mediaeval philosaphy

Yesterday, we briefly discussed what mediaeval philosophy is about. It is about "the adoption of Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire in around 312 c.e., came to be characterized by discussion of metaphysics and more specificically theology, the study of the nature of God. Perhaps the single most important problem of time period (until around 1450) was the existence of God. After all God was supposed to be the basis of human society, and indeed of the entire universe, to demonstrate the existence of God was (pardon the pun) crucial." ( I hope I am getting this right because some of your writing was unclear for me to read.) This lead to another discussion of comological view. Comos is the Greek word for "world" or "order". It is based on causality. "There must be a self-sufficient primary cause from which the world of phenomena comes. A classmate said something about the big bang is the primary cause. The big bang theory is a theory of cosmology holding that the expanision of the universe with a gigantic explosion (big bang) between 12 and 20 billion years ago. A little later, another classmate said something about God always existed since the beginning. She was brought up this way ever since she was a child. (This is what I heard.) Ever since I could remember, I always thought God created the universe, since it said in the bible. But now I am not sure. Did the big bang came first or did God came first? Did the big bang and God came first together? Is there answers to the questions I asked? If so, tell me; if not, then it remains a question. I also heard something about God is the beginning, not the end. (This is what I heard) In church, I learned that God is the beginning and the end;so that day on, I always thought that God is the beginning and the end. We also discussed apostpriori and apriori, which is from latter (apostpriori) and from first principles (apriori). (I have trouble spelling out the words because there is a glare on board near the window.) You did a diagram on the board, saying that God is first, then the world, then brahman and atman, which is universal self (brahman) and indivivdual self ( atom).

what is beauty?

First of all, I want to say I am sorry that I haven't wrote my blog entries for the last couple of weeks. I have been busy with schoolwork, since it is close to the semester,but I managed to get my work done in time. That is a good thing. On the 13th of November, you gave us an assignment to work in class. It was something about the goal of life and we had to make a thesis about aesthetics, ethics, and metaphysics. My thesis for each one is not very good and you said it is a working thesis. I was wondering if you had a chance to check them yet, so you can help me to improve my thesises. There is a question on ethics that I do not understand. How does the goal of life relate to morally upright behavior, or morally upright behavior to the goal of life? What do you mean by morally upright behavior. I do not understand what it means. Can you explain what it means, so I can have a better understanding of it. I apperiticate that.
Last week's class, we sort of talked about beauty. We brainstorm some ideas about what is beauty. We said it was the shape, care and effort that is linked to will, nature, appealing apperances, assocation that is linked to bond, and emotions. After we brainstormed these ideas, we has a conclusion about what is beauty. Subjectively, it means "in the eye of the beholder". Beauty to me is something that has an attractive feature. It could be people, plants, the colors of a painting, and so on. What does "beauty" mean? That I do not know because I have no answer to that question, but I will learn more about what it means in class. (I hope.)

dialectic between euthyphro and socrates

In class yesterday, you and Robert read out loud to the class about the dialectic between Euthyphro and Socrates. The discussion was piety against Euthyphro's father who murdered someone. ( I think that is right, I am not sure. Can you clarify that part to me?) Piety means obedience to and honor of someone or something, especially ones' parents and (other?) divine beings. In the beginning of the discussion, Euthyphro states that his definition of piety is to proecute the wrong. In this case it is his father. This is the thesis. Then Socrates said there are many pious actions, which is the antithesis. He is looking for one form of piety. Later in the discussion, they both discussed about the gods. ( I think.) This led to the synthesis: what is dear to the gods is pious, and what is not is impious. What does this means? I am confused. They went on the discussion of the gods. This is where the part I got confused about. What is dear...not is impious. That is the synthesis. Then it went to the antithesis: the gods argued with each other about ideas; like piety. Then it went to the antithesis again. What is hated is also love? (Antithesis)Then it went back to synthesis. What is love by all of the gods is pious? Do you mean that after the thesis, there is antithesis and synthesis going back and forth in the dialectic. That is what I am getting at. Can you clarify this part for me?
Later in the discussion, Socrates said Is what is pious? Pious because the gods love it or do the gods love the pious because is pious. I am so confused of what is he saying. He is saying the sentences as if it was reversed or word-playing the words. I am lost to what he said. Can you explain to me in simplier terms, so that I can understand it better. Both Euthyphro and Socrates continued with this discussion. There was no conclusion to the discussion. There is a new dialectic: is piety part of justice? This is a definition of genus and species or genus and difference. The thesis here is of what part of justice is piety. Antithesis: Piety is the care of the gods. Piety can't make gods better. Lastly the synthesis, is the service of the gods. Pious actions are those pleasing to the gods. This is a circu lar definition, which means it is a bad definition that is reversed. For example, what is red? Red is the color of vermillion. What is vermillion? It is the color of red.

