Thursday, September 25, 2008
Astonishing Indeed!
Very, very interesting... And very depressing yet, surprisingly reasonable. The Astonishing Hypothesis: man has no soul, no spiritual self outside of his physical frame. I have never heard anyone propose this theory before and while it is, as I said, a depressing, even crushing notion, it is unfortunately probably the closest to the truth of any of the papers regarding consciousness that we have read. I guess, like Crick, I am a materialist, interested in things that can be grounded in the observable world. I also know, however that if I try to share these ideas with my acquaintances, I will probably not have very many friends left. It is definitely a hard concept to accept, regardless of the logic behind it, and I think most people would rather hold on to the dream (and ego) of the image of some transcendent soul that exists without our body and houses our deepest thoughts and our 'true self' than accept the fact . As Crick says, part of the brain [wants to] jump to the simplest conclusion- but not simplest by means of common sense, simplest as the easiest to handle. The idea that there is nothing outside of our physical body is almost as insulting to some people as the idea that there is no God outside of ourselves. God and the soul were defense mechanisms created within our own minds in order to give us meaning, purpose and a way to explain things that are outside of our immediate understanding. Now that neuroscience is beginning to break down the brain and understand what makes it tick, it is getting harder to deny the fact that we are what we are and anything else is nice to dream up but in no way based on rational science.
Lots of questions... If Only I had Some Answers...
Wilber's Theory of Consciousness brought a lot of 'philosophical' questions to mind. The power of the mind seems quite amazing to me and I was wondering in what way Consciousness related to the mind's ability to heal the body. The fact that most of the answers to the Big questions in life can beanswered with notions that don't tend to be based in scientific evidence, a placebo, if you will and most people happily swallow this pill and never give it a second thought. A placebo works for the mind and the body, so what does that tell us about consciousness? If we believe it, then it is consequently true?
At what point in life does consciousness begine? And when exactly does it cease? Is there consciousness at the time of death? Is it totally egocentric of us to believe that we exist outside of our physical body? That some part of us is in fact immortal? There is a man who works in my office, a born again fundamentalist Christian who fully believes that animals have no soul and that God put them here entirely for our use, exploitation and enjoyment. How self-centered do you have to be to believe that animals have no soul but that humans have a special place reserved for their souls up in the clouds with all of their family and friends?? It seems people will believe anything that makes them feel good and disregard anything they don't like, even if it is grounded in factual evidence!
Ok, on to more questions borne from Wilber's Theory... Is evolution physical or subconscious as well? Is human nature evolving? What do you call it when there is consciousness but we do not know we are conscious? Childhood for example...At what age can the concept of existence and consciousness be grasped? Is it an actual stage in biological development (connected to the brain- incapable of processing the concept before a certain stage of development)?
I appreciated the thoroughness of Wilber's all quadrant theory. I also liked that he never fully dismissed or discredited any of the other schools of thought, finding them all to be integral pieces in the puzzle of consciousness.
At what point in life does consciousness begine? And when exactly does it cease? Is there consciousness at the time of death? Is it totally egocentric of us to believe that we exist outside of our physical body? That some part of us is in fact immortal? There is a man who works in my office, a born again fundamentalist Christian who fully believes that animals have no soul and that God put them here entirely for our use, exploitation and enjoyment. How self-centered do you have to be to believe that animals have no soul but that humans have a special place reserved for their souls up in the clouds with all of their family and friends?? It seems people will believe anything that makes them feel good and disregard anything they don't like, even if it is grounded in factual evidence!
Ok, on to more questions borne from Wilber's Theory... Is evolution physical or subconscious as well? Is human nature evolving? What do you call it when there is consciousness but we do not know we are conscious? Childhood for example...At what age can the concept of existence and consciousness be grasped? Is it an actual stage in biological development (connected to the brain- incapable of processing the concept before a certain stage of development)?
I appreciated the thoroughness of Wilber's all quadrant theory. I also liked that he never fully dismissed or discredited any of the other schools of thought, finding them all to be integral pieces in the puzzle of consciousness.
My Problem With Consciousness
Upon reading John Searle's Problem With Consciousness I gained a new understanding of how consciousness could be taken out of the metaphysical realm and placed squarely in the light of scientific investigation. I must admit, this intriguing theory made the idea of consciousness much easier for me to grasp as I tend to reside happily in the world of realism, where every question has a definite answer; one that is not necessarily rooted in mysticism and enigma.
The question I have regarding consciousness is in how it relates to out of body/ near death experiences. What is it that happens in the brain that makes people believe that they have been able to step outside of their being or beyond this plane of existence to another one? Is this just one of those tricks the mind plays on us in order to facilitate survival? There have been a number of articles and documentaries lately documenting people's experiences as they flatline and I am curious to know how Searle's view of consciousness can explain such experiences. There is no doubt in my mind that there is some neuro-biological process that can simplify the whole thing for me but it seems that people are less willing to accept the scientific evidence and more likely to opt for the more mysterious, other-worldly explanations.
The question I have regarding consciousness is in how it relates to out of body/ near death experiences. What is it that happens in the brain that makes people believe that they have been able to step outside of their being or beyond this plane of existence to another one? Is this just one of those tricks the mind plays on us in order to facilitate survival? There have been a number of articles and documentaries lately documenting people's experiences as they flatline and I am curious to know how Searle's view of consciousness can explain such experiences. There is no doubt in my mind that there is some neuro-biological process that can simplify the whole thing for me but it seems that people are less willing to accept the scientific evidence and more likely to opt for the more mysterious, other-worldly explanations.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Midterm!
4. What is your real name?
5. What is your "user" name?
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
7. Name and address for your website
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks? Yes, but not as thoroughly as I would have liked. There was a lot of information and a limited time to read it all but I was able to at least make it through all of the assignments. I even started (and enjoyed) Stoicism Lite and will probably attempt to complete it and the other recommended readings after my brain recovers from this class.
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required? Yes
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for thisclass (you can copy and paste them)
11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many moredimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there anyevidence at this stage for her beliefs?
The fact that gravity is so weak as if it has spread itself thin leads Lisa Randall to believe in the possibility of multiple dimensions. It’s as if we are getting the tail end of gravity. Even if there is not yet any definitive evidence for this theory, it would answer a lot of questions. Could gravity be concentrated somewhere else (on another dimension)? – maybe that is why we consider gravity so weak. It seems that science is beginning to show that we have been thinking about space wrong and that one possible solution/reason is that we have just (since the 1970’s) taken into consideration the possibility of multiple dimensions. The physics community is currently working on the implementation of a high energy accelerator that could possibly change the mass of a particle as it travels through an extra dimension. Just reaching this energy level could answer a lot of questions and reveal new information into the understanding of the nature of space and time.
12. What are Pythagoras' philosophical views in a nutshell?
Pythagoras sought to inspire a love of liberty and stressed the importance of ridding the body of disease, the soul of ignorance, the city from lawlessness, households from discord and opposed a lack of moderation all together. He believed that children should honor their parents and that adults should practice courtesy and encouragement in dealing with youths. He instructed that self-control/temperance should be applied universally to all matters of body and soul. He stressed the importance of education and knowledge in order to effect the improvement of the human race noting that knowledge of the universals leads to a clear perception of the nature of the particulars. He preached justice, genuine affection, the importance of listening, devotion to contemplation as well as the importance of a well-developed memory. The three evils that glide into houses are luxury followed by insolence and finally destruction, therefore great care should be taken to keep these at bay; including but not limited to, living modestly from birth and not using bad language. He believed that we should realize God’s existence and the fact that he inspects our lives frequently. He opposed slaughtering animals feeling that it led to war, legalizing it, increasing it and strengthening it. “Natural man is an animal, naturally insolent and changeable in impulse, desire and passions.”
13. Do you think science and religion are compatible? Be sure toexplain your answer by GIVINGTHE EXPLANATIONS given by philosophers who side with your positionfrom the Socratic Universe (cite and quote whenappropriate).
I believe they are two separate subjects, not compatible but not necessarily conflicting in nature. Both serve an important role in society; science as a means of describing the way the universe is, based on methodical observation and testing, and religion attempting to “engage in moral questions; to find basic principles on which answers can be given to new moral problems” (Churchland). I agree with Woodruff and Churchland in their view that religion attempted to explain things before science was available to do so. I think the conflict came into play when science started disproving a lot of things that religions claimed to already have the answers to. If we are speaking of religion in terms of God, the after life and the way we should live our lives then there should be no conflict as these topics are generally not discussed in scientific matters. If we are discussing creation versus evolution then opposing theories of course, come into play.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend hisposition?
Socrates was accused of being a corruptor of the youth and not believing in the Gods of the state. His defense was of course to question the nature of the charges. As for being a corruptor of the youth, he wondered whether he was being accused of intentionally corrupting them or unintentionally. He asked Meletus, who instructed and improved the youth and who was capable of such (apparently every Athenian but Socrates!) and then posed the same question regarding horses, to which Meletus had no response. Socrates asserts that if he does not care enough about the Athenian youth to have given thought to who might improve them then he does not have the right to accuse him of being their corruptor.
As for the charge of not believing in the gods of the state, Socrates questioned Meletus as to whether he felt he believed in false gods or in no god and Meletus positively stated Socrates was an atheist. Socrates does not specifically deny the charge of atheism but instead attacks Meletus for his inconsistency, stating that the charge against him was believing in other gods, not believing in no gods.
15. Give a brief history of philosophy using just 300 words (nomore). You may use an outline format, but be sure tocram as many "factoids" (facts) as possible (key names, ideas,dates, etc.). Remember, it must beyour own words and not merely a series of quotes.
Ancient philosophy (600 b.c.e – 400 c.e.) covered themes such as understanding the causes and principles of the universe; numbers, elements, universals and gods; the analysis of reasoning and argument; the role that understanding and knowledge play in the pursuit of a good life; justice and politics. Recognizable philosophers were Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and post Aristotlian (Hellenistic) ideas.
The Hellinistic thinking continued developing through the beginnings of Medieval Philosophy (c.400 – c.1400) or The Middle Ages. This time period was defined by a need to “address theological problems and integrate sacred doctrine with secular learning” (Wikipedia) – the involvement of the church in state affairs. Issues discussed by philosophers of this era included faith and reason, God and theology, metaphysics, knowledge, universals and individuation. Known thinkers of this time period included Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Anselm, and Abelard.
Early Modern Philosophy (c.1600-c.1800) brought about the revival of skepticism and the rise of modern physical science. Themes included experience vs. reality, the origin of knowledge, the mind’s relationship to the body, free will and God, and the beginning of secular morals and philosophy. Philosophers of this time included Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Descartes, Spinoza and Kant.
The nineteenth century brought Pierce and James’ pragmatism, Husserl’s phenomenology, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche’s existentialism and early analytic philosophy thanks to Frege and Sidwick’s work. During this time, philosophers viewed the world as a rational, mind-like process that could be known in its entirety.
