1. Please describe the background of the dispute between Dr. Samuel Huntington and Dr. Serge Lang.
Huntington is a teacher in the social sciences and Lang is in the natural sciences. Huntington wanted to join the NAS which Lang is a member of but Lang did not want him to because he does not believe the soft sciences should be mixed with the hard sciences or even be considered science in the first place.
2. How did Lang respond to Huntington’s “pseudo mathematics?”
Lang responded by creating a petition that would forbid him from being accepted by the NAS.
3. What aspects of the dispute between Lang and Huntington are “political?” How does the author, Jared Diamond, feel about “Academic Freedom?”
It was political because the NAS worked to give scientific advice to the government and because Huntington supported the efforts of Vietnam and studied political instability so Land thought he was too right wing. Jared Diamond feels that academic freedom is unfair because insiders of academics can raise whatever issues they please about it but outsiders cannot.
4. Why does the NAS exist? Why does this make that attacks against Huntington seem peculiar?
The NAS exists to provide scientific advice to the government before they do anything and it is peculiar because that is exactly what Huntington is doi9ng and yet the NAS is using it against him.
5. Why does Diamond find fault in the traditional perceptions of the hard sciences?
He finds fault because they are stereotyped as being in a lab mixing chemicals when in fact many different things which never end up in a lab can still coont as natural sciences.
6. Why are soft sciences difficult to study?
They are hard to study because their variables are not easily controlled and they can never truly be repeated.
7. How did the NAS need to change in the early 1970s?
They needed to start admitting social scientists because the government needed their advise about thing like the Vietnam war.
8. What are the problems in “operationalizing” a concept?
It is not always clear what method should be used to measure a phenomenon like social instability.
9. Briefly describe how Diamond illustrates operationalizing in:
•Mathematics
A number and counting system.
•Chemistry
Identifying some property of a substance of interest, or of a related substance into which the first can be converted. The property must be one that can be measured, like weight, or the light the substance absorbs, or the amount of neutralizing agent it consumes.
•Ecology
Computing different aspects of an environment like height of trees or volume of a marsh and creating an index of all aspects combined into one number.
•Psychology
A questionnaire developed from widely agreed upon statements.
10. What were Huntington’s operationalized concepts that provoked the wrath of Lang?
They were 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?
Because certain aspects of social sciences cannot easily be defined and measured like emotions, and this leads to ridicule because the concepts being studied tend to be familiar ones that 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?
This is because he believes his question ''How does Huntington measure things like social frustration?'' would be the same as asking how quantities are measured in math.
13. Does Diamond believe the labels associated with the sciences be replaced? Explain.
Yes, he believes soft sciences should be called hard and hard sciences easy because the soft sciences are much more intellectually challenging.
14. Does Diamond believe the soft sciences to be more valuable than hard sciences? Do you agree? Explain.
He seems to suggest that the soft sciences are more important but I do not agree because while it is true that understanding each other is important, the natural world is what caused our existence in the first place and I believe that not understanding it will make it harder for us to understand human nature which is a part of the natural world in a way. Therefore I believe that both sciences are equally important.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 9
1. What did Lenina do when she got back to the rest-house?
She took so much somma that it kept her in the trance of a somma-holiday for eighteen hours because she was incapable of dealing with the realities of life she had just faced for the first time.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
He asks him to allow John and Linda to return with him to London as a part of some scientific investigation into their situation.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
He recites a passage from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. This could possibly foreshadow the death of John and Lenina since they are being compared to two characters who are doomed from the very beginning of Shakespeare’s story.
She took so much somma that it kept her in the trance of a somma-holiday for eighteen hours because she was incapable of dealing with the realities of life she had just faced for the first time.
2. What does Bernard ask his Fordship, Mustapha Mond?
He asks him to allow John and Linda to return with him to London as a part of some scientific investigation into their situation.
3. What does John say when he is by Lenina's bedside? Why is this significant?
He recites a passage from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. This could possibly foreshadow the death of John and Lenina since they are being compared to two characters who are doomed from the very beginning of Shakespeare’s story.
Brave New Wold 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 was thrown into a world he could never have any true place in. He had a cruel childhood being brought up by a woman who had been conditioned to hate the idea of motherhood. His manliness was constantly being challenged by his mother’s lovers who bullied him and took away the one comfort he had in his life, the love and attention of his mother. He tried very hard to fit into his community but was rejected. All of his experiences lead him to believe that forcing himself to suffer was the only way to gain some sort of enlightenment on his sad situation. He was torn between the world and customs of the Indians and those of his mother’s previous life in the civilized world. He says he is alone because he was raised by the customs of both these worlds combined therefore no one from either of these places could truly understand him because he would have some qualities of the other world. So he was always being rejected by both sides and therefore could never belong anywhere and was always alone.
2. Why does John say at the end of the chapter, "O brave new world!" (p. 139)?
He says this because he believes that the civilized world is full of opportunity for him and he will truly be happy and fulfilled there. It is in a way a fresh start for him.
John was thrown into a world he could never have any true place in. He had a cruel childhood being brought up by a woman who had been conditioned to hate the idea of motherhood. His manliness was constantly being challenged by his mother’s lovers who bullied him and took away the one comfort he had in his life, the love and attention of his mother. He tried very hard to fit into his community but was rejected. All of his experiences lead him to believe that forcing himself to suffer was the only way to gain some sort of enlightenment on his sad situation. He was torn between the world and customs of the Indians and those of his mother’s previous life in the civilized world. He says he is alone because he was raised by the customs of both these worlds combined therefore no one from either of these places could truly understand him because he would have some qualities of the other world. So he was always being rejected by both sides and therefore could never belong anywhere and was always alone.
2. Why does John say at the end of the chapter, "O brave new world!" (p. 139)?
He says this because he believes that the civilized world is full of opportunity for him and he will truly be happy and fulfilled there. It is in a way a fresh start for him.
Brave New World Chapter 7
1. How does Lenina feel about their appointed guide?
She does not like him because he is unclean and he smells. She is not familiar with him and is scared of him because he is extremely different from civilized people.
2. How does Lenina react to "naked Indian"(p. 110)? Does it remind you of anyone else we have studied?
She is shocked that old people can look like that because no old person she knows looks like the Indian. She is similar to Prince Siddhārtha in the way he reacted when he saw old age for the first time.
3. How does Bernard react to the pueblo of Malpais?
He is fairly calm while Lenina is disgusted by it. He gives the impression as though he has seen it before.
4. Who is Linda? What is her relationship to Tomakin?
She is the woman that the D.H.C. lost in the reservations and she had a child of his there and has lived there ever since. Tomakin is Thomas who is the D.H.C. who is the father of her child.
5. Why does Linda believe that "everything they do is mad"(p. 121)? Please be specific.
She believes this because everything the Indians do is opposite to what her society did. For example, each person is only suppose to have one other person for intercourse even though in Linda’s society everyone had everyone else.
She does not like him because he is unclean and he smells. She is not familiar with him and is scared of him because he is extremely different from civilized people.
2. How does Lenina react to "naked Indian"(p. 110)? Does it remind you of anyone else we have studied?
She is shocked that old people can look like that because no old person she knows looks like the Indian. She is similar to Prince Siddhārtha in the way he reacted when he saw old age for the first time.
3. How does Bernard react to the pueblo of Malpais?
He is fairly calm while Lenina is disgusted by it. He gives the impression as though he has seen it before.
4. Who is Linda? What is her relationship to Tomakin?
She is the woman that the D.H.C. lost in the reservations and she had a child of his there and has lived there ever since. Tomakin is Thomas who is the D.H.C. who is the father of her child.
5. Why does Linda believe that "everything they do is mad"(p. 121)? Please be specific.
She believes this because everything the Indians do is opposite to what her society did. For example, each person is only suppose to have one other person for intercourse even though in Linda’s society everyone had everyone else.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 6
Part I
1. Why does Lenina think Bernard Marx "odd" - please use specific references from this chapter in your answer.
She thinks he is odd because he is so personal about things like sex, shown by his embarrassment when Lenina talked about their date in public. She also thinks this because he is so unsocial, shown by his unwillingness to talk to the bots in the changing room.
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”, “A gramme is always better than damn”, “Everyone works for everyone else”, “Thank Ford”, “Never put off till tomorrow what fun you can have today”, and “When the individual feels the community reels”. These remind me of sayings we have such as “Thank God”, “Never put off to till tomorrow what you can do today”, and “Kill two birds with one stone”.
3. What is Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior?
She says there was 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?
He told him that he went with a girl she got lost one night in a storm and was never found even though he severely hurt his knee trying to look for her. This made Bernard initially uncomfortable because a man as important as the Director had done the forbidden act of thinking of the past just because his disapproval Bernard had such a strong affect on him.
5. What does the Director threaten Bernard with if he doesn't change his behavior? Why does it elate Bernard?
He threatens to have him transferred to Iceland. It make Bernard happy because he was able to have such a strong effect on the Director and he knew the threat was not legitimate.
Part III
6. How does the Warden describe the Reservation?
He explained that it was divided into different sections, that it was separated from the civilized world by a deadly electric fence, that the savages there still spoke different languages and were of mixed breeds, still married and were born into families, and that there were many wild and dangerous beasts there.
1. Why does Lenina think Bernard Marx "odd" - please use specific references from this chapter in your answer.
She thinks he is odd because he is so personal about things like sex, shown by his embarrassment when Lenina talked about their date in public. She also thinks this because he is so unsocial, shown by his unwillingness to talk to the bots in the changing room.
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”, “A gramme is always better than damn”, “Everyone works for everyone else”, “Thank Ford”, “Never put off till tomorrow what fun you can have today”, and “When the individual feels the community reels”. These remind me of sayings we have such as “Thank God”, “Never put off to till tomorrow what you can do today”, and “Kill two birds with one stone”.
3. What is Fanny's explanation for Bernard's behavior?
She says there was 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?
He told him that he went with a girl she got lost one night in a storm and was never found even though he severely hurt his knee trying to look for her. This made Bernard initially uncomfortable because a man as important as the Director had done the forbidden act of thinking of the past just because his disapproval Bernard had such a strong affect on him.
5. What does the Director threaten Bernard with if he doesn't change his behavior? Why does it elate Bernard?
He threatens to have him transferred to Iceland. It make Bernard happy because he was able to have such a strong effect on the Director and he knew the threat was not legitimate.
Part III
6. How does the Warden describe the Reservation?
He explained that it was divided into different sections, that it was separated from the civilized world by a deadly electric fence, that the savages there still spoke different languages and were of mixed breeds, still married and were born into families, and that there were many wild and dangerous beasts there.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
TOK Essay
"People need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events" (adapted from John Gray, Heresies, 2004). In what ways and to what extent would you say this claim is relevant in at least two areas of knowledge?
This statement can be applied to two areas of knowledge, the natural sciences and the social sciences. It could be argued that the very purpose of the natural sciences is to find order in the chaos of natural events and therefore this statement can be readily applied in this area of knowledge. In Reuben Abel’s book Man is the Measure, Abel claims that science explains facts by taking a general law combined with specific conditions of nature to logically deduce the facts. This shows how scientists are taking the chaotic situations of their natural environment and finding a way to explain them with order and reason, therefore glimpsing the order within that chaos. An example of this is the expedition that was taken to find water on the moon in October 2009, when NASA launched a missile into the surface of the moon to break up the rocky ground and collect samples to discover if they contained any water content. NASA was trying to find supportive evidence that the Moon was once a part of the Earth by studying the composition of its water molecules. In the end they discovered that it was strikingly similar to water on Earth and this was the evidence they had hoped to find. This supports this claim because it is an example of how scientists try and make sense of the chaos that is our universe. Despite how much they do not understand they are working they are looking for an order and explanation for the way the universe is.
Another example of this statement in the natural sciences is the Climategate Scandal. E-mails of many climate change researchers asking other climate change researchers to manipulate their data to make global warming seem like more of a threat than it actually is were discovered by computer hackers and posted online for the rest of the world to see. This supports this claim because it shows that these scientists were trying to create order by fooling other people into believing they had to organize themselves to deal with the issue of global warming. In the chaos of environmental change these people took drastic measures to ensure there would be some organization of support for environmental awareness. The implication of this statement in the natural sciences is that the world and universe we live in is completely chaotic and we may never truly understand it despite how much we try to organize it.
In the social sciences, it could be argued that people devote their time to trying to find an order to the chaotic event that is mankind. In Man is the Measure, Abel claims that the purpose of the social sciences is to formulate general conditions under which events occur either by or within human beings. This shows how scientists in the social sciences, similar to those in the natural sciences, are trying to make sense of a chaotic phenomenon such as human behavior and are therefore looking for the order within chaos. An example of this claim in social sciences is the documentary titled 18 with a Bullet, which studied the trends and behavior of gangs in El Salvador. A group of social science scientists and a camera crew went to a city called San Salvador in El Salvador and spent months following and interviewing a gang called 18 to learn about their culture and see how their social system was set up. These scientists were looking to find trends that would predict the behavior of the gang members in certain situations and they were looking for explanations for the violence they encouraged within their culture. This example supports this claim in the social sciences because it shows how these people were trying to find a rhyme and reason to human behavior in such a violent and chaotic environment. They were looking for the order within the social system of such a chaotic group of individuals.
Another example of this statement in the social sciences is the Stanford Prison experiment. In this experiment student volunteers were chosen to participate due to their background of being generally good people with no real criminal record; some of these students were assigned to be guards while others were assigned to be prisoners. Social scientists observed the behavior of the students in this prisonlike environment and discovered that guard students very quickly began abusing the prison students to the point where they had to stop the experiment. This behavior lead these scientists to believe that even good humans are easily susceptible to becoming evil in a sadistic environment. This experiment exemplifies how this statement applies to the social sciences because it shows these people in the experiment felt the need to organize themselves in such a chaotic environment as a prison in order to survive. They felt the need to find order in chaos. The implication of this statement in the social sciences is that humans resort to order and system in any chaotic situation despite the outcome of their actions.