philosophical figures

In class, we talked some of the philosophical figures. Leucippus and Democritus are atomists. An atomist is someone who study atoms. (I think.) A-tomos is something that can be cut or sprout. You said that everything in the world is man-made and composed of infinitelessly small parts called "atoms". Everything in the world has atoms that make up the way who we are. This includes animals, people, plants, and so on. The atoms are like our DNA; it is a struture of who we are. ( Our means the animals, people, plants, and so on, in case you are wondering.) You said in class that the atoms are constantly falling. What do you mean by that? I do not understand, can you explain more about this. We also talked about Epicurus. He is a Hedonist, which is a person who pursues pleasure as the highest goal in life. At the beginning, we briefly talked about the goal of life. You did not meant the objective goals in life. For example, being a successful artist. What you meant to say is what is life about? and what is life? I am getting the right idea about this. I need your feedback.
In my last blog entry, I wrote down that Anaxagoras said "Everything is mixed." It is mind acts upon water, earth, fire, and air. For our homework assignment, it was "What kind of mind Anaxagoras is talking about?" I thought that nature has a mind of its own. Nature can control the weather and disasters. (You can read more in my last entry.) In class, you explain the mind is the unmoved, enternal force which organized being. Mind is a pure capasity of organizing, catorizing , and groupings. For example, desks has a flat surface and four legs. Sophists means a wise person in Greek. Sophists are those who are percieved as being or claiming to be wise. Sophists is about editcate and speech-making. They taught rhetoric (the art of pubic speaking and in some cases, at any rate, claimed to teach arete or virtue. Examples of these people are: Protagoras and Gorgias. This leads to two main concerns: 1. how does language work? and how is language related to knowledge? (Logic and epistemolgy) 2. what is right (to do)? and what is goodness? (Ethics) Are we going over this in class, since we talked about it briefly. I would like to know, it is an interesting topic to discuss.

what kind of mind?

In class, we talked about different "physicists" that dealt with the nature of physical reality. At first glance of that, I was confused. Then I understood it when you told us the explaination. These "physicists" use nature as an element in the physical reality. These four elements of nature are: water, earth, fire, and air. They use these elements as a boundless substance. (I hope I understood this clearly. Can you explain more of this in class or write a comment in my blog.) Thales used water as stages of changes. As you know, water can changed into solid, liquid, or gas depends on what temperature it is on. The stages of changes of water has motion. For example, it has a flowing sentation when it is a liquid and has an orangic shape to it. Heraclitus used fire as stages of changes. Fire can changed into smoke and then ash. This process called catalysation, which is a change through heat. Just like water, fire has motion. Fire has an orangic shape that spreads out everywhere. (I think I got the basics of this, but just in case, can you give me a brief explaination. I appericate it.)
Also, we talked about Empedocles, where he dealt with all of the four elements. Earth is a solid substance, water is a liquid substance, air is gas, but also as permance eternality "spirit", and fire is heat and a source of change (catalysis). Primary, theres four is made up of change of change. Earth changed into fire, fire changed into air, and so on. These elements are linked together that plays a role of nature. ( Can you give a brief explaination of this, I am not sure if this is right. Anaxagoras said that "Everything is mixed." It is mind acts upon earth, water, fire, and air. This leads to our homework assignment. What kind of mind Anaxagoras is talking about? I have no idea. I am clueless. I think I have a guess. I think the four elements has a mind of its own. In the past, we had weather disasters that dealt with nature elements. For example, we had hurrcaines, tsumanis, mudslides, and so on. These disasters sometimes come out of nowhere and destroy everything in its path. It is out of control and spreads out everywhere. It seems to me, they do have a mind of their own. I think this is nature's doing, to have chaos, but at the end, everything is restored and in order once again. I do not know if my guess is right or not, but I hope to learn more about this with my fellow classmates as well as you, Mr. Achtermann.

