16. Einstein vs Heisenberg.
This was the one philosophical debate that has echoed through the centuries and the halls of time: can we objectively perceive objects? the answer is no (at least in our present state of awareness) but because it is just impossible to do so. The way our minds are set up, the possibility of perceiving something in its purest form is, simply put, impossible. For example, one might take a look at a car and begin to analyze its "meaning", or integrity. but where does one actually begin to understand what makes a car? What is a car, anyhow? is it the motor that makes the car? the body? the wheels? at what point of me stripping parts away does a car become less a car, and in the end just becomes a heap of metal and parts? Where does one draw the line of what a car should be and what it really is? And then there's the simple fact that we are even looking at the car that changes our perception of it entirely- nothing seems to make less sense to us than the way our brain warps reality for us. And that is what Heisenberg is really getting at here: the simple fact that there is no real way to look at something because we do not have the capability to even begin to comprehend the myriad of complexities that make up our world.
17.) Astronomy is integral to studying the basics of philosophy not only because philosophy is
"a big picture study" and nothing gets bigger than astronomy, but because in astronomy we are able to see the big past, the big present, and the big future; in the stars we are able to see where our galaxy came from, where our elements were born from, and where our world is now. These are the fundamental elements that plague philosophers; astronomy has simple answers to all of these. The big bang and the ever-expanding universe also co-relates simply because it provides the mere idea of the word "infinite"-something that a precious few understand. But in a sense, comprehending something so large and so complex may be a waste of time, but then what is philosophy? Astronomy simply helps one gain a better understanding of the world- something we could all use. And it has an effect on the perception.
18. Wilson, Dawkins, and Darwin; the three members of the anti-christ committee are possibly the most influential people to western philosophy in the past, say 500 years- since the famous Blaize Pascal wrote his infamous theory on the odds of god and atheism. Evolutionary concept allows one to understand why man does the things he does; why people fight, cry, laugh, hurt, and control; we have these primal urges that seem to be so much more than that. It allows us to look at ourselves at a vantage point and say, "oh, now I understand. To hell with these useless labels" and so forth. Nothing has been more equivocal or pivotal to the philosophical movement than the theory put forth by the satan's trio of scientific philosophers. indeed every branch of human science may have been changed- from behavorial sciences, to criminology, to phiolosphy, biology, and all types of ologies. I daresay paleontology might have undergone some serious overhauls- if i knew what it was.
18.) What is the meme theory? Quite simply, the meme theory reads according to a special memograph converting convoluted ideas and labeling them akin to a disease of sorts; saying that certain ideas spread quicker than others, such as general taboos and religion and what not. Ideas may not be bacteria in a sense, but they are quite infective; critically thought out, an idea that is shared by many doesn't nessecarily have to "morally right" or "true"- it just has to be shared. aka, it has to be "contagious." Quite simply, the meme theory is a half-truth- like many scientific discoveries, it is missing a crucial spiritual element; what that element is I am unable to pinpoint, but it is akin to interdependency- that regardless of how we look at the world, everything is interdependent. Maybe thats what the meme theory is trying to explain, its just that science stops halfway at the theory and rarely goes into the practical application of it. Unless, of course, there's money involved.
19.) A BRIEF SUMMARY OF PHILOSOPHY
A. although western philosophy has its roots in the great minds of Socrages and Aristotle, Pythagurus and Plato, little is known of Eastern traditions, and why the proposed thought system there was widely accepted throughout the whole continent.
a.) When Athens was first formed, the Indian gurus of the many different schools of philosophy had been since studying it. It was not just a playful past time for the smart and the rich; it was a job, a business; a profession. To be as spiritually advanced as possible.
b.) Out of the long lineage from 2000 years of battle, a young prodigy named Santideva arose. He debated the common view of emptiness, that which defines the meaning of objects (phenomena) and what is the true view of the world. Being a skilled debater, he defeated the many existentialist views and religious views and one over large support from the indian population. He was known as the johnny apple seed of wisdom; the truth that Buddha himself had realized over a thousand years ago.
c.) as the teachings became popular in India, things were happening in the west; philosophy was non existent as church powers governed all spiritual activity for thousands of years. although in the renaissance and the classical movement, with men like Voltaire and D.H. Lawrence, who lived how they wrote, did much philosophy ever get accomplished.
d.) While the great crusades were going on in Jerusalem, the east was quickly spreading its philosophy across Asia. For the next 1000 years, great philosophers of the east, all with countless books traveled from distant country to distant country, trying to spread their knowledge to other schools in other kingdoms
e.) Today there are still many different schools, who can trace teachings back to many great philosophers all over the globe; here's a few.
1.) candrakirti, india, wrote the "middle way"- which was a grounds on viewing life and living it; asanga, tsong kha pa, even the da li lama can be considered philosophers in their own right.
g.) there are many differences between eastern and western ideas, but in philosophy i just feel more of a sense of security in the eastern system of critique and debate. Wittgenstein would have been transformed in seconds, all his views battled to his heart's content.

