The Optical Illusion of 2011

Apparently this optical illusion is the best of 2011. What do you think?

This reminded me of that exercise we had in class about optical illusions and thought I would share. It's also funny because the article quotes Obi Wan Kenobi who once told Luke Skywalker: "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them."haha

Farewell

Goodbye to everyone. It was wonderful having you all in class with me. I really enjoyed listening to the conversations and all the activities we did together were fun (especially this last activity; who doesn't love drawing pretty pictures in place of an exam?).

i hope my Western Thought II class next year is just as fun. : )

Ta-Da!

We made it! Congrats to Drew and Lance on their excellent presentations! You both chose very challenging angles and maintained grace under the pressure of public speaking. It was very clear you both allotted a great deal of thought to your ideas. And especially congratulations to the whole class! I really enjoyed this little glimpse into the minds of my classmates: each presentation seemed to reveal a bit of the inner-workings of the presenter. Now, here we are, our first year of college over, and, for most of us, another one soon to begin. I look forward to seeing what all of you will create in the coming years!

It's Over!

It's all finally over. The only thing left is for the people now to edit their papers, but the presentations are all over. How wonderful.



I enjoyed how Drew's ideas changed and how he showed us that they changed, from what is reality more into a what is knowledge type of adventure. It was interesting to see the process he went through in order to make these changes and realize that he himself didn't believe in what he originally set out to prove.

As for Lance, well, that accent was fabulous and amusing, I almost hardly paid attention to the presentation... Just kidding. The flow of coherent ideas was nice, and the interaction he put into us, the audience, was also nice as well. Even if I had to sip coffee, I thought the little experiment was fun in trying to deceive our senses and this preconceived idea we might have about some object.

Hey, presentations are over!
Good job, everyone.

It's cool how what we think we believe in changes so much with a little bit of deeper contemplation. I wonder what other of our beliefs we would change if we took the time to really think about it? I also love that, no matter how wide the range of our topics, you can see the common threads and thought patterns.
I wonder how different our presentations would have been if we had done them at the beginning of the semester?

It's really interesting how the nature of a paper/presentation changes from the beginning to the end. It's so easy to start out with a plan to prove a specific point, and in the process of writing, you end up arguing something else completely. In some ways this could be a good thing, but in a few cases I think it wound up working against the speaker. While trying to write out the thinking process, there ended up being contradictions, and thoughts that disproved the original point.
After the presentations are over, there is enough time to revise the paper, to either steer it in another direction, or to edit out the contradictions. I hope the class provided enough constructive criticism for any possible improvements to be easy to reach.

Was Late

And because I was late, I missed out on a good chunk of Brock's presentation. I felt really rude coming in and disturbing his presentation and rather sad because from what I heard, it was very interesting. An alternate universe? How exciting. It made me remember an episode of Futurama when they deal with alternate universes and how everything was the opposite from the 'normal' universe, just as Brock was saying. Except that, of course, the basics were still the same, it was merely the colors and people whom were different.

Jordan, to me, had a very sturdy idea to me that I found I could hardly argue. I think it was interesting the different break down of knowledge type and how we obtained information from it. What I really appreciated was how she never said 'knowledge is always true', because as the discussion was circulated, it seemed that two bits of knowledge could be in conflict, such as the formulate and emotional knowledge. But I suppose even if one or the other was wrong to someone else, it'd be true to oneself.

Sarah's paper to me presented an interesting topic, mostly because we as artists heavily rely on sight. Not to mention, I need to wear glasses/contacts at all times otherwise I can't see and everything becomes blobs of colors. I think it's a good point to say that sight isn't the best but that it's one of the more important factors to obtaining true knowledge.

Issac presented a topic that I found enjoyable but slightly controversial. I really, really enjoyed that God is a being created and sculpted from our own experiences. However, I disagree with the idea that we have to have an experience to know God. I feel that even if we don't have an experience with God, that would still shape an understanding of him a bit.

More food for thoughts. Yum,

Really...Short

Yesterday's class was rather short. Not that I'm complaining, I enjoy the extra time to do other work, but I've begun to really enjoy the presentations. Even if I don't normally speak, I really find them interesting. I wish the other two presenters had been there as well. Oh well, hopefully Wednesday we'll have everyone.

I really enjoyed the presentations yesterday, as usual. Kirsten's paper presented a more general topic rather than some of the narrowed down ideas that we've seen before. I think what I enjoyed the most was that she took on both sides of the change aspect: most people do have the ability to change and better themselves, but some people are incapable of it. I found myself nodding with this opinion because I find that the majority of the population can change and probably wants to, but for some people it's too difficult or they simply don't see their wrongs and thus don't do anything to change.

Then there was also Evander's paper. He put a lot of research into it and I could feel that he was trying, but like most I was slightly lost by what he was trying to accomplish. I agree with everyone else that if he narrowed down a bit more and, as he even stated, found a thesis, he'd be able to put all that research to good use. One point that stuck with me is that he briefly mentioned how babies are born with no knowledge. The more I thought about it, I thought how strange that seemed. I vaguely recall studies being shown that a baby understands the mother's voice and I want to say that Emily mentioned something about the gene coding in a child being so complex and wise that they have this preprogrammed notion of the world even before they truly understand it. Hmmm...

Overall, wonderful job. I can't wait for tomorrow's presentations.

Phew!

Hello all! I wanted to first congratulate all those who have presented thus far; I feel everyone put a lot of effort into this assignment and it showed! And hey, now we're done, hurray! Also, for those of you yet to present, best of luck! I'm really looking forward to seeing how differently (or similarly) people's opinions are on these subjects, and of course, for the questions and thoughts they will spur. Again, best of luck to you all!

I haven't been blogging even close to enough...

There were two presentations in particular that I found very interesting. The first was Julie's, and the second was Natalie's; though I liked them for different reasons.
I was thinking a lot about Julies, not because I found it terribly fascinating in and of itself, but I'm very intrigued as to why so many people reacted so strongly to it. After awhile of contemplating it, I think I've come up with a possible answer; there are two different ways of interpreting the concept of knowing everything. One is the way that Julie took it, and is hard to argue with; this is the literal way, that argues that it is impossible to know everything there is to know, because it will never be possible to know the facts of every individual person, let alone every individual creature. This is a strong argument, and not really possible to refute.
However, knowing everything can be taken in a different way, and this is the way that descarte though of it; he broke it down into systems rather then individuals. He believed that if he could understand the system by which people thought and functioned, it wouldn't be necessary to know the individual person, because people all functioned the same way.
I think half the class was in one pool of thought, and half the class in the other, and neither could understand the perspective of the other.
Natalie's I loved because it was almost spot on to my way of thinking, and my views on the subject were very similar. I think it was beautifully presented and though provoking. There is of course much more that could be argued and taken into consideration on the subject, but that would have taken all day. I thought it fit the assignment perfectly.

I've really enjoyed most of the presentations we've seen so far, I feel like we're getting know each other pretty well because of them. Individual personalities are coming through, because although the research aspect is important, the subject matter displays personality more then anything else. In a way I feel like these are very private things we're being asked to share, and they show how we have formed our identities.
I feel like some of them took a very broad topic, and narrowed it down a bit to far. I know that it is hard to cover the scope of the topic, and that sometimes it felt like it was necessary to make it more manageable, but in some cases I think it took away from what the assignment was meant to be.

Congrats To All

I wanted to say congrats to everyone who presented yesterday (Miranda, Julie, Diana, and Natalie). You all looked like you did a lot of research but managed to relate it back to your own opinions, something I didn't do correctly. Wanted to tell you all I'm a tad bit jealous you all managed to do that.

Miranda's was interesting in that is had me thinking what and how I knew about everything. thinking more about it, I do think there's a difference between cultural and natural influences since I've traveled a lot and have been effected by the different areas I've lived in. Though, no matter where I've gone, I still loathe carrots.

Julie's discussion that followed was interesting. I did think she did a wonderful job remaining calm under everything that was going on, but I also liked the discussion too. I enjoyed listening to everyone bounce ideas back and forth.

Diana's paper was interesting as well. I hadn't thought about animals in the way she presented them, as a representation of our own human personalities. It brings me to question that if animals are beautiful and we project ourselves onto them, does that mean we believe ourselves to be beautiful as well?

As for Natalie, well, I found it all very poetic and pretty. I almost wanted classical music in the background, it felt so elegant.

Thanks to you all for giving me food for thought.

Paper Presentations

I had fun tonight in class. I loved the hands on activities tonight. I didn't think of doing anything like that for my presentation, but now I gotta start thinking of something like that to do. Making the dolls was fun. It was creative, and it made me understand Emily's presentation even more. Jenny's presentation was also interesting. The way she blindfolded Miranda, and told her to describe the objects that were given to her. It's different though, being blindfolded and being blind. Like Miranda did tonight, she could still describe the items perfectly, because she has seen them before. But imagine a blind person who has never experienced being able to see what non blind people see. It's a totally different thing. And Kayla, Aaah. What a difficult topic to choose. Especially because there are so many questions that come along with What is God like. And to only be able to write it in 8 pages is impossible. So Good luck to her. Anyways. Now I have an idea of how I'm going to do my presentation. I hope.

