1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at dlane@mtsac.edu (don't send it to any other email address, except that)
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due March 28th
4. What is your real name?
My name is TzuTun Liu.
5. What is your "user" name?
My user name is raffyliu.
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
The email I use for this class is tliu44@student.mtsac.edu
7. Name and address for your website.
The name is "Philosophy 5 Essay from Raffy". The address is http://raffyliu.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the first four weeks?
Yes, I have done all the reading for the first four weeks.
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes, I have watched all the films that were required for the first four weeks.
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them)
All my postings is on my website http://raffyliu.blogspot.com/ ( I post them again below)
After I read The Socratic Universe, I would want to talk about which Philosophers I admire. There are lots of philosophers not only in the history but also around our life. There are no right or wrong in the philosophy world. Every philosopher has their belief. Even though sometimes I might disagree with some of them, I still respect their faith. However, there are some philosopher that I admire such as Lao-Tzu, a Chinese philosopher in the Spring and Autumn Period. Somehow that’s kind of difficult to explain his belief in words. However, make a long story short he believed everything in world is created by nature. We need to live peacefully with the nature, not to destroy, compete with it. The most influence faith on me is simple-minded.
On the other hand, there are lots of philosophers in the western culture, too. One of my favorite philosophers is Socrates. “I do not suppose that I know,” said Socrates. He advocated no one desires evil, no one errs or does wrong willingly or knowingly, all virtue is knowledge, and virtue is sufficient for happiness. Those we called Socratic Paradoxes influence a lot. I love it because I believe people really don’t need to be professional on everything. I don’t know is not a shameful thing. We can learn. In addition, more and more people nowadays are lack of virtue. I agree with Socrates that virtue can lead people to happiness, peace, and better life.
History is history. I can’t rewrite it, rebel it, but I can elaborate it in short. Philosophy is everywhere. All cultures have had their own. Based on my reading on Wikipedia, there are four periods of philosophy history which are the Ancient, Medieval, Modern, and Contemporary. First of all, most of researches show around 585 B.C. the western philosophy began in the Greek city Miletus where Thales was the first philosopher who believed “all is water”. After that there are many philosopher appeared in Athens such as Heraclitus, the Sophists and so on. However, the most important three philosophers are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They influence a lot until nowadays. Second, the medieval period runs from late 15th century to the Renaissance. In this period, most of the philosophers concerned with Christianity. They tried to prove the God was existing. However, later on, because of the Reformation and the Renaissance, philosophers dedicated to Humanism and empiricism. In this period from post-Medieval to 20th century we called Modern Philosophy. The most famous philosophers in this period are Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, and Sir Isaac Newton and so on. Finally, contemporary philosophy existed after 20th century. There are many conflicts which philosophers tried to rebel the old knowledge and create new logical, economic, and so on.
In addition, it doesn’t like Western Philosophy that the ancient Greek philosophy influenced most of the western philosophy, so we introduce it from period to period. However, Eastern Philosophy is separated from area to area. For example, the top five philosophies in Eastern culture are Chinese Philosophy, Indian Philosophy, Iranian Philosophy, Japanese Philosophy, and Korean Philosophy. Nevertheless, both Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy influence mostly.
P.S. even though it is not very detailed, I already do my best to use my own words to illustrate the history of philosophy.
First of all, I want to say I saw this interview about five times because of my poor English. When I watched the video, I stopped again and again to look up the words. Finally, I finished it. Back to what I want to talk about after I watched the video, most of Mr. Huxley’s beliefs I agree. He talked about the overpopulation might cause the less of freedom. Let’s see what happen in today’s China and India. Even though the large cites in China are very prosperous nowadays and the government also advocate the economic reform and open policy, the government still control most of the power. The reason is there are too many people. The resource can’t provide that kind enough in the future. Most of the people in China they still think Communism is not very negative because it can control the poverty gap. However, the truth is the poverty gap has become more and more large now.
