Monday, February 28, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Problem of Physical Evil
Alright so for philosophy we have to make a claim about something (examples: whether or not God exists, if contingent things have causes, if there is a First Cause, etc.), and then present an argument leading to the conclusion. There are a lot of great ideas, but I'm having a bit of a problem; I don't have a firm, concrete set of beliefs. Instead, I have this abstract construction of ideas and possibilities that I currently see acceptable for my beliefs. And the thing about having unnecessarily sure beliefs, is that when you debate about abstract ideas and end up with a giant ball of convolution, your beliefs are less sure than they were before (assuming you didn't get an epiphany).
So let's get some things straight before I delve into my part-class discussion, part-self-indulgence via notebook:
1.) Assume that I essentially have no understanding of the Bible. That is to say, I'm 99% sure that I won't be referencing the Bible after this sentence.
2.) When I refer to "God," I will do my best to say "a God," since there are religions who believe in "God," yet this God is different across religions. So I will say "a God" as often as I can.
3.) I don't necessarily believe in a God, but rather the idea of a God. This one is a little harder to make clear for people, but perhaps I'll do that in the next few hundred words.
And let the fun begin...
So the claim I was working on at the end of class was that God and evil can coexist. The latter is obviously much easier to prove - bad things happen to people who cannot control these bad things, and bad things result from them, and people suffer. Examples would include the Holocaust, Columbine, Hurricane Katrina, and the Haiti Earthquake, meaning that physical evil and suffering can be either intentional or naturally occurring. Proving that evil exists seems easy enough. The difficult part is proving that God does or does not exist simultaneously with physical evil and suffering. There is the argument that an omniscient, omnipotent (all-knowing, all-powerful, respectively) God would stop physical evil, and thus since there exists physical evil and suffering, this God does not exist. Here's my argument with that one - why couldn't another God exist? He doesn't have to be omnipotent, he could just have created the universe and all of that stuff (alright, so I alluded to Genesis, my bad), and then let us do what we want with our lives. Otherwise known as free will. I believe in free will as opposed to predestination, because the latter is frankly not fun to live by. If your life is set in stone from day one, what's the fun in that? And with this free will, people make decisions that affect a number of people in a negative way (see: Hitler). Now what you may be thinking right now is the whole "everything happens for a reason" rebuttal. I don't believe that at all. Sure, you can see the silver lining in bad events, but wouldn't it be better if the entire event was lined with silver? I don't buy in to the argument that God put evil on Earth for a reason, because if he truly was perfectly good and omnipotent, then I believe that He wouldn't do that.
In the same ballpark as free will is the concept that things can sometimes be completely out of our control, like natural disasters. I would even throw the people who fall into the category of "wrong place, wrong time" into the realm of things out of their control. What about the safe driver who is hit by a drunk driver and dies? It unfortunately happens, and the cause of death is out of the victim's control.
After typing all of this and reassessing my exact arguments towards making this claim, I conclude that it is possible for evil and God to coexist, since there can exist a God who created the Earth and gives us free will, and with that free will, humans make decisions that impact others - sometimes for good, and in this case, sometimes for bad.
So let's get some things straight before I delve into my part-class discussion, part-self-indulgence via notebook:
1.) Assume that I essentially have no understanding of the Bible. That is to say, I'm 99% sure that I won't be referencing the Bible after this sentence.
2.) When I refer to "God," I will do my best to say "a God," since there are religions who believe in "God," yet this God is different across religions. So I will say "a God" as often as I can.
3.) I don't necessarily believe in a God, but rather the idea of a God. This one is a little harder to make clear for people, but perhaps I'll do that in the next few hundred words.
And let the fun begin...
So the claim I was working on at the end of class was that God and evil can coexist. The latter is obviously much easier to prove - bad things happen to people who cannot control these bad things, and bad things result from them, and people suffer. Examples would include the Holocaust, Columbine, Hurricane Katrina, and the Haiti Earthquake, meaning that physical evil and suffering can be either intentional or naturally occurring. Proving that evil exists seems easy enough. The difficult part is proving that God does or does not exist simultaneously with physical evil and suffering. There is the argument that an omniscient, omnipotent (all-knowing, all-powerful, respectively) God would stop physical evil, and thus since there exists physical evil and suffering, this God does not exist. Here's my argument with that one - why couldn't another God exist? He doesn't have to be omnipotent, he could just have created the universe and all of that stuff (alright, so I alluded to Genesis, my bad), and then let us do what we want with our lives. Otherwise known as free will. I believe in free will as opposed to predestination, because the latter is frankly not fun to live by. If your life is set in stone from day one, what's the fun in that? And with this free will, people make decisions that affect a number of people in a negative way (see: Hitler). Now what you may be thinking right now is the whole "everything happens for a reason" rebuttal. I don't believe that at all. Sure, you can see the silver lining in bad events, but wouldn't it be better if the entire event was lined with silver? I don't buy in to the argument that God put evil on Earth for a reason, because if he truly was perfectly good and omnipotent, then I believe that He wouldn't do that.
