MIDTERM
STUDENT INFORMATION:
NAME: Benedectus Juwono
USERNAME: einztein_o07
EMAIL ADDRESS: einztein__o07@juno.com
********************************************
ANSWERS TO MIDTERM (also available in individual pages, link on the side under MIDTERM section):
1. Give me your real name and your username, as well as your classtime. How many classes have you missed? How many classes have youbeen tardy? Be honest. Online students skip this.
**skipped**
2. Which "track" are you on? "C", "B", or "A"? Don't hedge; beprecise. LIST HOW FAR YOU HAVE READ IN EACH BOOK; be exact. LIST ALLOF YOUR POSTS in the various groups. Be sure to copy and paste themhere.
i was on track B, until i realized that taking this class along with philosophy 12 at the same time means too much reading to do. i'd like to be on track B still, but i haven't gotten to touch the electric meme at all. i have read thoroughly stephen hawking's the universe in a nutshell, steven pinker's the blank slate, and errol flynn's my wicked, wicked ways (except for chapter "?????"). so i guess that drops me down to track C.
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:04:14
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:44:18
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (2)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:44:11
Subject: Re: the down side of physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (2)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:48:03
Subject: Re: history, destiny, and space
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:28:06
Subject: Re: Re: Wishing I took physics
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:23:50
Subject: Re: I little closer to understanding.
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:49:36
Subject: Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:25
Subject: Re: Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:01:57
Subject: on science and religion
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:07:20
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophy Done Well
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:39:42
Subject: Re: Re: on science and religion
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:32:19
Subject: Re: Re: The Black Hole
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:23
Subject: Re: Re: Do "I" exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:49:21
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (1)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:56:34
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (2)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:44:47
Subject: Re: Re: Human sexuality
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:27:34
Subject: Re: Re: Is time travel possible
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:13
Subject: epigenetic predisposition
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:42:05
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (1)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:25:08
Subject: Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:58
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (2)
3. What does Hawking mean by "imaginary" time versus "real" time? How is the concept of imaginary time useful in understanding the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity? In addition explain the "brane" theory and how it relates to a geometric understanding of space-time.
imaginary time is simply a mathematical construct to "fill in the gap" for the 4th dimension that cannot be physically seen. since space is three dimensional and is described by three lines perpendicular to one another, there's a big problem when taking time into account as the fourth dimension; having a fourth dimension means that one has to pull another line perpendicular to the three already-perpendicular-to-each-other lines. but this is geometrically impossible. thus, the concept of real and imaginary time is introduced.
space, or as hawking puts it: "history," moves along the real time line. now, just like in the cartesian coordinate, imaginary time line is perpendicular to real time line just like y axis is perpendicular to x axis. the center where they intercept each other would be the zero point. since the imaginary time is perpendicular to the real time axis, on which the three-dimensional space moves, then this concept of imaginary time "behaves like a fourth spatial direction," (hawking 60) and makes possible what was once geometrically impossible.
now, why would one need the fourth dimension? einstein's general theory of relativity requires all three spatial directions and one time direction. but the use of real time causes time to behave differently than space; namely because one can move up or down any of the spatial directions, but in real time, one can only move up, that is, to the future. imaginary time axis behaves differently; one can move up or down that axis, one can increase or decrease on that axis, so as hawking puts it, this imaginary time axis does behave "like a fourth spatial direction."
the imaginary time, however, has no physical interpretation. it's just simply a mathematical construct that is consistent with established theories. since hawking is what he calls "a positivist," he does not need physical interpretation of things; he claims that for a positivist, physical interpretation means little to none, since they "cannot determine what is real." (hawking 59) what is important for positivists like hawking is to "find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in." (hawking 59)
the brane theory, is a theory developed by cambridge's paul townsend. branes, or more formally known as "p-branes," are basically objects having lengths in p-direction. so a one dimensional objects would be a p=1 brane, a two dimensional object would be a p=2 brane, and so on. the introduction of the concept of branes has given deeper insights on how the universe works; hawking said that "all the p-branes could be found as solutions of the equations of supergravity theories in 10 or 11 dimensions." (hawking 54) this tells us that if the theoretical p-branes do exist, then it is possible that the universe we are living in is 10 or 11 dimensional. but doesn't that seem too much? the universe we are seeing with our eyes are three dimensional, even with time as the fourth dimension, it's already hard to comprehend, let alone ten or even eleven dimensions. hawking provides a brief explanation for this: "the idea was that the other 6 or 7 dimensions are curled up so small that we don't notice them." (hawking 54) the introduction of the branes completely alter our geometric understanding of the universe; there seems to be more of the universe than what the eyes can see.
4. Hawking made the intriguing observation that M-theory has as much evidence for its claims as astrology, yet Hawking thinks astrology is more or less bogus. Why, then, does Hawking believe that M-theory is most likely correct and NOT claims of the paranormal? Read Hawking carefully before you leap.
simply put, the reason why hawking thinks astrology is "bogus" and the m-theory not is described in the opening of chapter 4, "predicting the future:" it is not so much about "scientific evidence or the lack of it, but because it is not consistent with other theories that have been tested by experiment." (hawking 103) as a positivist, hawking does not ask much for a theory or idea to be plausible; he doesn't even care whether the new theory can be physically interpreted or not; all he asks is for the theory to to be mathematically consistent both in itself and with other well-established theories. astrology cannot provide this, especially after the discovery that heavenly bodies revolve around the sun, not the earth. hawking expresses his doubts on astrology by questioning, "why should the positions of other planets against the background sky as seen from earth have any correlations with the macromolecules on a minor planet?" (hawking 103)
now, the m-theory, although has yet to be experimentally test, is more plausible for a positivist like hawking than astrology, since m-theory stems from scientific theories, and most importantly, is consistent. m-theory comes from the idea that the different existing string theories are just actually just "different expressions of the same underlying idea," (hawking 56) and this single underlying idea is the m-theory itself. string theory is known as the only CONSISTENT existing theory these days that --- if proven correct --- successfully unifies all four forces of nature. the theory is mathematically consistent both in itself and with other well-established theories as well. voila! exactly what a positivist is looking for. although string theory seems a little "bogus" as well since it's consistent only in ten or eleven dimensional universe, for a positivist like hawking --- as he said it himself --- "the question 'do extra dimensions really exist?' has no meaning." (hawking 54) consistency with established theories is the key concept that astrology could not provide for positivists like hawking, and although the m-theory seems to be not very "deterministic," it would be a more plausible one for hawking to accept.