Paper, any one?

Throughout this week I've managed to start piecing together my paper (in fact I'm almost finish now), but I was wondering if other people had as much struggle as I did starting it.

I tried to write my paper last weekend and I found my incapable of doing it. I must've started five different essays on the same topic, but I found myself bitter about it all. Now I'm managing to pump out ideas like it's no problem, but before it seemed like such a difficult process. I think what's making me even more nervous is that I'm presenting on Monday and while I'm confident in my beliefs, I'm more passive when it comes to other people questioning them and would rather not deal with it.

I was just wondering what other people might be worrying about or if this paper is coming any easier to someone else.

On Reading and Books

This reading was quite interesting...as are most of them. What was interesting to me what the fact that Schopenhauer suggested not to read. It's an interesting concept though, to his point of people losing their own point of view and ability to think for themselves without the influence of what they read. I'm not sure I would vouch for not reading, but I would agree that we are definitely influenced by the things we read and how we think. The same goes for the people we're around.

Something else that I thought about was his point to "it would be a good thing to buy books if one could also buy the time to read them." I'll be honest and say I'm not an avid reader, which is weird because I buy books all the time. I like to look at books and read through the beginning pages of them, but I life seems to get too busy that I loose track and interest until the available time rolls back around. I would like to read more though...soon...graduation is just around the corner.

While reading I couldn't help but think...

What did Schopenhauer think of Descartes for writing his philosophy is French instead of Latin, so that the common man could read his works versus exclusive academia? Schopenhauer makes a point that common knowledge is petty and naive and that there is practically no hope in it. He also states that worthless literature placed on the shelves leaves the works of great thinker's undisturbed. Yes, I see the truth in that statement, but all books have a purpose, whether to entertain or to educate. If the work's of the thinker's are so great then they will be able to stand on their own and are not comparable to those of writers who writer for money and fame. Descartes's purpose was to educate and he succeeded by writing in French. Schopenhauer has created a very narrow outlook on what is acceptable readings or literature.

So Schopenhauer made a few points that I found interesting, particularly his analogy of the food we eat, and the things we read; that though we take it all in, only some of it becomes a part of us. When we read, we are just a pallet for another persons thoughts, and that we only accept the points which align themselves with our own way of thinking. Then what should it matter that we read "bad" literature? Though I concede that if we spent all our time reading, or, in the modern version, watching movies or TV, we would cease to have original ideas.
On the other hand, he also comes off as an arrogant, miserable little prick, and I was tempted to stab myself through the eyes halfway through the reading.
Just sayin'.

Capitalism Kills Literature (among many other things...)

Schopenhauer criticizes contemporary literature for being written for its own sake and to exploit consumers and I agree. The majority of consumer products are not based on benefiting the mind's acuity and precision by exercising its comparative, analytic, and perceptual skills, or to enhance its spirituality and ability to synthesize emotion, but to feed some insatiable desire to escape the reality of our own isolated existence. Romance novels that target sexually-deprived and/or obsessed, lonely middle aged audiences flood the shelves of supermarkets and gas stations come to mind when I read Schopenhauer's bitterly critical essay on books. The fact that someone aims at writing such books for no other reason than to reap a cheap profit from those preoccupied souls willing to pay for it is beyond me. Why waste the precious little time you have on such fruitless endeavors?

Elizabeth Gilbert: A new way to think about creativity

This is the video I was talking about in class the other day. It's really good, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86x-u-tz0MA

Depressing? Well..

Comical. That's the word I would use when reading this: comical. As I generally do with philosophers, I found him more amusing than irksome. I was practically grinning the whole time reading this and, surprisingly enough, I was a little sad it was one of our shorter reading assignments.

I really thought his idea about 'bad books' was very, very funny. I found it funny because I'm sure some...okay, most of the books I read would probably be considered 'bad' if a newspaper is consider 'bad literature'. I don't spend my time reading classics, generally, and what we imagine as classics now (Poe, Bronte Sisters, Austen, Hawthorne), I like to imagine he would possibly consider them bad authors in comparison to Plato and Aristotle. So, with them crossed off and a few other authors, I've pretty much been reading terrible books my whole life outside of some books from my literature class. What strikes me as most comical is the idea of authors shoving their ideas onto me, which I agree that they're doing, but without me being able to think. He made it sound as if I'm unwillingly accepting their ideas without giving even the slightest thought to what I am reading. I am. Besides, even if I do happen to read a so-called 'bad book' doesn't that make me more culturally aware of what the standards of my society are? Case in point: Twilight. I do consider that a terrible book (sorry).

However, I do agree with his idea that we should read a book more than once, I think more than twice in fact. I did nod my head and think that I do learn much more when my emotions aren't at their peek, waiting to see what happens next when I turn the page. I've read Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice about five or six times now and I find new, little details I always miss every single time. Fun times.

Tim Minchin's Storm The Animated Movie

Alright, my cousin just sent me this video and I think you guys are definitely gonna love it. This whole thing talks about a lot of the same stuff we have talking about all semester, in the style of a beat poem. Uh huh, you are gonna love it. I'm not going to write any of my opinions just yet because I want to wait until some of you have watched it first. Enjoy!

And if I somehow did the embed code wrong, here's a link to the video on Youtube:

Tim Minchin's Storm The Animated Movie

Can't Agree With Kant

First off, I really don't enjoy the way Kant writes his ideas. Second, I really don't like his ideas.

I found most of what I read to be really confusing, and when I could understand what he was saying I thought mostly that I didn't agree with him either. I'd like to focus on the part about art having purposiveness, but not have purpose. I disagree, and here's why.

Whenever I create art, it has a purpose. I'm a story teller, and even though my work doesn't always include speech bubbles or a definite dialogue, what I create always communicates some sort of narrative. I suppose because of this, Kant would probably just say that what I do isn't art anyway, but there are whole periods of artists that painted narrative scenes. For example, the entire series entitled Marriage a la Mode, by William Hogarth, is satiric story of an arranged marriage based on money and status instead of love. Purpose: using paintings to tell a story that comments on the business side of marriage in contemporary society. Form: FINE ART.

The end. I'm done.

Just Stirring the Pot...

Forgive me for this but I was a bit curious

As we all know, we got into a pretty in-depth debate last class about what is good art and what isn't, and what qualifies someone to make such a judgement. It seemed there was a general consensus that at least some degree of experience with the subject matter is necessary. This theory brought to my attention something I was once taught. I took a screenwriting class my senior year, and my professor constantly told us that, "the person most qualified to write a film is someone who's never seen one." He applied this to criticism as well. Anywho, I was just curious what people thought of this angle. Can someone without a hint of experience expertly criticize something? Or does their lack of influence by the cultural and social norms make them the best candidate to judge and create? Just wanted to throw that out there, stir the pot and what not.

...umm, what?

I was dreading whoever would eventually make philosophy sound confusing and, as we hadn't hit that person yet, I thought that we'd never hit them. I was wrong. Kant had to prove me wrong and decided to make everything sound far more complicated than it has to be.

As I was reading this, I found myself doing what I had to do with the first few philosophers we read: rereading sections. I also found myself trying to skim much faster, miss some important detail, and then have to go back and reread. There were also chunks of his writing that I could understand and felt great about, but then suddenly Kant decided that I understood too much and needed to word it more complicated. Thank you Kant.

for his ideas, what I could gather from this reading, was interesting and slightly amusing. I really enjoyed the contrast between science and art, which gave me a little boost to know that art was a skill one had to be born with and couldn't learn, like math or history. He then continues to explore the relationship between nature and art and how they differ, then continues on with more seemingly badmouthing science in comparison to art. It all made me smile a little bit to myself.

Perception and Ethics

Out of all of the philosophers we have studied as of yet, Hume was the first, as far as I can tell, to deal directly with the topic of my paper: perception and ethics. Chief among the key issues in my paper is the idea that people see the world, not as it is, but as they are. I was greatly pleased to be reading a philosopher's view on a relatively similar issue, although his conclusions are not exact with my own. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but to my understanding, Hume applies a very similar idea that the moral values of men, although seemingly unified on general issues, when actually broken down into their true intentions, differ in many ways. This is where my topic comes in, looking into the roots which grow these different conclusions, and what such an error in vision can catalyze. In any case, I have received a bit more food- for -thought for this paper.

i just finished watching the video, i have to say that the videos help me so much, just because im a visual thinker. ok so i think that relying too much on the senses is not so good because sometimes they can be incorrect. i like how the ideas he has are scientific liked.

