The immature (ok hormonal) part of me wants to stamp my feet repeatedly with my fingers in my ears muttering "I know you are but what am I?" Alas, I doubt this is a sound philosophical argument. First, in order to answer the question I would need to disconnected why that is my first impulse. It's my belief that I get that immediate impulse first off because of the associations I have with the word zombie. You say zombie, I think nasty flesh dripping, brain eating automaton with no soul, personality or capability of higher understanding. Obviously this doesn't describe me as my flesh is intact (pretty distended at this point, but not falling off), I've held a brain, but never eaten one, definitely not an automaton, and no one can accuse me of not having a personality (maybe of not having a good one, but there is one there I promise.) So I don't fit into the *Hollywood* stereotype of a zombie, but that's not the question at hand is it? The other reason I want to immediately dismiss the idea is because I have an ingrained belief that I am somehow special. There can be no other replica of me whatsoever. In fact if you believe my mom, they broke the mold when they made me :D (whether on accident or on purpose still remains to be seen :P) Seriously though, whether it is the product of my upbringing, the Christian religion (all unique, made in God's image, special) or some internal vanity, I have a prejudice against the idea of anything being me yet not me. Yet again, this isn't exactly the question. When trying to take a clear unbiased look between Peirce's view and the Calvin and Hobbe's handout, as much as I would like to take the Calvin and Hobbe's handout view (sorry don't have the name off hand, will edit and add when I find the handout) I think this guy is having the same problem's I am. He has an internal prejudice and is looking at some way to get out of the Peircian line of reasoning. From our discussion in class, I couldn't find a way to distinguish myself from the Zombie persona. If the Zombie-me has the ability to love, hate, want, like, dislike or savor experiences in exactly the way I do, then I see no way to deny the existence of a Zombie self state. All of my attempts to do so are influenced by ingrained prejudices against the word itself, or the belief (however erroneous) that I am a unique, superior being by fact of my consciousness. Yet when I go to define consciousness, the synonym that pops in my head is awareness. Is that not the first tenent of the Peircian philosophy? So for now, I must agree with Peirce (however grudgingly that may be) until my 'superior consciousness' can figure out a way around it.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Monday, July 26, 2004
School and such...
Some quick 'and such' stuff.... I looked at the calander and figured I am considered 'full term' on October 8th (or 10th) depending on the day you believe. It's kind of scary how fast this is going. A part of me is so excited to have another child and another part of me is screaming that I'm a raving lunatic and there's no way I can handle another child. I keep trying to tell the second part it's a little late to be worrying about that but I'm not listening to me. On the school side, I've made a semi-important decision. As I'm on the path for a degree in Psychology, I realized this little pipe dream is completely dependant upon me getting into grad school at my current university. You see, I'm not the bread winner of the family. That and the fact that I do have a family and by the time I'm getting into grad school one, if not both of my sons will be in school. It's not feasible for me to whisk the whole family to wherever I happen to get accepted. So what I've come up with is to use my 'extra' credit hours to pick up Philosophy and criminal justice classes, and when it comes time to apply to grad school I'll apply to both the Psych programs and the Law school at the other University near me. (the law school is actually closer to my house than my current university and is very highly rated.) I hope by diversifying my interests (while still getting my Psych BA) I'll at least get into one of the programs. Everyone I've discussed this with thinks I'll be an excellent lawyer (I'm not sure if I should be insulted by this...) At this point, the only thing I care about is that I get a job that pays me buttloads of money. (yes I just used buttloads in a sentence) That may be the greedy capitalist side of me coming out, but tough noogies. I've looked at the amount of student loans I've amassed in just one year of school (I could get a decent car with that!!) and see how my family is struggling because of me doing this, and figure I might as well go for the 'big' payoff at the end. Law or Doctor..... either one works. There's another plus side to law school, it's only 3-4 additional years, compared to earning a masters and then a doctorate for psychology. That and I'll still get a nifty title to add to my name =)
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Hume's Problem and Psychological Experimentation (Philosophy)
Can past experiences dictate future results? No, they can't. The implications of this are truly terrifying. How so you ask? Before we get to that, let's examine how our past can not dictate the future. To make a really crude example, just because every time I've pressed the power button on my television and it has turned on, does not mean when I press the power button tomorrow it will turn on. To get back to why the implications of this can be terrifying, apply this to science (or as many consider it, the pseudo-science of Psychology as this will hopefully be my specialty) First let us examine the process of Psychological Experimentation. To begin with you need a hypothesis to test. Let's say that drug 'a' lowers depression scores. Next we need to set up a null hypothesis. In this case, drug 'a' has no affect on depression scores. Now why would we do something so silly as to set up a hypothesis that says the exact opposite of what we want to prove?! The reason given to me in my Psychological statistics course was this... There is no way to conclusively prove something is true (short of testing *every* applicable subject which is impossible) For example, if you met five men with two arms, or ten, or ten thousand, does this prove that all men have two arms? No, it doesn't. On the other hand, you only need one man with less (or I suppose more) than two arms to disprove your hypothesis. So the theory is, you set up a null hypothesis because if you disprove it (especially over repeated tests) there is enough confidence in the research hypothesis to implement whatever treatment your hypothesis indicates. To use our example, you decide to test the effect of drug 'a' on depression. After setting up your hypotheses, you choose a sample of depressed people. You then separate your sample into a control group and a treatment group. After administering drug 'a' to your treatment group, you retest your sample and decide there was enough statistical significance in the change to warrant releasing this drug to the public. Now how could this be terrifying? Because you haven't proved that this drug is helpful!! All you have proved is that drug 'a' made a "statistically" significant improvement on a limited subset of people. And what after all is statistical significance? An arbitrary number decided on by a mathematician. Enter Hume's problem. How do we know it was the drug that made the improvement? We don't. They could have been having a good day, or maybe the room was painted a cheery color and it brightened them up. We just don't know what the actual cause of the improvement is, yet because of math we will assume it's the drug. Does this frighten anyone else? For that matter because we only tested a limited subset of the population how do we know once this drug is introduced it won't cause suicidal impulses in anyone? Again we don't. The implications of Hume's problem on modern science are terrifying because for all of our experimentation, for all our rules and technology, we can never conclusively say whether or not our experiments have proved a thing. Hmmm....who would have thought an 18th century philosopher would have found such a large flaw in modern science? For that matter who would have thought an 18th century philosopher could help a 21st century college student understand a statistics course.