But why still have so many people believed in their government? Mr. Huxley also mentioned about the overorganization. I’m from Taiwan where is also as democratic as America. We live in a very free country. We can do whatever we want; talk whatever we think and so forth. Before I visited China, I couldn’t believe that the regime can control the media. Until I watched the TV in China, I felt that just like what Mr. Huxley said that the TV drumming in of a single idea all the time. After I asked my friends, they said that the news only report the good news about how good the government is which exaggerate the truth. Also the dramas can only play the positive shows. However, it just likes brainwashing that people watch TV all the time which influence most of the family. After I came back Taiwan, I checked all the TV shows including news channels. I also noticed that some news channels supported one of the largest parties in Taiwan, others supported the other parties. It’s not really obvious if you don’t watch it carefully.
In conclusion, I’m not trying to compare all the countries because every country has their situation that needs a right description to solve all the problems. Nevertheless, lots of policies in Taiwan we parallel with America. Even though just like Mr. Huxley wanted that we all live in a democratic country, we still need to be aware of what he predicted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s a great short film that clearly shows what the producer what to express about. In this film, there are two mottos that I like. First, “I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations—one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it—you will regret both.” said Soren Kierkegaard. That’s not easy to decide what is right or wrong. I never know what will be happen tomorrow. I can’t have the cake and eat it too. What I can do is let the regret be at lowest.
In addition, “Everything has been figured out, except how to live.” said Jean Paul Sartre. That’s also a great motto. We can’t judge anybody’s live style. There are no exactly correct answers to respond how to live. People have their right to live whatever they want such as some people devote their whole life to earn more money, others spend most of time to help people, and the others think they can isolate themselves from all society.
Finally, I get confused on the motto which is “I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece cannot be moved,” said S.K. Can anybody tell me what the motto mean? Thank you very much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously, I try to get involved in the whole concept about this film. However, there are still some parts I can’t really understand especially the previous two minutes. First of all, “every inquiry is comparative and uses the means of comparative relation,” shows from the film. What does this mean? Is that means I can compare two possible situation in an inquiry? Or isn’t it any exception? I get confused from this scene until it talked about the manner of number.
Nevertheless, I agree with Solomon that he maintained that all things are difficult and unexplainable in words which also show from the film. We can’t define a lot of things just use words. Everything is multidimensional. We can’t look things in one way. In addition, my favorite sentence from the film is “The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be.” If we are expert in everything, why do we still here to learn? We learn because we don’t know. Unknowing is not shameful; otherwise, if we pretend knowing something we don’t know, that’s woeful. Just be brave to say I don’t know when you’re struggling in your problems, and you will learn more and more from teaching.
After I saw the interview about the Professor Fukuyama, there are some points that I'm kind of agreeing with that. For examples, in "being good without god," he talks about that our behavior everyday are based on our culture. In fact, I do believe that because even thought there are more and more people live in unique lifestyle, the culture influence us invisibly. That's true which we can't move.
Well, previously, how interesting the book is! I love the way it shows the debating communication. It shows how people think clearly. Back to the main point now, I do really have some ideas after I read the book. There are so many dialogues that look similar. It makes me deep thinking and get some confused. One of my opinions is what piety is or what impiety is. According to the books, at first, Euththyphro said that loving gods’ means piety, hating is impiety. However, how people tell you are pious or not? In my opinion, I believe all the behaviors are based on how people think which is good, pious, and so on. Even though I believe there are the Gods exits, I still feel that what we do now is just want to make people think we are a pious person. It's not you really love god or god loves you. How do you know god is right there and watch all of us? To me, I believe that the gods are what people create in our mind. He just exits in our deep heart. What we really need to do is not to let ourselves feel guilty or sorry. Do the right things that reasonable to ourselves.
In addition, Socrates combined his opinion with math which shows that he is not only a think-thinker, he did the provident that all the philosophy still need to make sense with science. Also, that's a good way to understand the meaning which he discussed.
In addition, Socrates combined his opinion with math which shows that he is not only a think-thinker, he did the provident that all the philosophy still need to make sense with science. Also, that's a good way to understand the meaning which he discussed.
After I read The Life of Pythagoras, I feel that this book make Pythagoras an oracle. Well, most of the contents in this book are all about the God. Sometimes, I don't understand why back to the ancient, there are so many people dedicate in the religion. Isn’t human being important? How come people can live for God not for themselves? All the philosophers advocated piety, to sacrifice for God and so on. Sometimes, I might think that all the ideas were come from human's desire of power and desire of control.