20.) Fundamentalism is in itself an illusion, and like all illusions, is a mental disease. However, religion isn't the only sign of illusion that is around in this world; millions suffer from illusions every day (or as buddhists call it... delusions) - these come in many forms and strike everywhere- however they all come from the same source, and that source is the ego. The ego itself is an illusion, and it must fight hard for it to be thought of as real. Fundamentalism is born of the ego- it cannot exist without it; the ego tries to reason with the person it controls, but its reasoning is fear-based; the reasoning has no logic to it, no real substance; it simply seeks to control and spread its insane fear-based paranoia. For one to believe so vehemently in something that is so obviously contradictory to the truth requires much indoctrination; without it, one would believe nothing. Fundamentalism, therefore, is an illusion, but it is only the tip of the iceberg; the true problem stems in the human mind where the ego, a la Standard Oil, grips its icy tentacles around everything it sees. Without ego, there is no reason to pass judgement, to feel guilt, or to force pain onto oneself and others- all characteristics of the fundamentalist movement. Which is why this "mental disease" has still as of yet not been cured- it is one of the great plagues of human society; causing more deaths then any natural disease or predator known to man. Once the ego is destroyed and lain to waste, so to will we see the fall of fanatic fundamentalism and the death of the entire family of delusion.
21.) Frankly, I haven't a clue.
22.) Fukuyama's end of history has to do with the fact that mankind's great struggle for democracy, peace, and liberal government has ended with the modern era; that the history of humanity, ripe with strife and passion, is now at an end.
23.) Nicholas Caruso quoted "the more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be." this goes back to the age-old debate of arrogance versus humility- and what is the advantage? of course, arrogance proves that one's understanding of social dynamics (aka his "wisdom") is at a low point- regardless of his scholarly intelligence or "book smarts". Many, many famous scholars and philosophers have been quoted on the "i know nothing" idealogy; quite simply, to state that you know everything would most certainly imply that you know nothing- no matter how one tries to infer. Simply put, admitting and acting the part of one who is a clueless fool would make one a thousand times wiser than the man who puts on as one who feels he knows all; at least the clueless fool isn't cheating himself.
24.) Did we "kill" God? according to neitchze, we not only killed god, we massacred the dude. there are many levels to fredrich's theory, but the basics stem from the simple fact that god is not an entity as the bible would have us believe- but rather, he is an idea; and as ideas that are irrelevant are switched out with ones that are, the old ones "die"; kind of like the dinosaurs- or more like santa clause. technically no one intentionally killed god- it was just a way of evolution; it just happened. There was nothing to be done about it. It could have only happened this way, and this way alone. Interestingly enough, people are still stuck at the open casket- dying is one thing, but moving on- now that's an entirely different branch.
25.) physics is not only essential to the study of self but to the study of philosophy because it gives on the ability to look at the world in a totally scientific perspective. Simple put, one can't philosophize about the world through the lens of human perception because the lens through which we perceive the world is more distorted then the craziest beer goggles; through physics, one is able to gain a more complete and purified view of the world. It is the easiest and most precise way of allowing others to understand the world in one unified language: the language of numbers.
26.) Religion, at its core, is the pursuit of truth; without that, it is simply a jumbo gumbo of myths, fireside stories and paddle spanks. we could learn simply that through searching for the truth that applies to all humans, we are serving religions most noble purpose; to aid in the distribution of wisdom and understanding that seems to be so absent in the world today. And the only way to do this is to be free from a religion- or to be free from any religion that wishes to force you into its way. Either way, any religion that must force someone to join into its ranks is already incorrect; truth needs no sword to defend it, it is just that. Truth. Who can argue the sun exists, this color is red, or fire burns. It would be foolish to do so, not to mention insane. Religion should actually be a synonym for truth; that should be its goal, anyhow. Sadly that has not been the case for many societies even today.
27.) Dawkins believes God is illusion. Or more correctly, god is a delusion- something invented to give us a spirit to put our faith in at our time of innermost misery. +

