Bicentennial Man and Immortality

In the movie, Bicentennial Man, Robin Williams plays a robot who is immortal. Technology has made it such that he could live forever as a machine. What if this was real? What if a new technology came out that provided us with immortality? Would you use it? Isn't it going against nature? What are the advantages and disadvantages to being immortal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGSq-bJhRFY

Losing Nature With Age

It seems to me that in toady's society nature kind of gets lost with age. Think about it, as you are a toddler you have the attention span of the goldfish and everything is entertaining. You constantly craved to go outside to run in circles or pick dandelions and essentially just ruin the lawn. Bike riding, roller blades, going to the park all were great things to do. Think of how many outdoor little league sports there are, how many adult sports leagues do you see? As a young child the outdoors was where you wanted to be and spent most of your time essentially doing nothing but playing with your imagination, but as you age it seems like less fun. Now we are teenagers able to drive and use a computer. Instead of riding our bikes or walking to a friends house many people would rather drive the 1 block to their friends house because if they walked outside they would need to put on a jacket. Instead of going outside and playing ninja with your friends people now congregate indoors and watch movies and just talk. At the age of three your favorite new toy was the wiffleball set your parents got you for your birthday. Now you ask for an ipod, or new cell phone, or laptop. Technology takes over your life as you age. How many 60 year old men do you know asking for a new bicycle for their birhtday? Not many is the correct answer, but they may be hoping for a new car or a new TV. The point is nature is great and I am one who loves to spend time outdoors, but often times as people age they pick technology over nature.

The Technology Good/Bad Debate

Is technology evil? Does it want us to play Wii all day long and text our fake friends with unintelligible acronyms? Of course it does! But the whole debate between the technology lovers and tree huggers is flawed for several reasons.

First off, it isn't a black and white issue. Yes, technology has made things a bit more complicated and screwed up a lot of everything natural. I know the polar bears are drowning. But has it not also saved countless lives because of medicine and seatbelts? hmm? So yes, there are 3 sides to every coin, they just rarely land vertically.

Secondly, humans create all technology, and if technology is in itself evil does that mean either A.) that people are evil and create diversions for themselves to exude a facade of happiness? or B.) technology has imparted upon itself the power of a sentient and decision making being. It chooses to be evil even if it is made with good intention. Both of those arguments present a large problem to the technology haters and lovers.

Finally, in order to have this debate at all, one must be willing to truthfully answer the question, "Would you rather live without technology?" I think 99.99% of the time, the answer will be no. Thoreau doesn't count because he never got to use an Iphone.

Ultimately, no one of my generation could honestly say that they would rather not have technology, thus they must either resign themselves to the fate of the brainwashed and bored, or use the technology to make the world a better place.

Technology <3s Nature

Why do Technology always have to verse Nature in the proverbial steel cage match of life? Sure, Technology has led us to plenty of destruction of natural things: deforestation, global warming, over farming and the clubbing of baby seals, but what about the good things? Technology realized that it was being insensitive and wants Nature to give it another chance.

Here are a few ways that people can use technology to nurture nature!

#1. Alternative energy sources! Instead of burning oil which pollutes our environment, we can use free energy such as solar, wind, hydro-electric and geothermal. After an initial investment, these installations pay for themselves in a few years, and you can even sell electricity back to the company and make a profit.

#2. Recycle! New technologies and tactics now allow us to recycle more than ever before. All sorts of plastics, metals and paper products are recycled and turned back into useful items instead of just being dumped somewhere. Though, even the things that are just dumped can be used. The heat and gas given off by landfills is being used to power generators to create electricity.

#3. Saving animals through captive breeding! Yeah. this one is a bit weird, but we can help bring back the species we've destroyed by pairing the few remaining members and organizing a little lovin'. Some people really really love pandas, so if the natural way doesn't work, they can do it artificially.

Clearly, technology doesn't have to hate nature! A little ingenuity and investment is helping our planet get back to what it was and helping the human race to coexist with it peacefully. Thank goodness for technology, because I love Mario Kart and glaciers and now I can have them both!

Texting & Emoticons

Today in Mrs. Deerson's class we debated whether technology was beneficial or detrimental. One of the arguments for the detrimental side was that the way we communicate with others through texting and such lowers our ability to communicate well with others. Plus, through texting or Facebook, no one can even truly understand the actual emotions that a person is attempting to portray through text.

This is kind of a stupid video, but in a way it shows that sometimes emoticons replace actual feelings to try to get a point across about how a person feels. It's pathetic, but emoticons and texting emoticons [ ex. :) ;) or :( ]are the closest thing we have to communicating our true feelings.

Technology vs. Nature !

Is nature slowly losing the battle of survival to technology ?

"Green be gone...or at least that is what some conservationists fear will happen within the next few years. A recent study by the Nature Conservancy says that the world is experiencing a "real and fundamental shift away from nature." More people, according to the study, are moving away from the great outdoors and into the digital world. This means a decline in park visits, and a decline in the value society places on nature." -jennifer rod (of news team boulder)

But it can also be interpreted that maybe as we drift away from being everly dependent on nature, we will realize that natural elements are essential to our lives and then try as best that we can to help restore those resources, all we can hope is that it doesnt take too long for people to start missing green trees and clean water.