Comments on Comments (Philosophy)
If the world was an illusion would there be any applicable laws? I know that in my dreams what appears to be the immutable laws of nature have no hold. For example, it's possible to fly, live in space, jump through time or any number of things all while dreaming. So if the world were illusion (ie like a dream) would it bed possible to have rules that (apparently) can not be changed? In my waking state I can't time travel, or fly. Gravity can't be changed, two plus two never equals anything but four. To take an opposite stance, if I am not the one controlling the illusion would I be able to change the rules within said illusion? To use a crude example of this, when I lived with my mom I was in her "world." I did not make, nor could I change the rules of said world. While I could make suggestions, or try to assert how I thought things should be, the ultimate decision lay with my mother, the "ruler" of the world. The same goes with my children. They have input, but the ultimate decision is mine. Therefore, if life is an illusion, there could be a subset of laws controlling said illusion that we are either unaware of or simply unable to change because we do not control the illusion. Now if life were an illusion I think I can honestly say I prefer to remain within it. I know this illusion, while an additional reality is a complete unknown. Which leads us to....
The Matrix
If Cypher could have made his way back into the matrix, that did NOT involve betraying his friends, would there have been a problem with it? To answer a question with a question, can illusion ever really be an illusion once it has been exposed? Imagine a magician. Their very trade relies on illusions. If you recall, there was a series a couple of years ago (I think) where a masked magician revealed the secrets behind many of magic's classic acts. The community of magicians in general became outraged. Why? Because if you take away the mystery, the magic, the illusion, than it no longer holds the same fascination as before. To use another example, Santa Claus. Once the illusion of Santa has been dispelled, is it ever truly possible to fully immerse oneself back into the illusion? Not really. We can relive the illusion of Santa in some small way through our children, but can never completely recover the sense of wonder we had before the illusion was crumbled. No matter how Cypher made it back into the Matrix, it would be impossible for him to find what he sought. The world wouldn't hold the "reality", the food wouldn't taste as real. He could return, yet he would never be able to truly recapture the sense of illusion he craved.
Ruminations on the concept of the primitive...
Are some things primitive? This seems akin to the age old argument of nature vs. Nurture. Are some things known innately, or is all or knowledge learned (and thus explainable?) Before we can explore nature vs. Nurture we must first look at knowledge. Is it always possible to explain something learned, or is it possible to know something without being able to explain it? To this question my gut reaction is to say yes, it's possible to know something without being able to explain it. For example, there are several words that I can't define, yet I can use them in context. On deeper examination this very example disproves my assumption. By being able to give an example of something, or use it in context is a way of explaining something. While this might not be satisfactory evidence to Socrates, it is a way of demonstrating knowledge. So back to the larger question, now with the assumption that it is possible to explain all knowledge to an extent. it would be natural to then assume that nurture would be the ruling force of the universe. If all knowledge can be explained then it is natural to assume that everything we learn comes from explanation. There's a problem with this though.... If everything we learn is from explanation, how do we explain instinct? For instance, as human beings we are born with the instinctual knowledge of how to nurse. Interesting factoid...if you place a newborn baby on his mother's stomach directly after birth, he will 'scootch' up to her breast an latch on. Granted I have only given birth once (and was actually unconscious at the time) but in all of my research I have never seen or heard anyone giving the newborn instructions on how to accomplish this. So by this example, some knowledge is in fact primitive, and not explainable. This leads me to believe that there are other examples of primitive knowledge out there. As for nature vs. Nurture, I believe that like most things in life, it is a mixture of both. So yeas, there are primitive ideas, concepts and instincts. The question that then occurs to me is if there is a primitive idea of something, is it possible that such ideas are subjective? Let's take justice. Assume justice is primitive. Everyone knows what justice is, yet they are unable to explain it. Is my knowledge of justice different than yours? In a more general sense, is knowledge colored by perception? In mathematics (or my limited grasp thereof) no. Two plus two will always equal four no matter how I view life. Then again if you survey people from several countries asking them if the American society is just, my bet is you would get several different answers. Now if knowledge is primitive, yet isn't subjective, then presumably one would be able to look at something and tell you conclusively whether or not it fits the description of "just." From this you can conclude there are multiple types of knowledge (which as we just found out, Hume agrees with). My conclusion from this? Yes there are primitive concepts which can be colored by subjective viewpoints because there are multiple types of knowledge.
The Matrix
If Cypher could have made his way back into the matrix, that did NOT involve betraying his friends, would there have been a problem with it? To answer a question with a question, can illusion ever really be an illusion once it has been exposed? Imagine a magician. Their very trade relies on illusions. If you recall, there was a series a couple of years ago (I think) where a masked magician revealed the secrets behind many of magic's classic acts. The community of magicians in general became outraged. Why? Because if you take away the mystery, the magic, the illusion, than it no longer holds the same fascination as before. To use another example, Santa Claus. Once the illusion of Santa has been dispelled, is it ever truly possible to fully immerse oneself back into the illusion? Not really. We can relive the illusion of Santa in some small way through our children, but can never completely recover the sense of wonder we had before the illusion was crumbled. No matter how Cypher made it back into the Matrix, it would be impossible for him to find what he sought. The world wouldn't hold the "reality", the food wouldn't taste as real. He could return, yet he would never be able to truly recapture the sense of illusion he craved.