Today’s philosophers tend to spend more time explaining the relationship between natural science theories and common sense, psychology, cognitive science and analytic philosophy- the notion that philosophical problems should be solved through logic and language. Contemporary Philosophy spans from the turn of the 20th century to present day.
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is itimportant to know astronomy in order to dophilosophy?
Inflation answers several questions or problems with The Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is the idea that the universe had a definite initial condition that was hot and dense and then a ‘big bang’ caused it to begin expanding, possibly infinitely. The continuing expansion is known as inflation. The problems in the big bang theory come from the way the universe looks today, decidedly homogenous and isotropic. In order for the universe to have ended up this way, it would have had to start from very special initial conditions at the time of the bang. Inflation attempts to resolve these problems by providing the model of how the world would have had to be then in order for it to look how it does now.
Why is the study of nature on the grand scale important to the study of philosophy? Astronomy is a belief system based in knowledge that attempts to answer philosophical questions in a scientific context. Philosophers study the universe through contemplation and reasoning. Astronomy gives them the Reason behind the reasoning. Both sides can work together asking and attempting to substantiate questions regarding the infinite, existence of anything before the bang; why did it bang? How did the universe come into existence in the first place, and essentially, attempt to eventually discover why we are the product of that universal environment and what could our purpose be and is it possible that if we are not as unique as we thought we were could there be other similar life forms somewhere in the universe since we are all basically made up of the same stuff? The questions and the possibilities are almost as infinite as the universe itself.
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER fromEinstein's? How are they similar?
Heisenberg formulated the Uncertainty Principle based on the idea that uncertainty is actually a property of the world. He stated that it is not possible to measure the position and the momentum of a particle more precisely than through quantum mechanics. He believed that there were limits to what we could know about subatomic particles and that this was a deep surprising aspect of the universe. In contrast, Einstein was bothered by the fact that atoms seemed to emit photons at random when their electrons changed orbits. He believed that the randomness was a reflection of our ignorance and was unhappy with Heisenberg’s Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Their views were similar regarding the new model of the atom and Einstein’s principles of quantum theory, that light behaves as if it is composed of photons. However, Einstein concluded that quantum theory (his own discovery) was an intrinsically incomplete description of nature. He resisted the philosophical implications of quantum theory because it put man’s current understanding before the world itself. He could not accept that quantum mechanics presented the limits of what could ever be known.
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your reasoning.
Meme theory is Dawkins theory that the brain consists of memes or units of information that are analogous to genes as mutating replicators in human cultural evolution. Language, fashion, diet, ceremonies and customs, art and architecture, engineering and technology, are all memes within the brain evolving in a rapid, non-genetic sense. Dawkins theorizes that all life evolves by the “differential survival of replicating entities” and that currently the replicator of choice is the gene but it is not necessarily the only replicator. In fact, the “old” gene selected evolution, according to Dawkins, made the brains what they are today, providing the “soup” in which the first memes arose. By contributing to the worlds culture we create memes that could outlast our genes, thus making us somewhat immortal.
I believe the idea is plausible, I would not necessarily call it evolution, as I tend to (closed-mindedly) regard evolution as biological changes, I would consider it to be more of a sociological observation of culture and the effect it has on the human species.
19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important inunderstanding human thought and behavior. Be sureto cite Wilson and Dawkins and Darwin when appropriate.
Scientists are struggling to find the relationship between biological and cultural evolution but by examining biological evolution we are given the potential framework for understanding human behavior. If we can understand biological evolution we can begin to see the ways that we evolve as adaptive to our environment. Edward O. Wilson applies evolutionary theory to social behavior through sociobiology, asserting that “many social behaviors have been shaped by natural selection for reproductive success.” Wilson and Dawkins both claim that evolution does not regard just genes and bodies but also psychological, social and cultural features. Sociobiologists attempt to trace evolutionary histories of certain behavior in terms of their functional roles in a society.
20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narratorargued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why?Do you agree or disagree and please detail your rejoinder.
Jeffrey Cooper argues that fundamentalism is a mental disease because a knowledge of the true age of the earth and the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe the literal truth or every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. The idea of intelligent design is Christianity’s attempt at sticking God back into science because evolution is such a devastating critique of Genesis. I agree that it takes a great leap of faith and blind acceptance of stories not backed by any factual evidence to believe in Creationism. Even if one cannot accept the scientific data that supports evolution, to completely deny the irrationality of the Creation story is silly. One can believe in God and Evolution simultaneously.
21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" (fundamentallydisagrees with) Edward O. Wilson? Who do youthink is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion, Owen orEdward? Explain.
Unfortunately I could not decipher what the term “parts company” referred to in watching (and re-watching!) Owen Gingerich’s interview or in either of E.O. Wilson’s interviews. Therefore, I will merely attempt to discuss the fundamental differences between the two scientists and their beliefs. Wilson believes that there is only matter and energy, however he feels that we must attempt to find a common ground between conservative Christianity and science. All of us, Christians and otherwise, need to bring our focus back to nature in the interest of saving the earth from disastrous ecological changes. He urges a new kind of morality, a universal “cooperation” that is necessary to save the earth. Gingerich focuses on attempting to outline a necessary inherent compatibility between science and religion. He hopes that increased scientific understanding will reveal more about God, the Creator. Gingerich’s proposal seems to require time to reach a level of scientific evidence supporting God’s existence while Wilson purports that there is No time and we need to stop worrying about whether or not God is involved in this business at all and focus on the return to stewardship of the earth, an ideal that we should all be able to agree is important for the propagation of the species and the salvation of the world as we know it.
I love E.O. Wilson’s approach to religion and the fact that he urges us to set aside our trivial differences, the distractions that keep us from focusing on the compelling issues that affect all of us, and form an alliance in order to actually devise solutions and bring attention to matters that are not religious in nature, but human in nature. There are a number of issues that should not be avoided merely because of different beliefs, they are issues that the human race as a whole, is hoping to find resolutions to, and if we team up we may be able to make changes happen in ways that we are unable to do independently. I think Owen Gingerich bases a lot of his religious arguments on ‘gut reaction’ (as most of religion does) and avoids giving specific answers to troubling religious questions in scientific terms, opting instead to “leave that to the theologians.” 22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history." Do youagree or disagree? Explain.
Francis Fukuyama claims that due to the evolution of institutions highly compatible with human nature and the existence of super powers that would not dare to compromise their positions, history appears to be reaching its end. Upon reaching the end of history, Fukuyama says life would be sedate and stable, continuing to progress toward morality. He later seems to contradict himself when he revises his idea, theorizing that two things would come into play regarding an end of history; human nature as well as the end of science (since science is constantly changing the environment that people have to adapt to). Fukuyama says an end of science would mean the end of history but that we are nowhere near the end of science, especially with the recent advancements of biotechnology. I agree in the sense that the world seems to be nearing a period of calm comparative to recent (and not so recent) history but I disagree that we are nearing an end. I can appreciate Fukuyama’s analysis that if there was a definite beginning to history, there must also be a definite end but as long as there is life on this planet, I believe there will always be some history. There seems to be somewhat of a lull in advancement, maybe Fukuyama feels, in some sense that we have come as far as we can and progress will forever be slowed to this snails pace if there is nothing new and exciting to discover. But all it would take is one revolutionary breakthrough to open a whole new chapter in the realm of science and consequently, in the realm of history.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
Nicholas of Cusa’s philosophy speaks about “learned ignorance” or learning to accept the fact that we do not know. Even a highly educated man will at his highest see himself as the most educated in his specific field of ignorance. The more he is unknowing, the more learned he will be. This is partly because things are difficult and unexplainable in words and that the wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from the eyes of the living. Nicholas tells us the most obvious things in nature are as difficult for us to see as an owl trying to look at the sun.
24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Thinkbefore you leap on this one.
In the film, God’s Funeral, Nietzsche offers the idea that God is dead, that we have killed him. Under our knives (possibly the dissection of ideas relating to religion and God) we have killed Him; We are no longer able to believe in the idea of religion and God as a source for our moral code and higher purpose. It no longer serves as a satisfactory belief system and therefore poses a threat to our existing morals and values. Before reaching “critical mass” morality had not been considered on its own without the basis of Christianity and God and eternal damnation. Upon accepting the news that God is Dead we are challenged to develop and maintain a system of values even without divine order.
25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained bya series of slogans. Why, then, is physicsimportant in the study of philosophy? Substantiate your answer.
Physics is important in the study of philosophy because it asks many of the questions that scientists and philosophers alike have pondered since the beginning of time. Sir Isaac Newton answered one great riddle of the world by discovering what holds the worlds in their places. Other questions, such as the nature of time and space and the state of the universe have been assessed from a philosophical standpoint for centuries and now, breakthroughs is physics can begin to provide new answers and new levels of understanding in both the scientific and philosophical communities.
26. How do you explain the following line, "To have freedom OFreligion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
Freedom of Religion is our right, outlined in the Constitution of the United States, as the freedom of an individual or community to manifest religious beliefs in teaching, practice, worship and observance. However, freedom of religion has to protect both, the right to be religious and the right to not be religious at all. Freedom from religion enforces the idea that church and state should be separate entities and that religion should never be endorsed or sponsored by the government. It means being free from following the rules and dogmas of other people’s religions and beliefs and having the ability to follow the beliefs of our own conscience, whether or not those beliefs are religious.
27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?
Dawkins believes that the idea of God is very old in nature and provides people with a “superficially plausible answer to deep troubling questions about existence.” Acting as a placebo (and just as effective!), otherwise intelligent people will cast aside common sense in the name of blind faith. A delusion, by definition is a fixed, false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Dawkins, like Nietzsche, believes that religion is not necessary for a person to live a good, moral life. He concludes that God exists, “if only in the form of a meme with high survival value or infective power in human culture.”
28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certainreligions offer?
Definitely. The unanswered questions in the universe involving physics, cosmology and the biological relationship to human consciousness provide ample mystery for the mind to contemplate. As posed in The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, “isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" In early history, religion provided the only means of answering the mysteries of the universe, but through scientific discovery and speculation, religion and the idea of God merely inject mythology and mysticism into otherwise scientifically plausible grounds for explanation. The questions left unanswered by science are still mysterious in nature but do not require the fundamentalist blind faith of religion to create an explanation, rather, educated contemplation and experimentation is more likely to bring us closer to the truth.
29. How does an understanding of celluar automata suggest a "newkind of science".... according to Stephen Wolfram.
Cellular automata can be related to seemingly random occurrences in nature such as in patterns on mollusk shells, snowflakes and the shapes of leaves. Wolfram uses simple computations to generate complex computer models. This “new kind of science” urges people to abandon traditional mathematical rules and embrace the fact that some things are neither completely random nor completely repetitive. Incredibly simple rules can bring about incredibly complicated behavior. However, complex behavior can still be simplified by following certain rules. Wolfram has added to the knowledge of how patterns create the world which we experience. This new science might provide alternatives to evolution by explaining how different forms of life came about. Wolfram believes his work is transforming the study of physics and biology, and science in general.
