Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal",
"Hacker Arrested After Bank Tampering".... Damn Kids. They're all alike. But did you, in your three-piece
psychology and 1950's techno-brain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever
wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him? I am a hacker, enter
my world...
Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers
explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it "No Ms. Smith, I didn't show my
work. I did it in my head..." Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.
I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to.
If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened
by me... Or thinks I'm a smart ass... Or feels aching and shouldn't be here... damn kid. All he does is
play games. They're all alike.
And then it happened... A door opened to a world... Rushing through the phone line like heroin through an
addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompentencies is sought... a
board is found... "This is it... This is where I belong... I know everyone here... Even if I've never met
them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all..." Damn kid. Tying up
the phone line again. They're all alike.
You bet your ass we're all alike... We've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for
steak... The bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been
dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing
pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.
This is our world now... The world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make
use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run
profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... And you call us criminals. We seek after
knowledge... And you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without
religious bias. And you call us criminals?
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they
say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of out smarting you, something you will never
forgive me for.
I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... After
all, we're all alike.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
The Lake
The Lake
It was the middle of springtime and across from my house where the
incident took place. There was a lake there in which my brother and I
loved to explore from time to time. The humidity and waterdrops where
reminiscent of a fully functional sauna. The onslaught of heat and
burning glow of the sun was relentless. Nonetheless, this fact did not
bother us one bit, but gave us more incentive to dance with our cool and
embracing "long-lost love".
The first step of this operation was making sure that our neighbors
had gone away from the house for at least two hours. Since it was their
lake and property, this made it safe for us in not getting caught in the
middle of our escapade. Upon this, my brother and I snuck to their
backyard like two undercover police officers, until we were in the clear.
Nerve-wracking minutes later, flowed the emerald green and ever-so lively
lake in front of us. We stopped and starred in awe. The lake had appeared
so shiny and reflective, it resembled a finely-cut diamond. The rare and
distinct fragrance enticed us. It smelled like mother-nature herself,
with aromas ranging from wildlife and wet grass, to evaporated swamp
water and healthy dirt.
Then, the time for us to find the desired vessel arrived. We chose
the kayaks, and set out for the water. Carefully, with our torn-jeans
rolled up, and shirts off, we dragged the massive thing over the slope of
grass and mud into the shallow stream. We then hopped aboard, grabbed the
paddles, and floated and splashed into nowhere. The wavy current sucked
us downstream, periodically bouncing us off of sandbags and sharp
branches leaning over the water- Now that was true adventure! Minutes
later, my brother and I, after passing under many pipes and tunnels,
floated into a huge "cul de sac" of water, with an island in the center.
In our amazement, we paddled there as vigorously as toddlers learning to
swim. We tied the kayaks to a thin branch with the slimy green rope
mysteriously attached to them, and hopped onto the island. We basked in
pure amazement.
After the tempo settled, we started our natural brotherly routine.
My brother and I sat on the muddy bank, with our feet dipped in water,
and threw stones out as far away as we could in our competitive nature.
We set aside our differences, and together, bonded. My newfound companion
and I sat, laughed, fought, played, and talked, as the sun slowly left
us.
At this point it did not matter what happened to us for taking the
kayaks, because whatever it was, it could not replace the priceless
experience we shared with one another.
It was the middle of springtime and across from my house where the
incident took place. There was a lake there in which my brother and I
loved to explore from time to time. The humidity and waterdrops where
reminiscent of a fully functional sauna. The onslaught of heat and
burning glow of the sun was relentless. Nonetheless, this fact did not
bother us one bit, but gave us more incentive to dance with our cool and
embracing "long-lost love".
The first step of this operation was making sure that our neighbors
had gone away from the house for at least two hours. Since it was their
lake and property, this made it safe for us in not getting caught in the
middle of our escapade. Upon this, my brother and I snuck to their
backyard like two undercover police officers, until we were in the clear.
Nerve-wracking minutes later, flowed the emerald green and ever-so lively
lake in front of us. We stopped and starred in awe. The lake had appeared
so shiny and reflective, it resembled a finely-cut diamond. The rare and
distinct fragrance enticed us. It smelled like mother-nature herself,
with aromas ranging from wildlife and wet grass, to evaporated swamp
water and healthy dirt.
Then, the time for us to find the desired vessel arrived. We chose
the kayaks, and set out for the water. Carefully, with our torn-jeans
rolled up, and shirts off, we dragged the massive thing over the slope of
grass and mud into the shallow stream. We then hopped aboard, grabbed the
paddles, and floated and splashed into nowhere. The wavy current sucked
us downstream, periodically bouncing us off of sandbags and sharp
branches leaning over the water- Now that was true adventure! Minutes
later, my brother and I, after passing under many pipes and tunnels,
floated into a huge "cul de sac" of water, with an island in the center.
In our amazement, we paddled there as vigorously as toddlers learning to
swim. We tied the kayaks to a thin branch with the slimy green rope
mysteriously attached to them, and hopped onto the island. We basked in
pure amazement.
After the tempo settled, we started our natural brotherly routine.
My brother and I sat on the muddy bank, with our feet dipped in water,
and threw stones out as far away as we could in our competitive nature.
We set aside our differences, and together, bonded. My newfound companion
and I sat, laughed, fought, played, and talked, as the sun slowly left
us.
At this point it did not matter what happened to us for taking the
kayaks, because whatever it was, it could not replace the priceless
experience we shared with one another.
Solitary Confinement On Antarctica
During my assignment of a one year long period of solitary confinement on Antarctica the three things that I would bring with me would be: a computer equipped with internet access and teleconferencing capabilities; my ski equipment including my climbing gear; and a snowmobile that is run by electricity because of a lack of Mobil stations at the South Pole. The computer, ski equipment, and snowmobile would allow me to endure and make the best of a year long period that would be pure Hell without these three things.
The sub zero climate of the Antarctic winter would make it unbearable to venture outside of my quarters. The computer that I would bring would allow me to keep in contact with the world outside of Antarctica, and with my family and friends via the internet and teleconferencing. The computer would also serve as a way for me to keep a journal of the events that occurred through out my year long solitary confinement at the life deficient South Pole. My computer would also provide a source of entertainment with games and programs I could use to pass the time.
I would bring my alpine ski equipment along with my rock climbing gear to the earth's frozen basement. The two passions of my life are snow skiing and rock climbing. On the Antarctic continent lie many mountain ranges that have the world's driest and most plentiful powder, and the most magnificent rock and ice faces and cliffs. These conditions are a skier's and rock climber's heaven. The mountains could provide me with a sense of extreme pleasure and make my stay in the earth's freezer well worth it. There is one problem with skiing in Antarctica, there are no ski lifts. This would pose a problem to me if I didn't have my climbing gear. However, I was intelligent enough to realize that I would have to climb the mountains in order to ski them, which is why I brought my climbing gear.