When Technology Gets Into the Wrong Hands

Stanley Kubrick's film Dr. Strangelove is a classic comedy which depicts a Cold War-esque catastrophe. What would happen if a low-ranking military base commander somehow got hold of and activated the hydrogen bomb? In this clip, The President of the United States (Peter Sellers) talks on the phone with the Russian President to warn him that a hydrogen bomb is about to attack his country. This scene is an act of sheer comic brilliance--the presidents of the two greatest superpowers of the time are depicted as incompetent and childish. They focus not on impending danger and nuclear destruction, but on formalities and nonsense. This scene also makes the interesting point that all of the technology we have constructed is smarter than us; humans are too stupid and irresponsible to operate the massive technologies that have been created. What do you think about this? Do you think that nuclear bombs are more beneficial or detrimental? Is technology really taking over, or are humans still in control?

Moss Art

Alot of people take moss from the ground or buy it and make art from it. its really versatile and can grow in alot of places.(usually moist) but once you start it, its sort of hard to stop. you can even do it in you garden or backyard to add a little pizzaz to your surroundings.

the car is pretty sick

Man vs. Machine in Movies

A common theme for the entertainment industry is Man vs. Machine. Whether it's books or movies, people love to pose the question of whether we will survive when machines inevitably try to take over the world.

In I, Robot, people have created robots that help them do everyday things and even working in mail delivery and factories. People become completely dependent on them. When one of these robots breaks one of the "Three Rules of Robotics" and kills a person, it ignites a big issue where the rest of the robots end up attacking the humans.

In Terminator, a robot is sent back in time from a future where robots have taken over the world. It tries to kill the mother of a future revolutionary leader.

In The Matrix, humans are being enslaved and harvested by sentient machines. The machines create the "world as we know it" to pacify the humans.

What these movies are all really trying to ask is...
"How far can we keep advancing technology before it gets ahead of us?"

Technology

Mr. Langdon had us talking about technology in storytelling. He asked us to think about whether technology helped or hurt it. I think that in one sense, technology takes something away from it. Imagination.

If you read a book, you will immediately picture how things are supposed to be in your head. Your imagination takes over and fills in the blanks that the book leaves. With our newer technology, we can make anything happen in a movie, which leaves millions of possibilities for Hollywood. Now that we have the technology to make a game of "quidditch" happen onscreen, we'll make the movie of a book. Once you see things on screen, your mind immediately takes their adaption of the visuals or even the audio instead of your original thoughts. People will then assume that what they had previously thought of was wrong, and the movie is right. In reality, it's just another adaptation. Another option. Technology in a way takes away the thoughts our imagination had previously come up with.

stop motion animation

i find it stop motion animation so fascinating. it is sick how people come up with ways to express themselves and to make art

i was looking on youtube at some stop motion animation and i found this link which is below

it is a guy who is doodling but the doodling is movng and shifting it is so cool.

i think i relate to this because i always doodle in my humanities journal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u46eaeAfeqw

Stop Motion Animation

I thought all the stop motion animation we looked at in Mr. Langdon's class was pretty cool. It so crazy that people have the patience to capture that in video. I found this cool clip that takes the song Summer Nights from Grease and recreates the scene using legos & stop motion animation. Enjoy!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_whyjdt5Qso

Pen Pal's

Technology has obviously affected communicaton, making it easier to communicate long distances, but also, in a way, preventing direct encounters with people. With that said, should people have pen pals? Or considering that technology often gets in the way of having actual conversations, would it just be better to have friends that you could actually see on a normal basis?

The Revolution of Story Telling

With all the improvements of technology, has story telling become easier? Or has our expectations for story telling increased to the point that our modern technology doesn't suffice in story telling?

Interview!

In Mrs Deerson's class, the class was divided into four groups. Each group had a representative who asked their group a question about technology, communication, and texting. I decided to interview other humanities students from different periods. Here is a video where I interviewed Kristina Hungrige, Nate Villaman, Mason Lasky, and Al LaMonica.

You have to tilt your head to watch the video.

Another earthwork made in Windsong Lenape Park!

This earthwork is made out of rocks.
It says LP, for Linkin Park.
This earthwork is band's logo.

Some of my earthworks done in Windsong Lenape Park!

The music notes are made with rocks.


The heart is made with barks from trees and it's placed in the sand.


The peace sign is made with pinecones.

My earthwork represents peace love and music.

Going Green or Going Back?

I was thinking about the new craze of "going green" today and it occured to me that "green" is really backtracking against harmful technology. I mean, we invented cars as faster and more efficient transportation instead of horses, trains, and ships. But now we're trying to modify cars so that they aren't as harmful to the environment. People used to live through much harsher winters with just a fireplace and now we need gas heaters, etc. to warm our houses, but we're trying to "green"-ify that as well. People used to go to sleep when the sun went down, but then we discovered lightbulbs and now they're harming the environment and sometime this week (?) we're having that "Lights Out" hour to save on our emissions.

Aside from the obvious benefits from using cars, lightbulbs, heaters, etc. would it have been better had we not invented them? Are we really just backtracking across centuries of human technology or is a progression really necessary in technology? Are we really "going green" or are we just trying to turn the clocks back?



I'm not sure there's really a true answer here and even I rest on the fence on this one. On one hand, I think our world would be a lot better off had we not invented such technology. But, because we now have these gadgets, etc. and people are not really willing to give up their new found technology, I think progression is necessary. However, such a thing would not be necessary if we had not created the monster ourselves.

Learning and Technology

Mr. Langdon mentioned learning styles in class and how technology has affected our ability to understand things. So it got me thinking about how it specifically helps or hinders us individually.

Learning Style Quiz:
1. You are about to give directions to a person. She is staying in a hotel in town and wants to visit your house. She has a rental car. Would you:
V. draw a map on paper?
R. write down the directions (without a map?
A. tell her the directions?
K. collect her from the hotel in your car?

