1. Please describe the background of the dispute between Dr. Samuel Huntington and Dr. Serge Lang.
Dr. Samuel Huntington was nominated to join the NAS,a nd was unlikely to be unchallenged in joining the society. Dr. Serge Lang had only joined NAS the year before, but had assumed ''the role of a sheriff of scholarship"
2.How did Lang respond to Huntington’s “pseudo mathematics?”
Lang was " Disturbed by what he saw as the use of 'pseudo mathematics' by Huntington," and sent subsequent letters and information attacking Huntington.
3. What aspects of the dispute between Lang and Huntington are “political?” How does the author, Jared Diamond, feel about “Academic Freedom?”
Some of Huntington's research was done for the State Department in 1967 and was said to be an early supporter of the "Vietnam War." Diamond feels that academic freedom should be that anyone can raise the issue of a scholar's politics, not just scholars. He implies this with a sarcastic tone, in his statement, "evidently,academic freedom means that outsiders can't raise the issue of a scholar's politics but other scholars can."
4. Why does the NAS exist? Why does this make that attacks against Huntington seem peculiar?
NAS exists to advise the Congress on questions of science and technology. This makes the attacks on Huntington seem peculiar because he was willing to advise Congress, yet he was condemned for it by some NAS members.
5. Why does Diamond find fault in the traditional perceptions of the hard sciences?
Diamond finds fault in the traditional perceptions of the hard sciences because there are some "phenomena that are intellectually challenging and important to understand, but that can't be measured to several decimal places in labs."
6. Why are soft sciences difficult to study?
The soft sciences are difficult to study because"You can't start it and stop it whenever you choose. You can't control all the variables; perhaps you can't control any variable. You may even find it hard to decide what a variable is. You can still use empirical tests to gain knowledge, but the types of tests used in the hard sciences must be modified."
7. How did the NAS need to change in the early 1970s?
NAS was "confronted with the need to offer the government competent advice about social problems, [to] began to admit social scientists at all."
8. What are the problems in “operationalizing” a concept?
Problems in "operationalizing" a concept are that, "to compare evidence with theory requires that you measure the ingredients of your theory," so "you would have to design a series of actual operations that yield a suitable measurement."
9. Briefly describe how Diamond illustrates operationalizing in:
· Mathematics-it is necessary to quantify a general term, such as "many," otherwise the concepts such as "more" or "less" would be irrelevant.
· Chemistry-speculation about ingrediants, then one "proceeds by identifying some property of a substance of interest, or of a related substance into which the first can be converted."
· Ecology-comparative "differences among habitats, which at first seemed to resist having a number put on them, proved to explain a big part of the habitats' differences."
· Psychology-using a questionnaire, defined people into general clusters based on their answers, "the responses were then employed to define attitude scales, which were further validated in other ways."
10. What were Huntington’s operationalized concepts that provoked the wrath of Lang?
"economic well-being, political instability, and social and economic modernization."
11. Why is the task of operationalizing more difficult and less exact in the soft sciences? Why does it lead to the ridicule of the soft sciences?
Operationalizations are more difficult in the soft sciences because of the large amount of uncontrolled variables. It leads to the ridicule of the soft sciences because they deal with familiar concepts, which "all of us fancy we're experts on."
12.Why does Diamond believe that Lang might be ignorant of the measurements taken by social scientists like Huntington?
Diamond believes that Lang must be ignorant of the measurements taken by social scientists like Huntington becausehe does not know anything about the social sciences.
13.Does Diamond believe the labels associated with the sciences be replaced? Explain.
Diamond does believe that the labels should be replaced because "hard" and "soft" denote that all the "soft sciences" are easy, while, in realitythey are "much more difficult and, to some of us, intellectually more challenging than mathematics and chemistry."
14. Does Diamond believe the soft sciences to be more valuable than hard sciences? Do you agree? Explain.
Diamond believes the soft sciences to be more valuable than hard sciences because "our survival depends on whether we progress with understanding how people behave." I disagree, in that i think that all of the sciences, hard and soft are valuable because the soft sciences allow us to understand people's behavior, and predict patterns and such, while the hard sciences allow us to understand the world those people are behaving in. Both elements are essential to beginning to understand the complexities of human life.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
BNW Chapter 9
1. What did Lenina do when she got back to the rest-house?
When Lenina gets back to the rest-house she took six half-grammes of soma tablets, lay down on her bed and hallucinates for 18 hours.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
Bernard asks his Forship, Mustapha Mond, for a special permit to take Linda and John off the Reservation and into London.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
John recites lines from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. This is significant because the relationship from Romeo & Juliet is foreshadowing for what John and Lenina's relationship in the future.
When Lenina gets back to the rest-house she took six half-grammes of soma tablets, lay down on her bed and hallucinates for 18 hours.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
Bernard asks his Forship, Mustapha Mond, for a special permit to take Linda and John off the Reservation and into London.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
John recites lines from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. This is significant because the relationship from Romeo & Juliet is foreshadowing for what John and Lenina's relationship in the future.
BNW Chapter 8
1. How would you describe John's upbringing? Why do you think he says that he is "Alone, always alone." (p. 137). How does Bernard feel about John?
John had a horrible upbringing. He was neglected and lonely. This was because Linda slept with many men on the reservation, because that was what she was conditioned to do. Popé also brought her mescal which is like soma but it "made you feel ill afterwards" (like alcohol), and because many of the women were angry with Linda, John wasn't accepted by the Indians, so he was left alone a lot. He was abused by Linda, who didn't want him because he was the result of he failed contraceptive, and he's the reason she can't leave the reservation. She often forgot to feed him or wash him. I think he says that he is "Alone, always alone," because he is rejected by everyone around him except for the old Indian Mitsima. Bernard feels a kinship John, because he always feels alone as well. He is "rather different from most people," just like John.
2. Why does John say at the end of the chapter, "O brave new world!" (p. 139)?
John say, "O brave new world!" because he is going to get to experience life off the reservation, a world he has never known, and a world where things like monogamy and mending are horrifying concepts, which excites John greatly.
John had a horrible upbringing. He was neglected and lonely. This was because Linda slept with many men on the reservation, because that was what she was conditioned to do. Popé also brought her mescal which is like soma but it "made you feel ill afterwards" (like alcohol), and because many of the women were angry with Linda, John wasn't accepted by the Indians, so he was left alone a lot. He was abused by Linda, who didn't want him because he was the result of he failed contraceptive, and he's the reason she can't leave the reservation. She often forgot to feed him or wash him. I think he says that he is "Alone, always alone," because he is rejected by everyone around him except for the old Indian Mitsima. Bernard feels a kinship John, because he always feels alone as well. He is "rather different from most people," just like John.
2. Why does John say at the end of the chapter, "O brave new world!" (p. 139)?
John say, "O brave new world!" because he is going to get to experience life off the reservation, a world he has never known, and a world where things like monogamy and mending are horrifying concepts, which excites John greatly.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Abel Questions Chapter 10: Scientific Explanations
1. How does Science explain a fact? Please use the entire explanation on. p. 91 and 92.
Science explains a fact by putting it in a general law from which, along with the particular conditions involved, the fact to be explained may be logically deduced. Therefore:
-the pond froze because the water temperature dropped below 32˚F, and water freezes at 32˚F or less.
-The pipe rusted because it was made of iron, which chemically combines with the oxygen in the air.
-The water pipes burst last winter because water expands when it freezes.
-Bert caught malaria because he was bitten by an anopheles mosquito which is a carrier for malaria.
-There was an eclipse of the sun because of the laws of gravitation and the orbits of the planets.
In each if the above listed, the fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law. The scientist explains what happens by devising concepts to describe a particular experience, and supplying a framework of covering laws from which, in conjunction with the specific conditions involved, we may make inferences about what it is that we want explained.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
The common misconceptions about scientific explanations Abel gives, and refutes are:
- "science describes rather than explains." Abel says that there is no fine line between description or explanation, but he asks that if the scientific explanation is only really a description, then what is an explanation?
-"science explains the strange by the familiar." Abel says that actually the reverse is true. Familiar phenomena like rust and family resemblance are caused by unfamiliar concepts like oxidation or genes.
-"scientific explanation is not the same as 'understanding.'" Abel says that the understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance or like knowing how, rather than science.
-"a scientific explanation need not be a casual law." Abel says that is may be a law of simultaneous existence, rather succession.
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (p. 93)?
What Abel means is that the more general the law, the more specific laws it can encompass, so there is a more depth to the explanation that is being provided.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (p. 94)?
What Abel means is that the information in the explanation is relative to the situation, because you can't possibly give all the information in that explanation, and not all of the information is necessary. For example, if you were in New York City, and you asked someone where the Empire State Building, they're not going to tell you it's in NYC, because it's not relevant in the situation.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (p. 95)?
They are "economical ways of describing phenomena," because they are not actually reducing processes, but combining some processes with others in order to have a more succinct term for the compunds, and save time on explanations.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
Scientific explanation requires the concept of system because a concept may be describe in terms of another concept, but those concepts do not always add up to the overall ideal. In order to understand the overall ideal, one must sometimes understand the other concepts which make up the system of the overall ideal.
Science explains a fact by putting it in a general law from which, along with the particular conditions involved, the fact to be explained may be logically deduced. Therefore:
-the pond froze because the water temperature dropped below 32˚F, and water freezes at 32˚F or less.
-The pipe rusted because it was made of iron, which chemically combines with the oxygen in the air.
-The water pipes burst last winter because water expands when it freezes.
-Bert caught malaria because he was bitten by an anopheles mosquito which is a carrier for malaria.
-There was an eclipse of the sun because of the laws of gravitation and the orbits of the planets.
In each if the above listed, the fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law. The scientist explains what happens by devising concepts to describe a particular experience, and supplying a framework of covering laws from which, in conjunction with the specific conditions involved, we may make inferences about what it is that we want explained.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
The common misconceptions about scientific explanations Abel gives, and refutes are:
- "science describes rather than explains." Abel says that there is no fine line between description or explanation, but he asks that if the scientific explanation is only really a description, then what is an explanation?
-"science explains the strange by the familiar." Abel says that actually the reverse is true. Familiar phenomena like rust and family resemblance are caused by unfamiliar concepts like oxidation or genes.
-"scientific explanation is not the same as 'understanding.'" Abel says that the understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance or like knowing how, rather than science.
-"a scientific explanation need not be a casual law." Abel says that is may be a law of simultaneous existence, rather succession.
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (p. 93)?
What Abel means is that the more general the law, the more specific laws it can encompass, so there is a more depth to the explanation that is being provided.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (p. 94)?
What Abel means is that the information in the explanation is relative to the situation, because you can't possibly give all the information in that explanation, and not all of the information is necessary. For example, if you were in New York City, and you asked someone where the Empire State Building, they're not going to tell you it's in NYC, because it's not relevant in the situation.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (p. 95)?
They are "economical ways of describing phenomena," because they are not actually reducing processes, but combining some processes with others in order to have a more succinct term for the compunds, and save time on explanations.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
Scientific explanation requires the concept of system because a concept may be describe in terms of another concept, but those concepts do not always add up to the overall ideal. In order to understand the overall ideal, one must sometimes understand the other concepts which make up the system of the overall ideal.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Order Through Chaos
The claim that “people need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events,” is strongly represented in the Natural Sciences and Religion. In each of the areas of knowledge, but particularly these two, there is a strong base for this idea, especially when one considers the perceptions and emotions, and occasional reason that play into why people “need to believe” that order is found in chaos.