I think Hume has good taste concerning good taste

I was pleased with Hume's dissection of precision and accuracy in analyzing and discussing the operations of visual elements and intellectual faculties in any given work of art. Many of his assertions run parallel with my own ideas that concern judging a work of art based on sentiment and judging it based reason. I agree with Hume's assertion that maintaining an unbiased and considerate vantage point when contemplating a work of art is absolutely necessary to interpret its formal qualities. Allowing the merit of a work of art to be corrupted by a stagnant, static point of view is discrediting more to the viewer than to the art for he imposes his personal preferences on the art and inhibits himself from ever gaining a new, true understanding of what beauty really is. One must appropriate himself to the vantage point the artist to gain a clear understanding of the artwork's significance. I never deeply meditated on Hume's statement that it is unreasonable to argue about taste because everybody's taste is different! But I believe that is why inherently I have always tried to be tolerant, patient, and even admirable of others attributes because I consider uniqueness beautiful. Even his method to approaching a bad critic is tasteful because it does not insult the personal preferences of the other viewer but only brings him to consider a new view point other than his own which is beneficial to gaining knowledge. I would consider that TWO favors, one for yourself and one for him.

All In good Taste

At first, I had a small fear of trying to read Hume. i thought that Hume was the man who decided to jumble up everything and make everything sound confusing. However, in reality, he's very clear and I understood him more than I thought I would. (Not to mention that my roommate who read Hume first semester who boosting about his cool he supposedly is.)

I felt myself nodding a lot to what Hume was saying regarding taste. A lot of what he says are ideas that I've tried to implement in my life, especially looking at artwork as unbiased as I possibly can and to not think as something solely 'good' or 'bad', but really what the characteristics of the object are. I really enjoyed one of the first things Hume mention, how what we're not accustomed to is considered barbaric. I like to imagine that in our modern world, the idea of other cultures being barbaric has nearly been erased from our minds (which the exception of the tribes in Africa or hidden deep in the Amazon or even the more simplistic lifestyles of some of those in the Middle East). I think that as a modern society we're beginning to experience more of Hume's ideas. We do look at stuff in a biased nature and may think that art from other countries might be different, but we don't normally lower ourselves to considering is barbaric. Or is it that modern society has simply thought ourselves too high for that term so we call it something else?

I also found it interesting how the standard of taste comes closest in poetry, with the idea that good works or art won't alter at all throughout the ages. I, again, found myself nodding to this idea, but I also found myself shaking my head too. Some art wasn't accepted during the time of its creation while others were heavily accepted and not so much nowadays. I just find the contrast interesting.

Ok I have another one...

Here's another quote I like, by the same author (her name is Ursula K. Le Guin in case anyone is curious) in an introduction to one of her books:

"...[T]ruth is a matter of the imagination."

She wrote that as a commentary on fiction, but it applies to everything we've been talking about. The last few classes have really made me wonder about things. Not necessarily in a new way that hasn't already occurred to me, but in a way that simply furthered what I already believe in... or think I believe in, anyway. Le Guin wrote a book called The Lathe of Heaven, about a man whose dreams directly affected the reality of the entire universe. You should all read it, it's not too long and would probably only take up a day or two of your time.

Personally, I believe in the idea that the reality we all experience from day to day could possibly be an all-encompassing dream by one person, or maybe all of us. How do we know that yesterday it wasn't true that human beings lived underwater, or that dogs could talk? Only because that's what our memories tell us. But how do we know that we can even trust our own memories? Perhaps we're just in a new dream where everything is and always has been the way it is at this moment.

That's all I have to say for now.

A Little Pop Culture

I wanted to bring up a little section from my favorite book that I think definitely relates to Decartes. You don't need to know anything about the story to understand the conversation, but I decided I'll fill you on just two facts. The first speaker, Faxe, is a seer or prophet, who looks into the future to find answers for people. The second speaker is a man who seeks an answer.

"'The unknown,' said Faxe's soft voice in the forest, 'the unforetold, the unproven, that is what life is based on. Ignorance is the ground of thought. Unproof is the ground of action. If it were proven that there is no God there would be no religion. ... But also if it were proven that there is a God, there would be no religion.... Tell me, Genry, what is known? What is sure, predictable, inevitable–the one certain thing you know concerning your future, and mine?'

'That we shall die.'

'Yes. There's really only one question that can be answered, Genry, and we already know the answer.... The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty: not knowing what comes next.'"

Anyway, I had marked this page weeks ago, and I was just flipping through and re-read it, and it made think about what we have been discussing in class recently. About reality being a dream or a collective dream, the existence of God, or the idea that thought proves the existence of the body/the self/ or whatever. I found it interesting that this conversation talks about the only certain thing being death, rather than the mind, because how could we realize how important the mind is if it doesn't have a limit, or an end? Or maybe it really can exist without the body, and therefore doesn't have an end. Hmm, before I started writing this I was thinking that this quote had confirmed some idea I had about all this, but now I either can't remember what that was, or it just doesn't make sense anymore. I think, therefore I exist... or I die, therefore I must have existed in the first place? I'm wondering what you guys think of this.

Descartes is speaking to my soul...serioulsy

Lately, I've begun to realize that everything I know, think what is right versus wrong, and believe all coincide with Christianity. Never once have I doubted, because I thought I genuinely believed it and presented the ideas to myself. It was what I grew up with. Now I'm here in college, out of my house, not forced to go to church and I'm really wondering and exploring for myself. Descartes is simply helping the process. The first line in his first meditation is a summary of everything that I have been feeling. It's so nice to have some kind of reference or different type of guidance other than what I think. The deeper I delve, it's true that I don't know why I believe in the things I do or even if I did truly believe them, why? What makes the belief mine?
Like Descartes says, I must start from nothing and work my way towards certainty.

So far, maybe because Descarates is one of the most opened minded philosophers, he is my favorite. Forcing me not to believe in something is good to me it keeps my mind open weather i want to choose or not. Yes i agree that sometimes there needs to be proven facts to believe in something but, when your parents tell you something (as i have noticed in my family members) you tend to actually believe it. So maybe certain people in my or your life are able to tell you what to believe. And to me sometimes are my parents.

I have a hard time conceiving the mind as freely functioning from the body. So much of my rationale, intellect, morals, ethics, beliefs, fears, instincts, preferences are based on the way my mind digests my physical senses. I believe that the body and mind are co-dependent on one another so that if one were segregated from the other we would not qualify as the creatures we question ourselves to be. I believe that in order to exist you must be aware that there is something outside of you (other than yourself) which is ultimately what makes you aware initially.

Nature Doesn't Know Everything

I titled the blog an interesting an amusing sentence from today's selection of Descartes. One of his many interesting points. I read this over the course of two days and allowed myself time to digest some of the information presented to me.

What I enjoyed most were the conversations between Doubtful and Hopeful. I enjoyed the juxtaposition of the two extremes by one another. Then, to simply dive head first into doubting everything, it was a fascinating process to see how he dealt with his surroundings and how he tried to reason what everything was. This whole selection by him was food for thought and I found myself nodding or shaking my head to his arguments. I even stopped a few times to debate with myself if I agreed with his statements or not.

I felt like I was reading Shakespeare again with the mentioning of being in a dream or being awake. The back and forth arguments of if we're awake or if we're asleep has me perplexed as well as intrigued. How do we perceive if we're awake or asleep? Do we rely solely on our senses? But, as Descartes states, we perceive generally the same when awake and asleep, so it's up to our mind and rational thought to know that we're awake or asleep. The division between the mind and body, natural world, and everything else is vast and easily noted when looking correctly. Descartes has very different views that have me thinking...

Descartes defines reality in a very selective way. The things that we take in with our senses are not truly real to his way of thinking, and he instead puts the mind before the body. They way I think of truth and reality is very different from this, because I believe that there is the possibility for individual realities. Personal views and perspectives shape the world around us to a certain extent, and what we touch, smell, taste, feel, and hear, are all real to me. I don't think that the self can exist without a body, at least not in the way that we perceive 'self''. If there is no input, there is nothing to be thought, and without a mind to think, there senses of the body have no recording. One cannot exist without the other.
I trust not only my senses and reason, but also my closest family. I don't think that I trust them because I believe them to be entirely honest 100% of the time, but because I trust that they love me, and don't intend to harm me. I trust their intentions. To a degree, I also trust the people that have proven over time that they are honest; past actions speak loudly to me. The sun has risen millions of times in the past, I begin to think that it will probably rise again tomorrow.
Occasionally, there is the kind of trust that requires a leap of faith. In a way, I view this as a kind of naivety. But I still do it. This is the kind of trust that may in some cases be the strongest, because it does not come from reason, it comes from faith. It's not logical in anyway, so it really can't be argued against.

I decided to pretend that everything that had ever entered my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams, because all the mental states we are in while awake can also occur while we sleep ·and dream·, without having any truth in them. 

In this statement, Descartes makes his Shakespeare and Plato influence very evident. It shows me that philosophy builds upon other philosophy. Even though some philosophers credit only themselves with the thinking, it is not always entirely true. Take Descartes for example, he is the father of modern thought, the statement above is not fully his own, but it does lead to his declaration, " I think, therefore I exist." Half of the process was done for him. 

