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.

Liberation!

Whooo.... Finished my philosophic paper, after some fine tuning! Thanks so much class for all of the work! I hope all of you found what you were looking for in the class and much more! Awesome year!

Oh No! Look what I found!

This is the Chart for the Theory Of Everything! Which explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. And No String theory has not been Accepted into this yet but look Gravity has! Oh! What! Discovery!! AH!! Thanks to everyone who questioned my paper, Your really fueling my paper with ammunition!!

Theory of Everything

Gravitation

Electronuclear force(GUT)

Strong interaction SU(3)

Electroweak interaction SU(2) x U(1)

Weak interaction SU(2)

Electromagnetism U(1)

Electricity

Magnetism

Quick Post!

Hey I been hearing a lot of discussion about Issac's paper even out side of class! EXCELLENT! Obviously hes topic choice and approach is causing a lot of attention! I agree with Isssac, I feel that using the Experience of God is a valid way of proving his existence! And that everyone experiences God they just are unaware of them. Some people do not want to believe they are experiencing God so they don't have to deal with it! I have a Quote Issac might want to use:

The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.
David Hume

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,

Well that was a Ride!

Ok so tonight was helpful, I feel like after tonight I need find a way to narrow my topic even further. I really liked how Sarah narrowed hers down to just sight rather than the senses.

My topic was quite disputable and I really enjoyed the conflict. I still stand by my philosophy even though I have a few kinks to work out! Oh and on the topic of Gravity, Even though one might feel gravity is not a fully proven science, we KNOW that something is holding us to the ground even if its name is not "Gravity"! Thanks!

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.

Hmm Confident?

So last night was...short? It was very off putting that some people missed there presentations, never the less the presentation that did happen were good. I am pretty confident in my presentation but I'm a little worried about my paper! Ahhh! My roommate said that instead of quoting the philosophers I used to basically acknowledge that I read them and have taken there ideas in account and then I can Agree or disagree with them. This makes me feel a little better, I guess I'm just used to an academic paper that writing totally opinionated is a bit new to me, especially with a topic that deals with everyone in the world!!

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.

Oh no! I Forgot!

Miranda's Presentation related a lot to me as a person, which was cool!

Diana did a shit ton of research and it showed, I was a bit confused about all the poets, But I would think poets as Philosophers if Artist are Geniuses! Ha

And Natalie's was sweet simple and well organized!

Nice JOb Ladies! Whooo All the Single Ladies! haha!

Paper Jitters!

So, After tonight I went back and read our requirements of our papers! I felt I needed to after julie's presentation which was a bit confrontational to say the least! Honestly, I enjoyed it! It was a bit confusing but the fact that she stayed composed when the class went ape shit was Impressive. A good sense of Grace under Pressure is needed for Philosophy! Thumbs Up Julie!

I am having trouble finding the resources to back up my paper, What philosopher and book do you recommend for the foundation of Math and Science, I know Descartes but reading meditations again is overwhelming! Ha HELP!

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'.

That's the way I like it Uh hu uh!

So I actually enjoyed reading Schopenhauer!

It kind of justified me not want to reading in High School! If there were actually good books I would read them but reading for the sake of reading is non sense! I found it quite comical how he would start a point and them justify it with another point and then contradict himself! I feel like if I read more of his books I would talk like him making me the best debater in the world, ya know because if you are reading you just following in the writers footsteps but not really seeing what they saw!

Shcopenhauer

What i got from this writing that if we read too often, we only focus on what the author thinks and basically let them think for us. We don't learn any important literary skills by reading, except when we read great literature, because it lets us see how to use literary skills effectively, but we have to already possess these skills in order to apply them. Most authors are only writing books to make money, and most readers only read because its entertaining, or so we can have something to talk about with our friends. since we only have limited time on earth to read we should only read good literature, because reading "bad books" is a waste of our time, and will rot our minds. While I agree that we should think to ourselves I don't think that if we read we forget how to think. In my opinion, reading steers our minds in new directions that might not have occured to us without reading, and gives us new ways to think as we apply the books to our lives, and if read intelligently, a reader can still choose to agree or disagree with a book, which allows thought. I think there is a difference between good and bad books, but throughout history the line between them is often unclear. Often things regarded as vulgar by their contemoraries went on to become some of the most highly regarded works of art in history. Schopenhauer also seems to focus immensely on the works of former masters, and is in my opinion too critical of contemporaries, because it is hard to know what works of art and literature will later be recognized as great for reasons that the audience in the past couldn't yet see or understand. this opinion of literature seems to me slightly contradictory, because if artists and writers only look to the past, then they are still not thinking for themselves, and there is limited room for innovation.

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.

Stuff on My mind

Ok, so I was talking to a friend who just moved back to Kansas City. They lived here for about 7 years and they have a pretty good grip on the people of Kansas City. In particular the Plaza/West port area people! We descused how Kansas City has some people whom feel that they are "Elite" or are apart of some sort of "High Society". He also felt as though those people look down on ethnic people, and he would rather be seen as a "Fag" than a "Dirty Bum" ( his words). This kind of reminded me of the Cave of Allegory, I can only hope that people in general, step out the cave and get an epiphany and stop being jerks!

Most of us are foreign to Kansas City, If you Have left our Sheltered Art Nest and viewed the real Kansas City I would like your Feed Back

P.S I'm not going to lie, I didn't come to class because I need a mental health night :)

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.

