Midterm

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 neuralsurfer@ ... (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 NO LATER than Sept 28th at midnight.


4. What is your real name?
My real name is Jing Zhang.

5. What is your "user" name?
Jing Zhang / Swtm3m0ryz0byu

6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
Swtm3m0ryz0byu@yahoo.com

7. Name and address for your website.
http://jingzhang427.blogspot.com

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
Yes.

9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes.

10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them)

Expert Lecture: owen gingerich
I agree with Owen Gingerich’s comment about agnostics and atheists. Even though I am an atheist myself, I have to agree that atheists are hypocrites in a way. For example, we tend to accuse religious people of believing in something you can’t prove to exist, when we, ourselves, cannot prove that this higher being does not, in fact, exist. Agnostics are more realistic by simply replying, “I don’t know,” since they do not try to accuse anyone of being wrong in their beliefs and they do not make any assumptions about anything that cannot be proven. After listening to Gingerich and taking time to seriously think about the ideas presented in this film, I have begun to doubt my atheism. Slowly, I have come to realize that I am more agnostic than atheistic.

Owen Gingerich brings up a good point about the “location” of heaven. Ever since I was little, I’ve always believed that heaven is directly above the sky, however, after learning a bit about astronomy, I’ve realized that there is nothing but endless sky and space. That is not to say that I no longer believe in the concept of “heaven”. I do believe, or rather I hope, that the “heaven” lies in another dimension or another universe close to ours. In my personal opinion, I don’t believe that we would experience and learn so much from “life” to just simply disappear when we die. I hope we would be able to take our learned wisdom to do and accomplish something more in death, than we could have in life.

I also agree that the “personal god” is only a fraction of what “God” should be. I believe that the “God” in every religion is the one and the same. However, different religions and different cultures have different interpretations of this “God”, and that is the reason to the existence of so many different religions and gods. Unfortunately, currently, there is no such evidence to either prove or disprove my beliefs. We have to just wait and see; maybe someday the truth will be revealed.

Origins of the Universe: cosmic inflation
The idea of “cosmic inflation” was created in order to fill in the gaps and the inconsistencies created by the “Big Bang” theory. I don’t really understand the concept because my lack of understanding in both astronomy and physics. All I know is that it’s just a newer concept created in order to perfect the “Big Bang Theory.” Also, it is based on the belief that the universe was created through an explosion, which gave birth to all the necessary elements that in effect created life, as we know it.

Truthfully, I don’t know whether or not to believe in the “Big Bang Theory”. The idea that an ordinary explosion created this universe is, in some ways, difficult to accept. I can’t even begin to imagine the brilliance of that particular event. However, I have to admit that it is a logical and dramatic beginning for the universe. Also, in my opinion, it would work with most religions. For example, one can question, “Who created the ‘bang’?” and simply answer with: “God”. I think to people who believe in philosophy, this concept can become a bridge to connect faith with science. And in that case, I will become an advocate of this particular theory, in hopes of ending the arguments between religion and science.


Philosophy Films: gods, too, decompose
"We have killed him - you and I. We are all his murderers... Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? - Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." –Nietzsche

The powerful words of Nietzsche never fail to capture my attention. His words are shocking, however, it shocks in a way that makes one think about the topic and eventually forces one, in a way, to acknowledge (if not agree) to his particular point of view. For example, when I first came across Nietzsche, I was literally shocked by his “God is dead” attitude. I am not religious, yet I have learned through numerous experiences that sometimes it is best to not bring up such a controversial topic like religion. However, there is a certain logic that rings in Nietzsche’s thinking. He is neither here to criticize nor to argue the existence of “God." Instead, he is simply implying that with all the corruption in this world, how could God even want to live to see this?

“Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?”
I have no idea what Nietzsche meant by this part. But my interpretation of it is that we must rise to the role of leading a great life free from corruption. This is no small feat and we must never lose track of this goal. In a way, we have to become our own gods and take our own futures into our hands and always do the right thing. However, we should not become “gods” simply just to have power and to take control. We must never forget our morals, our goals, our hopes and dreams; more importantly, we must not forget our hearts. We must always change for the better since our actions do not simply affect only ourselves, but it affects everyone and everything in this world.


The Socratic Universe
What both caught my attention the most in this week’s reading was chapter six and seven of The Socratic Universe: Interviews with California Philosophers about the controversial topics regarding the existence of "God" and our "afterlife."My beliefs can simply be explained in this excerpt from chapter six:

"I respond by asking what is God? And why do you capitalize the word (if you're not even sure God exists, aren't you presuming an answer by capitalizing the word as if God were a person)? Also, there are various things one might mean by existence(physical objects and concepts might both exist, but not in the same way), so I'm not sure which sense applies to God because I don't know what sort of thing God is supposed to be." – Griesemer (U.C. Davis)

I honestly don’t understand those religious wars/arguments. The existence of "God" differs from person to person because we are all individuals with difference backgrounds and beliefs. There is no point in arguing and fighting about something you can neither prove nor disprove. If you believe in God, then good for you; if you don’t, that’s great too.As an Asian-American, I have been brought up in a household with slight influences of Buddhism. Thus, I do believe, or rather, I hope there will be an afterlife (if we’re lucky, we’d be reincarnated). I think it would be a waste if we suffer through decades of living just so we live to the day we cease to exist. Life is a journey filled with lessons and experiences, there MUST be a reason why we are here.
"I don't know. I haven't died yet and come back to tell anyone about it. You have to have "faith" to know what will happen. Although it will be the best sleep you ever had." – Ross (Claremont Scripps College)I think these two topics should simply be concluded along the lines of "I don’t know," since the only thing we can do in order to get closer to the "truth" is to wait and see.


Philosophy Films
"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." – Soren Kierkegaard.This quote from the Java Philosophy film is a refreshing new idea I’ve never heard of. In the course of my life, I’ve always been told that in the time of indecision, it’s best to choose the path which will bring the least amount of regret. However, it doesn’t necessarily work out that way, for we cannot foresee the situations and feelings of our future selves. I really enjoyed this short film because I feel that I can relate to the ideas presented in this film.

"I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of this: That piece cannot be moved." – SK.
I believe that everyone will feel this way at one point or another in their lifetime – to feel tortured because of our inability to take control of a certain situation; to feel stuck in one place while life passes us by.

On the other hand, "DE DOCTA IGNORANTIA" was a very interesting film which falls more on the intellectual side.
"The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be."
I did not understand this idea presented in this film. Is it trying to say that the more we realize that we don’t really know anything, the more we should be motivated to learn more? Or is this trying to tell us that the more in touch we are with our ignorant side, the more we’d understand? These are the questions I’ve been pondering ever since I watched this film. Overall, this particular clip was more on the intellectual side than on the entertaining side, but I did learn a lot from both of these films.


Expert Lecture: francis fukuyama
Francis Fukuyama's belief that we live in a generally peaceful world is based on the assumption that most democratic nations will not fight other nations. He believes that these nations are aware that if a war was to take place, there will be nothing but destruction and chaos. Instead of risking lives to obtain more power, these same nations rather live side by side in tranquillity. Even though this might sound like a naive statement, Fukuyama does have some basis in his philosophy. For example, countries like the United States of America know better than to start war with other democratic countries in order to gain more international power, since it will not only bring destruction but will also end in a stalemate.

Fukuyama constantly talks about an "end of History," but later on, he states that in order to truly come to an end of history, there "ought to be and end of Science." However, there is no end to science, which implies that there is no end to History. On the other hand, Fukuyama also says that History basically progresses to "good." I disagree with this because I believe that in order to have good, there must be an equal amount of bad. For instance, what might be good for one person, can be bad for someone else. "Good" simply cannot exist without its counterpart, for we know what's good by comparing it to the "bad." Fukuyama makes optimistic predictions through his believes, but I find that his argument lacks substance.