I saw many people discuss if god exist in the blackboard. I want to share some of my opinion. First of all, after I read those required book and watched all the videos, I believed everybody has their own opinion. I also talk about some of them in my previous post. Well, I'm a Christian. To me, I believe there are gods live in my life. However, I even more believe that I create my all god. I mean I respect any kind of religion. Sometimes, it's all about the fate between you and god. Some people might believe in the Buddhism, some might believe in Jesus, and others might believe only themselves. Therefore, I can't say which is right or wrong. It's all right or all wrong because nobody can prove the exist of god. That's why I say I create my own god no matter who this is.
In addition, I also talked about sometimes people just wants to take the advantage from religion. I mean I can’t deny that more and more people believe in God. Therefore, I can't promise that some leaders are really pious because it can pretend. That happens.
Finally, I still want to emphasize that no matter there are god or not, it's all about "BELIEVE"!
In addition, I also talked about sometimes people just wants to take the advantage from religion. I mean I can’t deny that more and more people believe in God. Therefore, I can't promise that some leaders are really pious because it can pretend. That happens.
Finally, I still want to emphasize that no matter there are god or not, it's all about "BELIEVE"!
After I read Stoicism Lite, there is one part I really love. According to the book, it said " What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery—beware of enslaving others! If you can endure to do that, one would thing you had been once upon a time a slave yourself. For Vice has nothing in common with virtue, nor Freedom with slavery" That's a great idea. Enduring is really hard. You might suffer from pain, anger, sadness and so on. However, we still can't impose all the negative action or attitude on others. Which is right that when you copy your negative feeling to others, it will also return to yourself? Gradually, you will feel like you are slaving by yourself. In the last sentence, it also shows the truth that virtue and vice cannot live together.
I remember when I went to cam school five years ago. A teacher told students that “You are what you do. Don't say how people judge you. You are what you do, again." Her speech woke up me. I always do my best to make everything perfect because I don't want people especially the older to talk about my shortcoming. Finally, I just feel that the teacher's speech is very useful in the rest of my life.
This week, I choose "The Yoga of Bodysurfing" in the magazine section. I love yoga even though I still can't master on it. I started doing yoga from three years ago intermittently. That's a really good exercise which can release my stress, shape my body, and the most important thing is calm down my mind. At the beginning of the magazine, it talks about the Pranayama breathing. This is a best breath style. it can increase our body get more oxygen. I'm used to breathing this way for a long time which makes me healthier and strong my vital capacity.
Secondly, which is what I still can't do is Asana. According to the magazine, it shows that the Asana consists in beauty, grace, strength, and adamantine hardness. I so envy those people can do this well every time when I attend the yoga class. Sometimes I get questions that it is I'm not enough slender or my body is out of work. I try to make it; however, my couch said that it takes time. I know I'm going to make it if I practice day by day.
In conclusion, I just want to say yoga is really good. Take your time to try it. You're going to love it.
Secondly, which is what I still can't do is Asana. According to the magazine, it shows that the Asana consists in beauty, grace, strength, and adamantine hardness. I so envy those people can do this well every time when I attend the yoga class. Sometimes I get questions that it is I'm not enough slender or my body is out of work. I try to make it; however, my couch said that it takes time. I know I'm going to make it if I practice day by day.
In conclusion, I just want to say yoga is really good. Take your time to try it. You're going to love it.
The little short film shows one main idea. Everything needs to base on science. According to the film, it shows at first that "What I cannot create I do not understand," said Richard Feynman. I think he means we can't believe what we can't see. All the things need data, report, and evidence and so on.
It also shows that technology is alchemy without superstition. The whole film gives us many examples that science, science, and science. In my opinion, science might be sounds strongly, provably, and believably. Because we can't say what is that or what is this, we need scientists to research. Based on the research, we can understand and believe in it.
After I saw the short film, I got to questions. First of all, some people didn’t believe gods. They laughed and shouted the guy who believed gods. Is this the reason why gods left us? Disappeared? I got confused that how come gods would leave us. I guess all the religions tell us that gods are around us. They are everywhere. Even thought we want to expel gods away, they are still here. Therefore, I don't think it is about some people might not believe in gods.