People who “need to believe” that order can be seen amidst chaos may use knowledge of the Natural Sciences, here, more specifically: Biology, to cite examples for their claim. Using Reason, one might suggest that in examining any animal’s body and/or its function, amongst all the working parts of the body all, only one organ runs the entire body, and so this must be some sort of order. I do not think that this claim applies a to a great extent in Biology simply because there is no real chaos in the body, unless the body is malfunctioning. While some might argue that there are so many different working parts of the body with different functions that inside our skin, that it is all chaos, yet there is order because one single part controls the function of every other body part. However, I would disagree with this argument, because I know, through both authority and empirical evidence, that the body is split up into different systems, all of which, while being overall controlled by the brain, work together in each system to perform different jobs. To me, this is not chaos, simply a well-organized sort of machine. In ninth grade we had to study the different systems of the bodies. One group of between 2-4 people would each do a presentation on a different system from the human body. My group’s system was the Respiratory system, and while reading my textbook for information I gained knowledge by authority that allowed me to better understand the how the Respiratory system worked. I decided to trust this authority because it those involved in publishing would have researched their topic well, so as not to misinform thousands of students. I also have empirical knowledge of how a Respiratory system works, in two ways. One is my own Respiratory system, I understand the basics, in that when I breathe in, my lungs inflate with oxygen, and that when I breathe out, carbon dioxide leaves my lungs, and this is how I stay alive. I have also seen the same process with a pig’s lungs, when I was showed the difference between the lung of a “smoker” and that of “non-smoker,” because pigs’ lungs are extremely similar to human lungs. I understand that each system works together to keep the human, or animal body going, and is controlled overall by the brain. This to me does not seem to be order in chaos, in the way that our bodies work. However, when one considers that the body is doing all of this internally, while doing many other things externally, such as driving, reading, speaking, etc., that would seem to me to fit the claim of “glimpsing order in the chaos of events.” The chaos of events is everything the human body does externally; all while the order is functioning in an organized organism made up of many systems working together, perfectly, or near to perfectly. In this second way, the claim works to a better extent, than to the first way one might use the Natural Sciences to argue the point.
Religion also has a very strong base, with which the claim that people need to find order in the chaos of events, works. I find that emotion plays very strongly into religion. For example, it seems to me that many people believe in God and Heaven, and Hell, because they are afraid that after we die, there is nothing. I find that this may be entirely possible, however, sometimes I see beauty in nature, or an event will happen that just seems senseless, but will then connect to another event that occurs later, and it just seems to me like there must be a higher power, perhaps who is orchestrating the life that goes on all around me. An experience from my childhood which helps me perceive and believe in a higher power, was the death of my maternal grandmother when I was six years old. She died of a stroke on the morning of her sixtieth birthday. At the time, her death seemed irrational and so out of place in my six-year-old world. I saw how it devastated my mother and my grandfather. About a month after her death, my aunt (my mother’s sister) announced that after trying for some time, she was finally pregnant, yet sad that she had not shared the news while my grandmother was still alive. Yet, again, to my six-year-old mind, it made sense. My unborn cousin was joining our world, because my grandmother had left it. The baby was not a replacement, in any way, shape, or form, she was just the newest addition. This event is probably the most signifying event to me of the idea of God and that everything happens for a reason, which would be the order in the chaos of events. However this is simply my perception, the way I view the world, based on the way that I was brought up, in two religions, although it was primarily Judaism and secondarily Catholicism (both very reformed), and my perception is completely different, not only from someone who has a different upbringing than I had, as well as a different belief system, such as Atheism, but also different than my sister, who is agnostic, and her views on religion and ideas about God. In this way, related to my experience, religion and the idea that there is order, or God, in the chaos of our lives and events, is something that some people “need to believe.”
One of the best examples of this claim is in the religion of Hinduism. The claim works to a great extent in this particular religion because of the concept of dharma, as well as the caste system. Both of these concepts, one may argue, are the order in the chaos, in that by performing your dharma, and reliving through the caste system, you will eventually reach enlightenment, which is the true order in the midst of chaos of one’s many lives. The dharma, is the concept that one has to do their duty, not only to one’s family, but also to the expectations of the caste one is in, in order to eventually move up into the next caste, to become closer to enlightenment. This concept provides a sort of order for which Hindis may base their lives around. Just as in Biology, dharma seems to be sort of the internal order, around which everything else is based, no matter how complicated the external chaos becomes. A Hindi puts his dharma before everything else, because of his perception that if he follows his dharma, he will move up into the next caste, whether it be from a Vaisya (merchant) to a Khasatrya (warrior), or a Brahimn (priest) onto enlightenment. He may also be fueled by the fear of the wrath of one of the gods/goddesses, such as Kali or Shiva, or by his devotion them, like to Ganesh or Vishnu.
In conclusion, the claim that “people need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events,” applies a good extent to Natural Science, as well as to Religion, although they are not the only two areas of knowledge to which this claim applies to. The ways of knowing to which this claim apply, are mostly through perception and emotion, but particularly in the Natural Sciences, reason as well.
People who “need to believe” that order can be seen amidst chaos may use knowledge of the Natural Sciences, here, more specifically: Biology, to cite examples for their claim. Using Reason, one might suggest that in examining any animal’s body and/or its function, amongst all the working parts of the body all, only one organ runs the entire body, and so this must be some sort of order. I do not think that this claim applies a to a great extent in Biology simply because there is no real chaos in the body, unless the body is malfunctioning. While some might argue that there are so many different working parts of the body with different functions that inside our skin, that it is all chaos, yet there is order because one single part controls the function of every other body part. However, I would disagree with this argument, because I know, through both authority and empirical evidence, that the body is split up into different systems, all of which, while being overall controlled by the brain, work together in each system to perform different jobs. To me, this is not chaos, simply a well-organized sort of machine. In ninth grade we had to study the different systems of the bodies. One group of between 2-4 people would each do a presentation on a different system from the human body. My group’s system was the Respiratory system, and while reading my textbook for information I gained knowledge by authority that allowed me to better understand the how the Respiratory system worked. I decided to trust this authority because it those involved in publishing would have researched their topic well, so as not to misinform thousands of students. I also have empirical knowledge of how a Respiratory system works, in two ways. One is my own Respiratory system, I understand the basics, in that when I breathe in, my lungs inflate with oxygen, and that when I breathe out, carbon dioxide leaves my lungs, and this is how I stay alive. I have also seen the same process with a pig’s lungs, when I was showed the difference between the lung of a “smoker” and that of “non-smoker,” because pigs’ lungs are extremely similar to human lungs. I understand that each system works together to keep the human, or animal body going, and is controlled overall by the brain. This to me does not seem to be order in chaos, in the way that our bodies work. However, when one considers that the body is doing all of this internally, while doing many other things externally, such as driving, reading, speaking, etc., that would seem to me to fit the claim of “glimpsing order in the chaos of events.” The chaos of events is everything the human body does externally; all while the order is functioning in an organized organism made up of many systems working together, perfectly, or near to perfectly. In this second way, the claim works to a better extent, than to the first way one might use the Natural Sciences to argue the point.
Religion also has a very strong base, with which the claim that people need to find order in the chaos of events, works. I find that emotion plays very strongly into religion. For example, it seems to me that many people believe in God and Heaven, and Hell, because they are afraid that after we die, there is nothing. I find that this may be entirely possible, however, sometimes I see beauty in nature, or an event will happen that just seems senseless, but will then connect to another event that occurs later, and it just seems to me like there must be a higher power, perhaps who is orchestrating the life that goes on all around me. An experience from my childhood which helps me perceive and believe in a higher power, was the death of my maternal grandmother when I was six years old. She died of a stroke on the morning of her sixtieth birthday. At the time, her death seemed irrational and so out of place in my six-year-old world. I saw how it devastated my mother and my grandfather. About a month after her death, my aunt (my mother’s sister) announced that after trying for some time, she was finally pregnant, yet sad that she had not shared the news while my grandmother was still alive. Yet, again, to my six-year-old mind, it made sense. My unborn cousin was joining our world, because my grandmother had left it. The baby was not a replacement, in any way, shape, or form, she was just the newest addition. This event is probably the most signifying event to me of the idea of God and that everything happens for a reason, which would be the order in the chaos of events. However this is simply my perception, the way I view the world, based on the way that I was brought up, in two religions, although it was primarily Judaism and secondarily Catholicism (both very reformed), and my perception is completely different, not only from someone who has a different upbringing than I had, as well as a different belief system, such as Atheism, but also different than my sister, who is agnostic, and her views on religion and ideas about God. In this way, related to my experience, religion and the idea that there is order, or God, in the chaos of our lives and events, is something that some people “need to believe.”
One of the best examples of this claim is in the religion of Hinduism. The claim works to a great extent in this particular religion because of the concept of dharma, as well as the caste system. Both of these concepts, one may argue, are the order in the chaos, in that by performing your dharma, and reliving through the caste system, you will eventually reach enlightenment, which is the true order in the midst of chaos of one’s many lives. The dharma, is the concept that one has to do their duty, not only to one’s family, but also to the expectations of the caste one is in, in order to eventually move up into the next caste, to become closer to enlightenment. This concept provides a sort of order for which Hindis may base their lives around. Just as in Biology, dharma seems to be sort of the internal order, around which everything else is based, no matter how complicated the external chaos becomes. A Hindi puts his dharma before everything else, because of his perception that if he follows his dharma, he will move up into the next caste, whether it be from a Vaisya (merchant) to a Khasatrya (warrior), or a Brahimn (priest) onto enlightenment. He may also be fueled by the fear of the wrath of one of the gods/goddesses, such as Kali or Shiva, or by his devotion them, like to Ganesh or Vishnu.
In conclusion, the claim that “people need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events,” applies a good extent to Natural Science, as well as to Religion, although they are not the only two areas of knowledge to which this claim applies to. The ways of knowing to which this claim apply, are mostly through perception and emotion, but particularly in the Natural Sciences, reason as well.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
BNW Chapter 7
Please read Chapter 7 and answer the following questions. Answers must be posted by November 17th for full credit.
1. How does Lenina feel about their appointed guide?
Lenina does not like their appointed Indian guide. She thinks he smells, as well.
2. How does Lenina react to "naked Indian"(p. 110)? Does it remind you of anyone else we have studied?
Lenina is very shocked at the old naked Indian. She stares at him in "horror and amazement." She has never seen a truly old person, because the World Order doesn't allow them to look old, and they usually die around 60. She finds it "terrible," and "awful."
3. How does Bernard react to the pueblo of Malpais?
Bernard is ashamed of "the weakness he had displayed that morning at the hotel, so he is trying to show Lenina that he is "strong and unorthodox." He does this by being "deliberately outrageous," and talking about the "wonderful" relationship between the Indian mothers breast-feeding their babies, to purposefully freak Lenina out.
4. Who is Linda? What is her relationship to Tomakin?
Linda is Tomakin's mother. She had come from the "Other Place" before Tomakin was born, with Tomakin's father, who, it is implied, is the DHC. This means that she is the girl who went on a walk during the thunderstorm, and couldn't be found, and so was assumed dead.
5. Why does Linda believe that "everything they do is mad"(p. 121)? Please be specific.
Linda believes that, "everything they do is mad" because "it's all different here." It's mad because they mend their clothes instead of buying new ones, and are monogamous, and the women are "cruel," and they don't use birth control.
