In Java Philosophy; "Who Are You" in http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/eitheror.htm, "Impermanently Permanent" quoted by Maynard G. Krebs describes the best of who I am. I am always learning and being inspired by all my surroundings. I feel that the more I've learned, the more it has made become as a whole. But in order to learn new things, and to put our new knowledge into great use, we need to update ourselves constantly to new ideas. To move forward from our old grounds to new grounds. This is be impermanent.
It is important to make yourself be conscious enough about what you are learning in order to remind yourself; of your own self values and importance. If we are able to recognize our own importances, we only remain to be inspired and not be lost within the materials. But instead, we evolve even more and build ourselves to be more updated to the new materials and at the same time keeping our old values. This is being not the same permanently.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
No Wonder You Ain't Got Any Genuine Friends (Wk #5)
In the lecture of Steven Pinker, he mentions why people have interactions with others. The relations among one with another such as; that if we keep a calculator and constantly recording down to the very last digits of who owes how much and the other gave how much... Yes, it sounds annoying, selfish, and even could be untrustworthy right? Now, let me ask, how many of you actually have genuine friends? Do you think of yourself as genuine person? What are your definitions of a genuine friend? Do you guys match up to this definition of your own? Do you think they are such good hearted people out there that has a great heart and you can be friends with? In Pinker's lecture, the interviewer seems to be skeptical that good people; where you can just have your guards down- actually exist anymore.
Well I want to say, they do exist, genuine people do exist only if you do exist as a genuine person yourself. I have this friend asked me so often, "Why are you friends with Janet anyways, she's so dumb and slow?" Then another friend of mine asked of me the same thing about my good friend Janet of this similar question. But first of all let me say, my good friend Janet is not dumb, but maybe slow, but she knows who are the fakes and the phonies. Janet knew she's slow and I would always make fun of her, but she always is willing to learn and read self improvement books.
So my response back to all those other friends of mine that raises this question was, "I accept her, because Janet has a good heart. It's as simple as that. I know people usually pick the ones to be friends with based on your expectations or what kinds of goodies one can offer to the other." So I asked them back, "Would you like someone to consider you as their friend because you can offer your goodies to them?" They said, "No." I replied," Exactly, because after all, we just want to be accepted right?" I could see the look of their faces because they all looked like they were going to cry because I made them realize they've been so judgmental all along.
I feel so bad for these people who are so judgmental when it comes to picking and choosing a person as a friend based on what one can offer and benefit from them in the future. You know why? I look at their life. It only made sense to me of why their own friends slowly, one by one betrays them at the end. At the end I'm the one who they cry to when they really want to express their vulnerabilities. Maybe if we all would recognize ones good heartiness only than what the other person can offer to the table. Then, you will have; someone who you can count on if your car breaks down at 3am , someone to cry to about your miseries, someone to confess to when you felt guilty about something you've down and still won't judge you, will accept you for all your contradictions and really and accept you for who you are not. Remember, any relationship is not a one way street, it goes two ways.
Well I want to say, they do exist, genuine people do exist only if you do exist as a genuine person yourself. I have this friend asked me so often, "Why are you friends with Janet anyways, she's so dumb and slow?" Then another friend of mine asked of me the same thing about my good friend Janet of this similar question. But first of all let me say, my good friend Janet is not dumb, but maybe slow, but she knows who are the fakes and the phonies. Janet knew she's slow and I would always make fun of her, but she always is willing to learn and read self improvement books.
So my response back to all those other friends of mine that raises this question was, "I accept her, because Janet has a good heart. It's as simple as that. I know people usually pick the ones to be friends with based on your expectations or what kinds of goodies one can offer to the other." So I asked them back, "Would you like someone to consider you as their friend because you can offer your goodies to them?" They said, "No." I replied," Exactly, because after all, we just want to be accepted right?" I could see the look of their faces because they all looked like they were going to cry because I made them realize they've been so judgmental all along.
I feel so bad for these people who are so judgmental when it comes to picking and choosing a person as a friend based on what one can offer and benefit from them in the future. You know why? I look at their life. It only made sense to me of why their own friends slowly, one by one betrays them at the end. At the end I'm the one who they cry to when they really want to express their vulnerabilities. Maybe if we all would recognize ones good heartiness only than what the other person can offer to the table. Then, you will have; someone who you can count on if your car breaks down at 3am , someone to cry to about your miseries, someone to confess to when you felt guilty about something you've down and still won't judge you, will accept you for all your contradictions and really and accept you for who you are not. Remember, any relationship is not a one way street, it goes two ways.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Nicolas of Cusa
Nicolas of Cusa, "Even the very profound Aristotle, in his first
philosophy, asserts in all things most obvious by nature such
difficulty occurs for us as for a night owl which is trying to look at
the sun." I think it means that nature is always pure, undeceiving,
and in is predictable. It is unlike human where we are difficult to
read, can be unauthentic, and even be deceiving. The night owl is a
nocturnal creature and will have difficulties seeing sunlight since it
is not part of their animalistic features.
I like this one the best of all from him, "If we can fully attain unto
this knowledge of our ignorance, we will attain unto learned
ignorance." It is true about oneself whose too conceit and carries
such a high ego. I consider the more egotistic a person is whose
always out there always act like a know it all or walks with their
nose up the air are the more ignorant of all. I call this of my own,
"fake confidence." This type of what I call fake confidence is a
hindrance to perceive further knowledge and mostly is arrogant. When
one is humble and not in denial of unknown, they will just only gain
more.
philosophy, asserts in all things most obvious by nature such
difficulty occurs for us as for a night owl which is trying to look at
the sun." I think it means that nature is always pure, undeceiving,
and in is predictable. It is unlike human where we are difficult to
read, can be unauthentic, and even be deceiving. The night owl is a
nocturnal creature and will have difficulties seeing sunlight since it
is not part of their animalistic features.