30. What were the key turning points in Darwin's life?
Darwin’s friendship with Professor Henslow influenced his career more than any other circumstance. He knew every branch of science and introduced him to other academic superiors who fueled his love for science.
Reading Humboldt’s “Personal Narrative” and Sir J. Herschel’s “Introduction to the Study Of Natural Science” during his last year at Cambridge stirred up Darwin’s desire to add even a small contribution to the structure of Natural Science.
By far the most important event in Darwin’s life, and one which determined his whole career, was The Voyage of The Beagle. He believes he owes to the voyage the first real training or education of his mind, being that he was led to attend closely to several branches of natural history and able to develop and improve his powers of observation.
Darwin considers all the books which he published to be the milestones in his life.
EXTRA CREDIT: make your own 3 minute movie on meme theory and postit on google.com VIDEO. Be sure to provide me with a link. I would have but I couldn’t learn how to make the video in time!
DOUBLE EXTRA CREDIT: Take your favorite movie that you saw listed onthe syllabus and give your own interpretation of its meaning (200words minimum).
The Truth Lies to us because it is necessary for our survival. We are incapable of handling the truth; that the universe is ultimately devoid of purpose. We cannot live without a purpose, so we created a purpose, an adaptive fiction evolved over time - because believing nonsense is easier than coming to grips with the randomness of the universe. Any meaning is better than no meaning at all. The notion of god had to come about in order for us to survive. We did not evolve to understand the universe, instead we evolved to survive the world around us – the weather, the land, the food; long enough to reproduce.
Religion itself has evolved over time to suit the needs of an orderly society. Assigning purpose to a chaotic state. Existence precedes essence. First we are here, and then we make our purpose. The stars have been arranged in such a way that we envisioned the constellations and their surrounding stories, from which came mythology and then religion, giving us a direction and a purpose where there wasn’t one before. The constellations, the sun, the moon… Stories created around each one designed to assign a purpose to man. Man will always invent a purpose and go to all lengths to reinforce that purpose in his mind and in his life.
5. What is your "user" name?
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
7. Name and address for your website
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks? Yes, but not as thoroughly as I would have liked. There was a lot of information and a limited time to read it all but I was able to at least make it through all of the assignments. I even started (and enjoyed) Stoicism Lite and will probably attempt to complete it and the other recommended readings after my brain recovers from this class.
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required? Yes
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for thisclass (you can copy and paste them)
11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many moredimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there anyevidence at this stage for her beliefs?
The fact that gravity is so weak as if it has spread itself thin leads Lisa Randall to believe in the possibility of multiple dimensions. It’s as if we are getting the tail end of gravity. Even if there is not yet any definitive evidence for this theory, it would answer a lot of questions. Could gravity be concentrated somewhere else (on another dimension)? – maybe that is why we consider gravity so weak. It seems that science is beginning to show that we have been thinking about space wrong and that one possible solution/reason is that we have just (since the 1970’s) taken into consideration the possibility of multiple dimensions. The physics community is currently working on the implementation of a high energy accelerator that could possibly change the mass of a particle as it travels through an extra dimension. Just reaching this energy level could answer a lot of questions and reveal new information into the understanding of the nature of space and time.
12. What are Pythagoras' philosophical views in a nutshell?
Pythagoras sought to inspire a love of liberty and stressed the importance of ridding the body of disease, the soul of ignorance, the city from lawlessness, households from discord and opposed a lack of moderation all together. He believed that children should honor their parents and that adults should practice courtesy and encouragement in dealing with youths. He instructed that self-control/temperance should be applied universally to all matters of body and soul. He stressed the importance of education and knowledge in order to effect the improvement of the human race noting that knowledge of the universals leads to a clear perception of the nature of the particulars. He preached justice, genuine affection, the importance of listening, devotion to contemplation as well as the importance of a well-developed memory. The three evils that glide into houses are luxury followed by insolence and finally destruction, therefore great care should be taken to keep these at bay; including but not limited to, living modestly from birth and not using bad language. He believed that we should realize God’s existence and the fact that he inspects our lives frequently. He opposed slaughtering animals feeling that it led to war, legalizing it, increasing it and strengthening it. “Natural man is an animal, naturally insolent and changeable in impulse, desire and passions.”
13. Do you think science and religion are compatible? Be sure toexplain your answer by GIVINGTHE EXPLANATIONS given by philosophers who side with your positionfrom the Socratic Universe (cite and quote whenappropriate).
I believe they are two separate subjects, not compatible but not necessarily conflicting in nature. Both serve an important role in society; science as a means of describing the way the universe is, based on methodical observation and testing, and religion attempting to “engage in moral questions; to find basic principles on which answers can be given to new moral problems” (Churchland). I agree with Woodruff and Churchland in their view that religion attempted to explain things before science was available to do so. I think the conflict came into play when science started disproving a lot of things that religions claimed to already have the answers to. If we are speaking of religion in terms of God, the after life and the way we should live our lives then there should be no conflict as these topics are generally not discussed in scientific matters. If we are discussing creation versus evolution then opposing theories of course, come into play.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend hisposition?
Socrates was accused of being a corruptor of the youth and not believing in the Gods of the state. His defense was of course to question the nature of the charges. As for being a corruptor of the youth, he wondered whether he was being accused of intentionally corrupting them or unintentionally. He asked Meletus, who instructed and improved the youth and who was capable of such (apparently every Athenian but Socrates!) and then posed the same question regarding horses, to which Meletus had no response. Socrates asserts that if he does not care enough about the Athenian youth to have given thought to who might improve them then he does not have the right to accuse him of being their corruptor.
As for the charge of not believing in the gods of the state, Socrates questioned Meletus as to whether he felt he believed in false gods or in no god and Meletus positively stated Socrates was an atheist. Socrates does not specifically deny the charge of atheism but instead attacks Meletus for his inconsistency, stating that the charge against him was believing in other gods, not believing in no gods.
15. Give a brief history of philosophy using just 300 words (nomore). You may use an outline format, but be sure tocram as many "factoids" (facts) as possible (key names, ideas,dates, etc.). Remember, it must beyour own words and not merely a series of quotes.
Ancient philosophy (600 b.c.e – 400 c.e.) covered themes such as understanding the causes and principles of the universe; numbers, elements, universals and gods; the analysis of reasoning and argument; the role that understanding and knowledge play in the pursuit of a good life; justice and politics. Recognizable philosophers were Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and post Aristotlian (Hellenistic) ideas.
The Hellinistic thinking continued developing through the beginnings of Medieval Philosophy (c.400 – c.1400) or The Middle Ages. This time period was defined by a need to “address theological problems and integrate sacred doctrine with secular learning” (Wikipedia) – the involvement of the church in state affairs. Issues discussed by philosophers of this era included faith and reason, God and theology, metaphysics, knowledge, universals and individuation. Known thinkers of this time period included Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Anselm, and Abelard.
Early Modern Philosophy (c.1600-c.1800) brought about the revival of skepticism and the rise of modern physical science. Themes included experience vs. reality, the origin of knowledge, the mind’s relationship to the body, free will and God, and the beginning of secular morals and philosophy. Philosophers of this time included Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Descartes, Spinoza and Kant.
The nineteenth century brought Pierce and James’ pragmatism, Husserl’s phenomenology, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche’s existentialism and early analytic philosophy thanks to Frege and Sidwick’s work. During this time, philosophers viewed the world as a rational, mind-like process that could be known in its entirety.
Today’s philosophers tend to spend more time explaining the relationship between natural science theories and common sense, psychology, cognitive science and analytic philosophy- the notion that philosophical problems should be solved through logic and language. Contemporary Philosophy spans from the turn of the 20th century to present day.
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is itimportant to know astronomy in order to dophilosophy?
Inflation answers several questions or problems with The Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is the idea that the universe had a definite initial condition that was hot and dense and then a ‘big bang’ caused it to begin expanding, possibly infinitely. The continuing expansion is known as inflation. The problems in the big bang theory come from the way the universe looks today, decidedly homogenous and isotropic. In order for the universe to have ended up this way, it would have had to start from very special initial conditions at the time of the bang. Inflation attempts to resolve these problems by providing the model of how the world would have had to be then in order for it to look how it does now.
Why is the study of nature on the grand scale important to the study of philosophy? Astronomy is a belief system based in knowledge that attempts to answer philosophical questions in a scientific context. Philosophers study the universe through contemplation and reasoning. Astronomy gives them the Reason behind the reasoning. Both sides can work together asking and attempting to substantiate questions regarding the infinite, existence of anything before the bang; why did it bang? How did the universe come into existence in the first place, and essentially, attempt to eventually discover why we are the product of that universal environment and what could our purpose be and is it possible that if we are not as unique as we thought we were could there be other similar life forms somewhere in the universe since we are all basically made up of the same stuff? The questions and the possibilities are almost as infinite as the universe itself.
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER fromEinstein's? How are they similar?
Heisenberg formulated the Uncertainty Principle based on the idea that uncertainty is actually a property of the world. He stated that it is not possible to measure the position and the momentum of a particle more precisely than through quantum mechanics. He believed that there were limits to what we could know about subatomic particles and that this was a deep surprising aspect of the universe. In contrast, Einstein was bothered by the fact that atoms seemed to emit photons at random when their electrons changed orbits. He believed that the randomness was a reflection of our ignorance and was unhappy with Heisenberg’s Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Their views were similar regarding the new model of the atom and Einstein’s principles of quantum theory, that light behaves as if it is composed of photons. However, Einstein concluded that quantum theory (his own discovery) was an intrinsically incomplete description of nature. He resisted the philosophical implications of quantum theory because it put man’s current understanding before the world itself. He could not accept that quantum mechanics presented the limits of what could ever be known.
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your reasoning.
Meme theory is Dawkins theory that the brain consists of memes or units of information that are analogous to genes as mutating replicators in human cultural evolution. Language, fashion, diet, ceremonies and customs, art and architecture, engineering and technology, are all memes within the brain evolving in a rapid, non-genetic sense. Dawkins theorizes that all life evolves by the “differential survival of replicating entities” and that currently the replicator of choice is the gene but it is not necessarily the only replicator. In fact, the “old” gene selected evolution, according to Dawkins, made the brains what they are today, providing the “soup” in which the first memes arose. By contributing to the worlds culture we create memes that could outlast our genes, thus making us somewhat immortal.
I believe the idea is plausible, I would not necessarily call it evolution, as I tend to (closed-mindedly) regard evolution as biological changes, I would consider it to be more of a sociological observation of culture and the effect it has on the human species.
19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important inunderstanding human thought and behavior. Be sureto cite Wilson and Dawkins and Darwin when appropriate.
Scientists are struggling to find the relationship between biological and cultural evolution but by examining biological evolution we are given the potential framework for understanding human behavior. If we can understand biological evolution we can begin to see the ways that we evolve as adaptive to our environment. Edward O. Wilson applies evolutionary theory to social behavior through sociobiology, asserting that “many social behaviors have been shaped by natural selection for reproductive success.” Wilson and Dawkins both claim that evolution does not regard just genes and bodies but also psychological, social and cultural features. Sociobiologists attempt to trace evolutionary histories of certain behavior in terms of their functional roles in a society.
