Wednesday, October 26, 2011
A Piece Of Paper
How is entire world contained on a single piece of white paper? A blank sheet of paper can be compared to the world, in that we, essentially, are able to do whatever we want to it. That's what the world is -- a blank canvas on which we can create something. Then, these white pages turn into pages that are "drawn on", and then turn into "heres" and "nows". We create the world. We create its events in history by drawing on the single piece of paper. The paper signifies us as humankind.
Monday, October 24, 2011
In A Digital World
It was said that games like World of Warcraft can give people a powerful life. Its element of fantasy and imagination is what makes people fully immersed. There's also that urge to connect with other people...this factors into why people can become so obsessed with these kinds of games. In fact, some people spend about ten hours a week playing World of Warcraft. Ten hours. I guess that's what people mean when they say that time flies by. It was said, additionally, that the game wasn't isolating the players, but rather giving them a new way to be "intimate". Intimate? Well, I suppose it could be called that, but I think that there's something more "intimate" about being face-to-face with someone, but that's just me.
In the past, technology has separated us, but apparently, it's bringing us back together now.
There's a growing market for research about how we behave in these virtual worlds. Now, if something just looks real and feels real, then the brain thinks it's real. 50% of kids will have believed what they saw in a computerized setting to be true. The military, additionaly, has been using technology to treat troops with post traumatic stress disorder. Now, pilots can even fly drones just from a base. Still, they have to think in character. There's a disconnect between being at war and at home. It's hard for the mind to comprehend.
Also, today I overheard a conversation that strangely paralleled what we he had watched in class. At the library, I just happened to hear two girls talking next to me...They were having a conversation about how much they hated having their AP Government textbooks online. One of them said that she'd rather have the book in front of her, because she didn't like reading on the computer. She mentioned that she wanted to highlight the text, so she found it more helpful to print out the pages and highlight them. The other girl said that her teacher mentioned that soon, most, if not all textbooks will be available online only. The first girl said that she'd print out all of the pages in the textbook if she needed to. Then, almost in unison, they both groaned.
In the past, technology has separated us, but apparently, it's bringing us back together now.
There's a growing market for research about how we behave in these virtual worlds. Now, if something just looks real and feels real, then the brain thinks it's real. 50% of kids will have believed what they saw in a computerized setting to be true. The military, additionaly, has been using technology to treat troops with post traumatic stress disorder. Now, pilots can even fly drones just from a base. Still, they have to think in character. There's a disconnect between being at war and at home. It's hard for the mind to comprehend.
Also, today I overheard a conversation that strangely paralleled what we he had watched in class. At the library, I just happened to hear two girls talking next to me...They were having a conversation about how much they hated having their AP Government textbooks online. One of them said that she'd rather have the book in front of her, because she didn't like reading on the computer. She mentioned that she wanted to highlight the text, so she found it more helpful to print out the pages and highlight them. The other girl said that her teacher mentioned that soon, most, if not all textbooks will be available online only. The first girl said that she'd print out all of the pages in the textbook if she needed to. Then, almost in unison, they both groaned.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Having Faith (10.18.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
Kierkegaard believed that there is beauty in every individual -- every person has anxiety and fears. Why would we need to overcome something that’s a part of humans, something so unavoidable when it comes to the human condition? We have a different kind of will, which is the will to make the leap of faith. Faith is something beyond our existence, and no one can truly understand it. We’ll never be able to understand it, but we have to try to live the act of faith. What’s more important: should we advance ourselves in an earthly or eternal existence?
Here is one of the definitions of UBERMENSCH: someone who recognizes his own weakness and fallibility but puts his faith in something greater than himself. This is what Abraham achieved when he sacrificed his son. He had the strength to put himself into the unknown.
Kierkegaard believed that there is beauty in every individual -- every person has anxiety and fears. Why would we need to overcome something that’s a part of humans, something so unavoidable when it comes to the human condition? We have a different kind of will, which is the will to make the leap of faith. Faith is something beyond our existence, and no one can truly understand it. We’ll never be able to understand it, but we have to try to live the act of faith. What’s more important: should we advance ourselves in an earthly or eternal existence?