2. You are staying in a hotel and have a rental car. You would like to visit a friend whose address/location you do not know. Would you like them to:
V. draw you a map?
R. write down the directions (without a map)?
A. tell you directions?
K. collect you from the hotel in their car?

3. You have just received a copy of your intinerary for a world trip. This is of interest to your friend. Would you:
A. call her immediately and tell her about it?
R. Send her a copy of the printed intinerary?
V. show her a map of the world?

4. You are going to cook a dessert as a special treat for your family. Do you:
K. cook something familiar without the need for instructions?
V. thumb through a cookbook looking for ideas from the pictures?
R. refer to a specific cookbook where there is a good recipe?
A. ask for advise from others?

5. A group of tourists has been assigned to you to find out about national parks. Would you:
K.drive them to a national park?
V. show them slides and photographs?
R. give them a book on national parks?
A. give them a talk on national parks?

6. You are about to purchase a new stereo. Other than the price, what would most influence your decision?
A. a friend talking about it?
K. listening to it?
R. reading the details about it?
V. its distinctive, upscale appearance?

7. Recall a time in your life when you learned how to do something like playing a new board game. Try to avoid choosing a very physical skill, i.e. riding a bike. How did you learn best? By:
V. visual clues-pictures, diagrams, charts?
R. written instructions?
A. listening to somebody explain it?
K. doing it?

8. Which of these games do you prefer?
A. Pictionary? R. Scrabble? K. Charades?

9. You are about to learn how to use a new program on a computer. Would you:
K. ask a friend to show you?
R. read the manual which comes with the program?
A. telephone a friend and ask questions about it?

10. You are not sure whether a word should be spelled "dependent" or "dependant". Do you:
R. look it up in a dictionary?
V. see the word in your mind and choose the best way it looks?
A. sound it out?
K. write both versions down?

11. Apart from price, what would most influence your decision to buy a particular textbook?
K. using a friends copy?
R. skimming parts of it?
A. a friend talking about it?
V. it looks OK?

12. A new movie has arrived in town. What would most influence your decision to go or not go?
A. friends talking about it?
R. you read a review about it?
V. You saw a preview of it?

13. Do you prefer a lecturer/teacher who likes to use:
R. handouts and/or a textbook?
V. flow diagrams, charts, slides?
K. field trips. labs, practical sessions?
A. discussion, guest speakers?

Now go back and count how many V's, A's, R's, and K's you circled. Whichever letter you have circled most indicates your preferred learning style. If you have a "tie" or two letters are about equal you probably have more than one preferred learning style.

V's=Visual
You have been identified as a Visual Learner. You learn best by watching or seeing things.

A's=Aural
You have been identified as an Aural Learner. You learn best by hearing things said or explained.

R's=Reading
You have been identified as a Reading/Writing Learner. You learn best by reading and taking notes.

K's=Kinesthetic
You have been identified as a Kinesthetic Learner. You learn best by using your senses, especially hands-on approaches.

Now that you know what learning type(s) you are, how specifically has technology helped or hindered your learning both in the classroom and outside of it? Do you feel that overall it has enhanced your learning experience or made it worse?

Optical Illusions

Optical illusions like the one above make you question what is really there. There are three ways to look at that picture: 1. You see two faces looking at each other. 2. You see a cup or goblet. Or 3. you see both. After seeing this image so many times throughout your lifetime you probably can just see both things. But optical illusions make you question what is really there.

What about the people who see mirages while in the desert? They get so parched and thirsty they start imagining places of wonder and amazement with water and food only to find out when they get there it is nothing at all. So you may be looking at this on your computer screen, or you may be imagining it. To be honest I believe in almost everything I see, so I too think this blog post is real.

The Grandfather Paradox

So, I happened to be reading a book the other day and it mentioned the Grandfather Paradox. I was surprised to see that what i believed is actually a theory that many people recognize. It's called the "Many-Worlds theory". The theory states that the paradox isn't a paradox at all.

Every time you make a decision, an alternate reality gets created. If you decide to write in black ink, a reality is created where you use blue ink. So once you kill your grandfather, you are immediately in an alternate reality where you've done it. You no longer exist in the original reality that you came from.

Existentialism in Waiting for Godot

In English we read a play called Waiting For Godot, a work classically known for its existentialist themes. It reminded me of what we talked about in class about the meaning of life, a subject about which the author, Samuel Becket, has a lot to say.

Becket uses his play to explore the condition of human insignificance. Becket takes a narrowly focused look at two pairs of people then delves into the importance of perspective and cycles in dealing with the human condition.
A key issue that surfaces in the piece is the insignificance of people. As members of the human race, people aren’t valued. A person is only one among a huge mass of self-interested people. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett shows the audience two couples of people who have deep and intricate relationships, but are insignificant to anyone else. Estragon and Vladimir have known each other for years and have become co-dependent on each other. Their value to each other is immeasurable. The case is comparable for Pozzo and Lucky. They are so emotionally bonded that they cannot be separated. Pozzo tries to get rid of Lucky by selling him, but it is evident that he is unable to do so. Vladimir and Estragon’s relationship and Pozzo and Lucky’s relationship, as monumental as they may seem to themselves, will never be important to the world.
Another issue explored is how cycles depreciate the value of life. For Becket, a cycle is one day and he makes each cycle distinctly separate from the one previous. Estragon can never remember what he has done the day before. All of his actions lose meaning because he will never remember them long enough to build on them. While Vladimir’s memory is much better than Estragon’s, he is still unable to connect the events of one day to the next. This circumstance prevents both of them from being able to ever make any progress. In a situation comparable to that of the legendary Sisyphus who pushes his rock up the mountain infinitely, each day Vladimir and Estragon start from scratch in dealing with their troubles. No matter how they push, they never reach the top. Like Sisyphus, they always start again at the bottom of the mountain.
Becket’s word choice reveals his strong opinions on existence. He repeats the phrase “Shall we go?" emphasizing a fixation on destination. In his opinion, life is mainly comprised of waiting. As Estragon says, “Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes.” In that vein, it would be useless to measure life by what is gained. Instead, Becket is intent on destination. He looks to see if people can end the day in a different place then when they started. As Vladimir and Estragon are stagnant and fail to achieve a destination, it is clear that Becket concludes that people cannot, and therefore they bear no significance.
Becket makes comparatively little of the human experience. There is little meaning in the relationships between people when looked at the perspective of the whole world. There is also nothing gained in the span of one cycle or even in one whole life. His work deconstructs life and searches for its meaning and ultimately does not find much to explain why we exist.