A counterclaim to the relevance of this statement in both the natural and social sciences is that the statement is false to begin with. It could be argued that people do not attempt to find order in situations of chaos and therefore they would not feel that it is necessary to do so. An example that may support this claim would be anarchist societies which strive to abolish all systems of order and embrace the idea of chaos in a way. However, this claim can be disputed with the fact that the majority of human societies do not promote anarchy and that that suggests the majority of humanity would be likely to support this claim of finding order in chaos. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that this statement is readily applicable to both the natural sciences and the social sciences.
This statement can be applied to two areas of knowledge, the natural sciences and the social sciences. It could be argued that the very purpose of the natural sciences is to find order in the chaos of natural events and therefore this statement can be readily applied in this area of knowledge. In Reuben Abel’s book Man is the Measure, Abel claims that science explains facts by taking a general law combined with specific conditions of nature to logically deduce the facts. This shows how scientists are taking the chaotic situations of their natural environment and finding a way to explain them with order and reason, therefore glimpsing the order within that chaos. An example of this is the expedition that was taken to find water on the moon in October 2009, when NASA launched a missile into the surface of the moon to break up the rocky ground and collect samples to discover if they contained any water content. NASA was trying to find supportive evidence that the Moon was once a part of the Earth by studying the composition of its water molecules. In the end they discovered that it was strikingly similar to water on Earth and this was the evidence they had hoped to find. This supports this claim because it is an example of how scientists try and make sense of the chaos that is our universe. Despite how much they do not understand they are working they are looking for an order and explanation for the way the universe is.
Another example of this statement in the natural sciences is the Climategate Scandal. E-mails of many climate change researchers asking other climate change researchers to manipulate their data to make global warming seem like more of a threat than it actually is were discovered by computer hackers and posted online for the rest of the world to see. This supports this claim because it shows that these scientists were trying to create order by fooling other people into believing they had to organize themselves to deal with the issue of global warming. In the chaos of environmental change these people took drastic measures to ensure there would be some organization of support for environmental awareness. The implication of this statement in the natural sciences is that the world and universe we live in is completely chaotic and we may never truly understand it despite how much we try to organize it.
In the social sciences, it could be argued that people devote their time to trying to find an order to the chaotic event that is mankind. In Man is the Measure, Abel claims that the purpose of the social sciences is to formulate general conditions under which events occur either by or within human beings. This shows how scientists in the social sciences, similar to those in the natural sciences, are trying to make sense of a chaotic phenomenon such as human behavior and are therefore looking for the order within chaos. An example of this claim in social sciences is the documentary titled 18 with a Bullet, which studied the trends and behavior of gangs in El Salvador. A group of social science scientists and a camera crew went to a city called San Salvador in El Salvador and spent months following and interviewing a gang called 18 to learn about their culture and see how their social system was set up. These scientists were looking to find trends that would predict the behavior of the gang members in certain situations and they were looking for explanations for the violence they encouraged within their culture. This example supports this claim in the social sciences because it shows how these people were trying to find a rhyme and reason to human behavior in such a violent and chaotic environment. They were looking for the order within the social system of such a chaotic group of individuals.
Another example of this statement in the social sciences is the Stanford Prison experiment. In this experiment student volunteers were chosen to participate due to their background of being generally good people with no real criminal record; some of these students were assigned to be guards while others were assigned to be prisoners. Social scientists observed the behavior of the students in this prisonlike environment and discovered that guard students very quickly began abusing the prison students to the point where they had to stop the experiment. This behavior lead these scientists to believe that even good humans are easily susceptible to becoming evil in a sadistic environment. This experiment exemplifies how this statement applies to the social sciences because it shows these people in the experiment felt the need to organize themselves in such a chaotic environment as a prison in order to survive. They felt the need to find order in chaos. The implication of this statement in the social sciences is that humans resort to order and system in any chaotic situation despite the outcome of their actions.
A counterclaim to the relevance of this statement in both the natural and social sciences is that the statement is false to begin with. It could be argued that people do not attempt to find order in situations of chaos and therefore they would not feel that it is necessary to do so. An example that may support this claim would be anarchist societies which strive to abolish all systems of order and embrace the idea of chaos in a way. However, this claim can be disputed with the fact that the majority of human societies do not promote anarchy and that that suggests the majority of humanity would be likely to support this claim of finding order in chaos. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that this statement is readily applicable to both the natural sciences and the social sciences.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Brave New World Chapter 5
1. What would Michael Pollan (Remember? The Omnivore's Dilemma) say about the first paragraph in Chapter 5?
She would probably comment on the irony of the cattle using their milk and hormones to provide for the factory at Farnham Royal.
2. Do you see any similarities with hoe the World State views death as compared to the Hindus? How does Lenina's remembrance of hypopedia compare with that of Plato's Republic?
The similarity is that both seem to believe that humans serve a purpose to the earth both during and after life. Lenina remembers that her hypnopedia told her that everyone is happy in their class and Plato’s Republic argued that with the right conditioning this could be true and it would create a society where everyone would be happy.
3. What do you think of Lenina's and Henry night out on the town?
I thought their night out was rather unfulfilling because they were doing the same thing as everyone else and I would not be able to do that every night like they do.
4. Why do you think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters?
I think he uses this word because he feels the women are too spirited and he likes women who are more subtle like him.
5. What is Solidarity Service and what are Bernard's feelings towards it?
It is like a religious group that holds sermons to inspire people and Bernard seems to think that no matter what he does he will always fail to be inspired by it and that causes him to feel even more isolated.
She would probably comment on the irony of the cattle using their milk and hormones to provide for the factory at Farnham Royal.
2. Do you see any similarities with hoe the World State views death as compared to the Hindus? How does Lenina's remembrance of hypopedia compare with that of Plato's Republic?
The similarity is that both seem to believe that humans serve a purpose to the earth both during and after life. Lenina remembers that her hypnopedia told her that everyone is happy in their class and Plato’s Republic argued that with the right conditioning this could be true and it would create a society where everyone would be happy.
3. What do you think of Lenina's and Henry night out on the town?
I thought their night out was rather unfulfilling because they were doing the same thing as everyone else and I would not be able to do that every night like they do.
4. Why do you think Huxley uses the word "pneumatic" to refer to some female characters?
I think he uses this word because he feels the women are too spirited and he likes women who are more subtle like him.
5. What is Solidarity Service and what are Bernard's feelings towards it?
It is like a religious group that holds sermons to inspire people and Bernard seems to think that no matter what he does he will always fail to be inspired by it and that causes him to feel even more isolated.
Abel Chapter 15
1. Why is history being rewritten constantly?
It is being rewritten both because new facts are being discovered all the time and because it is being reinterpreted to make it more meaningful all the time because people assume it is always being written incorrectly.
2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"? Please provide a specific example for each factor.
Human interest in what is important and what is not changes over time, like how we now care more about how peasants lived in France than the love affairs their kings were having at that time. Our explanations for why events happened change over time as well, like how we now have the Marxist hypothesis that the American Civil War was a class conflict. Our view of basic historical segment changes over time, like how Braudel chooses the “Mediterranean” as his unit. The personal interests of historians are ever changing. And the audience for whom a historian writes changes as well.
3. What is the "Baconian fallacy?"What would the Positivists think? Would Carr agree with Namier?
The fallacy is the assumption that all a historian must do is collect facts. Positivists would probably believe in this fallacy because they think it is the historian’s job to regurgitate fatcs. Carr would agree with Namier because he believes it is the historian’s job to interpret the facts as well as produce them.
4. How does History differ from Geology?
History is different because while in geology facts are simply stated, in history the historian must give meaning and purpose to facts.
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?
I completely agree with this explanation because in the checks lad we chose to recognize certain patterns, like the dates of the check, over other patterns, like the names of the animals at the top of the checks.
6. In your opinion, "how will future historians so elect to describe what is going on now(p. 167)?"
I think they will do so in the manner historians from our day have done it and historians before them, because I think the process of studying history remains very much the same throughout time and it really only the facts that change.
7. What is historical pluralism?
It is the belief that not all events are related to one another.
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?
It seems that it would not really matter if there ever was a man named Trotsky because historians have chosen to say there was and since no one fact of history appears to better than another because there is no hard core of indisputable facts, it would not matter if he really existed or not, as long as historians choose to say he did.
9. How is a historian like a physicist?
Both choose what facts are most important to consider, neither will ever know everything about their subject of study, and both recognize that there are multiple interpretations and explanations for the things they study.
10. What are the Five Frameworks or Hypotheses of History? Please provide an example from your HL or SL history class of each.
History is cyclical like the similar roles single party states have played in changing the economy of countries like Russia, Germany, and China. In history, events are caused by some factor within the environment of where they occur, like how the Italians had the upper hand in fighting the Allied forces because they could hide in the mountain ranges surrounding Italy and the Allied forces were not used to fighting on mountains. History is constantly progressing, like how new information and new interest about Soviet Russia has caused us to discover different perspectives about what was happening at that time that we may not have considered before. History is a great drama of sin and redemption, like how Hitler was arrested for his part in WWI and then redeemed himself by winning the elections in Germany and becoming chancellor. And societies within history act as a single organism, like how when one part of Russia was affected by the famine, it spread to rest of ZZRussia and caused the whole country to suffer.
11. Do you believe in Historical Inevitability?
I believe that the nature of humans has caused historical inevitability because we are simply too predictable. However I do not believe that historical inevitability is a fact and I believe that if people were motivated enough and worked hard enough at it, any war could be prevented.
12. What does Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (p. 174)."?
He means that theories of history are made up of materials and facts which were decided to be more important than other materials or facts but in fact there is no way to know which materials or facts are better than the others and therefore there is no way to know which historical theories are the best.
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.
Lepore would agree with this statement because she believes that history is simply stating facts in an interesting and interpretive way so that people will care about them. This opinion can clearly be seen when she talks about how Jane Austin wrote a comical history of King Henry which was more interesting than his actual history.
14. How does the footnote at the bottom of page 175 relate to the Shaper from Grendel?
Like these different religious groups who tell different stories about the Crussades and who emphasize different things as being good or bad to produce the desired story of how their group was the better in the event, so does the Shaper emphasize certain points in his songs in Grendel to make it appear as though Hrothgar was the greatest hero of all time. It shows how history is subject to multiple interpretations.
It is being rewritten both because new facts are being discovered all the time and because it is being reinterpreted to make it more meaningful all the time because people assume it is always being written incorrectly.
2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"? Please provide a specific example for each factor.
Human interest in what is important and what is not changes over time, like how we now care more about how peasants lived in France than the love affairs their kings were having at that time. Our explanations for why events happened change over time as well, like how we now have the Marxist hypothesis that the American Civil War was a class conflict. Our view of basic historical segment changes over time, like how Braudel chooses the “Mediterranean” as his unit. The personal interests of historians are ever changing. And the audience for whom a historian writes changes as well.
3. What is the "Baconian fallacy?"What would the Positivists think? Would Carr agree with Namier?
The fallacy is the assumption that all a historian must do is collect facts. Positivists would probably believe in this fallacy because they think it is the historian’s job to regurgitate fatcs. Carr would agree with Namier because he believes it is the historian’s job to interpret the facts as well as produce them.
4. How does History differ from Geology?
History is different because while in geology facts are simply stated, in history the historian must give meaning and purpose to facts.
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?
I completely agree with this explanation because in the checks lad we chose to recognize certain patterns, like the dates of the check, over other patterns, like the names of the animals at the top of the checks.
6. In your opinion, "how will future historians so elect to describe what is going on now(p. 167)?"
I think they will do so in the manner historians from our day have done it and historians before them, because I think the process of studying history remains very much the same throughout time and it really only the facts that change.
7. What is historical pluralism?
It is the belief that not all events are related to one another.
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?
It seems that it would not really matter if there ever was a man named Trotsky because historians have chosen to say there was and since no one fact of history appears to better than another because there is no hard core of indisputable facts, it would not matter if he really existed or not, as long as historians choose to say he did.
9. How is a historian like a physicist?
Both choose what facts are most important to consider, neither will ever know everything about their subject of study, and both recognize that there are multiple interpretations and explanations for the things they study.
10. What are the Five Frameworks or Hypotheses of History? Please provide an example from your HL or SL history class of each.
History is cyclical like the similar roles single party states have played in changing the economy of countries like Russia, Germany, and China. In history, events are caused by some factor within the environment of where they occur, like how the Italians had the upper hand in fighting the Allied forces because they could hide in the mountain ranges surrounding Italy and the Allied forces were not used to fighting on mountains. History is constantly progressing, like how new information and new interest about Soviet Russia has caused us to discover different perspectives about what was happening at that time that we may not have considered before. History is a great drama of sin and redemption, like how Hitler was arrested for his part in WWI and then redeemed himself by winning the elections in Germany and becoming chancellor. And societies within history act as a single organism, like how when one part of Russia was affected by the famine, it spread to rest of ZZRussia and caused the whole country to suffer.
11. Do you believe in Historical Inevitability?
I believe that the nature of humans has caused historical inevitability because we are simply too predictable. However I do not believe that historical inevitability is a fact and I believe that if people were motivated enough and worked hard enough at it, any war could be prevented.
12. What does Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (p. 174)."?
He means that theories of history are made up of materials and facts which were decided to be more important than other materials or facts but in fact there is no way to know which materials or facts are better than the others and therefore there is no way to know which historical theories are the best.