5. How does superstring (or super membrane) theory reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics? More precisely, how does superstring theory reduce the four forces of the universe (name them) into one super force?
early theories that tried to combine the four forces of the universe --- electromagnetic force, gravitational force, strong force, and weak force --- called the "supergravity theories," have failed because they result in infinity. the introduction of the concept of supersymmetry, which claims that each particle has a so-called "superpartner" whose spin is 1/2 greater or smaller than the particle itself, allows these supergravity theories to continues to exist, but not for long. supersymmetry cancels the "biggest infinities" (hawking 52) in supergravity theories, but no one knows whether the leftover quantities will be infinite or not. this uncertainty causes scientists to abandon the supergravity theories because theories that result in infinities are considered to be "fatally flawed" (hawking 52) and introduce the idea of string theory.
superstring theory is a theory that starts out by assuming that every particle in this universe is made out of tiny vibrating strings of energy, with different vibration modes on the string correspond to different particles. these strings that the string theory predicts to exist, are "one-dimensional extended objects," (hawking 52) which only have length dimension. if vibrations of the string correspond particles (namely bosons and fermions) and the strings have grassman dimensions, then as hawking claims it: "positive and negative ground state energy will cancel so exactly that there will be no infinities even of the smaller sort." (hawking 52) when one combines electromagnetic force with the strong and weak force, one still gets a consistent, finite answer from the theory, but when one takes gravity into play, one starts getting infinities. these infinities are the biggest obstacle to physicists who are trying to formulate ONE theory that explains everything in this universe, namely the TOE (theory of everything). string theory, however, manages to eliminate these infinities without much hassle like the old supergravity theories, thus making string theory the strongest candidate for TOE.
6. What is Steven Pinker's chief critique of the "blank slate"? Give six examples which illustrate Pinker's notion of epigenetic predispositions.
to be honest, i'd have to say that i don't quite understand this book, since biology is never really something i'm good at. most of the time i'm stuck trying to understand the biological terms that pinker uses. so i'll apologize in advance if i made any incorrect biological remarks or biological terms used out of place. but, if i did understand this correctly, then here's steven pinker's chief critique of the blank slate:
the idea of the blank slate is that human mind starts out as a blank slate, with nothing on it. so in a way, it is saying that human beings started out being equal. there is no initial differences that make one person's mind is any different from the other. male and female are equal
, race A and race B are equal, everything, basically is equal. then as one grows up, one experiences things from one's environment, and these experiences shapes an individual in a different way other environment shapes different individuals. in the end, we have unique individuals in this world, NOT because they started out differently, but because environment SHAPES them differently.
pinker argues that this idea is wrong. the slate is NOT blank. human beings DO possess human nature. pinker says that the mind when it first come to existence, DOES have biological differences caused by genetics. however, the reasons that the idea on human nature is really hard for the society to accept, is the four chapters of part III: fear of inequality, imperfectibility, determinism, and nihilism.
now, i'm not quite sure what "epigenetic predispositions" means, but i looked up the term "epigenesis" and got "the theory that an individual is developed by successive differentiation of an unstructured egg rather than by a simple enlarging of a preformed entity." (dictionary.com) so if i don't understand this wrong, epigenesis is basically theories like the blank slate theory, where individual starts out with a blank slate and fill it up with information as that individual experiences things. pinker is against such notion; there are some examples from his book, the blank slate, that help shows why he believes in human nature.
the first one that he brings up is a summary from his other book, how the mind works, in which he discussed "some simple logical relationships that underlie our understanding of a complete thought but are difficult to represent in generic networks." (pinker 80) pinker claims that human beings have such talents, that are almost impossible to possess if the slate is really blank. first is ability to distinguish between "a kind and an individual," such as a particular duck and ducks in general. second is talent called "compositionality," the ability to "entertain a new, complex thought that is just not the sum of simple thoughts composing it, but depends on their relationship," such as understanding "cats chasing mice" and not "mice chasing cats instead. third is the talent called "quantification," or the ability to differentiate between "fooling some of the people all of the time and fooling all of the people some of the time." fourth is talent called "recursion," or one's ability to "embed one thought inside the other," such as thinking that elvis lives, that people are thinking that elvis lives, that magazines report that elvis lives, and so forth. the fifth and last is the ability to "engage in a cateegorical reasoning," such as knowing that shrewds are not mice, although they might look alike.
another example that he discusses is with regard to violence. pinker argues that violence is just human nature, and not a "learned behavior" (pinker 310) like some people claim. the fact that aggressive parents have aggressive children cannot be used to conclude that environment causes the children to become aggressive as well. pinker argues that such claim is disregarding the possibility that "violent tendencies could be inherited as well," and continues on by saying that "unless one looks at adopted children and shows that they act more like their adoptive parents than like their biological parents," then one cannot make such claim about environment is causing the children to behave aggresively.
pinker also discusses the issue on gender, in which he claims that the minds of men and women ARE not identical. this is in no way saying that one is superior than the other, but simply saying that, as pinker put it, "it's better to have the male adaptation to deal with male problems and the female adaptations to deal with female problems." (pinker 344) an interesting example that pinker gives is about an 8-month-old boy who lost his penis and his parents decided to get him an artificial vagina and raised him as a girl. but apparently the girl, even at young age, "felt that she was a boy trapped in a girl's body and gender role." (pinker 349) pinker said that that "she ripped off frilly dresses, rejected dolls in favor of guns, preferred to play with boys, and even insisted on urinating standing up." in the end, she underwent another operations and now live as a man. this is an example that shows how environment could not shape what was originally male into a female, no matter how early in the development.
another idea that leads pinker into believing there is such thing as human nature, is the experiment done by psychologist laura petitto and her chimpanzee named nim chimsky. nim can imitate what petitto is doing, but cannot do it to perfection, or at the very least, reaching the intended goal. when petitto scrubs dishes, the main purpose is obviously to clean it. now, nim can also scrubs dishes like petitto, but the thing that nim does not have in mind is that the purpose of scrubbing is to clean the dishes. pinker also provides an example from rodney brooks about a robot imitating a person opening a jar and then wiping his brow. of course, the intended action (primary) is opening the jar, while wiping brow is not an important action (secondary), but how can the robot know which one is important and which one is not? pinker claims that the answer is that the robot "has to be equipped with an ability to see into the mind of the person being imitated, so that it can infer the person's goal and pick out the aspects of behavior that the person intended to achieve the goal." (pinker 61) this ability is an ability that even the most sophisticated robot cannot have, and this is what leads pinker into thinking that the slate must have this ability INNATELY and therefore cannot be blank, for this is not an ability that one can learn.