Ruminations on the concept of the primitive...
Are some things primitive? This seems akin to the age old argument of nature vs. Nurture. Are some things known innately, or is all or knowledge learned (and thus explainable?) Before we can explore nature vs. Nurture we must first look at knowledge. Is it always possible to explain something learned, or is it possible to know something without being able to explain it? To this question my gut reaction is to say yes, it's possible to know something without being able to explain it. For example, there are several words that I can't define, yet I can use them in context. On deeper examination this very example disproves my assumption. By being able to give an example of something, or use it in context is a way of explaining something. While this might not be satisfactory evidence to Socrates, it is a way of demonstrating knowledge. So back to the larger question, now with the assumption that it is possible to explain all knowledge to an extent. it would be natural to then assume that nurture would be the ruling force of the universe. If all knowledge can be explained then it is natural to assume that everything we learn comes from explanation. There's a problem with this though.... If everything we learn is from explanation, how do we explain instinct? For instance, as human beings we are born with the instinctual knowledge of how to nurse. Interesting factoid...if you place a newborn baby on his mother's stomach directly after birth, he will 'scootch' up to her breast an latch on. Granted I have only given birth once (and was actually unconscious at the time) but in all of my research I have never seen or heard anyone giving the newborn instructions on how to accomplish this. So by this example, some knowledge is in fact primitive, and not explainable. This leads me to believe that there are other examples of primitive knowledge out there. As for nature vs. Nurture, I believe that like most things in life, it is a mixture of both. So yeas, there are primitive ideas, concepts and instincts. The question that then occurs to me is if there is a primitive idea of something, is it possible that such ideas are subjective? Let's take justice. Assume justice is primitive. Everyone knows what justice is, yet they are unable to explain it. Is my knowledge of justice different than yours? In a more general sense, is knowledge colored by perception? In mathematics (or my limited grasp thereof) no. Two plus two will always equal four no matter how I view life. Then again if you survey people from several countries asking them if the American society is just, my bet is you would get several different answers. Now if knowledge is primitive, yet isn't subjective, then presumably one would be able to look at something and tell you conclusively whether or not it fits the description of "just." From this you can conclude there are multiple types of knowledge (which as we just found out, Hume agrees with). My conclusion from this? Yes there are primitive concepts which can be colored by subjective viewpoints because there are multiple types of knowledge.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Friday Five!!
First for those keeping track, baby appt went good. HB in the 150's, I have to go on Monday for my 1 hour glucouse test (ugh) and they didn't give me the drink beforehand so I get to drink the nasty stuff and sit for an hour so they can poke me (double ugh) Oh well =) Now on to the Friday five!
1. What color ink pen do you like best?
Black gel ink, fine point pens
2. Do you prefer plain paper or paper with lines (notebook paper)?
With lines!! I don't know, oddly I'm anal about my office supplies. I hate to have my writing slant across the paper, hence the lines :)
3. What's better: books from the library, or reading online?
Library (well technically book store for me. I love to reread my books, so owning it is actually a good investment). There's nothing like the smell and feel of a good book (yes I'm odd, I like the smell of books.) A 'page-turner' doesn't have the same meaning in an online book.
4. Which would you rather get, e-mail or snail mail?
both? I love the instant communication of e-mail, yet nothing matches the excitement of opening my mail and seeing something for me that isn't asking for money! It's kind of sad, but it's beginning to seem like snail mail is becoming a lost art. I haven't had a good letter since my best friend got out of the military!
5. Do you have a paper weight on your desk?
No, but I have plenty of other 'crap' laying around to pin paper down with :)
1. What color ink pen do you like best?
Black gel ink, fine point pens
2. Do you prefer plain paper or paper with lines (notebook paper)?
With lines!! I don't know, oddly I'm anal about my office supplies. I hate to have my writing slant across the paper, hence the lines :)
3. What's better: books from the library, or reading online?
Library (well technically book store for me. I love to reread my books, so owning it is actually a good investment). There's nothing like the smell and feel of a good book (yes I'm odd, I like the smell of books.) A 'page-turner' doesn't have the same meaning in an online book.
4. Which would you rather get, e-mail or snail mail?
both? I love the instant communication of e-mail, yet nothing matches the excitement of opening my mail and seeing something for me that isn't asking for money! It's kind of sad, but it's beginning to seem like snail mail is becoming a lost art. I haven't had a good letter since my best friend got out of the military!
5. Do you have a paper weight on your desk?
No, but I have plenty of other 'crap' laying around to pin paper down with :)
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Random ramblings and observations...
As I'm having yet another bout of preggers insomnia, here's some of what's going on.
We got to see A. again last Friday. The U/S tech said everything looks good, so that's a huge relief. Of course, me being me I'm going to worry until the kid pops. Which I just peeked at my blog and I realize I already said this... Yay pregnancy brain :) I have an OB appt tomorrow at 7am... I hate those early morning appts, but at least this way DH gets to go too! I think we're down to only three or four weeks left of school, and then it's my 'summer' vacation :) Well at least for a couple more months till A. arrives. DH is still looking for a better job (yes still!!) He keeps getting turned down for college kids they can pay pennies to. I guess in this market it doesn't pay to have experience. Oh well only 5ish more years till I'm in grad school :) (hopefully on an assistanceship so I can bring money in too!!) I really need to stop watching television. I'm so hormonal I disgust myself. I'm crying at commercials. Commercials!!!! I remember when I used to be sane. I miss that :) B. is such a boy :) Such a stubborn honery boy!! I wish I knew how to get through his thick little skull. Right now his answer to everything is why not? and he does not listen to mommy or daddy with out threat of bodily harm!!! Please, please tell me this is a phase. If nothing else only 15 years until he can enter the military :) I wonder if I can preregister for that?? I think I bombed a stats test today. It was all my fault, I should have studied this weekend, but I left it until today. I tried studying today, but B. decided it was use mommy as a jungle gym day, and it's not exactly easy memorizing formulas while you have a 3 year old monkey hanging from your neck. (when I say monkey I mean my child is making monkey noises, insisting I call him monkey boy and literally swinging from my neck. No more animal channel for that little man!) Ok, as it is almost midnight and I do have that 7 am appt I better try and sleep!
