Well, Mr. Posito's class ended well (fun-wise). Grade-wise....anyway, so I'm actually excited to learn philosophy (no sarcasm), which is strange 'cause it's the middle of May, AP Exams are over, and I'm starting to slack off and submit to my apathy. Clearly unhealthy, but eh, it happens I guess.
Haven't been on my "Dojo of Philosophy" in a hwile. That's right, a hwile.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Two Pictures I thought were awesome
Dislaimer: Images may or may not have anything to do with philosophy, and may or may not be a wee bit vulgarWednesday, February 25, 2009
Maria Celeste, Daughter of Galileo Galilei
Galileo's daughter, Maria Celeste, played a key role in assisting her father, which in turn helped people in present as we wouldn't have been able to know about Galileo's works had she not assisted him. She helped her father in several ways, some of which are:
- keeping him alive by doing her best to keep Galileo from catching the bubonic plagu
- serving as his editor for The Dialogo, as she was able to understand the work and take out parts that didn't make sense
- advised her father to say nothing against the church, as she knew that would result in a harsher punishment
Had Maria not taken care of her father, making sure he didn't drink too much and making sure he took his medication, Galileo probably would have succumbed to his illness and died, and since a dead person can't study astronomy, Galileo's amazing work would never have reached our ears had it not been for Maria Celeste
Monday, February 23, 2009
Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways
St. Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican priest, theologian, and philosopher, is considered to be one of the greatest Christian philosophers in history. He believed that reason was not an enemy of faith (as philosophy and reasoning had been commonly used to counter the Church's beliefs, leading the Church to commonly tag such ideas as heresy) attempted to prove this through his Five Ways
First Way: The Argument from Motion
Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects
- Aquinas concluded that an object that is in motion is put in motion by some other object or force. He believed that ultimately there must have been an unmoved mover (in this case God) who put things in motion in the first place
- Aquinas concluded that through common sense and observation, it is evident that no object can create itself, and that instead, some previous object must have made it. There must have been an uncaused first cause (again, God) who started the chain of existence for all things.
Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects
- Aquinas believed that the extence of contingent beings (objects that can't exist without a necessary being causing its existence) would inevitably need an already existing being (God) in order for all of the contingent beings to exist.
- Aquinas concluded that for any given quality, there has to be a standard of perfection from which all such qualities are measured. In other words, there has to be a form of perfection (God) to which we can compare
- Aquinas states that by the way the universe works, it can be concluded that it was designed by an intelligent designer (God)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Crusades and Just WarTheory
The Just War Theory
The Just War theory is a doctrine of military ethics that states that conflict can and should meet the criteria of philosophical, religious, or political justice provided it follows certain conditions.
Crusades
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns fought between Christians and Muslims with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem in mind.
Relation
During the time of the Crusades, the fighting between the Christians and Muslims were justified by calling it a "holy war". They fought over to take control of Jerusalem, the Holy Land, and because of this much blood was shed. Both sides had a feeling of "Just War" and justified their reasons for shedding blood as a sacrifice for what they saw as the greater good. Ironically though, in Just War, the reason for going to war has to be just and therefore can't be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. This is contradictory to the Crusades as they were fighting just because one had taken Jerusalem from the other. As far as their reasons go, however, Just War is similar to Christianity's views on serving justice (sometimes through capital punishment) and the Islamic concept of jihad
The Just War theory is a doctrine of military ethics that states that conflict can and should meet the criteria of philosophical, religious, or political justice provided it follows certain conditions.
Crusades
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns fought between Christians and Muslims with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem in mind.
Relation
During the time of the Crusades, the fighting between the Christians and Muslims were justified by calling it a "holy war". They fought over to take control of Jerusalem, the Holy Land, and because of this much blood was shed. Both sides had a feeling of "Just War" and justified their reasons for shedding blood as a sacrifice for what they saw as the greater good. Ironically though, in Just War, the reason for going to war has to be just and therefore can't be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. This is contradictory to the Crusades as they were fighting just because one had taken Jerusalem from the other. As far as their reasons go, however, Just War is similar to Christianity's views on serving justice (sometimes through capital punishment) and the Islamic concept of jihad
Friday, February 13, 2009
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Intelligent Design is the idea that states the universe and the living things within it are best explained an intelligent cause or intelligent designer, commonly referred to as God.
Michael Behe, a biochemist, quoted that the human body is "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". Basically, he is saying that each part is dependent on the rest of the parts, and that even if one small piece were to break down, the entire system would collapse.
Through this argument of irreducible complexity, Behe argues that certain biological systems (such as human bodies) are far too complex to have evolved from simple predecessors through repeated small chances and natural selection. Such small chances could not have possibly produced such complex systems that require the mutual dependency on every part.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it lacks a lot of scientific proofs, as such an idea of an intelligent creator requires blind faith and just blunt acceptance of the idea. Given that God were real, and that he can create something out of nothing, the argument would be valid. However, since we can't prove God is real and the Given in of itself is stated as true (which was not proven to be true), there is a bridge-less gap that requires one to "jump" to the conclusion that the Given just is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is the idea in the change of inherited traits that are passed down from generation to the next.