Hume

I agreed with some things that Hume said. Basically what I got out of it was that all people have differences in taste that affect how we judge art. These differences are cause by differences in culture, brain chemistry, and experience, but there is still auniversal standard of morality shich we must remain faithful to. the best art is art that has been admired through out all times and cultures regardless of taste. Only some people are fit to judge what makes art good or bad, and they have the trait of delicacy, meaning that they can judge what ingredients that artist added to the work, no matter how subtle and see how those ingredients relate to one another and know what ingredients make a work good or bad. These ingredients are accepted principles of art, and if a viewer doesn't agree with these principles it is because he lacks delicacy. Someone with delicacy is able to judge how all the elements in a work of art are interrealted and how well the work fulfills its indended purpose. They can also acknowlege that a work may have come from a different culture so he must consider this differnce when viewing the work, and let go of all their prejudiced instilled in them by their culture and brain structure, and be as unbiased as possible when judging a work. in order to be qualified to judge what makes a work good a viewer must have experience in art; they must be practiced in the feild in order to know what goes into creating good art. while I agree with alot that Hume says, alot of it seems to be untrue of contemporary art. I agree that we are all different because our brain structure, culture and experiences affect how we see art, and we shoud judge art without prejudice, acknowleging other cultures, and be as unbiased as possible, I don't agree that only some people are fit to judge art. firstly, while alot of the works I acknowleg to be great are also considered great by my culture, I still think we should think for ourselves. When looking at art nothing is more important than our own emotional reactions to the work, and no emotional reaction can be considered more valid than another. We shouldn't let out own reactions to a work be tainted by the views of those who proclaim themselves to be experts in art. Secondly it would be very difficult for any practicing artist to become an expert in art to a level that they know what makes a work good or not. One person can't be an expert in all of art, because art is a very diverse feild. If one artist does reach an expert level, they only have limited time to perfect their technical skills so they are likely only an expert in one particular discipline, and that is never enough to know about all kinds of art. An artist can become as good as humanly possible in the art of drawing realistic charcoal still lives, and this experience can give them some idea what whether or not another artists charcoal still life drawing is good or not, he can never be sure that he is right and the other artist is wrong. contemprary art emphasizes the abstract concept of beauty, and every person has a different idea of beauty, so there is no way of telling for certian which work is better. The charcoal artist still has no absolute idea what makes work good in other disciplines, and even in charcoal drawing, he and another artist could both be right, because they may be using the same medium to express different ideas and emotions, so no two "experts" will ever have the exact same idea of a good work of art. This essay is true in many ways, but alot of it doesn't, in my opinion, apply to the modern world, because there are less rules in the feild of art today than when this was written.

I can taste Beauty?

Alhello?!

After reading the assignment I really enjoyed it! It related a lot to the museum Lab we did over the weekend! If you missed it to bad it was a spectacle! I thought the reading was kinda a manual on viewing art, which I found really cool seeing how lots of people dont know muesum edicate. Example: The Lady taking a FLASH Picture of Rembrandt Portrait of a young man! Hey Lady!! I cant have you ruining that painting, I'm writing about it next week! Haha See yall in class!

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

Descartes

I really enjoyed this writing and it made alot of sense to me. I enjoyed his unusual approach to philosophy; At first he tried to become as learned as possible. He studied poetry, history, and enjoyed mathematics, but realized that these endeavors were prone to being distorted, and it was difficult to arrive at the truth through them. History books are written by humans often to show the greatness of mans accomplishments, often leaving out information that would undermine these feats. mathematics, while very logical, it uses mainly symbols, and has very little application to real life, because math is almost entirely theoretical. while, through math you can prove that a triangle has three strait sides, there is nothing in mathematics that allows you to prove that such a shape really exists in the world, and to find out we have to rely on our senses, which are prone to error. Therefore, Descartes decided that the best approach to philosophy was not to become learned through an education in the traditional sense, but actually to clear his mind of all that society has taught him without being questioned, and elimate any bit of knowlege that he cant prove to be true, or plausible. He didn't focus on learning what other people had written, but simply traveled around observing the present world in front of him, and learning by questioning and studying it objectively. When observing the world in this way you can find certian basic ideas that are true, such as I Think therefore I exist, and following this logic you can discover truth. He thought that the best way to arrive at truth was to focus on a specific but simple idea or guideline that the logical mind cannot possibly prove not to be true, and if you build on this idea and follow the guidelines exactly you will arrive at the truth. Such as when a child learns the rules of the idea of addition if they continue to learn and build upon that idea they can arrive at the undeniable truth that 2+2=4 by following the theoretical rules of mathematics. This concept can be applied to any endeavor, and if you build upon your origional idea only adding things that you cant deny are true that apply to your concept you will arrive at the truth.

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.

Yes, Can I have and Extra serving of Logos please!

Hi All!
Hope your having a Fantastical day thus far!
I deiced to do a written blog solo, because Jordan is not around :(. I had this bottled up and needed to release!

Any who, So today I was in another classes studio, and they were having a convo on whether it was right to "pull the plug" on vegetated people. It was an honest and totally sincerer! One person tried to relate killing people just as bad as killing animals, the opposing replied with animals don't have souls ( so said the Christan belief). Before the discussion could reach its full intellectual climax, an out side individual started yelling and ended the conversation. He felt it was better to leave Philosophy only for Tuesday and Thursdays! Why limit yourself??!! If it exist or appears exist we must speak on it!

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.

a midsummer nights dream

I'm really enjoying this play, and its ironic portrayal of love. I especially enjoyed his portrayal of the actors. especially considering shakespeare was a playwrite, its surprising, he appears so critical of them. They are all shown as narcissistic, eager to show off, self centered and clueless. They all seem to be so absorbed in the play that they're almost out of touch with realilty and they all think that all the people around them enjoy their acting as much as they do when they might be indifferent. (especially bottom) I think that this might tie in with his beleif that we are all actors, and that our personalities greatly depend on the people we are around and the roles we are put into. And just like the actors we are unaware of this, and as we get more absorbed in our roles the less we are able to see of reality.

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.