4) My name is Anthony Leonard Cusimano
6)Cuziss1@yahoo.com
7) http://www.blogger.com/profile/10286347364437079254
8)Almost
9)Mostly
10) WEEK 1 POSTS---------------------------
Huxley-
When I first got started on this video I wasnt to sure it would be very relevant to the present time we live in today. However, that all changed when Aldous Huxley answered Mike Wallace's question “what are the enemies to our freedom in the US?” He said there are two impersonal forces that are lessening the freedom of people on our planet. One is overpopulation, when there are more people in a certain area, people have to co exist in a different manner which lessens their freedom. People cannot assume the same liberties they once enjoyed with lesser of a population because there is less of it to go around for everyone. The second is, according to Huxley, overorganization. As technology becomes more complicated it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, and more hierchal organizations.
Huxley also spoke of different devices that can be, and are, used for lessening freedom. One of the devices he spoke of was propaganda. Used through tools such as Televisions, radios, billboards, movies, or anything the public will view often, it can, in a big way, effect the decision making of the majority by getting them into something they, more often then not, wouldn't have gotten into otherwise. Going back to overorganization for a second, Huxley also spoke of breaking down power into smaller groups so that one particular individual couldn't be burdened with all the power. Case in point; the three branches of governement in the US, The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.
Fukuyama-
The interview with Francis Fukuyama was very interesting because I think all people think about this topic at some point in there lives. What will the future be like? How did I get here in the first place? From the beginning point of time, how did things evolve to the way it is now? Are all questions that came to mind. All theological societies as well as science points to there being a beginning point to creation. Which is not to say that God was the creator, but it is a definite possibility. Why do we have feelings? How do we almost universally know right from wrong? There isnt enough hard facts to make a definite decision but I think that all of our emotions and our emotional responses are there because of evolution. Evolutionary psychology.
I agree with Fukuyama when he says the idea that creation came about through the big bang, and how it immediately raises the question what existed prior to the big bang? All theological study's point to a beginning as does physics. That leads to conclusion of a devine creator. I also like what he said about how this also leads to the question about human uniqueness and human dignity. Fukuyama comes to the conlcusion that its hard to know why we have things like emotion and emotional responses, but also that Darwinism, Modern Science or any of the other scientific disciplines have yet to completely mystify the possibility that it maybe something more then just evolution that leads us to our present state of being, complete with all our emotions and understandings between right and wrong. I personally believe that there is a God, but I believe that evolution has given us things like fight or flight response. Compassion is something that, I think, evolved in human beings over time.
Fukuyama 2-
I enjoyed the Francis Fukuyama interview so much that I am doing two posts on it. There were many different topics being discussed but one that really stook out was when the interviewer said to Fukuyama, “History has a direction and in some ways its toward the good.” I personally believe that every person comes pre-wired with the instinct to make the human species live on. We all come pre-wired to mate and produce life and we all come pre-wired to protect it as often as possible. However, if you ask a group of men, if they were to be walking with their family and saw someone getting beat up on a street corner, would they help that person? There would be a barage of different answers.
Fukuyama responded to this statement by the interviewer with the words, “Most people argue progress should be progress towards morality. The principle that Liberal Democracy embodies is, radius of trust between different societies should encompass all of humanity. There's a moral universalism to it.” It would be nice if most men would help a stranger in a time of need but the reality of the matter is most people probably wouldn't. People dont do things for the better of humanity. People do things for the betterment of themselves and their loved ones. Not to say they wouldn't want everyone to be helped but people usually look out for themselves.
The socratice universe-
When I went to the site for the Socratic universe reading I really enjoyed the chapter 6 question of Does God exist? A good answer to the question was from Arntzenius from USC. He said that he didnt know how to answer the question. He said that he was not exactly sure what it means to say that God exists. I love how he put that because thats exactly how I feel. I believe there is a God but I'm not sure if God helps us in the day to day events in the form of an answered prayer persay. I think that God built our universe with all of its laws and complexities but isn't able to manipulate the world he made in a physical sense. He left his best message and guide for us through Jesus and the bible. He can't snap his fingers and give someone a million dollars. They have to follow his word and through that message they can learn to make themselves able to have that million dollars, but God can't actualy do anything for a person. God just leaves clues for us to do things for ourselves.
