Philosophy

FINAL EXAMINATION: FALL 2006Intro to Philosophy - Prof. David C. Lane, Ph.D.

2006-10-18T22:31:00.002-07:00

1. Be sure to place your entire FINAL on your website and when you are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@ yahoo.com (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 otherauthors please be sure toquote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not betolerated and you will receivean "F" automatically for the examination.

3. The test is due NO LATER than October 19 at midnight.

3a. Each answer should be at least two paragraphs long, if not muchlonger.

3b. What grade do you deserve and why?
I believe that I deserve an A/B. Because even though I might not be the smartest student or whatever, I can honestly say that I am proud of myself for all my hard work in this class. I am currently a senior in high school right now and I am involved in numerous extracurricular activities like marching band (I’m both Council President and Section Leader of the Saxophones) and I am president of clubs such as Students Against Destructive Decisions (we promote a healthier lifestyle against drugs and peer pressure) and Bottles to the Bay (we dedicate ourselves to recycling and cleaning the beaches of Southern California). Along with all that, as a senior in high school I have to not only concentrate on school but also study for SAT’s and fill out numerous applications for college. BUT DON’T GET ME WRONG, I am definitely not using those as a excuse why I could not have done a better job. I am just so proud of myself that I was able to work through such stressful situations and still succeed. Even though I only get a few hours of sleep each night and at times I feel like I have the weight of the world on my shoulders, I never once gave up and I stuck it out until the very end.

I know that to most other people I sound like an overly confident individual making excuses for herself. But if you really knew what kind of person I am, you’d understand that that is the last thing I am doing right now. I am honest – I am aware of both my abilities and my limitations. I do admit that I did not always do things on time and there were times where I did mediocre work because I did not have energy or time to give it my all. But at the end of the day, I still managed to get things done and I am so proud of myself. I think this class taught me more than I expected. I feel that, through the past 8 weeks, I have been able to grow mentally and spiritually. I truly believe that I matured through this class and I know that I will always carry the things I’ve learned in this class with me, no matter where I end up in this world. I even learned how to sacrifice my social life in order to finish my assignments (keep in mind this is something unimaginable to teenagers). The only thing I regret is not being able to bond with my professor more. But despite that, I am truly thankful for everything. Hope you have a great year and don’t ever forget to have fun because life is truly too short.

------------ --------- --------- ----

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 thisclass (you can copy and paste them. ALL SIX WEEKS OF POSTINGS.

Week 1 & 2

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." –NietzscheThe 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.

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.

Week 3 & 4

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.

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.

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.

Week 5

Philosophy Film: true lies
“We cannot exist without purpose, even if that purpose is fiction…”
“It lies to us in order for us to live on everyday.”

I agree with everything that has been brought up in this particular video. Humans were not created in order to question the meaning of existence and life. Instead, I believe that we were created with the simple goal of “survive.” However, as life progresses rapidly into the future, we start to want more and more. The more we want, the more we cannot have; the more we cannot have, the more we’d question “why”. Thus our “true” purpose was never to find the meaning of life, but as we become more and more complicated, we cannot simply be satisfied with the purpose of “survival”.

I believe that humans, in general, flourish better under the false assumption that there is more to life, than just… life. For example, I don’t think anyone would ever find the meaning to life, and yet everyone searches desperately for that answer. We search with the determined mindset of finding the answer, and carry the acknowledgement that we would never truly find the answer. Under such false pretense, the human race has been able to live contently for the last billions of years.

Evolution
Macroevolution is “evolution on a grand scale”; it’s a look into patterns of evolution throughout the course of history. I’ve always thought that evolution was very interesting. And I find it very mind baffling that it takes 3.8 billion years to actually see macroevolution. That makes me wonder what life would be like 3.8 billion years from now. Even though I never think about it, life, despite all the negative aspects, is truly an amazing process. However, 3.8 billion years does make one individual’s lifetime seem insignificant in comparison. Genes, DNA, evolution, it all seems so familiar to us yet it is, at the same time, very foreign and strange. How can one simple gene make such a difference in how we look and act? I thank “genetic shuffling” for helping us differentiate between each individual and to give each one of us our own individuality.

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 do not agree that ideas can be transmitted in that sense. I believe when it comes to these types of things, it is the environment of which the individual grows up in that shapes that particular individual.

Expert Lecture: edward o. wilson
Edward Wilson brings up the idea of a biological god. I have to say that I also do not believe in a God who is directly involved with life. Because I am not a religious individual, I’ve always thought that there was a higher power that created this world and allowed life to take place. However, I don’t think it’s possible, or rather I cannot even begin to imagine, a power so great that it can lend a hand in the lives of every living thing. If there were a God, I would think that he or she would be involved in the creation process and not necessarily in all aspect of life.

Edward Wilson also talks about the concept of “free will”. Even though I do believe in free will, I have to say that I do believe in destiny and fate. Maybe it’s because I’m a girl and I’m a hopeless romantic, but I truly think that there are some aspects of life that is out of hands. Yes, there are some simple choices we can make, such as choosing what to eat. But in the long run, life is already predetermined, for example, the destiny of every living thing is the same – we live to die.

Week 6

Philosophy Film: a glorious piece of meat
“What we take to be the soul is nothing more than a complex network of neurons” – Francis Crick

This is a very unique concept. Normally, I hear people say that humans are different because we have a soul. This film is based on the philosophy that we are nothing more than just a piece of “meat” with a skull filled with neurons. All my life, I’ve been told that the reason why humans are so different and unique is because we have something more – a soul. It is this essential part of humans which makes us, well, us. After we die, it is this same soul which, in some beliefs, floats off into this bigger and better afterlife. I had never even thought about the fact if this “soul” really does exist or not. What if everything was just wishful thinking – that there is nothing more to us than what can be seen on the outside? What if we are nothing more than just another species of mammals on this earth? What if we made up this notion of a “soul” in order to give our lives a meaning, a hope in order to live another day?

Who is “I”? Where do the body stop and the person begin? These are the questions that I have been constantly pondering ever since watching this supposedly short film. These questions are like watching a magnificent sunset and asking oneself, ‘where does the earth end and the sky begin?’ The answer seems so complicatedly simple. There is no wrong answer even though the “right” answer seems so close, and yet so far. I’d like to hope that there is more to me than just skin, bones, fat and muscle. I’d like to believe that there is more to our existence than to just to “live.” Perhaps, this is all wishful thinking; perhaps, it’s all overanalyzing. So, instead of wasting time and pondering, I’m going to take action and do something instead of sitting here pointlessly wandering in my thoughts.

The Astonishing Hypothesis
Simply put, Francis Crick believes fully in our brains. He believes that we feel pain, we feel everything because we have such a wonderfully complex central neural system. Basically, there is no need for a soul because all the chemical reactions and processes that goes on inside our body helps us feel and behavior the way we do. Our emotions, goals, hopes, personality and so on are simply just "vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules". He even believes that he knows exactly where our free will is located on our brains - "Free Will [it appears] is located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus".