**edited to add** I think it's a bad sign that I'm already impatient for this pregnancy to be over and I still have 15 weeks left. Good Lord, give me strength!
We got to see A. again last Friday. The U/S tech said everything looks good, so that's a huge relief. Of course, me being me I'm going to worry until the kid pops. Which I just peeked at my blog and I realize I already said this... Yay pregnancy brain :) I have an OB appt tomorrow at 7am... I hate those early morning appts, but at least this way DH gets to go too! I think we're down to only three or four weeks left of school, and then it's my 'summer' vacation :) Well at least for a couple more months till A. arrives. DH is still looking for a better job (yes still!!) He keeps getting turned down for college kids they can pay pennies to. I guess in this market it doesn't pay to have experience. Oh well only 5ish more years till I'm in grad school :) (hopefully on an assistanceship so I can bring money in too!!) I really need to stop watching television. I'm so hormonal I disgust myself. I'm crying at commercials. Commercials!!!! I remember when I used to be sane. I miss that :) B. is such a boy :) Such a stubborn honery boy!! I wish I knew how to get through his thick little skull. Right now his answer to everything is why not? and he does not listen to mommy or daddy with out threat of bodily harm!!! Please, please tell me this is a phase. If nothing else only 15 years until he can enter the military :) I wonder if I can preregister for that?? I think I bombed a stats test today. It was all my fault, I should have studied this weekend, but I left it until today. I tried studying today, but B. decided it was use mommy as a jungle gym day, and it's not exactly easy memorizing formulas while you have a 3 year old monkey hanging from your neck. (when I say monkey I mean my child is making monkey noises, insisting I call him monkey boy and literally swinging from my neck. No more animal channel for that little man!) Ok, as it is almost midnight and I do have that 7 am appt I better try and sleep!
**edited to add** I think it's a bad sign that I'm already impatient for this pregnancy to be over and I still have 15 weeks left. Good Lord, give me strength!
Descartes
On a quick little side note....I like Descartes a little less now that I know he was responsible for the Cartesian Plane. Bad math bad.
I think therefore I am
This statement kind of makes sense. On one hand, it would be reasonable to assume that because you are thinking there is some sort of consiousness that *is*. On the other hand, if you are nothing more than an illusion, or a pawn of some evil demon, how do you know that the fact that you think is enough to justify your existence? Frankly I think the idea of a 'Light of Nature' is phooey, but I'll get into that later.
Solipsism
Oddly enough, I've thought about this off and on since I was about 7. I just didn't have a name before. Do you ever get the feeling that you are the only 'real' thing out there? I've often gotten a really odd feeling that I'm wandering around in some kind of dream where all the other people/things are nothing more than my own made up illusions. Yet if this were a dream you would think I could imagine myself a mansion and convertible to come with it.... Do I honestly believe I am the only *real* thing here, no. But it is interesting to think about.
God is Perfect and Infinite, Existence is Perfection
This is where I have my huge gripe with Descartes. (Note** The following does not reflect my personal beliefs, which are just that....personal. The following is just a reaction to the reading and my perception of Descartes' arguement.) First of all, how do you know God is perfect? As far as I know, everything we know about God has been handed down by man. The Bible was written by men, every other religous text I've read was written by men. Granted one could argue that they were 'inspired' by God, yet even with that point. This leads to the fact that men are in fact fallible. Even Decartes admits this. If men are fallible, is it not possible that they made mistakes while writing down these religous notations? Now I'm sorry, but unless Descartes had a conversation directly with God, and had it tape recorded, his arguement holds no water. For example the evil demon mentioned earlier could have fed him that 'Light of Nature' claptrap which would throw his whole meditations out the window... For that matter, what if God is perfect, yet is not kind or good? Perfection does not automatically assume goodness. In this case God could be perfectly decieving you, because he thinks that is what's good (or just because it's his idea of fun...). I think my statement that Philosophy is the athiests religeon still holds water. I was with Descartes until he threw God into the mixture. It seems to me like he painted himself into a mental jail and used God as his 'get out of jail free' card...
I think therefore I am
This statement kind of makes sense. On one hand, it would be reasonable to assume that because you are thinking there is some sort of consiousness that *is*. On the other hand, if you are nothing more than an illusion, or a pawn of some evil demon, how do you know that the fact that you think is enough to justify your existence? Frankly I think the idea of a 'Light of Nature' is phooey, but I'll get into that later.
Solipsism
Oddly enough, I've thought about this off and on since I was about 7. I just didn't have a name before. Do you ever get the feeling that you are the only 'real' thing out there? I've often gotten a really odd feeling that I'm wandering around in some kind of dream where all the other people/things are nothing more than my own made up illusions. Yet if this were a dream you would think I could imagine myself a mansion and convertible to come with it.... Do I honestly believe I am the only *real* thing here, no. But it is interesting to think about.