This statement has also very recently started applying to me. When I read it, I couldn't believe it's truth. For most of my life, dreams were never a big deal to me. I was never the kid who showed up to school with a crazy dream story to tell, or have one to compare to. No, my dreams are normally just reenactments of memories that haunt me. Upon reading Shakespeare it has been quite the opposite. My dreams feel so real and I am able to remember every detail. In some of them, I have even woken up in the dream, told a friend I had a bizarre dream, and have then gone back to sleep. The last week has been filled with deja vu and flashbacks of visions of the previous night. What's even worse is that they are actually plausible. I've been having trouble deciphering what has really happened or if it was only part of my dream the night before. Descartes took the words right out of my mouth. The only way I've been able to sift through dreams and reality, is to pretend for the moment I don't know anything. Slowly, I place all the puzzle pieces together. It almost coincides with his rules of logic. 

I don't know what's happening, but I ultimately feel like my mind has somehow been opened up to something new.

Knowledge & Authority

The first two exercises we did in class today dealt with the idea of knowledge and authority -- on what basis do we accept things as truth? Descartes argues that reason is the only authority, but in practice we frequently appeal to authorities other than ourselves -- and this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, part of thinking for oneself could include deciding whom to trust in which situations. Which authorities do you trust, outside yourself? On what grounds do you trust them?

Descarte

As for today's reading, I really enjoyed the personal nature of it. It was interesting to sort of imagine him sitting next to me telling me these stories and experiences. Some of the topics he touches on I would agree with. The whole initial first part about good sense and how people have it, or don't and how they just need to use it more. This is what separates us from animals, so don't be an animal and use your good sense brain. I also agree with him when he talks about researching history and it seeming like traveling. There are people that become so focused and engulfed in their work, that they loose touch with their friends, family and the world in general. Their sense of time and priorities become blurry and unfocused and it's important to keep a nice balance. This actually makes me think about my studio work actually. Being here all day Monday-Monday, practically 10 to 20 hours a day. It's ridiculous and tough to know what's going on around the community and the world without loosing focus on design and projects that need to be finished the next class period. Friends outside of art school just don't understand sometimes...ha

ok so I have sometimes a hard time understanding the readings, but i still give it a good try. Descartes, i enjoyed reading some of his stuff i think it is very difrent from others because i dont think he is really trying to tell you do this because its the only way. he has his own beliefs and his own experiences i think that him only saying what he thinks is really good. i also think it was much easier to understand and that is why i wrote more than usual.

Last acts of MSND, lab, and Descartes

In this installment, as you might have guessed in the title, I will be tackling the last three subjects we've encountered in class. Three blog posts rolled into one! I know, I know, terribly exciting; but please do try to keep your demeanor settled, seeing as this is an educated, mature, environment.

The last acts of A Midsummer Night's Dream

It seemed like to me that in the last acts, Shakespeare just wrote what he had to in order for everyone to live happily ever after, even the audience. How conveniently they all just forgot the previous night, with nothing more than the faint impression a dream leaves, and that Demetrius is by chance the only one to walk out of the forest with the magic still on his eyes. Then Puck slyly secures the characters and audience by saying that if they are offended, not to be, because it all was an innocent dream. I really enjoyed the play within a play, especially when we saw it in the movie. The actors were really good at portraying bad actors.

The Lab at the Nelson

The lab held a lot of things that resonated with my personal life. I particularly enjoyed it because I seldom get the chance to go to the Nelson, and just sit, allowing my mind to wonder and contemplate the poem I had been given, which was beautiful in it's simplistic approach towards such a complex experience.

Descartes

Out of the three parts we read, I particularly liked the first one. I nodded my head at about every sentence. He says that what he is writing is simply a narrative of his life and what he learned, he is sharing it with us so that you can choose to apply some of his findings to your own life, or not. He says that he only knows what worked for him and doesn't profess to know what will work universally. I like this because he not shoving his beliefs down my throat, claiming that his way is the only way to live life. I sympathized and agreed with how he views school, learning, and leaving home, once again finding myself in about the same position, trying to find a balance and a purpose. I only wish I had as much motivation has he did to gain as much knowledge as he could. I get lazy and discouraged by the difficult to understand, complex subjects he seems to have grasped so easily. But hey, I'm working on it.

Julie

Descartes, How Sly You Are...

"I have no confidence in any of philosophy's results or in my ability to improve that situation." Descartes said this line near the end of the first part and I find this to be my favorite line during the whole reading.

Not only did I enjoy his 'method' and the discussion of his method (I could actually understand it all fairly well rather than have to try and rack my brain in order to comprehend it), but I just enjoyed the personality he placed in this selection as well. He placed this humility in juxtaposition with a pushing for his ideas and style. It was almost comical that he would constantly stop to remind us, the reader, that these ideas worked for him and may not work for us. Like a disclosure.

The idea that God exists and how he went about proving God was interesting as well. It seems like other people have used this idea to say God exists, that because we have perfections and imperfections, another being more perfect than us must been the one who has planted these into us. But this being can't have intelligence (though he does have something there) nor does he have a body. I found that idea different as well: God does not have intelligence nor a body because those are imperfections and God is perfect in every way. Hmm. Truly something to think upon...

Philosophy Talk with Brock and Jordan

Contradiction

In class we discussed that there was a possibility that Shakespeare was portraying love with a satirical twist, and even mocking himself through the play the Bottom, Flute, Snout, Snug, and the other men were displaying for the Theseus's wedding. Why then does Shakespeare contradict himself with the sappy love sick ending? Wouldn't he want to portray that "love" will not last and only end in disappointment and chaos, similar situations to what happened with the love juice?
Also, the ending was predictable. The play was successfully featured, and even when the two lovers killed themselves, the audience was appalled and in disbelief. It seemed as if they were blinded by happiness. I was secretly hoping for a twist at the end, but everything came to a happy and content conclusion.

3/28/11

I find Shakespeare's portrayal of women very intriguing. I agree with Kristen, his roles for women are very strong, fighting for what they want. Even though these women are strong, they are still limited by society. I find it interesting that he gives them strength for love, as though he's saying women can fight but they are always fighting for the wrong reasons.

Shakespeare's treatment of women is interesting, not only in this play, but in most of his other ones as well. Although they are almost always focused on romantic matters, they are still strong willed, but restrained by the culture they are portrayed in. I can't tell how much of this is Shakespeare's own opinion, or just a reflection of the time in which these were written. His women are strong, and usually always get what they want in the end, but all they ever seem to want is some lover or another. In A Midsummer Nights Dream, I especially disliked the relationship between Oberon and Titania. He does her a horrible wrong, manipulates her into getting what he wants, and then she has no reaction to it after the spell is lifted.
Pretty sure any self respecting fairy queen would kick his ass.

"This is the end, beautiful friends..."

I feel as though through all the disillusionment corrupting the characters' motivations that Shakespeare is trying to communicate how often we mistake infatuation and fantasy for true love. Titania dotes on Bottom's "fair long ears" although his ears are not fair at all. She allows herself to be influenced by the idea of Bottom's appearance that she has created in her own mind instead of seeing him for what he truly is: an ass! The end of the play could not be more appropriate for its theme. Two lovers willing to die for each other instead of submitting to the will of their parents reflects the protagonists' strife subperbly. I think Shakespeare is trying to emphasize how insignificant the love of one person is in the grand scheme of life; there is no way to tell who is truly your "significant other" so dying for them seems silly.

The End (Acts IV and V)

The ending...what to say about it? I was curious about how they were going to wrap it all up with act five, since it was all pretty much taken care of in act four, but I suppose it was an ending. I enjoyed the mini play which the actors performed, however it felt as if the last act was simply tagged on because there needed to be another act. Everything had been resolved in act four and the play would have been fine without the extra act.

I also feel a bit cheated that Helena easily accepts Demetrius after she wakes up. I understand that it was all supposed to be portrayed as a dream, but obviously Demetrius didn't like her when they entered the woods and now he suddenly does? And she doesn't question this at all? I feel as if simply saying 'it was all a dream' was to wrap up everything, including certain things that can't be wrapped up in a dream. What about the group of actors seeing Bottom as an ass? Don't they remember that? Yes, indeed, I feel a little cheated out of a highly satisfactory ending.

That being said, I really did enjoy the little play the actors performed. Especially as they kept messing up. I'm excited to see the little play in the movie, to see if it's just as funny as it was when I read the excerpt.

The Fairer Sex

Of course Shakespeare wrote several hundred years before the feminist movement (and feminist philosophy), but his play offers us a nice opportunity to reflect on notions of femininity and the perception of women in Britain around 1600. Do you think women are fairly portrayed in the play? Does Shakespeare seem to you to be misogynistic, or does he stand up for the rights of women?