His view is based solely on science. Francis Crick doesn't believe in the notion that there's more to humans than meets the eye. He sees us as a result of numerous neurons and chemical reactions. I don't necessarily believe in his ideas. I do agree that most of our actions and personality might be because of the way our body is built, however, I also believe that humans are different because there is something more, something bigger. I hope that we have a soul, because the whole idea of having a soul means that we are indeed human.

Vegan Book
I believe that most people start out as vegetarians because of health reasons. However, I think that it becomes a bigger and more significant cause if one were to do it for the moral reasons behind this type of belief. I hold great admiration for most vegetarians because they have the courage to change their lives in order to live the way they think is right. Change is a very scary thing and I’m sure that we all, at one point or another, thought about the morality of killing innocent animals in order to feed our selfish hunger. However, most people do not take any action to change because it is hard to imagine life without eating the things we love to eat. For example, I’ve tried to become a vegetarian may times throughout the course of my life, only to fail each and every time to temptation. Honestly, I lack the self-discipline and courage to create such radical change in my life, especially as an Asian American, when most of my diet comes from parts of animals (we literally eat everything from cow tongue to chicken liver). Hence, I hold the most admiration for those who remain vegetarians for years.

"Don't eat things which cannot be eaten raw; and don'teat things which run away from you… The indisputable fact is that mostof the meat we eat is disguised. It is no longer an animal whoenjoyed life just like you and me (albeit nameless), but a covered-up, dressed-up, transfigured dead substance we call tasty." We don't eat dead animals; we eat "steak," "ham," "tacos." The cow didn't have a name when she as alive, but she surely gets one when she is slaughtered: "Gee, that was an excellent filet mignon." This brings up another cardinal principle about eating: Don't eat things hat once had a mother.”

I agree with this particular part. We believe that by giving meat another name, we can be ignorant to what it really is. For example, it is against our morals to eat another living animal, yet it is right to eat “ham”. I am not against eating meat but it annoys me to hear individuals preach in favor of animal rights and still be able to stomach that Big Mac. If they can’t change their lives, then they have no right to try to change other people. It’s like that Shakespeare saying, “A rose by another other name will smell just as sweet.” A piece of cow by another name will still be cow. Also, it is very ironic that we would rather name dead meat than the poor cow, which we ruthlessly butchered. Maybe it is because by giving that cow a name, we would be less eager to killing it.

Week 7

Philosophy Films: flame on!: morality reconsidered
“Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love – all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.” –Plato

I don’t understand all this “drama” over homosexuality. I think we should just let them be. Who cares if they are homosexual or not? To me that’s as big of a deal as someone wanting to dye his or her hair. Homosexuality is simply a choice, a lifestyle. If we don’t agree, then we don’t agree because there isn’t anything anyone can say or do that would change that particular individual. The only thing we can do is inflict pain, intentionally or not. I am neither saying that homosexuality is right nor criticizing that it is morally wrong; I just so happen to be a firm believer in individuality and I don’t believe that change can be forced.

I agree with this film when it talks about the fact that different time periods perceive different things with different opinions. One example that immediately comes to my head is the concept of “beauty.” Even though each individual hold their own uniquely defined understanding of “beauty”, the general concept of “beauty” accepted by society changes periodically from era to era. For example, back in the day, the epitome of beautiful woman can be simply defined as Marilyn Monroe - she has fair hair, fair skin, fair eyes with a voluptuous body. Whereas today, beautiful is more vaguely defined as someone long legged and skinny. In this modern society we embrace uniqueness as attractive, not as different and ugly. Thus, beautiful today would not be generally be accepted as beautiful in the past. In that sense, we cannot assume that everything is ever for certain; we can wake up tomorrow and learn that the things we lived our lives believing suddenly became false.

Gandhi
Ahimsa: "Non-violence ; in its positive aspect-love for all living things"

Gandhi believes deeply in faith and love. He believes that nonviolence is the supreme law of mankind. In order to remain nonviolent in the most difficult situation requires a great deal of self-respect and honor. Nonviolence is a power that can be obtained by anyone who is willing to sacrifice their everything except honor. As human beings we must have love and faith for not only God but also for all of mankind. This is essential to be a human being.

I really like Gandhi's philosophy because it is rational and logical. He is a firm believer that "nonviolence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force". And he uses examples like how his wife was the one who taught him the concept of nonviolence. For example, when Gandhi acts like a stupid man and tries to control his wife, she resists with silent nonviolence. Her determination in that aspect allowed him to mature and realize that he is not always right. If you think about it, if she had resisted violently, he would have became this angry man with this "I'm always right" attitude. However, she did do such a thing and in result, Gandhi was able to see his mistakes and mature as a person. Thus, nonviolence can also promote growth and maturity. Thus, it is only obvious that nonviolence is superior to violence.

Expert Lecture: sam harris
“Faith is a conversation stopper”

I really enjoyed Sam Harris’s speech because I was actually able to stay awake and think about the ideas presented. I agree with his argument that if one were have substantiate reasoning, then one would be able to convince everyone or anyone into believing the ideas. However, faith and religion both lack this ability to convince the general public and that is why I believe there is no such thing as an “universe” religion in which everyone on this earth will undoubtedly believe in. I also agree that instead of being a kind of glue to unite all the people around the world, religion does the complete opposite by separating everyone. I think it is ridiculously hypocritical to say one thing and do the exact opposite. Why talk about saving others when it is the same “religions” which started killing others for not believing in the “right” things? Instead of making peace and turning this world into a better one, religion, in certain aspects, is turning this world into one of complete chaos.

One example presented in Harris’s speech is one of priests going to Africa preaching against the use of condoms when that country is plagued by sexually transmitted diseases. I don’t know what kind of logic that is, but while they’re at it, might as well bring alcohol to a session of Alcoholics Anonymous or giving razors and knives to an Emo kid. Seriously, this makes me so angry. Why talk about “saving” people and at the same time promote something that will inevitably bring about their destruction? I think it is ridiculous to believe that condoms are against “God’s big plan.” I don’t understand what is so wrong about protecting oneself. I don’t know how those people can sleep at night and still believe that they are going to go to Heaven when they die. Ridiculous.

Week 8

Philosophy Films:inner visions & running trains
The main theme of this movie is the concept of "visions." Supposedly, during a particular war there were a couple guys who were in caught in life threatening situations. THese same men suddenly had the same vision of the same man telling them what to do. Without thinking they did exactly what they were told and in result their lives were saved. However, the man they had a vision about wasn't even thinking about anyone else during that battle. He said that at that moment of time, he was only concerned about himself and how to stay alive.

I personally wish that visions are real. I guess through media and through through numerous supernatural stories, i have become used to this particular concept. I'm a hopeless romantic and I'd like to think that there's parts of life that's already been planned - kind of like destiny. In that case, visions will be a blessing, a gift to see what's about to happen. For example, in this particular film, these visions saved the lives of many men, who all happened to have the same vision. Weird? Yes. Unlikey? Yes. Impossible? I doubt it.