To provide transportation around the continent and to the mountains I would bring an electric snowmobile to Antarctica. The snowmobile would have to run on stored electricity and be rechargeable. I would cruise the frozen plains of Antarctica on the snowmobile, observing one of the last uncharted frontiers of the modern world. I would be able to see the creatures of the world of ice and observe how they have adapted to life in the Antarctic.
A year long span of solitary confinement spent in the Antarctic could be endured and enjoyed by myself if I had these possessions with me. I would not willingly go to Antarctica by myself for a year. However, I would choose to go to this frozen part of our planet for a short stay, along with a few companions to ski, and observe the last undeveloped and unpopulated continent of the earth.
The sub zero climate of the Antarctic winter would make it unbearable to venture outside of my quarters. The computer that I would bring would allow me to keep in contact with the world outside of Antarctica, and with my family and friends via the internet and teleconferencing. The computer would also serve as a way for me to keep a journal of the events that occurred through out my year long solitary confinement at the life deficient South Pole. My computer would also provide a source of entertainment with games and programs I could use to pass the time.
I would bring my alpine ski equipment along with my rock climbing gear to the earth's frozen basement. The two passions of my life are snow skiing and rock climbing. On the Antarctic continent lie many mountain ranges that have the world's driest and most plentiful powder, and the most magnificent rock and ice faces and cliffs. These conditions are a skier's and rock climber's heaven. The mountains could provide me with a sense of extreme pleasure and make my stay in the earth's freezer well worth it. There is one problem with skiing in Antarctica, there are no ski lifts. This would pose a problem to me if I didn't have my climbing gear. However, I was intelligent enough to realize that I would have to climb the mountains in order to ski them, which is why I brought my climbing gear.
To provide transportation around the continent and to the mountains I would bring an electric snowmobile to Antarctica. The snowmobile would have to run on stored electricity and be rechargeable. I would cruise the frozen plains of Antarctica on the snowmobile, observing one of the last uncharted frontiers of the modern world. I would be able to see the creatures of the world of ice and observe how they have adapted to life in the Antarctic.
A year long span of solitary confinement spent in the Antarctic could be endured and enjoyed by myself if I had these possessions with me. I would not willingly go to Antarctica by myself for a year. However, I would choose to go to this frozen part of our planet for a short stay, along with a few companions to ski, and observe the last undeveloped and unpopulated continent of the earth.
Philosophies of Socrates Plato and Aristotle
Philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
The philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had different points of-view but they were also similar in some ways. For example, all three philosophers had their own thoughts on the subject of justice and government. Socrates belief on this matter was that democracy was an
unwise form of government. He thought that the electing of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him aristocracy was a perfect form of government.
The point of Socrate's philosophies were to make people think about the questions he would often ask. The reason for these questions being asked were to have people to their own thoughts and opinions toward life. He did not think a person with the right mind should follow the steps of their ancestors. Instead of going around asking questions, Plato, another philosopher, would write his own conversations with imaginerary people. These conversations would cover much of the same topics that Socrates had tried to cover earlier. These topics mostly dealt with life such as government, opinions toward justice and how people really viewed education.
Aristotle also had his own theories towards his belief of the "right government". He wanted his results to show happiness among the people.
He'd mainly collect information from studying living creatures and observing their living habits. He would do this so that he could see what brought them happiness. His opinion toward life was that all people should live a fair and happy life. After many attempts of forming the perfect government , his facts allowed him to believe that a perfect government could be formed only by those who have a middle class. The middle
class would consist of those who were not rich yet not poor.
Both Aristotle and Plato had different thoughts on the division of the government. Aristotle claimed to believe that a government should consist of many classes for the protection of the people and the state. While Plato disagreed and thought that dividing of power was unfair and cruel. In his mind, he felt that those in the lower class could never have the chance to get any higher in life.
Though all three philosophers felt that the government should be based on the equalness of all the people, they all had different views on what equality really meant. These philosophers all had their own way of gathering information and passing it through the minds of others.
The philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had different points of-view but they were also similar in some ways. For example, all three philosophers had their own thoughts on the subject of justice and government. Socrates belief on this matter was that democracy was an
unwise form of government. He thought that the electing of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him aristocracy was a perfect form of government.
The point of Socrate's philosophies were to make people think about the questions he would often ask. The reason for these questions being asked were to have people to their own thoughts and opinions toward life. He did not think a person with the right mind should follow the steps of their ancestors. Instead of going around asking questions, Plato, another philosopher, would write his own conversations with imaginerary people. These conversations would cover much of the same topics that Socrates had tried to cover earlier. These topics mostly dealt with life such as government, opinions toward justice and how people really viewed education.
Aristotle also had his own theories towards his belief of the "right government". He wanted his results to show happiness among the people.
He'd mainly collect information from studying living creatures and observing their living habits. He would do this so that he could see what brought them happiness. His opinion toward life was that all people should live a fair and happy life. After many attempts of forming the perfect government , his facts allowed him to believe that a perfect government could be formed only by those who have a middle class. The middle
class would consist of those who were not rich yet not poor.
Both Aristotle and Plato had different thoughts on the division of the government. Aristotle claimed to believe that a government should consist of many classes for the protection of the people and the state. While Plato disagreed and thought that dividing of power was unfair and cruel. In his mind, he felt that those in the lower class could never have the chance to get any higher in life.
Though all three philosophers felt that the government should be based on the equalness of all the people, they all had different views on what equality really meant. These philosophers all had their own way of gathering information and passing it through the minds of others.
La Nausée
La Nausée
La nausèe est le premier livre de Jean Paul Sartre. Le plan fictional est que les notes d'un certain Antoine Roquentin son trouvés parmis ses travaux et son publicés après sa mort. Pour ganger sa vie, il fait de la recherche sur le marquis de Rollebon. Le livre entier est ecrit somme des notes de qouis ce passe le long de ses jours. Des titre comme "Lundi", "neuf heurs du matin" et "deux heurs plus tard" son des titres commun et lœvre entier est ecrit dans la premiêre personne du singulier.
Un beau jour Roquentin se trouve sur la plage regardant quelques gamins jouer. Tout d'un coup il se sent terriblement degouté. Dans les notes procahines il raconte que quelque chose c'est passé, mai il ne sais pas qoui. Pour la première fois dans sa vie il se sent seul. Il ne crain ce qui se passe et il crois ue c'est a cause qu'il a ramassé un cailloux sur la plage l'autre jour. Il crois que ceci lui cause son malaise. Dans son mtravail sur le marquis il commence a doubter son passé, rien ne peut être prouver sur son sujet. Roquentin a du mal à reconnaitre des personne qu'il voit tous les jours. Parfois il a même du mal a reconnaitre sois même dans le mirroir. Pour échaper la nausée il va à son café préféré. Roquentin demande au garçon de jouer son disque préféré, et, soudain il se sent planit de joie.