Dana "Sunshine"

Proof of Reality

For people to believe reality to be what they perceive they must have trust in their senses. While most people have no problem with this, there are cases where people do not trust their senses to accurately portray reality. Such a case is in the play Proof. It’s about Catherine, the daughter of a great mathematician who suffered from schitzofrenia.

In the play’s opening Catherine is already confused. Her father has just died, yet she sees him in the room with her. She doubts her senses and does not trust what she sees. At the same time, she must deal with wanting to trust her father because she loves him but being unable to rely on his image because she knows that she may have inherited his mental illness. Before Catherine is even able to process the dilemma with her father, she is presented with another when her sister comes home.

Catherine’s relationship with Claire also gives her reason to doubt what she sees because she knows that Clair isn’t trustworthy. Their complicated interactions are the result of years of distrust and manipulation. On top of their already poor relations, Catherine’s misgivings about her sister spike when she discovers that Claire has been maneuvering behind her back. Claire cannot be forgiven or trusted after she has been found to be tampering with the most valuable pieces of Catherine’s life.

In the end, Catherine discovers that unlike the mathematics with which she is so familiar, in relationships there is nothing certain. She says, “It’s just evidence. It doesn’t finish the job. It doesn’t prove anything…Nothing [would]. You should have trusted me” Catherine seeks to find the proof that her sense of reality can be trusted. She finds that there is no proof. There is only faith.

Dana "Sunshine"

Would you rather...

The game "Would you rather" is often played at parties, lunch tables, or anywhere where boredom is a factor. The game is played by offering two scenarios; usually both egregiously bad or both wonderful. The point of the game is to make a tough decision and choose one. There is no other option. While this game may seem trivial, it is a metaphor for existence.

As in the game, one often is faced with only two choices. Through trial and error, the human race has learned to usually choose the lesser of two evils. This is where the quandary arises. If everyone has differing points of view, how can large groups of people come to a consensus about these decisions. Imagine two huge groups arguing over what they would rather do, or have. What does this remind you of?

A presidential election? Whether or not to drop the bomb? All major decisions in history have just been games of "Would you rather"

I should probably take hide and go seek more seriously.

-Max

Cat Galaxy

Remember Men in Black?
Yeah, I know you do. So, do you recall that the galaxy that the plot revolved around was actually the size of a little charm on the cat's collar? Take a look at the video if you don't remember. (Sorry its in French)

Think - if galaxies weren't infinitely large spans of space and matter. They were all the size of a cat charm. Rather... they're all the size of an atom. No, even smaller... molecule. What if every molecule was a galaxy.

Imagine. Or galaxy is actually just an molecule in a planet we've never seen before. It would be galaxy within galaxy within galaxy - forever.

Could this be for real?

An Existential Take On "The Scream"

This funny clip from Play It Again, Sam shows this woman's interpretation of the painting, The Scream, which other bloggers have already posted about. Her perception of it is highly existential: she says that the painting represents "the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, the nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation". Do you agree with her? While so many say that life is full of meaning, there are many who disagree. There are many people who feel that life has no meaning. What, do you think, is the root of their existentialism? Are these people just free thinkers or are they harmful to society in some way?

Omelas

In philosophy class last year, we read an interesting story involving a moral dilemma. You are a visitor in the town of Omelas, an idyllic peaceful town where nothing seems to ever go wrong. The townspeople of Omelas are the same as us intellectually, only their society has practically no problems. Everything seems just right, except for one thing. In a deep dark cellar somewhere, there is a boy, locked away from the splendor above. He has been in the room for most of his life. he is small and frail for his age, for he is fed sporadically, and it is the only time he sees another human. Even with the little human contact he has, no one says a kind word to him; in fact, they usually yell at him, and give him a few kicks for good measure. He remembers a time when he used to be loved, so this abuse hurts him all the more.

Here’s the thing- everyone in town knows about this boy- most have in fact seen him in his locked cellar. But no one tries to help, for they know that if he is released, if anyone shows him kindness, the happiness and well being of Omelas will be destroyed.

Knowing all of this, would you like to live here, knowing that everyone’s happiness depends on the suffering of one person?

Ishmael- by Daniel Quinn

So, I’ve been re-reading parts of Ishmael, and it’s a good philosophical kind of a book. It’s about a man a bit disillusioned with society, who answers an ad that is asking for a student, only to find the teacher is a huge gorilla. Throughout the book, the gorilla (named Ishmael) reveals flaws in the human idea that we are the superior race, that everything on earth exists for us, and anyone who gets in our way must be exterminated.