7. How would a sociologist (one, for instance, who leans heavily in favor of the NURTURE argument) critique Pinker's argument in the Blank Slate. You may need to do web research on this one.
steven pinker provides both valid and sound arguments to the case against nurture, with factual evidences that are just hard to refute, that are just so convincing that any sociologist would have trouble arguing back.
a sociologist in favor of the nurture argument would most definitely bring up the case about separated twins. they would insist on arguing that if behavioral genes are truly hereditary and are the sole player in shaping the twins behaviors, then when they are separated and exposed to two extremely different way of living, they should end up being exactly the same. a number of studies, however, shows that they are never exactly alike. there are quite astonishing similarities between them, but they are not as similar as those kept in the same environment. pinker of course, would argue that the genes heritability chances are not exactly 50-50. the number is around 50% but never exactly reaches 50. this is still much more even compared to siblings, whose heritability probability can sometimes even be 80-20. pinker's nature argument would claim that in the end, environment matters not. however, with the fact that cases where twins with different environment have perfect similarity are coexisting with cases where twins with different environment have a little bit of differences, one cannot completely disregard that environment DOES play role in shaping an individual.
a controversial study done by john watson reveals that one can condition a behavior on a child. (PBSonline) watson exposes a few-months-old child named albert to a white lab rat and albert was not afraid of the rat. he found out, however, that upon hearing loud noise, albert was scared and started to cry. a couple months later, albert was again given the rat, but now everytime albert tried to touch the rat, watson makes the loud noise that albert was afraid of. after done repeatedly, even seeing the rat makes albert cry. the effect does not stop there; everytime albert sees something white and furry, he cries. this study, although considered unethical, revealed that environment does play a role in shaping an individual.
another study reveals that "sense of humor is a learned trait," in a study conducted by the twin research unit at the st. thomas hospital in london (university of wisconsin-whitewater article). the 127 pair of female twins were asked to rate cognitive humor from 0 to 10 separately, and surprisingly, "the identical twins provided no more common responses to the joke than the fraternal twins." often times, the fraternal twins were even "closer in agreement" as to which cartoon is funny and which is not. a study on different types of jokes also seems to show that "humor appreciation varies with age and personality." which is quite an interesting observation, since robert ploming claims that most twin studies "almost always show genetic effects."
these are some facts that a sociologist might want to use in an argument against pinker's nature argument.
8. How does the theory of evolution help explain human behavior? Use 5 examples of your own choosing to illustrate your point.
the main concept behind the theory of evolution is what is usually known as "the survival of the fittest" or natural selection. basically a trait that is the fittest in the society survives and is passed down to the next generation. now, this theory can be used to analyze human behavior since the theory argues that human behavior revolves around the one tendency: maintaining the existence of one's traits in the society. and to do this, one needs to create offspring. as pinker put it, "in the game of evolution, is it better to be monogamous or polygamous? gentle or aggressive? cooperative or selfish? indulgent with children or stern with them? optimistic, pragmatic, or pessimistic?" (pinker 52) the theory of evolution helps one understands why one action is preferred over the other.
a couple examples of this is given by pinker in the blank slate page 53:
"an eye for beauty, for example, lockes onto faces that show signs of health and fertility --- just as one would predict if it had evolved to help the beholder find the fitterst mate."
"the emotions of symphathy, gratitude, guilt, and anger allow people to benefit from cooperation without being exploited by liars and cheats"
"a reputation for toughness and a thirst for revenge were the best defense against aggression in a world in which one could not call 911 to summon the police."
pinker also explains this concept in terms of proximate and ultimate cause. proximate cause is the "mechanism" that drives one into commiting an action, and has the properties of being impromptu and temporary. ultimate cause, on the other hand, is the "adaptive rationale" that furthers the proximate cause. in other words, ultimate cause is like the final end, the final purpose, of an action. pinker gives an example for both causes; in the case of procreation, proximate cause would be the lust that drives one to have sex, and ultimate cause would be the need to reproduce. (pinker 54)
pinker claims that the concept of proximate and ultimate cause is "indispensable" in analyzing human behavior, particularly when one asks the question "why did that person act way he/she did?" although it seems like ultimate cause will likely be the reason people do what they do, in most cases, proximate cause becomes the main reason for one's action. in some examples that pinker offers, he said that in cases of procreation where proximate cause overwhelms ultimate cause, people can "covet their neighbor's spouse" or "prefer a sexy and dangerous partner to a plain but dependable one."
some other pertinent examples i've heard in some biology classes i've taken are about birds or bees, not humans. some birds chirp at 3 or 4 in the morning because males and females of their species forage at that time and so the females usually start chirping to attract the male species to come and procreate because that's the only way they could prevent the extinction of their species. a negative side effect would be for some people like me who don't go to bed until 3 or 4 in the morning and then aren't to sleep well because the birds keep chirping until past sunrise, causing unnecessary frowns and grouchiness when waking up the next day.
another example i've heard is about an experiment with two monkeys. while monkeys are not human beings, both species are quite alike in behavior. this one experiment i've heard puts two monkeys in one cage, but they are separated by metal bars so they can still see each other, but not trespass each other's territory. now the scientist puts a banana on top of one monkey, let's say monkey A, but makes it too high for monkey A to reach. the only way monkey A can get the banana is if monkey B pulls a string that is located in monkey B's territory. so like the brief example pinker gives about cooperation, these two monkeys have to learn to help each other in order for them not to die from starvation. what is interesting is that monkey A never tries to cheat monkey B by keeping the banana all for himself and not sharing. maybe this is because monkey A realizes that if he does that, next time the banana is up there again, monkey B will refuse to pull the string. so from this example, cooperation is a trait that is being promoted by natural selection, while cheating is weeded out.
9. Your teacher repeatedly says, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly is religion/theology." What does such a statement mean and what are its ultimate implications (online students may have to do some web research on this one, as well). Try doing a http://www.google.com search.
i remember having a discussion in one of the posts about that one particular quote. i have taken philosophy for three quarters in ucsd, an introductory one (but none like this class), one on metaphysics, and one on logic, and after all these exposure to philosophy, i've come to a conclusion that philosophy is a study to understand basically everything in this universe. philosophy encompasses morals, ethics, science, religion, even mathematics; it seems to me like philosophy is the root of all kinds of studies. in philosophy, one asks questions and expects RATIONAL answers, which is probably why logic is one of the most fundamental field to begin with when one studies philosophy. why asking questions? because one wants to find the truth. there are many things around that we human beings do not understand; why does this event happen? why does he behave like that? what determines right and wrong? philosophy simply seeks the truth, some explanation to questions like those that logically makes sense. and philosophy is "done well," when the answer to a question it proposes is answered rationally.
so the bottomline is, philosophy is a study that promotes questions to help people better understand the universe and themselves, and seeks rational answers to the questions. science, of all fields that branched from philosophy, is the main competitor in providing rational answers. questions promoted from the study of philosophy such as "why is the sky blue" and many others have been answered rationally and logically by science. furthermore, science also gives PROOFS with factual information, and we all know that factual information must be true. thus, science is "philosophy done well," for it provides rational answers that philosophy seeks by promoting questions.
religion or theology on the other hand, also provides answers to questions that philosophy asks. but unfortunately, theological answers are mostly based on intangible things such as faith that cannot be rationally proven. also, when theology provides answers, they are quite limited since their answers revolve around a divine being, whereas science can be more flexible since they do not have to center their answers around one concept. theology does not provide the answers that philosophy seeks: rational answers. this is why theology is considered "philosophy done poorly;" the answers it provides cannot be proven by facts answers that science provides.