I like this one the best of all from him, "If we can fully attain unto
this knowledge of our ignorance, we will attain unto learned
ignorance." It is true about oneself whose too conceit and carries
such a high ego. I consider the more egotistic a person is whose
always out there always act like a know it all or walks with their
nose up the air are the more ignorant of all. I call this of my own,
"fake confidence." This type of what I call fake confidence is a
hindrance to perceive further knowledge and mostly is arrogant. When
one is humble and not in denial of unknown, they will just only gain
more.
Cellular Atomata: Stephen Wolfran
n the lecture of Stephen Wolfran he spent ten years to complete his
work on mathematical computations. This device is such a great
brilliant program for sciences studies and the ones majoring in it. I
am pretty bad in math, but at least now it makes me realize I should
take my math classes more serious. I mean, it's awesome that he was
able to calculate the possible structure with math!
But of course i think i bad thing about this is that you must be
fluent in mathematical formulas in order to know the types of formulas
to create the right products. Hmm... does this mean if we are able
know how something resembles a type of object, we can create replicate
the exact product. This technology thing is cool, but kinda scary.
work on mathematical computations. This device is such a great
brilliant program for sciences studies and the ones majoring in it. I
am pretty bad in math, but at least now it makes me realize I should
take my math classes more serious. I mean, it's awesome that he was
able to calculate the possible structure with math!
But of course i think i bad thing about this is that you must be
fluent in mathematical formulas in order to know the types of formulas
to create the right products. Hmm... does this mean if we are able
know how something resembles a type of object, we can create replicate
the exact product. This technology thing is cool, but kinda scary.
Midterm for Philosophy
4. What is your real name?
Ngoc Gia Tran, but I go by Gia
5. What is your "user" name?
Epiphanygt
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
Gtran7@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website.
Name: Epiphanygt
Address of Blog: http://epiphanygt.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
Didn’t read 4 assignments
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them)
Francis Fukuyama
I disagree with Fukuyama's prediction on where he mentions that no
large states or powerful industries would go to war unless big issues
seems to arise. In addition he also added that no more bigger in
space to fight about since spaces has reached its limits and
capacities. This is not true in my point of view. Did we all forget
that our government sponsors on the new innovations and technology for
mars and the moon? Let me remind us all with such administration
called, NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In the
article written by Mark Whittington, published Sep 21, 2007
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/384514/will_china_beat_the_united_state\
s_back.html
In the past we have been competing with China for the race of to get
to the moon. It was most recent in 2007 that China has surprised the
U.S., Russia and India with their new innovations in space technology.
The strongest country of the nation is sure not pleasant. Besides,
these four countries are aiming for all the same ideas; in new
inventions to strengthen their military weapons, and promoting the
expansion of life and spaces. Therefore I disagree with Fukuyama. I
strongly believe that there is still spaces available for our country
and other countries to go to war for.
Posted by epiphany at 11:04 PM
Reaction to the film, Aldous Huxley "Man Search for Truth"
I had the toughest time balancing out my beliefs and values for these
past couple of years. I choose to major in science, so I was going
back and forth this whole time questioning about my beliefs between
spirituality and science. At one point, I found myself replacing all
my spiritual beliefs since my science classes practices on producing
hard facts and evidences. However recently, somehow conscientiously
my spiritual side grew upon me, reminding me not to forget what I had
once valued. I've decided to find an explanation for both of these
two beliefs and try my best to make senses from both sides so I can
bring peace inside of me. Believe me, this is not easy and even I
started to get confused and got blurred while researching on my own.
I almost thought of giving up. However after watching the film of
Aldous Huxley, I was able to find a conformation from him. That a
human being should have two types of education; scientific language
and literature. Above all, most importantly is intelligence and
consciousness.
Huxley explains that the scientific language is a one word, which
stands for one theme between given word and event talked about. In
literature literature work can be expressed in two types of ways;
expressing the inexpressible, and expressing good work in multiple
events human have and expressing it in multiple meanings. Most
important and above most was intelligence and consciousness. These
key points serves as a guidance for me as an individual to let me know
that even though I am in a blur right now, I should continue my
searching.
Posted by epiphany at 11:05 PM
Apology by Plato
If it was for anyone who was able to write empathetically well, it will be Plato in Apology. I don't care for all of the people who thinks I'm weird from those who criticize about the writings of Plato. I found him to be the the greatest writer in empathy. I know it's not hard to write for pity or asking its audiences for sympathy. However, he slowly builds his character to a brighter light, then slowly, slowly, Socrates shines. For this is part of the reason being I found him to be such an amusement. Well maybe because I'm just easily moved by empathy. But most importantly, it is because I use this style of writing- well depends on circumstances. I guess it is because it works! But of course I'm not in any level close to Plato. But let's see what seems to make his writing so eloquent.
I know for a fact that his overall style is reeling in the reader gradually. For example; at the beginning of the story Socrates was fighting for his own defense. As the story progress, he found himself in a more unfavorable situation with the judges. So as the courts' injustice rises to the defender, and this drama gets more intensive, so did Plato write the lines of Socrates to be yet more prideful and righteousness. Towards the end of the dialouge; where more prideful of himself and his friends and the people of Athenians. Socrates announces for himself that he would be this single person to sacrifice for the civilians of Athenians, because now, shinning its brightest, he has a heroic light on him. Overall for me, I will remember this talent and will in the future to read more of his writings.
What level of dimensions does psychic has access to? Is it the same dimension as Lisa Randall and hologram?
I was reading a book called, "Your Sixth Sense," written by Ted Andrews.