Among other things, Ishmael addresses the issue of poverty among humans, blaming what he calls ‘mother culture’ (a subliminal voice humans have grown up with, telling us we are the superior race) for brainwashing us with the false notion that it is unethical to let famine balance out the population. Ishmael’s idea is that “every increase in food production is answered by an increase in population somewhere”. Even if Nebraska is making extra food, some other third world nation eventually consumes it, and grows as a result, throwing it further in poverty. I suppose this is a stretch, but this reminded me of the butterfly effect; the idea that the butterfly flapping its wings causes a tsunami somewhere else. It was one of his ideas that I found awfully insensitive, but now I’m not sure…

Anyway, go read this book; Ishmael is a good teacher who makes his points in clear concise ways that I found fairly easy to follow compared to other philosophical things I’ve read. I thought Ishmael was on the money for a lot of things, but there are others I don’t agree with, which I find makes the book that much more interesting, hearing what a gorilla has to say about humanity. The media center now has a copy; check it out!

3D Street Art

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAtO55bu4WU

This video shows a few examples of a new art form that is done on the streets of diffrent cities. While watching this, it made me thing what is real? if i were to pass one of these, i might actually think something was sitting or sxomign up from the sidewalk. Some of the drawings even make it look as if the sidewalk has been removed or that there is a gaping hole leading to the center of the earth. what do you think of the art? Is it simply abstract and the artists use the street as their canvas? Or do you think it is a form of sculpture? hey.. it could be anything!

Dominos!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHZGiGZlixM

I really liked making that domino chain in Reck's class. Our class basically just made a straight chain which looked kind of cool but this is MUCH more interesting. I hope everyone enjoys!

Jack and Locke Discuss Fate/Destiny

After I decided to take a break from thinking of what to do for the Unit 5 Journal assignment, I watched Lost that I DVRed from Wed. 2/25. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Jack and Locke talk about fate. And Voila, I had something to post for my Journal! Was it fate that this episode would involve destiny and fate or just mere coincidence? The "fate" part starts at 6:15. If you are not a Lost Fan, then the situation is this: Lock (bald guy) is trying to convince Jack (other guy) to go back to the island. Locke says it's their destiny to go back, but Jack doesn't believe in fate. Who do you feel you side with?

Imagining Food

After the Mad Hatter Tea Party I thought this scene from Hook with Robin Williams was very fitting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-eaUT7JPZs (Sorry I did not know how to download the movie and paste it into the blog) is the link to see the clip from the movie. It starts off with Peter Pan (Robin Williams) complaining about how there is no food out on the table and he wants some real food. He then gets into some sort of dissing battle with the little boy Rofio (triple mohawk with red hair). After Peter Pan wins the battle he flings imaginary food at Rofio which suddenly turns real. Next thing you know the whole table is covered with tons and tons of food (some of it is just colorful mush actually) and Peter Pan is quite thrilled. All it takes is a little believing and your never know what you can convince your mind to believe.

Fire and Ice

The activity that we did in Reck's class
with morphing a paradox reminded me of this
poem by Robert Frost. Which do you think is worse, fire or ice?

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice

so i have a kind of out there thought -

in the painting "The Scream" by Edvard Munch (1893)

what do you think the man is screaming at? or about? is he scared? upset? angry?

i have always loved art and the study of art - and i have always wondered.

thoughts?

Does Everything Happen For a Reason?

I truly believe in the statement, "Things happen for a reason".
Even though it's sometimes hard to understand why bad things happen,
I like to think that each action has a purpose behind it in the long run.
My question is, does this whole theory seem too optimistic?
We hear people say this whenever somebody is in a bad situation to
make the other person feel better... don't we? Are we being
blinded by the fact that, hey bad things do happen spontaneously and may
have no purpose at all? And if so, is that reality?

Is ignorance bliss or is truth beauty?

In the best selling series Twilight, Bella is happier with knowing the truth about the supernatural while her dad, Charlie, isn't. What about you? Would you rather know the truth about certain things or do would you rather not know?

To be or not to be

In English, we're reading Hamlet, who often sees the ghost of his father like in Act 3 Scene 4 when Hamlet is yelling at his mom for sleeping with his uncle, Claudius (Hamlet's dad's brother). Is it really Old Hamlet's ghost? Is it Hamlet's conscience?

some food for thought

Here are some food for thought...

1. Why do they call it "head over heels in love" if our head is always over our heels?
2. Why is the name if the phobia for the fear of long words Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?
3. If someone can't see they're blind and if someone can't hear they're deaf, so what do you call people who can't smell?
4. Why is it called a TV set when there's only one?
5. Why do they call it an escalator if it takes you down?
6. If a person owns a piece of land do they own it all the way down to the core of the earth?
7. Since we see little birdies when we just get knocked out, what do little birdies see when they just get knocked out?
8. Why is a male ladybug called?
9. Why is an alarm clock going "off" when it actually turns on?
10. How fast do hotcakes sell?
11. If you mated a bull dog and a shitsu would it be called a bulls--t?
12. Why are they called stairs inside but steps outside?
13. Does the President have to pay taxes?
14. If Dracula has no reflection how come he always has such a straight parting in his hair?
15. If an ambulance is on its way to save someone and it runs someone over in the street does it stop to help them?
16. Why is Grape Nuts cereal called that when it contains neither grapes, nor nuts?
17. Why do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front?
18. What ever happened to an E grade? We have A,B,C,D,F but no E.
19. Why is there a light in the fridge and not in the freezer?