Mc Cann said that, when asked whether or not God does exist, wants to know the reason the person is asking and what that person thinks hinges on whether or not God exists. I find this very interesting because I have also wondered the same thing. People often hope there is a God because it will make them feel better knowing that there is meaning to life and maybe somewhere to go after. It also allows people believe that people are inherently good because we come from God which is good. I believe McCann merely wants to know because he doesn't find the question to be particularly relevant to answer considering many people have different views and he doesnt want to waste his time debating the never ending question. However, I think it is a great question to ask and the answer could dramatically change the way a person lives their life. Not to mention it is possible that there very well may be a God.
The Socratic Uni-
I wasnt going to get into ch. 7, What do you think happens when you die?, but since my last post was ending in a way towards afterlife ill pick it up from there. Afterlife is curious topic because everyone has a different view of what happens. Many people believe in Heaven and Hell. Many people believe in reincarnation and becoming a different energy in our world. And some think that we just go blank and our bodies decompose. My personal take on life after death is that we just go blank and decompose. However, there are times I think that maybe there is an afterlife and come back as someone or something else. But I think thats mostly optimism and wishful thinking on my part. I'm a firm believer in we get one shot at life.
It seems as though many of the philosophers that were interviewed felt the same way I do. McCann, as he did in my last post, said that he would like to ask the person asking the question, “why is this a significant question?” Obviously a lot of people would want to know this question because it could have a huge impact on how we live our lives. I personally feel like this question is a question no one can answer, however needs to be thought of and talked about until a person gets a clear idea about what they think happens. A person just needs to make sure they are at peace with what they are choosing to believe.
History of Philosophy wiki-
Philosophy to me is the beginning of human knowledge of our world. It asks the question who we are and what is our purpose? It all started in Western philosophy which consists of four main eras- the Ancient, Midevil, Modern, and Contemporary. The Ancient era includes philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. In terms of Western Philosophy, the Greeks started a chain reaction ideas that began logic of rational thought and basically created all the knowledge the western world had for a good 1,000 years or so. I feel that it is a shame though that so many old philosophers are well-known but that so many contemporary ones are invisible and unappreciated. Even though praise should go to the original creators of fundamental ideas that encouraged future thinkers, more public attention should be directed to the many thinkers of today.
The history of philosophy started before any of us know and the only ideas we do know are ideas that were recorded closer to modern day time. Everyday since human existance began, we humans have been finding better ways pass on ideas and past events. Its only been 2009 years since jesus was (supposedly) born and we dont actually know a great deal about anything back then. We don't actually know to much about our own history, so compared to the actual time this universe has existed, the true History of Philosophy is, for the most part, unknown. Given that we haven't been able to write anything down or keep records of our philosophical ideas or conclusions since our emergence 50,000 years ago. (modern humans)
Java Philosophy post 7-
I thought that the Java movie was pretty intresting. The first quote by Kierkegaard in the movie was what caught my attention because it is something that a lot of times is true, people always seem to think the grass is greener on the other side. Or, when there is a decision that is to be made, people often times take forever making a decision because they fear they might want the other option. There are so many choices and options in life that one can become paralyzed. A person wants the right choice but theres so many its hard to see what is the right choice. That happens to a lot of people and a lot of times people just pick a career and are stuck in something they dont really want to do.
Often times, people look around at their fellow peers see what everyone else is doing to see if they are doing is on target with whats considered right or normal. People aren't born with instruction manuals on how to live life. We compare ourselves to others to use them as a reference for where we are and where we are going on the giant chessmap of life. Jean Paul Sartre points this out with his quote, “everything has been figured out, except how to live”. Another guy in the movie read a quote that basically stated people put their heartbeat on the clock, instead of thinking about nothing other then living life to the fullest until the end.
Nicholas of Cusa-
This short movie, for me personally was a little hard to understand because it was so abstract. Socrates says that the only thing he truly knows is that he knows nothing. He says this because he understands the complexity of the world and how it is too much for anyone to really grasp. I don't get what hes saying because is that supposed to mean we shouldn't bother trying to learn anymore because its too much to handle anyway? I have always thought of life as one humungous mathematical equation, mathematical chain that cannot be broken because if it has a missing link in the chain it wouldn't exist.
Everything we know and everything we will know about the universe is made up of numbers in every dimensionally possible way. Because everything is so much made of numbers, and everything is related to everything else and interconnected in some way, it is impossible to know anything really. For example, even just trying to figure out mathematically the way an apple relates to all things in the universe is not possible. And it's because of that that we can't claim to know anything, thus we are ignorant. And basically we are pretty much like socrates, in the sense that the only thing that socrates actually knew was that he didn't know anything.