Roquentin passe ses jour à pensé, il pense à sa vie et ce qu'il a fait. Il se sent triste par ce que il na pas d'aventure dans sa vie, tous les jours son les même. Le même jour il reçoit une letter de Anny une fille qu'il n'a pas vu depuis six ans. Ellevut qu'il vienne la voir a Paris. Roquentin devin un peut déprimé et troublé, il pense tant qu'il ne peut pas travailler. Son existance lui trouble, le present est la suele chose qui est la veritée, et le présent est contant, le passé n'éxiste pas alors son travail n'a auqun d'importance. Après ceci, il commence a pensé a "cogito ergo sum"(=je pense, c' est pouqoi j'existe). Il dit que la réalitée est causé par rien et pour auqune réson. C'est un peut complique de suivre tot celapar ce que il change d'avi au sujet de la réalitée de temps en temps.
Roquentin part a Paris pour encontrer Anny. Ils ont de longues converstion très intérésantes mais après quelquelsjours Anny doit lui quitter. A la garre un autre homme lui dit au revoire et Roquentin se dit que dans la vie il n'y a que de la souffrance. Quand Roquentin retourne a Bouville il ne voit pas pourquois il devrait réster il encore un foie il par a Paris et il se promet de devenir un grand auteur.
---
J'ai bien aimé lire La nausée, mai de temps en temps c'est dificile à suivre. C'était une bonne lécture avec beaucoup de réfléction sur la vie.
La nausèe est le premier livre de Jean Paul Sartre. Le plan fictional est que les notes d'un certain Antoine Roquentin son trouvés parmis ses travaux et son publicés après sa mort. Pour ganger sa vie, il fait de la recherche sur le marquis de Rollebon. Le livre entier est ecrit somme des notes de qouis ce passe le long de ses jours. Des titre comme "Lundi", "neuf heurs du matin" et "deux heurs plus tard" son des titres commun et lœvre entier est ecrit dans la premiêre personne du singulier.
Un beau jour Roquentin se trouve sur la plage regardant quelques gamins jouer. Tout d'un coup il se sent terriblement degouté. Dans les notes procahines il raconte que quelque chose c'est passé, mai il ne sais pas qoui. Pour la première fois dans sa vie il se sent seul. Il ne crain ce qui se passe et il crois ue c'est a cause qu'il a ramassé un cailloux sur la plage l'autre jour. Il crois que ceci lui cause son malaise. Dans son mtravail sur le marquis il commence a doubter son passé, rien ne peut être prouver sur son sujet. Roquentin a du mal à reconnaitre des personne qu'il voit tous les jours. Parfois il a même du mal a reconnaitre sois même dans le mirroir. Pour échaper la nausée il va à son café préféré. Roquentin demande au garçon de jouer son disque préféré, et, soudain il se sent planit de joie.
Roquentin passe ses jour à pensé, il pense à sa vie et ce qu'il a fait. Il se sent triste par ce que il na pas d'aventure dans sa vie, tous les jours son les même. Le même jour il reçoit une letter de Anny une fille qu'il n'a pas vu depuis six ans. Ellevut qu'il vienne la voir a Paris. Roquentin devin un peut déprimé et troublé, il pense tant qu'il ne peut pas travailler. Son existance lui trouble, le present est la suele chose qui est la veritée, et le présent est contant, le passé n'éxiste pas alors son travail n'a auqun d'importance. Après ceci, il commence a pensé a "cogito ergo sum"(=je pense, c' est pouqoi j'existe). Il dit que la réalitée est causé par rien et pour auqune réson. C'est un peut complique de suivre tot celapar ce que il change d'avi au sujet de la réalitée de temps en temps.
Roquentin part a Paris pour encontrer Anny. Ils ont de longues converstion très intérésantes mais après quelquelsjours Anny doit lui quitter. A la garre un autre homme lui dit au revoire et Roquentin se dit que dans la vie il n'y a que de la souffrance. Quand Roquentin retourne a Bouville il ne voit pas pourquois il devrait réster il encore un foie il par a Paris et il se promet de devenir un grand auteur.
---
J'ai bien aimé lire La nausée, mai de temps en temps c'est dificile à suivre. C'était une bonne lécture avec beaucoup de réfléction sur la vie.
Saturday, 5 January 2013
Socrates 2
Erika Hall
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
reflections on liberation
Reflections on Liberation
1) Right understanding [12]
In following this path one would not experience feelings of envy or arrogance
2) Right thought or motives [15]
Kindness towards the unenlightened brings a selfless mind set for both
3) Right speech [13-14]
Rebuff the urge to speak wickedly for true peace of mind
4) Right action [9]
Having a clear understanding of the fools mentality leads your actions opposite
5) Right livelihood [28-29]
Reside within free space, live within your mind, do not possess greedily
6) Right effort [3]
One must give up desires in order to gain free mind
7) Right mindfulness [38]
Untroubled solitude of the mind suppresses distractions by allowing total awareness of them
8) Right meditation [33]
When the mind is stilled such as at the occurrence of birth and death, one is truly alone and all is perceived clearly
By zonk
1) Right understanding [12]
In following this path one would not experience feelings of envy or arrogance
2) Right thought or motives [15]
Kindness towards the unenlightened brings a selfless mind set for both
3) Right speech [13-14]
Rebuff the urge to speak wickedly for true peace of mind
4) Right action [9]
Having a clear understanding of the fools mentality leads your actions opposite
5) Right livelihood [28-29]
Reside within free space, live within your mind, do not possess greedily
6) Right effort [3]
One must give up desires in order to gain free mind
7) Right mindfulness [38]
Untroubled solitude of the mind suppresses distractions by allowing total awareness of them
8) Right meditation [33]
When the mind is stilled such as at the occurrence of birth and death, one is truly alone and all is perceived clearly
By zonk
Happiness
The standard definition of happiness is that it is a condition of supreme well-being and good spirits. There can be many definitions of the word happiness. It can be applied to many examples. Many people are often in search of happiness.
One meaning can be explained when someone tells a joke. If one finds the joke funny, they laugh. This condition of happiness is the most temporary one, for it only lasts a moment. No one will be affected deeply into their emotions by a joke. It is more like a comical relief.
Another way of happiness is when something good happens to someone. Maybe getting a good grade on a test or getting a raise at work. This kind of happiness usually comes from personal accomplishment. One will be happy if they know they did something good. They do not necessarily have to be rewarded to feel happy. For example, some people find happiness in just living a good life, a life of piety.