Nightmares

Twilight Zone pretty much applies to everything in humanities so far, so I have clip of one of my favorite episode: "Nightmare at 20,000 feet." I really wanted to find one episode called "Stopover in a Quiet Town," but unfortunately it is not loaded on any video site, so I cannot post it. The reason I wanted it was because someone in my class mentioned, during our discussion of reality, "what if we really are just like dolls to other people?" This episode explores that idea and a these people roam around deserted towns, etc. with the background noises of a child's laughter.

But this episode also challenges reality. Sorry about the quality. It's not that good, but it was the best and shortest video clip I could find that got the point across. Of course, if you're really interested, it's posted in three parts (in its entirety) on youtube.



So who dictates the reality in the video? Does the man actually see what he sees or is it a hallucination? How could he possibly prove that what he sees is real?

Zeno's Paradox

i just finished an excellent book - the emperor's children - and in the book is the mention of something called Zeno's Paradox - so i looked into exactly what it was.
Basically - it means we will never reach our goal - the finish line - the end - we will always be halfway there.
it claims if you throw, say a ball - towards a wall (i chose a ball because it rhymes. with wall) - the closest it will ever get is halfway there. so if it is ten feet it will turn into 5 then 2.5 then 1.25 then .625 then .3125 and it will continue to only be half way there - forever.

it says we will never meet our destination.

what do you think of this claim of Zeno's Paradox? do you think this is true? will we ever get there? and then what is our destination? what is there?

the tree does sound

ok so the whole question of does a tree make a sound if it falls and no one can hear it thing, well it kind of pisses me off. because it most certainly makes a sound. why, you ask? well think about it scientifically. now im not the most scientific person but i do know that air is a medium, and therefor sound travels through it in waves, and hits other surfaces and travels etc. so if a tree were to fall in space, no one would hear it because there is nothing sound can travel through in space. but-here, on earth, if a tree were to fall, it would make a sound because sound will travel through air. its like asking the question "if a cell phone is on silent mode, does it really recieve calls and messages?" well, yea, if a cell phone is on silent, it will most certainly still recieve messages.

Dennett

Yet another philosophical entry which people will probably not want to hurt their brains thinking about, but I'm going to post it anyway!

In Philosophy we read this article written by a guy named Dennett. It was totally hypothetical, which I want to establish first because then some people will think this is cool and real, etc. and even if it's cool, it is completely unrealistic. But interesting to think about none the less.

So Dennett undergoes this process to remove his brain and put it in a holding container. Then, they use his body to go to a nuclear active site (which would harm brain material) to do some stuff. His brain can feel the body and see everything it sees, but is miles away and totally unconnected. His body dies of exposure. Then, only his brain exists. But after a while, they are able to create him a new body for the brain. After this new body they create another body for the same brain, so it now controls two bodies. The question is, which is the real Dennett? The brain, the original body, the 1st new body, or the 2nd new body? Or does Dennett not exist at all?

This is not a riddle in any way, shape, or form! Philosophers have been arguing about self, the mind, and basic human existence since Socrates (who lived way, way back in ancient Greece). But feel free to comment on your views.

Classic Existence

So, since there really aren't any food for thought questions (or are there?), I decided to write my own inspired by one of the questions. One of my favorite arguments is the one about the tree. Come on, you've all heard it before, so some variation thereof.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it fall, does it still make a sound?

My dad actually has a shirt that says: If a man speaks at sea with no woman to hear him, is he still wrong? Which is just a clever way of repeating the same thing.

But anyway, does it? And can we really ever answer this question or is it, as one kid in my English class likes to say, "completely pointless because philosophy has no answers."

Is too much freedom a good thing or a bad thing?

While I was writing a comment to reply to another post I came to this realization. Most of us stop caring about school and complain we have no freedom and cant wait for the day to end so we can be free. We also cant wait for June so we can graduate and really be free. Why are we in such a rush to be free and go into the real world? Some of us already may have a taste of the real world by having jobs and making our own money or by getting our licenses and getting our first cars to go where ever we want whenever we want. After high school most of us are going to colleges where we could be living in dorms. In those dorms we wont have our parents constantly telling us what to do. I can't really compare college life to high school life since I'm not in college yet, none of us are. I'm not going into a college with dorms so its different for me but for those of you who are in going to be in dorms you'll have so much freedom you might not know what do with it. Do you think all that freedom is going to good or bad? How do you think we'd react with all that freedom and how much pressure would that put on us? What really is freedom and what do we consider freedom to be?

The Punk Paradox

One of the major focal points of the "punk movement" is the condemnation of conformity. Everything about it is making sure you don't "sell out" or become "one of the rest of them". If punk is all about being an individual, how can there be more than one punk out there? If there are multiple punks, wouldn't they all just be conforming to the idea of being a punk?

Prisoners of the Bell

Whoever came up with the lyrics, let freedom ring, clearly wasn't thinking about the school bells. If you think about it, it's scary how much of our freedoms we give up when we walk into school in the morning. First, school starts at an ungodly early hour, and all day we are regulated by bells telling us when to go to class. We can't wear anything we want, we surely can't say anything we want. Doing, wearing, or saying something deemed inappropriate results in detention or harsher punishment. We can't even learn what we want--we are always subjected to take tests and complete assignments for classes most of us don't even want to take. Loss of freedom is especially apparent during fitness days in gym. They blow the whistle and we all run like cattle. I've heard that education sets you free, and that may be true. But the venue for getting that education more closely resembles a prison than a liberating environment. What do you think about this? Is it ok that are freedoms are put on hold when we come into school?