The other question also disturbs me. Does this short film encourage people to believe only one god? No offense. I just got confused that it shows that gods too decompose. I didn't get it why did gods too decompose? Everybody has their right to believe their own gods. It's no right or wrong to believe only one god or lots of god. To me, I believe everything even it is a table has its own spirit, I called it the god. Well, maybe I misunderstand the film because here is America where advocates right of religion. However, I'm still confused.
The other question also disturbs me. Does this short film encourage people to believe only one god? No offense. I just got confused that it shows that gods too decompose. I didn't get it why did gods too decompose? Everybody has their right to believe their own gods. It's no right or wrong to believe only one god or lots of god. To me, I believe everything even it is a table has its own spirit, I called it the god. Well, maybe I misunderstand the film because here is America where advocates right of religion. However, I'm still confused.
After I read about Einstein's theory, life, and so on, to me, he is not only a well-known physicist but also a great philosopher. In Einstein's life, some people who likes him was the person who liking desire it living, dislikes his person wicked desire it to die. Has an adorer to call he after Jesus the greatest Jew, and some calls him after Moses greatest person. The criticism person said that he is only understood self-sales promotion the swindler, all thought plagiarize from other people. Some people thought that he and Gandhi, Shi Huizhou are the same, is the great humanist; But because viewpoint which, world government's position he opens, as well as to the left wing principle's support, lets the Nazi and FBI suspected that he is the national enemy. His two wives both said that he is not the good husband, when worships he woman first time stares at his both eyes, thought that “He was on the Earth the noblest biology!”
Regarding Mr. Heisenberg, about consist of basic materials should based on the symmetry, the simplicity and the integrity. Not only this had reflected that he took physicist's profound insight, is also his world outlook ideological foundation. He thought that the symmetry, the simplicity and the integrity are summarize the material world the universal law starting point, may from the physics, chemistry and the biology extends to the humanity realizes, the social order, the religious behavior and artistic activity each aspect.
After I watched the video, I borrowed the book "A New Kind of Science" in the library. Seriously, I couldn't read the 1263 pages in a week; however, I took a look what's going on inside the book. Overall, it's a remarkable piece of experimental mathematics, together with considerable speculation about scientific applications of various degree of plausibility. Just like what he said in the video, Wolfram's book begins with examples, and that is a good starting point for a review as well. The simple example of his work is one-dimensional cellular automata. What he also shows in his speech, an infinite row of cells, each of which can be white or black.
Time jumping in discrete steps, and at each steps, the world is updated using fixed rule that determines the new color of each cell based only on its own old color and those of its immediate neighbor. All systems that reach this bound are equivalent. However, almost all system that is not obviously weak reach the bound and is thus equivalent to the halting problem. In fact, Wolfram also talked about this happens for most initial conditions, not just some. Anyway, what I feel about him is how amazing he could dedicate his whole life to investigate the science and write a remarkable book, also he is young comparing to the most well-known scientists.
Time jumping in discrete steps, and at each steps, the world is updated using fixed rule that determines the new color of each cell based only on its own old color and those of its immediate neighbor. All systems that reach this bound are equivalent. However, almost all system that is not obviously weak reach the bound and is thus equivalent to the halting problem. In fact, Wolfram also talked about this happens for most initial conditions, not just some. Anyway, what I feel about him is how amazing he could dedicate his whole life to investigate the science and write a remarkable book, also he is young comparing to the most well-known scientists.
That's interesting that the magazine describes the technological memory as our real life conversation and things around us. I love the last part which shows the Godabyte equals one tenth your ex-girlfriend’s drunk dial conversation. That's a wonderful metaphor. In fact, I just a kind of person who loves to call all my friends especially my ex-boyfriend after I drunk. Not only me but also lots of people do the same thing. Sometimes, I get confused why people love talk after we drink alcohol. Anyway, that's an interesting magazine.