1. How does Lenina feel about their appointed guide?
Lenina does not like their appointed Indian guide. She thinks he smells, as well.
2. How does Lenina react to "naked Indian"(p. 110)? Does it remind you of anyone else we have studied?
Lenina is very shocked at the old naked Indian. She stares at him in "horror and amazement." She has never seen a truly old person, because the World Order doesn't allow them to look old, and they usually die around 60. She finds it "terrible," and "awful."
3. How does Bernard react to the pueblo of Malpais?
Bernard is ashamed of "the weakness he had displayed that morning at the hotel, so he is trying to show Lenina that he is "strong and unorthodox." He does this by being "deliberately outrageous," and talking about the "wonderful" relationship between the Indian mothers breast-feeding their babies, to purposefully freak Lenina out.
4. Who is Linda? What is her relationship to Tomakin?
Linda is Tomakin's mother. She had come from the "Other Place" before Tomakin was born, with Tomakin's father, who, it is implied, is the DHC. This means that she is the girl who went on a walk during the thunderstorm, and couldn't be found, and so was assumed dead.
5. Why does Linda believe that "everything they do is mad"(p. 121)? Please be specific.
Linda believes that, "everything they do is mad" because "it's all different here." It's mad because they mend their clothes instead of buying new ones, and are monogamous, and the women are "cruel," and they don't use birth control.
BNW Chapter 6
Part I
1. Why does Lenina think Bernard Marx "odd" - please use specific references from this chapter in your answer.
Lenina thinks Bernard Marx is "odd" because he didn't "respond properly to conditioning" (pg 88), his "mania for doing things in private" (pg 88), he did not think that time should be wasted (pg 89), wanting to spend the afternoon walking and talking, (pg.89), not wanting to take soma (pg 89), "not wanting to be a part of the social body" (pg 91), and not wanting to end their day in bed (pg 93).
2. Please provide more lines from Lenina that she learned from hypnopedia (there are some great ones in this chapter!). Do any of them remind you of sayings that we may use - please don't use commercial jingles. i.e. "1-800-54-Giant!"
- "A gramme in time saves nine". (pg 89)
This is very similar to our "A stitch in time saves nine." They both mean that if you do soemthing now you can prevent having to do much more later. (Like doing your blogs when they're due, not all at the same time...oops.)
-"Remember on cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments." (pg 89)
-"A gramme is always better than a damn." (pg 90)
I think we have a saying that says to do something instead of just complaining.
-"Every one works for every one else. We can't do without any one. Even Epsilons...are useful!" (pg 91)
-"Everyone's happy nowadays." (pg 91)
-"Never put off till to-morrow the fun you can have today."(pg 93)
We also have a saying like this, but it refers more to doing work today so you can have fun tomorrow.
-When the individual feels, the community reels." (pg 94)
All in all, what hypnopedia sayings are to BNW, so cliches are to (American?) Society 2009.
3. What is Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior?
Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior is that there was too much alcohol in his blood surrogate.
Part II
4. What did the Director tell Bernard about his own trip to the Reservation? Why did it initially make Bernard feel uncomfortable?
The Director told Bernard that he had been to the Reservation "Twenty years, I suppose. Nearer twenty-five. I must have been your age..." (pg 96). This initally makes Bernard feel "extremely uncomfortable" because the Director is "so scrupulously correct," and he "commit[s] so gross a solecism!" by talking about the remote past.
The Director also tells Bernard that he also "wanted to have a look at the savages," and got a permit to the Reservation for his summer holiday. He took a girl who was "particularly pneumatic," and on the almost the last day, she got lost, by going out on a walk by herself while he was sleeping. Then there was a thunderstorm, and the horses they had been riding broke free and he hurt his knee, and could not find her. He eventually made it back to the rest-house hoping he'd find her there, but she wasn't, and when they conducted the search they couldn't find her. It made the Director almost too upset.
5. What does the Director threaten Bernard with if he doesn't change his behavior? Why does it elate Bernard?
The Director threatens Bernard with transference to a Sub-Centre, like Iceland, if he does not make an effort to conform and lapses again "from a proper standard of infantile decorum." This elates Bernard because he believes that he now stood alone, and has "consciousness of his individual significance and importance." He feels s"strong enough to meet and overcome affliction."
Part III
6. How does the Warden describe the Reservation?
The Warden describes the Reservation as very large (560,000 sq km), but divided into four Sub-reservations, which are surrounded by "a high-tension wire fence." There's 5,000 km of fencing at 60,000 volts, supplied from the Grand Canyon hydro-electric station. Therefore "there is no escape from a Savage Reservation." The children who are actually born on the Reservation, must not leave, and die on the Reservation.
1. Why does Lenina think Bernard Marx "odd" - please use specific references from this chapter in your answer.
Lenina thinks Bernard Marx is "odd" because he didn't "respond properly to conditioning" (pg 88), his "mania for doing things in private" (pg 88), he did not think that time should be wasted (pg 89), wanting to spend the afternoon walking and talking, (pg.89), not wanting to take soma (pg 89), "not wanting to be a part of the social body" (pg 91), and not wanting to end their day in bed (pg 93).
2. Please provide more lines from Lenina that she learned from hypnopedia (there are some great ones in this chapter!). Do any of them remind you of sayings that we may use - please don't use commercial jingles. i.e. "1-800-54-Giant!"
- "A gramme in time saves nine". (pg 89)
This is very similar to our "A stitch in time saves nine." They both mean that if you do soemthing now you can prevent having to do much more later. (Like doing your blogs when they're due, not all at the same time...oops.)
-"Remember on cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments." (pg 89)
-"A gramme is always better than a damn." (pg 90)
I think we have a saying that says to do something instead of just complaining.
-"Every one works for every one else. We can't do without any one. Even Epsilons...are useful!" (pg 91)
-"Everyone's happy nowadays." (pg 91)
-"Never put off till to-morrow the fun you can have today."(pg 93)
We also have a saying like this, but it refers more to doing work today so you can have fun tomorrow.
-When the individual feels, the community reels." (pg 94)
All in all, what hypnopedia sayings are to BNW, so cliches are to (American?) Society 2009.
3. What is Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior?
Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior is that there was too much alcohol in his blood surrogate.
Part II
4. What did the Director tell Bernard about his own trip to the Reservation? Why did it initially make Bernard feel uncomfortable?
The Director told Bernard that he had been to the Reservation "Twenty years, I suppose. Nearer twenty-five. I must have been your age..." (pg 96). This initally makes Bernard feel "extremely uncomfortable" because the Director is "so scrupulously correct," and he "commit[s] so gross a solecism!" by talking about the remote past.
The Director also tells Bernard that he also "wanted to have a look at the savages," and got a permit to the Reservation for his summer holiday. He took a girl who was "particularly pneumatic," and on the almost the last day, she got lost, by going out on a walk by herself while he was sleeping. Then there was a thunderstorm, and the horses they had been riding broke free and he hurt his knee, and could not find her. He eventually made it back to the rest-house hoping he'd find her there, but she wasn't, and when they conducted the search they couldn't find her. It made the Director almost too upset.
5. What does the Director threaten Bernard with if he doesn't change his behavior? Why does it elate Bernard?
The Director threatens Bernard with transference to a Sub-Centre, like Iceland, if he does not make an effort to conform and lapses again "from a proper standard of infantile decorum." This elates Bernard because he believes that he now stood alone, and has "consciousness of his individual significance and importance." He feels s"strong enough to meet and overcome affliction."
Part III
6. How does the Warden describe the Reservation?
The Warden describes the Reservation as very large (560,000 sq km), but divided into four Sub-reservations, which are surrounded by "a high-tension wire fence." There's 5,000 km of fencing at 60,000 volts, supplied from the Grand Canyon hydro-electric station. Therefore "there is no escape from a Savage Reservation." The children who are actually born on the Reservation, must not leave, and die on the Reservation.
Monday, November 23, 2009
BNW Chapter 5
1. What would Michael Pollan (Remember? The Omnivore's Dilemma) say about the first paragraph in Chapter 5?
Michael Pollan would say that if the hormones and milk were the raw materials for the factory, then everything the factory produced would, at it's base, be from corn, as the cows eat the corn and in turn, everything they produce is made from corn.
2. Do you see any similarities with how the World State views death as compared to the Hindus? How does Lenina's remembrance of hypopedia compare with what is discussed in Plato's Republic?
There is a strong similarity between Hinduism and World State views on death, because they both believe that their bodies are recycled and returned to the Earth, and their energy is used to continue life on earth. Lenina's remembrance of hypnopaedia is also very similar to what is discussed in Plato's Republic in that at each level, everyone is conditioned to be happy where they are. "Epsilons don't really mind being Epsilons," in the same way that warriors, of silver, don't mind being warriors. However, one difference between the two is that in the World State, your heredity matters, as Henry mentions on page 74. In the Republic, Socrates argues that golden children can come from bronze or silver parents and vice versa.
3. What do you think of Lenina's and Henry night out on the town?
To me it's fascinating that in order for not only them, but everyone else to have a good night, they need to get high. They call it being "happy," and they say that "everyone is happy now," but it seems almost sad that they need several does of a drug to enjoy themselves, and that their own positive emotions are not enough to produce that effect for them. I do like the way that the music seems to fill them, although that too could be because they're high, but Huxley uses such wonderful adjectives and details in describing the music, that one can almost enjoy it, simply by reading about it.
4. Why do you think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters?
I think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters because they don't really have any substance to them. The word "pneumatic" means "containg or operated by air or gas under pressure." This seems to fit the girls that Huxley is describing, at least through Bernard's eyes, on page 80. He finds Clara Deterding "really too pneumatic." She is not "plump, blonde, not too large," the qualities Huxley has Bernard use to describe Fifi and Joanna who "were absolutely right."
5. What is Solidarity Service and what are Bernard's feelings towards it?
Solidarity Service is an orgy, meant for those at the service to achieve "rapture," and "calm ecstasy," and to come together. However, Bernard does not feel this way. Again he feels isolated, empty, "separate and atoned."
Michael Pollan would say that if the hormones and milk were the raw materials for the factory, then everything the factory produced would, at it's base, be from corn, as the cows eat the corn and in turn, everything they produce is made from corn.
2. Do you see any similarities with how the World State views death as compared to the Hindus? How does Lenina's remembrance of hypopedia compare with what is discussed in Plato's Republic?
There is a strong similarity between Hinduism and World State views on death, because they both believe that their bodies are recycled and returned to the Earth, and their energy is used to continue life on earth. Lenina's remembrance of hypnopaedia is also very similar to what is discussed in Plato's Republic in that at each level, everyone is conditioned to be happy where they are. "Epsilons don't really mind being Epsilons," in the same way that warriors, of silver, don't mind being warriors. However, one difference between the two is that in the World State, your heredity matters, as Henry mentions on page 74. In the Republic, Socrates argues that golden children can come from bronze or silver parents and vice versa.
3. What do you think of Lenina's and Henry night out on the town?
To me it's fascinating that in order for not only them, but everyone else to have a good night, they need to get high. They call it being "happy," and they say that "everyone is happy now," but it seems almost sad that they need several does of a drug to enjoy themselves, and that their own positive emotions are not enough to produce that effect for them. I do like the way that the music seems to fill them, although that too could be because they're high, but Huxley uses such wonderful adjectives and details in describing the music, that one can almost enjoy it, simply by reading about it.