20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narratorargued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why?Do you agree or disagree and please detail your rejoinder.
Jeffrey Cooper argues that fundamentalism is a mental disease because a knowledge of the true age of the earth and the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe the literal truth or every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. The idea of intelligent design is Christianity’s attempt at sticking God back into science because evolution is such a devastating critique of Genesis. I agree that it takes a great leap of faith and blind acceptance of stories not backed by any factual evidence to believe in Creationism. Even if one cannot accept the scientific data that supports evolution, to completely deny the irrationality of the Creation story is silly. One can believe in God and Evolution simultaneously.
21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" (fundamentallydisagrees with) Edward O. Wilson? Who do youthink is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion, Owen orEdward? Explain.
Unfortunately I could not decipher what the term “parts company” referred to in watching (and re-watching!) Owen Gingerich’s interview or in either of E.O. Wilson’s interviews. Therefore, I will merely attempt to discuss the fundamental differences between the two scientists and their beliefs. Wilson believes that there is only matter and energy, however he feels that we must attempt to find a common ground between conservative Christianity and science. All of us, Christians and otherwise, need to bring our focus back to nature in the interest of saving the earth from disastrous ecological changes. He urges a new kind of morality, a universal “cooperation” that is necessary to save the earth. Gingerich focuses on attempting to outline a necessary inherent compatibility between science and religion. He hopes that increased scientific understanding will reveal more about God, the Creator. Gingerich’s proposal seems to require time to reach a level of scientific evidence supporting God’s existence while Wilson purports that there is No time and we need to stop worrying about whether or not God is involved in this business at all and focus on the return to stewardship of the earth, an ideal that we should all be able to agree is important for the propagation of the species and the salvation of the world as we know it.
I love E.O. Wilson’s approach to religion and the fact that he urges us to set aside our trivial differences, the distractions that keep us from focusing on the compelling issues that affect all of us, and form an alliance in order to actually devise solutions and bring attention to matters that are not religious in nature, but human in nature. There are a number of issues that should not be avoided merely because of different beliefs, they are issues that the human race as a whole, is hoping to find resolutions to, and if we team up we may be able to make changes happen in ways that we are unable to do independently. I think Owen Gingerich bases a lot of his religious arguments on ‘gut reaction’ (as most of religion does) and avoids giving specific answers to troubling religious questions in scientific terms, opting instead to “leave that to the theologians.” 22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history." Do youagree or disagree? Explain.
Francis Fukuyama claims that due to the evolution of institutions highly compatible with human nature and the existence of super powers that would not dare to compromise their positions, history appears to be reaching its end. Upon reaching the end of history, Fukuyama says life would be sedate and stable, continuing to progress toward morality. He later seems to contradict himself when he revises his idea, theorizing that two things would come into play regarding an end of history; human nature as well as the end of science (since science is constantly changing the environment that people have to adapt to). Fukuyama says an end of science would mean the end of history but that we are nowhere near the end of science, especially with the recent advancements of biotechnology. I agree in the sense that the world seems to be nearing a period of calm comparative to recent (and not so recent) history but I disagree that we are nearing an end. I can appreciate Fukuyama’s analysis that if there was a definite beginning to history, there must also be a definite end but as long as there is life on this planet, I believe there will always be some history. There seems to be somewhat of a lull in advancement, maybe Fukuyama feels, in some sense that we have come as far as we can and progress will forever be slowed to this snails pace if there is nothing new and exciting to discover. But all it would take is one revolutionary breakthrough to open a whole new chapter in the realm of science and consequently, in the realm of history.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
Nicholas of Cusa’s philosophy speaks about “learned ignorance” or learning to accept the fact that we do not know. Even a highly educated man will at his highest see himself as the most educated in his specific field of ignorance. The more he is unknowing, the more learned he will be. This is partly because things are difficult and unexplainable in words and that the wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from the eyes of the living. Nicholas tells us the most obvious things in nature are as difficult for us to see as an owl trying to look at the sun.
24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Thinkbefore you leap on this one.
In the film, God’s Funeral, Nietzsche offers the idea that God is dead, that we have killed him. Under our knives (possibly the dissection of ideas relating to religion and God) we have killed Him; We are no longer able to believe in the idea of religion and God as a source for our moral code and higher purpose. It no longer serves as a satisfactory belief system and therefore poses a threat to our existing morals and values. Before reaching “critical mass” morality had not been considered on its own without the basis of Christianity and God and eternal damnation. Upon accepting the news that God is Dead we are challenged to develop and maintain a system of values even without divine order.
25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained bya series of slogans. Why, then, is physicsimportant in the study of philosophy? Substantiate your answer.
Physics is important in the study of philosophy because it asks many of the questions that scientists and philosophers alike have pondered since the beginning of time. Sir Isaac Newton answered one great riddle of the world by discovering what holds the worlds in their places. Other questions, such as the nature of time and space and the state of the universe have been assessed from a philosophical standpoint for centuries and now, breakthroughs is physics can begin to provide new answers and new levels of understanding in both the scientific and philosophical communities.
26. How do you explain the following line, "To have freedom OFreligion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
Freedom of Religion is our right, outlined in the Constitution of the United States, as the freedom of an individual or community to manifest religious beliefs in teaching, practice, worship and observance. However, freedom of religion has to protect both, the right to be religious and the right to not be religious at all. Freedom from religion enforces the idea that church and state should be separate entities and that religion should never be endorsed or sponsored by the government. It means being free from following the rules and dogmas of other people’s religions and beliefs and having the ability to follow the beliefs of our own conscience, whether or not those beliefs are religious.
27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?
Dawkins believes that the idea of God is very old in nature and provides people with a “superficially plausible answer to deep troubling questions about existence.” Acting as a placebo (and just as effective!), otherwise intelligent people will cast aside common sense in the name of blind faith. A delusion, by definition is a fixed, false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Dawkins, like Nietzsche, believes that religion is not necessary for a person to live a good, moral life. He concludes that God exists, “if only in the form of a meme with high survival value or infective power in human culture.”
28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certainreligions offer?
Definitely. The unanswered questions in the universe involving physics, cosmology and the biological relationship to human consciousness provide ample mystery for the mind to contemplate. As posed in The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, “isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" In early history, religion provided the only means of answering the mysteries of the universe, but through scientific discovery and speculation, religion and the idea of God merely inject mythology and mysticism into otherwise scientifically plausible grounds for explanation. The questions left unanswered by science are still mysterious in nature but do not require the fundamentalist blind faith of religion to create an explanation, rather, educated contemplation and experimentation is more likely to bring us closer to the truth.
29. How does an understanding of celluar automata suggest a "newkind of science".... according to Stephen Wolfram.
Cellular automata can be related to seemingly random occurrences in nature such as in patterns on mollusk shells, snowflakes and the shapes of leaves. Wolfram uses simple computations to generate complex computer models. This “new kind of science” urges people to abandon traditional mathematical rules and embrace the fact that some things are neither completely random nor completely repetitive. Incredibly simple rules can bring about incredibly complicated behavior. However, complex behavior can still be simplified by following certain rules. Wolfram has added to the knowledge of how patterns create the world which we experience. This new science might provide alternatives to evolution by explaining how different forms of life came about. Wolfram believes his work is transforming the study of physics and biology, and science in general.
30. What were the key turning points in Darwin's life?
Darwin’s friendship with Professor Henslow influenced his career more than any other circumstance. He knew every branch of science and introduced him to other academic superiors who fueled his love for science.
Reading Humboldt’s “Personal Narrative” and Sir J. Herschel’s “Introduction to the Study Of Natural Science” during his last year at Cambridge stirred up Darwin’s desire to add even a small contribution to the structure of Natural Science.
By far the most important event in Darwin’s life, and one which determined his whole career, was The Voyage of The Beagle. He believes he owes to the voyage the first real training or education of his mind, being that he was led to attend closely to several branches of natural history and able to develop and improve his powers of observation.
Darwin considers all the books which he published to be the milestones in his life.
EXTRA CREDIT: make your own 3 minute movie on meme theory and postit on google.com VIDEO. Be sure to provide me with a link. I would have but I couldn’t learn how to make the video in time!
DOUBLE EXTRA CREDIT: Take your favorite movie that you saw listed onthe syllabus and give your own interpretation of its meaning (200words minimum).
The Truth Lies to us because it is necessary for our survival. We are incapable of handling the truth; that the universe is ultimately devoid of purpose. We cannot live without a purpose, so we created a purpose, an adaptive fiction evolved over time - because believing nonsense is easier than coming to grips with the randomness of the universe. Any meaning is better than no meaning at all. The notion of god had to come about in order for us to survive. We did not evolve to understand the universe, instead we evolved to survive the world around us – the weather, the land, the food; long enough to reproduce.
Religion itself has evolved over time to suit the needs of an orderly society. Assigning purpose to a chaotic state. Existence precedes essence. First we are here, and then we make our purpose. The stars have been arranged in such a way that we envisioned the constellations and their surrounding stories, from which came mythology and then religion, giving us a direction and a purpose where there wasn’t one before. The constellations, the sun, the moon… Stories created around each one designed to assign a purpose to man. Man will always invent a purpose and go to all lengths to reinforce that purpose in his mind and in his life.
Not-so-natural Selection
Upon reading Darwin's Natural Selection I started to wonder about unnatural modifications being propogated by man today. We are altering our food supply, our livestock, and our species, with scientific breakthroughs in cloning and genetic engineering. How would Darwin feel about this Not-so-natural selection? What consequences could this have in the future of the species? Could eating genetically modified foods have any effect on our future as a people?
If we are, in fact, still evolving, is there any telling what effect altering the natural course of things will have in the future>? And what of species that are dying out because of modern industrialization? Is that, in itself part of natural selection; survival of the fittest? Are we, in effect, playing God? What sort of genetic mutations and evolutionary changes can we expect to see with all of this fiddling around with nature? We are already beginning to see strains of antibiotic resistant superviruses, I hope somebody is thinking about what they are getting us into...
If we are, in fact, still evolving, is there any telling what effect altering the natural course of things will have in the future>? And what of species that are dying out because of modern industrialization? Is that, in itself part of natural selection; survival of the fittest? Are we, in effect, playing God? What sort of genetic mutations and evolutionary changes can we expect to see with all of this fiddling around with nature? We are already beginning to see strains of antibiotic resistant superviruses, I hope somebody is thinking about what they are getting us into...
Pythagoras; The man, the myth, the Messiah?
Pythagoras should have been Jesus. What I mean by this is that aside from a mild superiority complex, he and his ideals seemed to be well on their way to becoming a religion. Even the divine oracle relayed that Pythagoras would surpass all who had ever lived in beauty and wisdom and that he would be of the greatest benefit to the human race in everything pertaining to human achievements. I can't help but wonder what the world would have been like if Pythagoreanism had had it's own St Paul to carry out the message and keep the philosophy alive as he did with Christianity.