After I read all “Understanding Evolution”, I got very excited about getting to know more about the evolution. I just have some ideas that I want to share with. First of all, because of my poor biological background, I used to think humans did evolve from chimpanzees. The reason why I though on this way am just like Aristotle’s idea that life was organized ladder-likely. Fortunately, I know this now that humans and chimpanzees were just sharing a common ancestor. The other example is about birds and bats. I realized now.
Secondly, I also have a thought which is about the true is all humans were from ancient Africa. This is what I know from the DARWIN'S DNA: a Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Philosophy by Andrea Diem-Lane. Something maybe is not really about biology but it’s really important about our life. Since people all know that we are the same, and we share the same ancients, why cannot people stop fight, racial discriminate, and so on?
When I read the Sociobiology’s information, I felt there were lots of controversial issues. I’m kind of disagreeing with the sociobiological theories. For example, according to the articles, it shows there is a hypothesis called ‘Trivers-Willard hypothesis’ which is concerning animals: “that females with low status and less access to resources tend to have more female offspring, and females with high status and more access to resources tend to have more male offspring (Trivers and Willard, 1973).” I don’t think this is the reason why people bear boys or girls. If we base on this hypothesis, there will be no boys on the low class society.
In addition, I also not agree with babies bring the inner predisposition when they were just born. In my opinion, people are educated how to do, talk, and live, etc. The most specific example is in the Disney’s cartoon “Tarzen”. Of course, he was born in human. However, the chimpanzee grew up him. All the actions Tanzen did were similar to chimpanzee. Back to the point, if Tanzen inherited his parents’ “social genes”, he would grow up with all human behaviors instead of animals’. Anyhow, I’m still interested in what Sociobiology learns.
The philosophy film, Survival of the Sufficient, used editing to present evolution. I’m very interested in this part. Just like the movie showed that we not only edit by our parents but also everything around us. Apparently, the only way that genes pass to us is by our parents. However, we will change while we grow up gradually, no matter the metal part or the physical part does.
There are some examples. First, education will change our mental logical thinking. We went to school when we were little. The teachers, textbooks, and classmates influence us. Second, the food we eat also plays an important role. I remember I saw an article which talks about diabetes does not infect by genes. The reason why people thought diabetes will inherit because lots of diabetes families have more than 50% family members have diabetes. However, it’s all about the food because all the family members they eat same food. Finally, the environment influences us a lot, too. Basing on Darwin in Natural Selection, it said “Survival of the fittest.” That’s true. This theory not only in the nature but also in the real society can suit it. There’s a simple example. We wanted to get along with classmates well, especially wanted to be well the leader king. Sometimes, we needed to change some of our characteristics to fit the environment.
Well, that’s all I feel after I watched the little films.
After I watched the interview with Professor Edward O. Wilson, there are two parts I’d like to talk about. First of all, Professor Wilson said, “recognizing that any event, small or large, can change the direction of our thinking, even the way we think... means that we have what is thought of intuitively at the level of consciousness -- full consciousness --- intuitively, as free will.” By definition, free will is the putative ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Using the example from Professor Wilson, there are some companies use the events to get more consumers, distributors, and so on. The main idea they use this kinds meeting or events is because people might be influenced by the atmosphere. The meeting somehow can change people mind, indirectly change people action that achieves the companies’ goal.
Secondly, I believe long time ago, there were nobody would believe ants have their own society which is called superorganism. That’s interesting Professor Wilson has dedicated on this issue for a long time. According to the interview, Professor Wilson said”Yes. We are now just finishing up a book called "The Superorganism" which makes that point that says, "Look, organism we can understand well enough. We can understand the interaction of whole organism because we can see them and we can do experiments in the laboratory and move it along so quickly and furthermore the processes themselves are relatively simple ... feramone, chemical language by which the ants and bees communicate, relatively easy to understand.” Ants, bees, and corals they all have their all colony which make a huge society. For example, they divide labors and cooperation to work separately which is really like our human beings.
After I watched the film True Lies, I got some feelings. First of all, the quote in the beginning said “The Truth is that Truth lies.” What we learned from the entire science courses is there is no 100% truth in science. Truth might be overthrown one day even history might have that day because some people believe that history was recorded by purpose arrangement. In addition, just like what the film said people cannot live without purpose.