4. Why do you think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters?
I think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters because they don't really have any substance to them. The word "pneumatic" means "containg or operated by air or gas under pressure." This seems to fit the girls that Huxley is describing, at least through Bernard's eyes, on page 80. He finds Clara Deterding "really too pneumatic." She is not "plump, blonde, not too large," the qualities Huxley has Bernard use to describe Fifi and Joanna who "were absolutely right."
5. What is Solidarity Service and what are Bernard's feelings towards it?
Solidarity Service is an orgy, meant for those at the service to achieve "rapture," and "calm ecstasy," and to come together. However, Bernard does not feel this way. Again he feels isolated, empty, "separate and atoned."
Connections
Cave and Grendel:
-Grendel is being enlightened, steeping out of the cave, and trying to find a higher power
BNW and Hinduism:
-The Caste system, in which there is a hierarchy of the most enlightened and intelligent at the top, and the "stupidest" lowest echelons of society at the bottom in both societies.
18 w/ a bullet and Hinduism:
-everyone has there place and everyone has a responsibility. A gang member has a duty to protect the gang and serve the gang, which they consider to be their family, which is similar to the Hindu concept of Dharma, which is responsibility to their family.
For all:
Society has created a prison, they are all trapped by the standards of that society. Also, everyone is a prisoner to their own Dharma.
Grendel and 18 w/ a bullet:
Both are struggling with the concept of monster. Both can be defined as monsters, they are both very savage, and do bad things, but they both have their humanistic sides, which reveal characteristics which makes it hard to completely classify them as monsters.
BNW, Nacirema and 18 w/ a bullet:
focus strongly on materialism.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Gangs in el Salvador
Why does Slappy act this way?
can't measure human experience
-too many human variables, everyone has different experiences
-different points of view
-different opinions
-people aren't numbers
-it's hard to find qualitative conclusions
On the other hand, these things can be measured:
-crime stats
-unemployment stats
-poverty census
-Dysfunctional family
-Gang has replaced family/church--they look out for each other, live by their own rules & morals, belonging, protection, structure, school, community--contribute to 'cause', jobs:extortion & drugs, initiation (beating), tattoos, shaved head, participate in democracy.
Idea of Crime: Causes and Effects
-no other options
-no job opportunities--not hiring, added expenses
-addiction
-need for money
-no advancement (stuck at the bottom of the food-chain)
-need for structure
-poverty
"The gang structure is a lot like Wal-Mart."
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Nacirema
1. What happened yesterday? Why couldn't we recognize our own culture?
Yesterday we read about a tribe, called the Nacirema located between Canada and Mexico, who, we decided were barbarians, savage, and uncivilized. However, at the end of the class, we found out that the tribe being described were actually Americans, and the word "american" had simply been spelled backwards. I think that we couldn't recognize our own culture because of the terms in which it was describe to us. The language of the article altered our perception, and so they way it was presented, as if by an outsider was observing our culture.
2. What does your answer say about the the strengths and weaknesses of the Social Sciences like Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology?
2. What does your answer say about the the strengths and weaknesses of the Social Sciences like Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology?
My answer shows both the strengths and weaknesses of the social sciences. On one hand, the article allowed us a look at the psychology, not only of our own culture, but also of how an insider might view American culture, which is a strength, to have the two different view points. At the same time, there is the weakness in the bias opinion one takes of anyone who is different. In the article, many words describing "rituals" not only had negative connotations, like "witch-doctor," but also had a condescending tone when describing a "magical," tool or supply. This shows the weakness of social sciences, in that we are condescending towards other cultures, and we look down on other cultures and ideas about what is "normal."
Monday, November 9, 2009
Abel Questions Chapter 15
1. Why is history being rewritten constantly?
History is being rewritten constantly because is "always written wrong." Abel says that the past is a "steady process of imaginative reinterpretation and reconstruction; we want it to be meaningful to us in the present."
2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"? Please provide a specific example for each factor.
-our interests change:example-In 50 years, will will probably care less about Miley Cyrus's "scandalous" photos, than her impact on popular music.
-our conceptual apparatus changes: example-we now have access to confidential documents from the Soviet Union about the Cold War, which we did not have before the collapse.
-our view for basic historical segment changes:example-"Toynbee holds the most intelligent unit not to be the nation, but the 'society.'"
-the interests and idiosyncrasies of the historian change:example-after WWII, Hitler was a very popular subject of study. Today, it might be Obama.
-the audience for whom the historian writes changes:example-a change in political party rule:republicans vs. democrats->the majority of the house changes.
3. What is the "Baconian fallacy?"What would the Positivists think? Would Carr agree with Namier?
The "Baconian fallacy" is the idea that "all the historians have to do is collect the facts." The Positivits would completely agree with this view, and say that the facts speak for themselves. Carr would agree with Namier, because Naimer believes that historians have to "single-out and stress" the most important parts, like a painter, and not like a photographer, who can capture everything at once.
4. How does History differ from Geology?
History differs from Geology in that historians "attribute meaning to [the] data." Whereas the geologists focus more on the present aspects of the rock they are examining and how the past could have affected it to look as it does.
5. According to Abel: "The patterns to be found in past events are selected by the historian; like the hypothesis of the scientist, they may be suggested, but are neither imposed nor dictated, by "the facts (p. 166-7)." Based on your experience with the Cheques Lab, how far do you agree with this explanation of history?
Based on my experience with the Cheques Lab, I agree to a decent extent with this explanation of history. Sometimes in History, the historian has to be able to see patterns to establish them as relevant, but the patterns are not necessarily the most important or even actual patterns vs. coincidences.
6. In your opinion, "how will future historians so elect to describe what is going on now(p. 167)?"
In my opinion, future historians will focus on the biggest issues facing our society today. In the future, historians will elect to discuss whether or not the first black American president was a good president, they will discuss the state of the economy, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
7. What is historical pluralism?
Historical pluralism is the historical process made up of the enumerable components which don't "form a completely inter-related set...[Historiacl pluralism] denies that every event is related to every other event."
8. The list of events (or non-events) listed on p. 168 makes Abel ask the question: "Is there, then, no hard core or bed-rock of indisputable facts that the historian must recognize." Does it matter if there ever was a man named Trotsky?
I think that based on perception, there is no hard-core of indisputable fact; in history everything is disputable. There are generally accepted facts, such as the Holocaust happened. Yet there are people who don't believe that the Holocaust happened. It matters that the Holocaust happened, and that there was a man named Trotsky, so that humans can keep a generally accepted record of what happened. This way, we become better at preventing things like mass genocide of a people, or the establishment of a cruel dictatorship.
9. How is a historian like a physicist?
A historian is like a physicist in that they both go "beyond the evidence," select their facts and how to describe them.
10. What are the Five Frameworks or Hypotheses of History? Please provide an example from your HL or SL history class of each.
-I:Cyclical:Repetition is likely.-The Jewish-Arab fight. Both sides feel so strongly that there are only a limitd amount of solution to the problem, and history, like the 1929 Riots and the Hebron Massacre are likely to repeat themselves until the problem is solved.
-II:foundational:they isolate and stress certain factors.
-a) History of civilization depends on "climate, soil, and geography."-The majority of land in the Middle East is not particularly arable, so Arabs have a hard time cultivating certain types of plants, which are part of a huge trading industry. Also, the Middle East is geographically located farther away from a major ocean, and therefore their history of civilization may be said to be slowed in comparison to lands such as England and America, which are located on arable lands near major trading routes.
-b)Race is stressed by historians as ancient-Jews, who have been considered to be a race, have been suppressed for millennia. They were the ones who had to handle money in the MIddle Ages when that was considered "dirty," and their control over banks because of that, which caused discrimination against them in the modern world (1920s-WWII, specifically).
-c)Heredity ability is paramount in historical interpretations-In the the Middle East, Prince Faisal was expected to be a good leader of Syria, and help establish a independent Arab state, just as his father did with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence.
-d)Psychological factors are identified by many as the moving force in history.-Hitler's campaign against the Jews worked in part because the people of Germany were downtrodden by the Treaty of Versailles, and were in the psychological condition to blame a scapegoat for their troubles.
-e)The motive of History to be the appearance of superior individuals.-Winston Churchill, who talked about making allies with the Russians before the end of the war, has eventually come to be known as one of England's most accomplished Prime Ministers.
-III:Progress:change in the direction of human interests-In Germany, HItler believed he was making progress for the betterment of Germans, by extinguishing Jews, homosexuals, and those who were disabled.
-IV:Christian:History is a great drama of sin and redemption.-Part of the Lebanese National Pact is that Lebanon will be an independent Arab state with special ties to the west (They are Christian) and are therefore mostly peaceful and not enter alliance against any other Arab state.
-V:Organismic:all civilizations grow, from infancy to death.-The Nazi ideals, which grew from anti-Semitism and from infancy after WWI, and the treaty of Versailles, and blossomed into frull growth, hence WWII, have nearly reached the death stage, although Neo-Nazism still exists today.
11. Do you believe in Historical Inevitability?
I do not believe in Historical Inevitability because I do not believe that future is predictable because of some overall "plot." I believe that history is continuing series of events that are interconnected, and may help us prevent certain diasters and calamities in the future, but will not hepl us predict the future.
12. What does Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (p. 174)."?
Abel means that there is no way to test a theory of history, because the future is unknown. you can uses a theory to predict what will happen, and then, only after it has happened, use those results from history to verify your theory insofar. However, there is always the chance that something will happen which completely contradicts your theory, and there is simply no way to prepare for that.
13. Abel writes: "Macaulay regards history as a branch of literature (p. 174)." How would Jill Lepore of Just the Facts, Ma'am respond? Please provide to specific quote from the article to justify your claim.
JIll Lepore would agree, for the same reason that Abel states: "the historian, like the novelist, tells a story: this is how things happened." She would agree by saying that the historian looks at the facts and interprets them to tell a general story of what happened, while the novleist looks at the facts and interprets them to tell a story about human nature.
14. How does the footnote at the bottom of page 175 relate to the Shaper from Grendel?
The footnote at the bottom of page 175 relates to the Shaper from Grendel, because the Shaper takes the commonly acknowledged history, and changes it so that is the most falttering and reflective view, which is what each culture/race mentioned in the footnote is doing.
History is being rewritten constantly because is "always written wrong." Abel says that the past is a "steady process of imaginative reinterpretation and reconstruction; we want it to be meaningful to us in the present."
2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"? Please provide a specific example for each factor.
-our interests change:example-In 50 years, will will probably care less about Miley Cyrus's "scandalous" photos, than her impact on popular music.
-our conceptual apparatus changes: example-we now have access to confidential documents from the Soviet Union about the Cold War, which we did not have before the collapse.
-our view for basic historical segment changes:example-"Toynbee holds the most intelligent unit not to be the nation, but the 'society.'"
-the interests and idiosyncrasies of the historian change:example-after WWII, Hitler was a very popular subject of study. Today, it might be Obama.
-the audience for whom the historian writes changes:example-a change in political party rule:republicans vs. democrats->the majority of the house changes.
3. What is the "Baconian fallacy?"What would the Positivists think? Would Carr agree with Namier?
The "Baconian fallacy" is the idea that "all the historians have to do is collect the facts." The Positivits would completely agree with this view, and say that the facts speak for themselves. Carr would agree with Namier, because Naimer believes that historians have to "single-out and stress" the most important parts, like a painter, and not like a photographer, who can capture everything at once.
4. How does History differ from Geology?
History differs from Geology in that historians "attribute meaning to [the] data." Whereas the geologists focus more on the present aspects of the rock they are examining and how the past could have affected it to look as it does.