11. Why do some of the philosophers interviewed in the Socratic Universe not believe in free will? Do you agree or disagree with them. Explain your reasoning.

They did not believe in free will because the phrase "free will" has such a vague definition, which in result can lead to anarchy. I also agree to this belief. Unless there is a more solid defintion of "free will" there can be no "free will." For example, I personally believe in predestination; that to some degree, our lives were determined the moment we were born. To what degree do we really have "free will"? How CAN we have free will if we believe in an "all-knowing" God? Even though I don't really know if "God" really exist, I do believe that there is a higher power, which helps control life. There is a reason for everything that happens, and there is a reason for every decision we make, and so I do not believe in an absolute "free will".

12. What is Paul Churchland’s view on artificial intelligence? Do you agree or disagree with him? Explain your reasoning.
Churchland believes that artificial intelligence had already “surpassed” human intelligence 20 years ago. But, he believes that it only surpassed us in the way that it can do computation faster than the human brain. Churchland believes that it’ll probably take scientists another century or so to figure out all there is to know about how a human brain works and that it will be possible for scientists to build an artificial brain. However, humans, in general, are much more complicated than that and he doubts anyone will try to build a robot because it only takes two individuals of the opposite sex to make a brand new baby.
I agree with Churchland, since there is no doubt in my mind that with the advancing sciences and technology, we will be able to create a fairly unnecessary and inaccurate artificial brain. It would be useful to use the artificial intelligence for certain things, but not simply just to create another “person.” It would be easier just for a couple to create a new life through natural means. In my opinion, humans are, up to a point, irrational creates, and so, it would be rather difficult to create an accurate human brain. We are complicated individuals with unique personalities, and I truly don’t believe that anyone would be able to create an artificial intelligence that would be an exact replica of our human intelligence.

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 believe that, in an ideal world, religion and science would be compatible. Whether it is true in the real world depends on the situation. To me, religion and science are two different concepts for the same basic topic of “life”, and can be best summarized by Professor Neumann: “It can or can’t mix; it depends. The problem is that religion is very mythical, most of it doesn’t change, which in turn is completely the opposite of science. In reality, science and religion are only man’s way of finding a reason for existence.” In my opinion, religion is a spiritual explanation of why we are alive (i.e. “because God willed it to be” etc), whereas, science is a more “scientific” explanation (i.e. “because of cells,” “because our heart beats,” etc).
I think it is very ridiculous when people argue which is better than the other – religion or science. Since as long as there are people living on this planet, religion and science will continue to exist and prevail on this planet. Both religion and science, to a degree, rely on faith. Like Professor Dumont said, science and religion “are human disciplines/activities, expressing human aspirations and subject to both human limitations/faults. Both are institutions and belief systems… There is a lot of bad religion around (arrogant and unloving), but the good religion that is there could do a great deal to support and limit (through true humility before nature and our limitations and through a proper sense of responsibility for life) the aspirations of science.” This thus concludes my argument. I believe that instead of constant controversy and disagreement, we should all help both religion and science work together to help answer the most important questions – “what is the meaning of life and why is everything the way they are?”

14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his position?
Socrates was put on trial during the beginning of downfall in Athens. They had just lost a very important war to Sparta, and in order to justify their loss, the courts decided to blame Socrates for angering the gods with his philosophy and for corrupting the youth.
Socrates responds to this accusation by making a speech, which later was recorded by Plato as “Apology”, in defense of his innocence. He first starts by stating that he is unsure if his accusers had already persuaded the men of Athens. Then he goes on to tell a story which began with Chaerephon going to the Oracle at Delphi to ask if there was anyone more intelligent than Socrates. Later, Socrates, himself, found out about that oracle and in effect set out on a mission to find someone smarter than himself. After many encounters with different people, Socrates came up with the idea that wisdom is in fact nothing more than the mere acknowledgement of one’s own ignorance. Thus, this “argument” leads to Socrates declaring that the fear of death will reveal ignorance. Because he is wise in the sense that he is aware of his ignorance, he does not fear death and furthermore, will not display the typical, emotional speech in order to save his own life. He will depend on the “truth” presented in his speech to sway the audience, however, this further angered the jury, which leads to the verdict of “guilty”.