Expert Lecture: daniel dennett
I definitely agree with Daniel Dennett in the sense that I also believe that “no two people mean the same thing by ‘God’”. I really liked his example of a “teapot agonistic” attitude toward the concept of god. I like this because, like I’ve said in previous posts, if you cannot prove a positive, then you also cannot prove a negative. No one can prove the existence of God to me and I cannot prove that God does not exist to anyone. Which brings me again to the question, “what is god?” Is it nature? Is it a “greater being”? I guess the only thing we can do in order to get closer to the answer is to wait patiently for the truth to reveal itself.

Honestly, I did not enjoy watching two old men argue in circles. They spend so long trying to prove that they are right and the other is wrong but in the end, all they accomplish is to agree to disagree. The funny part is that they know that they will not accomplish anything with their pointless argument and yet, they cannot resist the temptation. What really annoys me about Dennett is that he keeps on saying, “I don’t know. I don’t know”. He is supposed to be an expert and even if he is an expert on “not knowing,” he should at least sound more confident and not like he’s in doubt.

A Free Man's Worship
This was a really interesting reading filled with a lot of deep insight. Basically, this text was about Life, God and Man. Bertrand Russell talks about the creation of all things. For example, the world was created by a hot nebula which after "countless ages" finally took shape of planets. Then Man was born with the "power of thought, the knowledge of good and evil, and the cruel thirst for worship." As a result, Man created a God to worship. Russell does not really believe in "God" because he thinks that Man created a God due to the love of "good." God is simply "all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what is and what should be." Because Man is not perfect and because Man will sin, they crave what they lack - the quality of being all-powerful and all-good.

Unlike God, to which Man has a certain degree of control over (for example, man can control the basic idea of "God"), Life is beyond the control of man. From the day of birth, Man was doomed to one day perish and ever since then, Man been a slave to Time, Fate and Death. No matter what Man does, He simply cannot control these aspects of Life. There was one quote that really affected me - "This is the reason why the Past has such magical powers. The beauty of its motionless and silent pictures is like the enchanted purtiy of late autumn... The Past does not change or strive ... what was eager and grasping, what was petty and transitory, has faded away, the things that were beautiful and eternal shine out of it like stars in the night. Its beauty, to a soul not worthy of it, is unendurable; but to a soul which has conquered Fate, it is the key of religion." I think this part really captures the essense of the concept of the "Past". No matter how we try to go back or to forget, our Past is part of who we are and why we are this way. Past cannot be controlled nor changed. It is beautiful and special because we cannot ever have that moment back.

Extra Credit: tom blake
“When I was a young man I fell from social grace, or rather was pushed into deep water; thereafter I became a rebel to the society that had so taken advantage of a well-meaning youth. I soon found that even deep water supports a rebel, if he has the will and abilities to swim, regardless of race, color or creed. At times I found the water good, better than the land I was cut off from; the blessings of nature, superior and more honest and more productive to happiness than the striving to conform. Was thus I came to know my God.” –T.E.B. 7/16/68

This was my favorite part of the video. Through these words, it was easy to see Tom Blake’s passion for the waters. He led a very lonely life, yet instead of cracking under such emptiness like most people, he rose against this challenge and in result, became a much stronger individual. You can tell that the waters brought a certain amount of peace to him and in effect it is one of the causes of all his accomplishments in his lifetime.

“The word God is a man made term for Mother Nature and Father Time.”

I really like this quote because it is also something I truly believe in. The two most magical things in life are nature and time, because not only are they beyond our human control, but also they are the two most miraculous things on this planet. If “God” by definition is the “creator” then there is nothing more God-like than Mother Nature and Father Time. That is not to say that there is a higher power that, in fact, created Nature and Time. However, I truly believe that nature and time are the closest things to God that our human eyes can witness the wonders of. I’m a person who believes more in ideas that can be either proven or seen, and without a doubt, you can see the magic of nature and time.

11. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revisedmidterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm.
B. http://jingzhang427.blogspot.com/2006/09/midterm.html

12. Why does Steven Pinker believe that evolution is important inunderstanding human behavior? Be specific in your answer.
He believes that in order to fully understand the people we are today, we have to understand how we got to that point. He believes that we take a lot of things for granted. For example, we take for granted our vision, if it weren't for evolution, we'd walk into trees. This is important because humans change in order to be better adapted in this world. Just like history is important to understand current events, our evolution through the course of time is essential in order to better understand who we are today.

Pinker talks about family, how even though we share 50% of our genes with our family, we do not necessarily have the same expectations or behave the same way toward ourselves, with whom we share 100% of our genes and behaviors with. For example, because we know ourselves, we know our limitations and ablities the best. Thus we would definitely have the different expectations for ourselves than our closest family members would. Pinker, in a way, calls family members hypocrites because we are all selfish beings. There is no way we can ever be completely selfless, even when it comes to family.

13. Explain why Francis Crick does NOT believe in a soul.
Simply put, Francis Crick believes fully in our brains. He believes that we feel pain, we feel everything because we have such a wonderfully complex central neural system. Basically, there is no need for a soul because all the chemical reactions and processes that goes on inside our body helps us feel and behavior the way we do. Our emotions, goals, hopes, personality and so on are simply just "vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules". He even believes that he knows exactly where our free will is located on our brains - "Free Will [it appears] is located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus".

His view is based solely on science. Francis Crick doesn't believe in the notion that there's more to humans than meets the eye. He sees us as a result of numerous neurons and chemical reactions. I don't necessarily believe in his ideas. I do agree that most of our actions and personality might be because of the way our body is built, however, I also believe that humans are different because there is something more, something bigger. I hope that we have a soul, because the whole idea of having a soul means that we are indeed human.

14. What are some of the major issues behind a neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism? What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses?
Vegetarianism is morally right. We should not have the right to selfishly take the lives of other living animals. An example from the Vegan Book was that if aliens invaded our planet and decided that the human race isn't as intelligent as their race, does that mean they have the right to slaughter and consume the humans? We cannot assume that just because we seem to be more intelligent than most animals, we have the right to abuse our power and inflict pain on to others. We do not have the right to judge other animals and label them. For instance, we believe that it is morally wrong to eat dogs, cats, monkeys, and dolphins just because they are intelligent. In my opinion, intelligence does not determine the ablity to feel pain.

The arguments against this topic is belief in a soul. People argue that since God gave us a soul, we are obviously better than the other animals on this planet. However, I think this argument is the weakest because of obvious reasons. For one thing, the existence of souls cannot be determined. The idea of a soul is simply, an idea. It cannot be seen, hear, felt...etc. It exists because we believe it to exist, and not because we can prove that it exists. So, we can neither say that we have souls nor say that other animals don't have souls.

