? Unless that person had grown up being very poor then managed to become rich enough to run an official campaign, (which in my mind can only possibly be so many of the people we have elected in the past... if any) it just doesnt seem very fitting.
Personally, the number of representatives that we host per state shouldn't change, but that there should be an added distinguishing factor between them, one that represents the different class levels of that same state. In my mind this would make for the most effective means of political power change within society, do you agree?
The statement was that: "Life leaders should not be a group of people who are all rich".
I think that this may or may not be one of the most clever solution statements that I have heard of in terms of politics in a very long time. The reason that this makes so much sense to me is that it would allow for so much more personality and equality in our society in terms of how things are run for the everyday people. Another thing that I think I really like about this is that it would be kind of scary at first to just elect people who were seemingly "unworthy" as we see it currently, but at the same time it would open up a lot of doors in terms of understanding, and I think in the long run of things really help.
The most important difference in my mind is simply this: how can someone who has been elected based on their money and importance in offic understand the poor side of civilization in their area? Unless that person had grown up being very poor then managed to become rich enough to run an official campaign, (which in my mind can only possibly be so many of the people we have elected in the past... if any) it just doesnt seem very fitting.
Personally, the number of representatives that we host per state shouldn't change, but that there should be an added distinguishing factor between them, one that represents the different class levels of that same state. In my mind this would make for the most effective means of political power change within society, do you agree?
Response to Julie's Post
I personally think that the term "selfless act" is a little bit of an oxymoron, for in order to perform an act of kindness, you have to want to help that person / thing in need.
When it really comes down to it, I feel like the term "selfless act" causes more argument than is needed on the subject, for why should it be questioned in the first plac wether or not you were being selfish to help someone? In the end if you have actually been a help, that is all the matters, you shouldn't need a proof of purchase to make you feel like a better person.
After all, its almost better that the person you have helped doesn't even know that you have been there to help them, for it means that you are just genuinely good, and for a splinter of time you get to be someone's guardian angel
Do you agree?
When it really comes down to it, I feel like the term "selfless act" causes more argument than is needed on the subject, for why should it be questioned in the first plac wether or not you were being selfish to help someone? In the end if you have actually been a help, that is all the matters, you shouldn't need a proof of purchase to make you feel like a better person.
After all, its almost better that the person you have helped doesn't even know that you have been there to help them, for it means that you are just genuinely good, and for a splinter of time you get to be someone's guardian angel
Do you agree?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Response to Bryan's Post
I think that just about anyone in the world who owns something that they take dear to their heart as a result of earning that certain something in one way or another supports this Sophist idea. The reason I say this is that most of the things that we try to earn in the world are things that we are seeking to achieve, a personal goal for us to become fixated on, and eventually proud of. This feeling of success is what I understand to be a "Sophist" way of thought, and even though it may not represent the whole set of Sophist ideals, it is definitely something that can be considered their own.
When it comes to the American people supporting wrong principles of living, this is what I have to say. Many people in the world, not only the United States live by the wrong principles of living these days. I think that a lot of what is wrong with our society today can be pinned directly to inappropriate approaches to living life happily.
To me there is more to life than representing what we can prove to be better at than one another; for life is about becoming one with what you are meant to be, wouldn't you agree?
When it comes to the American people supporting wrong principles of living, this is what I have to say. Many people in the world, not only the United States live by the wrong principles of living these days. I think that a lot of what is wrong with our society today can be pinned directly to inappropriate approaches to living life happily.
To me there is more to life than representing what we can prove to be better at than one another; for life is about becoming one with what you are meant to be, wouldn't you agree?
Feels Good Man
Something that was brought up in class the other day was a fascinating discussion about what sort of things are "good" and what makes them "good". The solution that was proposed for discussion was that of Socrates, and the first that was brought up was: "Doing things that make you feel good about yourself are good things, where as things that make you feel bad are just generally bad things". I thought that this was an interesting statement when it was first brought up, since I could immediately relate to the fact that doing the right thing indeed does feel good.
But then I had a strange thought, the question that had come to mind while disputing this theory in my head was that: "If feeling good makes what you are doing good, than are the people we see as evil just taking pleasure by doing bad?"
What is your opinion?
But then I had a strange thought, the question that had come to mind while disputing this theory in my head was that: "If feeling good makes what you are doing good, than are the people we see as evil just taking pleasure by doing bad?"
What is your opinion?
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Response to Misty's Post on Scent
This is a response to a response about how smells are affective to people based on their being raised in different surroundings. Question: Do you think we would react differently to certain smells, if we werent raised to like or dislike them?