Often, people may find happiness in the simplest of things. Maybe being alone in nature or playing with a puppy will provide happiness. One may or may not show their feeling of happiness. Sometimes their happiness is just a feeling of contentment, while other times they may actually be smiling. Lifelong happiness is something many people strive to achieve.
One meaning can be explained when someone tells a joke. If one finds the joke funny, they laugh. This condition of happiness is the most temporary one, for it only lasts a moment. No one will be affected deeply into their emotions by a joke. It is more like a comical relief.
Another way of happiness is when something good happens to someone. Maybe getting a good grade on a test or getting a raise at work. This kind of happiness usually comes from personal accomplishment. One will be happy if they know they did something good. They do not necessarily have to be rewarded to feel happy. For example, some people find happiness in just living a good life, a life of piety.
Often, people may find happiness in the simplest of things. Maybe being alone in nature or playing with a puppy will provide happiness. One may or may not show their feeling of happiness. Sometimes their happiness is just a feeling of contentment, while other times they may actually be smiling. Lifelong happiness is something many people strive to achieve.
Confucius 2
Confuciunism is a philosophy vased on the teachings of Confucius, a Chinese philosopher/teacher. Confucius highly stressed ethics. It is thought the reason for this is because the China of his time was corrupt. Confucius thought the way to live with good ethics was to follow the five virtues: Jen; to do good on others, yi; rightsiosness by justice, li; religious and moral ways of acting , chih; wisdom and hsin; faithfulness. All of these being represented by the parts of a tree for example: Jen being the root, yi the trunk, li the branches, chih the flower, and hsin the fruit. The most important of the five being li. Confucius used this to formulate his plan for the recovery of china. Confucius equally emphasized the relationship with rulers and there subjects. This is where he combined ethics and politics. At one time Confucius was asked by Chi K 'ang Tsu, the head of the chi clan, how to rule. Confucius replied "To govern is to keep straight. If you , sir, lead your subjects straight, who will venture to fall out of line?" Confucius believed in what is called "superior Man." This was someone who followed the five virtues, and abided them. Confucius was a perfect example of a "superior Man." Some people believe that he was a great man, he was indeed, but he was merely a teacher of ethics with great wisdom.
commitment
Commitment
When you abide to do something with all your heart and soul. We live
in a cynical world where commitment is often times obscured by day to
day life. Many believe that our goals are a commitment to ourselves.
People make goals for themselves in order to strive for greatness,
but a man once told me that goals not written down are only dreams.
We can dream all we like but without commitment to do the things
we set for ourselves nothing can be achieved. When we see a
future that will enhance our lives we strive to make that future happen,
but with the tyranny of the urgent we are oppressed and our vision is
clouded which makes us try less than we should for the things that
are meant for us. There is a time for focus on the now but we must
never lose sight of the attainable future that is there.
When you abide to do something with all your heart and soul. We live
in a cynical world where commitment is often times obscured by day to
day life. Many believe that our goals are a commitment to ourselves.
People make goals for themselves in order to strive for greatness,
but a man once told me that goals not written down are only dreams.
We can dream all we like but without commitment to do the things
we set for ourselves nothing can be achieved. When we see a
future that will enhance our lives we strive to make that future happen,
but with the tyranny of the urgent we are oppressed and our vision is
clouded which makes us try less than we should for the things that
are meant for us. There is a time for focus on the now but we must
never lose sight of the attainable future that is there.
Friday, 4 January 2013
Voltair Author and Philosopher
Voltaire
French Author and Philosopher
1694 - 1778 A.D.
Francois Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) was born on November 21, 1694 in Paris. Voltaire's style, wit, intelligence and keen sense of justice made him one of France's greatest writers and philosophers.
Young Francois Marie received an excellent education at a Jesuit school. He left school at 16 and soon formed friendships with a group of sophisticated Parisian aristocrats. Paris society sought his company for his cleverness, humor and remarkable ability to write verse. In 1717 he was arrested for writing a series of satirical verses ridiculing the French government, and was imprisoned in the Bastille. During his eleven months in prison he wrote his first major play, "Oedipe," which achieved great success in 1718. He adopted his pen name "Voltaire" the same year.
In 1726 Voltaire insulted a powerful young nobleman and was given two options: imprisonment or exile. He chose exile and from 1726 to 1729 lived in England. While in England Voltaire was attracted to the philosophy of John Locke and ideas of the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton. After his return to Paris he wrote a book praising English customs and institutions. The book was thought to criticize the French government and Voltaire was forced to flee Paris again.
In 1759 Voltaire purchased an estate called "Ferney" near the French-Swiss border where he lived until just before of his death. Ferney soon became the intellectual capitol of Europe. Throughout his years in exile Voltaire produced a constant flow of books, plays, pamphlets, and letters. He was a voice of reason, and an outspoken critic of religious intolerance and persecution.
Voltaire returned to a hero's welcome in Paris at age 83. The excitement of the trip was too much for him and he died in Paris. Because of his criticism of the church Voltaire was denied burial in church ground. He was finally buried at an abbey in Champagne. In 1791 his remains were moved to a resting place at the Pantheon in Paris.
In 1814 a group of "ultras" (right-wing religious) stole Voltaire's remains and dumped them in a garbage heap. No one was the wiser for some 50 years. His enormous sarcophagus (opposite Rousseau's) was checked and the remains were gone. (see Orieux, Voltaire, vol. 2 pp. 382-4.) His heart, however, had been removed from his body, and now lays in the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris. His brain was also removed, but after a series of passings-on over 100 years, disappeared after an auction.
French Author and Philosopher
1694 - 1778 A.D.
Francois Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) was born on November 21, 1694 in Paris. Voltaire's style, wit, intelligence and keen sense of justice made him one of France's greatest writers and philosophers.
Young Francois Marie received an excellent education at a Jesuit school. He left school at 16 and soon formed friendships with a group of sophisticated Parisian aristocrats. Paris society sought his company for his cleverness, humor and remarkable ability to write verse. In 1717 he was arrested for writing a series of satirical verses ridiculing the French government, and was imprisoned in the Bastille. During his eleven months in prison he wrote his first major play, "Oedipe," which achieved great success in 1718. He adopted his pen name "Voltaire" the same year.
In 1726 Voltaire insulted a powerful young nobleman and was given two options: imprisonment or exile. He chose exile and from 1726 to 1729 lived in England. While in England Voltaire was attracted to the philosophy of John Locke and ideas of the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton. After his return to Paris he wrote a book praising English customs and institutions. The book was thought to criticize the French government and Voltaire was forced to flee Paris again.
In 1759 Voltaire purchased an estate called "Ferney" near the French-Swiss border where he lived until just before of his death. Ferney soon became the intellectual capitol of Europe. Throughout his years in exile Voltaire produced a constant flow of books, plays, pamphlets, and letters. He was a voice of reason, and an outspoken critic of religious intolerance and persecution.