5. According to Abel: "The patterns to be found in past events are selected by the historian; like the hypothesis of the scientist, they may be suggested, but are neither imposed nor dictated, by "the facts (p. 166-7)." Based on your experience with the Cheques Lab, how far do you agree with this explanation of history?
Based on my experience with the Cheques Lab, I agree to a decent extent with this explanation of history. Sometimes in History, the historian has to be able to see patterns to establish them as relevant, but the patterns are not necessarily the most important or even actual patterns vs. coincidences.
6. In your opinion, "how will future historians so elect to describe what is going on now(p. 167)?"
In my opinion, future historians will focus on the biggest issues facing our society today. In the future, historians will elect to discuss whether or not the first black American president was a good president, they will discuss the state of the economy, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
7. What is historical pluralism?
Historical pluralism is the historical process made up of the enumerable components which don't "form a completely inter-related set...[Historiacl pluralism] denies that every event is related to every other event."
8. The list of events (or non-events) listed on p. 168 makes Abel ask the question: "Is there, then, no hard core or bed-rock of indisputable facts that the historian must recognize." Does it matter if there ever was a man named Trotsky?
I think that based on perception, there is no hard-core of indisputable fact; in history everything is disputable. There are generally accepted facts, such as the Holocaust happened. Yet there are people who don't believe that the Holocaust happened. It matters that the Holocaust happened, and that there was a man named Trotsky, so that humans can keep a generally accepted record of what happened. This way, we become better at preventing things like mass genocide of a people, or the establishment of a cruel dictatorship.
9. How is a historian like a physicist?
A historian is like a physicist in that they both go "beyond the evidence," select their facts and how to describe them.
10. What are the Five Frameworks or Hypotheses of History? Please provide an example from your HL or SL history class of each.
-I:Cyclical:Repetition is likely.-The Jewish-Arab fight. Both sides feel so strongly that there are only a limitd amount of solution to the problem, and history, like the 1929 Riots and the Hebron Massacre are likely to repeat themselves until the problem is solved.
-II:foundational:they isolate and stress certain factors.
-a) History of civilization depends on "climate, soil, and geography."-The majority of land in the Middle East is not particularly arable, so Arabs have a hard time cultivating certain types of plants, which are part of a huge trading industry. Also, the Middle East is geographically located farther away from a major ocean, and therefore their history of civilization may be said to be slowed in comparison to lands such as England and America, which are located on arable lands near major trading routes.
-b)Race is stressed by historians as ancient-Jews, who have been considered to be a race, have been suppressed for millennia. They were the ones who had to handle money in the MIddle Ages when that was considered "dirty," and their control over banks because of that, which caused discrimination against them in the modern world (1920s-WWII, specifically).
-c)Heredity ability is paramount in historical interpretations-In the the Middle East, Prince Faisal was expected to be a good leader of Syria, and help establish a independent Arab state, just as his father did with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence.
-d)Psychological factors are identified by many as the moving force in history.-Hitler's campaign against the Jews worked in part because the people of Germany were downtrodden by the Treaty of Versailles, and were in the psychological condition to blame a scapegoat for their troubles.
-e)The motive of History to be the appearance of superior individuals.-Winston Churchill, who talked about making allies with the Russians before the end of the war, has eventually come to be known as one of England's most accomplished Prime Ministers.
-III:Progress:change in the direction of human interests-In Germany, HItler believed he was making progress for the betterment of Germans, by extinguishing Jews, homosexuals, and those who were disabled.
-IV:Christian:History is a great drama of sin and redemption.-Part of the Lebanese National Pact is that Lebanon will be an independent Arab state with special ties to the west (They are Christian) and are therefore mostly peaceful and not enter alliance against any other Arab state.
-V:Organismic:all civilizations grow, from infancy to death.-The Nazi ideals, which grew from anti-Semitism and from infancy after WWI, and the treaty of Versailles, and blossomed into frull growth, hence WWII, have nearly reached the death stage, although Neo-Nazism still exists today.
11. Do you believe in Historical Inevitability?
I do not believe in Historical Inevitability because I do not believe that future is predictable because of some overall "plot." I believe that history is continuing series of events that are interconnected, and may help us prevent certain diasters and calamities in the future, but will not hepl us predict the future.
12. What does Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (p. 174)."?
Abel means that there is no way to test a theory of history, because the future is unknown. you can uses a theory to predict what will happen, and then, only after it has happened, use those results from history to verify your theory insofar. However, there is always the chance that something will happen which completely contradicts your theory, and there is simply no way to prepare for that.
13. Abel writes: "Macaulay regards history as a branch of literature (p. 174)." How would Jill Lepore of Just the Facts, Ma'am respond? Please provide to specific quote from the article to justify your claim.
JIll Lepore would agree, for the same reason that Abel states: "the historian, like the novelist, tells a story: this is how things happened." She would agree by saying that the historian looks at the facts and interprets them to tell a general story of what happened, while the novleist looks at the facts and interprets them to tell a story about human nature.
14. How does the footnote at the bottom of page 175 relate to the Shaper from Grendel?
The footnote at the bottom of page 175 relates to the Shaper from Grendel, because the Shaper takes the commonly acknowledged history, and changes it so that is the most falttering and reflective view, which is what each culture/race mentioned in the footnote is doing.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Prescribed Title #7
“We see and understand things not as they are but as we are.” Discuss this claim in relation to at least
two ways of knowing.
They way we see and understand things are not actually based on the way they are, but we see and understand things based on the way we are. This means that we use two of our ways of knowing, perception and emotion, to see things differently than they might actually be.
Sometimes, when we perceive an event, our own personal biased comes into what we believe to be happening, and takes precedence on how we interpret this event. Often past behaviors are a reason why our perception in influenced. For example, I have a lot of guy friends, and I'm used to them like pushing me playfully, or punching me on the shoulder, just in a friendly, platonic, non-romantic sort of way. This means that if I made a new guy friend, and he had feelings for me, and tried to express his feelings for me by touching me more than he normally would, such as pushing me playfully, or punching me lightly on the shoulder, I would not be able to understand the way he was expressing himself, because of my own biased, perceiving something differently than what was actually there. I understood, or rather misunderstood, something based on the way I am, rather on the way it actually is.
Emotion can often play into the way we see or understand things based on who we are rather, than the way things actually are. I am usually a pretty happy person. This does not mean that I always see things through rose-colored glasses, but I am more likely to assume that people appear happier than they actually are, because of my own emotion. Unless I have Apriori knowledge, where maybe Person X is a generally grumpy person, I might have difficulty distinguishing between someone who is actually happy, and someone who is only pretending to be happy This would be if I didn't know them and saw them in the hallway at school, or in some other public forum, because I generally consider myself to be a perceptive person. Therefore if my own emotion, of general happiness, changes the way I understand and see some things, because of the way I am, not because of the way they are.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
BNW Chapter 4
Part 1
1. What puzzles Lenina about Bernard Marx's behavior?
3. What does Bernard have in common with Helmholtz Watson?
Bernard and Helmhotlz have similar knowledge that "they were individuals." Bernard knows this because he has "too little bone and brawn," whereas Helmholtz knows he ahs too much ability. Both men have a "mental excess."
1. What puzzles Lenina about Bernard Marx's behavior?
She is puzzled by him flushing when she mentions their New Mexico plan, saying that he had reacted as if she had made a dirty joke.
2. Please provide examples of Lenina using what she learned from hypnopaedia.
She voices her dislike of khaki, which Huxley says she is "voicing the hypnopaedic prejudices of her caste." She also says the phrase "I'm glad I'm not a Gamma," which is the exact phrasing from the hypnopaedia.
3. Where are Lenina and Henry going?
3. Where are Lenina and Henry going?
They are going to play Obstacle Golf at Stoke Poges.
Part 2:
1. What makes Bernard Marx distressed? Why?
Part 2:
1. What makes Bernard Marx distressed? Why?
Bernard Marx is distressed because Lenina thought it was a perfect afternoon for Obstacle Golf and went off to play with Henry Foster. This distresses him because he spent so much time and took his courage to ask her to go to New Mexico, which he considers to be "their most private affairs," which she openly wants to discuss in public.
Also, contact with members of the lower castes distresses him because it "always reminded him painfully of [his] physical inadequacy." His self-conciousness is distressing.
2. Where does Helmholtz Watson work? What is his job?
2. Where does Helmholtz Watson work? What is his job?
Helmhotz Watson works as a lecturer at the College of Emotional Engineering (Department of Writing), and he is an Emotional Engineer as well. Also, "he wrote regularly for The Hourly Radio, composed feely scenarios, and had the happinest knack for slogans and hypnopaedic rhymes.
3. What does Bernard have in common with Helmholtz Watson?
Bernard and Helmhotlz have similar knowledge that "they were individuals." Bernard knows this because he has "too little bone and brawn," whereas Helmholtz knows he ahs too much ability. Both men have a "mental excess."
4. What is troubling Helmholtz?
Helmholtz is troubled by a feeling he has, a feeling that he has this power inside himself to do something, which is waiting to come out of he gives it a chance. A "sort of extra power that [he isn't] using." He feels like he has the potential to do something greater than what he is doing now.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Cheques Lab vs. How History is written
Similar to History
- we don't have all the information
- we weren't there, so we don't get little details
- when finding new information, we have to find a way to include it in our previous interpretation, for the most accuracy.
Dissimilar to History:
- we don't know how it's relevant
- we don't have different accounts to back it up
- we don't have someone who may have been there or lived during that time time to corraborate our interpretation.
What is History?
http://home.comcast.net/~cphenlymbk2006/ibnapresentation.htm
CARR Link, at the bottom of the page.
The Positivists: (19th century-1830s) (counter-claim to Abel)
-obssessed with facts.
-"Cult of Facts"
-They saw history as a science.
-Empirical strain of studying history.
-objective-->concerned with the facts only. when a bias come inot it, it's not history, it's just opinion.
-"The process of p/reception is passive: having received the data, he then acts in them."
- Common-sense view of history
"here are certain basic facts which are the same for all historians and which form, so to speak, the backbone of history."
Carr:
- history are major events.
-if an event happened, but it was not recorded, not analysed as important, then it is not a historical fact.
-it's not history until someone has deemed it important, and has written it down.
-"A historian is necessarily selective."
-"The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy."
- a selection, of a selection of a selection of facts.
Monday, November 2, 2009
BNW Chapter 3
In Chapter 3, we begin to learn about how the World State. Please explain how the following areas are different in the World State as compared to our world in 2009.
A) Sex, Monogamy & Romance
In the World State, Monogamy and Romance are considered exclusive, negative, "a narrowing channelling of impulse and energy." In our world 2009, Monogamy and Romance are positive things, and are the normalities of our society. We consider it to be a bad thing to cheat on your husband or boyfriend, whereas, it is surprising, and negative to be exclusive in the World State. In the World State, sex is a natural thing, open and everywhere, and this is considered to be a positive thing. In our world 2009, Sex may be everywhere, in the sense of advertisements, but it is not generally viewed a a positive thing. Sex is repressed, something one does in private, and exclusively. In the World State, sex is an open thing.
B) Sports
In the World State, "the Controllers won't approve of any new game unless it can be shown be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated of existing games," and they play elaborate games which "increase consumption." In our world 2009, not all games are complicated, like soccer only using a ball and your feet and sometimes a net, and the games aren't meant to "increase consumption," they are generally meant for entertainment.