In the same ballpark as free will is the concept that things can sometimes be completely out of our control, like natural disasters. I would even throw the people who fall into the category of "wrong place, wrong time" into the realm of things out of their control. What about the safe driver who is hit by a drunk driver and dies? It unfortunately happens, and the cause of death is out of the victim's control.
After typing all of this and reassessing my exact arguments towards making this claim, I conclude that it is possible for evil and God to coexist, since there can exist a God who created the Earth and gives us free will, and with that free will, humans make decisions that impact others - sometimes for good, and in this case, sometimes for bad.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Expectations
How good do you want to be?
Decent? Good enough? The best?
Let me tell you what I think.
It's not good enough to be good enough.
It's certainly nothing special to be nothing special.
What I say is that it doesn't matter if you're better than everyone else.
What I say is that the only expectations you should meet are your own.
And once you do so, raise those expectations.
Always improve upon yourself and what you can be.
The question to keep asking yourself is this:
What can I do to become better?
The beauty of this question is that
there is always an answer.
Decent? Good enough? The best?
Let me tell you what I think.
It's not good enough to be good enough.
It's certainly nothing special to be nothing special.
What I say is that it doesn't matter if you're better than everyone else.
What I say is that the only expectations you should meet are your own.
And once you do so, raise those expectations.
Always improve upon yourself and what you can be.
The question to keep asking yourself is this:
What can I do to become better?
The beauty of this question is that
there is always an answer.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Second Nature
For only the second time I enter a blog post without a title in mind. The first time I did this, it was a pretty common blog post about how I wished it were already the weekend. This post is a little different.
How are we different online? Online including but not limited to texting, blogging, Facebook, email, etc. How do we conduct ourselves online that differs from our face to face conduct? It's something that I think is really cool to think about. As far as the general public goes, I think there's a difference - while I can picture you saying what I am reading in front of me, sometimes 1) your message isn't conveyed the way you want it to be, or 2) I infer something incorrect from your tone. And that's why I try to...do things online, talk online exactly the same way as I speak. Like take the ...take even the first 3 words of this exact sentence. If I was talking to you in person then I would have said "like," but online, I could easily remove the first word of that sentence and have it be more sound as a sentence. But I think that that loses the naturalness of conversation and using the written word. I think that if we manipulate how we translate our thoughts into words online, then we create an artificial representation of our thoughts, a representation that isn't exactly what we were thinking.
And speaking of what we're thinking (by which I mean what I'm thinking)...I still lack a title for this post. I don't usually like traveling down the "let's use the first line like in a poem or church hymn as our title" method, and instead I like finding some witty relevant remark. But like I said...I got nothin. Hm, I think I have one. Second nature (as you well know by now). Because think about it - using words to communicate ideas has become second nature to society - the proof is in the pudding (that may not at all be the right place to use that phrase...but hey, when in Rome...). So let's go with that.
How are we different online? Online including but not limited to texting, blogging, Facebook, email, etc. How do we conduct ourselves online that differs from our face to face conduct? It's something that I think is really cool to think about. As far as the general public goes, I think there's a difference - while I can picture you saying what I am reading in front of me, sometimes 1) your message isn't conveyed the way you want it to be, or 2) I infer something incorrect from your tone. And that's why I try to...do things online, talk online exactly the same way as I speak. Like take the ...take even the first 3 words of this exact sentence. If I was talking to you in person then I would have said "like," but online, I could easily remove the first word of that sentence and have it be more sound as a sentence. But I think that that loses the naturalness of conversation and using the written word. I think that if we manipulate how we translate our thoughts into words online, then we create an artificial representation of our thoughts, a representation that isn't exactly what we were thinking.