10. How does a purely materialist explanation of the universe help one in trying to answer philosophical questions? Give several examples and flesh out your answers.
like the answer i have provided before for question nine, i still think that philosophy is a field of study that seeks the truth through rational answers to the questions it proposes. materialistic explanations are usually accompanied with facts, or experimental evidence, and those are the rational answer that philosophical questions seek. it is of what nature i do not know that rationally logical answers are much more easier for one to accept, rather than answers that are based on intangible concepts; probably the tangibility? i guess it is much more easier for one to accept an explanation if one can construct a tangible depiction of it in his/her mind.
in the metaphysics class i took in january, i was introduced to two philosophical issues that are still being questioned until now: time, and the mind and body problem. the philosophy of time is simple; it basically asks what time IS and how does it behave, exactly. however, there is still no good, rational answer that can answer that question. the mind and body problem is about how an intangible concept such as the MIND can have control over something as tangible as the BODY. what connects the mind to the body? does the mind really exist, or is it just a bunch of chemicals in the brain?
well, i think stephen hawking's the universe in a nutshell and steven pinker's the blank slate have attempted to provide the rational answers to these two different field of philosophy. hawking in his book talks about time, and even introduces the idea of an imaginary time that makes physical theories of the universe consistent with one another. sounds really intangible, but if it is consistent mathematically, chances are it can be the correct idea. the answer is still unclear, since physicists haven't really gotten up to the point where they can give experimental evidence to a claim on what time really is, but at the very least, physics provides the ground to providing the philosophy of time potentially rational answers.
pinker's book also attempts on providing some rational explanation to the mind-body problem. i remember talking about dualism in the metaphysics class, which is also mentioned by pinker in his book. although not directly talking about how the mind is connected to the body, pinker certainly provides some insights in his argument regarding the ghost in the machine. behaviorism, which belongs to monism (who believes that there is only one substance) is also discussed by pinker, and how evolutionary theory can be used to explain this. pinker also briefly mentions descartes, who is a dualist, and his famous line "i think, therefore i am" in his discussion on nature vs nurture. so in a way, pinker touches many of the philosophical aspect of the mind-body problem.
11. In what ways was Errol Flynn a philosophical hedonist? Support your answer with pertinent quotes.
being a hedonist means having a belief that anything that results in pleasure is good, and errol flynn's way of living, all the way from when he was still a child, entirely reflects his philosophical hedonism, for his actions are always geared toward pleasure and no other.
this "seeking pleasure" habit of his can be seen mostly from his experiences with women. in most if not all of his affairs, he never considers the consequences of his actions; all he head in mind was something along the lines of "if it gives both you and me a pleasure, then let's go for it." one affair he had with elsie when he was in northshore sydney grammar school he described as being "much more interesting than algebra." (flynn 43) another affair with a lady named maura was considered "one of [his] most wonderful nights," (flynn 56) although he knew that maura was married to a high government official. then with maihiati, whom he found in the jungle, flynn considered her so "desirable" (flynn 71) that he disregarded a letter from his dad about not having a relationship with a native. his hedonistic idea, however, is probably most easily seen in his short relationship with mayako, whome he met aboard thd D'Artagnan: "i decided that if she were so ill that she might die, and so young and so beautiful, she certainly should have a fling before passing away. i doped the situation this way: if she was really that ill, she would want one too. i was right." (flynn 167)
another example of flynn's hedonism is shown during his childhood. he would skip classes and not study, unlike other kids. what was considered "good" during that era was probably the whole idea of going to school, getting a degree, and then work, but for flynn, who was a hedonist, what doesn't provide pleasure is not a real "good." he said that "it was fun skipping out, fooling the headmasters, taking off at night after a romantic leap to the ground." (flynn 43) flynn cares not about the consequences of his actions, what matters for him is the maximization of pleasure.
12. How did Flynn view women in general? Be sure to be accurate in your answer.
being a hedonist, one who seeks to maximize pleasure, errol flynn seems to find pleasure in women as well. not necessarily in sexual relationship, but more in beauty. in every single one of his encounter with a woman in my wicked, wicked ways, errol flynn always makes reference to beauty, such as: "pretty," "slender," "lovely picture, arms outspread, lovely full breasts," "there is nothing hard or cold about the flesh of the heathen chinee," "the most spectacular sight," and many other.
despite his admiration toward female beauty, flynn makes a strong remark that love between man and woman is not something that comes out from communication. his relationship with tuperselai, in which he hardly talks to her because he has problem talking in tuperselai's language, went smoothly, and the moment they made love, he described it as "a beautiful thing," and "one of [his] most precious poetic moment." (flynn 105) flynn's conclusion from such a beautiful love without much communication is that "a man and a woman should never speak the same language." (flynn 106)
flynn reveals his view on women clearly in page 248 after his troublesome relationship with his first wife, lili damita. flynn considers that "women try to make the man a personal prize," while from the way he sees it, "if you love someone, you will love him enough to want to see him free and unfettered." flyn also ridicules the concept of monogamy; he claims that "it is no man's natural state to be monogamous. neither is it woman's." more strongly, he argues that monogamy is "nothing more than a travesty on human nature."
13. In what ways was Flynn a "philosopher"? Be specific.
being a philosopher, means contemplating and questioning things that one experiences. of course this kind of loose definition would make everyone a philosopher, but everyone IS a philosopher; most of them just don't realize or intend to make it an occupation.
flynn was a philosopher, because in fulfilling his hedonistic life, he pondered and questioned events that he encountered. not just that, he also analyzed those events so he could obtain a rational answer for his questions. these analysis can be seen in the remarks he made with regards to a situation that he is facing. he refuted the thought that he's ignorant by making a strong claim in the prologue: "what makes anyone think that i am less concerned for the verities of the world than anyone else? was it all a prank that i went to loyalist spain, that i sided with castro, that i've plumbed the sea depths, and traveled the world?" (flynn 22)
even at young age, he made an amazing philosophical remark, although he probably has yet to realize it, or maybe just because he was naive. in the incident where he hooked up a half-dozen ducks with a greased string, his father called him a "cruel little devil," a remark which he replied with "you cut open animals all day long in your laboratory. what did i do wrong?" (flynn 32) that astonished his father. young flynn might not realize it, but at this age he was confused at what is right and what is wrong. he figured this much: if someone does something over and over again and no one complains about it, then it can't be the wrong thing to do.
another example was during his affair with maihiati, the young girl he found in the jungle, when he was having moral guilt over having a relationship with a native. flynn got over his guilt and concludes that there is no reason for him to follow the dictates of people "who lived in other lands on the other side of the world." flynn also develops a contemplating mind, as he said: "i had already been wondering about the various sets of moral values that we humans put around our emotions, most of them so varying in different cultures and backgrounds."
his letters to his father was also a media for him to channel his pondering mind. in one of the letters, he came to a conclusion that "the most vital thing in life is to be able to undertand something about it." (flynn 101)
flynn's best friend, koets was considered a big influence for him. maybe in a way that they had gone through many things together, but at the end of the chapter "seven seas to england," flynn made a remark that koets. to flynn, koets had been a great help in understanding more about life, which eventually shaped his hedonistic character. flynn said in reference to koets: "he showed me the difference between cupdity and generosity. he showed me the complete irrelevance of the existence that we humans have while on earth. from koets i learned to take from this brief span the unimportance of being earnest. i learned from him to laugh at the worst disasters." (flynn 175)
NAME: Benedectus Juwono
USERNAME: einztein_o07
EMAIL ADDRESS: einztein__o07@juno.com
********************************************
ANSWERS TO MIDTERM (also available in individual pages, link on the side under MIDTERM section):
1. Give me your real name and your username, as well as your classtime. How many classes have you missed? How many classes have youbeen tardy? Be honest. Online students skip this.