A Midsummer Night's Dream

I love reading this play. It's super easy to read and quite enjoyable. When I first heard that we were going to start reading Shakespeare I was pretty worried. But as soon as I started to read the play, I got hooked. I love that we can also use the spark notes to help us out. I admit, I do get lost sometimes as I'm reading the play, or not really lost, but don't understand Shakespeare's old fashioned writing. I read Hamlet in High school and it was pretty good. But this play is so much better. So much Drama and Irony. I wonder what was going through his head as he wrote this. Watching the movie is even better. It gives me a visual, and helps me understand the play a lot better. I like reading the play first though, and then watching the movie. And thanks spark notes for the Modern translation, because If I were to watch the movie without reading the play, I'd be pretty lost, and lose interest. But so far I really enjoy reading and watching the play. I love the supernatural aspect to the play, like the fairies, and all of those fun mystical creatures. It transforms this play into a fun story. I can't imagine what it would be like without it all. I mean, it could still be interesting, but it wouldn't have the same effect it has now.

Do Things Happen For A Reason?

Do things happen for a reason? Well in my opinion, I say yes. But I guess everyone has a different opinion. I have always believed that things happen for a reason, maybe it's because my mother has always said this to me ever since I was little. So do things happen for a reason? It might be that I was raised in the Christianity faith, so my opinion might involve a bit of religion. God, supposedly has a plan for everyone, and decides your destiny. Some part of me believes this, but the other doesn't. I'm getting lost here, and I've completely lost my train of thought. It's sort of like the saying 'When one door closes, another one opens'. Whenever something bad happens to me, I always say to myself, 'it's okay Evander, things happen for a reason' and whether or not I believe this, something good always happens. Even if it's something small. I'm not saying that there's some supernatural thing or whatever you want to call it out there that governs what we do, or what happens. But this to me can also be related to Karma. You know, you do bad things you get extra bad, or if you do good things, then things go better for you. As for the chaos and randomness, welll that's another thing. Of course there's gonna be chaos. Us humans having free will and all that. We try to keep order, and follow set rules, but you're gonna have those days when you feel like not following any rules, and being FREE. Okay, not really free, but feel a lot better. But just for one day or so. There could be many theories as to if there are reasons to the things people do. But who really knows.

Reading Shakespeer is not so fun for me, but i do enjoy reading new things i have never read before. In high school all Shakespeer was boring to me i guess because all we did was reading, and no watching a movie for visual processing. Reading Shakespeer has been more interesting because i have more knowledge of some of the theories behind the plays. I still need more understanding about some of the written language Shakespeer has, i get confused sometimes. Reading Shakespeer is a little frustrating for me but i like it.

3/23/11

I'm actually enjoying reading Shakespeare, which was definitely not the case in high school. It has become even more interesting to read now knowing Shakespeare's skeptical theories. I believe the reason Shakespeare is so popular is because of his skeptical views. No control of events, never knowing what people are thinking, and not being sure of anything creates drama and interest in his plays.

Act III

I really enjoyed reading this act; characterized by such playful use of puns and dramatic irony, Shakespeare really drew me into the tension of his masterfully tangled love parallelogram (I hypothesize would be the appropriate geometric shape to describe these poor, love-struck Athenians' dilemma) that is plagued by the disillusionment of a funny, mischievious fellow named Robin Goodfellow (AKA Puck) who drops the love potion that Oberon, King of the Fairies, gave him into the wrong Athenian's eyes. Thus the drama commences when Lysander awakes after Puck poisons him and he averts his love from Hermia and confesses his newfound devotion to Helena. Unconvinced of his honesty and unsure of his motives, Helena reprimands Lysander for his mockery and emplores that he follow her no more. Oberon later identifies Puck's mistake and demmands Puck correct his fault. So Puck sets out to repair his wrongdoings and doses Demitrius with a hefty hit of love juice. BAM! He wakes, he sees Helena, he is in love. However, Helena is only further unamused by what she percieves as a jest against her unrequitted love. Hermia enters the scene and beseeches that Lysander explain his sly flight from her during the middle of the night and his new affection for Helena, who is in disbelief for she believes her childhood-friend is the culprit behind these mean men's cruel joke. They all challenge to deul, except for Helena who still thinks this is all just trickery, but are misled into different areas of the woods by Puck so that he may mend the mess he made. Exhausted from pursuing and evading, the Athenians slip into a sound slumber.

Shakespeare: Rhetoric and the Mob-Mentality

I've been thinking at length about Shakespeare as a philosopher, or rather, examples in his writing that display his views, which brought to my attention Julius Caesar, my favorite of his plays. This play deals at length with the power of the smooth tongue: rhetoric. And, going hand-in-hand with rhetoric, Shakespeare toys with the concept of the "mob-mentality," something he often dwelt on. For these reasons, Julius Caesar became my favorite play, because it so expertly exemplifies how easily people can be swayed by a skilled speaker, and terrifyingly so. This of course is most potently played out in Marc Anthony's famous speech, "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears." That line in itself portrays Shakespeare's critical understanding of rhetoric and the public ear. When juxtaposed with Brutus' opening line. "Romans, countrymen, and lovers! Hear me for my/ cause and be silent that you may hear," it is painfully clear how deeply Shakespeare understands the power of logos, ethos, and pathos. Notice how Marc Antony begins with friends, as opposed to Brutus who began with Romans. In doing this, Marc Anthony is bringing the public to his level and creating an emotional bond with them by calling them his friends. Whereas Brutus gives a much colder and distant plea by simply calling them Romans. Marc Anthony furthers his manipulation through the word, "Honorable." He, quite literally, twists the meaning of the word and uses it against his opponents. Had he outright condemned Caesar's killers, he would have lost his emotional appeal: by calling them honorable and speaking of them as if defending them, Marc Anthony renders himself a wounded victim, as if he were a friend who has been wronged, but still loves those who wronged him. In doing this, the crowd further binds themselves to him, feels sorry for him, and begins to side with him, as seen when one Plebeian shouts, "Poor soul! His eyes are red as fire with weeping," and "There's not a nobler man in Rome than Anthony." Anthony has now established himself with the crowd, and they trust him. From there he begins to stir the crowd to action with emotional appeals over and over again. He brings the crowd over to Caesar's body, to show them the wounds that brought his death. And here, he deals a potent blow; "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now...Look, in this place ran Cassius' dagger through...Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabbed,/ and , as he plucked his cursed steel away,/ mark how the blood of Caesar followed it,/ as rushing out of doors to be resolved/if Brutus so unkindly knocked or no." From here, the mob-mentality takes over, as the crowd becomes blind with rage as they scream, "Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay!/ Let not a traitor live!" There is a great deal more in his speech, and in the play itself, that further builds from this, and I highly recommend reading it.

Act III

The idea that we're all left to randomness and chaos is highly evident in Act III, especially when we get to scene two with Oberon. He seems to be very annoyed and angered that Puck messed up on a simple task, but Puck shrugs it off as fate and is instead just having a good time. I like the contrast between these two characters and ideas. I find it especially nice how closely their associated with each other in the play as well.

The story is going wonderful, I really want to read more, but I'm waiting so to not ruin myself and to have a nice discussion in class. I'm not too happy with helena's character development so far. I understand her fear of being suddenly loved and how it can be seen as mockery, but she seems hell bent on not believing that anything good can ever happen to her. She expects misery and sorrow to be her only companions it seems. Again, I sympathize with her, but not even for one second does she seem to entertain the idea that she's loved.


I predict that she will still refuse Demetrius by the end of the play.
I also predict that things will not go swimmingly with Oberon and his plans for kidnapping the Indian boy.

I'm having fun re-reading 'A Midsummer Nights Dream', it's been a few years since I read it last. For me, it helps that I'm familiar with the movie, because it stays true to the script, and sticks in my memory better.
I'm having a lot less luck with my paper. I have such conflicting ideas that I can't decide how to pick a topic, and then decide what my philosophy about it is. I've narrowed it down to either "What can we know?" or, "How should we live?". These are such huge questions that we're supposed to have a definite opinion on, and I don't think my head's that organized.

Things happen for a reason?

The notion of causality is one of the three main philosophical issues Shakespeare tackles in his work. He tends toward a skeptical view -- things happen for no reason. What do you think -- is there any rhyme or reason to what happens in the world, or are we at the mercy of chaos and randomness?

Helpful link

Most people already know about this, but I thought I'd post it anyway just in case someone finds it useful. Sparknotes offers "No fear Shakespeare" for free on their website. They also sell the books in most bookstores, I might have even seen it it the art-supply store, but don't quote me on that. It features Shakespeare's original text, and right next to every line, is an interpreted, modern-English version of it. You can read the original and refer to the translation when you get stuck. It's really easy to get lazy, or find yourself in a time bind, and just read the translated text, but do try to keep in mind that Shakespeares language (at least in my opinion) is most beautiful in its original form so you really shouldn't completely abandon it.