It is unfortunate that the sect began to perish as it did, I think the Pythagoreans could have really been a positive benefit to society. It would have totally changed the direction of the world. I wonder if Pythagorean schools still exist or if Pythagorean students still practice anywhere in the world... I would be interested to learn if and how they made any modern modifications to the principles so that they could still be applied today. I appreciated that Pythagoreanism, while still having a strong belief in God, also had a strong belief in values such as knowledge and education, which I dont feel Christianity has put any substantial importance on. Oh how different the world would be if everyone valued intelligence and wisdom the way we value beauty and wealth...
It is unfortunate that the sect began to perish as it did, I think the Pythagoreans could have really been a positive benefit to society. It would have totally changed the direction of the world. I wonder if Pythagorean schools still exist or if Pythagorean students still practice anywhere in the world... I would be interested to learn if and how they made any modern modifications to the principles so that they could still be applied today. I appreciated that Pythagoreanism, while still having a strong belief in God, also had a strong belief in values such as knowledge and education, which I dont feel Christianity has put any substantial importance on. Oh how different the world would be if everyone valued intelligence and wisdom the way we value beauty and wealth...
Friday, September 19, 2008
Sweet Evolution
It's a shame that sociobiology is not given any attention in school.I found it very interesting, even if just as a theory. I feel that ifmore focus was put on the biological aspects of social behavior thenwe could reach a deeper understanding of why we behave the way we doand see where we may be headed if we continue to behave in such away.
I enjoyed the illustration of our predisposition to sweetness and feltit offered a very interesting take on why we tend to be drawn to fat,sugar and salt. Our ancestors maximized their fitness by eating sweetfruits so theoretically the taste for sweets is built into our geneticmakeup (yet I think it is obvious we tend to overdo it as well as tochoose artificially sweet items rather than the former sweet fruits tosatisfy our craving.) If more people were aware of this notion, maybe(just maybe-probably not likely) people would be more inclined to pickup a piece of fruit when they had a craving for something sweet ratherthan a Soda or candy bar, realizing that socio-biologically speakingtheir body is probably looking for something to maximize fitnessrather than to just hit our 'sweet spot.'
I enjoyed the illustration of our predisposition to sweetness and feltit offered a very interesting take on why we tend to be drawn to fat,sugar and salt. Our ancestors maximized their fitness by eating sweetfruits so theoretically the taste for sweets is built into our geneticmakeup (yet I think it is obvious we tend to overdo it as well as tochoose artificially sweet items rather than the former sweet fruits tosatisfy our craving.) If more people were aware of this notion, maybe(just maybe-probably not likely) people would be more inclined to pickup a piece of fruit when they had a craving for something sweet ratherthan a Soda or candy bar, realizing that socio-biologically speakingtheir body is probably looking for something to maximize fitnessrather than to just hit our 'sweet spot.'
Ode To Einstein
I never realized that Einstein was such a compassionate soul. I appreciate him so much more after learning a little bit about him as a person. I found his pacifistic views endearing yet mildly ironic being that his work led to the development of the Hydrogen bomb and subsequently the deaths of over 100,000 people.
I agree with his validation of Spinoza's God who "revels himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the facts and actions of human beings."
I most enjoyed his personal essay titled, "The World As I see it." I felt aligned with him on many of his personal views from his passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility to his abhorration of the military system. Holding such ideals as Kindness, beauty and truth reminded me a little of the values of Aldous Huxley; the fullness of Einstein's life came not from the typical "trite objects of human efforts"- possessions, outward success and luxury but from his friendships with like minded men, and appreciation of art and scientific endeavors.
His depiction of the mysterious as the heart of true art and true science moved me. As a realist, I tend to forget about indulging in the wonders around and marvelling in the mystery and focus more on objects and subjects within my immediate grasp (possibly why I found it rather difficult to understand the quantum mechanics papers) but Einstein's ability to understand and appreciate both aspects of life gave me hope and lead me to believe that each is equally important to consider and experience in a well-rounded, satisfying life.
I agree with his validation of Spinoza's God who "revels himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the facts and actions of human beings."
I most enjoyed his personal essay titled, "The World As I see it." I felt aligned with him on many of his personal views from his passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility to his abhorration of the military system. Holding such ideals as Kindness, beauty and truth reminded me a little of the values of Aldous Huxley; the fullness of Einstein's life came not from the typical "trite objects of human efforts"- possessions, outward success and luxury but from his friendships with like minded men, and appreciation of art and scientific endeavors.
His depiction of the mysterious as the heart of true art and true science moved me. As a realist, I tend to forget about indulging in the wonders around and marvelling in the mystery and focus more on objects and subjects within my immediate grasp (possibly why I found it rather difficult to understand the quantum mechanics papers) but Einstein's ability to understand and appreciate both aspects of life gave me hope and lead me to believe that each is equally important to consider and experience in a well-rounded, satisfying life.
Popping Bubbles
If knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for a balanced intellect to believe the literal truth or every part of the Bible, as fundamentalists do, then why is creationism even being considered as part of public school curriculum? According to the video Fundamentalism Is A Mental Disease, creationists are wrong on the facts, the science and the methodology and creationism is taught "only by those who cannot think." It is rather concerning that a practicing Pentacostal, whose fundamentalist views cannot be completely ignored, is just two steps away from the presidency. Sarah Palin is in favor of teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools but I do not feel that creationism has a place in a science classroom. If they want to include it in a World Religions class or a biblical mythology class then fine, but to claim that both views have valid arguments and that children should be able to examine both sides and come to their own conclusions seems a little absurd to me.
Evolution: The "universal acid" that burns through every concept, ideology and 'ism'; that allows us to put aside emotion and examine factual evidence behind the true nature of the universe . It may not paint as pretty a picture as creationism and an all knowing, benevolant God, and many people, parents especially, are hesitant to expose their precious babies to the cold, hard truth of the world, for fear that it may be too devastating. We maintain the illusion of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the old man in the clouds watching everything we do because it is easier than having to explain to children things that even we cannot fully grasp. To me, it is easier to tell my children I don't really know and let us speculate together rather than facilitate a fable that will just leave them confused and disappointed. Once we learn to accept life and the universe as it is, we have a better chance of being able to move forward and become well adjusted, rational, intelligent minds rather than hanging our hopes and dreams on a bubble that will one day inevitably pop.
Evolution: The "universal acid" that burns through every concept, ideology and 'ism'; that allows us to put aside emotion and examine factual evidence behind the true nature of the universe . It may not paint as pretty a picture as creationism and an all knowing, benevolant God, and many people, parents especially, are hesitant to expose their precious babies to the cold, hard truth of the world, for fear that it may be too devastating. We maintain the illusion of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the old man in the clouds watching everything we do because it is easier than having to explain to children things that even we cannot fully grasp. To me, it is easier to tell my children I don't really know and let us speculate together rather than facilitate a fable that will just leave them confused and disappointed. Once we learn to accept life and the universe as it is, we have a better chance of being able to move forward and become well adjusted, rational, intelligent minds rather than hanging our hopes and dreams on a bubble that will one day inevitably pop.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
R.I.P. God
The God of Man may be dead but maybe there is still a Universal God behind the energy of all things… I think that the video Gods Too Decompose brought to light a very important notion. We have killed God. In the name of religion we have taken God for granted and misunderstood the intent and purpose of this whole crazy experiment called Life. I recall a quote from Jurassic Park, “God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God….” I think the Humans of the Ancient Worlds were far closer to God, not only because there was less science getting in the way explaining away all of the awe and wondrous phenomena happening around them, but because there was a distinct feeling inside most people that some higher power existed. In fact, it was rarely doubted.
I noticed in the works of many of the most well known and respected philosophers, those who went down in history for their endless questioning and reasoning, hardly questioned the existence of God, instead pondering more the interpretation of God and his will and what it meant to lead a good life. Well, if even the most skeptical minds had faith surpassing the average religious believer today, what happened to change the way we thought about God? How did we lose him? Did he, in fact, die? When? And what does that do to our notion of good and evil? Heaven and hell? Judgement Day? I think if the masses got wind of the idea that God was dead, all hell would break loose (no pun intended-ok maybe it was a little intended).
What part in our minds holds onto the notion of God? Maybe it is that part of US that has died and not necessarily God himself/itself. Maybe even those who still consider themselves to be believers do not actually have the full capacity to believe and know God the way it was once understood. Maybe just as the imagination tends to hibernate or be pushed down into our unconscious mind as we become adults and are inclined to put aside childish things, the part of our heart or mind that knows God has been buried somewhere as well, beneath all of the trivialities and superficialities of this life. Did God die because of the state of the world today or is the world in its current state because God is already dead?
I noticed in the works of many of the most well known and respected philosophers, those who went down in history for their endless questioning and reasoning, hardly questioned the existence of God, instead pondering more the interpretation of God and his will and what it meant to lead a good life. Well, if even the most skeptical minds had faith surpassing the average religious believer today, what happened to change the way we thought about God? How did we lose him? Did he, in fact, die? When? And what does that do to our notion of good and evil? Heaven and hell? Judgement Day? I think if the masses got wind of the idea that God was dead, all hell would break loose (no pun intended-ok maybe it was a little intended).
What part in our minds holds onto the notion of God? Maybe it is that part of US that has died and not necessarily God himself/itself. Maybe even those who still consider themselves to be believers do not actually have the full capacity to believe and know God the way it was once understood. Maybe just as the imagination tends to hibernate or be pushed down into our unconscious mind as we become adults and are inclined to put aside childish things, the part of our heart or mind that knows God has been buried somewhere as well, beneath all of the trivialities and superficialities of this life. Did God die because of the state of the world today or is the world in its current state because God is already dead?
Jiggle Me This
So there are 4 forces that explain everything? Gravity, strong and weak nuclear interactions and electromagnetism. So, what is that energy between our fingers when we hold them about an inch apart? And what is the phenomenon known as the Aura? And why is it that when we magnify an atomic particle to the highest capable magnification everyone sees something different? Things are made of littler things that jiggle, ok I get it, now if we could only figure out what those littler things are, and what it is that makes them jiggle, and why they jiggle in the first place!
To make a discovery is not the same as understanding a discovery but nothing will be able to be understood until that discovery is made. We need to keep searching, keep questioning, keep reaching for discoveries. Even if we don’t understand what purpose the discovery has, just making the discovery could have tremendous benefits. Maybe someone else will handle the understanding. Like Lisa Randall pointed out, who knew Einstein’s theory of general relativity would be utilized for GPS technology? Making the discovery has to precede the understanding, right?
To make a discovery is not the same as understanding a discovery but nothing will be able to be understood until that discovery is made. We need to keep searching, keep questioning, keep reaching for discoveries. Even if we don’t understand what purpose the discovery has, just making the discovery could have tremendous benefits. Maybe someone else will handle the understanding. Like Lisa Randall pointed out, who knew Einstein’s theory of general relativity would be utilized for GPS technology? Making the discovery has to precede the understanding, right?