**skipped**
2. Which "track" are you on? "C", "B", or "A"? Don't hedge; beprecise. LIST HOW FAR YOU HAVE READ IN EACH BOOK; be exact. LIST ALLOF YOUR POSTS in the various groups. Be sure to copy and paste themhere.
i was on track B, until i realized that taking this class along with philosophy 12 at the same time means too much reading to do. i'd like to be on track B still, but i haven't gotten to touch the electric meme at all. i have read thoroughly stephen hawking's the universe in a nutshell, steven pinker's the blank slate, and errol flynn's my wicked, wicked ways (except for chapter "?????"). so i guess that drops me down to track C.
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:04:14
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:44:18
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (2)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:44:11
Subject: Re: the down side of physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (2)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:48:03
Subject: Re: history, destiny, and space
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:28:06
Subject: Re: Re: Wishing I took physics
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:23:50
Subject: Re: I little closer to understanding.
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:49:36
Subject: Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:25
Subject: Re: Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:01:57
Subject: on science and religion
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:07:20
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophy Done Well
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:39:42
Subject: Re: Re: on science and religion
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:32:19
Subject: Re: Re: The Black Hole
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:23
Subject: Re: Re: Do "I" exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:49:21
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (1)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:56:34
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (2)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:44:47
Subject: Re: Re: Human sexuality
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:27:34
Subject: Re: Re: Is time travel possible
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:13
Subject: epigenetic predisposition
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:42:05
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (1)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:25:08
Subject: Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:58
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (2)
3. What does Hawking mean by "imaginary" time versus "real" time? How is the concept of imaginary time useful in understanding the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity? In addition explain the "brane" theory and how it relates to a geometric understanding of space-time.
imaginary time is simply a mathematical construct to "fill in the gap" for the 4th dimension that cannot be physically seen. since space is three dimensional and is described by three lines perpendicular to one another, there's a big problem when taking time into account as the fourth dimension; having a fourth dimension means that one has to pull another line perpendicular to the three already-perpendicular-to-each-other lines. but this is geometrically impossible. thus, the concept of real and imaginary time is introduced.
space, or as hawking puts it: "history," moves along the real time line. now, just like in the cartesian coordinate, imaginary time line is perpendicular to real time line just like y axis is perpendicular to x axis. the center where they intercept each other would be the zero point. since the imaginary time is perpendicular to the real time axis, on which the three-dimensional space moves, then this concept of imaginary time "behaves like a fourth spatial direction," (hawking 60) and makes possible what was once geometrically impossible.
now, why would one need the fourth dimension? einstein's general theory of relativity requires all three spatial directions and one time direction. but the use of real time causes time to behave differently than space; namely because one can move up or down any of the spatial directions, but in real time, one can only move up, that is, to the future. imaginary time axis behaves differently; one can move up or down that axis, one can increase or decrease on that axis, so as hawking puts it, this imaginary time axis does behave "like a fourth spatial direction."
the imaginary time, however, has no physical interpretation. it's just simply a mathematical construct that is consistent with established theories. since hawking is what he calls "a positivist," he does not need physical interpretation of things; he claims that for a positivist, physical interpretation means little to none, since they "cannot determine what is real." (hawking 59) what is important for positivists like hawking is to "find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in." (hawking 59)
the brane theory, is a theory developed by cambridge's paul townsend. branes, or more formally known as "p-branes," are basically objects having lengths in p-direction. so a one dimensional objects would be a p=1 brane, a two dimensional object would be a p=2 brane, and so on. the introduction of the concept of branes has given deeper insights on how the universe works; hawking said that "all the p-branes could be found as solutions of the equations of supergravity theories in 10 or 11 dimensions." (hawking 54) this tells us that if the theoretical p-branes do exist, then it is possible that the universe we are living in is 10 or 11 dimensional. but doesn't that seem too much? the universe we are seeing with our eyes are three dimensional, even with time as the fourth dimension, it's already hard to comprehend, let alone ten or even eleven dimensions. hawking provides a brief explanation for this: "the idea was that the other 6 or 7 dimensions are curled up so small that we don't notice them." (hawking 54) the introduction of the branes completely alter our geometric understanding of the universe; there seems to be more of the universe than what the eyes can see.
4. Hawking made the intriguing observation that M-theory has as much evidence for its claims as astrology, yet Hawking thinks astrology is more or less bogus. Why, then, does Hawking believe that M-theory is most likely correct and NOT claims of the paranormal? Read Hawking carefully before you leap.
simply put, the reason why hawking thinks astrology is "bogus" and the m-theory not is described in the opening of chapter 4, "predicting the future:" it is not so much about "scientific evidence or the lack of it, but because it is not consistent with other theories that have been tested by experiment." (hawking 103) as a positivist, hawking does not ask much for a theory or idea to be plausible; he doesn't even care whether the new theory can be physically interpreted or not; all he asks is for the theory to to be mathematically consistent both in itself and with other well-established theories. astrology cannot provide this, especially after the discovery that heavenly bodies revolve around the sun, not the earth. hawking expresses his doubts on astrology by questioning, "why should the positions of other planets against the background sky as seen from earth have any correlations with the macromolecules on a minor planet?" (hawking 103)
now, the m-theory, although has yet to be experimentally test, is more plausible for a positivist like hawking than astrology, since m-theory stems from scientific theories, and most importantly, is consistent. m-theory comes from the idea that the different existing string theories are just actually just "different expressions of the same underlying idea," (hawking 56) and this single underlying idea is the m-theory itself. string theory is known as the only CONSISTENT existing theory these days that --- if proven correct --- successfully unifies all four forces of nature. the theory is mathematically consistent both in itself and with other well-established theories as well. voila! exactly what a positivist is looking for. although string theory seems a little "bogus" as well since it's consistent only in ten or eleven dimensional universe, for a positivist like hawking --- as he said it himself --- "the question 'do extra dimensions really exist?' has no meaning." (hawking 54) consistency with established theories is the key concept that astrology could not provide for positivists like hawking, and although the m-theory seems to be not very "deterministic," it would be a more plausible one for hawking to accept.