Darwins DNA post 9-
I chose to select an ebook out of the recommended readings called Darwins DNA because I like the topic of darwinism and the whole theory of evolution. I enjoy this topic because I think that it is most likely true about our world. I find it interesting because, to me, it describes where we come from and it answers a lot of the basic questions we have about life. Why we think the way we do and how we got here in the first place. A lot of times when I read the different materials we are required to read I actually really get into the reading so much that I lose a lot of time thinking about it so much. I am actually getting a lot out of reading these materials in more ways then just getting a good grade in class I could use this material and apply it to every single aspect of my life. Its very interesting stuff.
Because of Darwin, there has recently been new fields of study such as Evolutionary Psychology and Evolutionary Philosophy to develop in the last 100 to 200 years or so. My personal opinion is that those two studys are going to be very important for a long time to play a large role in finding out how we got this way and how we can use that information to our advantage from this point on. These are the types of things that will help us to answer these interesting but nearly impossible questions to answer. For instance, it can help determine why we have a state of consciousness in all of us. Over time we probably needed to think critically for our own survival which likely led to our consciousness adaptation.
How Socrates Died-
I enjoyed the book about the death of Socrates, and I noticed that while he claims always to be ignorant, he is actually smarter than the people he speaks to. This is because he asks them the right questions, and deducing a good answer from them, but always being able to find the flaws in their argument. With Euthyphro, he constantly seeks a definition of piety that Euthyphro cannot explain, making Euthyphro look like a moron. Socrates derives knowledge from other people, but only knowledge that he knows has no contradictions or flaws in logic. He professes to not know anything, but only because he is looking for a genuine, unbreakable truth.
I don't agree with the idea Plato gives, however, when he writes about how one should always follow the laws of the state. His reasons are important, though, and it is true that when a society does not follow the laws and customs that hold it together, it falls apart and worse predicaments happen where anarchy and lawlessness ensue. Admittedly, it is better to have a society that doesn't always work than not having one at all. But when the society is going against basic human rights, like the Nazis, I don't think I could uphold the laws of a state that did the things they did. People have the right to exist, and to express themselves.
WEEK 2 POSTS-----------------------------
EXPERT LECTURE: 1) Professor Owen Gingerich
Gingerich makes some interesting points about how the universe could have been created with a purpose and by gods or God. The more the conversation seems to continue, though, it seems like not only is it unknowable whether or not God did create everything, but also what the point of arguing about it would be. Because even if there are alternate universes, or dimensions, with different laws, atoms, molecules and what not, who is to say that God didn't create those as well? Just the argument that everything was created at random is kind of ridiculous because not only is it unprovable, but it really doesn't mean anything.
The problem of evil seems like another strange question, but this one is more interesting. Every time I think about how God could create a world with evil in it I think of what an ant would think of a person. To an ant, a human might seem like an all powerful, all knowing, god who can control everything. But of course, people are not like that. It may very well be the same in the relationship between us and God; to us, he may seem like an omni-potent being, but in reality he is just really, really, powerful, but not all powerful, and can't stop all the evil in the universe.
Lisa Randall and Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University
The idea of extra dimensions is very intriguing, but it may turn out to be no more than abstract theories that don't have any implication in the way we do things here on earth. Thus far in human existence we have been able to make tools that we use with our own senses, and we go past our capability to obtain information in this manner we are only using our imaginations. In this case it could very well be that there are hundreds or more dimensions that expand reality in ways we will never see. The only thing I can imagine being able to explore or observe these other dimensions are machines or robots that would be able to do so and convert it into some kind of visual image.
Wilson is right, I believe when explaining that the destruction of the world's environments is the most pressing issue by far, and all other world problems pale by comparison. However, people are not ready to cooperate with each other when they percieve everyone else as being so different from themselves. The only time this ever happens is when several people see something else as a genuine threat to their survival, and that is only recognized using our basic instincts, not reason and logic. It seems that the only hope for humanity to solve these ongoing crises is to change their own individual lifestyles and do what they can for their local environments.
Cosmic Inflation-
I was somewhat surprised when I found out that the “big bang theory” didn't actually explain what happened before or during the “bang”, and instead was just the after-effects. This theory could mean that not only this universe was created by cosmic inflation, but that somewhere unfathomably far from where we are now, there could have been another big bang, or several, that were caused by this. What I would like to know is what this could mean for the extra dimensions ideas that Lisa Randall was throwing around.