The other thing I’d like to talk about “believes in nonsense makes the sense”. In the film, it used Tom Blake’s idea which is “Nature is without sentiment.” We can’t give too much definitions, ideas, or truth on nature. What’s nature? In my opinion, nature is what goes and comes, exists and non-exists without clues and sense. I know it sounds abstract but just like my favorite ideas in the end in the film “Too much truths, we cannot move.” We just live with the nature and what will be, will be!
This week’s magazine section is talk about three famous and mighty biologists which are Gregor Mendal, Charles Darwin, and Alfred Russel Wallace. My first time learned Gregor Mendal was in junior high school. His famous discovery was the figurehead of genetics which he discovered from the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. That was a new scientific discovery in that time. Another famous biologist is Charles Darwin. That’s no necessary to commend him because almost everybody in the world knows his well-known theory which is Natural Selection. The famous quote is “Nature selects, the fittest survives.” The other biologist is Alfred Russel Wallace. He was not only a biologist but also naturalist, geographer, and anthropologist. He created the independent evolution theory which influenced Darwin to publish his own theory. All of them influence not only in the science area but also in sociology area a lot until nowadays.
THERE ARE TOTAL 23 POSTINGS FROM ME BEFORE MIDTERM!
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?
She believes there are more dimensions that based on what we measure, what we know and there might have some dimension that we can’t physically see it or measure, also there are something that we may not know even we cannot image. She shows many figures that proves her beliefs. She also mentioned the Brenes theory to prove her beliefs.
12. What are Pythagoras' philosophical views in a nutshell?
Pythagoras philosophical views are based primarily through a mathematical outlook. Pythagoras said that “Things like health relied on a stable proportion of elements; too much or too little of one thing causes an imbalance that makes a being unhealthy.” This shows that Pythagoras believed math is related on science. We need the knowledge of numbers and mathematical equations to prove science; otherwise, there is lots of confusion.
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 stand in neutral. Based on the Socratic Universe, Cohon (Stanford University) said, “Science aspires to discover truth by means of a thoroughly objective, empirical method that is repeatable and available to all, and to detect and root out erroneous beliefs by using such a method. It is not the aim of science to console people or to make them good or to bring them happiness, although its discoveries are sometimes very useful for these purposes (as well as for frightening people, corrupting them, and bringing them misery••also not the purposes of science). Religion takes many different forms, of course, but all those that I know of also aim at some truth, at least, although their method of getting it is usually not empirical and often not available to everyone. But most religions I know about also have further aims: to give people hope, or to improve them morally, or to lead them to eternal salvation (happiness, I take it), or to provide inner peace. Some religions are compatible with science. Some are not, e.g., the sort of Christ a fundamentalism that denies that evolution occurred or sets the age of the earth as very young. It is incompatible with science because it rejects the empirical methods of science for finding out such things in favor of appeals to revelation. Not all religions make pronouncements about such things; some say that God exists (and this is not empirically testable), and then go on to provide consolation and moral guidance.” I agree with Professor Cohon that some religions are compatible with science, some are not. Science is based on lots of evidence. Just like Professor Cohon mentioned that whether people like it or not, science is science which is not for bring people happiness but what we must believe. However, religions is kind of theory. We can’t certainly say there is a real god because we don’t have evidence. In my opinion, religions take more important roles in mental which are giving people hope, proving inner peace and so on. Finally, I’m still being natural.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his position?
There are two main reasons he was put on trial are talking about false gods for one and corrupting the youth definitely. He also ticked off a lot of people, including politically influential people. He used the method he himself invented and questioned his accusers. By relentlessly questioning them, he would reveal inevitable contradictions in their logic. He was famous for exposing the "ignorance"
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.
