Saturday, February 28, 2009
Bacon's Four Idols
1. Idols of the Tribe - "The bias of human beings to jump to conclusions based on what is new or strange rather than investing time to understand what is true. "
This is the idea that since humans are so used to the 'norm' whenever something new or out of the ordinary is represented to them, they jump to conclusions and criticize or try and eliminate it even before they get to know it. Anything that is remotely out of the traditional view of the Church is straight out, immediately, labeled something bad and the Church doesn't even give a second thought about. Any new piece of knowledge, any new piece of philosophy like Galileo's theories that the sun was the center of the solar system would be condemned as wrongful and the Church would not "investigate time to understand what is true". It basically really is jumping to conclusions without knowing better.
2. Idols of the Cave - "Creating individual biases through the educational system."
This is when human beings have created biases based on what we've learned through school. When education gives us a close-minded view of the world, we create biases of the rest of the world and end up living those lies. In books we always learn about past wars from the ones who've won and instead of getting the viewpoints from the one's who lost. Because of this there is an immediate inferiority to the loser and we get the idea that the losing side either deserved what is got, was more brutal to the "good side", or is weaker compared to the winners. Of course, the winners would also write these entries with bias in mind, so we do not get the whole picture and we continue to spread these bias ideas because we don't know better. But the thing is, there is no "good side". Any side in a war would be considered the "good side" depending on which side you're on. In the Church we would get bias from their victories in wars as well. The Church is supposed to be this good place to help better yourself to get to Heaven, but the Church itself is the one being hypocritical and indulging in sinful ideas or torture or inquisition. What right the Church ever have to determine someone's death or life? When did it ever have the right to declare someone of heresy? Or when did the Church get the justification for the mass slaughter they committed in "the name of God" to the Jews? Everyone at that time was on the Church's side, so they was a bias already created in their minds that the Church WAS doing what is "right" so they would think badly of anything other than the Church. Poor idiots.
3. Idols of the Marketplace - "The language created to share knowledge (e.g. philosophy is more concerned with winning arguments than revealing truth) locks us into specific ways of knowing.
The Church used this "double meaning" method to win the favor of the people rather than revealing the truth and inner workings of the sinful Church. They used philosophy and certain quotes of the Bible (i'm guessing) in order to lock people into thinking what is right or what is wrong. They used their fancy words and gestures and ended up taking over Europe for over 1,000 years by twisting their words instead of revealing their true evil plots. Because most people didn't know better, they'd except these philosophies given from the Church and live their lives without truly knowing. "Oh, well since it sounds smart, it must be right."
4. Idols of the Theatre - "The Christian West has given reference to four or five Greek scholars and has ignored any other understanding of the world."
The Church would take some Greek philosophies that would appeal to them and their ideas and ignore the rest, giving the wrong idea to the rest of the world that lived under the Church. This is incredibly wrong because than the already illiterate people under the rule of the Church would not know better and most of them wouldn't try and look for more opinions about a certain topic or belief. Because the Church was extremely narrow minded in their beliefs they ignored the other great philosophies of the Greeks and failed to get the opinions of everyone to find the Truth, and only took bits of what appealed to them.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Galileo's Daughter
Monday, February 23, 2009
Aquinas' Five Proofs
The Third Way in Aquinas' Proofs talks about how there must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings, which would be God. The existence of contingent beings ultimately concludes that there was a necessary being that made these dependent beings. In a world of corruption and sin, i would have to agree that we are just contingent beings that depend upon the existence of necessary beings in order to look up to something morally higher. We need someone to blame, someone to go to in need, and someone to debate upon which would mean that God was a necessary being for us contingent beings.
The First Way in Aquinas' Proofs is about how objects put into the motions were first put there by the UNMOVED MOVER (GOD). I think just by reading that sentence, it's ridiculous. That the motion of things implies that there is a Godly being that is unmoving, that causes us to move. But how is it that we do not know that God doesn't move either? I mean how does he move other things without physically moving the first moving obejct? "If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover." I don't understand this because one moving thing doesn't cause a chain of other moving things througout the world. I can understand if it suggests an underlying meaning like we can move to the next stage in our lives without God, but here Aquinas is seriously talking about moving like the planets or a rolling stone.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
St. Augustine & Gothic Architecture
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Common Fallaces
"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants – who mainly belonged to the Latin races – mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.
Man’s effort to build up something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him into conflict with those principles to which he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin.
Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in its inspiration and is typical of the modern pacifist. It says: "Man can control even Nature." "
In here, Adolf Hitler has shown a common fallacy that could fall into the category of hasty generalization or post hoc. Here he jumps to conclusions saying that fallen nations that have gone against nature and intermingled with the inferior races has caused them to become the "downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture". He only mentions the few nations that have fallen from intermingling with 'inferior' races. But first of all what really are 'inferior' races. Humans are all the same and none are in a higher culture or are inferior to the other. He also only uses the examples of nations that have been destroyed but fails to mention other nations that have been brought up by the intermingling of other races. I mean, where did the asians ultimately come from? Because the mongolians intermingled with other races. How can you create new races that will eventually become overpopulated without intermingling with others? Then Hilter goes on to jump to conclusions to say that the Jewish are the product of this superior to inferior intermingling, therefore they must be wiped out before they cause the downfall of Germany and the entire world. Ultimately, the evidence he used to base his argument that nature does not wish different races to mix, is insufficient because he has only mentioned some of the ones that have actually produced a downfall in culture. This could've been affected by many other factors such as location, disease, or rescources, but Hitler fails to mention all the other factors that would've provided a more logical argument for what produced their downfall. In the last sentence he is also assuming a post hoc fallacy. With the argument that nature does not want the mixing of people, he brings up the Jews and how they will become the reason for if and why the nation of Germany and the entire world begins to fall like the few fallen nations he has mentioned.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
I do believe in natural selection and some part of evolution, but i don't base it as my belief as the complete creation of the complexity in organisms that survives to this day. I really do think that there has to be some higher being that already had this all planned out, every little bit, because it is way too complicated for a theory to say that it was created out of a bunch of mutations that came from nowhere. I mean who created the basis of all that? That is why i believe in intelligent design. That something higher with the intelligence that goes beyond humans can grasp, created all of this beforehand and made natural selection so that we could adapt and grow. Sure the belief in a God like that would require extreme blind faith and would throw away all the other assumed theories of the Big Bang theory and the Evolution theory but i just think that for evolution to happen there must've been a million lucky mutations involved, and nothing is ever that lucky.
i'm sorry if this isn't really factual.
i just felt like going on about my opinion based on my emotions. so i guess its a claim of value! lol.
Obama = no need for affirmative action?
To clear up my opinion once again, i do not believe that JUST BECAUSE Obama has been elected means that affirmative action is no longer needed, but in the whole i disagree that affirmative action should even be in colleges. I don't believe in affirmative action because, really even though marjority rules and shows that most blacks, hispanics, or asians are the minority this means that they all don't have the same kind of opportunities a white person could. What i'm really trying to say is that affirmative action should not be based upon race but instead on a person's income and backround. (not meaning ethnicity) There are also white people who are raised in the same poor communities as the "minority" yet they are ignored and the minority gets to get accepted first. If you truly want to help the minority to get into college despite their lack of opportunities, you should forget them as minorities and consider their incomes rather than race. When did colleges ever just become a place for racial mixing and affirmative action? College is a place for knowledge and to gain knowledge only. Instead there should be an action to replace affirmative action. An action that would only focus on what income their mothers or fathers have made, or what kind of neighborhoods they grew up in. This would be the only valid way of making sure everyone gets a chance to get into college. Acceptance should not be focused on race, which is why i diasgree that Obama being elected has anything to do with affirmative action whatsoever. We should not look at people or a race as a whole, because then we are just putting them down and continuing racism by considering them the minority therefore assuming that they are disadvantaged in life in any way. I mean doesn't affirmative action CAUSE more racism instead of helping mingle the races? Affirmative action should be thrown out the window and acceptance rates in college should only benefit people based on their classes. Something that will not put down the races and still be able to help the acceptance rate go higher than others.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Deductive Logic
All Watchmen characters are fictional.
Dr. Manhattan is a Watchmen character.
Dr. Manhattan is fictional.
Modus Ponens
If LOST is on tonight, I'll skip my homework.
LOST is on tonight.
Therefore, I'll skip my homework.
Modus Tollens
If you listen to Sigur Ros, then you have the best taste in music.
You do not have the best taste in music.
Therefore, you don't listen to Sigur Ros.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Ghiberti Doors
Ghiberti won a competition in 1401 for a trial piece that he did of Abraham and Isaac's sacrifice. After winning he created the New Testament depiction, of the first set of bronze doors for Baptistery on the Florence Cathedral. After finishing, he was commisioned again to create a second set for another doorway depicting the Old Testament, known as "The Gates of Paradise."
* What is the style of Cathedral in which they reside?
The Florence Cathedral is done in a Gothic style by the design of Arnolfo di Cambio. The exterior of the cathedral is decorated with pink, green polychrome marble panels, bordered with white.
* What story is on each panel?
On the left side of the Gates of Paradise are the stories of Creation, Noah's Drunkenness, Isaac and Esau, Moses at Sinai, and David and Goliath. On the right side of the Gates of Paradise are Cain and Able, Abraham and Isaac, Joseph being the Viceroy of Egypt with his brothers, Joshua crossing the Jordan, and King Solomon with the Queen of Sheba.
* How are they paired?
On the left side of the door are depictions of stories from the Old Testament, and on the right side of the door are depictions of stories from the New Testament.