15. How do John Searle's views differ from Ken Wilber's? Who do you find more persuasive and why?
"By `consciousness' I simply mean those subjective states of sentience or awareness that begin when one awakes in the morning from a dreamless sleep and continue throughout the day until one goes to sleep at night or falls into a coma, or dies, or otherwise becomes, as one would say, `unconscious'." - John Searle

"There has recently been something of an explosion of interest in the development of a `science of consciousness', and yet there are at present approximately a dozen major but conflicting schools of consciousness theory and research. My own approach to consciousness studies is based on the assumption that each of these schools has something irreplaceably important to offer, and thus what is required is a general model sophisticated enough to incorporate the essentials of each of them." - Ken Wilber

John Searle's ideas are very typical, whereas, Ken Wilber's ideas are based on numerous other ideas such as mysticism and empirical science. I think Wilber's ideas are more persuasive because he uses many different types of beliefs and integrates them into one general idea. He also separates his beliefs into many precise sections in order to prove that he is right. Also, his ideas were a lot more interesting than Searle's. To me, Searle's ideas were very basic and Wilber's ideas were very intricate and sophisticated. Also, it helped that Wilber's argument had a diagram which made it seem like he knew exactly what he was talking about. I'm a visual learner, and so, I was, in a way, swayed by the diagram to believe in Wilber's over Searle.

16. What is the theme behind the little movie, a GLORIOUS PIECE OFMEAT? How would a religious person argue against it?
This film is based on the philosophy that we are nothing more than just a piece of “meat” with a skull filled with neurons. All my life, I’ve been told that the reason why humans are so different and unique is because we have something more – a soul. It is this essential part of humans which makes us, well, us. After we die, it is this same soul which, in some beliefs, floats off into this bigger and better afterlife. I had never even thought about the fact if this “soul” really does exist or not. What if everything was just wishful thinking – that there is nothing more to us than what can be seen on the outside? What if we are nothing more than just another species of mammals on this earth? What if we made up this notion of a “soul” in order to give our lives a meaning, a hope in order to live another day? Where does the body stop and the person begin? These are the questions that I have been constantly pondering ever since watching this supposedly short film. The answer seems so complicatedly simple. There is no wrong answer even though the “right” answer seems so close, and yet so far.

Obviously, a religious person will argue that we are more than just a piece of "meat" because we have a soul. For example, we have morals, we have rationality, we are opinionated individuals. These unique aspects are what makes up our goodness, our soul, thus, we are more than just a bundle of nerves that makes decision for us on all aspects of life. A religious individual would argue that we have a purpose in life - that God has a bigger plan for every single one of us. There is more to life than just "living." Thus, we simply cannot be just living organisms without a reason of existence.

17. Why is Sam Harris so critical of religion? Give his strongestarguments and where do you think his argument fails? Or, if itdoesn't fail, where does it succeed? I agree with his argument that if one were have substantiate reasoning, then one would be able to convince everyone or anyone into believing the ideas. However, faith and religion both lack this ability to convince the general public and that is why I believe there is no such thing as an “universe” religion in which everyone on this earth will undoubtedly believe in. I also agree that instead of being a kind of glue to unite all the people around the world, religion does the complete opposite by separating everyone. I think it is ridiculously hypocritical to say one thing and do the exact opposite. Why talk about saving others when it is the same “religions” which started killing others for not believing in the “right” things? Instead of making peace and turning this world into a better one, religion, in certain aspects, is turning this world into one of complete chaos.

I think Sam Harris did a superb job in supporting his arguements. Every word that he used in his speech was simple and logical. He wasn't like one of those other philosophers who uses big words and talks in circles in order to sound more philosophical. His most powerful arguements are the ones that hit closest to our hearts. For instance, one example presented in Harris’s speech is one of priests going to Africa preaching against the use of condoms when that country is plagued by sexually transmitted diseases. I was sincerely impacted by this example. Just thinking about it makes me angry. Why talk about “saving” people and at the same time promote something that will inevitably bring about their destruction? I think it is ridiculous to believe that condoms are against “God’s big plan.” I don’t understand what is so wrong about protecting oneself. I don’t know how those people can sleep at night and still believe that they are going to go to Heaven when they die.

18. Explain the essence of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals. You can outline your answer here.
I. Nietzsche's Ideas : On the Genealogy of Morals

A. First Essay - Good & Evil, Good & Bad
1. Common instinct to "belittle humanity"
2. "Good" established in the wrong place
3. Arrogrance gives worthlessness value.
4. "we can ascribe to the repressive influence which democratic prejudice in the modern world exercises over all questions of origin."
5. Everything becomes dangerous: from remedies, arts, to pride, vengeance, excess, love, virtue, illness etc.
6. Through these aspects listed in #5 and more, "human soul first attained depth in a higher sense and became evil"
7. Higher sense and evil = fundamentals of human's superority.
8. Priests are the most evil because they are most powerless
9. Powerless = hate = "most poisonous manifestations"
10. Bad and evil are accepted as the opposite of "good" but they are very different.

B.Second Essay - Guilty Conscience & Related Matters
1. "We can conjecture that the idea of "conscience," ... is a ripe fruit... but it is also a late fruit."
2. People always find purpose for punishment, purpose for law.
3. "Bad Conscience" is the most creepy.
4. Conscience is "inner pain"
5. Conscience is more based on"something has unexpectedly gone awry here," and not always "I should not have done that."
6. Bad conscience is a sickness

C. Third Essay - What is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals?
1. Catchphrases of ascetic idea are poverty, humility, and chastity.
2. Philosophiers never "treat the ascetic ideal without some bias"
3. Everything that is good was also once bad. "original sin becomes an original virtue."
4. Ascetic life is one of great contradiction.
5. "Triumph in the ultimate agony"
6. Ascetic priests have to use ideas like "sin", "damation" and "guilt" to make people harmless.

19. Why does Gandhi believe in ahimsa?
Ahimsa: "Non-violence ; in its positive aspect-love for all living things"

Gandhi believes deeply in faith and love. He believes that nonviolence is the supreme law of mankind. In order to remain nonviolent in the most difficult situation requires a great deal of self-respect and honor. Nonviolence is a power that can be obtained by anyone who is willing to sacrifice their everything except honor. As human beings we must have love and faith for not only God but also for all of mankind. This is essential to be a human being.

I really like Gandhi's philosophy because it is rational and logical. He is a firm believer that "nonviolence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force". And he uses examples like how his wife was the one who taught him the concept of nonviolence. For example, when Gandhi acts like a stupid man and tries to control his wife, she resists with silent nonviolence. Her determination in that aspect allowed him to mature and realize that he is not always right. If you think about it, if she had resisted violently, he would have became this angry man with this "I'm always right" attitude. However, she did do such a thing and in result, Gandhi was able to see his mistakes and mature as a person. Thus, nonviolence can also promote growth and maturity. Thus, it is only obvious that nonviolence is superior to violence.