C) Entertainment
In the World State, the majority of entertainment is erotic. Games are erotic, an most activities, for adults are erotic. Other entertainment, shown in Chapter 3, is "at the Club playing Musical Bridge," and going to "Savage Reservations." In our world 2009, the entertainment industry is a majority made up of televisions actors and also stage actors, and we also consider major league sports, like football, baseball, and basketball, to be entertainment.
D) Parenthood
In the World State, Parenthood is bad. No one has a "mother;" no one has "children." The Controller describes the ideal of Parenthood as "social instability." In our world 2009, Parenthood is a good thing. One values their parents and their families above all. Your loyalty lies with your family, and most people care and take care of their parents for as long as they live. In the World State, there is no loyalty, because the concept doesn't really exist.
E) Materialism
In the World State, the concept of Materialism does not exisit. As Fanny tells Lenina, "every one belongs to everyone else." For them even people are shared, much like Communism. In our world 2009, Capitalism rules, and everyone is very materialistic. One is judged by what they own, and how much they own.
F) Religion
In the World State, Religion, particularly Christianity is a very negative thing because it required women to continue being the oft-repeated word"viviparous," which is a foreign and horrible concept in the World State. In our world 2009, Religion is often considered to be very positive, and for many people, a salvation.
G) Intoxicants
In the World State, drinking, alcohol use, is regular and completely normal and expected. In our world 2009, we consider being intoxicated to be something done occasionally, for recreation, not something done often as a daily activity, whereas in the World State, it seems as if one is expected to go and get drunk, everyday. It is not only alcohol, but also, in the World State, drugs they condone. Soma, is a pill they ration out, to keep everyone happy.
Finally, to the best of your ability, provide a brief history (a paragraph) of how the World State came to be.
The World State came to be after the Economic Collapse and the Nine Years' War, which was a war of great destruction and biological warfare (Page 48, the third quote down), like with anthrax bombs, and there was a choice between World Control, which a few people had been suggesting before that war and were met with great resistance, or destruction. A choice between, what the Controller says is "stability or...Liberalism," in which he aligns World Control with stability.
A) Sex, Monogamy & Romance
In the World State, Monogamy and Romance are considered exclusive, negative, "a narrowing channelling of impulse and energy." In our world 2009, Monogamy and Romance are positive things, and are the normalities of our society. We consider it to be a bad thing to cheat on your husband or boyfriend, whereas, it is surprising, and negative to be exclusive in the World State. In the World State, sex is a natural thing, open and everywhere, and this is considered to be a positive thing. In our world 2009, Sex may be everywhere, in the sense of advertisements, but it is not generally viewed a a positive thing. Sex is repressed, something one does in private, and exclusively. In the World State, sex is an open thing.
B) Sports
In the World State, "the Controllers won't approve of any new game unless it can be shown be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated of existing games," and they play elaborate games which "increase consumption." In our world 2009, not all games are complicated, like soccer only using a ball and your feet and sometimes a net, and the games aren't meant to "increase consumption," they are generally meant for entertainment.
C) Entertainment
In the World State, the majority of entertainment is erotic. Games are erotic, an most activities, for adults are erotic. Other entertainment, shown in Chapter 3, is "at the Club playing Musical Bridge," and going to "Savage Reservations." In our world 2009, the entertainment industry is a majority made up of televisions actors and also stage actors, and we also consider major league sports, like football, baseball, and basketball, to be entertainment.
D) Parenthood
In the World State, Parenthood is bad. No one has a "mother;" no one has "children." The Controller describes the ideal of Parenthood as "social instability." In our world 2009, Parenthood is a good thing. One values their parents and their families above all. Your loyalty lies with your family, and most people care and take care of their parents for as long as they live. In the World State, there is no loyalty, because the concept doesn't really exist.
E) Materialism
In the World State, the concept of Materialism does not exisit. As Fanny tells Lenina, "every one belongs to everyone else." For them even people are shared, much like Communism. In our world 2009, Capitalism rules, and everyone is very materialistic. One is judged by what they own, and how much they own.
F) Religion
In the World State, Religion, particularly Christianity is a very negative thing because it required women to continue being the oft-repeated word"viviparous," which is a foreign and horrible concept in the World State. In our world 2009, Religion is often considered to be very positive, and for many people, a salvation.
G) Intoxicants
In the World State, drinking, alcohol use, is regular and completely normal and expected. In our world 2009, we consider being intoxicated to be something done occasionally, for recreation, not something done often as a daily activity, whereas in the World State, it seems as if one is expected to go and get drunk, everyday. It is not only alcohol, but also, in the World State, drugs they condone. Soma, is a pill they ration out, to keep everyone happy.
Finally, to the best of your ability, provide a brief history (a paragraph) of how the World State came to be.
The World State came to be after the Economic Collapse and the Nine Years' War, which was a war of great destruction and biological warfare (Page 48, the third quote down), like with anthrax bombs, and there was a choice between World Control, which a few people had been suggesting before that war and were met with great resistance, or destruction. A choice between, what the Controller says is "stability or...Liberalism," in which he aligns World Control with stability.
BNW Chapter 2
1. How do babies sent to the Neo-Pavlovian Conditioning Rooms develop an "instinctive hatred of books and flowers?" Why were Deltas exposed to such treatment?
2. What is a State Conditioning Center? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
3. How does the Caste system work in the World State? What are the similarities and differences between this and the Hindu Caste system?
4. What does the Director mean when he says, "Not so much like drops of water....rather, drops of liquid sealing wax."?
Babies sent to the Neo-Pavlovian Conditioning Rooms develop an "instinctive hatred of books and flowers," through the terrifying process, where when the see the flowers and the books, and suddenly loud noises and explosions go off, and they are electrically shocked. This is done over two hundred times, so that every time they see either a book or flower, they will subconsciously remember the experience they had as infants, and instinctively hate the two. Deltas were exposed to this treatment because if the "lower class" hated nature, then they were much more likely to work efficiently in the factories.
2. What is a State Conditioning Center? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
A State Conditioning Center is the place where the babies are "raised," or rather where they are conditioned for the society A Brave New World is set in. They are not with the people, aka their parents, who bore them. It does remind of Plato's republic, where it was suggested that children who were of a different metal, should not be allowed to stay with their parents, so that the metals would not taint each other.
3. What is hypnopaedia? Why wasn't it used for Science? What was it used for? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
Hypnopaedia is "sleep-teaching." It wasn't used for Science because "you can't learn a science unless you know what it's all about." In hypnopaedia, each person is taught facts, but they do not know what those facts mean. Tommy could recite the fact about the longest river in Africa, but when asked what the longest river in Africa was, he could not say what it was. He did not know the science of the fact, and could not rationalize it from the fact from-which he had been taught. Hypnopaedia was used for "moral education which ought to never, in any circumstances, to be rational," and the Director describes it as "the greatest moralizing and socializing force of all time."This reminds me of the ideal in Plato's Republic, that children ought not to be taught that the gods were imperfect and did things such as steal, lie, and cheat, because then they would rationalize that if they were to be like the gods, then they would have to steal, lie, and cheat too, and so the ideal of a Just City, would be ruined. From both books, one can see the connection to the ideal that moral education should not be rational.
3. How does the Caste system work in the World State? What are the similarities and differences between this and the Hindu Caste system?
In the World State, the Caste system is organized into levels, like the Hindu Caste system. Each level is given a Greek Letter name. The highest level is Alpha, then Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc. The Alphas are the most clever and smartest, the most enlightened are are allowed to receive the most knowledge. This is similar to the Hindu Caste system, in that those on the highest level, the Brahmin (priests), are the most enlightened, and are preparing for moksha. However, in the World State Caste system, those who are born into one level of the Caste system do not come from those in the same level, nor do they ever reach a higher level, which is different than in the Hindu Caste system. Also, similar to the Hindu Caste system, in the World State Caste system, each level has their obligation, or Dharma, to their society.
4. What does the Director mean when he says, "Not so much like drops of water....rather, drops of liquid sealing wax."?
When the Director says, "Not so much like drops of water....rather, drops of liquid sealing wax," he means that the information they constantly bombard the children engulf them into those ideals, rather than covering them, but bombarding them so much, that someone decides to rebel.
Monday, October 26, 2009
BNW Chapter 1
1. What is the World State's Motto?
"Community, Identity, Stability."
2. Please describe Bokanovsky's Process. Why does The Director call it the "major instrument of social stability?"
An egg which has undergone the Bokanovsky Process, will "bud, proliferate, divide." The eggs are x-rayed for 8 minutes, and if they survive, they divide, multiplying by two, with each bud. The Director calls it "the major instrument of social stability" because they are able to produce ninety-six people, where only one was before, and everyone is so standard and average, that no one is ostracized or hurt for being different, and so there would be no hate crimes, because everyone is pretty much the same.
3. Why did the Director wish to keep the Epsilon "embryo below par?"
The Director wished to keep the Epsilon "embryo below par" because an Epsilon embryo "must have an Epsilon environment as well as an Epsilon heredity." This means that they decided that they cannot have simply one or two Epsilons, but just as many as Alphas, Betas, Gammas, etc., again, so that there is a place for everyone, and no one is isolated.
4. What does Mr. Foster mean when he says: "We condition them to thrive in heat...that is the secret of happiness of virtue - liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny."? How does this connect to what is happening in Rack 10?
The Director means that the fate of embryos they are creating and conditioning prepares them for what they will have to face in their lives. They make them happy to do what they need to do. They hate being cold, so they are happy when thy are warm, and are so happy to do their jobs. Each embryo they create is classified differently and will have a different social destiny, but they can be prepared, before their lives begin, to love whatever job they may have been created or classified to do.
This is connected to what is happening in Rack 10 because the embryos in Rack 10 are being conditioned to be able to handle toxins like lead, and chlorine, so that they can be chemical workers, as well as being separately conditioned to have a different sense of balance because they are "only truly happy when they're standing on their heads," so that they can handle rocket repairs in mid-air.
"Community, Identity, Stability."
2. Please describe Bokanovsky's Process. Why does The Director call it the "major instrument of social stability?"
An egg which has undergone the Bokanovsky Process, will "bud, proliferate, divide." The eggs are x-rayed for 8 minutes, and if they survive, they divide, multiplying by two, with each bud. The Director calls it "the major instrument of social stability" because they are able to produce ninety-six people, where only one was before, and everyone is so standard and average, that no one is ostracized or hurt for being different, and so there would be no hate crimes, because everyone is pretty much the same.
3. Why did the Director wish to keep the Epsilon "embryo below par?"
The Director wished to keep the Epsilon "embryo below par" because an Epsilon embryo "must have an Epsilon environment as well as an Epsilon heredity." This means that they decided that they cannot have simply one or two Epsilons, but just as many as Alphas, Betas, Gammas, etc., again, so that there is a place for everyone, and no one is isolated.
4. What does Mr. Foster mean when he says: "We condition them to thrive in heat...that is the secret of happiness of virtue - liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny."? How does this connect to what is happening in Rack 10?
The Director means that the fate of embryos they are creating and conditioning prepares them for what they will have to face in their lives. They make them happy to do what they need to do. They hate being cold, so they are happy when thy are warm, and are so happy to do their jobs. Each embryo they create is classified differently and will have a different social destiny, but they can be prepared, before their lives begin, to love whatever job they may have been created or classified to do.