Sick And Tired

This is poem titled Sick and Tired by Shihan. Shihan is one of my favorite spoken word poets. He speaks a lot about his life and the things that he has gone through and a he also talks about discrimination. This poem reminded me a lot of the punk and rebel portion in Deerson's class. He talks about the things that he hates about society today and how he thinks they are all stupid, kinda like how we made a song about the things that we didn't like in society. The poem is pretty funny but it has a message too. Well here it is and watch more spoken word poems on youtube.

Speaking Out

Rebelling is a great idea and often the best way to get things done. Great peacemakers like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi protested and rebelled in some way. When things go wrong, rebel. If you don't like how things are going or how things are run, rebel. If your bored, rebel. Rebelling is a basic American freedom provided by the constitution, but is it really the best choice? Sure it is definitely legal to rebel thats not the problem, the problem is your life may be in danger.
As mentioned earlier Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi were known for their rebellions they lead to try to change things. They spoke out against political problems and showed their discontent, but what happened to all of them? I am not saying they were not doing the right thing, I fully agree with what they were doing and what it meant for the future. The problem was when other people do not like what they said, these "haters" did something back. All three of these brave leaders were assassinated and shot down speaking their minds. So it isn't a question of how legal or not their actions were, but how dangerous it is to do it in public.

I'm not sure how to describe punk. Although i feel like since the bands and leaders of the punk movement stopped it before it got popular, it stayed true to the real message. The epitome of punk is against the norm and what people like; if people catch on then it's a complete failure. Then one might ask, who did they pursue the movement for? If not for the rest of the "punk" population, then was it for themself? It all seems like a paradox to me. If you truly listen to the clash or a punk band, their sound is very unique. When people think of punk, electric guitars, piercings, tattoos, and all black skinny jeans come to mind. This is the media's version of "punk" and rebellion. http://www.poster.net/clash-the/clash-the-band-6500016.jpg If you actually look at the clash their wearing leather and very different clothing. The singing isn't ideal, but that's what makes them unique.
This is my personal favorite! Enjoy :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hDeEIHlvwI

Religious Freedom

It's sad, but we have to face it. There is freedom in this country, yet not what we think. I feel like even though you can practice whatever religion you want, if you're a nonbeliever, you will be influenced at some point in your life. Religion should not be that important. It is sad but i feel like it's over-rated. Mostly because it's something that we are not sure about. What we are sure about is that there is a person standing next to you. Then why on earth would you want to kill the person you see, hear, feel over something that is totally unseen? Religion should be something that you keep to yourself. It should not influence anyone else. Yet for some reason people feel like it's a big deal. You can't have religious freedom in a country where people will kill others about it. It's stupid to mix politics over religion. Those two things have nothing in common. How can you tell someone can lead the country by his religion? You can't! There are so many other things we need to focus on about the candidates. Religion will not guide people. People guide people!

[[ I'm not athiest or anything, I'm Christian, I'm just stating a point. ]]

Black History Month

Okay, so I know this doesn't relate to freedom and rebellion. However, because Black History month is coming up--that February to all those of you who forgot--I thought someone might find it interesting. Plus, it relates to past subjects about racism.

Nothing Like Freedom

Though the Scots are ready to surrender after seeing the giant and well-prepared English army, William Wallace soon convinces them to keep fighting. He inspires them to risk their lives with just the mere mention of the word, freedom. Why is the concept of freedom so motivating? Why is it so universal? The Scots knew its worth, and everytime I watch this clip, I get chills. Many people do. And that's because we are able to empathize with the value of freedom. Why is freedom so worth fighting for?

Inauguration

They're protesting against people's freedom and telling us they're about to judge anyone that supports these things? Is this the most ridiculous rebellion you've ever seen?!

Best Way to Rebel

What's the best way to rebel? When most people think of rebellion, they probably picture rock bands, rage, and crazy things associated with anger. And a lot of popular bands, The Clash and Sex Pistols for example, were successful in getting their points across, but that happened because they became famous, which is not at all easy. Isn't their a better way to fight the system?
This clip from That 70's Show shows a girl that is rebellious. Do you think that her idea of "fighting the system from the inside" is the best way to do it?

Life Without Rejection: Not possible.

There is no perfect society anywhere in the world. There are always going to be those people who draw themselves away from what we have all agreed to call normal. People who in the eyes of someone society has excepted as normal will see this poor person who may not be hurting anyone and hurt them. There is not society that accepts all. Todays society rejects people for the way they look and from their heritage, in the past the rejection was greater but we still reject people who are different. And places of religious worship casts away sinners from  the society of that particular religion. If no one was rejected we would not have people we have agreed to consider "bad" we would have people that did not do what they were told or expected to and were tolerable for being rebellious but not looked at in any other different light. But there will always be a better and a worse, a right and a wrong, we have adapted ourselves to think this way and we will never change that outlook. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" a quote derived from the Bible. 

Freedom: Exercising Your Rights

There were two strips in my favorite webcomic, xkcd, that got me thinking about exercising your rights in a democracy.























We frequently discuss that it is important to vote but what if our opinion (much like the subject in the comic) is that everything is okay? A friend of mine who turned eighteen this November chose not to vote in the election because she thought the both Obama and McCain would make equally good presidents and was happy with either choice. Was she forfeiting her right to her opinion by not voting?

The other comic made me think about what happens when we take our rights in a democracy too far.















We have the right to protest, but is it always necessary? What happens if we are protesting something that could be seen as silly? Are we abusing our rights?

Is Banksy a punk?