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.
Lepore would agree with this statement because she believes that history is simply stating facts in an interesting and interpretive way so that people will care about them. This opinion can clearly be seen when she talks about how Jane Austin wrote a comical history of King Henry which was more interesting than his actual history.
14. How does the footnote at the bottom of page 175 relate to the Shaper from Grendel?
Like these different religious groups who tell different stories about the Crussades and who emphasize different things as being good or bad to produce the desired story of how their group was the better in the event, so does the Shaper emphasize certain points in his songs in Grendel to make it appear as though Hrothgar was the greatest hero of all time. It shows how history is subject to multiple interpretations.
Nacirema
1. Yesterday we were given an anthological report to read on a mysterious and self destructive culture. We read through the report and commented on all the customs of the culture and how strange we found them to be. As we read, images of what we assumed were natives of the country were displayed on a projector in front of us and it was accompanied by foreign, tribal sounding music. When we were finished reading the report and discussing what we thought of the culture we were told that the country was actually our own United States of America. When reading this report we were unable to identify the culture as our own because of the language used to describe the culture. For example in the report the culture is referred to as “self destructive” and “uncivilized” and because we would never consider our own culture to be like this it was impossible for us to assume anyone else would. We were also unable to recognize this because of the atmosphere we were in while reading the report which was set by the images we saw and the music we heard. These foreign things caused us to assume we had to be reading about a foreign country and so we did.
2. This reaction to the report we read suggests a lot about the Social Sciences like Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology. It suggests that a strength of these sciences is that they can be used to display the strange tendencies of any culture, even our own, and make us realize how destructive we are being as a society. However it also suggests that there are some faults with these sciences in the fact that most of the time the results of these sciences are designed to appeal to our society an d be accepted by us and therefore they may be biased against other cultures because that is what we as a society want to hear because we define our own culture by comparing it to the faults of other cultures to show how much better we are.
2. This reaction to the report we read suggests a lot about the Social Sciences like Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology. It suggests that a strength of these sciences is that they can be used to display the strange tendencies of any culture, even our own, and make us realize how destructive we are being as a society. However it also suggests that there are some faults with these sciences in the fact that most of the time the results of these sciences are designed to appeal to our society an d be accepted by us and therefore they may be biased against other cultures because that is what we as a society want to hear because we define our own culture by comparing it to the faults of other cultures to show how much better we are.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Brave New World chapter 4
Part 1
1. What puzzles Lenina about Bernard Marx's behavior?
She is puzzled because he is shy about the idea of sex and in a world that is so publicly accepting of the idea and does not consider it to be a private matter.
2. Please provide examples of Lenina using what she learned from hypnopaedia.
When she flies over the Gamma workers she exclaims that kaki is an ugly color and she says hwo happy she is that she is not a Gamma.
3. Where are Lenina and Henry going?
They are going to play Obstacle Golf.
Part 2:
1. What makes Bernard Marx distressed? Why?
He is distressed because he has the appearance of a Gamma but the mind of an Alpha. This causes him to be alienated from his colleges and he often times feels alone and inadequate.
2. Where does Helmholtz Watson work? What is his job?
He works at the center for propaganda and his job is to write catchy phrases about everyday things.
3. What does Bernard have in common with Helmholtz Watson?
They both have excess in their minds and therefore are more aware of the world around them and are very different from other humans.
4. What is troubling Helmholtz?
He wants to write something more meaningful than propaganda but he does not know what it is he wants to say.
1. What puzzles Lenina about Bernard Marx's behavior?
She is puzzled because he is shy about the idea of sex and in a world that is so publicly accepting of the idea and does not consider it to be a private matter.
2. Please provide examples of Lenina using what she learned from hypnopaedia.
When she flies over the Gamma workers she exclaims that kaki is an ugly color and she says hwo happy she is that she is not a Gamma.
3. Where are Lenina and Henry going?
They are going to play Obstacle Golf.
Part 2:
1. What makes Bernard Marx distressed? Why?
He is distressed because he has the appearance of a Gamma but the mind of an Alpha. This causes him to be alienated from his colleges and he often times feels alone and inadequate.
2. Where does Helmholtz Watson work? What is his job?
He works at the center for propaganda and his job is to write catchy phrases about everyday things.
3. What does Bernard have in common with Helmholtz Watson?
They both have excess in their minds and therefore are more aware of the world around them and are very different from other humans.
4. What is troubling Helmholtz?
He wants to write something more meaningful than propaganda but he does not know what it is he wants to say.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Brave New World chapter 3
A) Sex, Monogamy & Romance
They treat sex as though it is a game and they do not believe in monogamy or romance because they believe that every person should be able to have every other person they desire without consequence.
B) Sports
They believe that the only purpose of sports is to increase consumer production and consumption to further advance their economy.
C) Entertainment
Like sports, all their forms of entertainment serve the purpose of advancing their economy by proving more products for the consumers.
D) Parenthood
Parenting does not exist for them. They view it as a cause of weakness in humans who cannot be coddled.
E) Materialism
For them, it is a part of everyday life and it is expected of them to be materialistic because that is their norm.
F) Religion
Their only religion is their worship of the founding father of their society known to them as Ford.
G) Intoxicants
Similar to materialism, this is considered to be a natural part of everyday life for them and they are expected to exercise them.
The State came to be as it is because of the efforts of the one known as Ford. Ford first presented his ideas for the perfect society, including the cast system, to the government in England at the time but was rejected by them and most of society at that time therefore decided to build support and wage a war to become ultimate ruler so that he could establish his ideas as truth. He waged war for nine years and then realized that brute force was not the answer. So he decided to eliminate his competitors by completely extinguishing them through chemical warfare. After he eliminated them, Ford used different means of propaganda to become ultimate leader and once in power whipped out all knowledge of history in art and books and set up his own society where e brain washed humans into complete obedience.
They treat sex as though it is a game and they do not believe in monogamy or romance because they believe that every person should be able to have every other person they desire without consequence.
B) Sports
They believe that the only purpose of sports is to increase consumer production and consumption to further advance their economy.
C) Entertainment
Like sports, all their forms of entertainment serve the purpose of advancing their economy by proving more products for the consumers.
D) Parenthood
Parenting does not exist for them. They view it as a cause of weakness in humans who cannot be coddled.
E) Materialism
For them, it is a part of everyday life and it is expected of them to be materialistic because that is their norm.
F) Religion
Their only religion is their worship of the founding father of their society known to them as Ford.
G) Intoxicants
Similar to materialism, this is considered to be a natural part of everyday life for them and they are expected to exercise them.
The State came to be as it is because of the efforts of the one known as Ford. Ford first presented his ideas for the perfect society, including the cast system, to the government in England at the time but was rejected by them and most of society at that time therefore decided to build support and wage a war to become ultimate ruler so that he could establish his ideas as truth. He waged war for nine years and then realized that brute force was not the answer. So he decided to eliminate his competitors by completely extinguishing them through chemical warfare. After he eliminated them, Ford used different means of propaganda to become ultimate leader and once in power whipped out all knowledge of history in art and books and set up his own society where e brain washed humans into complete obedience.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Brave New World 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?
They are exposed to the books and flowers and then shocked to condition them to hate them. This is done so that they will not waste time reading and so they will not have a love of nature that might keep them buying factory goods.
2. What is a State Conditioning Center? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
It is the place where humans are broken up into their classes and conditioned accordingly. It reminds me of Plato’s idea of the different schools for the different classes in society.
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?
It is when something is recited to a person while they sleep so that they memorize it. It could not be used for Science because although it was memorized the person had no idea what it meant. It was used for substituting the minds of children with simple but influential suggestions about their preferences as a social class throughout their life. It reminds me of Plato’s idea of telling children where they belong in society and trying to drill into their heads their purpose for the society.
4. How does the Caste system work in the World State? What are the similarities and differences between this and the Hindu Caste system?
There are five different cast levels: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. It is similar to Hinduism because once you are assigned to a level you are stuck there for your entire life and the levels range from respected to the unrespected classes.
5. What does the Director mean when he says, "Not so much like drops of water....rather, drops of liquid sealing wax."?
He means that the suggestions which are whispered into the children’s’ heads will subtly overcome their mind until that is all their minds are made up of.
They are exposed to the books and flowers and then shocked to condition them to hate them. This is done so that they will not waste time reading and so they will not have a love of nature that might keep them buying factory goods.
2. What is a State Conditioning Center? Does it remind you of anything from Plato's Republic?
It is the place where humans are broken up into their classes and conditioned accordingly. It reminds me of Plato’s idea of the different schools for the different classes in society.
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?
It is when something is recited to a person while they sleep so that they memorize it. It could not be used for Science because although it was memorized the person had no idea what it meant. It was used for substituting the minds of children with simple but influential suggestions about their preferences as a social class throughout their life. It reminds me of Plato’s idea of telling children where they belong in society and trying to drill into their heads their purpose for the society.
4. How does the Caste system work in the World State? What are the similarities and differences between this and the Hindu Caste system?
There are five different cast levels: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. It is similar to Hinduism because once you are assigned to a level you are stuck there for your entire life and the levels range from respected to the unrespected classes.
5. What does the Director mean when he says, "Not so much like drops of water....rather, drops of liquid sealing wax."?
He means that the suggestions which are whispered into the children’s’ heads will subtly overcome their mind until that is all their minds are made up of.
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Way We Are
The claim “We see and understand things not as they are but as we are,” suggests that when it comes to the different ways of knowing, our personal biases and differences in the way we gain knowledge, influence the very knowledge we gain. This idea is very prominent in terms of knowing by perception and knowing by reason. Both these ways of knowing can be influenced by the person exercising them and can therefore change the knowledge they are trying to gain from what is actually true.
In knowing by perception the knowledge we gain can be warped by the way in which we see the world and the fact that that may differ from how the world actually is. Our perception of the world is influenced itself by our experiences in life which have affect our thoughts about the world and how we see it. For example I may have one bad experience with a clown who scared me as a child and therefore I may perceive all clowns as being scary because of that experience even though many of them may be very kind. These experiences affect our process of taking in information from the outside world and translating it into knowledge. When we induce or deduce what we see, that process may be affected by our previous experiences with the world and it may blind us to seeing things as they really are without bias or assumptions. A possible counterclaim to this argument which could be made by someone who has not studied the effects of perception on the knowledge we gain, may be that people are clever enough to know that they are making hasty assumptions about something they see and therefore can identify and put aside their biases when obtaining knowledge. However, people often do not realize just how subtle and undetectable these biases can be and therefore do not know that they are affecting their perception of the world. For example in the online test designed to see if Americans are naturally racist, which we took in our TOK class, it was found that even though the people taking it did not think they were racist it still took them longer to categorize an African American person as good and a white person as bad than it did when they were asked to do the opposite. Their past experiences of seeing the amount of racism which once existed in America had an effect on how they perceive African Americans without them even knowing it.
In knowing by reason, the assumptions and biases again have an on the way we gain knowledge. In this case they affect the process of reasoning we go through to come to a conclusion about this knowledge and what it is. Our biases about a certain situation or matter can influence our reasoning when we are trying to determine the truth of the matter through what we already know. For example in the check exercise we did in TOK class, we tried to reason what the story of the family was through examining some of their checks and coming to conclusion about what they meant. We did not realize at the time but our previous assumption that because the family seemed wealthy they must be stable, influenced our process of reasoning by causing us to disregard some of the more unpleasant checks like the one for marriage counseling and drug rehab when drawing our conclusion. Our biases about the family affected out reasoning about what their story was from the evidence we were given. A possible counterclaim to this argument from someone who has not studied knowledge by reason could be that people do not ever make these assumptions about something they don’t know much about and therefore have nothing to influence their reasoning process when they are trying to reach a conclusion about that something. However, it is oftentimes unrealized just how many assumptions we make about a situation we only have bits and pieces of information about, and how strongly they influence us when we are trying to put those pieces together and reason a conclusion about the situation. The case of the check exercise is the perfect example of this.
This is how our personal biases and differences in the way we gain knowledge, influence the very knowledge we gain in different situations of the ways of knowing. In terms of perception, our previous experiences influence the way in which we see the world and the knowledge we gain through seeing it. Also, in terms of reason our assumptions about a situation can influence our conclusion about it and the process we use to reach that conclusion. This is what was meant by the claim “We see and understand things not as they are but as we are.”
In knowing by perception the knowledge we gain can be warped by the way in which we see the world and the fact that that may differ from how the world actually is. Our perception of the world is influenced itself by our experiences in life which have affect our thoughts about the world and how we see it. For example I may have one bad experience with a clown who scared me as a child and therefore I may perceive all clowns as being scary because of that experience even though many of them may be very kind. These experiences affect our process of taking in information from the outside world and translating it into knowledge. When we induce or deduce what we see, that process may be affected by our previous experiences with the world and it may blind us to seeing things as they really are without bias or assumptions. A possible counterclaim to this argument which could be made by someone who has not studied the effects of perception on the knowledge we gain, may be that people are clever enough to know that they are making hasty assumptions about something they see and therefore can identify and put aside their biases when obtaining knowledge. However, people often do not realize just how subtle and undetectable these biases can be and therefore do not know that they are affecting their perception of the world. For example in the online test designed to see if Americans are naturally racist, which we took in our TOK class, it was found that even though the people taking it did not think they were racist it still took them longer to categorize an African American person as good and a white person as bad than it did when they were asked to do the opposite. Their past experiences of seeing the amount of racism which once existed in America had an effect on how they perceive African Americans without them even knowing it.