questions about one or many worlds

Yesterday in class, we talked about is "the world" one or many ? You told us to write a response to that question. I wrote down that I think the world is made up of many worlds because in society today people live in different ways of living as well as having different cultures. Each country has their own world to live in and it is different from the rest of the countries. But again, I think the world is one as a nation because the countries help and support each other in a time of need as well as getting along with others and understanding each other in difficult situations. For example, the Americans helped the South Koreans to fight off the North Koreans in the Korean War. The Americans and the South Koreans do not want their country to be communist. ( At least that is what I heard and read.) So is "the world" one or many? In my opinion, I believe that the world is both. Just like I said before people have their own ways of living and countries help and support one another. I was wondering what kind of world that I wrote down. Is it world of people today or is it social world. I need your response to this.
Also in class, we talked about first, second, and third world countries. I never knew there was first and second countries before. I only heard third world countries before. Third world countries is the poor and economically underdeveloped countries of the world. First world countries is the high economic countries of the world. I have a question, what is a second world country. I have no idea about that. Can you explain that to me. I would appericate it. Thanks.

western philosphy

I am sorry that I did not write in my blog for the past couple of weeks, I have been busy with work and schoolwork. I have a lot to do in little time, but I managed to finished all of my work. On the 11th, after finishing the quiz, we sort of went over the western philosophy. I did not get all of the notes on the board and I was hoping if you can go over this again, sometime soon. I am interested what is western philosophy is about. I want to know what is the difference between western and eastern philosophy. Are they the same, if so how? Is western philosophy the same as philosophy? I hope I can learn more about this in class, sometime soon.

help on essay paper

In my last blog entry, I said that I want to write about what is love?, what is friendship?, and what is family? I feel those are connected to each other. I was thinking that I can do a combination of the three, writting a little bit of it. Maybe a couple paragraphs of each to get my five pages. I need your feedback on that, so I can get some idea of it. This is my basic outline for the paper, for my thesis, write about what is love, friendship, and family in my own definition. ( my own interpretation.) For my antithesis, write about someone elses' definition of love, friendship, and family. I will get sources from the internet, books, magazines, and so on. For my synthesis, I will probually combined the anithesis and sythesis to create something new or I can summerized my paper and give a conclusion. Once again, I need your feedback on my paper. I appericate it. Thanks. I am grateful that you went over the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis because before I was confused what the terms means. Now I know what the terms means, I can get a sense of what the paper should be about.

essay paper

Hello, Mr. Achtermann. In class on last Thrusday, you gave us an example of what the essay should be about. I understand the first part of how we need to make a thesis. (A initial prosposal.) I need to propose my own interpretation to the problem. I was thinking of what is love, friendship, and family as well as what is the relationship and difference between them. Can I do that in my paper? I need your feedback on that. If not, I can do something else. The second part of the essay is the antithesis (an atlernate view). In class, you explained that it is examine other's (common) definition. Something that actually happen(ed). I am still confused about this. The last part of the essay is synthesis. It is the thesis and antithesis that are weighed againist another (which one is more sound.) Once again, I am still confused about this. Can you explain to me more about these two, so I can have a better understanding of the two. I appericate it. Thanks.

where are facts?