God is Perfect and Infinite, Existence is Perfection
This is where I have my huge gripe with Descartes. (Note** The following does not reflect my personal beliefs, which are just that....personal. The following is just a reaction to the reading and my perception of Descartes' arguement.) First of all, how do you know God is perfect? As far as I know, everything we know about God has been handed down by man. The Bible was written by men, every other religous text I've read was written by men. Granted one could argue that they were 'inspired' by God, yet even with that point. This leads to the fact that men are in fact fallible. Even Decartes admits this. If men are fallible, is it not possible that they made mistakes while writing down these religous notations? Now I'm sorry, but unless Descartes had a conversation directly with God, and had it tape recorded, his arguement holds no water. For example the evil demon mentioned earlier could have fed him that 'Light of Nature' claptrap which would throw his whole meditations out the window... For that matter, what if God is perfect, yet is not kind or good? Perfection does not automatically assume goodness. In this case God could be perfectly decieving you, because he thinks that is what's good (or just because it's his idea of fun...). I think my statement that Philosophy is the athiests religeon still holds water. I was with Descartes until he threw God into the mixture. It seems to me like he painted himself into a mental jail and used God as his 'get out of jail free' card...
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Good Deed!
Little PSA here... Our troops are in desperate need for e-mail storage space. Many of our men and women overseas use either hotmail or yahoo accounts to keep in touch with friends and family back home, and as we all know neither of those services offers much storage for pictures etc.... Well google has started an e-mail service called Gmail, which offers 1 gig of storage space! Currently it is by invitation only. So please, if you get an invitation sign up! After signing up you will be offered invitations to pass on, at which time you can visit http://www.gmail4troops.com/ This website allows you to donate your gmail invites to the troops stationed over seas. It's a great site, and a great thing to do for the troops risking their lives. Thanks!
Friday, July 09, 2004
A Day for Humour (or humor or whatever....)
First, I had the second U/S, and A looks great! They were able to get a good shot of his spine and it looks normal. See I'm not just fat, there is a baby in there :D In other news, the need for laughter (because I've given up spelling humour) is because my darling son is in his full contrary 3 year old glory :/ His room is now carpeted in kleenex. He stole my brand new box (of course brand new, it wouldn't be any fun if there wasn't a magnitude of destruction!!) and proceeded to pull every last one out and throw em all over his room. Now he won't pick them up because they are 'pretty' sigh.... And soon there will be two....Boys are fun :D
Now I've debated posting this, but it's bothering me, it's my blog and if you don't like it don't read it... I have never seen a bunch of grown people act like immature 12 year olds than I have today. Good lord. Oh no, someone said they didn't like someone! Let's lynch her!! I'm sure everyone out there likes everybody all the time. (hint that was sarcasm) I'm also sure that if anyone had the bad taste to disagree with or dislike someone they would *never* say so (yet again sarcasm) Grow the frig up people.
**Edited to Add** I think I'm going to track down the guy who invented ice cream trucks and that annoying repeated music and hurt him. Severely....
Now I've debated posting this, but it's bothering me, it's my blog and if you don't like it don't read it... I have never seen a bunch of grown people act like immature 12 year olds than I have today. Good lord. Oh no, someone said they didn't like someone! Let's lynch her!! I'm sure everyone out there likes everybody all the time. (hint that was sarcasm) I'm also sure that if anyone had the bad taste to disagree with or dislike someone they would *never* say so (yet again sarcasm) Grow the frig up people.
**Edited to Add** I think I'm going to track down the guy who invented ice cream trucks and that annoying repeated music and hurt him. Severely....
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Woo Hoo!!! (Philosophy)
I love Descartes!!! Or maybe it's just after the sheer incomprehensible wordiness of Aristotle I'm relieved I actually understand something I've been reading =) Anyway I just read Descarts 1st meditation, and here are some thought that popped up:
1. pg. 461 second column 1st paragraph: "For whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three make five, and a square does not have more than four sides. It does not seem possible that such obvious truths should be subject to the suspicion of being false." Yet, the best lies are based on the truth, and are also very simple. Is this assumption logically sound?
2. pg. 461 second column, 1st full paragraph (this entire paragraph is applicable, but for the sake of brevity I'll quote only a small part): "But perhaps God has not willed that I be deceived in this way, for he is said to be supremely good. Nonetheless, if it were repugnant to his goodness to have created me such that I be deceived all the time, it would also seem foreign to that same goodness to permit me to be deceived even occasionally." Yet how is there proof of the existence of a God? Futhermore, how can you prove that is there is a God he is benevolent? The records of God are provided by man (the bible, while supposedly handed down by God, was transcribed by man), and according to these very same records man is inherently flawed! (Descartes later shows that to make this assumption was false, so far anyway =) )
3. It is like the writers of the Matrix series stole Descartes' meditation!! I also find it kind of funny to look back at my first 'philosophical musings' in light of this reading. (See entries titled Random thoughts and Random Thoughts Part II dated 6/15) Apparently, I had an affinitly with Descartes and didn't know it =)
1. pg. 461 second column 1st paragraph: "For whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three make five, and a square does not have more than four sides. It does not seem possible that such obvious truths should be subject to the suspicion of being false." Yet, the best lies are based on the truth, and are also very simple. Is this assumption logically sound?
2. pg. 461 second column, 1st full paragraph (this entire paragraph is applicable, but for the sake of brevity I'll quote only a small part): "But perhaps God has not willed that I be deceived in this way, for he is said to be supremely good. Nonetheless, if it were repugnant to his goodness to have created me such that I be deceived all the time, it would also seem foreign to that same goodness to permit me to be deceived even occasionally." Yet how is there proof of the existence of a God? Futhermore, how can you prove that is there is a God he is benevolent? The records of God are provided by man (the bible, while supposedly handed down by God, was transcribed by man), and according to these very same records man is inherently flawed! (Descartes later shows that to make this assumption was false, so far anyway =) )
3. It is like the writers of the Matrix series stole Descartes' meditation!! I also find it kind of funny to look back at my first 'philosophical musings' in light of this reading. (See entries titled Random thoughts and Random Thoughts Part II dated 6/15) Apparently, I had an affinitly with Descartes and didn't know it =)
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
A-HA!!! (Philosophy)
Before I get started, for those of you interested I have added my Philosophy teachers blog to the links on the right (Subject to Change) If you check it out, look for the post on Comic Books, good stuff there.