In knowing by reason, the assumptions and biases again have an on the way we gain knowledge. In this case they affect the process of reasoning we go through to come to a conclusion about this knowledge and what it is. Our biases about a certain situation or matter can influence our reasoning when we are trying to determine the truth of the matter through what we already know. For example in the check exercise we did in TOK class, we tried to reason what the story of the family was through examining some of their checks and coming to conclusion about what they meant. We did not realize at the time but our previous assumption that because the family seemed wealthy they must be stable, influenced our process of reasoning by causing us to disregard some of the more unpleasant checks like the one for marriage counseling and drug rehab when drawing our conclusion. Our biases about the family affected out reasoning about what their story was from the evidence we were given. A possible counterclaim to this argument from someone who has not studied knowledge by reason could be that people do not ever make these assumptions about something they don’t know much about and therefore have nothing to influence their reasoning process when they are trying to reach a conclusion about that something. However, it is oftentimes unrealized just how many assumptions we make about a situation we only have bits and pieces of information about, and how strongly they influence us when we are trying to put those pieces together and reason a conclusion about the situation. The case of the check exercise is the perfect example of this.
This is how our personal biases and differences in the way we gain knowledge, influence the very knowledge we gain in different situations of the ways of knowing. In terms of perception, our previous experiences influence the way in which we see the world and the knowledge we gain through seeing it. Also, in terms of reason our assumptions about a situation can influence our conclusion about it and the process we use to reach that conclusion. This is what was meant by the claim “We see and understand things not as they are but as we are.”
Check Exercise
I found that in the check exercise there were a lot of differences and similarities between the way in which we carried out the exercise and the process of analyzing and qualities of history. Some similarities were that, like historians, we were supplied with bits and pieces of information which we had to examine and make logical assumptions about to draw the best possible conclusion we could about what the documents entailed about the family we were investigating. It was also similar in the way we made multiple hypotheses as we gained different information by acquiring more checks and how, in the end, we took all of our hypotheses and combined them into a logical conclusion about what they meant. Another similarity was that overall process we followed in getting the information and analyzing it reflected the history diagram we discussed in class which defined history and showed how it was evaluated. Some differences between the way in which we carried out the exercise and the process of analyzing and qualities of history, were the fact that we had such a constricting time limit because although it is true that a historian may have a certain deadline for a historical paper or analysis, it would certainly not be within ten minutes of when they relieved the information they were to evaluate and that is what we were expected to do. Also in our situation we there was no way for us to gain any information outside of what the checks implied (for example going to the mortuary listed on one of the checks and asking who died on the date given on the check), but in the situation of a real historian trying to discover what happened with the family they would have the freedom to use many other outside sources of information beside the checks. Another difference in our situation was that we had a group of people working at once to come to a finite conclusion only once whereas in real life there would be many different groups of historians analyzing the same evidence and evaluating and editing each other’s conclusions about the evidence multiple times to try and reach the best conclusion possible. These are the differences and similarities between the check exercise we did in class and the way in which history is analyzed in life.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Brave New World 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?"
One egg of one embryo buds into multiple eggs by manipulation of X – ray technology. He says this because he believes that creating these identical people will solve any issue of identity in the society.
3. Why did the doctor wish to keep the Epsilon "embryo below par?"
He wants this because they need to be in an environment where the oxygen will affect its growth into what it is meant to be in society.
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 inescapable social destiny."? How does this connect to what is happening in Rack 10?
They are specially creating these people serve certain purposes and functions in society and they make them so that they assume their jobs are what should make them happy. Rack 10 is an example of this because it was conditioning the workers to have a tolerance for certain chemicals so that they could more efficiently work in the environment they were to be assigned to.
Community, Identity, Stability.
2. Please describe Bokanovsky's Process. Why does The Director call it the "major instrument of social stability?"
One egg of one embryo buds into multiple eggs by manipulation of X – ray technology. He says this because he believes that creating these identical people will solve any issue of identity in the society.
3. Why did the doctor wish to keep the Epsilon "embryo below par?"
He wants this because they need to be in an environment where the oxygen will affect its growth into what it is meant to be in society.
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 inescapable social destiny."? How does this connect to what is happening in Rack 10?
They are specially creating these people serve certain purposes and functions in society and they make them so that they assume their jobs are what should make them happy. Rack 10 is an example of this because it was conditioning the workers to have a tolerance for certain chemicals so that they could more efficiently work in the environment they were to be assigned to.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Hinduism/ Buddhism Notes
Hinduism
Intro:
Dharma – responsibility to maintain balance, temporal perspective, cosmic balance, maintain connective organization of the cosmos
Brahman – law books, explain Hinduism
Social ranks – fulfill role to achieve moksha, Brahmans are at the top
If one person slacks everyone suffers
Everyone has a place
If you fulfill your place you go to the next level in the cast system
Every small action affects the cosmic balance
No inferiority or superiority just different levels of being
Welfare of the society comes first
Paradoxical – be physical yet transcend it at the same time – contradictory
Society functions as one organism
Upanashas – books: Romyana, story of Ram and Sita
Vedic religion – oldest known religion, written in Sanskrit, in Northern India,
Maha Brata book – has Hinduism ideals, Shiva, Genesh
Gita – stories gods and lord Krishna, Arjuta, dharma duty, responsibility, every action should be godly
Moksha – release/ liberation from all limitations and restrictions, release of karma and samsara, enlightenment, end of cycle, spiritual goal
Society and the world itself are only contingent reality
Cyclical time /infinite space, no beginning or end
Western beliefs are linier/ opposite
You are insignificant – power is an illusion
Yugas – a period from creation to destruction:
- Krita yuga – 1728000 years long
- Ireta yuga – 1296000 years long
- Duapara yuga – 864000 years long
- Kali yuga – 432000 years long, our time, least virtuous time
Increasing decline in virtue
Brahma – creator god, one thousand mahayugas = one day for his life, one complete cycle of all yugas
After 100 Brahma years everything dissolves and starts over
Perush – creator god, sun and moon Brahmans come from head, moon comes from mind, warriors and the sky come from arms, merchants come from stomach, serfs and untouchables and earth come from feet
Similar to Plato but different metaphor
Somsahra – cycles, rebirth, multiple lives
One way of achieving moksha is through yoga
Prakrita – physical stuff
Purusha – inner self
Maya – prevents you from seeing things as they really are
Reconciliations
Alleviate tension between dharma and moksha
Live 4 phases – different for each social level
- Study scriptures
- Marry
- Meditate and reproduce
- Wander begging for food
Work/ knowledge/ devotion
All paths balance out karma, moksha, and dharma
Get both points of view and don’t favor either
Shiva – destroyer god, passion that drives anarchy and chaos, falick
Wife – Parvati
Mahabharata – part of Gita, conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna about moksha
Ganesh
Kali
Ram and Sita – Ramayana – Hanuman helps to sure Ram’s brother by bringing Himalayas back with the special healing herb
Brahma – creator
Vishnu – preserver
Brahma/ Vishnu/ Shiva = trinity
Cast system
- Brahmin = priests
- Kinasatiyas = warriors
- Vaisyas = craftsmen
- Svoras = farmers
- Untouchables
Plato’s cave – once you move on you can never come back
Buddhism
Prince Siddharta:
Holy man says he will be a spiritual leader
Father wants him to be a great king so creates special world with three palaces for each season so he can grow up to be a king
One day he hears a sad song of suffering and wants to go outside to discover what it means
So father creates illusion that everyone is happy
But he sees old people and follows them to find leapers
“Does this even happen to kings?”
Death as well
Then discovers compassion
Wants to break out of samshara
Leaves his wife and new born child
Goes and follows hippies
One day he hears a conversation between a musician and his pupil “if the string is too tight it will break, if it is too loose it will not play, need to find a middle ground”
BECOMES BUDDHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (enlightened)
Middle Path – the nobel truths
- Life is suffering
- Suffering is caused by desire
- Desire can be overcome
- Follow the eightfold path
No cast system
No dharma or karma
There is reincarnation
Nirvana – Buddhist enlightenment
Mahayana Buddhism – everyone can obtain Nirvana in one lifetime
Greater vehicle
Zen – Buddhism
Dharma – follow Buddha and don’t get distraction
Intro:
Dharma – responsibility to maintain balance, temporal perspective, cosmic balance, maintain connective organization of the cosmos
Brahman – law books, explain Hinduism
Social ranks – fulfill role to achieve moksha, Brahmans are at the top
If one person slacks everyone suffers
Everyone has a place
If you fulfill your place you go to the next level in the cast system
Every small action affects the cosmic balance
No inferiority or superiority just different levels of being
Welfare of the society comes first
Paradoxical – be physical yet transcend it at the same time – contradictory
Society functions as one organism
Upanashas – books: Romyana, story of Ram and Sita
Vedic religion – oldest known religion, written in Sanskrit, in Northern India,
Maha Brata book – has Hinduism ideals, Shiva, Genesh
Gita – stories gods and lord Krishna, Arjuta, dharma duty, responsibility, every action should be godly
Moksha – release/ liberation from all limitations and restrictions, release of karma and samsara, enlightenment, end of cycle, spiritual goal
Society and the world itself are only contingent reality
Cyclical time /infinite space, no beginning or end
Western beliefs are linier/ opposite
You are insignificant – power is an illusion
Yugas – a period from creation to destruction:
- Krita yuga – 1728000 years long
- Ireta yuga – 1296000 years long
- Duapara yuga – 864000 years long
- Kali yuga – 432000 years long, our time, least virtuous time
Increasing decline in virtue
Brahma – creator god, one thousand mahayugas = one day for his life, one complete cycle of all yugas
After 100 Brahma years everything dissolves and starts over
Perush – creator god, sun and moon Brahmans come from head, moon comes from mind, warriors and the sky come from arms, merchants come from stomach, serfs and untouchables and earth come from feet
Similar to Plato but different metaphor
Somsahra – cycles, rebirth, multiple lives
One way of achieving moksha is through yoga
Prakrita – physical stuff
Purusha – inner self
Maya – prevents you from seeing things as they really are
Reconciliations
Alleviate tension between dharma and moksha
Live 4 phases – different for each social level
- Study scriptures
- Marry
- Meditate and reproduce
- Wander begging for food
Work/ knowledge/ devotion
All paths balance out karma, moksha, and dharma
Get both points of view and don’t favor either
Shiva – destroyer god, passion that drives anarchy and chaos, falick
Wife – Parvati
Mahabharata – part of Gita, conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna about moksha
Ganesh
Kali
Ram and Sita – Ramayana – Hanuman helps to sure Ram’s brother by bringing Himalayas back with the special healing herb
Brahma – creator
Vishnu – preserver
Brahma/ Vishnu/ Shiva = trinity
Cast system
- Brahmin = priests
- Kinasatiyas = warriors
- Vaisyas = craftsmen
- Svoras = farmers
- Untouchables
Plato’s cave – once you move on you can never come back
Buddhism
Prince Siddharta:
Holy man says he will be a spiritual leader
Father wants him to be a great king so creates special world with three palaces for each season so he can grow up to be a king
One day he hears a sad song of suffering and wants to go outside to discover what it means
So father creates illusion that everyone is happy
But he sees old people and follows them to find leapers
“Does this even happen to kings?”
Death as well
Then discovers compassion
Wants to break out of samshara
Leaves his wife and new born child
Goes and follows hippies
One day he hears a conversation between a musician and his pupil “if the string is too tight it will break, if it is too loose it will not play, need to find a middle ground”
BECOMES BUDDHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (enlightened)
Middle Path – the nobel truths
- Life is suffering
- Suffering is caused by desire
- Desire can be overcome
- Follow the eightfold path
No cast system
No dharma or karma
There is reincarnation
Nirvana – Buddhist enlightenment
Mahayana Buddhism – everyone can obtain Nirvana in one lifetime
Greater vehicle
Zen – Buddhism
Dharma – follow Buddha and don’t get distraction
Monday, October 19, 2009
Hindu Deities
Shiva, also known as Rudra is a major Hindu god and one aspect of Trimurti. In the Shaiva tradition of Hinduism, Shiva is seen as the Supreme God. In the Smarta tradition, he is one of the five primary forms of God. Followers of Hinduism who focus their worship upon Shiva are called Shaivites or Shaivas. Shaivism, along with Vaiṣṇava traditions that focus on Vishnu and Śākta traditions that focus on the goddess Devī are three of the most influential denominations in Hinduism. Shiva is usually worshipped in the form of Shiva linga. In images, he is generally represented as immersed in deep meditation or dancing the Tandava upon Maya, the demon of ignorance in his manifestation of Nataraja, the lord of the dance. In some Hindu denominations, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva represent the three primary aspects of the divine, and are collectively known as the Trimurti. In this school of religious thought, Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the maintainer or preserver, and Shiva is the destroyer or transformer.
Vishnu is the Supreme God in Vaishnavite tradition of Hinduism. Smarta followers of Adi Shankara, among others, venerate Vishnu as one of the five primary forms of God. He is exalted as the highest God in Hindu sacred texts like the Taittiriya Samhita and the Bhagavad Gita. He is the Guru Kshethram, representing Bṛhaspati, or Jupiter, in the Navagraha, or nine cosmic influences. The Vishnu Sahasranama declares Vishnu as Paramatma and Parameshwara. It describes Vishnu as the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of—and beyond—the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within. In the Puranas, Vishnu is described as having the divine color of clouds, four-armed, holding a lotus, mace, conch and chakra. Vishnu is also described in the Bhagavad Gita as having a 'Universal Form' which is beyond the ordinary limits of human perception.