Here is one of the definitions of UBERMENSCH: someone who recognizes his own weakness and fallibility but puts his faith in something greater than himself. This is what Abraham achieved when he sacrificed his son. He had the strength to put himself into the unknown.
Two Existentialists (10.13.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
In Kierkegaard’s view, the birth of existentialism is the “ever-present terror of existential dread”. It’s, essentially, the unavoidable death. He thought that life is meaningless in comparison to the size of the universe. To be alive means to be in a state of constant terror. Nietzsche, on the other hand, thought that you should satisfy your impulses and not live with paranoia, because that’s not living. You have to accept death and create your own life and values. You have the freedom to be whatever you want and to choose your own values.
Kierkegaard believed that rituals are getting in the way of faith. In this way, he criticized Christianity, as did Nietzsche. Also, he believed that the end goal is to get to the same state Abraham was in when he killed Isaac. He thought that morality is a stage, and stops people from achieving the true religious stage, whereas Nietzsche thought that morality hinders will to power.
Nietzsche thought that primal will is what makes you human -- it’s the will to live. We say that we need to live! He believed that this drive lasts forever. However, a possible argument against this is the question, “Is there a limitation to this will to live forever?” What about older people who might say that they are ready to die? It all depends on the individual and how he or she views life, in the end.
In Kierkegaard’s view, the birth of existentialism is the “ever-present terror of existential dread”. It’s, essentially, the unavoidable death. He thought that life is meaningless in comparison to the size of the universe. To be alive means to be in a state of constant terror. Nietzsche, on the other hand, thought that you should satisfy your impulses and not live with paranoia, because that’s not living. You have to accept death and create your own life and values. You have the freedom to be whatever you want and to choose your own values.
Kierkegaard believed that rituals are getting in the way of faith. In this way, he criticized Christianity, as did Nietzsche. Also, he believed that the end goal is to get to the same state Abraham was in when he killed Isaac. He thought that morality is a stage, and stops people from achieving the true religious stage, whereas Nietzsche thought that morality hinders will to power.
Nietzsche thought that primal will is what makes you human -- it’s the will to live. We say that we need to live! He believed that this drive lasts forever. However, a possible argument against this is the question, “Is there a limitation to this will to live forever?” What about older people who might say that they are ready to die? It all depends on the individual and how he or she views life, in the end.
Technology Today (10.4.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
I didn’t know that while reading, a brain isn’t very active, but rather focused. After all, too much stimulation isn’t always good for the brain. In this time and age, people are developing a lack of attentiveness. In fact, technology is contributing to this. Addiction to technology is possible. As a result of technological advances, brains are kept from having one linear thought: technology creates a distraction.
South Korea is a prime example of this. It’s characterized by internet cafes, where people stay all day and sometimes all night to play online games. As a matter of fact, some people have died during gaming due to a lack of water or food. Is it a disease or a phenomenon? We aren’t very sure, but we do know that it’s definitely an addiction. 90% of Korean children use the internet. One boy said that he spent 7 or 8 hours a day playing online games, and spent his weekends doing this. His grades dropped, and his mom felt more distanced from him. For cases like this, there are even “internet rescue schools”, where things like cell phones are taken away. Medical treatment is even offered at times, for eye strains or ear complications. At Korean elementary schools, students learn how to use the internet while also learning how to read.
It’s often said that kids need to be fluent in technology to be ready for the real world. Also, multitasking could be important for jobs. However, our basic skills have turned out to be worse today than they were in the past.
I didn’t know that while reading, a brain isn’t very active, but rather focused. After all, too much stimulation isn’t always good for the brain. In this time and age, people are developing a lack of attentiveness. In fact, technology is contributing to this. Addiction to technology is possible. As a result of technological advances, brains are kept from having one linear thought: technology creates a distraction.