5. How does superstring (or super membrane) theory reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics? More precisely, how does superstring theory reduce the four forces of the universe (name them) into one super force?
early theories that tried to combine the four forces of the universe --- electromagnetic force, gravitational force, strong force, and weak force --- called the "supergravity theories," have failed because they result in infinity. the introduction of the concept of supersymmetry, which claims that each particle has a so-called "superpartner" whose spin is 1/2 greater or smaller than the particle itself, allows these supergravity theories to continues to exist, but not for long. supersymmetry cancels the "biggest infinities" (hawking 52) in supergravity theories, but no one knows whether the leftover quantities will be infinite or not. this uncertainty causes scientists to abandon the supergravity theories because theories that result in infinities are considered to be "fatally flawed" (hawking 52) and introduce the idea of string theory.
superstring theory is a theory that starts out by assuming that every particle in this universe is made out of tiny vibrating strings of energy, with different vibration modes on the string correspond to different particles. these strings that the string theory predicts to exist, are "one-dimensional extended objects," (hawking 52) which only have length dimension. if vibrations of the string correspond particles (namely bosons and fermions) and the strings have grassman dimensions, then as hawking claims it: "positive and negative ground state energy will cancel so exactly that there will be no infinities even of the smaller sort." (hawking 52) when one combines electromagnetic force with the strong and weak force, one still gets a consistent, finite answer from the theory, but when one takes gravity into play, one starts getting infinities. these infinities are the biggest obstacle to physicists who are trying to formulate ONE theory that explains everything in this universe, namely the TOE (theory of everything). string theory, however, manages to eliminate these infinities without much hassle like the old supergravity theories, thus making string theory the strongest candidate for TOE.
6. What is Steven Pinker's chief critique of the "blank slate"? Give six examples which illustrate Pinker's notion of epigenetic predispositions.
to be honest, i'd have to say that i don't quite understand this book, since biology is never really something i'm good at. most of the time i'm stuck trying to understand the biological terms that pinker uses. so i'll apologize in advance if i made any incorrect biological remarks or biological terms used out of place. but, if i did understand this correctly, then here's steven pinker's chief critique of the blank slate:
the idea of the blank slate is that human mind starts out as a blank slate, with nothing on it. so in a way, it is saying that human beings started out being equal. there is no initial differences that make one person's mind is any different from the other. male and female are equal
, race A and race B are equal, everything, basically is equal. then as one grows up, one experiences things from one's environment, and these experiences shapes an individual in a different way other environment shapes different individuals. in the end, we have unique individuals in this world, NOT because they started out differently, but because environment SHAPES them differently.
pinker argues that this idea is wrong. the slate is NOT blank. human beings DO possess human nature. pinker says that the mind when it first come to existence, DOES have biological differences caused by genetics. however, the reasons that the idea on human nature is really hard for the society to accept, is the four chapters of part III: fear of inequality, imperfectibility, determinism, and nihilism.
now, i'm not quite sure what "epigenetic predispositions" means, but i looked up the term "epigenesis" and got "the theory that an individual is developed by successive differentiation of an unstructured egg rather than by a simple enlarging of a preformed entity." (dictionary.com) so if i don't understand this wrong, epigenesis is basically theories like the blank slate theory, where individual starts out with a blank slate and fill it up with information as that individual experiences things. pinker is against such notion; there are some examples from his book, the blank slate, that help shows why he believes in human nature.
the first one that he brings up is a summary from his other book, how the mind works, in which he discussed "some simple logical relationships that underlie our understanding of a complete thought but are difficult to represent in generic networks." (pinker 80) pinker claims that human beings have such talents, that are almost impossible to possess if the slate is really blank. first is ability to distinguish between "a kind and an individual," such as a particular duck and ducks in general. second is talent called "compositionality," the ability to "entertain a new, complex thought that is just not the sum of simple thoughts composing it, but depends on their relationship," such as understanding "cats chasing mice" and not "mice chasing cats instead. third is the talent called "quantification," or the ability to differentiate between "fooling some of the people all of the time and fooling all of the people some of the time." fourth is talent called "recursion," or one's ability to "embed one thought inside the other," such as thinking that elvis lives, that people are thinking that elvis lives, that magazines report that elvis lives, and so forth. the fifth and last is the ability to "engage in a cateegorical reasoning," such as knowing that shrewds are not mice, although they might look alike.
another example that he discusses is with regard to violence. pinker argues that violence is just human nature, and not a "learned behavior" (pinker 310) like some people claim. the fact that aggressive parents have aggressive children cannot be used to conclude that environment causes the children to become aggressive as well. pinker argues that such claim is disregarding the possibility that "violent tendencies could be inherited as well," and continues on by saying that "unless one looks at adopted children and shows that they act more like their adoptive parents than like their biological parents," then one cannot make such claim about environment is causing the children to behave aggresively.
pinker also discusses the issue on gender, in which he claims that the minds of men and women ARE not identical. this is in no way saying that one is superior than the other, but simply saying that, as pinker put it, "it's better to have the male adaptation to deal with male problems and the female adaptations to deal with female problems." (pinker 344) an interesting example that pinker gives is about an 8-month-old boy who lost his penis and his parents decided to get him an artificial vagina and raised him as a girl. but apparently the girl, even at young age, "felt that she was a boy trapped in a girl's body and gender role." (pinker 349) pinker said that that "she ripped off frilly dresses, rejected dolls in favor of guns, preferred to play with boys, and even insisted on urinating standing up." in the end, she underwent another operations and now live as a man. this is an example that shows how environment could not shape what was originally male into a female, no matter how early in the development.
another idea that leads pinker into believing there is such thing as human nature, is the experiment done by psychologist laura petitto and her chimpanzee named nim chimsky. nim can imitate what petitto is doing, but cannot do it to perfection, or at the very least, reaching the intended goal. when petitto scrubs dishes, the main purpose is obviously to clean it. now, nim can also scrubs dishes like petitto, but the thing that nim does not have in mind is that the purpose of scrubbing is to clean the dishes. pinker also provides an example from rodney brooks about a robot imitating a person opening a jar and then wiping his brow. of course, the intended action (primary) is opening the jar, while wiping brow is not an important action (secondary), but how can the robot know which one is important and which one is not? pinker claims that the answer is that the robot "has to be equipped with an ability to see into the mind of the person being imitated, so that it can infer the person's goal and pick out the aspects of behavior that the person intended to achieve the goal." (pinker 61) this ability is an ability that even the most sophisticated robot cannot have, and this is what leads pinker into thinking that the slate must have this ability INNATELY and therefore cannot be blank, for this is not an ability that one can learn.