He uses the Hologram Peredigm to explain why a person is able to access
and foresees intuitively of another person that once lived or is still
living. However, it seems that Lisa Randall is speaking of the matter as
mentioned for the hologram. So are they actually speaking of the same
dimensions?
I actually started reading about our sixth sense before class and it's
great that I am knowing more of it. But of course, no matter what, I
don't think anyone is able to answer this question, but hopefully
someone can make some senses out of this. My first thoughts of getting
this book was because I wanted to get in touch with my gut feeling.
However, I found out further that it was related to psychicism. I kept
reading but I refuse to practice any the lessons offered in the book.
I've always had believed in spirits but never really got in touch of
any, I want to keep it that way. I mean, who knows, I don't want create
an access of any chances with any occurrences with them. Now I'm just
more freaked out. I wonder if anyone shares this same experience with
me?
Posted by epiphany at 9:40 PM
Science and Religion Can Be Compatible
I was fortunate because I was able to discover the Professor Dumont and I shares a quite similar view when responding to; if science and religion is compatible. Below is Dumont's response and was found from a Professor in philosophy, David Lane's website: (http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/socra5.html)
Dumont's (Mt. Saint Mary's College) Response: "Frankly I see both as relying heavily on faith in the unknown. Both are human disciplines/activities, expressing human aspirations and subject to human limitations/faults. Both are institutions and belief systems. I see many problems with both as they are practiced today. At its best science is humble before its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around. I see no reason to think that they should in principle conflict, since to me they are both human pursuits of truth. There is a lot of bad religion around (arrogant and unloving) but the good religion that is there could do a great deal to support and limit (through true humility before nature and our limitations and through a proper sense of responsibility for life) the aspirations of science."
In other words, the professor suggests that science and religion can be compatible; since both of the institutions offers humans to practice and to pursue to search for answers about life and the universe. Dumont refers, "its greatest in science is acknowledgeable of its progress and obstacles, its greatest in religion can be realistic and would not distinguish itself to be superior than others. The professor does acknowledge that there are a bad religion and a good religion. The good one does lean in and offer the support in scientific research, yet also can take its stand and abolish in research studies if founded to be inhuman to their beliefs. Altogether, Dumont's responded deligently. Moreover, my approach to this question is similar.
Similar and agreeing with Professor Dumont; in my point of view I do think science and religion can be compatible. As a dedicated student in Buddhism and in the sciences; both of their teachings were equally important and precious to me. Both served as a counterbalance; in providing me aspirations to strive in my achievements, provided me answers when I was most confused. This is the main reason why I believe it is so possible for the science and religion to be compatible. Dumont said it best when he mentioned, "that its best science should be humble and know its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around." It is true. Throughout my studies of sciences; for some of its matters do still need light for its grey area and holes still need to be filled. The ones whose literate in science can tell you how many doors has still left unclosed by scientists. This idea also applies samely towards religion. In its religion it does still contains the flaws like science, with grey areas and holes.
Science and religion has been providing valuble resources to humans and the universe. Such resources is extremely valuble to us all. It is for this reason these two institution continues to grow in popularity amongst humans. We all should be acknowledgeable of both. Therefore it is important not one should never limit themselves from getting too egocentric or bias.
Posted by epiphany at 4:29 PM
Edward Wilson, The Creation: Evangelical and Science
As an environmentalist myself, I'd always say, "one small difference or one big difference, no matter what, there is a difference. If all do small parts then together it makes a huge difference." There are small things we can do to preserve mother earth and can even save you $money$ also. Like switching a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (CPL) or any energy saving bulbs. CPL and other energy saving bulbs costs less than the regular light bulbs, lasts up to 10 times, and each lifespan of the bulbs depending on hours of use can save you up to $91.00 on electricity. It also use 60-75% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Win/ win situation, isn't that great! For more small things you can do go to: http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html
I am glad that global warming has finally been taken upon more serious now a these days, because I remembered one year ago, the issues of global warming was placed to be the 5th place of "Most Important" and of course the 1st place was some celebrity going through some psychological breakdown or whatever. However there are still many people who are not aware about global warming. The people whose not aware like most of my friends and family members. When I approach them about being environmental friendly for global warming awareness, they all response similarly; "I'm not rich so I don't think my voice will be heard or matter" or "No thanks, I don't got the time to protest." They all think they need to sacrifice big in order to make this type of change which I think why not because they are part of the environment, but I tell them- "No, that's not true. We all can let our voices be heard and doesn't matter small or big differences, we all can make a difference." Each citizen in the U.S. has the rights to let our voices be heard, one of the ways is by petitioning. By gathering enough signatures to the White House can start the petitioning process. Here are some of the websites I had been participating in:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=876
www.coopamerica.org/takeaction/fordandgm
It is true of what Edward Wilson listed in the lecture; the loss of animal and habitants, and where half of the population's species can be gone or be brought to an extinction. This all will happen if we do not take actions now to fight global warming. Some of his ideas found here under 'Ecology' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Osborne_Wilson explains the big picture of how the loss of animals and habitants can affect our ecosystem and the food chain.
Posted by epiphany at 6:10 PM
Cellular Atomata: Stephen Wolfran
n the lecture of Stephen Wolfran he spent ten years to complete his
work on mathematical computations. This device is such a great
brilliant program for sciences studies and the ones majoring in it. I
am pretty bad in math, but at least now it makes me realize I should
take my math classes more serious. I mean, it's awesome that he was
able to calculate the possible structure with math!
But of course i think i bad thing about this is that you must be
fluent in mathematical formulas in order to know the types of formulas
to create the right products. Hmm... does this mean if we are able
know how something resembles a type of object, we can create replicate
the exact product. This technology thing is cool, but kinda scary.