This is connected to what is happening in Rack 10 because the embryos in Rack 10 are being conditioned to be able to handle toxins like lead, and chlorine, so that they can be chemical workers, as well as being separately conditioned to have a different sense of balance because they are "only truly happy when they're standing on their heads," so that they can handle rocket repairs in mid-air.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Kali
Kali is the fearful and ferocious form of the mother goddess. She assumed the form of a powerful goddess and became popular with the composition of the Devi Mahatmya, a text of the 5th - 6th century AD. Here she is depicted as having born from the brow of Goddess Durga during one of her battles with the evil forces. As the legend goes, in the battle, Kali was so much involved in the killing spree that she got carried away and began destroying everything in sight. To stop her, Lord Shiva threw himself under her feet. Shocked at this sight, Kali stuck out her tongue in astonishment, and put an end to her homicidal rampage. Hence the common image of Kali shows her in her mêlée mood, standing with one foot on Shiva's chest, with her enormous tongue stuck out.http://hinduism.about.com/od/hindugoddesses/a/makali.htm
http://freethoughtpedia.com/images/Hindu-kali.JPG
Monday, October 5, 2009
Plato Notes
Book I:
Pg 21.
343b
Justice/Injustice
Injustice rules the just
“The just man everywhere has less than the unjust man.” The unjust man has no morals, no limits.
Juvenal
“What I want-I take- let my will take the place of reasoned argument.”
Justice: virtue, prudent, good, knowledge, wise, happy
- the soul’s virture is to purse the good
Injustice: vice, thoughtless, bad, lack of knowledge, ignorant, wretched
Book II:
Pg. 35
City→follow justice→Must be led by guardians
The Guardians:
- Swift
- Strong
- Philosophical king
Speech=Logic/Reason
Most important subjects for the young:
o Gym for the body
o Music for the soul
Censorship is good, because you can’t have kids believing gods are not perfect. We want the guardians to emulate the gods, so we do not want them to emulate something that is not good.
377c
378d
379d
382d→”we’ll not let the teachers use them for the education of the young, if our guardians are going to be go-revering and divine insofar as a human can possibly be.”
Book III
Pg93
Guardians: Gold
Auxliaries/Soldiers: Silver
Farmers/Merchants: Bronze and Iron
If a “gold” has a “bronze” or “iron” child or vice-versa, they must be separated, so as not to contaminate the “gold.”
Keep the metals separate.
Hitler used this idea of “gold”→ as being better than others.
P95 416d→Stalin used this idea of sharing→”Communism”
BookIV
p.97
p.106, 428a
Nature not nurture.
Guardians→Gold→Wisdom→smallest %
You cannot make a gold out of someone who was once bronze. Even if you have converted to Catholisicm, even if you only had a jewsih grandparent, you are still a Jew (Hitler ideal)
428c
Auxiliaries/Soldiers→Silver→Courage
429e-430a
“Don’t think we devised all that for any other purpose than that—persuaded by us—they should receive their laws from us in the finest possible way like a dye, so that their opinion about what is terrible and about everything else would be colorfast because they had the proper nature and rearing, and their dye could not be washed out by those lyes so terribly effective at scouring, pleasure—more terribly effective for this many than any Chalestrean soda and alkali;”
Farmers/Merchants→Bronze/Iron→Moderation.
With these three working together, you have a “Just City.”
Encouraging segregation
p.119
Thinks that all three things are found in everyone’s soul.
439d
“So we won’t be irrational…” to “…replenishments and pleasures.”
Three-part soul:
- Calculating (Reason)→Gold→Super ego, taught to you
- Loves, Hungers, Thirsts ([irrational] Desire)→Silver→ID
- Spirit→Bronze/Iron→ego, who you are
p.121
Have harmony of the three components in both the soul and in the Just City.
Book VII
p.193
allegory of the cave
Pg 21.
343b
Justice/Injustice
Injustice rules the just
“The just man everywhere has less than the unjust man.” The unjust man has no morals, no limits.
Juvenal
“What I want-I take- let my will take the place of reasoned argument.”
Justice: virtue, prudent, good, knowledge, wise, happy
- the soul’s virture is to purse the good
Injustice: vice, thoughtless, bad, lack of knowledge, ignorant, wretched
Book II:
Pg. 35
City→follow justice→Must be led by guardians
The Guardians:
- Swift
- Strong
- Philosophical king
Speech=Logic/Reason
Most important subjects for the young:
o Gym for the body
o Music for the soul
Censorship is good, because you can’t have kids believing gods are not perfect. We want the guardians to emulate the gods, so we do not want them to emulate something that is not good.
377c
378d
379d
382d→”we’ll not let the teachers use them for the education of the young, if our guardians are going to be go-revering and divine insofar as a human can possibly be.”
Book III
Pg93
Guardians: Gold
Auxliaries/Soldiers: Silver
Farmers/Merchants: Bronze and Iron
If a “gold” has a “bronze” or “iron” child or vice-versa, they must be separated, so as not to contaminate the “gold.”
Keep the metals separate.
Hitler used this idea of “gold”→ as being better than others.
P95 416d→Stalin used this idea of sharing→”Communism”
BookIV
p.97
p.106, 428a
Nature not nurture.
Guardians→Gold→Wisdom→smallest %
You cannot make a gold out of someone who was once bronze. Even if you have converted to Catholisicm, even if you only had a jewsih grandparent, you are still a Jew (Hitler ideal)
428c
Auxiliaries/Soldiers→Silver→Courage
429e-430a
“Don’t think we devised all that for any other purpose than that—persuaded by us—they should receive their laws from us in the finest possible way like a dye, so that their opinion about what is terrible and about everything else would be colorfast because they had the proper nature and rearing, and their dye could not be washed out by those lyes so terribly effective at scouring, pleasure—more terribly effective for this many than any Chalestrean soda and alkali;”
Farmers/Merchants→Bronze/Iron→Moderation.
With these three working together, you have a “Just City.”
Encouraging segregation
p.119
Thinks that all three things are found in everyone’s soul.
439d
“So we won’t be irrational…” to “…replenishments and pleasures.”
Three-part soul:
- Calculating (Reason)→Gold→Super ego, taught to you
- Loves, Hungers, Thirsts ([irrational] Desire)→Silver→ID
- Spirit→Bronze/Iron→ego, who you are
p.121
Have harmony of the three components in both the soul and in the Just City.
Book VII
p.193
allegory of the cave
Group 4 Reflection
1. What was your hypothesis?
Our question was: "How does the soil and the water from two sections in an estuary affect the organisms living in those sections?" We thought that the salinity and pH of both the soil and the water would affect the organisms in the each area, so we tested both from five different areas, in each section (the ocean and the creek).
2. Explain your experiences in gaining and testing evidence.
Any issues, with samples or equipment?
It was sometimes difficult and somtimes it was easy to get samples. It was more difficult the deeper in the water we had to go, especially because we didn't really plan for how cold the water would be. We also didn't expect to have to go as deep into the wate as we had to, in order to get the samples we needed. There wasn't really any problem with the equipment. Those in the group who were trained to use the labquest, did so, and using the core probe was not difficult nor complicated, so there weren't any real issues with equipment.
3. How was working in a group? What went well? What didn't?
Working in a group mostly went well. While we were at the estuary, we helped each other a lot. One of us would go to get samples while another tested. My ankle was really sore, and one of my group members helped me balance on the slippery mud, while I tried to get a sample from deeper in the water. Each person in our group contributed to the experiemnet in the field. However, our group sort of seems to be having problems coming together to meet. One person does not want to seem to cooperate by sacrificing some time or an activity, that others of us are, in order to meet. As a result of this, we will have to get more done in less time, as a group, and it seems like we will have to have some meetings where not everyone is present.
4. How do you know that you gained scientific knowledge? Was your data good?
I know that we gained scientific knowledge through Empiricism, because I saw the color differences in the soil from just one section we tested, so I know that the these different samples will yield results that may answer our question. I know through Knowledge by Authority that the instruments were accurate because Ms. Gallo, explained that they were. Our group will research our results and compare them to the measurements and other resluts posted by reliable sources (such as universities and scienetifi communties). I am not sure if our data is "good" yet, as our group has not analyzed it yet.
Our question was: "How does the soil and the water from two sections in an estuary affect the organisms living in those sections?" We thought that the salinity and pH of both the soil and the water would affect the organisms in the each area, so we tested both from five different areas, in each section (the ocean and the creek).
2. Explain your experiences in gaining and testing evidence.
Any issues, with samples or equipment?
It was sometimes difficult and somtimes it was easy to get samples. It was more difficult the deeper in the water we had to go, especially because we didn't really plan for how cold the water would be. We also didn't expect to have to go as deep into the wate as we had to, in order to get the samples we needed. There wasn't really any problem with the equipment. Those in the group who were trained to use the labquest, did so, and using the core probe was not difficult nor complicated, so there weren't any real issues with equipment.
3. How was working in a group? What went well? What didn't?
Working in a group mostly went well. While we were at the estuary, we helped each other a lot. One of us would go to get samples while another tested. My ankle was really sore, and one of my group members helped me balance on the slippery mud, while I tried to get a sample from deeper in the water. Each person in our group contributed to the experiemnet in the field. However, our group sort of seems to be having problems coming together to meet. One person does not want to seem to cooperate by sacrificing some time or an activity, that others of us are, in order to meet. As a result of this, we will have to get more done in less time, as a group, and it seems like we will have to have some meetings where not everyone is present.
4. How do you know that you gained scientific knowledge? Was your data good?
I know that we gained scientific knowledge through Empiricism, because I saw the color differences in the soil from just one section we tested, so I know that the these different samples will yield results that may answer our question. I know through Knowledge by Authority that the instruments were accurate because Ms. Gallo, explained that they were. Our group will research our results and compare them to the measurements and other resluts posted by reliable sources (such as universities and scienetifi communties). I am not sure if our data is "good" yet, as our group has not analyzed it yet.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Ways of Knowing Essay
In order to distinguish between something that is true, and something that is believed to be true, it’s important to examine the truth-in-question with the four ways of knowing, as well as it’s justifications, and through Plato’s three truth requirements. If something that is believed to be true cannot be properly explained and justified through the ways of knowing and the justifications of at least empiricism and/or authority, than it is probably not true.
When examining something to figure out if it is true or just believed to be true, it is really important to look at the four ways of knowing, which are: emotion, reason, language, and perception. If something that is believed to be true can be looked at through these four ways of knowing, then it is mostly likely true, and not just believed to be true. For example, it is true that I have, what is generally known as “red hair.” I perceive my hair to be of a reddish color. Using reason, I can deduce that I am a “red-head” because my hair is not brown enough to be considered “brunette”, nor is it light and honey-colored enough to be considered “blonde,” nor is it dark enough to be considered “black,” and the only general remaining natural color is “red.” Emotionally, I know that my hair is red. I feel the secondary emotion of pride at knowing my hair is red, which I know is more rare than blonde, brunette, or black. I know that it is more rare through the justification of empiricism. I have seen more brunettes, blondes, and black-haired people, than I have seen people with red-hair. Language as a way of knowing, also helps be know that my hair is red. Through further empiricism, I have heard people use terms like “carrot-top,” “ginger,” and “freckle-face,” to describe not only me, but other people who I know have red-hair. These Language terms help me to know that my hair is red because the terms themselves generally refer to the color red, or reddish colors, and so using them to describe someone helps us know that they have red hair.
There are counterclaims to this of course, the first being that “red” is not a natural hair color, and that anyone who has natural “red-hair” actually has more orange-colored hair. One who is using this counterclaim, could reference the language term “carrot-top” citing that carrots are orange, and so someone who is a “carrot-top” actually has orange-colored hair, rather than “red.”