Now on to my a-ha moment :) While in class tonight, I had a true a-ha! Philosophy is the religon (sp?) of the athiest. Stick with me here... The ancient Greeks invented the 'myths' as a way to explain the world around them. Their religon provided explainations for why the seasons changed (Persephone), why there was thunder (Zues), for wars, for love, for hate etc etc etc. As human beings, we feel a need to have an explaination for the world around us. For some, religon does not fill that void. It doesn't make sense to some people that things happen because the God's willed it, or a tree is there because God put the tree there. Thusly, in order to compartmentalize the world into understandable sections, Philosophy is born. Take the four causes of Aristotle...While very very general, they offer a convenient way to neatly package the world around us. A tree's material cause is wood (or earth if you prefer), it's formal cause is to reproduce itself (or again to take another view to synthesize carbon dioxide into oxygen for the purpose of providing things with air), its efficient cause is from a seed falling on the ground or someone planting a seed, and it's final cause could be shade or reproduction or providing lumber. Because of the four causes you are able to package the world of why. In my opinion, as humans we need to know why. It almost seems built in. For example my son, who just turned three has hit the why phase (oh please let it be a phase!) For everything I tell him, his reply is why. From what I understand every child does this. So it seems that it is built into us to have a need to understand the world around us, to have compartments that let us seperate information into to help make the world a more understandable place to be in. So in a way, Philosophy can be viewed as an evolution of religon. If I don't like the way religon (the most common form of explaining why) then I can turn to Philosophy to answer my why. This would also explain why my great books professor often used philosophy to explain literature. He said that in the classical world view, God was the reason for everything. When we turned to the modern view, and 'killed' the God figure, we had to find some other way to explain things. A-Ha!!
Now on to my a-ha moment :) While in class tonight, I had a true a-ha! Philosophy is the religon (sp?) of the athiest. Stick with me here... The ancient Greeks invented the 'myths' as a way to explain the world around them. Their religon provided explainations for why the seasons changed (Persephone), why there was thunder (Zues), for wars, for love, for hate etc etc etc. As human beings, we feel a need to have an explaination for the world around us. For some, religon does not fill that void. It doesn't make sense to some people that things happen because the God's willed it, or a tree is there because God put the tree there. Thusly, in order to compartmentalize the world into understandable sections, Philosophy is born. Take the four causes of Aristotle...While very very general, they offer a convenient way to neatly package the world around us. A tree's material cause is wood (or earth if you prefer), it's formal cause is to reproduce itself (or again to take another view to synthesize carbon dioxide into oxygen for the purpose of providing things with air), its efficient cause is from a seed falling on the ground or someone planting a seed, and it's final cause could be shade or reproduction or providing lumber. Because of the four causes you are able to package the world of why. In my opinion, as humans we need to know why. It almost seems built in. For example my son, who just turned three has hit the why phase (oh please let it be a phase!) For everything I tell him, his reply is why. From what I understand every child does this. So it seems that it is built into us to have a need to understand the world around us, to have compartments that let us seperate information into to help make the world a more understandable place to be in. So in a way, Philosophy can be viewed as an evolution of religon. If I don't like the way religon (the most common form of explaining why) then I can turn to Philosophy to answer my why. This would also explain why my great books professor often used philosophy to explain literature. He said that in the classical world view, God was the reason for everything. When we turned to the modern view, and 'killed' the God figure, we had to find some other way to explain things. A-Ha!!
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Why I *hate* the 4th of July
Ok, so I really don't hate the holiday in and of itself. As of now, it is 11:26PM. The city fireworks were over an hour ago. Yet the people in our neighborhood are *still* setting off fireworks. And not the little itty bitty ones either. Nooooooo that would be to easy. I have explosions going off that are so loud they are literally shaking the house. I don't live in a tiny house. I'd call the cops but they are so useless in this city. Last year we tried calling when people were still setting off the big ones at 1 am. We were told it was the 4th and there was nothing they could do. What a load of crap. Besides the fact that M-80's are extremely illegal, does this city not have noise ordinance laws? I miss living in a real city. Then again this is the same police force that said that we should just leave our car doors unlocked to the theives wouldn't have to break our windows, because it's probably just kids doing it. Lovely. I feel so safe. They'd probably tell me if I'm being raped to lay there, because it would be over quicker. The biggest reason it pisses me off is it's scaring the hell out of my son!! Now do I expect the city to ban all fireworks? No, of course not. I think the city shows are beautiful, and I enjoy them. They also end at a reasonable time. Bah. I swear, as soon as we can afford it we are so moving out of the city. Build our dream house on nice secluded acerage. With no fireworks!!! End my fussy mean spoil sport rant.
general news.
