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?