St. Thomas Aquinas made these pretty ridiculous statements of which i think the 4th is the most obsurd.
in his 4th way, Aquinas states that God determines what is beautiful and good, etc etc.
in my opinion, everytime i see a hot guy, i DOUBT it's god telling me that he's a beautiful hunk
the declaration of beauty is merely an opinion and is different for everyone.
and if God did determine who is beautiful and good, then wouldnt he be sort of discriminating those that are not beautiful and not good?
i really dont think god would do that
if Thomas had said God thinks everyone is equally beautiful and good, then that'll be alright i guess
but if he DETERMINES who's beautiful or good, then that defeats the purpose of pleasing god with faith, now we need to please him with our beauty.
he's like the tyra banks of World's Next Top Beauty or something
Aquinas is somewhat stimulating a sense of competition within us to be more beautiful than the next person
that is totally wrong and unethical because though that happens in the real world, it's a competition for the appeal of a divine character rather than the papparazzi etc.
this is by far the worst statement that he has made in his Five Ways
Monday, February 23, 2009
Gothic Cathedrals && Crusades
okay, so on friday we learned about Neo-Platonism and the Just Wars Theory.
Neo-platonism = body is the agent & prisoner of the soul --> Plotinus (last great pagan philosopher). Plotinus' ideas were important in chrisianity, as he said that there is a divine spark (small piece of God) inside each and every one of us and that only God gives you pure happiness. The only way for you to reach & help your soul break free is through the sacrifice of Jesus and realizing his grace. you must remove all bad impressions and just turn to the divine wisdom to receive salvation and happiness = Beatific Vision (after the Beatudes). what Plotinus says about inner beauty can be shown in the Gothic Cathedrals and their grand displays of beauty and light. representing the sinful outside world or bodily temptations and the inner cleansiness that blocks out the sinfulness. St. Augustine, who created the idea of the Just War Theory, believed that war was a sinful thing to do, but sometimes it was necessary in order to survive. he made up rules that people had to follow in order for the Church to bless their war/battle.
1) they must have tried all non-violent options
2) must be initiated by the government or a higher power
3) you must kill not with enjoyment but you must have a valid reason
4) only fought if they have a good reason
5) to re-establish peace and help rebuild the victims
6) to put an equal amount of suffering to them as you have recieved
7) do not harm innocent civilians
This Just War theory is exactly what the Crusaders did. they used self-defense as their reason for war and it was appointed by Pope Urban II. However, they totally pillaged everyone, including civilians, and did way more damage than they recieved. Though the Crusades were all in "God's name/will," the cruelness of the crusaders rebukes the rules of the Just war Theory.
Neo-platonism = body is the agent & prisoner of the soul --> Plotinus (last great pagan philosopher). Plotinus' ideas were important in chrisianity, as he said that there is a divine spark (small piece of God) inside each and every one of us and that only God gives you pure happiness. The only way for you to reach & help your soul break free is through the sacrifice of Jesus and realizing his grace. you must remove all bad impressions and just turn to the divine wisdom to receive salvation and happiness = Beatific Vision (after the Beatudes). what Plotinus says about inner beauty can be shown in the Gothic Cathedrals and their grand displays of beauty and light. representing the sinful outside world or bodily temptations and the inner cleansiness that blocks out the sinfulness. St. Augustine, who created the idea of the Just War Theory, believed that war was a sinful thing to do, but sometimes it was necessary in order to survive. he made up rules that people had to follow in order for the Church to bless their war/battle.
1) they must have tried all non-violent options
2) must be initiated by the government or a higher power
3) you must kill not with enjoyment but you must have a valid reason
4) only fought if they have a good reason
5) to re-establish peace and help rebuild the victims
6) to put an equal amount of suffering to them as you have recieved
7) do not harm innocent civilians
This Just War theory is exactly what the Crusaders did. they used self-defense as their reason for war and it was appointed by Pope Urban II. However, they totally pillaged everyone, including civilians, and did way more damage than they recieved. Though the Crusades were all in "God's name/will," the cruelness of the crusaders rebukes the rules of the Just war Theory.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
adolfoonzoo hitler blah
hitler's jail book was pretty awesomly ridiculous.
the quote that i want to restate here is the one about the fox being always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc etc and that they can't mix
then he goes on to relate humans to this statement, saying that the different "species" of the human race cannot mix with each other or all sense of power and heirarchy will be lost
the problem with this false analogy is that he doesnt connect these two very different things well
first of all, the animal kingdom does have subspecies, such as foxes, geese, tigers, etc. however, the human race does not have subspecies.