Voltaire returned to a hero's welcome in Paris at age 83. The excitement of the trip was too much for him and he died in Paris. Because of his criticism of the church Voltaire was denied burial in church ground. He was finally buried at an abbey in Champagne. In 1791 his remains were moved to a resting place at the Pantheon in Paris.
In 1814 a group of "ultras" (right-wing religious) stole Voltaire's remains and dumped them in a garbage heap. No one was the wiser for some 50 years. His enormous sarcophagus (opposite Rousseau's) was checked and the remains were gone. (see Orieux, Voltaire, vol. 2 pp. 382-4.) His heart, however, had been removed from his body, and now lays in the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris. His brain was also removed, but after a series of passings-on over 100 years, disappeared after an auction.
The Open Boat
"The Open Boat"
by: Sarah Clauer
Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat," is thought to be one of the finest stories ever written by an American. Crane uses
a theme of cosmic irony. Cosmic irony is the belief that the universe is so large and man is so small that the universe
is indifferent to the plight of man. In "The Open Boat," Crane's theme, cosmic irony, is illustrated through the use of
symbols for isolation, insignificance, and indifference. Three specific examples of cosmic irony symbolism used by Crane
are, the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, the sea against the universe, and the little boat in a
vast sea from the people on the shore.
The indifference aspect of cosmic irony is where things serve no purpose, and there is truly no care for anyone or
anything. In "The Open Boat," the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, is a prime example of
indifference used by Crane. The universe is represented by the power of the ocean, and the small boat in this ocean is
symbolic of man in this giant universe. The immaculate power of the ocean is very indifferent to the small boat, just as
our great universe could not care less for man.
Insignificance is described as being a lack of importance. Those little things that are insignificant mean nothing
to the universe. In "The Open Boat," the sea against the universe is symbolic of insignificance in cosmic irony. The sea
represents something which seems very large to mankind, but is actually very insignificant in comprison to the universe. The
universe would still go on without that sea, just like the universe would still go on without mankind.
The third form of symbolism in cosmic irony is isolation. Isolation is being held in captivity or lack of contact with
the world or universe. The little boat in a vast sea versus the people on the shore is symbolic of isolation. The small
boal seems so large and important to the people on it, while the people on the shore just see this small boat as one of many
objects in that vast sea. This is prime example of man versus society.
The belief of cosmic irony holds great significance in the writers of the time of Stephen Crane. The new philosophies
portrayed in cosmic irony were so new and different. They taught a different approach to the way the reader interprets
certain symbols. Cosmic irony is a theme which is used every day, even though it may not always be noticed.
by: Sarah Clauer
Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat," is thought to be one of the finest stories ever written by an American. Crane uses
a theme of cosmic irony. Cosmic irony is the belief that the universe is so large and man is so small that the universe
is indifferent to the plight of man. In "The Open Boat," Crane's theme, cosmic irony, is illustrated through the use of
symbols for isolation, insignificance, and indifference. Three specific examples of cosmic irony symbolism used by Crane
are, the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, the sea against the universe, and the little boat in a
vast sea from the people on the shore.
The indifference aspect of cosmic irony is where things serve no purpose, and there is truly no care for anyone or
anything. In "The Open Boat," the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, is a prime example of
indifference used by Crane. The universe is represented by the power of the ocean, and the small boat in this ocean is
symbolic of man in this giant universe. The immaculate power of the ocean is very indifferent to the small boat, just as
our great universe could not care less for man.
Insignificance is described as being a lack of importance. Those little things that are insignificant mean nothing
to the universe. In "The Open Boat," the sea against the universe is symbolic of insignificance in cosmic irony. The sea
represents something which seems very large to mankind, but is actually very insignificant in comprison to the universe. The
universe would still go on without that sea, just like the universe would still go on without mankind.
The third form of symbolism in cosmic irony is isolation. Isolation is being held in captivity or lack of contact with
the world or universe. The little boat in a vast sea versus the people on the shore is symbolic of isolation. The small
boal seems so large and important to the people on it, while the people on the shore just see this small boat as one of many
objects in that vast sea. This is prime example of man versus society.
The belief of cosmic irony holds great significance in the writers of the time of Stephen Crane. The new philosophies
portrayed in cosmic irony were so new and different. They taught a different approach to the way the reader interprets
certain symbols. Cosmic irony is a theme which is used every day, even though it may not always be noticed.
Questions of Omnipotence
Philosophy 2205B Date: March 07, 1997
Questions Concerning Omnipotence
n Aquinas, Mavrodes, Frankfurt and Kenny
Reading Assignment #9
1. Define Omnipotence. Does it mean to be able to do anything at all or to simply be the "most" powerful being.
2. Does Decartes response involving Gods free will to change the laws (that He created) at least in principle, successfully reply to all questions of Gods Omnipotence? For example, if He wished to create a square circle could he not suspend the laws of contradiction to do so? p 413 - foot notes.
3. Aquinas changes his definition of Devine Omnipotence to state that "God can do whatever is possible."(p 415 par 2) Kenny points out the need for clarification with the term "possible" citing natural and supernatural possibility. It seems that all distinctions would be problematic for mono-theism. Consider this; Can God create a child for Himself to rear who has many God-like powers including rule over humans? If He can Does this not imply the possibility of poly-theism?
4. Is Mavrodes classification of creating a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift as a "pseudo-task" with no power at all ,acceptable? ( p 412 par 2)
5. If God created a stone of infinite weight this would satisfy the condition of it's not being movable. It seems that God has already created beings with the property of infinity such as the universe and, if you side with Decartes, numbers. Gods inability to find the last number is in no way detrimental to his omnipotence because of its property of infinity. Just as Gods infinite power to count can survive the inability to conclude a last number, so should his infinite power to lift survive the inability to lift an infinite weight. At best the task of lifting the object becomes the psuedo-task that Mavrodes was describing. Does this remove the paradox?
6. Would being omniscient and being able to do what you want be a sufficient definition for omnipotence? If this is acceptable would St. Augustine's contention be sufficient in that it was intended in relation to God? ( p 415 par 1)
7. ref. Quote p 418 What effect would substituting " what I am thinking of" for "A" have on Aquanis' contention that the predicate and subject of a term need only agree for it to be possible?
8. If God were capable of doing self contradictory things, would this not be repugnant to the notion of an absolute possible, which is subject to the Devine Omnipotence? Is Frankfurt's contention actually a logical denial of Omnipotence?
Questions Concerning Omnipotence
n Aquinas, Mavrodes, Frankfurt and Kenny
Reading Assignment #9
1. Define Omnipotence. Does it mean to be able to do anything at all or to simply be the "most" powerful being.
2. Does Decartes response involving Gods free will to change the laws (that He created) at least in principle, successfully reply to all questions of Gods Omnipotence? For example, if He wished to create a square circle could he not suspend the laws of contradiction to do so? p 413 - foot notes.