First of all, I want to give the definition of philosophy. Philosophy barely consists of one’s thoughts, opinion, and ideas of existence of all forms, ethics, and reasoning to name and so on. Based on my reading, there are four periods of philosophy history which are the Ancient, Medieval, Modern, and Contemporary. First of all, most of researches show around 585 B.C. the western philosophy began in the Greek city Miletus where Thales was the first philosopher who believed “all is water”. After that there are many philosopher appeared in Athens such as Heraclitus, the Sophists and so on. However, the most important three philosophers are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They influence a lot until nowadays. Second, the medieval period runs from late 15th century to the Renaissance. In this period, most of the philosophers concerned with Christianity. They tried to prove the God was existing. However, later on, because of the Reformation and the Renaissance, philosophers dedicated to Humanism and empiricism. In this period from post-Medieval to 20th century we called Modern Philosophy. The most famous philosophers in this period are Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, and Sir Isaac Newton and so on. Finally, contemporary philosophy existed after 20th century. There are many conflicts which philosophers tried to rebel the old knowledge and create new logical, economic, and so on. In addition, it doesn’t like Western Philosophy that the ancient Greek philosophy influenced most of the western philosophy, so we introduce it from period to period. However, Eastern Philosophy is separated from area to area. For example, the top five philosophies in Eastern culture are Chinese Philosophy, Indian Philosophy, Iranian Philosophy, Japanese Philosophy, and Korean Philosophy. Nevertheless, both Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy influence mostly.
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy?
I think that the big bang is a cosmological model of the universe, which deals with galaxies. Also, the foundation of modern cosmology was developed an extension to the standard Big Bang model of the universe called the inflationary theory. The reason why it is important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy is basing on we accepting the astronomical world, it can help us better understand nature and participates in improvements in science education.
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from Einstein's? How are they similar?
Einstein’s theory of relativity described the force of gravity as an expression of the geometry of space and time. However, the Heisenberg model is a statistical mechanical model used in the study of critical points and phase transitions of magnetic systems. The similar between Einstein’s and Heisenberg is both of them believed they were explained in a mathematical expression.
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your reasoning.
Meme theory simply stated suggests that information is passed from person to person (brain to brain) through imitation. The best example I can think of is when you see someone laugh and you just can’t stop yourself from laughing too! There is another example that comes to mind is when you see a commercial with a beautiful melody and somehow you just can’t get out of your head and you end up humming it all day long.
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.
Biological evolution gives us an understanding of inherited traits from one generation after another. Charles Darwin believed that species adapted to their environment over time in order to survive. In addition, the scientific tree shows the branches of species as they developed over time. It is the important proof that evolution exists.
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.
According to the film, the narrator believed evolution is a devastating critique of the book of genesis. And Christianity tries to shoehorn god back into biology, however in evolution god does not have to explain anything because he has been exempted from the creation. Well, I’m kind of agreeing with that. It’s same as question 13 what I answered. I still think gods are what people creating to worship such as a spiritual reposing. That’s totally unrelated to the biology.
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.
I think Owen Gingerich disagree because Wilson does not believe that science and religion will ever align and make a complete story. However, Owen believs science confirms his religious beliefs. In my opinion, I prefer Edward O. Wilson because he believes the world’s most powerful forces are science and religion and that if we can agree on major issues we will live in a more peaceful world. He also talked of saving the planet because evangelical religion has a kind force that it would work in hand with science to save the planet.
22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history?" Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
Professor Fukuyama believes that history will end when we stop learning and developing science. I agree with that modern science will continue to develop technology and will help develop society; in addition, I believe it will affect how human beings live our lives. For example, one of my beliefs is similar to Fukuyama’s. I think one day when people develop a whole I-robots society, it means this is the end of human beings. However, that’s not the end of history. History will not have the ending day.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
According to the film I watched, it said “The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be.” If we are expert in everything, why do we still here to learn? We learn because we don’t know. Seriously, how can we know who we are, what we doing are right or wrong, or anything else. Everything is no right or wrong, it’s all ideas.
24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Think before you leap on this one.
This film mentioned that God “died” because people stopped believing in him. It’s not like we actually kill God. The point is people are being persuaded by the scientific theories and since there is more proof of sciences existence, god is becoming less of a belief.
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.
The two relate because physics is said to be an experimental science and philosophy consists of opinions and theories, which can be considered an experiment itself. Why it is important because physics provides a lot of answers; therefore, a philosopher can base their theories off of physics.
26. How do you explain the following line, "To have freedom OF religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
If people want freedom of religion, they must let religion be free. There are lots of religions in the world. There is no right or wrong. Just following what you want to believe and also don’t judge any beliefs. That’s all get freedom then.