Posted by epiphany at 11:55 PM
Nicolas of Cusa
Nicolas of Cusa, "Even the very profound Aristotle, in his first
philosophy, asserts in all things most obvious by nature such
difficulty occurs for us as for a night owl which is trying to look at
the sun." I think it means that nature is always pure, undeceiving,
and in is predictable. It is unlike human where we are difficult to
read, can be unauthentic, and even be deceiving. The night owl is a
nocturnal creature and will have difficulties seeing sunlight since it
is not part of their animalistic features.
I like this one the best of all from him, "If we can fully attain unto
this knowledge of our ignorance, we will attain unto learned
ignorance." It is true about oneself whose too conceit and carries
such a high ego. I consider the more egotistic a person is whose
always out there always act like a know it all or walks with their
nose up the air are the more ignorant of all. I call this of my own,
"fake confidence." This type of what I call fake confidence is a
hindrance to perceive further knowledge and mostly is arrogant. When
one is humble and not in denial of unknown, they will just only gain
more.
Posted by epiphany at 11:56 PM
11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many more
dimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there any
evidence at this stage for her beliefs?
According to Lisa Randall, a Theoretical Physicist believes that there can be extra multiples of dimensions exists. Some of the evidences that provides her to furthermore her investigation was drawn by about the energy of particles equation created by Einstein: (energy of particles E) = MC^2). This equation she explain, “Represents the objects in space; invented Cosmology.” She continues, that from this exploration of Cosmology Scientific Theroy, it can allow her to go back and fourth to access the dimensions. Can be viewed from Professor Ph.D David Lane’s Website
The evidences she has for now which is called, The String Theory; by Joel Pochensky that came up with the idea about branes. From this where she explain in her lecture, this can present where regardless of fourth dimension or fifth dimensions out there, there could be objects in the universe called branes. She provided slides and explains there’s two types of branes; “Weakerbrane” and “Gravitybrane.” These two types of branes refers to the how gravity travels out from these two types of braes. Another source was from a book called, Flat Land by Owen Gingerich. Which talks about an animal that only lives in a second dimensional, and a sphere that is able to travel from the third-dimension pops into the second dimension.
dimension.
12. What are Pythagoras' philosophical views in a nutshell?
His views in a nutshell are those whose ignorant and arrogant. The real ignorance, are the ones whose ignorant of their own ignorance. Ones should remain humble and acknowledge and not deny of their own wrong doings and ones should admit that they don’t know everything instead of pretending to know everything. He reminds others in the story of, Pythagoras that no one should limit themselves in the opportunities of learning. Where its one doesn’t acknowledge their wrong doings and unconscious. The soo knowledge because of their narrow mindedness and refuses to learn that they . the
13. Do you think science and religion are compatible? Be sure to
explain your answer by GIVING
THE EXPLANATIONS given by philosophers who side with your position
from the Socratic Universe (cite and quote when
appropriate).
I was fortunate because I was able to discover Professor Dumont from Mt. Saint Mary's College and I shares a quite similar view when responding to; “If science and religion is compatible,” in the book, The Socratic Univerise. Below is Dumont's response and was found from a Professor in philosophy, David Lane's website: (http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/socra5.html)
In other words, the professor suggests that science and religion can be compatible; since both of the institutions offers humans to practice and to pursue to search for answers about life and the universe. Dumont refers, "its greatest in science is acknowledgeable of its progress and obstacles, its greatest in religion can be realistic and would not distinguish itself to be superior than others. The professor does acknowledge that there are a bad religion and a good religion. The good one does lean in and offer the support in scientific research, yet also can take its stand and abolish in research studies if founded to be inhuman to their beliefs. Altogether, Dumont's responded deligently. Moreover, my approach to this question is similar.
Similar and agreeing with Professor Dumont; in my point of view I do think science and religion can be compatible. As a dedicated student in Buddhism and in the sciences; both of their teachings were equally important and precious to me. Both served as a counterbalance; in providing me aspirations to strive in my achievements, provided me answers when I was most confused. This is the main reason why I believe it is so possible for the science and religion to be compatible. Dumont said it best when he mentioned, "that its best science should be humble and know its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around." It is true. Throughout my studies of sciences; for some of its matters do still need light for its grey area and holes still need to be filled. The ones whose literate in science can tell you how many doors has still left unclosed by scientists. This idea also applies samely towards religion. In its religion it does still contains the flaws like science, with grey areas and holes.
Science and religion has been providing valuble resources to humans and the universe. Such resources is extremely valuble to us all. It is for this reason these two institution continues to grow in popularity amongst humans. We all should be acknowledgeable of both. Therefore it is important not one should never limit themselves from getting too egocentric or bias.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his
position?
Based on the Apology by Plato, Socrates was on trial because he was accused of three things. One, is the practices of evil by contacting the oracles. Secondly, for corrupting the young and charging them money but teaches evil and by making bad things seems better in reality. Thirdly, is for his beliefs as an atheist. Socrates started his own defense at the very beginning by first letting the judges know how he has increased his enemies throughout the time. Socrates explains his reasons why he has repeatedly visited the oracle. So he told them that he was confirming with the oracle about whose the wisest of all so I can learn from the wisest. The oracle direct him to poets, mechanics, and artisians. He told the Athenians that after his examination from each of them, they weren’t so wise yet the wisest overall.