3. Aquinas changes his definition of Devine Omnipotence to state that "God can do whatever is possible."(p 415 par 2) Kenny points out the need for clarification with the term "possible" citing natural and supernatural possibility. It seems that all distinctions would be problematic for mono-theism. Consider this; Can God create a child for Himself to rear who has many God-like powers including rule over humans? If He can Does this not imply the possibility of poly-theism?
4. Is Mavrodes classification of creating a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift as a "pseudo-task" with no power at all ,acceptable? ( p 412 par 2)
5. If God created a stone of infinite weight this would satisfy the condition of it's not being movable. It seems that God has already created beings with the property of infinity such as the universe and, if you side with Decartes, numbers. Gods inability to find the last number is in no way detrimental to his omnipotence because of its property of infinity. Just as Gods infinite power to count can survive the inability to conclude a last number, so should his infinite power to lift survive the inability to lift an infinite weight. At best the task of lifting the object becomes the psuedo-task that Mavrodes was describing. Does this remove the paradox?
6. Would being omniscient and being able to do what you want be a sufficient definition for omnipotence? If this is acceptable would St. Augustine's contention be sufficient in that it was intended in relation to God? ( p 415 par 1)
7. ref. Quote p 418 What effect would substituting " what I am thinking of" for "A" have on Aquanis' contention that the predicate and subject of a term need only agree for it to be possible?
8. If God were capable of doing self contradictory things, would this not be repugnant to the notion of an absolute possible, which is subject to the Devine Omnipotence? Is Frankfurt's contention actually a logical denial of Omnipotence?
Functionalism vs Physicalism
While acquiring knowledge on the topics of Functionalism and
Physicalism, I ran across many disagreement between the two. Interestingly,
those disagreements gave me an impression of different sides arguing with their
own support from their own theories. As if an Arabian and a Roman were arguing
about whether the number eleven is an "Arabic" number or a "Roman" number.
Though, as I read more and more of the readings (especially Putnam's), I started
to see a pattern that led me to think that maybe Functionalism is compatible with
Physicalism after all; that these two theories can coexist.
The claim above is based on the information gathered in the two readings
assigned and therefore, I should go step by step in order to arrive at my
conclusion that they can indeed coexist. First, I draw Ned Block's elaboration on
Metaphysical Functionalism as a start of my argument. As Block suggests,
Metaphysical Functionalism is mainly concern about what mental states are;
instead of a psychological explanation (Block, p. 172). Moreover, they concern
themselves with mental state type; not a specific token of the type. As in the case
of pain, they are concerned with a mental state called pain, and not of particular
pains (i.e. stomach-ache, pin-pricks, etc.). But, according to Putnam, if the
Physicalists does indeed attributes the name "physical states" to the enormous
number of mental states we humans have, then, I think it would be impossible for
them to be concerned only with the type and not the tokens. But once they started
to consider each specific pain (token), they will have to ascribe a different
physical-chemical state to each token-state. Ultimately, the common thing "to all
pains in virtue of which they are pains (Block, p. 172)" cannot be put in terms of a
single physical state. Recall that the same problem does not exist in the
consideration of Functionalism because Functionalism concern itself basically
with the causal relations between these tokens and not a particular one.
Therefore, the common thing that exists in Functionalism "to all pains in virtue of
which they are pains" is actually the function or the functional state that account
for all mental states type; and not a particular mental state token.
Therefore I conclude by suggesting that the disagreement (or the
incompatibility) between the two theories is actually a misunderstanding on each
side on their scope on studies. And while they do not conflict each other in the
same scope, I grant them their coexistence. (At least this is what I can dig up in
the readings!)
Physicalism, I ran across many disagreement between the two. Interestingly,
those disagreements gave me an impression of different sides arguing with their
own support from their own theories. As if an Arabian and a Roman were arguing
about whether the number eleven is an "Arabic" number or a "Roman" number.
Though, as I read more and more of the readings (especially Putnam's), I started
to see a pattern that led me to think that maybe Functionalism is compatible with
Physicalism after all; that these two theories can coexist.
The claim above is based on the information gathered in the two readings
assigned and therefore, I should go step by step in order to arrive at my
conclusion that they can indeed coexist. First, I draw Ned Block's elaboration on
Metaphysical Functionalism as a start of my argument. As Block suggests,
Metaphysical Functionalism is mainly concern about what mental states are;
instead of a psychological explanation (Block, p. 172). Moreover, they concern
themselves with mental state type; not a specific token of the type. As in the case
of pain, they are concerned with a mental state called pain, and not of particular
pains (i.e. stomach-ache, pin-pricks, etc.). But, according to Putnam, if the
Physicalists does indeed attributes the name "physical states" to the enormous
number of mental states we humans have, then, I think it would be impossible for
them to be concerned only with the type and not the tokens. But once they started
to consider each specific pain (token), they will have to ascribe a different
physical-chemical state to each token-state. Ultimately, the common thing "to all
pains in virtue of which they are pains (Block, p. 172)" cannot be put in terms of a
single physical state. Recall that the same problem does not exist in the
consideration of Functionalism because Functionalism concern itself basically
with the causal relations between these tokens and not a particular one.
Therefore, the common thing that exists in Functionalism "to all pains in virtue of
which they are pains" is actually the function or the functional state that account
for all mental states type; and not a particular mental state token.
Therefore I conclude by suggesting that the disagreement (or the
incompatibility) between the two theories is actually a misunderstanding on each
side on their scope on studies. And while they do not conflict each other in the
same scope, I grant them their coexistence. (At least this is what I can dig up in
the readings!)
Thursday, 3 January 2013
Zen in the Influence of the Sword
Zen's Influence on the Art of the Sword
Zen has long had a great influence upon Japanese culture. Many aspects of this culture are touched upon by Zen including art, literature, and specific ceremonies such as the one concerning tea. During the Kamakura period of Japan, another area of culture began to be affected by Zen; the martial arts of the samurai class.
Somewhere along the line, the samurai realized the ease with which the monks of Zen Buddhism dealt with issues such as mortality and then began to seek these methods of discipline for themselves for the purposes of becoming less concerned with their physical well-being. However, as D.T. Suzuki noted, it was "not mere recklessness, but self-abandonment, which is known in Buddhism as a state of egolessness." This is the ideal which the samurai warrior sought; a state of being wherein life and death were meaningless and all that he had to concern himself with was his duty to his master, or if he was ronin (rogue samurai without a master), with his duty to his own code of honor.