It appears to me that two things happen the more science tries to explain how everything started and what meaning we have here. 1) As much as these theories might meet the agenda of those who try to prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter, because one could argue that God could make those things happen anyway, rendering all scientific explanations for cosmological events null and void, and 2) the more detailed the explanations for how everything works, the less mysterious God looks and the more people seem to appreciate Him.
Little Things That Jiggle-
The quote by Leon Lederman at the very beginning of the movie is pretty funny, but I think it's quite meaningful at the same time. Will physics ever get to a point where the entire universe can be summed down to one tiny formula, given it's complexity and enormous size? I doubt it, especially because of the fact that as disciplines become more complicated, they begin to delve into other disciplnes, creating never-ending amounts of questions. Of course, though, summing everything down into simpler terms is always a worthy goal.
Another interesting quote in the film was one by Einstein: “It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid”. This goes hand in hand with the other quote, that things should be simple enough in physics that you could tell basically anyone them. Of course Einstein would say this after he creats the famous “E=mc2“ formula. Once people have figured out how everything is interrelated in terms of forces, molecules, and what not, only then is it possible to find the easiest way to express how something works.
Gods Too Decompose-
The video was a bit strange, but powerful. The quote at the beginning stuck with me the whole time. It is a good excuse, and one that absolves him of any blame. God is dead, but the reality is, did he ever live? Was he ever there in the first place to die? Or does he simply live through our minds and hearts, and cease to exist but as a spiritual manifestation we create?
One thing I have trouble considering is, how exactly did we kill him? Did our need for him die off when we became more compelled to learn for ourselves how life operates, and that is what in turn killed him? Would that consequently mean that heaven and hell no longer operate and function, or just cease to exist altogether? Maybe we mutually abandoned each other, seeing as though the relationship didn't really go anywhere. God existed to help humanity through times where it could not depend on itself for all things.
WEEK 3 POSTS-----------------------------
Edward O. Wilson Interview-
"Mysterians" seem like the lazy man's idea of the mind; almost like they kind of just give up and say, "well, the mind is just something we'll never be able to examine empirically." Which, if anyone looks at the articles coming out in science magazines today, is obviously not true. As for what Wilson suggests is our conscience, as in a "little world", I do believe that has some merit, because we (sometimes literally) recreate what we sense in the environment in our brains, and seems to create a small area that is our life. This also makes it quite subjective.
I agree with him however, that religion and science will come to be closely related, if not completely intertwined. Many atheists and agnostics seem to chose science to be their religion. It seems strange to me, though, that Wilson would be offended by some kind of physical entity that would create everything, being God. In the traditional physiological sense, I would find this absurd as well, except in my wildest imagination. However if there were such a being, it is quite possible, just as we are beginning to barely comprehend how our brains work, exist in conditions we may not fathom for a long time, if ever.
Richard Dawkins Presentation-
Dawkins has some interesting ideas about how humans have adapted to live in a "middle" world, between the extremely large (like planets and stars) and the extremely small (as in atoms). People can see, as he says, the solidity of a rock even though most of the space it actually occupies is empty, because we have evolved to recognize the solidarity of objects for our own survival. Likewise, it would be a lot easier to recognize the way space and time relate to each other if we were the size of planets or stars. Of course, this is not the case.
If we were the size of germs, would we recognize the physics of quantum mechanics easier? Would we even care? In this "middle world" form, as Dawkins describes, we barely even knew about many things we can observe and evaluate with our senses until relatively recently. There are still aspects of our own little "universe" that still are mysteries, and this would be the same if we were born into the extremely large universe or the extremely small one. That begs the question, however, of are there larger and smaller universes that we just can't plain out see? And if we were born into these other worlds, would we be able to recognize these?
Sociobiology-
Sociobiological systems seem very complex, almost too complex to really study in an empirical sense. The entire discipline appears pretty subjective. Selfishness exists, for instance, because of the inclusion of a "selfish gene", pushing those people to act more toward attaining resources for themselves. Culture and how one is raised also factors in, as well as certain predicaments and circumstances between people. Surely the discipline is not in the business of predicting people's behavior, since all these factors make that way too complicated, but having guidelines for people's behavior can't be that bad.