20. What is Nietzche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence? Besure to use the film as your guide.
Basically, the myth of eternal recurrence is exactly what its name implies. For example, when our lives end, instead of going to some sort of aftermath, we'd be forced to live our lives over and over again, exactly the way it occured the first time. I think there is no bigger curse than that, to have to make the same mistakes over and over, to have to live through all the painful moments, to have to live through all the happy ones. I'm not sure I'd want this myth to be true because each moment is special and unique BECAUSE we can only live through it once.

Nietzche's notion simply asks the questions of do you really want to relive everything and how strong is your desire to relive every moment again? I think that Nietzche doesn't believe that anyone would want to live this life over and over again. Because for one thing, you'd have to be pretty satisfied with this life in order to have no greater desire than to live through eternal recurrence. "Do you really want this?" He doubts whether anyone will be completely willing to go through this lifetime again and again and again.

21. What is the ironic theme in the movie Flame On? Hint: what isthe movie REALLY trying to say?
I don’t understand all this “drama” over homosexuality. I think we should just let them be. Who cares if they are homosexual or not? To me that’s as big of a deal as someone wanting to dye his or her hair. Homosexuality is simply a choice, a lifestyle. If we don’t agree, then we don’t agree because there isn’t anything anyone can say or do that would change that particular individual. The only thing we can do is inflict pain, intentionally or not. I am neither saying that homosexuality is right nor criticizing that it is morally wrong; I just so happen to be a firm believer in individuality and I don’t believe that change can be forced.

I agree with this film when it talks about the fact that different time periods perceive different things with different opinions. One example that immediately comes to my head is the concept of “beauty.” Even though each individual hold their own uniquely defined understanding of “beauty”, the general concept of “beauty” accepted by society changes periodically from era to era. For example, back in the day, the epitome of beautiful woman can be simply defined as Marilyn Monroe - she has fair hair, fair skin, fair eyes with a voluptuous body. Whereas today, beautiful is more vaguely defined as someone long legged and skinny. In this modern society we embrace uniqueness as attractive, not as different and ugly. Thus, beautiful today would not be generally be accepted as beautiful in the past. In that sense, we cannot assume that everything is ever for certain; we can wake up tomorrow and learn that the things we lived our lives believing suddenly became false.

22. Why does Daniel Dennett favor calling himself a "bright"?
Basically, "brights" are people who don't believe in the supernatural like the concept of "God." They don't label themselves as agnostics or atheists because those are negative words; obviously the word "bright" sounds a lot more positive. Dennett states that he cannot prove that God doesn't exist, however, at the same time he rejects the idea that there is a higher purpose. He makes a really good point in the fact that he understands that no one means the same thing when they use the word "God." For example, "God" to one person can be completely different from the definition of "God" to someone else.

In my opinion, Daniel Dennett doesn't really have an opinion on anything. Everytime he is asked a question he'd eventually answer with "I don't know", "who knows", and/or an uncertain "sure". It seems to me, that his beliefs are based on uncertainity, up to a point. One good thing about his belief is the openness of it. For example, when Dennett brought up the concept of "nature is God", he answers with the fact that he doesn't necessarily agree or disagree; "Who knows?" Truthfully, I did not understand his ideas, it was confusing and it contradicted. To me, this video was like watching one man drone on and on and another man nodding his head and replying with uncertainity. Maybe uncertainity is the key to being a bright. Although, I have to admit that Dennett somewhat redeems himself as the video goes on. I do agree with his argument that people don't really believe in God, instead, they believe in their belief in God.

23. Outline Bertrand Russell's a FREE MAN'S WORSHIP.
I. A Free Man’s Worship

A. The Beginning
1. The world was created & man was born
2. Man: "power of the light, knowledge of good and evil, & cruel thirst for worship."

B. God
1. Man’s creation
2. All powerful
3. "Shall our God exist and be evil, or shall he be recognized as the creation of our own conscience?"
4. God was created by Man’s love of "good"
5. "Mystic unity of what is and what should be."

C. Man
1. Man’s life is brief
2. Man is powerless
3. Blind to good and evil
4. Free to examine, criticize, know, create.
5. Man realized that power is largely bad.
6. Doomed from the day of birth to one day die.
7. Slave of Time, Death and Fate.
8. Puppets of Change.

D. Life
1. Necessity of renunciation is evidence of evil
2. Evil is a basic human instinct
3. Man is prone to sin
4. Past has a lot of power
5. Past cannot change
6. Time, Fate and Death controls everything
7. Power is the very gate of wisdom.
8. Death allows an "inexhaustible mystery of existence."
9. Victory is "the true baptism existence."

24. What is the overall theme of the movie INNER VISIONS AND RUNNING TRAINS?
The main theme of this movie is the concept of "visions." Supposedly, during a particular war there were a couple guys who were in caught in life threatening situations. THese same men suddenly had the same vision of the same man telling them what to do. Without thinking they did exactly what they were told and in result their lives were saved. However, the man they had a vision about wasn't even thinking about anyone else during that battle. He said that at that moment of time, he was only concerned about himself and how to stay alive.

I personally wish that visions are real. I guess through media and through through numerous supernatural stories, i have become used to this particular concept. I'm a hopeless romantic and I'd like to think that there's parts of life that's already been planned - kind of like destiny. In that case, visions will be a blessing, a gift to see what's about to happen. For example, in this particular film, these visions saved the lives of many men, who all happened to have the same vision. Weird? Yes. Unlikey? Yes. Impossible? I doubt it.

25. What does Nicholas of Cusa mean by "learned ignorance"? What areits implications for your own life?
"If we can fully attain unto this (knowledge) we will attain unto learned ignorance for a man- even one very well versed in learning - will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found to be most learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his. The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be." - Nicholas of Cusa

I think that Nicholas of Cusa believes in the same concepts as Socrates. For example, Socrates came up with the idea that wisdom is in fact nothing more than the mere acknowledgement of one’s own ignorance. In other words, the more we understand our own ignorance, the wiser we'd become.

By definition, ignorance is "a lack of knowledge", and in the course of my life, I have seen many examples of ignorance. For instance, I am a proud member of my high school marching band. This organization runs with the help of many student leaders, however, there are times when these same leaders make mistakes. Their actions are, of course, unintentional but it is very difficult for band to improve if these leaders are ignorant and at the same time unaware of their ignorance. Because they believe themselves to be right when they are wrong, they cause other people to make the same mistakes they make. Thus, when I became a leader in band, I made sure that I never forgot the fact that I am not perfect and I don't know anything. At times, it is quite embarrassing to tell someone "I don't know the answer" but I would always swallow my pride to tell the truth rather than try to look "knowledgeable" by saying something I don't necessarily believe in. Thus, by accepting my ignorance, I think I became both a better leader and a better student. By acknowledging that I don't know everything, I allow myself a lot of room to learn not only from my mistakes, but also from others around me.