15. Give a brief history of philosophy using just 200 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.
I. History of Western Philosophy
A. What is Philosophy?
a. "The most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality". - Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy
b. History of philosophy is the study of ideas and concepts
c. Western philosophy: 4 different eras - Ancient, Medieval, Modern & Contemporary
B. Ancient (585 B.C.-1400)
a. Began in 585 B.C.
b. Thales of Mietus: "All is water."
c. Most important figures in philosophy during this time and can be considered the most important in the history of philosophy– Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
i. Socrates inspired many disciples.
ii. Plato founded the Academy of Athens.
iii. Aristotle: first “truly systematic philosopher.”
C. Medieval (late 1400s-Renaissance)
a. Dealt mostly with the nature of “God”
b. Popular to apply Aristotle’s logic to real life.
c. Thomas Aquinas: “everything has a cause.”
D. Modern (1600-1800)
a. “Age of Reason” / “Enlightenment”
b. Important names: Erasmus, Galileo, Smith, Locke, Hobbes, Descartes
c. Emphasis on humanism
d. Rise of science / major scientific development
i. Charles Darwin
E. Contemporary (20th Century)
a. Deals with new social, economic, scientific and logical problems that rose from modern conflicts.
b. Important figures: Freud, Nietzsche, Mach.
***Special thanks to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, for providing background information. (:

16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy?
The Big Bang theory is based on the belief that the universe emerged about 13.7 billion years ago from a “very hot and dense” stage. Then through the course of time, space became bigger and emerged as separate galaxies. Simply put, this theory believes that the universe started out as nothing and was created by a “big bang” which created all the necessary elements for the creation of the galaxies. The inflationary universe was made to answer the questions that were raised due to the Big Bang theory. Basically, the inflationary universe underwent an era of “exponential expansion,” which was caused by a “negative energy density.”
Knowing astronomy is very important in philosophy because without a sufficient understanding and knowledge about the basic facts of astronomy, it would be rather difficult for one to understand such philosophical theories about the creation of universe. Astronomy itself is somewhat based on “philosophy” since its theories are almost impossible to prove.

17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from Einstein's? How are they similar?
Heisenberg’s and Einstein’s ideas differ in the fact that Einstein believes in a more fixed realism than Heisenberg; Heisenberg is more flexible. However, in the end, the value they both find has the same meaning.

18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your reasoning.
The memes are a framework for a theory of cultural evolution. A meme by Richard Dawkin’s definition is a “unit of cultural transmission.” This concept of memetics started when Dawkins simplified the biological genetic evolution process to the most fundamental level – the gene. Basically, he believed that information and ideas like culture can also act as replicators and in effect be passed on with evolution.
I don’t necessary believe in this theory but I have to admit that I agree with my interpretation of this theory. In my opinion both the environment and the genes are equally important factors that help shape a particular individual. I do not believe that these environmental factors are like “genes”. But I do agree that they do affect an individual, and are passed on from one person to another.

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.
Understanding biological revolution helps us understand why we are the way we are today. For example, Richard Dawkins once said, "As an enthousiastic Darwinian, I have been dissatisfied with explanations that my fellow-enthousiasts have offered for human behaviour. They have tried to look for `biological advantages' in various attributes of human civilization". In this cause, he is trying to compare the biological evolution with culture change in order to see either a relationship or a similarity. This in effect led him to his "meme concept," which is the belief that “unit of cultural transmission" can also be transmitted like a gene. Darwin, on the other hand, believed greatly in biological evolution. For instance, genetic drift, natural selection and migration are all factors in which can cause a mutation or a change in a particular species. He is an advocate in the fact that evolution occurs over time in order for for survival. And so, a sufficient understanding of biological evolution is essential in understanding human thought and behavior.