27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?
Because there is not sufficient evidence of his existence, God is a delusion.
28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer?
There is no doubt that science can offer many sense of mystery because there are still a lot of theory haven’t been proven. However, to me, religions isn’t kind of offering sense of mystery. It’s all about believing or not.
29. How does an understanding of celluar automata suggest a "new kind of science".... according to Stephen Wolfram.
According to Stephen Wolfram, taking cellular automata and relating it to many fields of science rather than an isolated area. With cellular automata, Wolfram says that things can start out simple and become complex.
30. What were the key turning points in Darwin's life?
I think the key turning point in Darwin’s life is when he was traveling around the world to find the collecting scientific data; he found differences in the biology of each small island by accident. After years later from that, he developed his book The Origin of Species.
31. What is spooky physics? And who do you think won the Einstein/Bohr debate? Explain your reasoning.
In fact, I still didn’t get the point about what spooky physics is. I think it’s kind of mysterious and controversial issue. I think both of them won the debate because they both proved a series of reasonable explanations and evidences.
32. What is evolutionary philosophy and how can it best explain the emergence of self-reflective awareness?
The evolutionary philosophy is a study of ways to relate evolution to how we live, how we interact with society, and how we think about our place in existence. We experience conscious awareness, including its emotions, urges, thoughts, and plans, at a psychological level -- such inner awareness may define the psychological level which all the evolutionary philosophy can explain.
33. Give a review of the 3 required magazines listed above that you were required to read.
(1) The Future of Information and Memory---week #3
That's interesting that the magazine describes the technological memory as our real life conversation and things around us. I love the last part which shows the Godabyte equals one tenth your ex-girlfriend’s drunk dial conversation. That's a wonderful metaphor. In fact, I’m this kind of person who loves to call all my friends especially my ex-boyfriend after I drunk. Not only me but also lots of people do the same thing. Sometimes, i get confused why people love talk after we drink alcohol. Anyway, that's an interesting magazine.
(2) Naturally Selected (Mendal, Darwin, and Wallace) – week #4
This week’s magazine section is talk about three famous and mighty biologists which are Gregor Mendal, Charles Darwin, and Alfred Russel Wallace. My first time learned Gregor Mendal was in junior high school. His famous discovery was the figurehead of genetics which he discovered from the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. That was a new scientific discovery in that time. Another famous biologist is Charles Darwin. That’s no necessary to commend him because almost everybody in the world knows his well-known theory which is Natural Selection. The famous quote is “Nature selects, the fittest survives.” The other biologist is Alfred Russel Wallace. He was not only a biologist but also naturalist, geographer, and anthropologist. He created the independent evolution theory which influenced Darwin to publish his own theory. All of them influence not only in the science area but also in sociology area a lot until nowadays.
(3)The Yoga of Bodysurfing—week#1&2
This week, I choose "The Yoga of Bodysurfing" in the magazine section. I love yoga even though I still can't master on it. I started doing yoga from three years ago intermittently. That's a really good exercise which can release my stress, shape my body, and the most important thing is calm down my mind. At the beginning of the magazine, it talks about the Pranayama breathing. This is a best breath style. it can increase our body get more oxygen. I'm used to breathing this way for a long time which makes me healthier and strong my vital capacity.Secondly, which is what I still can't do is Asana. According to the magazine, it shows that the Asana consists in beauty, grace, strength, and adamantine hardness. I so envy those people can do this well every time when I attend the yoga class. Sometimes I get questions that it is I'm not enough slender or my body is out of work. I try to make it; however, my couch said that it takes time. I know I'm going to make it if I practice day by day.In conclusion, I just want to say yoga is really really really good. Take your time to try it. You're going to love it.
Extra Points
1. My twitter : https://twitter.com/#!/raffyliu
2. My producing documents in Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/home (Raffy Freda)
3. My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/raffyfreda
4. My Film in is upload on Youtube channel.
Extra Points
1. My twitter : https://twitter.com/#!/raffyliu
2. My producing documents in Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/home (Raffy Freda)
3. My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/raffyfreda
4. My Film in is upload on Youtube channel.
No comments:
Post a Comment