South Korea is a prime example of this. It’s characterized by internet cafes, where people stay all day and sometimes all night to play online games. As a matter of fact, some people have died during gaming due to a lack of water or food. Is it a disease or a phenomenon? We aren’t very sure, but we do know that it’s definitely an addiction. 90% of Korean children use the internet. One boy said that he spent 7 or 8 hours a day playing online games, and spent his weekends doing this. His grades dropped, and his mom felt more distanced from him. For cases like this, there are even “internet rescue schools”, where things like cell phones are taken away. Medical treatment is even offered at times, for eye strains or ear complications. At Korean elementary schools, students learn how to use the internet while also learning how to read.
It’s often said that kids need to be fluent in technology to be ready for the real world. Also, multitasking could be important for jobs. However, our basic skills have turned out to be worse today than they were in the past.
Is He Really There? (9.30.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
I thought that that argument about if God exists or not was really interesting. The debate between Hume and Descartes definitely touched on that. The side that I argued for, Hume, believed that the existence of God is uncertain, because we must use our senses to determine that He does exist. He thought that reason can’t prove that anything exists. Reason, in turn, can only give us logical proof about our ideas. However, God’s existence can’t be logically proved. Additionally, we have no sensory proof that God exists, either. Hume believed that we only know what has come to us from our sensory experiences: that’s the only knowledge we have. He even questioned about how one could know if God has the attributes that some say he has without having sensory impressions of them.
I thought that that argument about if God exists or not was really interesting. The debate between Hume and Descartes definitely touched on that. The side that I argued for, Hume, believed that the existence of God is uncertain, because we must use our senses to determine that He does exist. He thought that reason can’t prove that anything exists. Reason, in turn, can only give us logical proof about our ideas. However, God’s existence can’t be logically proved. Additionally, we have no sensory proof that God exists, either. Hume believed that we only know what has come to us from our sensory experiences: that’s the only knowledge we have. He even questioned about how one could know if God has the attributes that some say he has without having sensory impressions of them.
Parmenides (9.26.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
If I were on the side of Parmenides, I would argue that no human actually changes -- although the way we act or the way we look may change throughout our lives, we are still the same person. In this way, nothing has actually changed. Even though a river continues to flow, it is still a river. Essentially, the matter of it remains permanent. It is the same with our bodies, too. We’re made of the same matter throughout time. Also, our identities remain permanent. I’ll always be Mora, even if I physically (or even mentally) change.
If I were on the side of Parmenides, I would argue that no human actually changes -- although the way we act or the way we look may change throughout our lives, we are still the same person. In this way, nothing has actually changed. Even though a river continues to flow, it is still a river. Essentially, the matter of it remains permanent. It is the same with our bodies, too. We’re made of the same matter throughout time. Also, our identities remain permanent. I’ll always be Mora, even if I physically (or even mentally) change.
Paranoid (9.22.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
One of the subjects that was discussed today was paranoia. I’m usually not a paranoid kind of person, but I do remember that a few years ago, I was paranoid about getting run over by a car while crossing the street to get to my house. This was after I saw someone else get hit by car as I was crossing the same street. Instead of calmly walking across the street each day, I’d do a sort of jog-run across, and I felt pretty awkward doing so. Additionally, during our discussion, “catastrophic thinking” was brought up. This is thinking about the worst that could possibly happen in a situation. Fear of the unknown was also an important aspect mentioned. One of the greatest fears is death, because death really is unknown to everyone.
Referring back to people’s experiences of paranoia, we talked about the similarities and differences between two philosophers, Descartes and Hume. Descartes would try to rationalize fear by questioning it, quantifying, and breaking it down. He thought that the thinking mechanism is most important. On the other hand, Hume believed that we should acknowledge the fear. Emotion controls rational function. We’re actually slaves of passion more than we are of reason. The instinct to survive, he thought, is actually most important.
Paranoia is one of the strongest feelings, and how you see the world is reflected by your fears.