26. What was your favorite expert film lecture this term?
My favorite expert film lecture was by Sam Harris. Honestly, after 8 weeks of listening to old, saggy men drone on and on about the same ideas they’ve been talking about for the past century of so gets annoying after awhile. Especially when they sit in a dreary library and look like they are about to drop dead at any given moment. Sam Harris, to me, was literally like a breath of fresh air to a drowning person. He was definitely a great speaker with much to say. He made good use of the stage by constantly walking around so that, in the very least, the viewer had to actually pay attention. Honestly, the WORST part of this online class is having to watch those expert films every single week. I dread each coming Sunday because I know I’d have to watch them. And honestly, it is painful to try to stay awake and not zone out every other minute. On average, I have to watch every expert film like three times before I can finally piece together all the parts I actually watched to understanding the big picture presented by these experts.

I really enjoyed Sam Harris’s speech because I was actually able to stay awake and think about the ideas presented. I agree with his argument that if one were have substantiate reasoning, then one would be able to convince everyone or anyone into believing the ideas. However, faith and religion both lack this ability to convince the general public and that is why I believe there is no such thing as an “universe” religion in which everyone on this earth will undoubtedly believe in. I also agree that instead of being a kind of glue to unite all the people around the world, religion does the complete opposite by separating everyone. I think it is ridiculously hypocritical to say one thing and do the exact opposite. Why talk about saving others when it is the same “religions” which started killing others for not believing in the “right” things? Instead of making peace and turning this world into a better one, religion, in certain aspects, is turning this world into one of complete chaos.

27. What was your favorite movie this term?
My favorite film was "God, too, Decompose." I deeply and greatly admire Nietzsche. His powerful language never fails to capture my attention.

"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.

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.

28. What was your favorite reading?
My favorite reading was definitely the “Vegan Book.” After awhile you just get sick of reading the same dreary material each week. I like readings where, even though you might not agree with the ideas, you can definitely have a clear view of that particular author. In other words, I don’t simply like to read about ideas, I like readings where I see the ideas and I can see what kind of person the author is. I believe that the ideas are only half of the picture. I want to understand the “man” behind each and every word. I want to understand how this person became this way and how they came to believing so passionately in these ideas. Thus, I really enjoyed the “Vegan Book” because I was able to see the author’s quirkiness and raw personality. I, honestly, had fun reading this.

Also, it doesn’t hurt that I believe in most of the ideas presented in this reading. For example, I believe that most people start out as vegetarians because of health reasons. However, I think that it becomes a bigger and more significant cause if one were to do it for the moral reasons behind this type of belief. I hold great admiration for most vegetarians because they have the courage to change their lives in order to live the way they think is right. Change is a very scary thing and I’m sure that we all, at one point or another, thought about the morality of killing innocent animals in order to feed our selfish hunger. However, most people do not take any action to change because it is hard to imagine life without eating the things we love to eat. For example, I’ve tried to become a vegetarian may times throughout the course of my life, only to fail each and every time to temptation. Honestly, I lack the self-discipline and courage to create such radical change in my life, especially as an Asian American, when most of my diet comes from parts of animals (we literally eat everything from cow tongue to chicken liver). Hence, I hold the most admiration for those who remain vegetarians for years.

29. Most unusual thing you learned this term?
The most usual thing I learned this term is that there are more concepts of "God" than I expected. I always thought that there was only one view of God - the religious one. I did not imagine that even people who did not believe in god had their own views about god. For me, that's kind of ironic because how can they ideas about something they don't even believe in?

Edward Wilson brings up the idea of a biological god. I have to say that I also do not believe in a God who is directly involved with life. Because I am not a religious individual, I’ve always thought that there was a higher power that created this world and allowed life to take place. However, I don’t think it’s possible, or rather I cannot even begin to imagine, a power so great that it can lend a hand in the lives of every living thing. If there were a God, I would think that he or she would be involved in the creation process and not necessarily in all aspect of life.

"The word God is a man made term for Mother Nature and Father Time." - Tom Blake.

I really like this quote because it is also something I truly believe in. The two most magical things in life are nature and time, because not only are they beyond our human control, but also they are the two most miraculous things on this planet. If "God" by definition is the "creator" then there is nothing more God-like than Mother Nature and Father Time. That is not to say that there is a higher power that, in fact, created Nature and Time. However, I truly believe that nature and time are the closest things to God that our human eyes can witness the wonders of. I’m a person who believes more in ideas that can be either proven or seen, and without a doubt, you can see the magic of nature and time.

A Free Man's Worship

2006-10-18T22:31:00.001-07:00

This was a really interesting reading filled with a lot of deep insight. Basically, this text was about Life, God and Man. Bertrand Russell talks about the creation of all things. For example, the world was created by a hot nebula which after "countless ages" finally took shape of planets. Then Man was born with the "power of thought, the knowledge of good and evil, and the cruel thirst for worship." As a result, Man created a God to worship. Russell does not really believe in "God" because he thinks that Man created a God due to the love of "good." God is simply "all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what is and what should be." Because Man is not perfect and because Man will sin, they crave what they lack - the quality of being all-powerful and all-good.

Unlike God, to which Man has a certain degree of control over (for example, man can control the basic idea of "God"), Life is beyond the control of man. From the day of birth, Man was doomed to one day perish and ever since then, Man been a slave to Time, Fate and Death. No matter what Man does, He simply cannot control these aspects of Life. There was one quote that really affected me - "This is the reason why the Past has such magical powers. The beauty of its motionless and silent pictures is like the enchanted purtiy of late autumn... The Past does not change or strive ... what was eager and grasping, what was petty and transitory, has faded away, the things that were beautiful and eternal shine out of it like stars in the night. Its beauty, to a soul not worthy of it, is unendurable; but to a soul which has conquered Fate, it is the key of religion." I think this part really captures the essense of the concept of the "Past". No matter how we try to go back or to forget, our Past is part of who we are and why we are this way. Past cannot be controlled nor changed. It is beautiful and special because we cannot ever have that moment back.

Philosophy Films:inner visions & running trains

2006-10-18T22:21:00.000-07:00

The main theme of this movie is the concept of "visions." Supposedly, during a particular war there were a couple guys who were in caught in life threatening situations. THese same men suddenly had the same vision of the same man telling them what to do. Without thinking they did exactly what they were told and in result their lives were saved. However, the man they had a vision about wasn't even thinking about anyone else during that battle. He said that at that moment of time, he was only concerned about himself and how to stay alive.

I personally wish that visions are real. I guess through media and through through numerous supernatural stories, i have become used to this particular concept. I'm a hopeless romantic and I'd like to think that there's parts of life that's already been planned - kind of like destiny. In that case, visions will be a blessing, a gift to see what's about to happen. For example, in this particular film, these visions saved the lives of many men, who all happened to have the same vision. Weird? Yes. Unlikey? Yes. Impossible? I doubt it.