In Mr. Reck's class, we looked at some of Banksy's artwork. If being a punk is defined as rejecting society, is Banksy, who rejects society's rules by making his artwork illegally, a punk?

The cage vs. The world

A lion tamer said "There is a cage. Outside the cage is the cage and inside is the world." What do you think it means? How do you think it applies to freedom?

new food for thought

everyone says punks rebel against society and the government and their parents and pretty much rules in general. but really they are just expressing themselves more verbally through words and music and visually with their clothes and sometime with their art. so in reality pucks arent really rebelling they are using their right to freedom to its extent, freedom of expression. do you agree with this? why or why not? are punks rebels or just using their freedom of expression?

Relativism and Its Impact

In my English class a few months ago we were talking about ethics and whether they are relative or not. For those of you who haven't taken philosophy and/or have no idea what I'm talking about, for an ethic to not be relative, it means that a law or right is applicable to every culture. For example, if slavery is wrong in today's society, then it has always been wrong. On the other side of the argument, this means that slavery may have been okay in another culture, like the ancient Greeks, but is not okay in our society. Relative ethics means that every society should have different rules/laws, etc. depending on their culture and traditions.
A lot of people in my class believe that ethics are relative. We also talked about this in my Philosophy class last year and we were pretty unanimous that ethics are not relative.
The idea of ethics being relative is really dangerous in our society for several reasons. For one, it gives individuals the right to form their own societeis with their own rules and obligations, etc. It's like saying that a cult can be a different society so if the leader wants to murder everyone in the cult and those people all agree, then that's okay. Basically, ehtics being relative is comparative to the theory of anarchy in government.
From what I've explained, what do you think? Should ethics be considered relative or not? Feel free to argue against what I've said if you think I'm wrong.

Freedom!

I love the Internet. It never stops amazing me. So, while I was thinking of a blog post for this unit, I typed in "freedom" into the Google search engine. This is the first image response of my search.
What does this say about how we view freedom in our society? Is this political cartoon true?

SNL's Git'mo Ad

Discuss.

Most Free

How / When do you feel most free? Why does this action / noun have this affect?

Birthright

Is freedom a birthright? Do all men deserve freedom and basic human rights?

Gaining Freedom

What does a human being need to go through to gain freedom? How difficult is freedom to attain?

Too Much Freedom

Can there ever be too much freedom? (For example, a complete freedom from laws results in anarchy.)

Artistic Movements

Since the invention of photography, the history of art has essentially been about radically working against the artistic traditions that came before. Is it easier to work with or against artistic traditions? In other words, which is harder - trying to embrace the methods of the past or creating an entirely new mode of expression?
***CHALLENGE: Create the next artistic movement.***

The Danger of Total Freedom

Famous filmmaker Federico Fellini (say that five times fast) said, "The greatest danger for an artist, is total freedom." Why would or how could total freedom be dangerous for an artist? What does an artist gain by letting others edit or change his/her work?

Should Art be Political?

Is art (visual, theatrical, musical, all kinds) better with or without a political message?

Rebellion

What's the most rebellious thing you've ever done? (Appropriate only please!) What motivated you? Even better: ask a parent, grandparent, etc. the most rebellious thing they ever did.

PUNK

If punk is truly an anarchic, violent, no holds-barred, spit-on-the-world kind of freedom, is punk realistic? Is punk even possible?
***CHALLENGE: Publicly perform as your punk band you formed in class.***

Relating to the Butterfly Effect

I have always felt that the course of my most subtle actions has made the biggest impact on my life. In example, if I wake up, get dressed, and go out I am not in my room sleeping anymore. What if i got into an accident and died when going out? what if I didn't get into my car at 11:47 am  to go shopping with my friends and slept? what if I asked my friends to meet me there instead of picking them up? Every decision and every action decides your next. Everything reacts based on others reactions. Not everything is as extreme as the situation i just thought up but it still proves the point that everyones actions effect other people and in the long run will tend to cause a butterfly effect.

It is how you finish

Often times people are not exactly remembered for who they are, but more of what they did in life. In sports it is often said how people only remember how you finished. Nobody will remember you for leading the race halfway through only to finish in second place. Take the 2007-2008 NFL team the New England Patriots. They went 16-0 in the regular season and then two more wins in the playoffs to make it to the big show, the Superbowl. They make it all the way to the Superbowl only to lose to the New York Giants. With this fresh in our mind we know how the Patriots came so close to being undefeated, but lost it in the end. In ten or twenty years when people think of Superbowl Bowl XLII they will remember how the Giants won it and beat the Patriots, not how the Patriots almost went undefeated.

This same though process of making sure you are remembered for what you have done is very similar to an episode of the cartoon Futurama. In the episode, A Pharaoh to Remember, Bender wants to be remembered forever for his leadership. He forces his slaves to build a massive statue of him to serve as a tribute to his fame, but in the end they destroy it and try to kill Bender. Bender realized that unless there was something big he did nobody may remember him, and sadly that is true in real life. Often times unless you have done something great or left behind something amazing of you behind the whole world won't remember you. Your family will always remember you and have pictures and memories, but aside from that this society looks for specifics to be remembered by.

On Happiness

okay... so i decided to do an interesting 'experiment'/survey (whichever you prefer to call it).
with the help of Baker (guy i work with) we came up with this question -
"is society generally more happy or unhappy".
so i surveyed 50 people - random customers at work, other mall employees, and three family members - all different races, ages, status, income, etc. and asked them that question and recorded the results in my journal. so i thought i would post the question -

IS society generally more happy or unhappy - and why?