Vishnu is the Supreme God in Vaishnavite tradition of Hinduism. Smarta followers of Adi Shankara, among others, venerate Vishnu as one of the five primary forms of God. He is exalted as the highest God in Hindu sacred texts like the Taittiriya Samhita and the Bhagavad Gita. He is the Guru Kshethram, representing Bṛhaspati, or Jupiter, in the Navagraha, or nine cosmic influences. The Vishnu Sahasranama declares Vishnu as Paramatma and Parameshwara. It describes Vishnu as the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of—and beyond—the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within. In the Puranas, Vishnu is described as having the divine color of clouds, four-armed, holding a lotus, mace, conch and chakra. Vishnu is also described in the Bhagavad Gita as having a 'Universal Form' which is beyond the ordinary limits of human perception.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Plato's Republic
Section 1
Thrasymicus – the unjust man uses unjust methods to become better off in life than the just man and have more things so that he is happier (social Darwinism?)
Juvernal: “What I want, I take. Let my might take the place of reasoned argument.”
Plato – the just man is more happy because his sole is more fulfilled
The path of justice: virtue – prudent – good – knowledge – therefore happy
The path of injustice: vice – thoughtless – bad – lack of knowledge – therefore wretched
Section 2
Guardians of a city:
-Philosophical
-Swift
-Spirited
-Strong
Create these guardians through the education of music and gym
What should we read to children?
- stories of the gods partaking in sex and violence is bad and corruptive
- Platonic Forms/ perfect role models are good for children, give them someone positive to look up to
- 382 c: humans cannot be perfect or divine but should try to get as close as possible
Section 3
Separate the strong from the weak and the knowledgeable from the thoughtless through the education system:
Good at academics – become guardians – gold – calculating – superego – judges
Good at gym – become auxiliaries – silver – irrational – id – act off of needs
All the rest – become craftsmen/ farmers – bronze/ iron – spirited – ego – lives in moderation
Marxism: From each according to his own ability, to each according to his own need.
Guardians used wisdom
Philosopher Kings = smallest percent of population
When all three are working together in harmony the city is just
- Guardians, Auxiliaries, and Craftsmen/ Farmers
- Superego, Id, Ego
- Wisdom, Courage, Moderation
Book 4 - 434 C
Lacking these three creates evil
Book 4 - 515 C
Plato’s Cave
The shadows are their reality and their only perception
Thrasymicus – the unjust man uses unjust methods to become better off in life than the just man and have more things so that he is happier (social Darwinism?)
Juvernal: “What I want, I take. Let my might take the place of reasoned argument.”
Plato – the just man is more happy because his sole is more fulfilled
The path of justice: virtue – prudent – good – knowledge – therefore happy
The path of injustice: vice – thoughtless – bad – lack of knowledge – therefore wretched
Section 2
Guardians of a city:
-Philosophical
-Swift
-Spirited
-Strong
Create these guardians through the education of music and gym
What should we read to children?
- stories of the gods partaking in sex and violence is bad and corruptive
- Platonic Forms/ perfect role models are good for children, give them someone positive to look up to
- 382 c: humans cannot be perfect or divine but should try to get as close as possible
Section 3
Separate the strong from the weak and the knowledgeable from the thoughtless through the education system:
Good at academics – become guardians – gold – calculating – superego – judges
Good at gym – become auxiliaries – silver – irrational – id – act off of needs
All the rest – become craftsmen/ farmers – bronze/ iron – spirited – ego – lives in moderation
Marxism: From each according to his own ability, to each according to his own need.
Guardians used wisdom
Philosopher Kings = smallest percent of population
When all three are working together in harmony the city is just
- Guardians, Auxiliaries, and Craftsmen/ Farmers
- Superego, Id, Ego
- Wisdom, Courage, Moderation
Book 4 - 434 C
Lacking these three creates evil
Book 4 - 515 C
Plato’s Cave
The shadows are their reality and their only perception
Monday, October 5, 2009
Group 4 Reflection
1. Our hypothesis for the group was to discover the relationship between the PH levels of different soils in different locations around the beach to the crab populations in the corresponding areas.
2. My experience in gaining and testing evidence was mostly positive. Except for a sun burn and a few lazy partners I enjoyed the process very much and all the instruments functioned without difficulty or mechanical issues.
3. Working in a group of people also went very well. It is true that at some points some of my partners were lazy and another partner and myself were left doing the bulk of the work, but it was only for a short time and I was satisfied with the overall contribution of the other partners.
4. I believe I know that the science I found that day was true because the evidence seemed to logically fit the predictions we had made previously about what would happen, though there is always the possibility it was all just a big lie (though that seems very unlikely).
2. My experience in gaining and testing evidence was mostly positive. Except for a sun burn and a few lazy partners I enjoyed the process very much and all the instruments functioned without difficulty or mechanical issues.
3. Working in a group of people also went very well. It is true that at some points some of my partners were lazy and another partner and myself were left doing the bulk of the work, but it was only for a short time and I was satisfied with the overall contribution of the other partners.
4. I believe I know that the science I found that day was true because the evidence seemed to logically fit the predictions we had made previously about what would happen, though there is always the possibility it was all just a big lie (though that seems very unlikely).
Monday, September 21, 2009
Ways of Knowing
The different ways of knowing help to establish a standard set of rules that we can apply to distinguishing between what is true and what is believed to be true, with some limitations that must be considered. Knowledge by language allows us to know something by the way it is described through words. Knowledge by Perception allows us to know something through our own personal experiences with it. Knowledge by emotion lets us know something through our intuition or a gut reaction that we fell we know is true. Knowledge by reason allows us to know something through deduction or induction or any logical process we may use to draw a conclusion that something is true. If we apply all these ways of knowing to distinguishing between something that is true and something that is believed to be true we will find that they serve as a fairly accurate set of rules. However we will also find that there are limitations in always using these ways of knowing for this purpose because they cannot be used individually for they are each flawed in their own way.
All the different ways of knowing can be used together to decipher what is true and what believed to be true. Each one brings a different consideration to your thought process as you try to tell what is true and what is false. Language helps you consider things from a social point of view or different views that different people may voice. For example newspapers like the Boston Globe or magazines like Newsweek provide us with information about political events through words and descriptions which we believe to be true. Perception helps you consider things from a personal point of view through your own experiences and interactions. For example I know my brother worked on a movie being filmed in Chaddam because I was there to see him work on it. Emotion helps you consider your own point of view in situations because it comes from your intuition or your gut reaction to something. For example I know when I am happy to see someone and when I do not want to see them because I can feel it in myself when I they approach me wither I have a good or bad reaction to seeing them. Also, reason helps you consider things from a scientific or technical point of view through logical analysis. For example scientists know the conclusion of their experiments because they have used a well thought out and logical process called the scientific method to reach that conclusion. If all these factors are considered and as long as a person uses their best judgment in a given situation these ways of knowing, when utilized simultaneously, can help the person make a much more accurate distinction between what is true and what is belied to be true.
Though useful when considered together, each way of knowing individually has its limitations and therefore cannot be used by itself. Language can be deceptive because the sources that convey the language may not always be telling the truth. For example knowledge by authority can be corrupt like when Adolf Hitler printed nationalist newspapers in Germany during WWII to be used as propaganda for his own benefit. Perception can also be false because what we perceive in any given moment may not actually be what occurs. For example our memories can sometimes be inaccurate like how I remember when I was very young and I used to see hands running across the windows of my bed room at night, frightening me, and I can still picture the image that way even though in reality it was just the shadows of tree branches outside. Emotion can be false as well because our intuition about certain things is not always accurate. For example you can know someone you love who may have committed a crime but just because you love them and you feel they didn’t do it does not mean they didn’t do it. Finally even reason has its limitations because sometimes we fail to detect faulty logic. For example a false syllogism like “all jaguars are black; my cat is black; therefore my cat is a jaguar” may seem like a perfectly logical conclusion to draw from the evidence stated but it does not mean that it is true, since a cat can obviously not be jaguar. Clearly when used individually these ways of knowing are not very accurate in helping one distinguish what is true from what is false. In fact it can be said that as a rule the more of these ways of knowing you use simultaneously in a given situation, the more accurate your conclusion will be. And by that logic using all of them together will get you the most accurate conclusion.
The implications of this argument are that it will sometimes be very difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is false and it is therefore completely up to the individual to use their best judgment to decide. This means that while there are some absolute truths in this world and there are some sources willing to communicate those truths, in the end every person on this planet will need use their own best judgment to draw an accurate conclusion about what is right and what is wrong. From my own classmates who will need to analyze the information told to them by their teachers, to the citizens of this and every other nation who will need to decide if what they are being told by their government is what they should really believe. All the people of this earth will need to use their own intellect to decipher between what is true and what is not.
The counter-claim to my argument is that there are occasions on which each individual way of knowing has proved to be accurate in discovering the truth. In other words there have been cases in which language, perception, emotion, and reason have been used successfully and individually without the aid of each other to reach an accurate conclusion about a certain matter. However I believe this is only true because on rare occasions there is always going to be an exception to the rule, but because these exceptions are always rare they cannot be applied the most common, everyday occurrence. Another counterclaim to my argument is that one way of knowing is more efficient or more important than another and that is the one that should be used to tell what is true from what is false. This may in fact be true in certain situation, however as I have shown, each way of knowing has its values and limitations and they all have an effect on one another so it is fair to say no one is ever truly better than the other.
By this evidence it can be concluded that the different ways of knowing, language, perception, emotion, and reason, can be considered simultaneously in order to more accurately distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true. Each way of knowing does have its limitations and cannot be used individually for an accurate conclusion except in certain rare situations. The greater the number of ways used in a given situation, the greater your chances are at accurately telling what is true from what is false. The ways of knowing can, to this extent, help distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true.
All the different ways of knowing can be used together to decipher what is true and what believed to be true. Each one brings a different consideration to your thought process as you try to tell what is true and what is false. Language helps you consider things from a social point of view or different views that different people may voice. For example newspapers like the Boston Globe or magazines like Newsweek provide us with information about political events through words and descriptions which we believe to be true. Perception helps you consider things from a personal point of view through your own experiences and interactions. For example I know my brother worked on a movie being filmed in Chaddam because I was there to see him work on it. Emotion helps you consider your own point of view in situations because it comes from your intuition or your gut reaction to something. For example I know when I am happy to see someone and when I do not want to see them because I can feel it in myself when I they approach me wither I have a good or bad reaction to seeing them. Also, reason helps you consider things from a scientific or technical point of view through logical analysis. For example scientists know the conclusion of their experiments because they have used a well thought out and logical process called the scientific method to reach that conclusion. If all these factors are considered and as long as a person uses their best judgment in a given situation these ways of knowing, when utilized simultaneously, can help the person make a much more accurate distinction between what is true and what is belied to be true.
Though useful when considered together, each way of knowing individually has its limitations and therefore cannot be used by itself. Language can be deceptive because the sources that convey the language may not always be telling the truth. For example knowledge by authority can be corrupt like when Adolf Hitler printed nationalist newspapers in Germany during WWII to be used as propaganda for his own benefit. Perception can also be false because what we perceive in any given moment may not actually be what occurs. For example our memories can sometimes be inaccurate like how I remember when I was very young and I used to see hands running across the windows of my bed room at night, frightening me, and I can still picture the image that way even though in reality it was just the shadows of tree branches outside. Emotion can be false as well because our intuition about certain things is not always accurate. For example you can know someone you love who may have committed a crime but just because you love them and you feel they didn’t do it does not mean they didn’t do it. Finally even reason has its limitations because sometimes we fail to detect faulty logic. For example a false syllogism like “all jaguars are black; my cat is black; therefore my cat is a jaguar” may seem like a perfectly logical conclusion to draw from the evidence stated but it does not mean that it is true, since a cat can obviously not be jaguar. Clearly when used individually these ways of knowing are not very accurate in helping one distinguish what is true from what is false. In fact it can be said that as a rule the more of these ways of knowing you use simultaneously in a given situation, the more accurate your conclusion will be. And by that logic using all of them together will get you the most accurate conclusion.
The implications of this argument are that it will sometimes be very difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is false and it is therefore completely up to the individual to use their best judgment to decide. This means that while there are some absolute truths in this world and there are some sources willing to communicate those truths, in the end every person on this planet will need use their own best judgment to draw an accurate conclusion about what is right and what is wrong. From my own classmates who will need to analyze the information told to them by their teachers, to the citizens of this and every other nation who will need to decide if what they are being told by their government is what they should really believe. All the people of this earth will need to use their own intellect to decipher between what is true and what is not.
The counter-claim to my argument is that there are occasions on which each individual way of knowing has proved to be accurate in discovering the truth. In other words there have been cases in which language, perception, emotion, and reason have been used successfully and individually without the aid of each other to reach an accurate conclusion about a certain matter. However I believe this is only true because on rare occasions there is always going to be an exception to the rule, but because these exceptions are always rare they cannot be applied the most common, everyday occurrence. Another counterclaim to my argument is that one way of knowing is more efficient or more important than another and that is the one that should be used to tell what is true from what is false. This may in fact be true in certain situation, however as I have shown, each way of knowing has its values and limitations and they all have an effect on one another so it is fair to say no one is ever truly better than the other.
By this evidence it can be concluded that the different ways of knowing, language, perception, emotion, and reason, can be considered simultaneously in order to more accurately distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true. Each way of knowing does have its limitations and cannot be used individually for an accurate conclusion except in certain rare situations. The greater the number of ways used in a given situation, the greater your chances are at accurately telling what is true from what is false. The ways of knowing can, to this extent, help distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true.
The Elephant Man
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. Although his looks would suggest otherwise, we know he is not a monster because of his kind actions and his gentle nature. In terms of his History we can see how he has always been a compassionate soul and this can help justify that he is not a monster. In terms of natural science his biological structure would also suggest that he is human and therefore not a monster. In terms of social sciences his progress in his life to become a part of normal functioning society would also suggest that he is not a monster. And in terms of the Arts his interest in art and his ability to create it like the model of the church he created would suggest that he has human qualities and is not a monster.