midterm part 1

1.) my post. 2.) no plag.3.) due date 4.) attendance is perfect name: Collin Sirola
5. gunnerwitharubber 6.) cmsirola@yahoo.com 7.) http://thetruf@blogspot.com 8.) no 9.) no 10.) place all postings
11.) randall has comprised an equation in the rs 1 model for proof of the 5 dimensional geo plane, but her real reason for theoretically venturing into the realm of the unknown goes with her gut; she feels the only way to accurately describe the reason for weak gravitational pulls and such is due to the matter that there must be alternate realities to the one we are currently in; it would explain many mathematical improbabilities and would make it the "holy sanctuary" of physics.
12.) pythagorus, much more of a renaissance man than a philosopher, held steadfast to many of his philosophical views (most of which are surprisingly buddhist, if not all) and comprise many extraordinary ideas that were practically revolutionary in his time. pythagoras (or as us philosophical gangsters like to call him, p. thagg) is renowned for the triangle, and his philosophical beliefs mimic his mathematical ones. purely in search of inteligent scientific knowledge to backup his mystical and somewhat spiritual reasonings, his ideas go all over - from music to arts, to religion to science, to philosophy. the most important however are his beliefs in a.) reincarnation and b.) balance- both of which are the fundamental laws of buddhism, science, and philosophy- something that was alien to the greeks of the time. indeed even socrates seems more like an arrogant fool while p thagg was more of the humble student of life- seeing patterns , mystical signs and beauty in everyday life.
12.) can religion and science coexist?
religion and science has been put together for thousands of years, without fail, and recent technological advances have only strengthened the bond between the two. I am, of course, speaking of Buddhism. It is the only religion, to my knowledge (excluding more recent new age and rastafari and scientology stuff) that has consistently held steadfast to whatever is TRUE- because that is the goal of buddhism, to uncover the truth. many people feel that religion and science are gladiators duking it out in the global arena, but that is because these "people" tend to be of western decent, and so tend to have a very narrow-minded thought stream. few people realize what the religion of buddhism is about- even though many people practice and understand its fundamental concepts on a daily basis. recently, eastern and western ideas have come together, permeating the old ways and changing the way we think.
recently arthur versluis, in a new book american transcendentalism and Asian Religions (1993) pieced five or six major historical views on this subject, and presented this by way of conclusion:

However much people today realize it, the encounter of Oriental and Occidental religious and philosophical traditions, of Buddhist and Christian and Hindu and Islamic perspectives, must be regarded as one of the most extraordinary meetings of our age. . . . Arnold Toynbee once wrote that of all the historical changes in the West, the most important—and the one whose effects have been least understood—is the meeting of Buddhism in the Occident. . . . And when and if our era is considered in light of larger societal patterns and movements, there can be no doubt that the meeting of East and West, the mingling of the most ancient traditions in the modern world, will form a much larger part of history than we today with our political-economic emphases, may think.

ssssss

Strangely enough, people still revert to the old monotheistic religions as an overbearing, overgeneralization of religion- giving the whole aspect of spiritual growth a very bad name. Since missionaries of Buddhism brought their newfound religion to the west, they proclaimed the basic ideals of their "religion" , speaking of it in a way that those tired of the old judeo-christian religions were:

1) Buddhism did not assert or depend upon the existence of a God

2) Buddhism was a superstition-free moral ideal; it conformed to the scientific view of an ordered universe ruled by law (Dharma)—a system both moral and physical where everything seemed to work itself out inexorably over vast periods of time without divine intervention (karma)

3) Buddhism posited no belief in gods who could alter the workings of this natural law

4) Buddhism was a religion of self-help with all depending on the individual working out his/her own salvation

5) "Original" Buddhism was seen as the "Protestantism of Asia," and Buddha as another Luther who swept away the superstitions and rituals of an older, corrupted form and took religion back to its pure and simple origins

6) Buddhism presented an attractive personal founder who led life of great self-sacrifice; parallels were drawn between Jesus and Buddha as the inspiration of a personal figure exerted strong appeal to seekers who had given up on theology and metaphysics.

Thus, Buddhism was packaged and presented in its most favorable light viz a viz the current spiritual crisis in the West; and, not surprisingly, Buddhism seemed immensely reasonable and appealing to Americans. Darwinism might be undermining Biblical Christianity, but it only enhanced Buddhism's standing.

-http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/VerhoevenBuddhismScience.htm

With the advent of darwinism, everything seemed to be undergoing the process of change- evolution, as one would call it; things either get better, or they die off. and this is the fundamental belief in buddhism, as well- either we advance ourselves spiritually and become better people because of it- or we fall through the ranks of reincarnation, realizing that at the bottom levels of life we have failed to do the simple most job we were put here to do: alieviate the suffering so profound in this world. Buddhism brings together the holy with the moly, it is the bridge between what is real and what is known to be real; it is the link between the truth and "the truf"- if you can feel me. If you can't, know this: religion and science can coexist: it just depends on who's doing the coexisting.

14.) Socrates was charged for impurifying pure minds (havent we heard that before) and for his complete disconnection with athens in its time of need (the reign of the thirty tyrants). He was accused mostly, however, for his political views; nothing to do with his brainy philosophical quotes and his eccentric ideas; it was his politics that did him in. Socrates defended his position with a three hour tirade that left no stinging sense of apology or plead- nothing to soften the heart of the jury that convicted him (as was the common policy at the time). Socrates may have induced his own death- commiting suicide when he could have easily spoke sugar and spice, winning an audience over to his favor. Socrates chose death apparently as a way to convey his last and final message; a true martyr for free speech, in the tradition of jesus christ and the like.

wtup yo

to whomevers here to check thiss know me as cmoney collin mUni$ and a whole mess of wack ass names but yeah hit me up at msac or as i know it ucla, university at the corner of left on amar, was @ cpp but the atmosphere was not my style i guess (neither is msac), really im not into edu, im into music... and life.... you know

this my first post so much more on its way
had to do this thank dr lane for making this a req
doesnt mean im not making it interesting

peace... for now