Here is the link to No Fear Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night's Dream

http://nfs.sparknotes.com/msnd/

Happy reading! Hope you all had a fun, restful, spring break :)

A Midsummer Night's Dream

I'm really loving this play! Not too surprised though, because I usually enjoy Shakespeare's plays. I'd love to read his sonnets someday; I've heard so much good praise about them. Act 2 ends at great place; I'm so excited to see how it all ends up. The fairies are my favorite characters thus far. I'm simply enchanted by how they sing, frolic, and dance to control the seasons and the animals. It would be so much fun to be one of them. While the fairies touch upon my imagination, the human characters resonate reality for me. Most of Shakespeares characters are always so easy to relate to, which is saying something given that these plays are written for a totally different audience in very different times. Sometimes I get caught up, as I'm sure we all do, in my emotions. I feel singled out and misunderstood; its refreshing to see people feeling, thinking, and going through some of the same things I did or am going through, as far back as the 16th century. Even though I know the stories are made-up, they still, like most made-up things, are inspired by real emotions and situations, which for me is reassuring and quite comical to realize that I'm not the only person in history to ever feel a certain way. It lessens the severity of a situation or emotion and even gives it a bit of perspective. I guess I just feel more human in a way.

Once again I'm really excited to see how this tangled web concludes!

The History of Race/Ethnicity Philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_race#Ancient_Greek_theories


It is interesting to me how what we think of race today was so constructed by so many over the years. You should all read a bit of this if you want your minds to be bent.

Acts I and II

True to Shakespeare, the set up is very much the same as I'm used to when it comes to reading his works. That being said, I still enjoy them a lot. And, as always, I had a little trouble deciphering some of meanings due to the complex sentences, but I found something help me breeze through it with no problem.


I really am enjoying the story so far with the idea of everyone falling in love with the wrong person. It's almost as if he's speaking about the idea of fate and how tampering with it can lead to mischief. I also enjoy the use of descriptive word choices such as how he throws in nature as such a heavy metaphor and the appearance of red has made its way into the story as well. I really do enjoy where the story is going and it leads me to make a few predicaments.

I believe that by the end of the story, Hermia will remain with Lysander.
Titana and Oberon will somehow put aside their differences to at least have a truce (mayhaps even that old love?).
And I'm hoping that Helena will wise up and get over her infatuation with Demetrius.
This is what I predict/hope.

Pre-Writing Pyramid(Ethics)

      While working on my pre-writing pyramid today I chose to try to come up with three questions/ solutions to how we should live (ethics) because that is the issue I think about on a personal level all of the time. One of my responses to this portion of the work sheet was that we should live with current human issues in mind such as how to empower peoples marginalized by imperialism, how to empower woman, and how to create a way to live that is sustainable for our planet. These issues are huge and how do they really relate to one another. If you help allot of people come out of poverty, you tend to over use resources more quickly. Can part of the solution even be linked to people living a certin way?


     I was overwhelmed by these questions by just thinking about them and feeling really low for a while. After doing some research I found some good starting point responses to these questions. I watched tons of ted talks!! I have attached one of my favorites so far. It is a talk given by Jane Goodall who I know now should be everybody's hero. She speaks about how humans and animals are correlated and things that we can do to mend our problematic relationship with nature. Watch this video there is a link right down there VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

      Jane Goodall helps humans and animals live together | Video on TED.com


      It is really inspirational to me because you can tell that Jane has really spent her whole life and career thinking about these issues and has come up with wonderful cohesive solutions.  I enjoy that she has advice, often we here the statistics and the problems with no way to practically apply any solution to what we have just learned. I feel that her philosophy has to do with thinking about every aspect to a problem and seeing conservation and human needs as one united issue. She also emphasizes personal responsibility which was eye opening for me. You don't think that turing the lights off when your not using them, or mending old jeans instead of buying and buying and buying more makes a difference but after listening to this talk I realize that it can, and that we as westerners need to be very conscious of how we utilize resources. We have the power to make so many things better in the world but also to make so many things much worse. Let me know what you all think. I hope you enjoy this as much as I do.


P.S. There is a really nice 1960's documentary done by national geographic about Jane and the chimps during her early years. I used to watch it over and over when I was a child. I think it is called "My Life Among the Wild Chimpanzees". That would be good to watch if you enjoyed this talk.

Mid-term grades

At the risk of ruining your spring break by reminding you about school, I just wanted to let you know that I have posted your mid-term grades. Since we have not done the paper and presentation yet, the weights were as follows: Lab 30%, Blog 30%, Quizzes 15%, Class Participation 25%. If your grade is much lower than you expected, it probably means you have not turned something in. Don't panic, just talk to me when you get back so we can get these things taken care of. Enjoy the rest of your break, and see you Monday!

Nelson Atkins Sign Workshop

Today I went to the Nelson Atkins to complete my sign lab assignment. It was difficult to choose which object or painting to interpret and find the symbols and signs in. the reason for this is that I feel that many of my interpretations of what I would consider for these are pieces are based off of learned "obvious signs" or symbols are common to art history and more broadly Western society. for example I saw the color red as blood or sacrifice, white as purity, gold leaf as preciousness, a woman holding a baby as Maddona and child.  Most of what we would consider necessary signs and probable signs are based off of our interpretations that have been constructed by our history and our society. It is hard for us coming form a now very visual culture to not look at certain things and then automatically draw certain conclusions. Most signs there for in my opinion are directed by a soul or are deliberated. They are either directed by our selves with this subconscious westernized visual dictionary or by the person that knows what information we carry around in our heads.

The Inferno

I recently started playing Dante's Inferno (again) and it made me think about the actual book it's based off of: the Divine Comedy.


I was curious as to people's thoughts on how Dante ranked sin and just his idea of hell in general.

Imagination and Opinion

I really enjoyed the section of this reading where he talks about imagination and imagery. I immediately was able to relate in the way that when I recall past memories, I think about actual imagery and things I remember seeing. With this recall of images I then remember the feeling I was experiencing when I was experiencing them.

My favorite part of this was the explanation surrounding error. What is error? Where is it derived? What is its outcome? Knowledge and understanding was repeatedly error's outcome. St. Thomas was saying that it's okay to be human. It's okay to make mistakes as long as a lesson is learned and understanding is gained.

Right now error is a huge part of my life. Everyday I'm learning something new. It's part of being eighteen. It's even relatable to the art I make. Trial and error is how I learn to create, nothing, not even ideas are correct the first time. I have to constantly refine and shift to accurately portray my ideas. 

I do disagree however, that he categorizes imagination with error because it is not perceptually correct. Then again, many philosophers before him have as well. Then again, I can only apply this statement to artwork. I do not feel that artwork is "wrong" because some of it can not be sensed as something real. 

Ok so reading for me is not so good, I have a hard time reading, so i watched the video and i must say that the five Quinquae Viae are very intresting and some of them in my opinion are just weird. For example Quinqae number 1 i think it's just contradicting itself because it's saying that something had to move in order for the object to move, and actually saying that on top of that God there is another and another and another ect... so maybe if that one was taken off it would sound just little better.

Eastern Views on the Self

In class we were talking about Avicenna's thought experiment and how it deals with the self (proving there's an independent thinker, etc). I was aware of the Buddhist persepctive, being a Buddhist myself. But trying to explain the idea of "no self" in class wouldn't have worked very well (since I haven't memorized its intricacies or anything). However, Alan Watts offers a very concise, easy to understand, version in his book "The Wisdom of Insecurity" which I have paraphrased below for anyone with an interest in the Eastern side of things:

The notion of security is based on the feeling that there is something within us which is permanent, something which endures through all the days and changes of life. We are struggling to make sure of the permanence, continuity and safety of this enduring core, this center and soul of our being which we call “I.” For this we think to be the real man-the thinker of our thoughts, the feeler of our feelings, and the knower of our knowledge. We do not actually understand that there is no security until we realize that this “I” does not exist.
You may ask, “Which experiences, which sensations and feelings, shall we look at?” I will answer, “Which ones can you look at?” The answer is that you must look at the ones you have now. That is surely rather obvious. But very obvious things are often overlooked. If a feeling is not present, you are not aware of it. There is no experience besides present experience. What you know, what you are actually aware of, is just what is happening at this moment, and no more.
But what about memories? Surely by remembering I can also know what is past? Very well, remember something. Remember the incident of seeing a friend walking down the street. What are you aware of? You are not actually watching the veritable event of your friend walking down the street. You can't go up and shake hands, or get an answer to a question you forgot to ask. In other words, you are not looking at the actual past at all. You are looking at a present trace of the past. You know the past only in the present and as part of the present.
While you are watching this present experience, are you aware of someone watching it? Can you find, in addition to the experience itself, an experiencer? Can you, at the same time, read this sentence and think about yourself reading it? You will find that, to think about yourself reading it, you must for a brief second stop reading. The first experience is reading. The second experience is the thought, “I am reading.” Can you find any thinker, who is thinking the thought “I am reading?” In other words, when present experience is the thought, “I am reading,” can you think about yourself thinking this thought?
Once again, you must stop thinking just, “I am reading.” You pass into a third experience, which is the thought, “I am thinking that I am reading.” Do not let the rapidity with which these thoughts change deceive you into the feeling you think all of this at once.
But what has happened? Never at any time were you able to separate yourself from your present thought, or your present experience. The first present experience was reading. When you tried to think about yourself reading, the experience changed, and the next present experience was the thought “I am reading.” You could not separate yourself from this experience without passing on to another. It was “ring around the rosy.” When you were thinking, “I am reading this sentence” you were not reading it. In other words, in each present experience you were only aware of the experience. You were never aware of being aware.
We might say that the “I” is the thinker in this physical body and brain. But this body is in no way separate from its thoughts and sensations. When you have a sensation, say, of touch, that sensation is part of your body. While that sensation is going on, you cannot move the body away from it more than you can walk away from a headache or from your feet. So long as it is present, that sensation is your body and is you. You can move the body from an uncomfortable chair, but you cannot move it from the sensation of a chair.
You reason, “ I know this present experience, and it is different from that past experience. If I can compare the two, and notice that experience has changed, I must be something constant and apart.
But, as a matter of fact, you cannot separate this present experience with a past experience. You can only compare it with a memory of the past, which is a part of the present experience. When you see clearly that memory is a form of present experience, it will be obvious that trying to separate yourself from this experience is as impossible as trying to make your teeth bite themselves. There is simply experience. There is not something or someone experiencing experience. You do not feel feelings, think thoughts or sense sensations any more than you hear hearing, see sight, or smell smelling.