This introduction of his to the judges is later valuble to provide evidence to his title. Back in the days, the judges’ identities were kept for privacy reasons so the person testifies themselves unknowing whose its prosecutors. To provide his introduction and story was true of such poet exists, and his visit to the oracle serves this purpose he yells out, Meletus whose the poet. Socrates confronted Meletus with a series of questions that lets the audience to evualte his ignorances. To fight for his second conviction, he challenged Meletus by asking about the health of the horse, if the harm is caused by one person or if by all the rest from that one person. Meletus answered that all, which is incorrect and Socrates points out that he is certainly not in the level of convicting him. Thirdly, he asked Meletus if the neighbor of good and bad matters at all and which will he choose. Meletus of course answers, good, and aress that no one will want to hurt themselves by living with the bad naighbors. So once again Socrates tackled his prosecutors.
http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Plato/Apology/
15. Give a brief history of philosophy using just 300 words (no
more). You may use an outline format, but be sure to
cram as many "factoids" (facts) as possible (key names, ideas,
dates, etc.). Remember, it must be
your own words and not merely a series of quotes.
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it
important to know astronomy in order to do
philosophy?
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from
Einstein's? How are they similar?
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your
reasoning.
19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important in
understanding human thought and behavior. Be sure
to cite Wilson and Dawkins and Darwin when appropriate.
20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narrator
argued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why?
Do you agree or disagree and please detail your rejoinder.
21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" (fundamentally
disagrees with) Edward O. Wilson? Who do you
think is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion, Owen or
Edward? Explain.
The two professors both, differs from each other in their terms of their religious beliefs which causes them to share their differences in terms of approaching the explanations about life itself and our existences in this universe. Gingerich holds his beliefs of the existence of a higher being which is known to be God; Jesus, to be the master creator of creating this universe and made it possible to sustain life. He explains that each has a personal God, since it reveals itself in different forms to connect with others and that the Midevil’s perception of God has caused an expectation of the imagery of God’s forms of communicating. He finds it important that atheists, and agnostics should give a deeper insight about such perfect creation and preventing God from compelling the humans since our resources is degrading gradually. Whereas, Wilson was once a believer in Christianity, it was replaced with Darwinism; in a biological and physiological sense by natural
Wilson is a well recognized scientist with a well-rounded knowledge of humanistic behavioral and in animal behavorial. He dedicated his works in all such areas and receives high recognition and it due the passions that he has to for the things he loves and studies in. He offers a realistic view about the life of this universe is no such thing as he mentioned called intelligence theory, and also where Gingerach has mention also. In the lecture of Gingerach, he mentions that the best reason to question further for such prefect creation of this plant, but his solution does not offer a good solution nor persuasiveness. However, Wilson, although he is not a believer and free of religious beliefs yet he mentions the best answers of all for now. I think the best way to approach about life itself is what Wilson has mention, where to acknowledge that we are part of the creation of the complex system, naturally selected be a part of the universe.
Owen Gingerich; Astronomy, God, and Jesus:
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltelevisiontest4.htm;
Edward O. Wilson; Consilience:
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltv6.htm
22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history." Do you
agree or disagree? Explain.
Francis Fukuyama explains, “End of history,” was meant to describe about the end of the 20th century due. This end of the 20th century reminded him to recall back in 19th century where a notion was rejected to the first half of the 20th century due to a disastrous situation with the first half of the 19th century. This reveals some disastrousness can take place while we are now in the new millennium. He mentioned that we must have in order to bring an “end of history.”
For him to believe to have an actual an end of history is due to modern science. First he describes the modern science of nature; where evolution institutions are gathered by trial and error. He thinks the nature has always provided more solutions windows to the solutions. Second is science; inventions that changes the environment which he has mentioned for example such as; biotech or artificial intelligence. He thinks it can be a threat to our human premise and flourish away natural resources.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
The “unknowingness” is when one learns a subject and questions arises therefore requires knowledge from another subject that provides the answer to. But as one tries to learn the other subject that provides an explanation to answer the questions arises at the first place, and- now there are more questions to that can link to more subjects and therefore more unknowingness.
24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Think
before you leap on this one.
25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained by
a series of slogans. Why, then, is physics
important in the study of philosophy? Substantiate your answer.
26. How do you explain the following line, "To have freedom OF
religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
-I can only express this based on the meaning of freedom as a U.S. citizen and I cannot speak for the others who are not living in this country. This means: For the one who has its own free-will to chose their religion freely is important, as much more important-one must acknowledge that their religion should never be enforcing against their free-will nor limit its one to any type of restrictions.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Edward Wilson, The Creation: Evangelical and Science
As an environmentalist myself, I'd always say, "one small difference or one big difference, no matter what, there is a difference. If all do small parts then together it makes a huge difference." There are small things we can do to preserve mother earth and can even save you $money$ also. Like switching a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (CPL) or any energy saving bulbs. CPL and other energy saving bulbs costs less than the regular light bulbs, lasts up to 10 times, and each lifespan of the bulbs depending on hours of use can save you up to $91.00 on electricity. It also use 60-75% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Win/ win situation, isn't that great! For more small things you can do go to: http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html
I am glad that global warming has finally been taken upon more serious now a these days, because I remembered one year ago, the issues of global warming was placed to be the 5th place of "Most Important" and of course the 1st place was some celebrity going through some psychological breakdown or whatever. However there are still many people who are not aware about global warming. The people whose not aware like most of my friends and family members. When I approach them about being environmental friendly for global warming awareness, they all response similarly; "I'm not rich so I don't think my voice will be heard or matter" or "No thanks, I don't got the time to protest." They all think they need to sacrifice big in order to make this type of change which I think why not because they are part of the environment, but I tell them- "No, that's not true. We all can let our voices be heard and doesn't matter small or big differences, we all can make a difference." Each citizen in the U.S. has the rights to let our voices be heard, one of the ways is by petitioning. By gathering enough signatures to the White House can start the petitioning process. Here are some of the websites I had been participating in:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=876
/fordandgm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Osborne_Wilson explains the big picture of how the loss of animals and habitants can affect our ecosystem and the food chain.