In order for the Zen master to pass on this state of mind to the eager to learn samurai, the master had to equate the state of mushin (empty mind and egolessness) with something familiar to the warrior. And what is more familiar to a warrior than his weapon, most often a sword such as a tachi (long-blade), katana, or iaito? From the first time that a samurai blade is picked up by its owner until the day the owner dies, it is his goal to so completely master the blade and make it as much a part of him as his own hand that there is seemingly no effort in using it. As stated by Takuan, a Zen master from the Tokugawa period, "you must follow the movement of the sword in the hands of the enemy, leaving your mind free to make its own counter-movement without your interfering deliberation." Herein lies the simplicity of Zen teaching in respect to all things, both exceptional and common; think not, merely do.
Zen has long had a great influence upon Japanese culture. Many aspects of this culture are touched upon by Zen including art, literature, and specific ceremonies such as the one concerning tea. During the Kamakura period of Japan, another area of culture began to be affected by Zen; the martial arts of the samurai class.
Somewhere along the line, the samurai realized the ease with which the monks of Zen Buddhism dealt with issues such as mortality and then began to seek these methods of discipline for themselves for the purposes of becoming less concerned with their physical well-being. However, as D.T. Suzuki noted, it was "not mere recklessness, but self-abandonment, which is known in Buddhism as a state of egolessness." This is the ideal which the samurai warrior sought; a state of being wherein life and death were meaningless and all that he had to concern himself with was his duty to his master, or if he was ronin (rogue samurai without a master), with his duty to his own code of honor.
In order for the Zen master to pass on this state of mind to the eager to learn samurai, the master had to equate the state of mushin (empty mind and egolessness) with something familiar to the warrior. And what is more familiar to a warrior than his weapon, most often a sword such as a tachi (long-blade), katana, or iaito? From the first time that a samurai blade is picked up by its owner until the day the owner dies, it is his goal to so completely master the blade and make it as much a part of him as his own hand that there is seemingly no effort in using it. As stated by Takuan, a Zen master from the Tokugawa period, "you must follow the movement of the sword in the hands of the enemy, leaving your mind free to make its own counter-movement without your interfering deliberation." Herein lies the simplicity of Zen teaching in respect to all things, both exceptional and common; think not, merely do.
none
Tom DinkelPeriod 5
The poet's use of mockery as diction conveys his disillusioned attitude toward the men that plan the battles without actually fighting in them. Using the words "If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath," to describe the majors allows the reader to picture the majors as old, fat, out of shape men that spend their days "guzzling and gulping in the best hotel" safe from any danger. Fierce, bald and short of breath give the reader a negative feel for the majors as they are not described in any positive manner. These terms cause the reader to feel disgust for the majors. The poets use of the words guzzling and gulping with their alliterative effect cause the reader to consider the majors as gluttons gathered at the table. When the reader completes his mental picture of the majors in the best hotel, the imagery of glory hogs is complete. The poet's diction choice,
"Reading the Roll of Honor. 'Poor young chap, ' I'd say - ' I used to know his father well; Yes, we've lost heavily in this last scrap.' "
of casual language attempts to make the war seem carefree and nonchalant. The word "chap" conveys an casual attitude towards the heroes as people. It seems to elevate the status of the majors to a false superior position. "Scrap" makes it seems as if the soldier's death occurred on a playground, not a battlefield. It seems to trivialize war in general.
"And when the war is done and the youth stone dead,
I'd toddle safely home and die - in bed."
The poet's last lines give the reader an insight into the true wishes of the soldier. The youth stone dead allow the reader to acknowledge the finality of death and the wasted lives of the young soldiers while the old, fat men are allowed the luxury of living to old age and then dying in their own beds. "Toddle" is a word that not only describes the gait of the fat, old men but also the irony of the youth stone dead and the fat, old men waddling home. Through his use of mocking diction, the poet conveys his disgusted attitude towards the toddling old men dying in their beds while the good die young.
The poet's use of mockery as diction conveys his disillusioned attitude toward the men that plan the battles without actually fighting in them. Using the words "If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath," to describe the majors allows the reader to picture the majors as old, fat, out of shape men that spend their days "guzzling and gulping in the best hotel" safe from any danger. Fierce, bald and short of breath give the reader a negative feel for the majors as they are not described in any positive manner. These terms cause the reader to feel disgust for the majors. The poets use of the words guzzling and gulping with their alliterative effect cause the reader to consider the majors as gluttons gathered at the table. When the reader completes his mental picture of the majors in the best hotel, the imagery of glory hogs is complete. The poet's diction choice,
"Reading the Roll of Honor. 'Poor young chap, ' I'd say - ' I used to know his father well; Yes, we've lost heavily in this last scrap.' "
of casual language attempts to make the war seem carefree and nonchalant. The word "chap" conveys an casual attitude towards the heroes as people. It seems to elevate the status of the majors to a false superior position. "Scrap" makes it seems as if the soldier's death occurred on a playground, not a battlefield. It seems to trivialize war in general.
"And when the war is done and the youth stone dead,
I'd toddle safely home and die - in bed."
The poet's last lines give the reader an insight into the true wishes of the soldier. The youth stone dead allow the reader to acknowledge the finality of death and the wasted lives of the young soldiers while the old, fat men are allowed the luxury of living to old age and then dying in their own beds. "Toddle" is a word that not only describes the gait of the fat, old men but also the irony of the youth stone dead and the fat, old men waddling home. Through his use of mocking diction, the poet conveys his disgusted attitude towards the toddling old men dying in their beds while the good die young.
Machiavelli
MACHIAVELLI
Machiavelli's views revolved around the ideas that one must do anything within his (Machiavelli did not refer to 'her') power to keep the influence and power that he has attained. For him, anything that must be done in order not to lose the influence and the power that one has should be done without question. "The ends justifies the means", he said. The power of one that rules must be kept by keeping the people in constant fear. Without the fear in the people, the trust that they have in their leader will whither and they will start to look for other leaders to take the place of the one that they believe to be weak.
Machiavelli thought that the importance of this tactic should override all others. Although, he believed in emanating a sense of fear to the people that were being ruled, he also believed that without the people, the ruler or leader is worthless and will be overcome. One must have support of the people, while constantly keeping them in check with the rules and regulations that he has set.
These thoughts today would be looked at as dictatorial and likened with the beliefs and felling of such hated groups as the Nazis. In today's system, societies that have been lead by rulers with such a mentality have not lasted very long. It seems that these days the general populace have much less tolerance for those rulers that believe in doing anything for the sake of themselves and supposedly the society at large. I believe that such rulers today are not tolerated (and should not be tolerated) There is no room for this type of thinking in modern day life. Respect is another factor that was very important to Machiavelli and his way of thinking. The Prince, as Machiavelli stated, must do anything to keep his respect with the people, but at the same time to make sure that he has ultimate control. I believe that so much control by one person will ultimately lead to war and the demise of the society. How can one person with so much power and latitude in decision making possible benefit the society, In fact, they are not even benefiting themselves in that they are the ones who ultimately stand to lose when the people in the society realize that they are being taken advantage of for the good of one person.