It could probably be reasoned, also, that some altruistic behavior can be considered selfish behavior. For example, take an ant. The entire purpose of male winged ants is so that they can fertilize the future queens, and when they finally take the flight to do so, they die quickly afterward. This may seem pretty altruistic, but if you were to consider an ant colony a super-organism, it might seem selfish. Or bees; in the case of honey bees, food is gathered from plants back to the hive, so that it may feed the colony.
Survival of the Sufficient-
The short film Survival of the Sufficient presents the idea that evolution is constantly affecting us, and that each and every moment is one in which we are changing. Everything from the food we eat and the air we breathe, to the people we talk to and the things we do, change our state and make us evolve to fit our predicaments. In terms of today's world, our environments are changing very quickly, and so we may be evolving quickly too; not necessary physically, but mentally. People would do well to remember that we never are in a certain state of being, and that with each second we are changing.
I found the postscript amusing though. Having monkeys banging away at typewriters long enough to create the worlds best literature seems like a half-brained idea. The only thing they would probably get good at is making the most noise per hit on the typewriter, especially if they were all similar to the chimpanzee that was on the video earlier. If that premise were true, then if you gave a group of monkeys enough millions of years they would probably accomplish anything.
Darwintruth video-
This video demonstrates through evolution man's search for meaning in all things, and what role truth has along with man. It seems, though, that truth is undiscoverable. As the video points out, we only evolved to survive, and were not originally engineered to examine problems like why light travels in waves and packets of energy. Robert Blake's bleak quote demonstrates this, and how much man likes to apply humanized emotions (like sentiment) to the rest of the non-human universe. I especially like the paraphrasing of Voltaire, in saying that man would invent God even if he didn't exist.
I find the intriguing statement at the end a bit simplex though. The truth lies? Or do we lie to ourselves? For we are the ones seeking it, and through subjective lenses, the unfiltered truth will never be seen by all. Deceit, though, is rife in nature, and also in human nature as well. And what if we did somehow, as Jack Nicholson said, "handle the truth"? What would knowing it change? All I can think of is our desire to seek knowledge would die, and we would become really bored.
11) Lisa Randall believes there are many more dimensions because there are phenomena in our present understanding of the universe that may be understood through the idea of these other dimensions. String theory depends on the idea of there being multiple dimensions, some imaginable and some not, none of which can be picked up easily with sensory organs. One example of some form of evidence for this is that gravity can be seen as being concentrated in another dimension, and that while we see it as weak in this particular dimension, it may be strong in another.
12.) Pythagoras was presumably the founder of the Pythagorean Theorem. There are people who think that he didn’t come up with it and that his deciples were the ones who found it and that the Egyptions and Babylonians already knew the principle. In a nutshell, Pythagoras’ philosophical views were of eternal recurrence, the idea that every living thing has a soul and we come back as different entities. It was Pythagoras’ ambition to reveal in his philosophy the validity and structure of a higher order, the basis of the divine order, for which souls return in a constant cycle. He also was convinced that the divine principles of the universe, though imperceptible to the senses, can be expressed in terms of relationships of numbers.
13.) I personally believe that Science and Religion work to compliment each other in a lot of different ways. I think I lie on the side of people who believe that scientific discoveries a lot of times help to prove things like the existence of God, for instance. Through the use of studies like Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics, we can show just how perfectly our world operates and the complexity in which it operates. To me, that shows that our universe couldn’t have just happened on accident. I don’t believe that the near perfection of our extremely complex universe could have happened by accident. As Adams from UCLA put it, “Science is a human activity which proceeds on certain principles, has certain institutions, and serves certain functions of human life. It has produced a large body of beliefs which are widely held among our society.” People need science because it gives us a lot of information to make our faith not quiet as blind. Science gives people more information about the universe to, more firmly, base our beliefs upon.
14) Socrates was put on trial for two allegations: 1) he was accused of creating his own gods and no longer worshiping the old ones, and 2) he was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens. He attempted to defend himself by giving reasons and examples of how he upheld the gods of Athens, and using the Socratic Method indicates to Meletus he unintentionally corrupted the youth.
15.)The History of Philosphy:
- Western Philosophy
- Ancient Philosophy
- Medieval Philosophy
- Modern Philosophy
- Contemporary Philosophy
- Eastern Philosophy
- Babylonian Philosophy
- Indian
- Persian
- Chinese
- Buddhist
- Abrahamic Philosophy
No comments:
Post a Comment