we are all just human beings, that being a subspecies of homosapians
so when he talks about the subspecies of human beings not being able to mix in order to maintain power, he is speaking total nonsense
no such subspecies exists in mankind
obviously, coming from hitler, this is a racist statement
he is so racist that he prefers different races to be considered a whole new species of man
though we all know that that is a bunch of bologna because the only difference between races is the pigment of our skin colors
this obviously does not affect the amount of power that is bistilled in us
so blah blah blah, in conclusion, hitler is a racist freak (if you already didnt know) and thinks that humans have subspecies.
i think he should look up the definition of race [the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics]
the blah blah end blah.
the quote that i want to restate here is the one about the fox being always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc etc and that they can't mix
then he goes on to relate humans to this statement, saying that the different "species" of the human race cannot mix with each other or all sense of power and heirarchy will be lost
the problem with this false analogy is that he doesnt connect these two very different things well
first of all, the animal kingdom does have subspecies, such as foxes, geese, tigers, etc. however, the human race does not have subspecies.
we are all just human beings, that being a subspecies of homosapians
so when he talks about the subspecies of human beings not being able to mix in order to maintain power, he is speaking total nonsense
no such subspecies exists in mankind
obviously, coming from hitler, this is a racist statement
he is so racist that he prefers different races to be considered a whole new species of man
though we all know that that is a bunch of bologna because the only difference between races is the pigment of our skin colors
this obviously does not affect the amount of power that is bistilled in us
so blah blah blah, in conclusion, hitler is a racist freak (if you already didnt know) and thinks that humans have subspecies.
i think he should look up the definition of race [the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics]
the blah blah end blah.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Evolution vs Intelligent Design
yesterday in class, we had a pretty heated debate about evolution & intelligent design
in my opinion, i think intelligent design has a pretty legit chance of owning evolution
first of all, the theory of evolution is just that! a theory
some say there is actual scientific proof that evolution is how we came to this earth, but i think that is a bunch of BS
but really, how in the world can you prove that we were little particles in water and grew like a bunch of Chia Pets?
intelligent design just makes everything make sense
though it requires a whole lot of blind faith, if you really think about it, mankind does not run the world by itself.
i think the watch metaphor, that the packet we read as well as Mr. Basinger used, is a really good representation of the Earth and our bodies
just like a watch, our bodies are very complex systems
in order to survive, each part of our body needs to work side-by-side and in sync to each other
we dont live our lives controlling our bodies : blink, heartbeat heartbeat, inhale, blink, heartbeat heartbeat, exhale, heartbeat, etc etc
that's just not how we live!
there is a greater force helping us maintain life every second of our lives
this can be seen in either a religious or scientific manner
religiously, the greater force is, of course, God
god, the creater of the universe, designed every living and non-living thing with every detail of their systems to be able to maintain life
it makes more sense that there is a divine guidance rather than random mutations and natural selection
scientifically, if we DID exist from evolution, there must have been some sort of intelligent design to start it all at one point
the interior designs and functions dont come just by evolution
when cells die, how do they appear in another organism?
evolution doesnt prove how these cells knew their specific functions even before the organisms were fully developed
and it all comes down to the question of WHO this intelligent designer was
god? or another divine being?
either way, though the existence of these divine beings cannot be tested, the whole idea of an intelligent designer just seems to connect how things are in life without the push of mankind
in my opinion, i think intelligent design has a pretty legit chance of owning evolution
first of all, the theory of evolution is just that! a theory
some say there is actual scientific proof that evolution is how we came to this earth, but i think that is a bunch of BS
but really, how in the world can you prove that we were little particles in water and grew like a bunch of Chia Pets?
intelligent design just makes everything make sense
though it requires a whole lot of blind faith, if you really think about it, mankind does not run the world by itself.
i think the watch metaphor, that the packet we read as well as Mr. Basinger used, is a really good representation of the Earth and our bodies
just like a watch, our bodies are very complex systems
in order to survive, each part of our body needs to work side-by-side and in sync to each other
we dont live our lives controlling our bodies : blink, heartbeat heartbeat, inhale, blink, heartbeat heartbeat, exhale, heartbeat, etc etc
that's just not how we live!
there is a greater force helping us maintain life every second of our lives
this can be seen in either a religious or scientific manner
religiously, the greater force is, of course, God
god, the creater of the universe, designed every living and non-living thing with every detail of their systems to be able to maintain life
it makes more sense that there is a divine guidance rather than random mutations and natural selection
scientifically, if we DID exist from evolution, there must have been some sort of intelligent design to start it all at one point
the interior designs and functions dont come just by evolution
when cells die, how do they appear in another organism?
evolution doesnt prove how these cells knew their specific functions even before the organisms were fully developed
and it all comes down to the question of WHO this intelligent designer was
god? or another divine being?
either way, though the existence of these divine beings cannot be tested, the whole idea of an intelligent designer just seems to connect how things are in life without the push of mankind
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Obama = change...in affirmative action?