First, I personally think that your surroundings actually do not affect how you interpret a smell. To me it is more about the situation to which a smell has come into your life that determines how you are going to like or dislike that smell. For example, if you are attracted to someone and they are wearing a noticeable scent, then you are going to remember that smell very vividly as a good smell. Where alternatively if you disliked someone who wore a specific scent, then came across someone else who wore the same scent, it would have a negative effect towards you.
Secondly, I think that scent is sometimes based on what the body interprets as healthy or harmful to the body. As an example here, no one tells you that the smell of diarrhea is bad, but when you smell it you will know... I think that the reason is that your brain interprets that smell as something that is harmful to the body. Thus the nose explains that danger to the brain by making it smell bad.
Do you agree?
First, I personally think that your surroundings actually do not affect how you interpret a smell. To me it is more about the situation to which a smell has come into your life that determines how you are going to like or dislike that smell. For example, if you are attracted to someone and they are wearing a noticeable scent, then you are going to remember that smell very vividly as a good smell. Where alternatively if you disliked someone who wore a specific scent, then came across someone else who wore the same scent, it would have a negative effect towards you.
Secondly, I think that scent is sometimes based on what the body interprets as healthy or harmful to the body. As an example here, no one tells you that the smell of diarrhea is bad, but when you smell it you will know... I think that the reason is that your brain interprets that smell as something that is harmful to the body. Thus the nose explains that danger to the brain by making it smell bad.
Do you agree?
Limitless Knowledge
While we were in class this week, there was a question that was brought up that is undeniably one of the more or less frustrating things that has been on my mind this week. The question was: "What would it be like to know something that you could not possibly know?" When it was said it was something that I knew would bother me immediately (which is why I wrote it down) but has since become something that I cannot get out of my mind. After imagining a whole collection of things that seemed supernaturally amazing and what it would be like to know how to harness such abilities, my overly active imagination was getting the better hand and I needed to submit some logic to this problem.
My first instinct was to shun the idea of being able to learn about something that is not possible to learn about. That there just isn't anything out there anymore that is really a mystery towards the human race. That when it really comes down to it, there is not really much concern that should be put towards this curiosity, for in the end, is there really anything out there that we can learn and discover which has not yet been learned and discovered?
But then I began to think of this from a slightly different perspective, give my own creativity a shot at this logic, and this has lead to some reasonable change in thought. For now that I have pondered this, I have come to the conclusion that no matter what humans have learned collectively as a race, there is always something new that you can personally take away from life everyday in your own study. That just because someone else discovered something doesn't mean you can't discover the same thing in your own way to get some experiential knowledge from it. Thus my real conclusion is that since there is no real limit to what we can learn and know, in practice you will come to understand that learning something that you could not possibly know would be incredible.
My first instinct was to shun the idea of being able to learn about something that is not possible to learn about. That there just isn't anything out there anymore that is really a mystery towards the human race. That when it really comes down to it, there is not really much concern that should be put towards this curiosity, for in the end, is there really anything out there that we can learn and discover which has not yet been learned and discovered?
But then I began to think of this from a slightly different perspective, give my own creativity a shot at this logic, and this has lead to some reasonable change in thought. For now that I have pondered this, I have come to the conclusion that no matter what humans have learned collectively as a race, there is always something new that you can personally take away from life everyday in your own study. That just because someone else discovered something doesn't mean you can't discover the same thing in your own way to get some experiential knowledge from it. Thus my real conclusion is that since there is no real limit to what we can learn and know, in practice you will come to understand that learning something that you could not possibly know would be incredible.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A Quick Request for NHN Peers
Hey there, This is for the people of The Nature of Human Nature Class:
I just wanted to make a quick request for when anyone is interested in commenting or responding to one of my posts; would you please post your response as a comment on my original post rather than telling me that you did? I know that it is a silly little thing, but I'd like to keep your responses on here so that I can refer back to them easily.
Also, I'm not asking you not to post it on your own blog, that would be rediculous of me being that it is a requirement of the course haha, I just want to keep it organized this way!
Thanks, and I hope that this isn't to much of a pain!
~Alex
I just wanted to make a quick request for when anyone is interested in commenting or responding to one of my posts; would you please post your response as a comment on my original post rather than telling me that you did? I know that it is a silly little thing, but I'd like to keep your responses on here so that I can refer back to them easily.
Also, I'm not asking you not to post it on your own blog, that would be rediculous of me being that it is a requirement of the course haha, I just want to keep it organized this way!
Thanks, and I hope that this isn't to much of a pain!
~Alex
This is a Response to Yvonne's Post
The Question that immediately caught my attention was "If a sixth sense exsists are people without it percieving a false world?"