I am glad that global warming has finally been taken upon more serious now a these days, because I remembered one year ago, the issues of global warming was placed to be the 5th place of "Most Important" and of course the 1st place was some celebrity going through some psychological breakdown or whatever. However there are still many people who are not aware about global warming. The people whose not aware like most of my friends and family members. When I approach them about being environmental friendly for global warming awareness, they all response similarly; "I'm not rich so I don't think my voice will be heard or matter" or "No thanks, I don't got the time to protest." They all think they need to sacrifice big in order to make this type of change which I think why not because they are part of the environment, but I tell them- "No, that's not true. We all can let our voices be heard and doesn't matter small or big differences, we all can make a difference." Each citizen in the U.S. has the rights to let our voices be heard, one of the ways is by petitioning. By gathering enough signatures to the White House can start the petitioning process. Here are some of the websites I had been participating in:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=876
Science and Religion Can Be Compatible
I was fortunate because I was able to discover the Professor Dumont and I shares a quite similar view when responding to; if science and religion is compatible. Below is Dumont's response and was found from a Professor in philosophy, David Lane's website: (http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/socra5.html)
Dumont's (Mt. Saint Mary's College) Response: "Frankly I see both as relying heavily on faith in the unknown. Both are human disciplines/activities, expressing human aspirations and subject to human limitations/faults. Both are institutions and belief systems. I see many problems with both as they are practiced today. At its best science is humble before its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around. I see no reason to think that they should in principle conflict, since to me they are both human pursuits of truth. There is a lot of bad religion around (arrogant and unloving) but the good religion that is there could do a great deal to support and limit (through true humility before nature and our limitations and through a proper sense of responsibility for life) the aspirations of science."
In other words, the professor suggests that science and religion can be compatible; since both of the institutions offers humans to practice and to pursue to search for answers about life and the universe. Dumont refers, "its greatest in science is acknowledgeable of its progress and obstacles, its greatest in religion can be realistic and would not distinguish itself to be superior than others. The professor does acknowledge that there are a bad religion and a good religion. The good one does lean in and offer the support in scientific research, yet also can take its stand and abolish in research studies if founded to be inhuman to their beliefs. Altogether, Dumont's responded deligently. Moreover, my approach to this question is similar.
Similar and agreeing with Professor Dumont; in my point of view I do think science and religion can be compatible. As a dedicated student in Buddhism and in the sciences; both of their teachings were equally important and precious to me. Both served as a counterbalance; in providing me aspirations to strive in my achievements, provided me answers when I was most confused. This is the main reason why I believe it is so possible for the science and religion to be compatible. Dumont said it best when he mentioned, "that its best science should be humble and know its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around." It is true. Throughout my studies of sciences; for some of its matters do still need light for its grey area and holes still need to be filled. The ones whose literate in science can tell you how many doors has still left unclosed by scientists. This idea also applies samely towards religion. In its religion it does still contains the flaws like science, with grey areas and holes.
Science and religion has been providing valuble resources to humans and the universe. Such resources is extremely valuble to us all. It is for this reason these two institution continues to grow in popularity amongst humans. We all should be acknowledgeable of both. Therefore it is important not one should never limit themselves from getting too egocentric or bias.
Dumont's (Mt. Saint Mary's College) Response: "Frankly I see both as relying heavily on faith in the unknown. Both are human disciplines/activities, expressing human aspirations and subject to human limitations/faults. Both are institutions and belief systems. I see many problems with both as they are practiced today. At its best science is humble before its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around. I see no reason to think that they should in principle conflict, since to me they are both human pursuits of truth. There is a lot of bad religion around (arrogant and unloving) but the good religion that is there could do a great deal to support and limit (through true humility before nature and our limitations and through a proper sense of responsibility for life) the aspirations of science."
In other words, the professor suggests that science and religion can be compatible; since both of the institutions offers humans to practice and to pursue to search for answers about life and the universe. Dumont refers, "its greatest in science is acknowledgeable of its progress and obstacles, its greatest in religion can be realistic and would not distinguish itself to be superior than others. The professor does acknowledge that there are a bad religion and a good religion. The good one does lean in and offer the support in scientific research, yet also can take its stand and abolish in research studies if founded to be inhuman to their beliefs. Altogether, Dumont's responded deligently. Moreover, my approach to this question is similar.
Similar and agreeing with Professor Dumont; in my point of view I do think science and religion can be compatible. As a dedicated student in Buddhism and in the sciences; both of their teachings were equally important and precious to me. Both served as a counterbalance; in providing me aspirations to strive in my achievements, provided me answers when I was most confused. This is the main reason why I believe it is so possible for the science and religion to be compatible. Dumont said it best when he mentioned, "that its best science should be humble and know its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around." It is true. Throughout my studies of sciences; for some of its matters do still need light for its grey area and holes still need to be filled. The ones whose literate in science can tell you how many doors has still left unclosed by scientists. This idea also applies samely towards religion. In its religion it does still contains the flaws like science, with grey areas and holes.
Science and religion has been providing valuble resources to humans and the universe. Such resources is extremely valuble to us all. It is for this reason these two institution continues to grow in popularity amongst humans. We all should be acknowledgeable of both. Therefore it is important not one should never limit themselves from getting too egocentric or bias.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
What level of dimensions does psychic has access to? Is it the same dimension as Lisa Randall and hologram?
I was reading a book called, "Your Sixth Sense," written by Ted Andrews.
He uses the Hologram Peredigm to explain why a person is able to access
and foresees intuitively of another person that once lived or is still
living. However, it seems that Lisa Randall is speaking of the matter as
mentioned for the hologram. So are they actually speaking of the same
dimensions?