The election of Obama. does it affect the amount of students accepted/rejected from colleges? what role does race play?
in my opinion, i would have to agree with myles. he made a really good argument when he said that affirmative action is unfair and racist towards those from a major population. i can totally see how people of a major population might feel unmotivated to do well if they're going to be rejected from college just becuase that college contains "too much of their kind". this is actually very unfair and racist. think about if a minority with a not-so-great GPA gets into Harvard when a white with a 4.0 GPA doesnt get in. the color of someone's skin should not decide their future in education. this should be based entirely on what college is about, knowledge. though the idea of money is also relevant during college, there are financial aid scholarships that anyone can apply for, whether you're a minority or not. once again, not all minority are poor, just a good number of them. however, it doesnt mean that ALL of them should be treated with special care as if they are a fragile endangered species (NOT REFERRING THEM TO ANIMALS) the unecessary privledges that the minority have are not making things any more fair/just in this world. though the effort for fairness from colleges is greatly appreciated, the reality is that what would really be fair is if colleges accepted those that are qualified without looking at his/her race. race plays no role, at all, on someone's brain. for example, "all asians are smart, straight-A, stuck up little nerds" i am living proof that this stereotype of "all" asians is absolutely incorrect. it's so ridiculous how brain smarts can be affected by the pigments of your skin color.
all in all, this debate has pretty good points that go both ways, but in my opinion, the need for affirmative action is no more. obama proved this by being elected president. he didnt get any special treatment just becuase he was a minority. why should colleges be any different if its purpose is to prep us for the real world? this debate comes to a closure: affirmative action is unecessary becuase it doesnt make colleges more just, it's an unfair priviledge that can be misused to go against the equality of knowledge.
in my opinion, i would have to agree with myles. he made a really good argument when he said that affirmative action is unfair and racist towards those from a major population. i can totally see how people of a major population might feel unmotivated to do well if they're going to be rejected from college just becuase that college contains "too much of their kind". this is actually very unfair and racist. think about if a minority with a not-so-great GPA gets into Harvard when a white with a 4.0 GPA doesnt get in. the color of someone's skin should not decide their future in education. this should be based entirely on what college is about, knowledge. though the idea of money is also relevant during college, there are financial aid scholarships that anyone can apply for, whether you're a minority or not. once again, not all minority are poor, just a good number of them. however, it doesnt mean that ALL of them should be treated with special care as if they are a fragile endangered species (NOT REFERRING THEM TO ANIMALS) the unecessary privledges that the minority have are not making things any more fair/just in this world. though the effort for fairness from colleges is greatly appreciated, the reality is that what would really be fair is if colleges accepted those that are qualified without looking at his/her race. race plays no role, at all, on someone's brain. for example, "all asians are smart, straight-A, stuck up little nerds" i am living proof that this stereotype of "all" asians is absolutely incorrect. it's so ridiculous how brain smarts can be affected by the pigments of your skin color.
all in all, this debate has pretty good points that go both ways, but in my opinion, the need for affirmative action is no more. obama proved this by being elected president. he didnt get any special treatment just becuase he was a minority. why should colleges be any different if its purpose is to prep us for the real world? this debate comes to a closure: affirmative action is unecessary becuase it doesnt make colleges more just, it's an unfair priviledge that can be misused to go against the equality of knowledge.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
blogging?
hello, there (:
this is my first blog, EVER, so yeah please excuse my newb-ness.
so! today we learned about Deductive Reasoning/Logic
Deductive logic consists of syllogisms, modus ponens, and modus tollens.
in this blog, i will differentiate between each of those forms of deductive logic:
1) syllogisms
syllogisms were created in 300 BCE by Aristotle and consists of 3 statements with 2 terms in each. those three statements are labeled as the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. when creating a syllogism, one must only have 2 terms in each statement in order for it to be valid. syllogisms must always be valid, however, they will not always be true. the reason for a syllogism is to start with a given vague statement and end with a specific conclusion. syllogisms can be seen everywhere, most commonly in Geometry or Algebra. for example: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. this is merely seen as the transitive property in Geometric proofs. A=B is the first statement where A & B are the two terms. in the second statement, B=C, B&C are the two terms. and finally in the conclusion, A=C, A&C are the two terms. therefore, this syllogism is valid and also true. also like a geometric proof, the given statement is very broad like a theorem and whatnot, and the conclusion is very specific like a postulate and whatnot.