One of the subjects that was discussed today was paranoia. I’m usually not a paranoid kind of person, but I do remember that a few years ago, I was paranoid about getting run over by a car while crossing the street to get to my house. This was after I saw someone else get hit by car as I was crossing the same street. Instead of calmly walking across the street each day, I’d do a sort of jog-run across, and I felt pretty awkward doing so. Additionally, during our discussion, “catastrophic thinking” was brought up. This is thinking about the worst that could possibly happen in a situation. Fear of the unknown was also an important aspect mentioned. One of the greatest fears is death, because death really is unknown to everyone.
Referring back to people’s experiences of paranoia, we talked about the similarities and differences between two philosophers, Descartes and Hume. Descartes would try to rationalize fear by questioning it, quantifying, and breaking it down. He thought that the thinking mechanism is most important. On the other hand, Hume believed that we should acknowledge the fear. Emotion controls rational function. We’re actually slaves of passion more than we are of reason. The instinct to survive, he thought, is actually most important.
Paranoia is one of the strongest feelings, and how you see the world is reflected by your fears.
Realizations (9.20.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
We sorted ourselves into smaller groups today, but continued to discuss “Sophie’s World.” At first, we weren’t even sure if Gaarder had actually even criticized philosophy at all in the book, but then we realized that he does seem to have stronger opinions about women’s rights -- he defended them. Furthermore, we discussed that the author makes the story lineal chronologically, but often referred back to other philosophers, which made his approach cyclical, too. The story became more confusing once we learned that Hilde “read” about Sophie in one day, while we thought that all of the events had taken place over a longer period of time. We thought that telling of the story in this fashion actually made it more brilliant.
We sorted ourselves into smaller groups today, but continued to discuss “Sophie’s World.” At first, we weren’t even sure if Gaarder had actually even criticized philosophy at all in the book, but then we realized that he does seem to have stronger opinions about women’s rights -- he defended them. Furthermore, we discussed that the author makes the story lineal chronologically, but often referred back to other philosophers, which made his approach cyclical, too. The story became more confusing once we learned that Hilde “read” about Sophie in one day, while we thought that all of the events had taken place over a longer period of time. We thought that telling of the story in this fashion actually made it more brilliant.
A Quiet Place (9.16.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
In class, we did an activity in which we had to “be quiet.” I sat in my desk, put my head down, and closed my eyes. At first, I had an abundance of thoughts running through my mind -- what was I going to do in Generals’ Period? What was for lunch? How much homework do I have? However, as a few more minutes passed, I wasn’t thinking about anything...all I could pretty much do was listen to my breathing. I felt like I was in the state in between being awake and being sleep -- sort of half-asleep. I didn’t realize the time going by at all: in fact, I thought it had only been around five or ten minutes, but not eighteen. I guess that, in a way, I did experience “quiet” for a while. It was only a matter of time.
In class, we did an activity in which we had to “be quiet.” I sat in my desk, put my head down, and closed my eyes. At first, I had an abundance of thoughts running through my mind -- what was I going to do in Generals’ Period? What was for lunch? How much homework do I have? However, as a few more minutes passed, I wasn’t thinking about anything...all I could pretty much do was listen to my breathing. I felt like I was in the state in between being awake and being sleep -- sort of half-asleep. I didn’t realize the time going by at all: in fact, I thought it had only been around five or ten minutes, but not eighteen. I guess that, in a way, I did experience “quiet” for a while. It was only a matter of time.
We're Still In Her World (9.15.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
A question concerning the topic of imagination was asked today, and Riley responded by saying that without imagination, it’s hard to be even human. He related the question to thought he often has about adults losing their sense of imagination as they grow older but kids having great imaginations. Elaine added that imagination can allow you to experience things you can’t actually experience (or can you?). Emma said that imagination can take a mind of its own. In fact, Sophie and Alberto still “existed” although Albert ceased writing about them. In this sense, imagination will always continue. Jordan mentioned that imagination could actually be more real than reality itself. Imagination is expandable and has no limits. Alex added that imagination is not as unreal as we think it is. As a matter of fact, imagination lives with us -- it’s parallel to our world.