1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?
For history the counterclaim is that history shows how monsters have always been perceived as ugly in their appearance just like John. For natural science it could be said that his ability to reproduce is monstrous because he could create offspring with similar deformities. For social sciences it could be argued that John will never be able to fit into society because of his shyness and his deformity. And for the Arts it could be argued that he was simply replicating the church and cannot actually create art.
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 besides his deformity he has all the qualities of a human being and therefore he is one. He knows this because he knows himself and he knows what that he is capable of human qualities.
3. Dr. Treves claimed, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He is suggesting he may be a bad person or putting John on display for the world and allowing himself to become famous because of it. He knows this has happened because he has seen it happen.
4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
The herd is the group of people in the film who follow the example of leaders in their society and therefore are influenced into believing that John is a monster at the beginning of the movie and that he is a human at the end. For example in the movie one herd of people follow the night watchman’s example that John is a monster and the herd of people in the opera house at the end of the movie follow the opera writer’s example that he is not.
5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.
The community reacts to John in a terrified manner do to his deformity. They react to the carnival man in a manner of disgust do to his treatment of John in beating him and starving him. They also react to the night watchman in a manner of disgust for his similar mistreatment of John in profiting from his humiliation.
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 that we are afraid of what we don’t understand. I think this statement still applies even to modern day because although we may publically treat them better we still discriminate against those people who may look or act different from us, for example mentally disabled people.
John Merrick is not a monster. Although his looks would suggest otherwise, we know he is not a monster because of his kind actions and his gentle nature. In terms of his History we can see how he has always been a compassionate soul and this can help justify that he is not a monster. In terms of natural science his biological structure would also suggest that he is human and therefore not a monster. In terms of social sciences his progress in his life to become a part of normal functioning society would also suggest that he is not a monster. And in terms of the Arts his interest in art and his ability to create it like the model of the church he created would suggest that he has human qualities and is not a monster.
1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?
For history the counterclaim is that history shows how monsters have always been perceived as ugly in their appearance just like John. For natural science it could be said that his ability to reproduce is monstrous because he could create offspring with similar deformities. For social sciences it could be argued that John will never be able to fit into society because of his shyness and his deformity. And for the Arts it could be argued that he was simply replicating the church and cannot actually create art.
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 besides his deformity he has all the qualities of a human being and therefore he is one. He knows this because he knows himself and he knows what that he is capable of human qualities.
3. Dr. Treves claimed, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?
He is suggesting he may be a bad person or putting John on display for the world and allowing himself to become famous because of it. He knows this has happened because he has seen it happen.
4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
The herd is the group of people in the film who follow the example of leaders in their society and therefore are influenced into believing that John is a monster at the beginning of the movie and that he is a human at the end. For example in the movie one herd of people follow the night watchman’s example that John is a monster and the herd of people in the opera house at the end of the movie follow the opera writer’s example that he is not.
5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.
The community reacts to John in a terrified manner do to his deformity. They react to the carnival man in a manner of disgust do to his treatment of John in beating him and starving him. They also react to the night watchman in a manner of disgust for his similar mistreatment of John in profiting from his humiliation.
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 that we are afraid of what we don’t understand. I think this statement still applies even to modern day because although we may publically treat them better we still discriminate against those people who may look or act different from us, for example mentally disabled people.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monsters
1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of Karadzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster".
I believe it was fair for them to call Karadzic a monster because they were referring to their own definition of what they believed a monster was and since they deduced that Karadzic was allowing these terrible war crimes to take place (knowledge by reason) and remembered reports that were told to them of him allowing them to take place (knowledge by remembering and knowledge by authority), they are reasonable in assuming that they know he is a monster by their definition.
2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
In The Death of Yugoslavia Karadzic lies about the violence taking place in Bosnia but the people writing the article deduce that these are lies by examining the snipers and the troops in Bosnia which is knowledge by reasoning. Also because the article was written after these things happened these people are recalling this information which they received from news reports coming out of Bosnia and therefore they are exercising knowledge by remembering and knowledge by authority. The only one of Plato’s ways of knowing that does not appear here is knowledge by empiricism because they did not directly experience the crimes taking place I Bosnia.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
I believe that as a general term monster means a brutal and terrifying creature. However when used to describe a human I believe the definition changes to mean a person who commits horrible acts without acknowledging guilt of remorse for them.
4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?
The answer itself has not changed from my first enter but the reasons for writing that answer have. That I have a better understanding of the situation in Bosnia I can back up my answer with more detail from the occurrence and explain how they support my conclusion.
I believe it was fair for them to call Karadzic a monster because they were referring to their own definition of what they believed a monster was and since they deduced that Karadzic was allowing these terrible war crimes to take place (knowledge by reason) and remembered reports that were told to them of him allowing them to take place (knowledge by remembering and knowledge by authority), they are reasonable in assuming that they know he is a monster by their definition.
2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
In The Death of Yugoslavia Karadzic lies about the violence taking place in Bosnia but the people writing the article deduce that these are lies by examining the snipers and the troops in Bosnia which is knowledge by reasoning. Also because the article was written after these things happened these people are recalling this information which they received from news reports coming out of Bosnia and therefore they are exercising knowledge by remembering and knowledge by authority. The only one of Plato’s ways of knowing that does not appear here is knowledge by empiricism because they did not directly experience the crimes taking place I Bosnia.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
I believe that as a general term monster means a brutal and terrifying creature. However when used to describe a human I believe the definition changes to mean a person who commits horrible acts without acknowledging guilt of remorse for them.
4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?
The answer itself has not changed from my first enter but the reasons for writing that answer have. That I have a better understanding of the situation in Bosnia I can back up my answer with more detail from the occurrence and explain how they support my conclusion.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Karadzic The Monster
"How do they know what they know?" How have they attempted to justify their knowledge claims? Please be specific.
In the article The Independent justifies their claims that Karadzic is a monster mostly by reasoning. Instead of believing the authority of Karadzic and what he tells them is true and because they are not directly experiencing what he is doing they use induction and deduction to reason what the truth really is. The article mentions many contradictions between what is happening in Bosnia and what Karadzic says is happening; for example they notice that although Karadzic says there are no snipers in Bosnia there still continues to be many deaths every day in caused by snipers and they therefore realize that Karadzic is lying about these murders and they call him a monster for doing such a horrible thing.
In the article The Independent justifies their claims that Karadzic is a monster mostly by reasoning. Instead of believing the authority of Karadzic and what he tells them is true and because they are not directly experiencing what he is doing they use induction and deduction to reason what the truth really is. The article mentions many contradictions between what is happening in Bosnia and what Karadzic says is happening; for example they notice that although Karadzic says there are no snipers in Bosnia there still continues to be many deaths every day in caused by snipers and they therefore realize that Karadzic is lying about these murders and they call him a monster for doing such a horrible thing.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Essay
It is never appropriate for people to use informal fallacies in society. This is because these fallacies have no justification behind them, they are just simply wrong. Many people throughout history have used these fallacies despite the damage they cause and they and others have paid severely for it. The corporate company Enron is one example and they are not the only ones. Many people have fallen victim to using informal fallacies.
It easy to understand why informal fallacies can sometimes be plausible and convincing despite the fact that they are by definition false. A fallacy is a deceptive, misleading, or false notion or belief and people often make the mistake of believing them because of the affect they have on those people. Informal fallacies are commonly seen in human societies and it is fair to say that they have become an inevitable part of everyday life. This is why people often fall for them, because they are so common and they have therefore become almost popular in society. No one wants to be the outlier by calling someone out on a fallacy. They would rather make themselves believe it was true than risk being called insolent for questioning someone else’s belief. For example if someone said “I saw him right after the crime therefore he must be the criminal” (an example of the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, or one event does not necessarily cause another even if they happen one right after the other), not many people would likely suggest that that person was mistaken and that just because they saw him does not necessarily mean he committed the crime. Or if someone said, “comets are like cats because they both have tails and they go wherever they please” (an example of the fallacy of false analogies), no one would point out that that is not necessarily accurate because it would make them seem conceited to other people. Most people allow themselves to believe these fallacies because they are popular and common in society and because they would not want to be considered an outcast for calling someone out on a false remark.
In the case of Enron, many informal fallacies can be found within the various comments and claims of the people involved in the scandal. The scandal was that the major corporate company Enron was lying to their clients and their employees about how much profit they were earning by using mark-to-market accounting to make it seem as though they were extremely successful, when in fact they had virtually no income and were severely in debt, while the owners of Enron pocketed the little money they did have. In the article entitled “Open Secrets”, by Malcolm Gladwell, the author points out many examples of fallacies that related to Enron’s cover-up. One example was the use of mark-to-market accounting by Enron that Gladwell explains in his article, saying that “when a company using mark-to-market accounting says it has made a profit of ten million dollars on revenues of a hundred million, then, it could mean one of two things. The company may actually have a hundred million dollars in its bank accounts, of which ten million will remain after it has paid its bills. Or it may be guessing that it will make ten million dollars on a deal where money may not actually change hands for years.” This type of fallacy is known as a false dilemma or when it is communicated that there are only two possible conclusions to a situation, because Enron was communicating that they either had their money or they were going to get their money by using mark-to-market accounting, when in fact they actually did not have the money and they were actually not going to get it. Another example from the Enron article was Enron’s involvement S.P.E.s when Gladwell explained how “Enron's use of mark-to-market accounting and S.P.E.s was an accounting game that made the company look as though it were earning far more money than it was. But the I.R.S. doesn't accept mark-to-market accounting; you pay tax on income when you actually receive that income. And, from the I.R.S.'s perspective, all of Enron's fantastically complex maneuvering around its S.P.E.s was, as Fleischer puts it, "a non-event": until the partnership actually sells the asset—and makes either a profit or a loss—an S.P.E. is just an accounting fiction. Enron wasn't paying any taxes because, in the eyes of the I.R.S., Enron wasn't making any money.” This fallacy is called equivocation or the use of ambiguous words to hide the truth of what is being conveyed, because Enron was using this method to maneuver around S.P.E.s and blind the I.R.S. form seeing what their income actually was. One more example that was given in the article on Enron was the maneuvering they preformed with their tax code or as Gladwell said, “If you looked at Enron from the perspective of the tax code, that is, you would have seen a very different picture of the company than if you had looked through the more traditional lens of the accounting profession. But in order to do that you would have to be trained in the tax code and be familiar with its particular conventions and intricacies, and know what questions to ask. ‘The fact of the gap between [Enron's] accounting income and taxable income was easily observed,’ Fleischer notes, but not the source of the gap. ‘The tax code requires special training.’” This is again the fallacy of equivocation because Enron was using the complication of the fallacy to make it extremely difficult for anyone to understand what the deal really was with their income so that they could put it in plain sight and not seem suspicious.
Some more examples of these fallacies were presented in the movie “Enron”, which was a documentary about the events of the Enron scandal. One such example from the movie a clip that was shown in the movie of Skilling addressing his employees in a meeting, some time after 911 when Enron was beginning to be questioned about its income, and stating that “just as the United States was under attack from terrorists, so was Enron under attack from the media”. This type of fallacy is a false analogy because Skilling was comparing Enron to the United States when the two had nothing really to do with each other to provoke pity for the company as though it were under attack by terrorists. Another fallacy that the movie presented was when it explained how Enron was claiming that no one could show that they were making profits, again when Enron was first being questioned about its income, and therefore the company must be making them. This fallacy is known as argument ad ignorantum or claiming that something is proven just because it has not been disproven, because the company was claiming that that it was proven that they were making the income because no one could prove that they were not, but the only reason no one could prove that was because no one had the skills to interpret the maneuvering they went through in their tax code. One other example the movie provided was the audio recording of Skilling the first time someone questioned his company about their income and it reveals how when Skilling was backed into a corner by his interrogator he lashed out to detract the attention from himself by calling the man an “asshole”. This fallacy is called an ad hominem attack, or rejecting an argument or question on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the argument or question, because Skilling was rejecting his interrogators questions about the company’s income by saying that he was being insolent, despite how irrelevant it was, so that he could avoid answering the questions.
There are no circumstances under which these formal fallacies can be justified. Enron truly showed this with their malicious intent in using them. It is true that these fallacies can sometimes be used as a sort of survival technique by people with good intensions, for example campaigns aimed to make people donate money for a good cause sometimes communicate information that is a bit of a stretch from the truth in order to gain more sympathy. But this still does not justify these fallacies because it is still a form of lying and cheating. In his article Gladwell questions who is responsible when the use of these fallicies take a turn for the worst. He claims in the piece that “it is your fault as well”, meaning it is the fault of the person who did not see these fallacies happening and did not stop them and that is why they turned for the worst. A counterargument for this claim would be that it is impossible or at least very difficult to recognize these fallacies when they occur because as a part of their definition they are well concealed. But there us logic on both sides of these arguments because it is true that people should be aware of these fallacies when they occur and should try to prevent them from becoming worse but at the same time people should not be forced to take on this responsibility because there are no situations which justify thee fallacies and therefore people should have the common sense not to use them.