20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narratorargued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why? Do you agree or disagree and please detail your rejoinder.
I also believe that fundamentalism is a mental disease. According to Wikipedia, fundamentalism is "characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion... also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate..." That is simply ridiculous! Humans run religion, and translated the religious text. And there is no doubt that humans are NOT infallible creatures. Also, the fundamentalism is based on the “literal” meaning of religious text and that means that an individual would have to have an expert knowledge of ancient language. Unfortunately, I do not believe that can be possible since as the modern world progresses toward the future, we lose more and more knowledge about the ancient language. Also, there are one than just one religious document and thus, to have a decent understanding of religion, one must have a sufficient understanding of ALL religions and have an accurate translation of all religious writings. Simply put, I just don’t believe that all that could be possible.

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's ideas are more astrology based whereas Edward's ideas are more scientifically based, however, they do agree in an alliance between science and religion. I find myself agreeing more with Owen Gingerich. Even though I am no a religion individual, I cannot disagree that at one point or another, there was a "God." I do acknowledge the “Big Bang” and there is no doubt in my mind that it could have occurred. I believe in the concept of a heaven because I don’t believe that we would suffer and experience so much in this lifetime only to “cease to exist.” Also, I disagree with Wilson’s belief in “intuitive” free will; I believe in predestination and I believe that there is a certain amount of “fate” in life. Thus, I cannot accept, that everything we do in life is by our own “free” will.
Furthermore, Gingerich believes in a universal “God”; a god in which is the same in every religion, but is interpreted differently. On the other hand, Wilson believes in a more spiritual God. He does not believe in the “biological” god who lends a hand directly in the aspects regarding life. In this particular case, I have to say I agree with both Gingerich and Wilson.

22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history." Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
Francis Fukuyama believes that in the course of time, the world that we know will reach an “end of history.” This “end” will result in a classless society with nothing but good, since according to Fukuyama, the world has “generally” been progressing toward a positive “end.” But later on, he states that in order to truly come to an end of history, there "ought to be and end of Science." However, there is no visible end to science, which implies that there is no end to History.
I disagree with this because I believe that in order to have good, there must be an equal amount of bad. For instance, what might be good for one person, can be bad for someone else. "Good" simply cannot exist without its counterpart, for we know what's good by comparing it to the "bad." Fukuyama makes optimistic predictions through his believes, but I find that his argument lacks substance.

23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness. "
In my opinion this philosophy of “unknowingness” is very similar to the ideas of Socrates. Basically, Nicholas of Cusa states that “the more [a man] knows that he is unknowing the more learned he will be.” He even goes on to say that “wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from the eyes of the living.” In other words, no one knows anything. However, it is the acknowledgement of our own ignorance that makes us more wise and “learned.”

24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Think before you leap on this one.
"We have killed him - you and I. We are all his murderers... Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? - Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." –Nietzsche
Nietzsche did not mean “god is dead” literally. Instead, he is criticizing society for killing “God” in a moral sense. To the people, “God” represents morals and all that is good. By falling into the traps of corruption and “evil,” the people are directly destroying “God” and all that He stands for.

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.
Like most sciences, physics is an important study of philosophy. I truly believe that there are some philosophical theories that cannot be defined unless one has sufficient knowledge and understanding of physics. Also, physics, in some ways, is the belief that life, as we know it, can be explained in numerous, complicated mathematical equations. For example, some concepts of physics can neither be proven nor disproved, and thus, needs a certain amount of faith and philosophical beliefs. In conclusion, both physics and philosophy relies on each in order to fully understand itself.

EXTRA CREDIT: make your own 3 minute movie on meme theory and postit on google.com VIDEO. Be sure to provide me with a link.

DOUBLE EXTRA CREDIT: Take your favorite movie that you saw listed onthe syllabus and give your own interpretation of its meaning (200words minimum).