Many of my classmates had thoughts about what they believed were annoying parts of “Sophie’s World.” Kevin said that Sophie’s reactions were pretty unbelievable -- it’s strange that she was more intrigued than scared by a stranger suspiciously contacting her. Her reactions are uncommon, especially in today’s world. It was mentioned that it was weird how Sophie was even interested in learning about philosophy in the first place -- had it been her, she would not have even considered it. Karen was confused by “the idea chicken” mentioned in the story, and had to keep re-reading the passage it was explained in. The idea of it was hard to grasp, which annoyed her.
Jordan said that philosophers say such bizarre things, and for this, they are remembered. Their thoughts were considered so outlandish, especially during the times when they had lived.
Jordan later continued, saying that the world is a perception of facts. Everyone has their own definition of a world -- no two people are exactly alike, so no two people’s perceptions of the world are exactly the same. Additionally, you create your own world essentially by choosing what you believe. Alex then realized that the title “Sophie’s World” refers to her perception of the world -- it really is “her world.” However, the world is just as it appears to us.
A question concerning the topic of imagination was asked today, and Riley responded by saying that without imagination, it’s hard to be even human. He related the question to thought he often has about adults losing their sense of imagination as they grow older but kids having great imaginations. Elaine added that imagination can allow you to experience things you can’t actually experience (or can you?). Emma said that imagination can take a mind of its own. In fact, Sophie and Alberto still “existed” although Albert ceased writing about them. In this sense, imagination will always continue. Jordan mentioned that imagination could actually be more real than reality itself. Imagination is expandable and has no limits. Alex added that imagination is not as unreal as we think it is. As a matter of fact, imagination lives with us -- it’s parallel to our world.
Many of my classmates had thoughts about what they believed were annoying parts of “Sophie’s World.” Kevin said that Sophie’s reactions were pretty unbelievable -- it’s strange that she was more intrigued than scared by a stranger suspiciously contacting her. Her reactions are uncommon, especially in today’s world. It was mentioned that it was weird how Sophie was even interested in learning about philosophy in the first place -- had it been her, she would not have even considered it. Karen was confused by “the idea chicken” mentioned in the story, and had to keep re-reading the passage it was explained in. The idea of it was hard to grasp, which annoyed her.
Jordan said that philosophers say such bizarre things, and for this, they are remembered. Their thoughts were considered so outlandish, especially during the times when they had lived.
Jordan later continued, saying that the world is a perception of facts. Everyone has their own definition of a world -- no two people are exactly alike, so no two people’s perceptions of the world are exactly the same. Additionally, you create your own world essentially by choosing what you believe. Alex then realized that the title “Sophie’s World” refers to her perception of the world -- it really is “her world.” However, the world is just as it appears to us.
Living In Sophie's World (9.13.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
Today, during class, we continued with our discussion about Sophie’s World. One question that was asked was, “How is it possible to have memories if you have no senses at all?” I thought about this, but I can’t seem to figure out how that could actually be possible, so I don’t know either. Karen asked if people without senses could dream, and some of the responses were that people who can’t see dream about things like colors or even sounds. Helen mentioned that as a child, one develops reactions to certain things, and what you see as a child affects what you see for the rest of your life. Emma added that when you’re a child, you absorb everything that you learn. For instance, in Sophie’s World, the father might have wanted Hilde to think about the bigger things in life at the age of 15 instead of trivialities.
Continuing the discussion about why Hilde’s father wanted her to learn about philosophy at the age of 15, Jasmine said that no one is too young or even dumb to think about life’s bigger lessons, because when you need to find your place when you’re young.
During the subject about why Hilde’s father wrote about Sophie for Hilde’s benefit, Kevin said that he might have written Sophie’s character so that Hilde could easily relate to her. They have so much in common, so Hilde could easily place herself in Sophie’s shoes and become closer with the lessons involved in the book.