I actually started reading about our sixth sense before class and it's
great that I am knowing more of it. But of course, no matter what, I
don't think anyone is able to answer this question, but hopefully
someone can make some senses out of this. My first thoughts of getting
this book was because I wanted to get in touch with my gut feeling.
However, I found out further that it was related to psychicism. I kept
reading but I refuse to practice any the lessons offered in the book.
I've always had believed in spirits but never really got in touch of
any, I want to keep it that way. I mean, who knows, I don't want create
an access of any chances with any occurrences with them. Now I'm just
more freaked out. I wonder if anyone shares this same experience with
me?
He uses the Hologram Peredigm to explain why a person is able to access
and foresees intuitively of another person that once lived or is still
living. However, it seems that Lisa Randall is speaking of the matter as
mentioned for the hologram. So are they actually speaking of the same
dimensions?
I actually started reading about our sixth sense before class and it's
great that I am knowing more of it. But of course, no matter what, I
don't think anyone is able to answer this question, but hopefully
someone can make some senses out of this. My first thoughts of getting
this book was because I wanted to get in touch with my gut feeling.
However, I found out further that it was related to psychicism. I kept
reading but I refuse to practice any the lessons offered in the book.
I've always had believed in spirits but never really got in touch of
any, I want to keep it that way. I mean, who knows, I don't want create
an access of any chances with any occurrences with them. Now I'm just
more freaked out. I wonder if anyone shares this same experience with
me?
How to Sleep Well If You Are Afraid of The Dark
You are not alone. Being scared in the dark is not a childhood fear and most of the adults that I know of are still scared of darkness. From all the people I have known, I am have the worse case of panics when sleeping alone in the dark or being home alone. I get uncomfortable easily when I'm sitting in a room filled with dead silence. It is most worse when I try to sleep at night and in the dark I hear crackling noises made by my wooden desk or the TV stand. Because once I hear cracklings I start starring and searching.
I used keep my eyes wide open to watch out for myself in the dark and this makes me more awake and scared. I guess it is true since when a person is in the dark they start creating images and freak themselves out. But it was hard for me to close my eyes since I'm so paranoid of being in the dark by myself. Recently, I discovered a way to help me fall asleep easier in the dark and avoid starring at objects in the dark. Thanks to the invention of the eye cover. When I'm ready to go bed, I just strap it on to cover my eyes. The eye cover kept my eyes blinded so it prevents me from starring at objects in the dark space. The woods still crackles but as long as I am being blindfolded it will keep my eyes shut and away from freaking myself out.
I used keep my eyes wide open to watch out for myself in the dark and this makes me more awake and scared. I guess it is true since when a person is in the dark they start creating images and freak themselves out. But it was hard for me to close my eyes since I'm so paranoid of being in the dark by myself. Recently, I discovered a way to help me fall asleep easier in the dark and avoid starring at objects in the dark. Thanks to the invention of the eye cover. When I'm ready to go bed, I just strap it on to cover my eyes. The eye cover kept my eyes blinded so it prevents me from starring at objects in the dark space. The woods still crackles but as long as I am being blindfolded it will keep my eyes shut and away from freaking myself out.
Apology by Plato
If it was for anyone who was able to write empathetically well, it will be Plato in Apology. I don't care for all of the people who thinks I'm weird from those who criticize about the writings of Plato. I found him to be the the greatest writer in empathy. I know it's not hard to write for pity or asking its audiences for sympathy. However, he slowly builds his character to a brighter light, then slowly, slowly, Socrates shines. For this is part of the reason being I found him to be such an amusement. Well maybe because I'm just easily moved by empathy. But most importantly, it is because I use this style of writing- well depends on circumstances. I guess it is because it works! But of course I'm not in any level close to Plato. But let's see what seems to make his writing so eloquent.
I know for a fact that his overall style is reeling in the reader gradually. For example; at the beginning of the story Socrates was fighting for his own defense. As the story progress, he found himself in a more unfavorable situation with the judges. So as the courts' injustice rises to the defender, and this drama gets more intensive, so did Plato write the lines of Socrates to be yet more prideful and righteousness. Towards the end of the dialouge; where more prideful of himself and his friends and the people of Athenians. Socrates announces for himself that he would be this single person to sacrifice for the civilians of Athenians, because now, shinning its brightest, he has a heroic light on him. Overall for me, I will remember this talent and will in the future to read more of his writings.
I know for a fact that his overall style is reeling in the reader gradually. For example; at the beginning of the story Socrates was fighting for his own defense. As the story progress, he found himself in a more unfavorable situation with the judges. So as the courts' injustice rises to the defender, and this drama gets more intensive, so did Plato write the lines of Socrates to be yet more prideful and righteousness. Towards the end of the dialouge; where more prideful of himself and his friends and the people of Athenians. Socrates announces for himself that he would be this single person to sacrifice for the civilians of Athenians, because now, shinning its brightest, he has a heroic light on him. Overall for me, I will remember this talent and will in the future to read more of his writings.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Reaction to the film, Aldous Huxley "Man Search for Truth"
I had the toughest time balancing out my beliefs and values for these
past couple of years. I choose to major in science, so I was going
back and forth this whole time questioning about my beliefs between
spirituality and science. At one point, I found myself replacing all
my spiritual beliefs since my science classes practices on producing
hard facts and evidences. However recently, somehow conscientiously
my spiritual side grew upon me, reminding me not to forget what I had
once valued. I've decided to find an explanation for both of these
two beliefs and try my best to make senses from both sides so I can
bring peace inside of me. Believe me, this is not easy and even I
started to get confused and got blurred while researching on my own.