Word Count: 405
Machiavelli's views revolved around the ideas that one must do anything within his (Machiavelli did not refer to 'her') power to keep the influence and power that he has attained. For him, anything that must be done in order not to lose the influence and the power that one has should be done without question. "The ends justifies the means", he said. The power of one that rules must be kept by keeping the people in constant fear. Without the fear in the people, the trust that they have in their leader will whither and they will start to look for other leaders to take the place of the one that they believe to be weak.
Machiavelli thought that the importance of this tactic should override all others. Although, he believed in emanating a sense of fear to the people that were being ruled, he also believed that without the people, the ruler or leader is worthless and will be overcome. One must have support of the people, while constantly keeping them in check with the rules and regulations that he has set.
These thoughts today would be looked at as dictatorial and likened with the beliefs and felling of such hated groups as the Nazis. In today's system, societies that have been lead by rulers with such a mentality have not lasted very long. It seems that these days the general populace have much less tolerance for those rulers that believe in doing anything for the sake of themselves and supposedly the society at large. I believe that such rulers today are not tolerated (and should not be tolerated) There is no room for this type of thinking in modern day life. Respect is another factor that was very important to Machiavelli and his way of thinking. The Prince, as Machiavelli stated, must do anything to keep his respect with the people, but at the same time to make sure that he has ultimate control. I believe that so much control by one person will ultimately lead to war and the demise of the society. How can one person with so much power and latitude in decision making possible benefit the society, In fact, they are not even benefiting themselves in that they are the ones who ultimately stand to lose when the people in the society realize that they are being taken advantage of for the good of one person.
Word Count: 405
Wednesday, 2 January 2013
The Uncontrollable Force
People would like to believe they can accomplish everything they want in life. In reality,
it is just a positive way of thinking. It would be nice to believe that a person could do
anything if he puts his mind to it, this way of thinking is not reality. People are victims
of greater forces. The force is not a force of God or magic. The force are our
environemnt, our Biological instinct, and our inheritied characteritics. This philosophy is
called naturalism and it is used in oneil's play "Beyond the Horizon". The phliophy of
naturalism has its merit and affect real people everyday. Naturalism affects the way
people live and the lives they affect.
One of the major factors of a persons life is his environent. A persons
surroundings affects how they live, how they think, and how he sees his own life. Sure
America is the land of oppurtunity. But not everyone has the same oppurtunity as others.
A person living in the Ghetto seems to have less of it than a person living in a rich
neigborhood.
A young boy could be at the top of his life. He is ready to conquer the world. He
is ready to go to west point to study to be the best soldier in the world. When his
physical come back they tell him he has a weak heart. He then finds out he got it from
his father. It is nice to believe that a five foot hudred and fifty five pound boy could play
in the NBA. But his chance are slim to none. Michael Jordans son has a better cance
than makeing pro than anyone else. Just like how a rocket scientist son would like to be
smarter than everyone else.
This way of thinking is very negative but is true. We have very little control of
what happen to our lives.
it is just a positive way of thinking. It would be nice to believe that a person could do
anything if he puts his mind to it, this way of thinking is not reality. People are victims
of greater forces. The force is not a force of God or magic. The force are our
environemnt, our Biological instinct, and our inheritied characteritics. This philosophy is
called naturalism and it is used in oneil's play "Beyond the Horizon". The phliophy of
naturalism has its merit and affect real people everyday. Naturalism affects the way
people live and the lives they affect.
One of the major factors of a persons life is his environent. A persons
surroundings affects how they live, how they think, and how he sees his own life. Sure
America is the land of oppurtunity. But not everyone has the same oppurtunity as others.
A person living in the Ghetto seems to have less of it than a person living in a rich
neigborhood.
A young boy could be at the top of his life. He is ready to conquer the world. He
is ready to go to west point to study to be the best soldier in the world. When his
physical come back they tell him he has a weak heart. He then finds out he got it from
his father. It is nice to believe that a five foot hudred and fifty five pound boy could play
in the NBA. But his chance are slim to none. Michael Jordans son has a better cance
than makeing pro than anyone else. Just like how a rocket scientist son would like to be
smarter than everyone else.
This way of thinking is very negative but is true. We have very little control of
what happen to our lives.
Tale of Two Cities Essay on the Roots of Revolution
Tale of Two Cities Essay on the Roots of Revolution
The roots of the revolution, according to Dickens, are rapacious license and oppression by the nobility. "Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar manners, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind" - P347, Book III, Ch15. Dickens, who lived in England where there were many unjust punishments and immoral actions by high ranking officials, was basically saying that the things that fueled the revolution in France, the crushing of humanity and rapacious license and oppression, if used in a similar manner somewhere else would have the same result. In this case he was probably thinking of his native country of England, but in truth it could happen in any country that practiced the same methods that France did.
The peasants in France were beaten down by the nobility and treated like the scum of the earth for many years. It is surprising that the revolution did not occur sooner than it did. It is presumable that the reason that the French revolution was so bloody is that it was so long in coming. The rage and hatred just kept building and then it finally popped. Like blowing up a balloon, it will pop and all the air will gome rushing out at once after too long but you can let the air out gradually through the place where you blow it. If the nobility has lessened the oppression and created more humane environment then they probably would not have lost their heads. The strength and will power of the poor is far greater than that of others and the peasantry in France clearly had a greater will and strength than the nobility. ""There is prodigious strength.........in sorrow and despair" Pg.306, Dr. Manette
The roots of the revolution, according to Dickens, are rapacious license and oppression by the nobility. "Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar manners, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind" - P347, Book III, Ch15. Dickens, who lived in England where there were many unjust punishments and immoral actions by high ranking officials, was basically saying that the things that fueled the revolution in France, the crushing of humanity and rapacious license and oppression, if used in a similar manner somewhere else would have the same result. In this case he was probably thinking of his native country of England, but in truth it could happen in any country that practiced the same methods that France did.
The peasants in France were beaten down by the nobility and treated like the scum of the earth for many years. It is surprising that the revolution did not occur sooner than it did. It is presumable that the reason that the French revolution was so bloody is that it was so long in coming. The rage and hatred just kept building and then it finally popped. Like blowing up a balloon, it will pop and all the air will gome rushing out at once after too long but you can let the air out gradually through the place where you blow it. If the nobility has lessened the oppression and created more humane environment then they probably would not have lost their heads. The strength and will power of the poor is far greater than that of others and the peasantry in France clearly had a greater will and strength than the nobility. ""There is prodigious strength.........in sorrow and despair" Pg.306, Dr. Manette
Socrates
Erika Hall
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)