Emma said that Sophie makes such a great character for Hilde’s book because she embraces the ideas that she learns, but she is also critical of them. This makes her a practical, but perfect model for Hilde. Later in the discussion, Emma also added that reality is an adventure, but illusion is real. What we perceive is real to us.
One of the final questions asked was if Alberto and Sophie are actually making any decisions. They think that they have free will, but they actually don’t. Perhaps we don’t have free will either, and are being controlled by something else...
Today, during class, we continued with our discussion about Sophie’s World. One question that was asked was, “How is it possible to have memories if you have no senses at all?” I thought about this, but I can’t seem to figure out how that could actually be possible, so I don’t know either. Karen asked if people without senses could dream, and some of the responses were that people who can’t see dream about things like colors or even sounds. Helen mentioned that as a child, one develops reactions to certain things, and what you see as a child affects what you see for the rest of your life. Emma added that when you’re a child, you absorb everything that you learn. For instance, in Sophie’s World, the father might have wanted Hilde to think about the bigger things in life at the age of 15 instead of trivialities.
Continuing the discussion about why Hilde’s father wanted her to learn about philosophy at the age of 15, Jasmine said that no one is too young or even dumb to think about life’s bigger lessons, because when you need to find your place when you’re young.
During the subject about why Hilde’s father wrote about Sophie for Hilde’s benefit, Kevin said that he might have written Sophie’s character so that Hilde could easily relate to her. They have so much in common, so Hilde could easily place herself in Sophie’s shoes and become closer with the lessons involved in the book.
Emma said that Sophie makes such a great character for Hilde’s book because she embraces the ideas that she learns, but she is also critical of them. This makes her a practical, but perfect model for Hilde. Later in the discussion, Emma also added that reality is an adventure, but illusion is real. What we perceive is real to us.
One of the final questions asked was if Alberto and Sophie are actually making any decisions. They think that they have free will, but they actually don’t. Perhaps we don’t have free will either, and are being controlled by something else...
First Post (9.12.11)
*This post was copied from my original blog on Google Docs*
Today, we did an activity in which we had to walk around outside blindfolded. In one situation, my partner was blindfolded first, and I had to lead her outside without saying a word to her. Obviously, this was quite difficult, especially when I had to lead her down a staircase or up a hill. However, what was more difficult was when I was blindfolded. In the beginning, she wasn’t allowed to speak to me either - the only way that she could lead me around was by holding my hand.
It seemed like as I was being led around while blindfolded, my hearing sense became stronger. For instance, as I crossed the street blindfolded, I noticed the sound of the cars to be louder. This might enforce the fact that one sense is taken away, the others seems to get stronger.
My metacognition was altered when my hands were suddenly dipped in water, too, because I wasn’t expecting it at all. In fact, it shocked me.
I found the activity to be an interesting way to learn about senses and metacognition, because I feel like I take my senses for granted most of the time. I don’t usually consider how useful they are, or how each of them affect one another. I enjoyed this experience!
Today, we did an activity in which we had to walk around outside blindfolded. In one situation, my partner was blindfolded first, and I had to lead her outside without saying a word to her. Obviously, this was quite difficult, especially when I had to lead her down a staircase or up a hill. However, what was more difficult was when I was blindfolded. In the beginning, she wasn’t allowed to speak to me either - the only way that she could lead me around was by holding my hand.
It seemed like as I was being led around while blindfolded, my hearing sense became stronger. For instance, as I crossed the street blindfolded, I noticed the sound of the cars to be louder. This might enforce the fact that one sense is taken away, the others seems to get stronger.
My metacognition was altered when my hands were suddenly dipped in water, too, because I wasn’t expecting it at all. In fact, it shocked me.
I found the activity to be an interesting way to learn about senses and metacognition, because I feel like I take my senses for granted most of the time. I don’t usually consider how useful they are, or how each of them affect one another. I enjoyed this experience!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)