To Infinity And Beyond
Lisa Randall's theory of multiple dimensions was very interesting to me. Are multiple dimensions the same as parallel dimensions? I assume the dimensions she is speaking about could be parallel, perpendicular or of any infinite type. I started wondering about death, and those who seem to be able to maintain contact with some form or another after they "cross over". I had been having doubts lately about anything happening to us after we die,convincing myself that we just tell ourselves there is something after this life so it makes it easier to let loved ones go. My sister lost one of her best friends earlier this year in a car crash and there was a little girl at his funeral who had never even met him, who, having no motivation to lie or make anything up, said that she could see him and that he didn't like the things the preacher was saying (he was not religious and against the pleas of his friends, his parents insisted on a traditional christian ceremony) and that he was going to kick over a plant in the corner (it fell over a minute later). How do we explain examples like this? Could our energy, once freed of the physiological constraints of the body, pass through to another dimension still reachable by a small percentage of the population on this world? If so, does it remain on this dimension forever or is there another transition? Maybe once gravity is no longer an issue we are free to pass through the other dimensions at our leisure. The questions and the possibilities are endless.
The infiniteness of the universe (in both directions!) is incomprehensible. We are such a small part of something so big and yet, if you think about the world around us, there are billions of things smaller than us. Billions of atomic and subatomic universes at play around us at any given time of day. Sometimes, when walking on the golf course or when watering the back yard I stop and wonder how many universes I have destroyed today. Sitting and watching ants do their thing with my three year old and trying to teach him to observe them, not to kill them, puts things in perspective (slightly) in considering the relativity of everything. Time, space, size; it's all an illusion, something manifested by us as a source of measurement, but really amounting to nothing at all in the grand scheme of things. What if we are just one tiny universe out of millions of universes, all a part of some greater existence, invisible and incomprehensible to us. Does the ant think he is just an ant? Does he realize how small his world is compared to things around him, or is he oblivious and also unable to comprehend the existence of anything outside of his world?
The infiniteness of the universe (in both directions!) is incomprehensible. We are such a small part of something so big and yet, if you think about the world around us, there are billions of things smaller than us. Billions of atomic and subatomic universes at play around us at any given time of day. Sometimes, when walking on the golf course or when watering the back yard I stop and wonder how many universes I have destroyed today. Sitting and watching ants do their thing with my three year old and trying to teach him to observe them, not to kill them, puts things in perspective (slightly) in considering the relativity of everything. Time, space, size; it's all an illusion, something manifested by us as a source of measurement, but really amounting to nothing at all in the grand scheme of things. What if we are just one tiny universe out of millions of universes, all a part of some greater existence, invisible and incomprehensible to us. Does the ant think he is just an ant? Does he realize how small his world is compared to things around him, or is he oblivious and also unable to comprehend the existence of anything outside of his world?
We Are The Invasive Species
Edward O. Wilson attempted to appeal to the religious right to put aside their differences and get on board with science in the name of saving the environmental world. We, as a people, tend to become fixated on trivial issues and differences and get into religious and political debates rather than focusing on the common issues at hand affecting all of us equally, regardless of faith (or lack thereof). E.O. states that science and religion are the two most powerful social forces on the planet and if they come together and direct their 'followers' toward a common goal we might actually reach enough of the general population to make some change happen. The trouble is most people don't believe global warming is a viable threat, at least not within our lifetime, and in this end of days mentality, preserving the world for future generations no longer seems like something worth fighting for. It is interesting to me that the republican party tends to fancy itself as most appealing to conservative christians and evangelicals, and also seems unmoved by pleas from the environmental community to address the problem of global warming. I felt like in this election season, E.O. could have directed his speech to republicans in general and been just as effective. We need to begin to see this as an issue that affects everyone. If we could make the problem public and educate people, inform people of the severe nature of global warming and the destruction of the rainforests and the weakening of the coral reef systems and the effects that our carelessness regardling these things could have on our world. That is the key, OUR world.
I wish that Mr. Wilson had spent more time explaining the exact problems and concrete solutions for the major problems facing OUR world today. I feel like he ran out of time near the end and didn't have a chance to name specifics, as I sat anxiously awaiting, pen in hand. Aside from donating one out of every thousand dollars, I am no closer now to knowing what I can do or what I can implore others to do in the name of saving the planet. Wilson spoke about how we have already lost many species of plants and animals with new ones being added to the endangered list each day. He spoke aboout invasive species with no natural enemies causing environmental and human damage and I could not help but think of the effect humans have had on this planet, maybe WE are the invasive species. Run amok on this rock with no regard for the wreckage we are leaving behind us. Like the ants (and scarabs) in the Mummy movies, devouring any signs of life in their path within seconds, so are we, in the larger scope of time, devouring this planet, sucking it dry of its resources, 'over-harvesting' as Wilson put it, not allowing enough time or attention to regeneration and renewal. We need to drastically shift our way of thinking and living in this era of convenience and return to, not only the biblical way, but the native american way of being stewards for the earth, and getting into the habit of giving as we take, repairing as we destroy, working With the Earth instead of in direct opposition to it.
I wish that Mr. Wilson had spent more time explaining the exact problems and concrete solutions for the major problems facing OUR world today. I feel like he ran out of time near the end and didn't have a chance to name specifics, as I sat anxiously awaiting, pen in hand. Aside from donating one out of every thousand dollars, I am no closer now to knowing what I can do or what I can implore others to do in the name of saving the planet. Wilson spoke about how we have already lost many species of plants and animals with new ones being added to the endangered list each day. He spoke aboout invasive species with no natural enemies causing environmental and human damage and I could not help but think of the effect humans have had on this planet, maybe WE are the invasive species. Run amok on this rock with no regard for the wreckage we are leaving behind us. Like the ants (and scarabs) in the Mummy movies, devouring any signs of life in their path within seconds, so are we, in the larger scope of time, devouring this planet, sucking it dry of its resources, 'over-harvesting' as Wilson put it, not allowing enough time or attention to regeneration and renewal. We need to drastically shift our way of thinking and living in this era of convenience and return to, not only the biblical way, but the native american way of being stewards for the earth, and getting into the habit of giving as we take, repairing as we destroy, working With the Earth instead of in direct opposition to it.
Monday, September 15, 2008
All I know is that I don't know (Heisenberg's Physics & Philosophy)
I think philosophers must be crazy, or at least well on their way. How else can one explain thousands of years of attempting to answer questions about questions which have no answers? I cannot imagine the sleepless nights they must have spent in agonizing contemplation. I do not even consider myself to have a fraction of the wisdom of the historic philosophers and there have been times when questions inside my head cloud my ability to accomplish even the simplest tasks.
Descartes and Kant state that any concepts or words that we use to describe things in our world can only carry us so far because they are limited by our experience. Therefore it seems that absolute truth can never really be reached. These concepts merely represent the current development of human thought even though scientists are searching for objective truth and at times believe they have found it. We can never really consider anything absolute because it is dependant on our present experience and surrounding information. The ideas of space and time and universe and the soul, and God for example, are given the label and definition simply so we can have a vague means of describing them for the moment but really we can have no complete understanding of any of these because we are limited in how far that definition can be stretched to suit our present needs.
The fact that God has been a driving force in the heart and mind of so many for thousands of years and yet we are unable to even remotely grasp the concept of what it means, is just one example of how words can actually complicate concepts rather than simplify them. Who can define God? Who can describe the complex connection that so many feel? We feel the need to personify because it is the only way we can even begin to comprehend. So we use terms such as He in order to help facilitate understanding but really all that we have succeeded in doing throughout history is waging wars and driving wedges between nations. Based on what? On a belief that can never be proven to be right or wrong. If we were to establish that God is not a person to be worshipped and prayed to, not a source of income, not a means of controlling the people, not a man in the clouds dictating right and wrong, but instead, a driving life force, an energy present in every living thing, the voice that speaks to and through all of us (not just a select few-although one could suggest that the prophets were those most capable of eloquently explaining the purpose of life to the masses), a mysterious and unexplainable unknown that can only be speculated upon, maybe we could actually find a way to agree that all we know is that we don't know.
Descartes and Kant state that any concepts or words that we use to describe things in our world can only carry us so far because they are limited by our experience. Therefore it seems that absolute truth can never really be reached. These concepts merely represent the current development of human thought even though scientists are searching for objective truth and at times believe they have found it. We can never really consider anything absolute because it is dependant on our present experience and surrounding information. The ideas of space and time and universe and the soul, and God for example, are given the label and definition simply so we can have a vague means of describing them for the moment but really we can have no complete understanding of any of these because we are limited in how far that definition can be stretched to suit our present needs.
The fact that God has been a driving force in the heart and mind of so many for thousands of years and yet we are unable to even remotely grasp the concept of what it means, is just one example of how words can actually complicate concepts rather than simplify them. Who can define God? Who can describe the complex connection that so many feel? We feel the need to personify because it is the only way we can even begin to comprehend. So we use terms such as He in order to help facilitate understanding but really all that we have succeeded in doing throughout history is waging wars and driving wedges between nations. Based on what? On a belief that can never be proven to be right or wrong. If we were to establish that God is not a person to be worshipped and prayed to, not a source of income, not a means of controlling the people, not a man in the clouds dictating right and wrong, but instead, a driving life force, an energy present in every living thing, the voice that speaks to and through all of us (not just a select few-although one could suggest that the prophets were those most capable of eloquently explaining the purpose of life to the masses), a mysterious and unexplainable unknown that can only be speculated upon, maybe we could actually find a way to agree that all we know is that we don't know.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Your Own Personal Jesus (Professor Owen Gingerich)
Professor Owen Gingerich, while a very intelligent cosmologist, seems to pass off any of the difficult questions regarding his feelings about God and Science to the philosophers and the theologians, preferring to maintain his position as a scientist. He based his theories on a gut reaction of how things should be. He says he cannot prove it but he does believe. When asked how we could have such an omnipotent and benevolent creator when there is so much evil and suffering in the world, he quips that we ought to leave that problem to the theologians. He gives the same basic response to the hopelessness involved in getting in touch with other universes although the Christian faith is largely based around the idea of another untouchable universe called heaven.
I can find some relatively relatable points in his vague description of God as some supreme, transcendent super intelligence, manifested in prophets throughout the ages. But then he goes on to say that this is implemented most fully through Jesus Christ and his compelling story. Dismissing Buddhism and other religions for their enormous burden of superstition (not accounting for Christian superstition!) His problem with Pantheism is that there is no place for a personal God which is an important and satisfying part to professor Gingerich to (a personal god gives us the possibility of a relationship and helps us make ethical decisions and relate to each other).
Since a universe created by God gives us a sense of design and purpose, Professor Gingerich was asked what he felt the purpose was. His response was that the purpose is to study and understand the universe; to examine and use what we find to enhance relationships. It seems like that is quite a justification for his own life (as a cosmologist). In fact, in my opinion, it seems that most of his answers were quite self centered in that way. If a personal god is most satisfying and Jesus' story is most compelling and students of the universe are most satisfying to god then lucky Mr. Gingerich, he seems to be on a direct path to 'heaven.' Either that or he seems to have manifested his ideals about religion and the world to suit his life and lead him to believe he is doing right by god. What about others who believe that they are doing right by god but believe in a pantheistic view or a buddhist perspective or choose to examine human relationships rather than the broader spectrum of the universe? Are they condemned to hell because they are not believers in jesus as their savior?