Another way for us to examine something that may be true is to look at it platonically. Plato’s three requirements for truth help us limit what has the possibility to true and what does not, and ultimately helps us differentiate between the real truth, and the believed truth. Plato said that for something to be true it must be “Public” (available to the masses), “Independent” (of one’s belief system), and it must be “Eternal” (it always has been and will be true). This platonic examination of the four ways of knowing will better help us distinguish between the truth and the belief of truth. An example of this is a traffic light in America. It is true that red means stop and is at the top of the traffic light, yellow means slow down and prepare to stop, and is in the middle of the traffic light, and green means go and is at the bottom of the traffic light. We can justify that this is how an American traffic light works, through Knowledge by Authority. Our parents, our drivers’ education teachers, and our government, all authority figures, tell us that this is how an American traffic light system works. We know that this is true because it is public. Anyone can go to a traffic intersection and see a traffic light, and watch the traffic as it goes by and how the cars react to the changing of the lights. By doing this, they will also get an empirical justification. Or, if one does not have access to a streetlight at an intersection, the literature is available, on the Internet or at one’s local Registry or Department of Motor Vehicles. It is independent of one’s belief system in that, anyone of any religion in America, can look at a traffic light and understand what each color means and knows what they are supposed to do. Because it is known to the public, even if you believe that what others see to be the color red, is green, and you run a red light or in you opinion, “green light,” you can still be ticketed because the truth of the way the traffic light works is independent of your belief that the color red is actually green. Finally, the traffic light system is eternal. Even if the system one day, changes, it will always be known that at one time, red meant stop, yellow meant slow down, and green meant go. It is a part of history and it has already been proved to be Public and Independent, so we know that is will be Eternal.
However, one could claim that because not everyone in the world has Internet access, nor the literature that describes would an American traffic light, that this knowledge is not Public enough, and so it would not pass one of Plato’s three requirements for truth, and can only be considered to be true, not a simple truth.
There are implications of my argument that a truth needs to be backed up by the four ways of knowing, the justifications of Authority and Empiricism, and Plato’s three requirements of truth. One general implication is that a lot of things that we considered to be true will be questioned, and perhaps found not to be as believed. For my peers, this might mean when reading an article passed out in History class, we have to considered it’s source, where it was published, by whom it was published, etc., before we can accept that the information provided to us is the truth. For my school, the implication is that the teachers must work harder to provide and inform the students with the most possibly accurate information, and that they must go through the ways of knowing, as well as Platonic truth requirements and justifications, to be sure that information is accurate, and provides, at the very least, one part of the truth. The implication for the world is that leaders may be questioned on what they proclaim to be “the truth.” And if they know that they may be questioned about why what they are saying is the truth, they are more likely to do the proper research and confirm that what they tell people is true, and not simply believed to be true. An example of how this may work is an example from the past. George W. Bush claimed that dictator Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), and that he wanted to use them on the United States. If he had been questioned on this claim with the four ways of knowing, the Platonic definition of truth, and justifications, it is very possible that his claim could be shown to be simply believed to be true, but not actually true, and many American soldiers’ lives would have been saved.
In conclusion, when we examine a claim, using the four ways of knowing, the Platonic definition of truth, and justifications, we can better distinguish between something that is true, and something that is simply believed to be true.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Elephant Man
The Elephant Man
Please consider the David Lynch film, The Elephant Man, to answer the following questions.
1. (A) Is John Merrick a Monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following Areas of Knowledge to justify your claims.
1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?
2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being!" What does he mean? How does he know?
6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.
Please consider the David Lynch film, The Elephant Man, to answer the following questions.
1. (A) Is John Merrick a Monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following Areas of Knowledge to justify your claims.
John Merrick is not a monster.In relation to history, he does not behave like the monsters in our fairy tales. In the movie, he can speak, he can create, in general he can contribute to society unlike the monsters of fairy tales, who are generally the antagonists of those stories, and do not seem to contribute to the fairy tale kingdoms. In The Elephant Man, John Merrick is the protagonist of the story.
In relation to the natural science, John Merrick is not a monster. He has a disease, and having a disease does not make you a monster, much in the same way that having cancer does not make you a monster. Also, not every part of John Merick was deformed. As Dr. Treves pointed out when Merrick first came to the hospital, Merrick's genitals are completely normal for a human, further evidence that although he is deformed, he is not a monster. According to social science, John Merrick is not a monster. He behaves like a gentleman, is intelligent and refined. When given nice clothes to wear, and a dressing case, he uses them, just as any other gentleman would. Merrick proves himself not to be dangerous, nor a criminal, and so social science shows us that he is not a monster.
Finally, in relation to the arts, John Merrick proved himself not to be a monster. Not only can he appreciate the arts, such as the theatre, which he visited, and wished to go again, as expressed in the movie, but Merrick was also able to create art, something no monster should be able. In visiting the theatre, and creating a beautiful paper catherdral, John Merrick has proved himself not to be a monster, through the Arts.
1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?
The counterclaim for each Area of Knowledge, can be shown through the actions of Mr. Bytes, John Merrick's former "owner" in the circus.
In relation to History, Mr. Bites would claim that he knows the story of why John Merrick looks as he does, that his father is an elephant, that the African story Mr. Bytes was told is true, to look at the elephant man and hear the story, one would know it was true.
Mr. Bytes would also say that, according to the natural sciences, John Merrick is clearly a monster. He would say again that simply looking at the elephant man would show you that he is a monster. He would say that obviously no human could look like that, and that no animal could look like that either, so a cross between a human and an animal would be a monster.
Mr. Bytes also believes that John Merrick is a monster according to the social sciences. It seems that Merrick won't speak in front of Mr. Bytes, so it appears that all Merrick can do is grunt and spit. Merrick does not act like a man in front or Mr. Bytes, so Mr. Bytes would claim that he is a monster, and not a man because he does not act like a man.
Finally, in relation to the arts, Mr. Bytes would claim that Merrick is a monster because Merrick cannot create, nor appreciate any art, and that monster can neither create or appreciate art. it is evident through the film that Merrick is too frightened of Mr. Bytes to really do anything in his presence, so it appears to Mr. Bytes that Merrick cannot create or appreciate, or indeed contribute to society, so Mr. Bytes sees him as a monster, and treats him as such.
2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being!" What does he mean? How does he know?
He means that he is not wild, a monster, someone who would hurt others. He is trying to explain that he is not dangerous to the crowd that is converging on him, simply because he looks different, scary and dangerous. He wants them to know that he will not hurt them, or anyone, because he fears that they will hurt him.
He knows he is human through knowledge by authority. Dr. Treves has told him that he is not a monster, that he is human, and Dr. Treves is a physician, so he has authority. Dr. Treves even explains to his colleagues how, although Merrick is deformed, he is a human, and even in spite of his deformities, some parts of him remain unaltered. Merrick also knows that he is human, through knowledge by introspection. He knows how to read, and knows the Bible, front to back, he can appreciate beauty, and art, and he can even create beautiful things. He knows that he is a thinking being as, believes himself to be a human because of theses things.
3. Dr. Treves asks, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He wants to know if he is a good man for taking care of John Merrick, for giving him a place to stay, for examining him, and for introducing him into English society, and giving him friends like the actress, Ms. Kendal. However, he wonders if, by introducing Merrick into English society, he has behaved like Mr. Bytes, showing Merick off to the world to see, just as Mr. Bytes did, presenting Merrick as a freak. He knows he is a good in two ways, Knowledge by Authority and Knowledge by Introspection, just as John Merrick knows he is human, not animal. The Knowledge by Authority comes from his wife, and from John Merrick. When he poses his question to his wife, she reassures him that he is good because of all he has done for Mr. Merrick. This inspires his knowledge by Introspection, where he examines what he has done for Merrick, such as rescuing him from Bytes, giving him a place to stay, food, and companionship. His knowledge by Introspection is confirmed by John Merrick when, upon his return to the hospital after being kidnapped by Mr. Bytes, Merrick tells Dr. Treves, that if it were not for him, Merrick would not be happy, because he would not know that each moment of each day, he was loved, and calls Dr. Treves, "my friend."
4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
The role of herd mentality plays both negative and positive roles in the film. Some of the negative roles are:
4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
The role of herd mentality plays both negative and positive roles in the film. Some of the negative roles are:
-The proclamation of Merrick as a freak in the circus.
-The excitement in the bar, as the night watchman, eggs on the drunks to come and see the elephant man.
- The reaction of the drunken crowds when the night watchman brings them to Merrick's room.
-The gathering hoard chasing Merrick in the train station after the little boy steals Merrick's protective cap/sack.
The positive roles of the herd mentality in the film are:
-The clapping of the audience after Ms. Kendal when she dedicates the performance to Merrick.
-The standing ovation that follows Merrick when he stands at the performance.
-The visitors to Merrick after Ms. Kendal, who comes of her own accord.
-The treatment of Merrick as an intelligent human being by the nurses and other hospital staff, after Dr. Treves presents and explains him as such, instead of an idiot.
5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.
If you believe that John Merrick was a monster, then the community reacted two different ways to the three monsters in the movie.
The first reaction to a monster that they had, if you believe John Merrick to be a monster, was in horror and fear, at the beginning. Before Dr. Treves showed English society that Merrick was not a monster, almost anyone who looked at him, saw only his disfigurement. Women screamed in terror, men jeered and laughed, or just looked in disgust. It wasn't until Dr. Treves showed Merrick kindness and discovered his intelligence and gentleness, that he could be accepted by others as a man, and not a monster.
The second reaction the community had to the monsters in the film, is a much scarier reaction than horror at a monster. Their reaction to the two men, I perceived to be monsters, was that of acceptance. I perceived them to be monsters because they were exploiting John Merrick, using his misfortune of disease, for their own personal gain. Mr. Bytes beat Merrick simply because he was deformed and Mr. Bytes believed himself to be the owner of Merrick. He did not seek to have Merrick examined, and did not wish for him to live and be cared for in the London hospital, because it was a loss of income for him. The community accpeted Mr. Bytes by going to the circus, and paying him to see the "freak," the elephant man.
The night watchman was the other man I perceived to be a monster, and the community readily accepted him too, with people from the bar, paying him to go and see and jeer at Merrick in the hospital. It seemed as if they believed that what the watchman was doing was okay; those who went to Merrick's room, actively participated in terrorizing Merrick.
6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.
I do agree with Merrick. In the movie, it is evident that almost everyone who first sees Merrick is frightened of him They do not know that he is a normal man with a disease which has deformed him, that he is intelligent and kind. Once they understand this, like Ms. Kendal, they seem to like him, and do not, for the most part, appear frightened of him, because they understand that he is a normal man on the inside.
I believe that for the most part. this statement still applies to the modern world. human beings are still afraid of what they don't understand. The Bosnian War is proof of that. Serbian Christians fear the Muslims in that part of the world, partly because they don't understand them, they don't understand their culture or their traditions. This statement still applies to the US, but less so. In the US, citizens are more accepting of differences and other cultures. However, Americans are often still afraid of what they don't understand. For example, after September 11, 2009, many white Americans were afraid of Muslim-Americans, especially those who wore traditional garb. This fear was irrational because the Muslim religion, Islam, literally translates to "peace." Those Americans did not realize that not everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. In general, though, Merrick's statement is generally true throughout the world, present somewhere in each culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