The question is where are facts. I think facts is all around us, whether it is in the books, news, internet, and so on. There are so many facts in these areas that it is written or recorded. I think people made up the facts in their observation. They see what they see as well as what they hear. This allows the people to record the facts and present it to the world. The facts are true since they have seen and heard the facts. Also sometimes, the facts are not true, it could be false. Someone may think a certain fact is false because someone presented it wrong. In my opinion, there could be a true fact or a false fact, depends on how it is presented. Sometimes facts are given right to us. For example, the computer is a mac. The computer is right in front of me and I could see that it is a mac. It had the apple logo that makes it different from the rest of the computers.
Another question is what is the relationship of perception to facts. That is a hard question to answer to me because I do not know what is perception and its meaning. I think perception means an insight or intuition. (At least that is what it said in the dictionary.) The relationship between perception and facts is perception is an instint in our mind that tells us what is the right thing to do. Our instints can be right depends on the situation. For example, there is a fork in the road and do not know where to turn. Your instints tells you to go left and you did go left. It leads you to where you want to be. Sometimes your instints could be wrong (once again it depends on the situation) Your instints tells you to go right, but it is the wrong way and you are lost once more. Facts are straight forward answer that is true. You think the facts are true because it is set in stone. For example, there is milk in the refrigator that is good to drink. You can see it that is true. Sometimes the facts are wrong. When you look at the milk in the refrigator, the exprieration date has expriered. These two has same qualities because they both have a true or false answer.
The last question is what is the relationship of memory to facts. I think memory is something that you can remember what it is. For example, I remember what I ate yesterday and I had a chicken sandwich with potato chips and juice. The facts here is symbols: the chicken sandwich, potato chips, and juice. That is a fact because I know I had those things. Sometimes memory can decieve us. For example, I thought I put my folder away in my bag, then when I open the bag, it was not there. I looked everywhere for it. Then I saw my folder on my desk.The similairities of memory and fact is both of them has a straight answer to we know. Both of them can decieve us if we don't remember them carefully.

facts

I talked briefly about what makes a fact a fact, in my blog entry the other day. (9/27/07) I said a fact is a straight forward answer. I also gave an example to this. I put down I am small for my height. I know that is a fact because it is true, I am small for my height. Now what makes a fact a fact? In my blog entry the other day, I wrote down it is something that is true and stays a fact. In class you discussed that facts are not really existing things, but assigned symbols. At first I was confused, but then you explain what it means. You gave us the example of the chalkboard. The chalkboard has a blackboard, two trays that holds chalk and other things, wheels, and has a double-sided board that flips around. Yes, there is a blackboard, two trays. wheels, and double-sided board that flips around. Most importantly, those things are just symbols of facts. The things (chalkboard) are qualities of facts and that makes it a fact. Back to the question of what makes a fact a fact. I think what makes a fact a fact is something sets as a fact. It is something that is done and something that is true. For example the chalkboard that you gave us, the chalkboard is a board which you can write with a chalk. I think the statement is straight forward and true.
Mr. Achtermann, do you remember when you wrote down the dialectic on the board for the essay paper? I am sorry to bother you, can you make a handout for me. I forgot to bring my glasses to the class that day and could not see the board near the window. I appericate it. I am having trouble for the essay paper. I cannot think of anything for the philosophical problem. Can you give me a few examples that I might get an idea of it and make my own problem. Once again, I appericate it. Thank You.