Despite the fact that fallacies cannot be justified it is still difficult for people not use them in their life for personal gain. I myself have used an indirect fallacy or two in my time to improve my own circumstances. The one I most commonly use is equivocation, because it helps me get out of trouble. For example one day when my mother asked me to do the dishes and I forgot I was able to avoid punishment by telling her that it wasn’t so much that I had forgotten to do them but that I was simply distracted by the quantity of homework which was necessary for me to complete. I was able to avoid trouble by using this fallacy. I suppose it is a part of the human error which drives people to do these things like using these fallacies, but that still does not justify them. Even though I myself have used them that does not mean that they are acceptable. All people, including myself, should always be working to prevent these fallacies from occurring because they are not justified.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Shepherd Fairy
1. What is your emotional response upon entering the exhibit? Please explain.
I did not have any overpowering emotional response that I can remember. Nothing about my emotions towards the paintings really stuck out to me when I thought about it afterward. What did stick out to me was not necessarily an emotion of any kind but a potent feeling of curiosity at the meaning of the paintings and an overwhelming desire to decipher them. the paintings quit honestly had more of an effect on the mind than the soul.
2. What is your emotional response upon leaving the exhibit? Please explain.
Once again it was not really an emotion I felt when I left the exhibit but something more of the mind. When I left I felt I had a sort of understanding of Fairy”s paintings and other works and that I had discovered what their meaning and their purpose was.
3. Does emotion interact with reason, sense, perception and language for you in this exhibit? If so, how?
Though I did not really feel any kind of emotion like happiness, sadness, or anger when I saw the exhibit I still believe emotions like these would very strongly interact with reason, sense, perception, and language. This is because I believe emotion is powerful enough to be very influential on these other aspects of gaining knowledge which we use just as frequently.
4. Is this an American culture exhibit? How might someone from a non-Western country respond to this exhibit? Why?
Someone from a non-Western country might respond very differently to this exhibit than Americans. They might not understand it quit as much because the exhibit seems to focus around some of the major issues in America like the ethical issues with advertisement and government campaigns. A foreigner might not understand these issues s well because their country could be facing different types of issues and they have not experienced these issues first hand in America.
5. Can one appreciate theatre, music and art using only the rational mind or must Emotion play a role? Explain.
Though emotion does not have to play a role in allowing a person to appreciate the arts it can contribute greatly to helping someone appreciate them. if someone does not understand a work of art they can still appreciate the emotion it stirs inside them and the reaction it gets out of them because they can appreciate that it had such an influential effect on them.
I did not have any overpowering emotional response that I can remember. Nothing about my emotions towards the paintings really stuck out to me when I thought about it afterward. What did stick out to me was not necessarily an emotion of any kind but a potent feeling of curiosity at the meaning of the paintings and an overwhelming desire to decipher them. the paintings quit honestly had more of an effect on the mind than the soul.
2. What is your emotional response upon leaving the exhibit? Please explain.
Once again it was not really an emotion I felt when I left the exhibit but something more of the mind. When I left I felt I had a sort of understanding of Fairy”s paintings and other works and that I had discovered what their meaning and their purpose was.
3. Does emotion interact with reason, sense, perception and language for you in this exhibit? If so, how?
Though I did not really feel any kind of emotion like happiness, sadness, or anger when I saw the exhibit I still believe emotions like these would very strongly interact with reason, sense, perception, and language. This is because I believe emotion is powerful enough to be very influential on these other aspects of gaining knowledge which we use just as frequently.
4. Is this an American culture exhibit? How might someone from a non-Western country respond to this exhibit? Why?
Someone from a non-Western country might respond very differently to this exhibit than Americans. They might not understand it quit as much because the exhibit seems to focus around some of the major issues in America like the ethical issues with advertisement and government campaigns. A foreigner might not understand these issues s well because their country could be facing different types of issues and they have not experienced these issues first hand in America.
5. Can one appreciate theatre, music and art using only the rational mind or must Emotion play a role? Explain.
Though emotion does not have to play a role in allowing a person to appreciate the arts it can contribute greatly to helping someone appreciate them. if someone does not understand a work of art they can still appreciate the emotion it stirs inside them and the reaction it gets out of them because they can appreciate that it had such an influential effect on them.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Enron
It is never appropriate for people to use informal fallacies in society. This is because these fallacies have no justification behind them, they are just simply wrong. Many people throughout history have used these fallacies despite the damage they cause and they and others have paid severely for it. The corporate company Enron is one example and they are not the only ones. Many people have fallen victim to using informal fallacies.
It easy to understand why informal fallacies can sometimes be plausible and convincing despite the fact that they are by definition false. A fallacy is a deceptive, misleading, or false notion or belief and people often make the mistake of believing them because of the affect they have on those people. Informal fallacies are commonly seen in human societies and it is fair to say that they have become an inevitable part of everyday life. This is why people often fall for them, because they are so common and they have therefore become almost popular in society. No one wants to be the outlier by calling someone out on a fallacy. They would rather make themselves believe it was true than risk being called insolent for questioning someone else’s belief. For example if someone said “I saw him right after the crime therefore he must be the criminal” (an example of the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, or one event does not necessarily cause another even if they happen one right after the other), not many people would likely suggest that that person was mistaken and that just because they saw him does not necessarily mean he committed the crime. Or if someone said, “comets are like cats because they both have tails and they go wherever they please” (an example of the fallacy of false analogies), no one would point out that that is not necessarily accurate because it would make them seem conceited to other people. Most people allow themselves to believe these fallacies because they are popular and common in society and because they would not want to be considered an outcast for calling someone out on a false remark.
In the case of Enron, many informal fallacies can be found within the various comments and claims of the people involved in the scandal. The scandal was that the major corporate company Enron was lying to their clients and their employees about how much profit they were earning by using mark-to-market accounting to make it seem as though they were extremely successful, when in fact they had virtually no income and were severely in debt, while the owners of Enron pocketed the little money they did have. In the article entitled “Open Secrets”, by Malcolm Gladwell, the author points out many examples of fallacies that related to Enron’s cover-up. One example was the use of mark-to-market accounting by Enron that Gladwell explains in his article, saying that “when a company using mark-to-market accounting says it has made a profit of ten million dollars on revenues of a hundred million, then, it could mean one of two things. The company may actually have a hundred million dollars in its bank accounts, of which ten million will remain after it has paid its bills. Or it may be guessing that it will make ten million dollars on a deal where money may not actually change hands for years.” This type of fallacy is known as a false dilemma or when it is communicated that there are only two possible conclusions to a situation, because Enron was communicating that they either had their money or they were going to get their money by using mark-to-market accounting, when in fact they actually did not have the money and they were actually not going to get it. Another example from the Enron article was Enron’s involvement S.P.E.s when Gladwell explained how “Enron's use of mark-to-market accounting and S.P.E.s was an accounting game that made the company look as though it were earning far more money than it was. But the I.R.S. doesn't accept mark-to-market accounting; you pay tax on income when you actually receive that income. And, from the I.R.S.'s perspective, all of Enron's fantastically complex maneuvering around its S.P.E.s was, as Fleischer puts it, "a non-event": until the partnership actually sells the asset—and makes either a profit or a loss—an S.P.E. is just an accounting fiction. Enron wasn't paying any taxes because, in the eyes of the I.R.S., Enron wasn't making any money.” This fallacy is called equivocation or the use of ambiguous words to hide the truth of what is being conveyed, because Enron was using this method to maneuver around S.P.E.s and blind the I.R.S. form seeing what their income actually was. One more example that was given in the article on Enron was the maneuvering they preformed with their tax code or as Gladwell said, “If you looked at Enron from the perspective of the tax code, that is, you would have seen a very different picture of the company than if you had looked through the more traditional lens of the accounting profession. But in order to do that you would have to be trained in the tax code and be familiar with its particular conventions and intricacies, and know what questions to ask. ‘The fact of the gap between [Enron's] accounting income and taxable income was easily observed,’ Fleischer notes, but not the source of the gap. ‘The tax code requires special training.’” This is again the fallacy of equivocation because Enron was using the complication of the fallacy to make it extremely difficult for anyone to understand what the deal really was with their income so that they could put it in plain sight and not seem suspicious.
Some more examples of these fallacies were presented in the movie “Enron”, which was a documentary about the events of the Enron scandal. One such example from the movie a clip that was shown in the movie of Skilling addressing his employees in a meeting, some time after 911 when Enron was beginning to be questioned about its income, and stating that “just as the United States was under attack from terrorists, so was Enron under attack from the media”. This type of fallacy is a false analogy because Skilling was comparing Enron to the United States when the two had nothing really to do with each other to provoke pity for the company as though it were under attack by terrorists. Another fallacy that the movie presented was when it explained how Enron was claiming that no one could show that they were making profits, again when Enron was first being questioned about its income, and therefore the company must be making them. This fallacy is known as argument ad ignorantum or claiming that something is proven just because it has not been disproven, because the company was claiming that that it was proven that they were making the income because no one could prove that they were not, but the only reason no one could prove that was because no one had the skills to interpret the maneuvering they went through in their tax code. One other example the movie provided was the audio recording of Skilling the first time someone questioned his company about their income and it reveals how when Skilling was backed into a corner by his interrogator he lashed out to detract the attention from himself by calling the man an “asshole”. This fallacy is called an ad hominem attack, or rejecting an argument or question on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the argument or question, because Skilling was rejecting his interrogators questions about the company’s income by saying that he was being insolent, despite how irrelevant it was, so that he could avoid answering the questions.
There are no circumstances under which these formal fallacies can be justified. Enron truly showed this with their malicious intent in using them. It is true that these fallacies can sometimes be used as a sort of survival technique by people with good intensions, for example campaigns aimed to make people donate money for a good cause sometimes communicate information that is a bit of a stretch from the truth in order to gain more sympathy. But this still does not justify these fallacies because it is still a form of lying and cheating. In his article Gladwell questions who is responsible when the use of these fallicies take a turn for the worst. He claims in the piece that “it is your fault as well”, meaning it is the fault of the person who did not see these fallacies happening and did not stop them and that is why they turned for the worst. A counterargument for this claim would be that it is impossible or at least very difficult to recognize these fallacies when they occur because as a part of their definition they are well concealed. But there us logic on both sides of these arguments because it is true that people should be aware of these fallacies when they occur and should try to prevent them from becoming worse but at the same time people should not be forced to take on this responsibility because there are no situations which justify thee fallacies and therefore people should have the common sense not to use them.
Despite the fact that fallacies cannot be justified it is still difficult for people not use them in their life for personal gain. I myself have used an indirect fallacy or two in my time to improve my own circumstances. The one I most commonly use is equivocation, because it helps me get out of trouble. For example one day when my mother asked me to do the dishes and I forgot I was able to avoid punishment by telling her that it wasn’t so much that I had forgotten to do them but that I was simply distracted by the quantity of homework which was necessary for me to complete. I was able to avoid trouble by using this fallacy. I suppose it is a part of the human error which drives people to do these things like using these fallacies, but that still does not justify them. Even though I myself have used them that does not mean that they are acceptable. All people, including myself, should always be working to prevent these fallacies from occurring because they are not justified.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Enron #3
1. What does Gladwell mean when he says that, 'Puzzles are "transmitter-dependent"; they turn on what we are told. Mysteries are "receiver dependent"; they turn on the skills of the listener.'?
He means that the outcome of a puzzle depends on the missing puzzle piece whereas the outcome of a mystery depends on how the person interprets the missing information when they find it.
2. Why didn't Enron have to pay taxes on their S.P.E.'s? What would be Enron's defense? Can you name the Illogical Fallacy present?
It didn’t have to pay taxes on its income because it technically wasn’t making any income. Its defense would be that it was technically legal because they didn’t get the income until the partnership sold the asset. This fallacy here is circular reasoning.
3. Did Enron try to hide the fact that they weren't paying taxes?
No, because no one could understand all the maneuvering they went through in their tax code to do it unless they were specially trained.
4. Why does Gladwell claim that, 'Woodward and Bernstein would never have broken the Enron story.' Why don't you think anyone asked about Enron's financial statements? Is there a fallacy at work here?
He claims this because he believes they would have only had the skills to put the information together to reach a conclusion but not to look more closely at the information they had to reach a conclusion. No one asked them because no one knew much about it and because no one wanted to be called out on asking it as though they were doing something wrong. The fallacy here is ad hominem attack.
5. Gladwell claims that, 'Mysteries require that we revisit our list of culprits and be willing to spread the blame a little more broadly. Because if you can't find the truth in a mystery—even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it's not just the fault of the propagandist. It's your fault as well.' Do you agree with the implications of this statement?
I do agree because I believe it is true that some of blame belongs to us if we do not realize the bad things that are going on right in front of our eyes.
6. What was the advice of the Cornell students to anyone who held Enron stock?
To sell the stock because of the risky strategies Enron was following with their business model.
He means that the outcome of a puzzle depends on the missing puzzle piece whereas the outcome of a mystery depends on how the person interprets the missing information when they find it.
2. Why didn't Enron have to pay taxes on their S.P.E.'s? What would be Enron's defense? Can you name the Illogical Fallacy present?
It didn’t have to pay taxes on its income because it technically wasn’t making any income. Its defense would be that it was technically legal because they didn’t get the income until the partnership sold the asset. This fallacy here is circular reasoning.
3. Did Enron try to hide the fact that they weren't paying taxes?
No, because no one could understand all the maneuvering they went through in their tax code to do it unless they were specially trained.
4. Why does Gladwell claim that, 'Woodward and Bernstein would never have broken the Enron story.' Why don't you think anyone asked about Enron's financial statements? Is there a fallacy at work here?
He claims this because he believes they would have only had the skills to put the information together to reach a conclusion but not to look more closely at the information they had to reach a conclusion. No one asked them because no one knew much about it and because no one wanted to be called out on asking it as though they were doing something wrong. The fallacy here is ad hominem attack.
5. Gladwell claims that, 'Mysteries require that we revisit our list of culprits and be willing to spread the blame a little more broadly. Because if you can't find the truth in a mystery—even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it's not just the fault of the propagandist. It's your fault as well.' Do you agree with the implications of this statement?