Expert Lecture: daniel dennett

2006-10-18T22:19:00.000-07:00

I definitely agree with Daniel Dennett in the sense that I also believe that “no two people mean the same thing by ‘God’”. I really liked his example of a “teapot agonistic” attitude toward the concept of god. I like this because, like I’ve said in previous posts, if you cannot prove a positive, then you also cannot prove a negative. No one can prove the existence of God to me and I cannot prove that God does not exist to anyone. Which brings me again to the question, “what is god?” Is it nature? Is it a “greater being”? I guess the only thing we can do in order to get closer to the answer is to wait patiently for the truth to reveal itself.

Honestly, I did not enjoy watching two old men argue in circles. They spend so long trying to prove that they are right and the other is wrong but in the end, all they accomplish is to agree to disagree. The funny part is that they know that they will not accomplish anything with their pointless argument and yet, they cannot resist the temptation. What really annoys me about Dennett is that he keeps on saying, “I don’t know. I don’t know”. He is supposed to be an expert and even if he is an expert on “not knowing,” he should at least sound more confident and not like he’s in doubt.

Philosophy Films: flame on!: morality reconsidered

2006-10-18T20:43:00.000-07:00

“Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love – all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.” –Plato

I don’t understand all this “drama” over homosexuality. I think we should just let them be. Who cares if they are homosexual or not? To me that’s as big of a deal as someone wanting to dye his or her hair. Homosexuality is simply a choice, a lifestyle. If we don’t agree, then we don’t agree because there isn’t anything anyone can say or do that would change that particular individual. The only thing we can do is inflict pain, intentionally or not. I am neither saying that homosexuality is right nor criticizing that it is morally wrong; I just so happen to be a firm believer in individuality and I don’t believe that change can be forced.

I agree with this film when it talks about the fact that different time periods perceive different things with different opinions. One example that immediately comes to my head is the concept of “beauty.” Even though each individual hold their own uniquely defined understanding of “beauty”, the general concept of “beauty” accepted by society changes periodically from era to era. For example, back in the day, the epitome of beautiful woman can be simply defined as Marilyn Monroe - she has fair hair, fair skin, fair eyes with a voluptuous body. Whereas today, beautiful is more vaguely defined as someone long legged and skinny. In this modern society we embrace uniqueness as attractive, not as different and ugly. Thus, beautiful today would not be generally be accepted as beautiful in the past. In that sense, we cannot assume that everything is ever for certain; we can wake up tomorrow and learn that the things we lived our lives believing suddenly became false.

Gandhi

2006-10-18T17:56:00.000-07:00

Ahimsa: "Non-violence ; in its positive aspect-love for all living things"

Gandhi believes deeply in faith and love. He believes that nonviolence is the supreme law of mankind. In order to remain nonviolent in the most difficult situation requires a great deal of self-respect and honor. Nonviolence is a power that can be obtained by anyone who is willing to sacrifice their everything except honor. As human beings we must have love and faith for not only God but also for all of mankind. This is essential to be a human being.

I really like Gandhi's philosophy because it is rational and logical. He is a firm believer that "nonviolence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force". And he uses examples like how his wife was the one who taught him the concept of nonviolence. For example, when Gandhi acts like a stupid man and tries to control his wife, she resists with silent nonviolence. Her determination in that aspect allowed him to mature and realize that he is not always right. If you think about it, if she had resisted violently, he would have became this angry man with this "I'm always right" attitude. However, she did do such a thing and in result, Gandhi was able to see his mistakes and mature as a person. Thus, nonviolence can also promote growth and maturity. Thus, it is only obvious that nonviolence is superior to violence.

Expert Lecture: sam harris

2006-10-18T17:53:00.000-07:00

“Faith is a conversation stopper”

I really enjoyed Sam Harris’s speech because I was actually able to stay awake and think about the ideas presented. I agree with his argument that if one were have substantiate reasoning, then one would be able to convince everyone or anyone into believing the ideas. However, faith and religion both lack this ability to convince the general public and that is why I believe there is no such thing as an “universe” religion in which everyone on this earth will undoubtedly believe in. I also agree that instead of being a kind of glue to unite all the people around the world, religion does the complete opposite by separating everyone. I think it is ridiculously hypocritical to say one thing and do the exact opposite. Why talk about saving others when it is the same “religions” which started killing others for not believing in the “right” things? Instead of making peace and turning this world into a better one, religion, in certain aspects, is turning this world into one of complete chaos.

One example presented in Harris’s speech is one of priests going to Africa preaching against the use of condoms when that country is plagued by sexually transmitted diseases. I don’t know what kind of logic that is, but while they’re at it, might as well bring alcohol to a session of Alcoholics Anonymous or giving razors and knives to an Emo kid. Seriously, this makes me so angry. Why talk about “saving” people and at the same time promote something that will inevitably bring about their destruction? I think it is ridiculous to believe that condoms are against “God’s big plan.” I don’t understand what is so wrong about protecting oneself. I don’t know how those people can sleep at night and still believe that they are going to go to Heaven when they die. Ridiculous.

Expert Lecture: steven pinker

2006-10-08T23:55:00.001-07:00

Steven Pinker believes that in order to fully understand the people we are today, we have to understand how we got to that point. He believes that we take a lot of things for granted. For example, we take for granted our vision, if it weren't for evolution, we'd walk into trees. This is important because humans change in order to be better adapted in this world. Just like history is important to understand current events, our evolution through the course of time is essential in order to better understand who we are today.

Pinker also talks about family, how even though we share 50% of our genes with our family, we do not necessarily have the same expectations or behave the same way toward ourselves, with whom we share 100% of our genes and behaviors with. For example, because we know ourselves, we know our limitations and ablities the best. Thus we would definitely have the different expectations for ourselves than our closest family members would. Pinker, in a way, calls family members hypocrites because we are all selfish beings. There is no way we can ever be completely selfless, even when it comes to family.

Philosophy Film: a glorious piece of meat

2006-10-08T23:55:00.000-07:00

“What we take to be the soul is nothing more than a complex network of neurons” – Francis Crick

This is a very unique concept. Normally, I hear people say that humans are different because we have a soul. This film is based on the philosophy that we are nothing more than just a piece of “meat” with a skull filled with neurons. All my life, I’ve been told that the reason why humans are so different and unique is because we have something more – a soul. It is this essential part of humans which makes us, well, us. After we die, it is this same soul which, in some beliefs, floats off into this bigger and better afterlife. I had never even thought about the fact if this “soul” really does exist or not. What if everything was just wishful thinking – that there is nothing more to us than what can be seen on the outside? What if we are nothing more than just another species of mammals on this earth? What if we made up this notion of a “soul” in order to give our lives a meaning, a hope in order to live another day?