arguments

After a few weeks of learning about philosophy, I am getting the basic idea of it. I am getting to know what the terms means and getting a better understanding of philosophy, especally the examples that you gave us. Those definitions and examples really helped me a lot. Before, I knew a tiny bit of philosophy and now I am learning a whole lot more. I did not know the actual meaning of philosophy as well as other philosophical terms. I think philosophy is a subject that helps us to understand why we asked so many questions and seek out the answers to. The questions has an explaination to what we are looking for. If there is no explaination, we can always find out the answers. (Eventually, of course.)
I also learned that philosophy and science is different from each other. Philosophy is the study of wisdom and knowledge and science is the fact of knowledge. (At least that is what I wrote down. I am not sure.) Can you give me a brief definition of the terms. Thank you. In addition, I learned that logic is the study of arguments. Logic has two parts: the premise or "reason" and conclusion. We talked about both sound ("good") argument and fallacious ("bad") argument. Thus, this led to our homework assignment. Our assignment was to find a newspaper article(s) that has a bad argument(s).
I found something in the newspaper that might be a bad argument. The newspaper article title is "Bush has own agenda on climate change". It talks about dozens of world leaders that are gathered for a meeting at United Nations, so they can talked about the issue of fighting global warming. I think the argument here is Bush is skipping all of the events, expect for dinner. Bush said "I want to focus this next week with my own gathering leaders, and discussed the same stated goal, the reduction in the emissions blamed for climate change, but in a fundamentally different idea of how to achieve it." The leaders are upset that Bush had his own agenda because they set up the meeting with him to talk about global warming. Why would Bush would do such a thing? The leaders did take their time to prepare this meeting and now the day got wasted. That is stupid. Bush should not have done that. I mean Bush should have gone to the meeting and discussed the issue. But no, instead he made his own plans. I do not know if this is a bad argument or not but I do know this makes an interesting argument.

continuing to learn more philosophy

So far, we had dealt with the terms of philosophy and made philosophical questions. These questions are in the catergory of human actions, dreams, existence, personal, life, and so on. (There are a lot of catergories, I only chose a few.) I catergorized the questions into groups that belongs together; one section is about life, the other is about people, another one is about God. Some of the sections that I wrote down has one or two questions. For example, what is conscious?; Is money the key of success?; What is happeness? and what makes people truely happy?
In class, you talked about the definitions of philosophy. I am so glad you did because I would not have understand what these terms means. Also, I am glad that you provided with few examples of the terms. The terms helped me a lot with the homework assignment that you gave us. Although, I had only a few questions in each catergory, I was able to make up questions that came to mind. I remember in class about my question: Is justice justified? I wrote that question in ethics because it came to my mind and I like the sound of the question. You asked me what justice is? I know what it means, since I have heard and seen it before. I didn't know how to explain it. Now you said justice means law. (At least that is what you said.) I can agree to that. Is justice justified? Yes, it is. Thank you for helping me with the question. I appricate it.

learning more about philosophy

I have to say that I am learning a little bit of what philosophy means now. In order to understand philosophy, we must ask ourselves what the word means. Philosophy is dealing with the term phila, which mean brotherhood; brotherly love; fellowship, and the term sophia means wisdom. Together, it means a love of fellowship with wisdom or fellowship with wisdom. (Something like that; that you discussed in class.) Philosophy also means "The investigation of ones' self and the world around one in persuit of wisdom." ("knowledge of how and when to act"), which you also discussed.
Many philosophers started out by making questions of philosophy. This allows us to make philosophical questions, which is part of our homework assignment. I started out with some simple ones like what is a person? and what is a friend?. Then I started with a little complex ones. For example, What is love? What is friendship? What is faimly? What is the relationship between them? What is the difference between them? In class, I heard some interesting philosophical questions, one of them was "How much does a person's perception of me help create myself identity?" (Something like that.) But how do we know about that. Is there an answer to that question or does it lead to more questions. In class, we also talked about what is a philosophical and nonphilosophical question. Well, this is what I wrote : A nonphilosophical question is a everyday question, which we already know the answer to. A philosophical question is we need to research to find out the answer to.
Some people gave some answers to the nonphilosophical and philosohhical question. I found this one interesting: "nonphilosophical has an answer (eventually), but philosophical just leads to more questions. I found that part true for me because we will found out the answer soon enough and some philosophical question does lead to more questions.