I almost thought of giving up. However after watching the film of
Aldous Huxley, I was able to find a conformation from him. That a
human being should have two types of education; scientific language
and literature. Above all, most importantly is intelligence and
consciousness.
Huxley explains that the scientific language is a one word, which
stands for one theme between given word and event talked about. In
literature literature work can be expressed in two types of ways;
expressing the inexpressible, and expressing good work in multiple
events human have and expressing it in multiple meanings. Most
important and above most was intelligence and consciousness. These
key points serves as a guidance for me as an individual to let me know
that even though I am in a blur right now, I should continue my
searching.
past couple of years. I choose to major in science, so I was going
back and forth this whole time questioning about my beliefs between
spirituality and science. At one point, I found myself replacing all
my spiritual beliefs since my science classes practices on producing
hard facts and evidences. However recently, somehow conscientiously
my spiritual side grew upon me, reminding me not to forget what I had
once valued. I've decided to find an explanation for both of these
two beliefs and try my best to make senses from both sides so I can
bring peace inside of me. Believe me, this is not easy and even I
started to get confused and got blurred while researching on my own.
I almost thought of giving up. However after watching the film of
Aldous Huxley, I was able to find a conformation from him. That a
human being should have two types of education; scientific language
and literature. Above all, most importantly is intelligence and
consciousness.
Huxley explains that the scientific language is a one word, which
stands for one theme between given word and event talked about. In
literature literature work can be expressed in two types of ways;
expressing the inexpressible, and expressing good work in multiple
events human have and expressing it in multiple meanings. Most
important and above most was intelligence and consciousness. These
key points serves as a guidance for me as an individual to let me know
that even though I am in a blur right now, I should continue my
searching.
Francis Fukuyama
Francis Fukuyama
I disagree with Fukuyama's prediction on where he mentions that no
large states or powerful industries would go to war unless big issues
seems to arise. In addition he also added that no more bigger in
space to fight about since spaces has reached its limits and
capacities. This is not true in my point of view. Did we all forget
that our government sponsors on the new innovations and technology for
mars and the moon? Let me remind us all with such administration
called, NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In the
article written by Mark Whittington, published Sep 21, 2007
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/384514/will_china_beat_the_united_state\
s_back.html
In the past we have been competing with China for the race of to get
to the moon. It was most recent in 2007 that China has surprised the
U.S., Russia and India with their new innovations in space technology.
The strongest country of the nation is sure not pleasant. Besides,
these four countries are aiming for all the same ideas; in new
inventions to strengthen their military weapons, and promoting the
expansion of life and spaces. Therefore I disagree with Fukuyama. I
strongly believe that there is still spaces available for our country
and other countries to go to war for.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
My Christian Friend
It was two days ago that finally decided to visit one of my Christian friend that I had ignored for the longest time. She was one of my good friend whose has a good heart. I found her to be a genuine person and for this simple reason that bonded us together. I have an open mind to all things and for all people because I do not discriminate any opportunities when it comes to expanding my knowledge. However, she got annoying to me this past year after she went through a mid-life crisis and became a Christian.
I am Buddhist, but I don't ever put my religious practices on anyone nor do I try to show-off and be egocentric with my religion. But hate naive and ethnocentrism- and that was her problem. Throughout our conversations, all she had related of our topics were from the bible and "her" God. I found it to be extremely irritating because all it was her talking 24/7 with me was God this and God. What ticked me off the most was when she told me that I will go to hell if I didn't love "her" God. I'm like what the f#$% is this? Inside my head without being rude, I thought to myself that love is not suppose to be forced. It is my free will if I want to love one matter or not. This verse from the bible sounded selfish and like it was threatening me that I am suppose to force myself to love "her" God, and if not I am suppose to go to hell!
So I tried to remain calm and forget about that irritating thought but it only got more extreme. She then warned me about the devils and the evil spirits, all this because I was reading a book from philosophy class. It was because I told her I was taking a philosophy class and some of my readings from a book has blurred my views upon my consciences. She broke out and told me to burn the copy pages that I have printed from my computers in pdf file. She said everyone's thoughts are suppose to be clear and if anything that has caused blurred consciences is the works of the devil. She told me I invited them inside my house since I printed it from the printer at home. I have decided that her thoughts has gotten way too carried away. She was the only person I had ever meet upon that got way too carried away with her beliefs. So I have decided my next occasion with her will not be anytime soon.
I am Buddhist, but I don't ever put my religious practices on anyone nor do I try to show-off and be egocentric with my religion. But hate naive and ethnocentrism- and that was her problem. Throughout our conversations, all she had related of our topics were from the bible and "her" God. I found it to be extremely irritating because all it was her talking 24/7 with me was God this and God. What ticked me off the most was when she told me that I will go to hell if I didn't love "her" God. I'm like what the f#$% is this? Inside my head without being rude, I thought to myself that love is not suppose to be forced. It is my free will if I want to love one matter or not. This verse from the bible sounded selfish and like it was threatening me that I am suppose to force myself to love "her" God, and if not I am suppose to go to hell!
So I tried to remain calm and forget about that irritating thought but it only got more extreme. She then warned me about the devils and the evil spirits, all this because I was reading a book from philosophy class. It was because I told her I was taking a philosophy class and some of my readings from a book has blurred my views upon my consciences. She broke out and told me to burn the copy pages that I have printed from my computers in pdf file. She said everyone's thoughts are suppose to be clear and if anything that has caused blurred consciences is the works of the devil. She told me I invited them inside my house since I printed it from the printer at home. I have decided that her thoughts has gotten way too carried away. She was the only person I had ever meet upon that got way too carried away with her beliefs. So I have decided my next occasion with her will not be anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)