Movement in Imagination

At first, I groaned when I saw the page count, but I quickly forgot that I was reading fourteen pages when I started reading. Despite having moments when I felt it was getting a bit winded, this read was very interesting and insightful. What Imagination Is... It had a lot of interesting ideas and theories that I found myself smiling the whole time.

i really enjoyed this break down that he did between opinion, knowledge, sensation, and imagination. I vaguely remember it being said that imagination was not a sense but by the end, it had seemed to morph into a sense of moment. He had a lot of different views, especially regarding animals as relying on instinct and imagination because they lacked the capacity for opinions or knowledge. It makes me curious to see how these philosophers would react in modern times with the vast amount of intellectual animals that was have, especially the dolphins and primates who have a large understanding and can even give opinions of what types of food they like. Or the such.

I simply really enjoyed this reading.

Perception and Reality

Avicenna's works we read were wordy and certainly not what we're used to reading (especially as artists; not regularly exposed to scientific writings by education or trade). On my second time around I got the overall vibe that the scientific discussion Avicenna was working out, in both On Vision and On Nature, was centered around the relationship between our perception of reality and reality itself and the dissonance between the two. Naturally several questions come to mind: Does what we see really exist? What things in existence don't we see? How would we be able to measure the existence/non-existence of any thing? How can we manipulate what we see or perhaps even it's existence?

I'm currently in a workshop entitled "Hyperspace". The premise of the class is the marriage between science and art (specifically quantum mechanics and sculpture/drawing). In class today we were discussing an excerpt of Hyperspace by Michio Kaku, which describes the four known forces of the universe. We tangented off into discussing perception and the fact that humans are the least perceptive of all animals; all we can visually/physically acknowledge is a very small sliver of the entire (or what we know of) spectrum of known reality. We are aware, and make use of, such invisible things as radio-waves, microwaves, radiation, etc. Quantum mechanics itself is basically a theoretical science of the unseen and practically unmeasurable. Crazy world, huh?

Luminance, Light and Ray

This was an interesting reading. For the most part I understood what the <> were doing, however at first I was a little unsure if I should be reading them or not. It was interesting to see the different ways of explaining luminance, light and ray. One of my favorite parts throughout the reading was the part he talks about luminance in reference to animals that glow. Not only how do they glow, but do they really glow throughout the day and we just can't tell because it's light out, or do they stop glowing throughout the day and only glow at night. Depending upon the surrounding background and it's value of "darkness", you can see the animal glowing easier. Do they have a weaker glow during the day and use less energy, or do they use the same amount all the time?

3/2/11

For some reason I can't stop thinking of the idea of what God looks like from last class period. Most people envision God human like and St. Augustine contrasts this with a description of God as an entity, which seems to make so much more sense. I think people associate God as human like to seem closer to God, as though it is possible to be like him. Also, I believe this association is made because of the idea of Jesus being the son of God, therefore we think of God as a being rather than an entity. Since I am always in this world of sight and visioning at art school, I think envisioning things without ever know what they will actually looks like is extremely interesting. Imagination is so very important.

On Vision, It's Confusing

I...don't really know what I just read. I read over a few passages a few times, but still, I couldn't really make sense of what I was reading. I managed to jot down a few key points, but for the most part I felt as if I was reading the same passage over and over again. I found myself reading the same word almost five times in one sentence. It got boring fast and I found myself more interested in the background noise going on than what I was reading.

needless to say I'm disappointed with the selection, but mostly myself as well for not having the attention span to truly understand what he was saying. Hopefully in class tonight, what I was reading will become clearer than it is now. Right now, I only have this vague idea of light and its relation to color.

One thing in this writing jumped out at me more than anything else, and that was when the argument against astrology was made. He says that if it is said that the planets control the actions of man, then it takes the blame for the sinners. And so it does; if you can't help what you do, then why try? However, I find it funny that he can present this idea against astrology, and yet fail to see the argument it presents against religion. It is something I have thought of before; the idea of fate, and destiny, that 'God has a plan', has often irked me. It takes the meaning away from our choices, it's an excuse to avoid change. It is also a way to find comfort from grief, saying that 'god has his reasons'. Though I understand the need to find comfort in even such an illogical fantasy, it does not excuse it. I have heard people say to me, 'no, we control our fate, not god, it's our choices that lead us to fulfill his plan, and our destiny'. Sorry folks, that's called free will, and is, in fact, the opposite of fate, so thanks for making my own argument.
As for events in my life that have led me to my beliefs, I have to say, that if there is a god pulling the strings of the earths fate, he's a sadistic bastard.

Learning from life

Tonight's posting suggestion: St. Augustine was greatly troubled by the death of his friend, which made him reconsider how he thought about life. Have you had an experience that caused you to change how you think about the world and/or your place in it? What was the experience, and how did it change how you think?

St. Augustine's Confessions

The part that interested me the most is the seventeenth entry that concentrates on the relativity of parts to their whole. Richard Mattsson for the past four (close to five) weeks has been my figure drawing teacher and I second his declaration that the class in fact seems more like a situational drawing class because the model only constitutes for a part of the whole of our drawings. Giving to much precedence to the figure alone, Mattsson warned us, would inevitably result in an incomplete documentation of what we have directly observed. The environment around the figure is just as important as the figure itself because the environment supports the mass of the figure and grounds it in space. Thus these parts I am depicting ought to be developed simultaneously so as to do justice to the whole of the drawing and retain a sence of unitfy and uniformity. The addition of information that has no overall effect on the whole drawing should be disregarded as superfluous and something like a smoke screen for greater problems negelected in the drawing. The mojority of the rest of the time St. Augustine just sounded like he was groveling pitifully. A little melodramatic for my taste.

St. Augustine, Confessions

Hmm, well let's see. I quite enjoyed this reading. As I was reading I had a few questions, like one for example is, well he was talking about God, and in the beginning he talked about liking astrology, but still preaching about God. Isn't astrology against the Christian faith, or maybe not against, but frowned upon. Because I know, that for me growing up as a christian I wasn't allowed to believe in magic, or astrology. But anyways, enough about that. It seems that he was attached to many personal relationships, one having a huge impact on him. I really liked what he had to say about friendship. And I also liked the few paragraphs where he had to mourn the death of his friend. What I got from this is, that beauty is having many good relationships, or having a good relationship with a certain someone, or someone who you greatly trust. I'm not really sure, but I'm guessing we'll discuss this in class. I really liked when he said "What a great difference there is between the restraint of the marriage bond contracted with a view to having children and the compact of a lustful love, where children are born against the parents' will, although once they are born they compel our love." Not that I can relate to this, but I'm sure this is true. And well besides that, I think that's all I understood. Maybe I didn't understand that much, but even if I didn't understand the reading, I still found it sort of entertaining.

Augustine

This was a little hard for me to read, but for the most part I think I understood it. I don't really have any strong thoughts or opinions on it at the moment, but I am interested to see what will be said about it in class.

Marcus Aurelius

Sorry if this post seems a little late, sometimes when I try to make a post it doesn't work, so I have to come back when I get chance to write it again.

I loved everything Marcus Aurelius had to say. His method of handling life reminds me of when Plato spoke about art and the irrational emotions it inspires people to have. To me it seems as though Marcus Aurelius tries his hardest to subdue his emotions, irrational or not, and replaces them with cool logic and reasoning. As we all know this is extremely difficult and I can see where writing these meditations would be extremely useful for him. I wonder if emotions can be completely ignored. I aways hear people saying not to bottle up your emotions. When practicing the habits of Marcus Aurelius, am I just bottling them up, or keeping them in check? I feel more capable of doing great things when I'm in his mindset; almost unstoppable. But then morning I wake up in a lazy mood. You know those days when all you want to do is sit around with some friends an watch movies. Then I think of his mediation (64) that laziness and sleepiness are just pain in disguise, that you just need to remind yourself that "I'm giving in to pain". At that moment I just don't care. Yeah so what? I deserve a break. Next time I feel this way I will make a conscious effort to push through those unproductive feelings, not to give in to Freud's Id ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego) I shared this reading with a few friends and they loved it as well. He truly is an inspirational man.