I have two answers for this. The first will entertain the thought that you can in some way discover this sixth sense, for in this case you would be able to prove that there is indeed a poor understanding in the general population of the world. Thus you would have gained the ability to percieve what you think is the real world with the additional bennefit of enjoying it in a new way. But in this statement I would like to point out that I don't think that it would make the world any more correct or incorrect to you or anyone, for it would still be the same place, you could only be able to Percieve it in a new way.
Secondly. What does it matter if the world isn't the same to someone else as it is to you? In some cases, people have red and green backwards in their vision: they see a nice spring day with the simple grey sidewalk and brown tree trunks, but the grass and leaves on tress are vibrant red. Does this make the world more real for them than it does for you? Would you even be able to prove the difference of reality to them? And even if you could prove these things, what difference would this make to your understanding of the world in terms of reality?
The point is, the world is what you make of it, perception is just as much in the eye of the beholder as is beauty.
~Alex
I have two answers for this. The first will entertain the thought that you can in some way discover this sixth sense, for in this case you would be able to prove that there is indeed a poor understanding in the general population of the world. Thus you would have gained the ability to percieve what you think is the real world with the additional bennefit of enjoying it in a new way. But in this statement I would like to point out that I don't think that it would make the world any more correct or incorrect to you or anyone, for it would still be the same place, you could only be able to Percieve it in a new way.
Secondly. What does it matter if the world isn't the same to someone else as it is to you? In some cases, people have red and green backwards in their vision: they see a nice spring day with the simple grey sidewalk and brown tree trunks, but the grass and leaves on tress are vibrant red. Does this make the world more real for them than it does for you? Would you even be able to prove the difference of reality to them? And even if you could prove these things, what difference would this make to your understanding of the world in terms of reality?
The point is, the world is what you make of it, perception is just as much in the eye of the beholder as is beauty.
~Alex
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Food For Thought:
A general question was brought up in class the other day, and I think that it has an interesting and compelling argument to it. The original question started in our text asking: Do we have free will? As if this question wasn't difficult enough to wrap your head around, the more relevant question to my interests that was spawned from this was: "Do we think as a free mind, or are our thoughts provoked by others?" This question was one that I had underestimated, for it argues whether or not our personal creativity is something that we come up with, or rather something that is brought on by another’s actions. Now that I have had the time to think it over though, here is my response: I think that it is a combination of both that adds progress to human development. For we could by no possible means think up everything that is going on in the modern day world nor put it into action by ourselves; but at the same time the world that we take part in everyday has been produced. Thus my response becomes relevant, for what I feel is that the singular person can think on his own with a free mind, but there would be no growth for that person without a partner in crime to validate the process and let that thought grow. Without the input and critique of another, there can be only so much that would develop from such an individual idea. Therefore, we can think and produce thoughts on our own, but they can only be improved by the thoughts of others. Any takers?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Miracles
So. There was something said during class today that I wanted to elaborate on a little bit, because it sounded so striking to me when it was said. What I wrote down during class was a combination of what was said with a little bit of my own wording to get to my point: "Miraculous events are just coincidences of which we are not familiar with the outcome or result."
The result of this being said changed my idea of miracles instantaneously. Originally I thought of miracles as something that can never be explained; but with this being said I think that miracles can only be miracles for so long before someone can explain what has actually happened. Thus whatever had been seen as a miracle previously is now just an ordinary everyday happenstance. Which makes me realize that we don't quite appreciate the things that are these everyday happenstances to us now, but would have been miracles to people in history. To someone of the middle ages, the things that we do just to prepair for our normal day include numerous miracles of their time period: think of the power to turn a handle and change the temprature of flowing water because your shower was pleasing enough!
Which leaves me wondering... is it the quality of miracles we expect to change to keep our lives exciting enough to the extent that there is still something unknown out there?
The result of this being said changed my idea of miracles instantaneously. Originally I thought of miracles as something that can never be explained; but with this being said I think that miracles can only be miracles for so long before someone can explain what has actually happened. Thus whatever had been seen as a miracle previously is now just an ordinary everyday happenstance. Which makes me realize that we don't quite appreciate the things that are these everyday happenstances to us now, but would have been miracles to people in history. To someone of the middle ages, the things that we do just to prepair for our normal day include numerous miracles of their time period: think of the power to turn a handle and change the temprature of flowing water because your shower was pleasing enough!
Which leaves me wondering... is it the quality of miracles we expect to change to keep our lives exciting enough to the extent that there is still something unknown out there?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Welcome to The Blog
My name is Alex, and this is the page that I have set up for use in my philosophy class. The posts that I put on here will moslty be my thoughts on things that are going on in the class, partially as assignments, and partially to keep my thoughts written down. On the side of the page here is a list of links to other things I am working on this semester that are online, feel free to check them out. Other than that, I hope your stay was pleasant, and I hope that you stop by frequently to see my work.
Thanks,
Alex
Thanks,
Alex
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