Well I'm now feeling the baby move more regularly, so I'm guessing the placenta is moving (it was smack dab in the front, and I wasn't feeling anything!) It's kind of funny to notice the differences in the boys so early. A seems very reticent. Very timid kicking, if you poke my belly he runs. B was very very...prominent. Every time someone dared to poke his 'home' he was very clear he didn't like it :) When I had to go in for non stress tests with him we would have to stay twice as long because he would kick the fetal monitors so hard they couldn't get a reading! Believe me, his personality has only gotten stonger since he's been born :) Lets hope A is my quiet little peaceful boy! DH is in the hospital again, luckily this time it seems minor. They tried diagnosing him with a stroke (again, you know I'd really like to know why they keep trying to say my 29 year old husband is having strokes...) but it turns out he has a ripped tendon in his leg. Yea stroke, ripped tendon, I can see the similarities. Granted I don't have a medical degree, but one would think that common sense does not dissapear when one is bestowed. Maybe I shouldn't get my doctorate after all. I kind of like having a semi functional brain. Good news, he should be home tonight. I think that's pretty much everything for now. Hope y'all have a great holiday.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
What did I get out of the Meno (Philosophy)
Hmmmnn. What did I get out of the Meno? I realized I'm not a Philosophical genius :) All kidding aside, the point that jumps immediately to the forefront of my addled brain is that it is not knowledge that makes one wise. Wisdom is a product of your willingness to keep your mind open. For example, in the Meno Socrates leads Meno in various mind bending adventures on the subject of virtue. The selection is quite long (compared to most we have read) because while Meno doesn't immediately jump to the 'correct' conclusion (if there even is one) his mind is open to the different arguements that Socrates presents. On the other hand, when Anytus enters the picture, and refuses to acknowlede any view other than his own, Socrates shuts him down rather quickly. Another example of this can be drawn from the Euthypro. Euthypro has fixed in his head that he is doing the pious act. Nothing anyone (from Socrates to his family) says can shake him of this notion. I think his abrupt departure from the dialog also shows that he is uncomfortable and unwilling to explore a different thought pattern than that which is familiar and uncomfortable. As was brought up in the lecture on Euthypro, this makes this dialog a form of a tragedy. Nothing was learned, no knowledge was gained. In a way, the Euthypro dialog was nothing but a large circle, in which they ended up right where they started. In the Meno, while they didn't define virtue, they did make progress in the thought processes, and ruled out several things that virtue *was not*. As my stats professor pointed out in regards to hypothesis testing...You only need one difference to *disprove* something, hence our psychological tests are geared towards the disproving of the null hypothesis, instead of proving our research hypothesis. So in a way I guess the Meno has helped me realize that I am not dumb because I don't know the answers, but I have promise because I'm willing to think about the different arguements presented to me. Then again, if a wise man knows how much he does not know, I could be the next Einstien :)
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Plato and Aristotle (Philosophy)
As I have been lax in my journaling duties (bad Bonnie bad!!) I'm going to cover several points in this entry.
Can Virtue Be Taught?
As a parent, I think so. I like to think that teaching virtue is a main component of my job. If you take the Socratic view of having to define virtue first, I might just be a failure at that job. I honestly have no earth shattering ideas about what virtue is. The off the cuff response would be virtue is the act of being a good person. Being kind, caring, honest. The obvious flaw in this definition is that these are all aspects of virtue, yet none of them define virtue as a whole. This leads into the next topic:
What is Piety?
Again, no earth shattering ideas here. I run into the same problem as with virtue. I can explain aspects of piety (or at least what *my* conceptualization of piety, which may be entirely different from the Greeks) I think the true tragedy of the Euthypro (the source of the piety discussion) is that it is my belief that Socrates couldn't use the discussion of piety to save himself. Even if he had come up with an answer, as we read in the Apology the combination of Socrates' own arrogance and the various levels of prosecution made it a foregone conclusion that he would be convicted. The main thing that I got out of Plato was that there are true forms of every concept surronding us. Love, hate, justice, piety etc all have a 'form' we percieve and a true form. The pursuit of knowledge, is the pursuit of the true form. It seemed that our discussions in class got caught up in the 'earthly' forms (our limited perception of the true forms) The question that I came up with is, is it possible to assertain the true nature of something by using pure logic? As a human being, is it possible to completely disregard our sensory input to gain the knowledge of the true form. I think as human beings, we are sensory creatures. Therefore to try and figure something out using pure logic, seems to be highly unlikely.
Is Philosophy Dangerous
In a word, yes. In Socrates' case, it was fatal. From my understanding, Philosophy is the art of learning to think in different ways. In and of itself this doesn't sound threatening. If you look at it from a purely practical standpoint, the study of Philosophy could get you so caught up in the what and whys behind everything that you cease to function as a productive member of society. In a class I took last semester (Great Books II) our teacher said the problem with introspection is that too much could lead to madness. Now in this case he was referring to self examination. For example, if you spend all your time focusing on yourself, and the different aspects of your personality, you can drive yourself mad. Humans as a whole are contradictory creatures. We love and we hate, we are nice and mean, we are tender and we hurt. Whether one admits it or not, we are all multiple personalities. The personality we show depends on who we are surrounded by. And if thinking about the contradictions inherent in being a human being can drive one mad, imagine contemplating the contradictions inherent in the universe!! Nature can be beautiful and ugly, peaceful and terrifying. Another reason that Philosophy strikes me as dangerous, is that it makes you question the status quo. Again I don't neccesarily think this is bad in and of itself. Yet as I pointed out in class, enough people think differently than the norm, the norm changes. This is very threatening to the people in 'power', and ultimately I believe this is why Socrates was put to death. The charge of corrupting the young was more the Athenian government's way of protecting the status quo of their society. (Kind of ironic when you realize that Aristotle's 'student' Alexander the Great was the one to destroy the Athenian democracy)
Aristotle
Honestly, I didn't understand one bit of the dialog until after class tonight. After the discussion, it made sense (mostly). The only thing that has 'popped' for me so far (hopefully the next readings wont be so hard to get through) is that it's interesting to see the beginnings of hypothesis testing. The fact that I'm currently taking a Quantitative Methods course, and just last night we went over how we set up our testing procedures, then tonight while discussing Aristotle's typical procedure for his treaties, the similarities are striking. To know that the beginnings of the scientific method were from Aristotle just amazes me!
Can Virtue Be Taught?
As a parent, I think so. I like to think that teaching virtue is a main component of my job. If you take the Socratic view of having to define virtue first, I might just be a failure at that job. I honestly have no earth shattering ideas about what virtue is. The off the cuff response would be virtue is the act of being a good person. Being kind, caring, honest. The obvious flaw in this definition is that these are all aspects of virtue, yet none of them define virtue as a whole. This leads into the next topic:
What is Piety?