7. How would a sociologist (one, for instance, who leans heavily in favor of the NURTURE argument) critique Pinker's argument in the Blank Slate. You may need to do web research on this one.
steven pinker provides both valid and sound arguments to the case against nurture, with factual evidences that are just hard to refute, that are just so convincing that any sociologist would have trouble arguing back.
a sociologist in favor of the nurture argument would most definitely bring up the case about separated twins. they would insist on arguing that if behavioral genes are truly hereditary and are the sole player in shaping the twins behaviors, then when they are separated and exposed to two extremely different way of living, they should end up being exactly the same. a number of studies, however, shows that they are never exactly alike. there are quite astonishing similarities between them, but they are not as similar as those kept in the same environment. pinker of course, would argue that the genes heritability chances are not exactly 50-50. the number is around 50% but never exactly reaches 50. this is still much more even compared to siblings, whose heritability probability can sometimes even be 80-20. pinker's nature argument would claim that in the end, environment matters not. however, with the fact that cases where twins with different environment have perfect similarity are coexisting with cases where twins with different environment have a little bit of differences, one cannot completely disregard that environment DOES play role in shaping an individual.
a controversial study done by john watson reveals that one can condition a behavior on a child. (PBSonline) watson exposes a few-months-old child named albert to a white lab rat and albert was not afraid of the rat. he found out, however, that upon hearing loud noise, albert was scared and started to cry. a couple months later, albert was again given the rat, but now everytime albert tried to touch the rat, watson makes the loud noise that albert was afraid of. after done repeatedly, even seeing the rat makes albert cry. the effect does not stop there; everytime albert sees something white and furry, he cries. this study, although considered unethical, revealed that environment does play a role in shaping an individual.
another study reveals that "sense of humor is a learned trait," in a study conducted by the twin research unit at the st. thomas hospital in london (university of wisconsin-whitewater article). the 127 pair of female twins were asked to rate cognitive humor from 0 to 10 separately, and surprisingly, "the identical twins provided no more common responses to the joke than the fraternal twins." often times, the fraternal twins were even "closer in agreement" as to which cartoon is funny and which is not. a study on different types of jokes also seems to show that "humor appreciation varies with age and personality." which is quite an interesting observation, since robert ploming claims that most twin studies "almost always show genetic effects."
these are some facts that a sociologist might want to use in an argument against pinker's nature argument.
8. How does the theory of evolution help explain human behavior? Use 5 examples of your own choosing to illustrate your point.
the main concept behind the theory of evolution is what is usually known as "the survival of the fittest" or natural selection. basically a trait that is the fittest in the society survives and is passed down to the next generation. now, this theory can be used to analyze human behavior since the theory argues that human behavior revolves around the one tendency: maintaining the existence of one's traits in the society. and to do this, one needs to create offspring. as pinker put it, "in the game of evolution, is it better to be monogamous or polygamous? gentle or aggressive? cooperative or selfish? indulgent with children or stern with them? optimistic, pragmatic, or pessimistic?" (pinker 52) the theory of evolution helps one understands why one action is preferred over the other.
a couple examples of this is given by pinker in the blank slate page 53:
"an eye for beauty, for example, lockes onto faces that show signs of health and fertility --- just as one would predict if it had evolved to help the beholder find the fitterst mate."
"the emotions of symphathy, gratitude, guilt, and anger allow people to benefit from cooperation without being exploited by liars and cheats"
"a reputation for toughness and a thirst for revenge were the best defense against aggression in a world in which one could not call 911 to summon the police."
pinker also explains this concept in terms of proximate and ultimate cause. proximate cause is the "mechanism" that drives one into commiting an action, and has the properties of being impromptu and temporary. ultimate cause, on the other hand, is the "adaptive rationale" that furthers the proximate cause. in other words, ultimate cause is like the final end, the final purpose, of an action. pinker gives an example for both causes; in the case of procreation, proximate cause would be the lust that drives one to have sex, and ultimate cause would be the need to reproduce. (pinker 54)
pinker claims that the concept of proximate and ultimate cause is "indispensable" in analyzing human behavior, particularly when one asks the question "why did that person act way he/she did?" although it seems like ultimate cause will likely be the reason people do what they do, in most cases, proximate cause becomes the main reason for one's action. in some examples that pinker offers, he said that in cases of procreation where proximate cause overwhelms ultimate cause, people can "covet their neighbor's spouse" or "prefer a sexy and dangerous partner to a plain but dependable one."
some other pertinent examples i've heard in some biology classes i've taken are about birds or bees, not humans. some birds chirp at 3 or 4 in the morning because males and females of their species forage at that time and so the females usually start chirping to attract the male species to come and procreate because that's the only way they could prevent the extinction of their species. a negative side effect would be for some people like me who don't go to bed until 3 or 4 in the morning and then aren't to sleep well because the birds keep chirping until past sunrise, causing unnecessary frowns and grouchiness when waking up the next day.
another example i've heard is about an experiment with two monkeys. while monkeys are not human beings, both species are quite alike in behavior. this one experiment i've heard puts two monkeys in one cage, but they are separated by metal bars so they can still see each other, but not trespass each other's territory. now the scientist puts a banana on top of one monkey, let's say monkey A, but makes it too high for monkey A to reach. the only way monkey A can get the banana is if monkey B pulls a string that is located in monkey B's territory. so like the brief example pinker gives about cooperation, these two monkeys have to learn to help each other in order for them not to die from starvation. what is interesting is that monkey A never tries to cheat monkey B by keeping the banana all for himself and not sharing. maybe this is because monkey A realizes that if he does that, next time the banana is up there again, monkey B will refuse to pull the string. so from this example, cooperation is a trait that is being promoted by natural selection, while cheating is weeded out.
9. Your teacher repeatedly says, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly is religion/theology." What does such a statement mean and what are its ultimate implications (online students may have to do some web research on this one, as well). Try doing a http://www.google.com search.
i remember having a discussion in one of the posts about that one particular quote. i have taken philosophy for three quarters in ucsd, an introductory one (but none like this class), one on metaphysics, and one on logic, and after all these exposure to philosophy, i've come to a conclusion that philosophy is a study to understand basically everything in this universe. philosophy encompasses morals, ethics, science, religion, even mathematics; it seems to me like philosophy is the root of all kinds of studies. in philosophy, one asks questions and expects RATIONAL answers, which is probably why logic is one of the most fundamental field to begin with when one studies philosophy. why asking questions? because one wants to find the truth. there are many things around that we human beings do not understand; why does this event happen? why does he behave like that? what determines right and wrong? philosophy simply seeks the truth, some explanation to questions like those that logically makes sense. and philosophy is "done well," when the answer to a question it proposes is answered rationally.
so the bottomline is, philosophy is a study that promotes questions to help people better understand the universe and themselves, and seeks rational answers to the questions. science, of all fields that branched from philosophy, is the main competitor in providing rational answers. questions promoted from the study of philosophy such as "why is the sky blue" and many others have been answered rationally and logically by science. furthermore, science also gives PROOFS with factual information, and we all know that factual information must be true. thus, science is "philosophy done well," for it provides rational answers that philosophy seeks by promoting questions.
religion or theology on the other hand, also provides answers to questions that philosophy asks. but unfortunately, theological answers are mostly based on intangible things such as faith that cannot be rationally proven. also, when theology provides answers, they are quite limited since their answers revolve around a divine being, whereas science can be more flexible since they do not have to center their answers around one concept. theology does not provide the answers that philosophy seeks: rational answers. this is why theology is considered "philosophy done poorly;" the answers it provides cannot be proven by facts answers that science provides.
