Wednesday, November 28, 2007
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).
Monday, November 19, 2007
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.)
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.)
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)