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is a key aspect of the evolutionary theory that humans are descended from apes, which in turn evolved from simpler species, from simpler species, to simpler species. It is theorized that animals started out as a single cell that asexually reproduced, and kept duplicating until it became an entire organism, which in turn kept evolving to different species. The problem with that theory, however,lies in the question of where and how the single cell came to be. If evolution STARTED with a single cell, then what started the single cell? How did it get there? Why did it get there?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Affirmative Action: Support or Handicap?
Well, what is it?
Affirmative action refers to policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity. In other words, the main goals of affirmative actions are basically to:
Well, yes and no. In the United States, affirmative actions commonly refers to minorities. But that begs the question of who the minorities are. The beneficiaries of affirmative include:
Opposition/Problems with Affirmative Action
Like most policies, Affirmative Action also has controversies that cause the policy in question to sway back and forth in terms of being active and inactive. Some say affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen due to the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications. Some even claim such "helping hands" will in actually produce side-effects such as tension between ethnic and racial groups.
ex) A boy with a White background gets a 4.0+ high school GPA while a girl with a Hispanic background gets a high school GPA of 3.33. Due to Affirmative Action, there is a chance that the girl with the 3.33 will be accepted into a college that the boy with the 4.0 might not get into, simply because of the fact that she is a girl, and she is of Hispanic heritage, despite the fact that the boy with the 4.0 GPA is clearly a hard worker.
-The problem here is that while it is true the boy with the 4.0 GPA deserves to be rewarded for his outstanding hard work, there may be factors at hand that might have given the girl a handicap. Who knows, maybe she is working part-time at the local store so she can help support her family, while the boy's parents were pretty well off and did the money problems for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views on Affirmative Action
I personally believe that while affirmative action can be seen as unfair, I see it as a remedy to help put minorities on equal ground with those of majority. Had we not instituted affirmative action, it is possible that tensions between ethnic and racial groups might be more troublesome than they already are today. It's not just a question of jealousy, but also a question of personal pride and the feeling of self-worth that can be altered by the things on is able to accomplish. And regardless, it is still given that minority or not, every human being has an equal stand in terms of working their way up the levels of high school ranking and every human being has the ability to accomplish their dreams and become successful people. However, as I see it, affirmative actions produces more crops than it kills, much similar to a pesticide. A pesticide might be harmful in ways that it can cause crops to lose their status as organic and sometimes healthy, it still saves the crop that would've been eaten up anyway by an incest. In the same manner, while affirmative action has its ups and downs, I see the ups as the winner. And while many argue that now that we have an African-American as President of the United States, we no longer need affirmative action. But if we are to look at Obama in that manner, isn't stating his achievements as a certain race in of itself a problem? We should look at Obama for the strong-willed and hardworker that he was, not look at him as America's first Black president. We should not point our fingers at just one man and say, because of him, we no longer need affirmative action.
Affirmative action refers to policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity. In other words, the main goals of affirmative actions are basically to:
- to maximize the benefits of diversity in all levels of society
- to redress disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination
Well, yes and no. In the United States, affirmative actions commonly refers to minorities. But that begs the question of who the minorities are. The beneficiaries of affirmative include:
- racial minorities
- ethnic minorities
- in India, underprivileged castes (social class)
- women
- physically disabled
- veterans (those who served in the military)
Opposition/Problems with Affirmative Action
Like most policies, Affirmative Action also has controversies that cause the policy in question to sway back and forth in terms of being active and inactive. Some say affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen due to the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications. Some even claim such "helping hands" will in actually produce side-effects such as tension between ethnic and racial groups.
ex) A boy with a White background gets a 4.0+ high school GPA while a girl with a Hispanic background gets a high school GPA of 3.33. Due to Affirmative Action, there is a chance that the girl with the 3.33 will be accepted into a college that the boy with the 4.0 might not get into, simply because of the fact that she is a girl, and she is of Hispanic heritage, despite the fact that the boy with the 4.0 GPA is clearly a hard worker.
-The problem here is that while it is true the boy with the 4.0 GPA deserves to be rewarded for his outstanding hard work, there may be factors at hand that might have given the girl a handicap. Who knows, maybe she is working part-time at the local store so she can help support her family, while the boy's parents were pretty well off and did the money problems for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views on Affirmative Action
I personally believe that while affirmative action can be seen as unfair, I see it as a remedy to help put minorities on equal ground with those of majority. Had we not instituted affirmative action, it is possible that tensions between ethnic and racial groups might be more troublesome than they already are today. It's not just a question of jealousy, but also a question of personal pride and the feeling of self-worth that can be altered by the things on is able to accomplish. And regardless, it is still given that minority or not, every human being has an equal stand in terms of working their way up the levels of high school ranking and every human being has the ability to accomplish their dreams and become successful people. However, as I see it, affirmative actions produces more crops than it kills, much similar to a pesticide. A pesticide might be harmful in ways that it can cause crops to lose their status as organic and sometimes healthy, it still saves the crop that would've been eaten up anyway by an incest. In the same manner, while affirmative action has its ups and downs, I see the ups as the winner. And while many argue that now that we have an African-American as President of the United States, we no longer need affirmative action. But if we are to look at Obama in that manner, isn't stating his achievements as a certain race in of itself a problem? We should look at Obama for the strong-willed and hardworker that he was, not look at him as America's first Black president. We should not point our fingers at just one man and say, because of him, we no longer need affirmative action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