I can find some relatively relatable points in his vague description of God as some supreme, transcendent super intelligence, manifested in prophets throughout the ages. But then he goes on to say that this is implemented most fully through Jesus Christ and his compelling story. Dismissing Buddhism and other religions for their enormous burden of superstition (not accounting for Christian superstition!) His problem with Pantheism is that there is no place for a personal God which is an important and satisfying part to professor Gingerich to (a personal god gives us the possibility of a relationship and helps us make ethical decisions and relate to each other).
Since a universe created by God gives us a sense of design and purpose, Professor Gingerich was asked what he felt the purpose was. His response was that the purpose is to study and understand the universe; to examine and use what we find to enhance relationships. It seems like that is quite a justification for his own life (as a cosmologist). In fact, in my opinion, it seems that most of his answers were quite self centered in that way. If a personal god is most satisfying and Jesus' story is most compelling and students of the universe are most satisfying to god then lucky Mr. Gingerich, he seems to be on a direct path to 'heaven.' Either that or he seems to have manifested his ideals about religion and the world to suit his life and lead him to believe he is doing right by god. What about others who believe that they are doing right by god but believe in a pantheistic view or a buddhist perspective or choose to examine human relationships rather than the broader spectrum of the universe? Are they condemned to hell because they are not believers in jesus as their savior?
Friday, September 12, 2008
Cosmic Huh?
Wow! Cosmic inflation makes my head hurt! Who knew that cosmology could be looked at philosophically? I guess it is inevitable that everything has to be looked at from a theoretical, philosophical standpoint in order to facilitate understanding, and the universe is no different. I found it interesting that this theorizing has been going on since the beginning of time and still goes on to this day. I remember in Professor Fukuyama's interview he said that there are really two main things that are still unable to be fully explained; cosmology and human uniqueness.
We can discuss and philosophize and calculate, well we doesn't necessarily mean ME, this cosmic inflation read went slightly over my head! I had to read and re-read and follow links and I still barely grasp it. By we, I mean the smartest minds of the quantum physics world and the expert studiers of the cosmos can turn this Big Bang theory over and over and inside out and break apart each other's theories for all of time and we still may never know the true origin of the universe or where it is headed. I was reminded of Horton hears a Who and this cosmic inflation theory made me think that we are all just riding on a speck of dust in who knows what kind of infinite universe, the least we can do is enjoy the ride!
We can discuss and philosophize and calculate, well we doesn't necessarily mean ME, this cosmic inflation read went slightly over my head! I had to read and re-read and follow links and I still barely grasp it. By we, I mean the smartest minds of the quantum physics world and the expert studiers of the cosmos can turn this Big Bang theory over and over and inside out and break apart each other's theories for all of time and we still may never know the true origin of the universe or where it is headed. I was reminded of Horton hears a Who and this cosmic inflation theory made me think that we are all just riding on a speck of dust in who knows what kind of infinite universe, the least we can do is enjoy the ride!
Monday, September 8, 2008
It's not What you believe, it's That you believe (Fukuyama Post 2)
I keep going back and forth on the issue of moral universalism. Are moral rules universal or culturally determined? If aspects of human nature were universal maybe we could find some moral ground to agree upon that doesn't even need to concern religion. Religious beliefs and other cultural ideologies would be secondary; personal matters to be dealt with by neighbors and local authorities, as long as people abide by the larger universal code of morality. Maybe it doesn't matter what you believe in, only that you believe.
How can any one group declare moral righteousness over others? Who decides who the judge of the world is? And shouldn't we make sure our side of the street is clean before we start pointing at other people's trash? Religiously, politically, morally- Some cultures believe a hand should be chopped off as punishment for stealing, some practice human sacrifice; some consider cows to be sacred, others believe that human lifes are the only ones that should be held sacred and all others are here for our use. People's personal religious and cultural choices and beliefs should not be of concern to anyone not of that culture. If the individuals of that culture have a problem with it they should be the ones to rise up and make the change...
How can any one group declare moral righteousness over others? Who decides who the judge of the world is? And shouldn't we make sure our side of the street is clean before we start pointing at other people's trash? Religiously, politically, morally- Some cultures believe a hand should be chopped off as punishment for stealing, some practice human sacrifice; some consider cows to be sacred, others believe that human lifes are the only ones that should be held sacred and all others are here for our use. People's personal religious and cultural choices and beliefs should not be of concern to anyone not of that culture. If the individuals of that culture have a problem with it they should be the ones to rise up and make the change...
The Evolution of Religion
Are religions the only thing left holding societies together? Why is that? Is it possible that even though religion belonged to "prescientific rationalism" it still serves an important sociological role today? A lot of people are abandoning organized religion (the 7 or 8 major cultural systems that Francis Fukuyama mentioned) in search of a more 'evolved' religion that fits their spiritual needs without conflicting with their logic and the advances of science. Fukuyama believes it is essential to keep religion alive and that religion is more functionally important than people realize. That is true in the sense that religion has provided common cultural and moral rules that brings forth more cooperation than other institutions like schools and government have attempted to do in the past.
In my opinion, if people were less concerned with putting a label on their religion and more concerned with how they feel about it and the fact that regardless of what you call it, it generally breaks down to being a good person and doing to others what you would have them do to you, we could begin to demand that sense of community and belonging and societal bonds in other areas of our lives. I was very interested to find yoism.org (at the end of the Aldous Huxley videos) and couldn't help but check it out. While the verbage was quite dense and there was so much information to go through, I was intrigued by the message of unifying all religions and belief systems and focusing on those values we all have in common rather than the position history has taken by focusing on the differences. It is definitely something I will be looking further into...
In my opinion, if people were less concerned with putting a label on their religion and more concerned with how they feel about it and the fact that regardless of what you call it, it generally breaks down to being a good person and doing to others what you would have them do to you, we could begin to demand that sense of community and belonging and societal bonds in other areas of our lives. I was very interested to find yoism.org (at the end of the Aldous Huxley videos) and couldn't help but check it out. While the verbage was quite dense and there was so much information to go through, I was intrigued by the message of unifying all religions and belief systems and focusing on those values we all have in common rather than the position history has taken by focusing on the differences. It is definitely something I will be looking further into...
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Wise Passiveness (Huxley video 2)
Aldous Huxley talks about the problem of population and strain on resources. The way I see it, in order to successfully industrialize we need to learn how to practice moderation, as a society. We cannot exactly implement laws regarding the number of children people should have but maybe it is irresponsible to contribute to the burden on the environment, the resources and the planet by continuing to have more children when we can't even take care of the ones that are here (on a macrolevel). Maybe if we worked on teaching the people who are already here such values as minimalism instead of bigger is better, moderation instead of gluttony and mindless consumption. Emphasize recycling and conservation. I know that not a lot of people care about these things today. We care more about luxuries and convenience. No one wants to work hard; hard workers are a dying breed.
I think people don't care because we have been conditioned not to care. We are susceptible to our environment. If, one day every television program, news report, public policy and other media outlet concerned and promoted intelligence, goodwill and creativity societal values and ideals would probably begin to evolve and move in a different direction. We hold ourselves back from wise passivenss and awareness with all of these distractions on a daily basis. Between the tv shows, video games, emphasis on sporting events and all the advertisements in between we rarely give ourselves a chance these days to create the circumstances necessary to exercise the deep mind. Huxley talks about taking in contemplation and giving out love; I wonder, if we have let ourselves forget the importance of contemplation, how long will it be before we forget the importance of love?
I think people don't care because we have been conditioned not to care. We are susceptible to our environment. If, one day every television program, news report, public policy and other media outlet concerned and promoted intelligence, goodwill and creativity societal values and ideals would probably begin to evolve and move in a different direction. We hold ourselves back from wise passivenss and awareness with all of these distractions on a daily basis. Between the tv shows, video games, emphasis on sporting events and all the advertisements in between we rarely give ourselves a chance these days to create the circumstances necessary to exercise the deep mind. Huxley talks about taking in contemplation and giving out love; I wonder, if we have let ourselves forget the importance of contemplation, how long will it be before we forget the importance of love?
Friday, September 5, 2008
Darkness & Shadows (A. Huxley Video 1)
Aldous Huxley seems to be a very wise and enlightened man. I am not sure when this interview took place but I have to say, it is pretty obvious to me that we, as a society did not heed his words in time. He spoke about valuing and cultivating such essential traits as intelligence and goodwill; charity and love. With the boom of population, technology and knowledge setting the world into a chronic revolution, it seems these core values are no longer a priority. It appears that only a select few consider intelligence a virtue worth pursuing, not to mention charity and goodwill. Huxley hypothesized that we would be trading these values for pride, nationalism and militarism and the result would be chaotic. I think this is evident in our world today.
We live in a chaotic, conflicted world that very few people have interest in changing. It's too much work, "we are just a few people, what kind of change can we actually make?" Some don't even think anything needs to be changed. They revel in the 'more, more, more', bigger is better, get to the top any way you can attitude. Like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, recent generations do not know any other world, so they are content in the darkness and the shadows and would not even think to leave this realm to "see the light".
We live in a chaotic, conflicted world that very few people have interest in changing. It's too much work, "we are just a few people, what kind of change can we actually make?" Some don't even think anything needs to be changed. They revel in the 'more, more, more', bigger is better, get to the top any way you can attitude. Like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, recent generations do not know any other world, so they are content in the darkness and the shadows and would not even think to leave this realm to "see the light".
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Trouble With Wisdom
Socrates notes that "a man may be thought wise but they do not trouble with him until he begins to impart wisdom to others." This was a very revealing statement to me and it seems that this has been the case in our world throughout history. The powers that be generally leave people alone with their opinions and ideas until those ideas threaten to change the status quo. When the message gets just a little too loud and starts spreading a little too far and 'somebody' (we may never really know who exactly) who has too much invested in things going another direction figures they had better put a stop to things before they go too far. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, Socrates, even Jesus! Corrupting the youth! Making people question things, teaching people to think and not take things at face value; those are dangerous things to a person in power who likes things just the way they are.
As Socrates says during the Apology, "he who will really fight for the right, if he would live even for a little while, must have a private station and not a public one." The trouble is it is very hard to make change from a private station, if change is in fact the goal, most messages of change start small and private and as they gather momentum and support they can't help but shift into the public eye, especially these days. The media, who each have their own "truths" to push, will make sure that the 'right' messages get the most attention and anybody who is promoting a different agenda will either be discredited or rarely mentioned. This is especially apparent during election time. There is more propoganda and slander going on than discussion of important issues and policy and we are only shown two candidates although there are half a dozen more that many people haven't even heard of.