I do agree because I believe it is true that some of blame belongs to us if we do not realize the bad things that are going on right in front of our eyes.
6. What was the advice of the Cornell students to anyone who held Enron stock?
To sell the stock because of the risky strategies Enron was following with their business model.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Enron #2
1. How does a Special-Purpose Entity (S.P.E.) work? Why does the "partnership" giving money to your company make a big difference?
It works by having a partnership that took leases from the company which will most likely have promising profits in the future, get lent from the bank, and then give that money to the company when they are in debt or when they are doing poorly. The partnership is so important because they lend the money to the company so the loan does not show up in the company balance sheet and it can raise capital without increasing it indebtedness.
2. How did Enron pit "twists into the S.P.E. game?" What does it mean that Enron "didn't always put blue-chip assets into the partnerships"? What was problematic about Enron using its own executives to manage the S.P.E? What was Enron's guarantee?
They did this by getting the banks and partnerships to play along so that no questions were asked. This means they were not always honest. The problem was they were making the deals work themselves. Their guarantee was thay could, if their value declined, make up the difference with its own stock.
3. How did the world come to learn of Enron's use of S.P.E.'s? Is Gladwell correct in claiming that this is another example of a mystery? Explain.
The world became aware through the reporting of several people from the Wall Street Journal. Gladwell is correct in claiming that this is another example of a mystery because it once again presents evidence that is misleading instead of straight forward.
4. What is the difference between "scrounged up" and "downloaded?"
The difference is that downloaded suggests it was easily accessed information whereas scrounged suggests he had to fight for it.
5. Why does Gladwell claim that "It scarcely would have helped investors if Enron had made all three million pages public."? Explain what Gladwell means when he says, "But here the rules seem different." Who is Andrew Fastow?
He means the information would have been so extensive and complex it would be impossible to follow. He means that the more information there is the more complicated the problem gets. He is Enron’s chief financial officer.
6. Why has he "Disclosure Paradigm" become an anachronism?
It has become this because it is an error in chronology.
7. Why did treating the German secret weapon as a mystery prove to be more useful? Specifically, how did the "propaganda analysts" (the batty geniuses) use reason to uncover the Nazi V-1 Rocket?
It proved to be more useful because it showed that the solution to the problem could be found within the information that was already given and more information was unneeded. They looked more closely at the information they had to uncover the solution.
8. How has diagnosing Prostate Cancer transformed from a puzzle to a mystery?
It has transformed because the solution used to be found through a simple procedure and conclusion but now it is more complicated and often times the more information there is about it the more complicated it becomes.
9. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, how has "the situation facing the intelligence community has turned upside down?"
It is upside down because it used to be that the more information they had the easier they could solve the problem but now because they have too much information they only have more questions and that makes it harder to solve the problem
. 10. How does Admiral Bobby R. Inman believe the U.S. should strengthen the U.S. intelligence system? Why was his answer seen as unusual?
He believed more geniuses and less spies would strengthen it. This was unusual because it meant that we needed to look closer at the information we had than try to obtain more.
11. Gladwell writes: In a post-Cold War world of "openly available information," Inman said, "what you need are observers with language ability, with understanding of the religions, cultures of the countries they're observing." Inman thought we needed fewer spies and more slightly batty geniuses. Does this curriculum sound familiar?
Yes because it suggests that we needed to look closer at the information we had than try to obtain more, which shows that it is a mystery because Gladwell said a mystery is when more information makes a situation worse not better.
It works by having a partnership that took leases from the company which will most likely have promising profits in the future, get lent from the bank, and then give that money to the company when they are in debt or when they are doing poorly. The partnership is so important because they lend the money to the company so the loan does not show up in the company balance sheet and it can raise capital without increasing it indebtedness.
2. How did Enron pit "twists into the S.P.E. game?" What does it mean that Enron "didn't always put blue-chip assets into the partnerships"? What was problematic about Enron using its own executives to manage the S.P.E? What was Enron's guarantee?
They did this by getting the banks and partnerships to play along so that no questions were asked. This means they were not always honest. The problem was they were making the deals work themselves. Their guarantee was thay could, if their value declined, make up the difference with its own stock.
3. How did the world come to learn of Enron's use of S.P.E.'s? Is Gladwell correct in claiming that this is another example of a mystery? Explain.
The world became aware through the reporting of several people from the Wall Street Journal. Gladwell is correct in claiming that this is another example of a mystery because it once again presents evidence that is misleading instead of straight forward.
4. What is the difference between "scrounged up" and "downloaded?"
The difference is that downloaded suggests it was easily accessed information whereas scrounged suggests he had to fight for it.
5. Why does Gladwell claim that "It scarcely would have helped investors if Enron had made all three million pages public."? Explain what Gladwell means when he says, "But here the rules seem different." Who is Andrew Fastow?
He means the information would have been so extensive and complex it would be impossible to follow. He means that the more information there is the more complicated the problem gets. He is Enron’s chief financial officer.
6. Why has he "Disclosure Paradigm" become an anachronism?
It has become this because it is an error in chronology.
7. Why did treating the German secret weapon as a mystery prove to be more useful? Specifically, how did the "propaganda analysts" (the batty geniuses) use reason to uncover the Nazi V-1 Rocket?
It proved to be more useful because it showed that the solution to the problem could be found within the information that was already given and more information was unneeded. They looked more closely at the information they had to uncover the solution.
8. How has diagnosing Prostate Cancer transformed from a puzzle to a mystery?
It has transformed because the solution used to be found through a simple procedure and conclusion but now it is more complicated and often times the more information there is about it the more complicated it becomes.
9. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, how has "the situation facing the intelligence community has turned upside down?"
It is upside down because it used to be that the more information they had the easier they could solve the problem but now because they have too much information they only have more questions and that makes it harder to solve the problem
. 10. How does Admiral Bobby R. Inman believe the U.S. should strengthen the U.S. intelligence system? Why was his answer seen as unusual?
He believed more geniuses and less spies would strengthen it. This was unusual because it meant that we needed to look closer at the information we had than try to obtain more.
11. Gladwell writes: In a post-Cold War world of "openly available information," Inman said, "what you need are observers with language ability, with understanding of the religions, cultures of the countries they're observing." Inman thought we needed fewer spies and more slightly batty geniuses. Does this curriculum sound familiar?
Yes because it suggests that we needed to look closer at the information we had than try to obtain more, which shows that it is a mystery because Gladwell said a mystery is when more information makes a situation worse not better.
Enron #1
1. How did Anne Beliveaux respond to Jeffrey Skilling's claim that he was "innocent of every one of these charges." What were the charges?
She told him he should be ashamed of himself. The charges were that he lied to investors and employees about various aspects of Enron’s business.
2. What was Daniel Petrocelli specifically asking Judge Lake to do? What was the response of the judge?
He asked the judge to reduce Skilling’s sentence by ten months. The judge answered no.
3. What is the difference between a Puzzle and a Mystery? Be as specific as possible! Please consider why Gladwell does not believe the difference to be "trivial."
A puzzle requires the piecing together of missing information and a mystery requires judgments and assessments of uncertainty. He says it is not trivial because depending on the definition of the situation (if it is a puzzle or a mystery) it can be determined how much and what sort of information will help solve it.
4. What does Gladwell mean when he states: "Puzzles come to satisfying conclusions. Mysteries often don't."
He means that puzzles are more straight forward in providing answers by process of elimination whereas mysteries are more of a gray area.
5. Initially, what did most people think of the Enron scandal? Did they think it was a Mystery or a Puzzle? Why would it matter? What does Gladwell think?
They thought it was a puzzle. This is important because of the amount of information they were missing and how that affect the situation, because it would have been much more difficult to solve if it were a mystery. Gladwell believes it was a mystery.
6. Please explain Mark-to-Market Accounting.
Mark-to-Market accounting is when companies predict future profits they may make and put them in their accounts at the time.
7. Gladwell claims that: "When a company using mark-to-market accounting says it has made a profit of ten million dollars on revenues of a hundred million, then, it could mean one of two things..." Please explain the two possibilities. What did Wall Street Journal report Jonathan Weil's source want him to find out?
One option is that that information is true and the company actually has the or the other option is that the company is only assuming it will make that amount of money but it doesn’t actually have it. Jonathan’s source wanted to find out how much of Enron’s money was money they actually had.
8. What is the connection between subprime loans and Mark-to-Market Accounting?
Some companies used Mark-to-Market accounting on subprime loans, or loans made to higher-credit-risk customers, and when the economy declined they realized that there estimated profits were far greater that their actual profits.
9. Why did Weil find Enron's financial statements "sobering?"
He found them sobering because they showed that one of the largest companies in the world had virtually no money.
10. Why was James Chanos interested in Enron?
He was interested because he was a short-seller who made money off of betting when companies’ profits would fall.
11. Who was Bethany McLean?
She was a reporter for Fortune.
12. Why does Gladwell believe Watergate to be a classic puzzle?
He believes this because it was solved with the revelation of certain secrets that were very straight forward.
13. Did Jonathan Weil have a Deep Throat?
No because he could not get straight forward answers.
14. Why was Weil concerned that the officials at Enron weren't concerned about who would win the 2000 election?
He was concerned because it showed that no matter what happened they could interpret anything as success even if it wasn’t.
15. After considering how Weil got his information, why does Gladwell believe Enron to be a mystery?
He believes this because Weil could not get clear information in a straight forward way that could be fit in neatly with the other information he had.
She told him he should be ashamed of himself. The charges were that he lied to investors and employees about various aspects of Enron’s business.
2. What was Daniel Petrocelli specifically asking Judge Lake to do? What was the response of the judge?
He asked the judge to reduce Skilling’s sentence by ten months. The judge answered no.
3. What is the difference between a Puzzle and a Mystery? Be as specific as possible! Please consider why Gladwell does not believe the difference to be "trivial."
A puzzle requires the piecing together of missing information and a mystery requires judgments and assessments of uncertainty. He says it is not trivial because depending on the definition of the situation (if it is a puzzle or a mystery) it can be determined how much and what sort of information will help solve it.
4. What does Gladwell mean when he states: "Puzzles come to satisfying conclusions. Mysteries often don't."
He means that puzzles are more straight forward in providing answers by process of elimination whereas mysteries are more of a gray area.
5. Initially, what did most people think of the Enron scandal? Did they think it was a Mystery or a Puzzle? Why would it matter? What does Gladwell think?
They thought it was a puzzle. This is important because of the amount of information they were missing and how that affect the situation, because it would have been much more difficult to solve if it were a mystery. Gladwell believes it was a mystery.
6. Please explain Mark-to-Market Accounting.
Mark-to-Market accounting is when companies predict future profits they may make and put them in their accounts at the time.
7. Gladwell claims that: "When a company using mark-to-market accounting says it has made a profit of ten million dollars on revenues of a hundred million, then, it could mean one of two things..." Please explain the two possibilities. What did Wall Street Journal report Jonathan Weil's source want him to find out?
One option is that that information is true and the company actually has the or the other option is that the company is only assuming it will make that amount of money but it doesn’t actually have it. Jonathan’s source wanted to find out how much of Enron’s money was money they actually had.
8. What is the connection between subprime loans and Mark-to-Market Accounting?
Some companies used Mark-to-Market accounting on subprime loans, or loans made to higher-credit-risk customers, and when the economy declined they realized that there estimated profits were far greater that their actual profits.
9. Why did Weil find Enron's financial statements "sobering?"
He found them sobering because they showed that one of the largest companies in the world had virtually no money.
10. Why was James Chanos interested in Enron?
He was interested because he was a short-seller who made money off of betting when companies’ profits would fall.
11. Who was Bethany McLean?
She was a reporter for Fortune.
12. Why does Gladwell believe Watergate to be a classic puzzle?
He believes this because it was solved with the revelation of certain secrets that were very straight forward.
13. Did Jonathan Weil have a Deep Throat?
No because he could not get straight forward answers.
14. Why was Weil concerned that the officials at Enron weren't concerned about who would win the 2000 election?
He was concerned because it showed that no matter what happened they could interpret anything as success even if it wasn’t.
15. After considering how Weil got his information, why does Gladwell believe Enron to be a mystery?
He believes this because Weil could not get clear information in a straight forward way that could be fit in neatly with the other information he had.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Senoir Visit
The one most important piece of advice I took away from the seniors’ visit was about procrastination and how even though it was unavoidable you should do your best not to make it a regular thing in the IB program. To follow this advise I can plan my time wisely and make sure I get my work in on time. laziness might keep me from following this advise.
Riddles
In Mr. Andre’s presentation in TOk I learned about the process of reasoning and different ways to go about it such as tables and vendiagrams. I really njoyed the riddles, the challenge was fun. These riddles related to Black Bear because they showed that different views of situations produce different methods of reasoning.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Egyptograms
I enjoyed the Egyptogram exercise. I thought it was interesting the way it challenged us to use our reasoning in increasingly difficult situations. It was very enjoyable to complete the activities and feel satisfied that reason had been successfully applied to solve a problem. It was like putting a puzzle together or playing a word game in the newspaper. It was very fun and interesting to actively use reasoning and it helped to learn more about it firs hand. The story at the end of the Egyptogram packet was very interesting as well. I was surprised at first that the Easterners could not answer the Westerners’ syllogism. However I soon realized that this was because of the significant difference in the two cultures. While the Westerners had the opportunities to observe their world in great detail do to the excess time they have on their hands, the Easterners only had the time to pay attention to the most crucial things, things that helped them survive. Therefore the Easterners did not pay attention to the little details around them and so the syllogism, which requires you to notice little details to be able to reason, would seem pointless to them. I believe this is why they did not answer it in the way the Westerners wanted them to.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