10. How does a purely materialist explanation of the universe help one in trying to answer philosophical questions? Give several examples and flesh out your answers.
like the answer i have provided before for question nine, i still think that philosophy is a field of study that seeks the truth through rational answers to the questions it proposes. materialistic explanations are usually accompanied with facts, or experimental evidence, and those are the rational answer that philosophical questions seek. it is of what nature i do not know that rationally logical answers are much more easier for one to accept, rather than answers that are based on intangible concepts; probably the tangibility? i guess it is much more easier for one to accept an explanation if one can construct a tangible depiction of it in his/her mind.
in the metaphysics class i took in january, i was introduced to two philosophical issues that are still being questioned until now: time, and the mind and body problem. the philosophy of time is simple; it basically asks what time IS and how does it behave, exactly. however, there is still no good, rational answer that can answer that question. the mind and body problem is about how an intangible concept such as the MIND can have control over something as tangible as the BODY. what connects the mind to the body? does the mind really exist, or is it just a bunch of chemicals in the brain?
well, i think stephen hawking's the universe in a nutshell and steven pinker's the blank slate have attempted to provide the rational answers to these two different field of philosophy. hawking in his book talks about time, and even introduces the idea of an imaginary time that makes physical theories of the universe consistent with one another. sounds really intangible, but if it is consistent mathematically, chances are it can be the correct idea. the answer is still unclear, since physicists haven't really gotten up to the point where they can give experimental evidence to a claim on what time really is, but at the very least, physics provides the ground to providing the philosophy of time potentially rational answers.
pinker's book also attempts on providing some rational explanation to the mind-body problem. i remember talking about dualism in the metaphysics class, which is also mentioned by pinker in his book. although not directly talking about how the mind is connected to the body, pinker certainly provides some insights in his argument regarding the ghost in the machine. behaviorism, which belongs to monism (who believes that there is only one substance) is also discussed by pinker, and how evolutionary theory can be used to explain this. pinker also briefly mentions descartes, who is a dualist, and his famous line "i think, therefore i am" in his discussion on nature vs nurture. so in a way, pinker touches many of the philosophical aspect of the mind-body problem.
11. In what ways was Errol Flynn a philosophical hedonist? Support your answer with pertinent quotes.
being a hedonist means having a belief that anything that results in pleasure is good, and errol flynn's way of living, all the way from when he was still a child, entirely reflects his philosophical hedonism, for his actions are always geared toward pleasure and no other.
this "seeking pleasure" habit of his can be seen mostly from his experiences with women. in most if not all of his affairs, he never considers the consequences of his actions; all he head in mind was something along the lines of "if it gives both you and me a pleasure, then let's go for it." one affair he had with elsie when he was in northshore sydney grammar school he described as being "much more interesting than algebra." (flynn 43) another affair with a lady named maura was considered "one of [his] most wonderful nights," (flynn 56) although he knew that maura was married to a high government official. then with maihiati, whom he found in the jungle, flynn considered her so "desirable" (flynn 71) that he disregarded a letter from his dad about not having a relationship with a native. his hedonistic idea, however, is probably most easily seen in his short relationship with mayako, whome he met aboard thd D'Artagnan: "i decided that if she were so ill that she might die, and so young and so beautiful, she certainly should have a fling before passing away. i doped the situation this way: if she was really that ill, she would want one too. i was right." (flynn 167)
another example of flynn's hedonism is shown during his childhood. he would skip classes and not study, unlike other kids. what was considered "good" during that era was probably the whole idea of going to school, getting a degree, and then work, but for flynn, who was a hedonist, what doesn't provide pleasure is not a real "good." he said that "it was fun skipping out, fooling the headmasters, taking off at night after a romantic leap to the ground." (flynn 43) flynn cares not about the consequences of his actions, what matters for him is the maximization of pleasure.
12. How did Flynn view women in general? Be sure to be accurate in your answer.
being a hedonist, one who seeks to maximize pleasure, errol flynn seems to find pleasure in women as well. not necessarily in sexual relationship, but more in beauty. in every single one of his encounter with a woman in my wicked, wicked ways, errol flynn always makes reference to beauty, such as: "pretty," "slender," "lovely picture, arms outspread, lovely full breasts," "there is nothing hard or cold about the flesh of the heathen chinee," "the most spectacular sight," and many other.
despite his admiration toward female beauty, flynn makes a strong remark that love between man and woman is not something that comes out from communication. his relationship with tuperselai, in which he hardly talks to her because he has problem talking in tuperselai's language, went smoothly, and the moment they made love, he described it as "a beautiful thing," and "one of [his] most precious poetic moment." (flynn 105) flynn's conclusion from such a beautiful love without much communication is that "a man and a woman should never speak the same language." (flynn 106)
flynn reveals his view on women clearly in page 248 after his troublesome relationship with his first wife, lili damita. flynn considers that "women try to make the man a personal prize," while from the way he sees it, "if you love someone, you will love him enough to want to see him free and unfettered." flyn also ridicules the concept of monogamy; he claims that "it is no man's natural state to be monogamous. neither is it woman's." more strongly, he argues that monogamy is "nothing more than a travesty on human nature."
13. In what ways was Flynn a "philosopher"? Be specific.
being a philosopher, means contemplating and questioning things that one experiences. of course this kind of loose definition would make everyone a philosopher, but everyone IS a philosopher; most of them just don't realize or intend to make it an occupation.
flynn was a philosopher, because in fulfilling his hedonistic life, he pondered and questioned events that he encountered. not just that, he also analyzed those events so he could obtain a rational answer for his questions. these analysis can be seen in the remarks he made with regards to a situation that he is facing. he refuted the thought that he's ignorant by making a strong claim in the prologue: "what makes anyone think that i am less concerned for the verities of the world than anyone else? was it all a prank that i went to loyalist spain, that i sided with castro, that i've plumbed the sea depths, and traveled the world?" (flynn 22)
even at young age, he made an amazing philosophical remark, although he probably has yet to realize it, or maybe just because he was naive. in the incident where he hooked up a half-dozen ducks with a greased string, his father called him a "cruel little devil," a remark which he replied with "you cut open animals all day long in your laboratory. what did i do wrong?" (flynn 32) that astonished his father. young flynn might not realize it, but at this age he was confused at what is right and what is wrong. he figured this much: if someone does something over and over again and no one complains about it, then it can't be the wrong thing to do.
another example was during his affair with maihiati, the young girl he found in the jungle, when he was having moral guilt over having a relationship with a native. flynn got over his guilt and concludes that there is no reason for him to follow the dictates of people "who lived in other lands on the other side of the world." flynn also develops a contemplating mind, as he said: "i had already been wondering about the various sets of moral values that we humans put around our emotions, most of them so varying in different cultures and backgrounds."
his letters to his father was also a media for him to channel his pondering mind. in one of the letters, he came to a conclusion that "the most vital thing in life is to be able to undertand something about it." (flynn 101)
flynn's best friend, koets was considered a big influence for him. maybe in a way that they had gone through many things together, but at the end of the chapter "seven seas to england," flynn made a remark that koets. to flynn, koets had been a great help in understanding more about life, which eventually shaped his hedonistic character. flynn said in reference to koets: "he showed me the difference between cupdity and generosity. he showed me the complete irrelevance of the existence that we humans have while on earth. from koets i learned to take from this brief span the unimportance of being earnest. i learned from him to laugh at the worst disasters." (flynn 175)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home