Who is “I”? Where do the body stop and the person begin? These are the questions that I have been constantly pondering ever since watching this supposedly short film. These questions are like watching a magnificent sunset and asking oneself, ‘where does the earth end and the sky begin?’ The answer seems so complicatedly simple. There is no wrong answer even though the “right” answer seems so close, and yet so far. I’d like to hope that there is more to me than just skin, bones, fat and muscle. I’d like to believe that there is more to our existence than to just to “live.” Perhaps, this is all wishful thinking; perhaps, it’s all overanalyzing. So, instead of wasting time and pondering, I’m going to take action and do something instead of sitting here pointlessly wandering in my thoughts.

Vegan Book

2006-10-08T23:54:00.001-07:00

I believe that most people start out as vegetarians because of health reasons. However, I think that it becomes a bigger and more significant cause if one were to do it for the moral reasons behind this type of belief. I hold great admiration for most vegetarians because they have the courage to change their lives in order to live the way they think is right. Change is a very scary thing and I’m sure that we all, at one point or another, thought about the morality of killing innocent animals in order to feed our selfish hunger. However, most people do not take any action to change because it is hard to imagine life without eating the things we love to eat. For example, I’ve tried to become a vegetarian may times throughout the course of my life, only to fail each and every time to temptation. Honestly, I lack the self-discipline and courage to create such radical change in my life, especially as an Asian American, when most of my diet comes from parts of animals (we literally eat everything from cow tongue to chicken liver). Hence, I hold the most admiration for those who remain vegetarians for years.

"Don't eat things which cannot be eaten raw; and don'teat things which run away from you… The indisputable fact is that mostof the meat we eat is disguised. It is no longer an animal whoenjoyed life just like you and me (albeit nameless), but a covered-up, dressed-up, transfigured dead substance we call tasty." We don't eat dead animals; we eat "steak," "ham," "tacos." The cow didn't have a name when she as alive, but she surely gets one when she is slaughtered: "Gee, that was an excellent filet mignon."This brings up another cardinal principle about eating: Don't eat things hat once had a mother.”

I agree with this particular part. We believe that by giving meat another name, we can be ignorant to what it really is. For example, it is against our morals to eat another living animal, yet it is right to eat “ham”. I am not against eating meat but it annoys me to hear individuals preach in favor of animal rights and still be able to stomach that Big Mac. If they can’t change their lives, then they have no right to try to change other people. It’s like that Shakespeare saying, “A rose by another other name will smell just as sweet.” A piece of cow by another name will still be cow. Also, it is very ironic that we would rather name dead meat than the poor cow, which we ruthlessly butchered. Maybe it is because by giving that cow a name, we would be less eager to killing it.

Extra Credit: tom blake

2006-10-08T23:54:00.000-07:00

“When I was a young man I fell from social grace, or rather was pushed into deep water; thereafter I became a rebel to the society that had so taken advantage of a well-meaning youth. I soon found that even deep water supports a rebel, if he has the will and abilities to swim, regardless of race, color or creed. At times I found the water good, better than the land I was cut off from; the blessings of nature, superior and more honest and more productive to happiness than the striving to conform. Was thus I came to know my God.” –T.E.B. 7/16/68

This was my favorite part of the video. Through these words, it was easy to see Tom Blake’s passion for the waters. He led a very lonely life, yet instead of cracking under such emptiness like most people, he rose against this challenge and in result, became a much stronger individual. You can tell that the waters brought a certain amount of peace to him and in effect it is one of the causes of all his accomplishments in his lifetime.

“The word God is a man made term for Mother Nature and Father Time.”

I really like this quote because it is also something I truly believe in. The two most magical things in life are nature and time, because not only are they beyond our human control, but also they are the two most miraculous things on this planet. If “God” by definition is the “creator” then there is nothing more God-like than Mother Nature and Father Time. That is not to say that there is a higher power that, in fact, created Nature and Time. However, I truly believe that nature and time are the closest things to God that our human eyes can witness the wonders of. I’m a person who believes more in ideas that can be either proven or seen, and without a doubt, you can see the magic of nature and time.

Philosophy Film: true lies

2006-10-01T23:22:00.000-07:00

“We cannot exist without purpose, even if that purpose is fiction…”
“It lies to us in order for us to live on everyday.”

I agree with everything that has been brought up in this particular video. Humans were not created in order to question the meaning of existence and life. Instead, I believe that we were created with the simple goal of “survive.” However, as life progresses rapidly into the future, we start to want more and more. The more we want, the more we cannot have; the more we cannot have, the more we’d question “why”. Thus our “true” purpose was never to find the meaning of life, but as we become more and more complicated, we cannot simply be satisfied with the purpose of “survival”.

I believe that humans, in general, flourish better under the false assumption that there is more to life, than just… life. For example, I don’t think anyone would ever find the meaning to life, and yet everyone searches desperately for that answer. We search with the determined mindset of finding the answer, and carry the acknowledgement that we would never truly find the answer. Under such false pretense, the human race has been able to live contently for the last billions of years.

Evolution

2006-10-01T22:19:00.000-07:00

Macroevolution is “evolution on a grand scale”; it’s a look into patterns of evolution throughout the course of history. I’ve always thought that evolution was very interesting. And I find it very mind baffling that it takes 3.8 billion years to actually see macroevolution. That makes me wonder what life would be like 3.8 billion years from now. Even though I never think about it, life, despite all the negative aspects, is truly an amazing process. However, 3.8 billion years does make one individual’s lifetime seem insignificant in comparison. Genes, DNA, evolution, it all seems so familiar to us yet it is, at the same time, very foreign and strange. How can one simple gene make such a difference in how we look and act? I thank “genetic shuffling” for helping us differentiate between each individual and to give each one of us our own individuality.

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 do not agree that ideas can be transmitted in that sense. I believe when it comes to these types of things, it is the environment of which the individual grows up in that shapes that particular individual.

Expert Lecture: edward o. wilson

2006-10-01T22:18:00.000-07:00

Edward Wilson brings up the idea of a biological god. I have to say that I also do not believe in a God who is directly involved with life. Because I am not a religious individual, I’ve always thought that there was a higher power that created this world and allowed life to take place. However, I don’t think it’s possible, or rather I cannot even begin to imagine, a power so great that it can lend a hand in the lives of every living thing. If there were a God, I would think that he or she would be involved in the creation process and not necessarily in all aspect of life.

Edward Wilson also talks about the concept of “free will”. Even though I do believe in free will, I have to say that I do believe in destiny and fate. Maybe it’s because I’m a girl and I’m a hopeless romantic, but I truly think that there are some aspects of life that is out of hands. Yes, there are some simple choices we can make, such as choosing what to eat. But in the long run, life is already predetermined, for example, the destiny of every living thing is the same – we live to die.

Midterm

2006-09-28T22:01:00.001-07:00

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).

Expert Lecture owen gingerich

2006-09-24T17:18:00.001-07:00

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

2006-09-24T17:18:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

"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

“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

2006-09-10T18:17:00.000-07:00

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 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

2006-09-10T17:14:00.000-07:00

"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

2006-09-02T22:08:00.000-07:00

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.