As Socrates says during the Apology, "he who will really fight for the right, if he would live even for a little while, must have a private station and not a public one." The trouble is it is very hard to make change from a private station, if change is in fact the goal, most messages of change start small and private and as they gather momentum and support they can't help but shift into the public eye, especially these days. The media, who each have their own "truths" to push, will make sure that the 'right' messages get the most attention and anybody who is promoting a different agenda will either be discredited or rarely mentioned. This is especially apparent during election time. There is more propoganda and slander going on than discussion of important issues and policy and we are only shown two candidates although there are half a dozen more that many people haven't even heard of.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The Human Condition
"Therefore, every inquiry is comparative and uses the means ofcomparative relation." Without dark there is no light, withoutknowing sadness we cannot understand happiness, etc. If you place around object and a square object in front of an infant,they do not understand the concept of a square not being able toroll until you show them that the round object rolls, once theyroll the round object themselves and can grasp the concept ofrolling it, they can try to roll the square object, obviously to noavail, but there is no way to teach a baby that a sqaure objectcannot roll until you teach them what it means to roll. We need tohave something to compare to in order to fully comprehend. Noticein daily interactions with people, the way we tell stories, theway we give advice, we tend to offer examples from our ownexperiences in order to show others that we understand what theyare going through or to explain to them how we handled similarsituations, when it is something we have not experienced it isharder to 'relate' to them and even then, some will still think oftheir immediate circle to see if they know anyone who has beenthrough similar circumstance and offer know how based on what weobserved from their experience. For this reason we cannotcomprehend the infinite or any questions related to infinity; afterlife, atomic particles, the universe...
It seems to be a curse of the human condition. We have the abilityand the capacity to ask the questions but it seems we cannever know the answers beyond an educated estimation that mustcontinue to evolve as our consciousness matures. In the newIndiana Jones movie, Irina Spalko insisted that she was ready toaccept all knowledge of the secrets of the Universe. She, likeso many of us tortured individuals who NEED to know, wanted to see,she wanted to know Everything. When they opened hereyes and allowed her all of the answers, supreme knowledge of all ofthe Mysteries, the knowledge overwhelms Spalko, causingher to ignite and disintegrate. We will always Want to know, but wewould never be able to comprehend it, it is unfortunatelynot in our nature.
It seems to be a curse of the human condition. We have the abilityand the capacity to ask the questions but it seems we cannever know the answers beyond an educated estimation that mustcontinue to evolve as our consciousness matures. In the newIndiana Jones movie, Irina Spalko insisted that she was ready toaccept all knowledge of the secrets of the Universe. She, likeso many of us tortured individuals who NEED to know, wanted to see,she wanted to know Everything. When they opened hereyes and allowed her all of the answers, supreme knowledge of all ofthe Mysteries, the knowledge overwhelms Spalko, causingher to ignite and disintegrate. We will always Want to know, but wewould never be able to comprehend it, it is unfortunatelynot in our nature.
Life After Death?
So, what if nothing happens to us after death? Or what if, regardless of the type of life we lead, we all encounter the same fate, be it reincarnation or redistribution of energy or "Heaven" or however you believe? Many religions tout being a good person in the name of salvation and eternal bliss, but they do not know if they can deliver on that promise. What if there is nothing after this? Would anyone actually be upset and say, "Pssh! After all that?? I could've just been a jerk and still gotten to Heaven?" Why can't being a good person be its own reward? Living a life of pure intention and friendship and happiness and truthfulness, without expecting a 'treat' at the end for our good behavior. Can't we just be good for the sake of being good? -Of being pleasant to be around and making the 80 or 90 years we spend here a happy time for those around us and for ourselves! Happy people are always nicer to be around and leave good memories behind for those who loved and knew them.
I noticed that every one of the professors who said they believe in God either did not know what happens to us after death or believed there to be a next level based on the life we lead while we are here. While every professor who said they did not believe in God also did not believe that anything happened to us after this life other than decomposition and whatever imprint we left on those here (which could be considered the "spirit")
I noticed that every one of the professors who said they believe in God either did not know what happens to us after death or believed there to be a next level based on the life we lead while we are here. While every professor who said they did not believe in God also did not believe that anything happened to us after this life other than decomposition and whatever imprint we left on those here (which could be considered the "spirit")
The Devil Made Me Do It
My favorite response to the question 'Does God Exist?' from the Socratic Universe interviews was that of Professor Griesemer from UC Davis. He made a good point in saying that by capitalizing the word God we presume that God is a person and by questioning his existence we first need to decide what we mean by existence. Also, if everyone has a different idea of God then don't we run into the very same problem that Euthyphro and Socrates ran into when discussing piety and impiety? Can we ever really know what is pleasing to "the gods" or what God's will implies?
I find it interesting that a person can pretty much do anything and say "God told me to do it" and on some level, they are excused. If the law was broken, then inevitably they will probably have some legal retribution but it seems, on other levels, they are likely to be forgiven. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the happenings of Eddie Perez Romero (Mt Sac Ethics Professer) who was arrested in China for vandalizing his hotel room in the name of human rights during the Olympic games. When I first heard the story, I applauded his protest and his message. Then...I started hearing that he was giving God the credit and that God told him
to do it and provided the opportunity and he had no choice but to carry out God's will, and, he lost me. How is anyone ever sure that it is the voice of God in their head? and not "the devil" trying to trick them or just their own voice? Don't we generally deem
people who hear voices as crazy? I didn't realize that it depended on Who the voice belonged to. God talked to you? you must be a prophet! You have an imaginary friend named Bernie? You're a nut job and need serious medication! What about the mother who believed God wanted her to kill her 5 children? She believed it was a test like Abraham was tested! How and
where do we draw the line and realize that we all have a voice inside our head, call it Conscience, call it God, whatever you call it, it is still in Your head alone and only your own deductive reasoning skills can decide whether it is reasonable or not to carry out those actions. I feel that when someone can excuse their action by saying they were told to do it, it is an attempt to shift responsibility from themself and therefore they can, in good conscience carry out otherwise unacceptable behaviors.
I was reading a pretty scary article about Joel's Army. Ever heard of these guys? 10,000+ people prophesied to become an Armageddon-ready military force of young people with a divine mandate to physically impose Christian "dominion" on non-believers. That's pretty scary! Under the umbrella of freedom of religion, they are allowed to congregate and practice and recruit conservative Christians any way they deem necessary. Now, I know this is a touchy subject but why is this acceptable but Al Quada is terrorism? Aren't they the same type of fundamentalists set on imposing their views and "bringing justice" to those non-believers? This movement considers themselves to be God's avenging army - Talk about corrupting the youth!
I find it interesting that a person can pretty much do anything and say "God told me to do it" and on some level, they are excused. If the law was broken, then inevitably they will probably have some legal retribution but it seems, on other levels, they are likely to be forgiven. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the happenings of Eddie Perez Romero (Mt Sac Ethics Professer) who was arrested in China for vandalizing his hotel room in the name of human rights during the Olympic games. When I first heard the story, I applauded his protest and his message. Then...I started hearing that he was giving God the credit and that God told him
to do it and provided the opportunity and he had no choice but to carry out God's will, and, he lost me. How is anyone ever sure that it is the voice of God in their head? and not "the devil" trying to trick them or just their own voice? Don't we generally deem
people who hear voices as crazy? I didn't realize that it depended on Who the voice belonged to. God talked to you? you must be a prophet! You have an imaginary friend named Bernie? You're a nut job and need serious medication! What about the mother who believed God wanted her to kill her 5 children? She believed it was a test like Abraham was tested! How and
where do we draw the line and realize that we all have a voice inside our head, call it Conscience, call it God, whatever you call it, it is still in Your head alone and only your own deductive reasoning skills can decide whether it is reasonable or not to carry out those actions. I feel that when someone can excuse their action by saying they were told to do it, it is an attempt to shift responsibility from themself and therefore they can, in good conscience carry out otherwise unacceptable behaviors.
I was reading a pretty scary article about Joel's Army. Ever heard of these guys? 10,000+ people prophesied to become an Armageddon-ready military force of young people with a divine mandate to physically impose Christian "dominion" on non-believers. That's pretty scary! Under the umbrella of freedom of religion, they are allowed to congregate and practice and recruit conservative Christians any way they deem necessary. Now, I know this is a touchy subject but why is this acceptable but Al Quada is terrorism? Aren't they the same type of fundamentalists set on imposing their views and "bringing justice" to those non-believers? This movement considers themselves to be God's avenging army - Talk about corrupting the youth!
Outside The Box
The survey of Philosophy on Wikipedia mentioned Thomas Aquinas' philosophy that there must be an uncaused, "first cause" and that first cause is God. I like the idea of an 'uncaused first cause', it makes sense to me, but it doesn't have to be called God to make sense.
I may seem to come off as an atheist, I don't think that I am, I do believe that there was most probably a First Cause that set all of this in motion, but in the words of Socrates, "I know that I don't know", therefore since speculation will prove nothing, I am content, at the moment, with calling myself Agnostic. While I do not adhere or align with any particular religious philosophy, I do find myself able to be more open to spiritual philosophies which dont tend to make belief in The One They Call God a requirement of participation.
I have been exposed to my own "survey of philosophy" in my life. I was raised by Muslim parents (they are from Egypt) but I attended a Christian Science elementary school, a Christian Baptist middle school, A Catholic High School, and then in my teenage years I studied the martial arts which led me to an interest in Eastern Philosophy. I like the Buddhist and Taoist schools of thought and appreciate the way of life they teach and practice. I feel that my parents gave me a pretty good chance to become open minded and to develop my own ideas and beliefs. I haven't found a "box" to put myself in as far as religions go and I refuse to call myself something just because it is more comfortable inside the box. I am ok with being 'different' because it is a lot easier for me to learn things from the outside. Once you are inside all sorts of emotions get involved that make it difficult to think and deduce clearly.
"Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves — these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness — then do you live acting accordingly." -Buddha
I may seem to come off as an atheist, I don't think that I am, I do believe that there was most probably a First Cause that set all of this in motion, but in the words of Socrates, "I know that I don't know", therefore since speculation will prove nothing, I am content, at the moment, with calling myself Agnostic. While I do not adhere or align with any particular religious philosophy, I do find myself able to be more open to spiritual philosophies which dont tend to make belief in The One They Call God a requirement of participation.
I have been exposed to my own "survey of philosophy" in my life. I was raised by Muslim parents (they are from Egypt) but I attended a Christian Science elementary school, a Christian Baptist middle school, A Catholic High School, and then in my teenage years I studied the martial arts which led me to an interest in Eastern Philosophy. I like the Buddhist and Taoist schools of thought and appreciate the way of life they teach and practice. I feel that my parents gave me a pretty good chance to become open minded and to develop my own ideas and beliefs. I haven't found a "box" to put myself in as far as religions go and I refuse to call myself something just because it is more comfortable inside the box. I am ok with being 'different' because it is a lot easier for me to learn things from the outside. Once you are inside all sorts of emotions get involved that make it difficult to think and deduce clearly.
"Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves — these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness — then do you live acting accordingly." -Buddha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