this brings us to the next type of deductive reasoning:
2) modus ponens
modus ponens are referred to as positive statements which do not include: didnt, not, etc etc. for example: if P, then Q ... P then Q. that was a bit confusing so let's break it dowwwn. make P an action and Q the consequence. so for example: if i go jogging (P), then i'll be sore (Q) ... i DID go jogging (P), so now i'm sore (Q). it's sort of like your conscious telling you that if you do something(P) then something will happen as a result (Q) ... and then you dont believe your annoying conscious and you do that something (P) and TAADA! your conscious was right and something happened as a result (Q). confusing? i think not!
finally, the last type of deductive reasoning:
3) modus tollens
modus tollens are reffered to as negative statements which include: didnt, not, etc etc. for example: if P, then Q ... not P then not Q. let's break this one down as well. once again, make P an action and Q the consequence. using the same example as above: if i go jogging (P), then i'll be sore (Q) ... i DID NOT go jogging (not P), so now i'm NOT sore (not Q). again with the conscious example: your conscious tell you that if you do something (P) then something will happen as a result (Q) ... and then you listen to your conscious and DONT do that something (not P) and now you DONT get that result (not Q). this wasnt confusing at all!
so, if the differences were not that clear for you, here you go:
syllogisms are completely different from both the modus ponens and the modus tollens because it consists of three statements (major, minor, conclusion) while the modus ponens/tollens only contain two statements. now the modus ponens is a positive pair of statements where if you do P then Q will be the result...so you DID P and Q was the result. the modus tollens is a negative pair of satements where if you do P then Q will be the result...so you DONT DO P and Q WILL NOT be the result.
congrats! you just learned from the masterrrrr
heh heh heh...i think (;
this is my first blog, EVER, so yeah please excuse my newb-ness.
so! today we learned about Deductive Reasoning/Logic
Deductive logic consists of syllogisms, modus ponens, and modus tollens.
in this blog, i will differentiate between each of those forms of deductive logic:
1) syllogisms
syllogisms were created in 300 BCE by Aristotle and consists of 3 statements with 2 terms in each. those three statements are labeled as the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. when creating a syllogism, one must only have 2 terms in each statement in order for it to be valid. syllogisms must always be valid, however, they will not always be true. the reason for a syllogism is to start with a given vague statement and end with a specific conclusion. syllogisms can be seen everywhere, most commonly in Geometry or Algebra. for example: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. this is merely seen as the transitive property in Geometric proofs. A=B is the first statement where A & B are the two terms. in the second statement, B=C, B&C are the two terms. and finally in the conclusion, A=C, A&C are the two terms. therefore, this syllogism is valid and also true. also like a geometric proof, the given statement is very broad like a theorem and whatnot, and the conclusion is very specific like a postulate and whatnot.
this brings us to the next type of deductive reasoning:
2) modus ponens
modus ponens are referred to as positive statements which do not include: didnt, not, etc etc. for example: if P, then Q ... P then Q. that was a bit confusing so let's break it dowwwn. make P an action and Q the consequence. so for example: if i go jogging (P), then i'll be sore (Q) ... i DID go jogging (P), so now i'm sore (Q). it's sort of like your conscious telling you that if you do something(P) then something will happen as a result (Q) ... and then you dont believe your annoying conscious and you do that something (P) and TAADA! your conscious was right and something happened as a result (Q). confusing? i think not!
finally, the last type of deductive reasoning:
3) modus tollens
modus tollens are reffered to as negative statements which include: didnt, not, etc etc. for example: if P, then Q ... not P then not Q. let's break this one down as well. once again, make P an action and Q the consequence. using the same example as above: if i go jogging (P), then i'll be sore (Q) ... i DID NOT go jogging (not P), so now i'm NOT sore (not Q). again with the conscious example: your conscious tell you that if you do something (P) then something will happen as a result (Q) ... and then you listen to your conscious and DONT do that something (not P) and now you DONT get that result (not Q). this wasnt confusing at all!
so, if the differences were not that clear for you, here you go:
syllogisms are completely different from both the modus ponens and the modus tollens because it consists of three statements (major, minor, conclusion) while the modus ponens/tollens only contain two statements. now the modus ponens is a positive pair of statements where if you do P then Q will be the result...so you DID P and Q was the result. the modus tollens is a negative pair of satements where if you do P then Q will be the result...so you DONT DO P and Q WILL NOT be the result.
congrats! you just learned from the masterrrrr
heh heh heh...i think (;
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