Again, no earth shattering ideas here. I run into the same problem as with virtue. I can explain aspects of piety (or at least what *my* conceptualization of piety, which may be entirely different from the Greeks) I think the true tragedy of the Euthypro (the source of the piety discussion) is that it is my belief that Socrates couldn't use the discussion of piety to save himself. Even if he had come up with an answer, as we read in the Apology the combination of Socrates' own arrogance and the various levels of prosecution made it a foregone conclusion that he would be convicted. The main thing that I got out of Plato was that there are true forms of every concept surronding us. Love, hate, justice, piety etc all have a 'form' we percieve and a true form. The pursuit of knowledge, is the pursuit of the true form. It seemed that our discussions in class got caught up in the 'earthly' forms (our limited perception of the true forms) The question that I came up with is, is it possible to assertain the true nature of something by using pure logic? As a human being, is it possible to completely disregard our sensory input to gain the knowledge of the true form. I think as human beings, we are sensory creatures. Therefore to try and figure something out using pure logic, seems to be highly unlikely.
Is Philosophy Dangerous
In a word, yes. In Socrates' case, it was fatal. From my understanding, Philosophy is the art of learning to think in different ways. In and of itself this doesn't sound threatening. If you look at it from a purely practical standpoint, the study of Philosophy could get you so caught up in the what and whys behind everything that you cease to function as a productive member of society. In a class I took last semester (Great Books II) our teacher said the problem with introspection is that too much could lead to madness. Now in this case he was referring to self examination. For example, if you spend all your time focusing on yourself, and the different aspects of your personality, you can drive yourself mad. Humans as a whole are contradictory creatures. We love and we hate, we are nice and mean, we are tender and we hurt. Whether one admits it or not, we are all multiple personalities. The personality we show depends on who we are surrounded by. And if thinking about the contradictions inherent in being a human being can drive one mad, imagine contemplating the contradictions inherent in the universe!! Nature can be beautiful and ugly, peaceful and terrifying. Another reason that Philosophy strikes me as dangerous, is that it makes you question the status quo. Again I don't neccesarily think this is bad in and of itself. Yet as I pointed out in class, enough people think differently than the norm, the norm changes. This is very threatening to the people in 'power', and ultimately I believe this is why Socrates was put to death. The charge of corrupting the young was more the Athenian government's way of protecting the status quo of their society. (Kind of ironic when you realize that Aristotle's 'student' Alexander the Great was the one to destroy the Athenian democracy)
Aristotle
Honestly, I didn't understand one bit of the dialog until after class tonight. After the discussion, it made sense (mostly). The only thing that has 'popped' for me so far (hopefully the next readings wont be so hard to get through) is that it's interesting to see the beginnings of hypothesis testing. The fact that I'm currently taking a Quantitative Methods course, and just last night we went over how we set up our testing procedures, then tonight while discussing Aristotle's typical procedure for his treaties, the similarities are striking. To know that the beginnings of the scientific method were from Aristotle just amazes me!
Friday, June 18, 2004
Bored....
I am so bored. No particular reason, as I have plenty to do, I just don't wanna. (How's that for an example of maturity) I don't have anyting new to read for Philosophy, I'm avoiding my Quantitative Methods homework (even though the teacher is awesome, I don't think anyone can make math exciting) My husband thinks math's exciting, but he's a geek :) In fact he was bored this morning so he made me my very own message board (even though I told him I'd be using this blog for my class) Geek is really a broad term though. I consider myself a geek, it's just with books and reading and the internet in general. DH is a math and computer geek. My quantitative methods teacher is a self professed stats geek. I never really thought of it before but there are subdivisions of geek :) I wonder if there's an ultimate geek somewhere? The supreme geek to whom all must bow down to...
My baby turns three on Monday :( It seems like just yesterday I brought him home from the hospital. I miss my little baby boy! He's turning into a 'big boy' now. Doesn't want cuddles, always playing with his trucks. This boy sleeps with a metal truck. He still has little boy moments, they are just getting fewer and fewer. <> It was bound to happen :)
My baby turns three on Monday :( It seems like just yesterday I brought him home from the hospital. I miss my little baby boy! He's turning into a 'big boy' now. Doesn't want cuddles, always playing with his trucks. This boy sleeps with a metal truck. He still has little boy moments, they are just getting fewer and fewer. <
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Short note...
I've changed my template, this one seems to be a little easier to read. My Philosophy teacher o.k'd the use of this blog for my project, so what I will do is start seperating my posts in the title, by putting philosophy in parenthesis. Hopefully this will make it easier for both my teacher (who I doubt wants to wade through my facinating pregnancy tales) and anyone else who happens to pop by :) Thanks for your patience in this experiment 'o mine!
Socrates.
While searching on line I found this site: http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm (sorry it's not clickable) I was actually trying to see if Socrates was the one who died by drinking hemlock, but this site looks like it has tons of useful information on Philosophy in general...
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Meno by Plato
What is virtue? Honestly, I don't know. Much like Meno, I can come up with *examples* of a virtue, but I am unable to define it as a whole. It pisses me off :) On my way home from class tonight, I was thinking (dangerous, I know) that I think one of the points that Socrates is trying to make in this dialog is that the answer is not as important as the journey to the answer. It was pointed out that this dialog illustrates the Socratic method of teaching. What I was thinking is that Socrates (or more technically, Plato as he is the one who wrote this) places immense value on the *process* with which one comes up with an answer. This may in part be due to the fact that he believed that we don't learn things, we remember them. If that's true then none of my past selves ever took a math class. Overall, I did come to like the story. Specifically, Anytus was an interesting character. I think what made it truely interesting was his interaction with Socrates, knowing that Anytus would be the one to prosecute him.
U/S
baby looks good :) we have to go back in three weeks because the baby would only show us one side, and they want a good look at both sides of the spine, but she said that was just a precaution. Babe was very stubborn, crossed legs, even tried using a hand to cover the goods. With the help of a very patient U/S technician we were able to see that it's a BOY!!!!! I'm so thrilled!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