I really enjoyed the beginning of Chapter 4 where Augustine talks about his friend, the end was less interesting to me. I thought he showed a great understanding of love, friendship and grief in his writings. I especially enjoyed this part:

"...to discourse and jest with him; to indulge in courteous exchanges; to read pleasant books together; to trifle together; to be earnest together; to differ at times without ill-humor, as a man might do with himself, and even through these infrequent dissensions to find zest in our more frequent agreements; sometimes teaching, sometimes being taught; longing for someone absent with impatience and welcoming the homecomer with joy. These and similar tokens of friendship, which spring spontaneously from the hearts of those who love and are loved in return -- in countenance, tongue, eyes, and a thousand ingratiating gestures -- were all so much fuel to melt our souls together, and out of the many made us one. "

I didn't necessarily agree with him about how to solve the problem of death and grief (God, etc) but it is something that everyone has to find a way to reconcile within themselves at some point. I was a bit suprised when he stated how pouring his time into other friends who were living wasn't a "fix" (because they just die too). I was taken aback I guess because that's what I realised I do, and I think most people do it too (find a way to distract themselves through friends, work, etc when they're grieving). But I think I distract myself with the "living friends" for a different reason: Because I find that being there for other people genuinely makes me feel happy and, when you're not focusing on yourself, things go into perspective and everything gets easier.

Surprisingly Interesting

Let me first say this about the Augustine reading: I was dreading it. My roommate had read him last semester and made him seem highly dull and boring. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed this work as well. There were lengthy moments, but over all, I felt content and inspired reading through Book Four.

I think the part I truly enjoyed was the few paragraphs he spent mourning the loss of his friend. I really thought it was interesting to hear this reflection, that he should've believed and went to God with his problems, but he talks about his flesh as acting on its own. I enjoy this view of the body and soul acting different from each other, how the soul knows one thing and wants to react in the correct way, but the body wants something completely different. And in this Augustine knew that he shouldn't be completely attached to his friend, but he still is. He even knows he should go somewhere to seek help, but his body wants to mourn and be bitter.

I just...really enjoyed this reading overall and was pleasantly surprised by how delightful it was.

Unexpected

As the majority of the class did, I too greatly enjoyed reading the Marcus Aurelius Meditations, despite the stoicism. I knew they were applicable to the everyday life, but I never thought they would impact me as much as they have. I mean, after all, my first impression of them were well thought out fortune cookies.
As I go through out my day, I find myself saying, "now meditation (insert number here) clearly states there is a better way of handling this situation." Or even better, "Marcus Aurelius would be so proud of you right now."
This is what philosophy should be. Something that impacts my everyday life, instead of just something difficult to read that takes a group to interpret. I find myself more level headed and accepting since the last class. I find myself being in places because I want to be, and not just because I'm told to.
It's refreshing after being told what to do up until moving here last August.

Meditations not void of Joy

In class it was suggested that the meditations were void of joy. I think that they may not have a ton of room for elation however I do feel that different people feel joy in different ways. I think there is something joyful about being able to get along with your friends, enemies and your self. I find there to be a lot of joy in peace.

For a Deeper Explanation of my Interpretation of #12

Straight, not straightened.

Discovery, not invention.

Richard Rorty's collection of essays, "Philosophy and Social Hope", discusses the difference between the school of "Discovery" and the school of "Invention".

Here a Wikipedia link to the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_Social_Hope

I'm almost positive you could find the book in our school library if you're interested and I'm in the process of downloading a PDF version of the book so I'll be back here with an excerpt directly from the essay...

Proto-philosophy of life exercise

For today's blogging suggestion, try writing three "meditations" (exhortations/memoranda) in the same style as Marcus Aurelius -- one sentence or multiple paragraphs. Think about the things in your life you have trouble dealing with, and write reminders to yourself of ways you can deal with them better. Keep in mind Marcus' disciplines of perception, action, and will. I'm excited to learn from your words of wisdom!

Meditations

I, like many others before me, would say this was one of my favorite readings. For the most part, I understood what he was saying. In a way I guess, it was easy to relate situations or ideas to the points he was talking about. I've got more than one favorite though, I like 7, 10, 15, 22 and 73.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Not only did I not have trouble reading this. But I loved every single aphorism. It's certainly one of my favorite readings assigned to us so far. I understood it clearly, it wasn't hard to read at all, and I had fun reading it. I mostly found myself taking these aphorisms and applying them to me. And realizing how true they are. Most of them anyway. And how I never realized this. My favorite one was number 73. You've given aid and they've received it, and yet like an idiot, you keep holding out for more: to be credited with a good deed, to be repaid in kind, why?
As soon as I read that, I was like whoa. It hit me so fast, I tend to do this. And I found myself thinking Why? Trying to answer it in my head. And I still can't think of why. There were others that also caught my attention. And I wrote some of them down. It was fun reading each one.

2/16/11

Marcus Aurelius's, Meditations is by far my favorite piece of philosophy I've read so far. Each aphorism is sweet simple to the point and easy to understand. It was nice to space this reading out over the past couple of days and read a little bit each time when I would get frustrated with my studio project. Each aphorism felt like a little piece of wisdom to me that I could focus on. It's almost like a self-help book to make yourself a better person. I really enjoyed aphorism number four, "Focus on what is said when you speak and on what results from each action. Know what the one aims at, and what the other means." Language is so meaningful and powerful. Communication is so important in this world and words can be misconstrued from one person to the next, especially through technology. Many issues can be avoided between people if they speak clearly.

To Choose What is Gleaned

“To harvest life like standing stalks of grain//Grown and cut down in turn.”

The key part of this aphorism comes at the end; “In turn.” Nothing is born overnight; it must be cultivated and watered, until it is ripe for the picking. But there is more that can be gleaned from such a harvest than just the good stalk: when Marcus Aurelius speaks of life, he means life and all that it entails, which is not always something favorable. As in any garden or plot where things grow, it is inescapable that there will be the unwanted: weeds. And although literal weeds are accepted negatively, when speaking in terms of “weeds” in our lives, they can be rather good. The weeds will grow no matter who we are or what our circumstances are, that’s part of the nature of being human. But part of the beauty of humanness is learning to see the weeds and then laboring to remove them. A well tended field may, initially, be just as overrun with pests and weeds as an ill-tended one. However, if the gardener sees that his field is in decay, and so chooses to go out every day to remove the weeds as they come in, he is a good gardener. But if he sees the weeds and thinks, “What’s the use? If I remove these today, there will only be more tomorrow” then he has just forfeited his own life. Soon the weeds will overrun his crop, and he will in the end have nothing to harvest except the weeds and rotten crop. Although it may be futile to completely remove every bad thing from yourself forever, and so achieve perfection, which we cannot, I think it speaks beautifully to another nature of humanity, one that seeks to constantly better itself regardless of our chronic humanity. It was for this reason that I chose this aphorism, because I believe it vocalizes what our own “harvests” can be like, growing and harvesting things in turn, gleaning both the good and the bad, and then taking the seeds of the good to sow the fields anew.

Rhetoric and Poetics in Some of My Art

    
               After doing the exercise in class the other day my attention was drawn to the fact that Aristotle's ideas of Rhetoric and Poetics are used as almost a standard in todays narratives and advertisements. I started to look at many example and was able to apply Aristotle's concepts to most things that I came in contact with. I looked at a piece of my own art/advertisement and was able to see many of the aspects. So first I use ethos, at first glance you are able to see that I am indeed on the poster with my Pakistani/Indian boyfriend. I  Have a reputation around the school as being passionate  in what I do. My boyfriend has a limited reputation because he does not go to school at KCAI but when you look at his picture along with mine you would hope he and I together would be able to create the food of his people in some capacity. I utilize pathos when I use the first and largest sentence on the poster to question the audience about weather or not they are ready to facilitate social justice. In my mind when asked a question like that thoughts and feeling get conjured up about all the helpless feeling you get sitting in some KCAI classes hearing about issues you cannot change. Or images come to mind about all of the social injustices in the world. I use logos by pairing that idea with the idea that you will also receive FREE INDIAN FOOD, One logically can't turn down free indian food if what the alternative is the cafeteria or buying the food yourself!!! 
       I feel a little uncreative by not coming up with any new tactics for advertisement after all these years that society has used it, But these tactics do seem to work because of our familiarity with them to some degree. In contrast with the last statement it makes me feel happy that human psychology has not changed a lot sense Aristotle, if these uses of Rhetoric and Poetics still work today.