And speaking of what we're thinking (by which I mean what I'm thinking)...I still lack a title for this post. I don't usually like traveling down the "let's use the first line like in a poem or church hymn as our title" method, and instead I like finding some witty relevant remark. But like I said...I got nothin. Hm, I think I have one. Second nature (as you well know by now). Because think about it - using words to communicate ideas has become second nature to society - the proof is in the pudding (that may not at all be the right place to use that phrase...but hey, when in Rome...). So let's go with that.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
To Have Succeeded
So apparently I'm in the mood of expressing my thoughts through other peoples' thoughts these days, but hey, if the shoe fits...see if the other one fits. Anyway, despite my lame attempt at humor, this poem kind of ties into "If", which I talked about in one of my recent posts. (Editor's note: I know that the comma is supposed to go inside of the quotation marks right there, but in my opinion, that's tarnishing the name of the work. The poem "If" does not have a comma in the title, which is my reason for placing it after the end quotation marks. I am also fully aware that less than 3% of anyone reading this would bring that point up, but hey - being different from 97% of the world is fun sometimes.)
To Have Succeeded
To laugh often and love much;
To win the respect of intelligent people
And the affection of children;
To earn the approbation of honest critics
And endure the betrayal of false friends;
To appreciate beauty;
To find the best in others;
To give one's self;
To leave the world a little better,
Whether by a healthy child,
A garden patch,
Or redeemed social condition;
To have played and laughed with enthusiasm
And sung with exultation;
To know even one life has breathed easier
Because you have lived...
This is to have succeeded.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
This poem is really similar to "If" in the way that the "if you [do this]," then you can be successful in life and have a fulfilling life. But here, Emerson does it without the contrary side to each statement, which actually might make this poem seem a little less powerful than Rudyard Kipling's poem. In any case, the message here is pretty clear - this is another poem on how to live your life. And hopefully this gets you thinking about your own, as what much of this blog is intended to do. It might not impact me directly that you're thinking about your life, but it will impact you. And that should be good enough reason to give it a shot.
To Have Succeeded
To laugh often and love much;
To win the respect of intelligent people
And the affection of children;
To earn the approbation of honest critics
And endure the betrayal of false friends;
To appreciate beauty;
To find the best in others;
To give one's self;
To leave the world a little better,
Whether by a healthy child,
A garden patch,
Or redeemed social condition;
To have played and laughed with enthusiasm
And sung with exultation;
To know even one life has breathed easier
Because you have lived...
This is to have succeeded.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
This poem is really similar to "If" in the way that the "if you [do this]," then you can be successful in life and have a fulfilling life. But here, Emerson does it without the contrary side to each statement, which actually might make this poem seem a little less powerful than Rudyard Kipling's poem. In any case, the message here is pretty clear - this is another poem on how to live your life. And hopefully this gets you thinking about your own, as what much of this blog is intended to do. It might not impact me directly that you're thinking about your life, but it will impact you. And that should be good enough reason to give it a shot.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Remembering Remembering
First off, allow me to explain the title - this post is going to deal with memory (specifically my first memory), and how I remember, remembering.
Every time someone brings up the topic of memory, the question of everyone's first memory is brought up. And every time, I recall my fateful first day of pre-kindergarten. I was screaming and crying because I didn't want my dad to leave me with all these people I didn't know, and my dad was consoling me to no avail. He said that he had to run to the car for a second...strangely enough, he didn't return. Which led to more tears and bawling...I forgave him eventually.
But is that really my first memory? I remember something from Natick, where I lived until I was about 3 or so. I don't remember any events, but I remember the grayish-blue house across the street with the old guy who reminded me of the old guy from Dennis the Menace. That wasn't really an event, so would we consider that a memory?
And there's always the idea that inception has been around long before Leonardo DiCaprio introduced it to us over this past summer; it's possible that my parents would always tell me this story (they always found it funnier than I did for some reason) and that it ended up construing that as my first memory, since they didn't repeatedly tell me anything from before that time.
So what exactly is my first memory? Ironically enough, I'm not really sure what it is. It's just cool to think about.
Every time someone brings up the topic of memory, the question of everyone's first memory is brought up. And every time, I recall my fateful first day of pre-kindergarten. I was screaming and crying because I didn't want my dad to leave me with all these people I didn't know, and my dad was consoling me to no avail. He said that he had to run to the car for a second...strangely enough, he didn't return. Which led to more tears and bawling...I forgave him eventually.
But is that really my first memory? I remember something from Natick, where I lived until I was about 3 or so. I don't remember any events, but I remember the grayish-blue house across the street with the old guy who reminded me of the old guy from Dennis the Menace. That wasn't really an event, so would we consider that a memory?
And there's always the idea that inception has been around long before Leonardo DiCaprio introduced it to us over this past summer; it's possible that my parents would always tell me this story (they always found it funnier than I did for some reason) and that it ended up construing that as my first memory, since they didn't repeatedly tell me anything from before that time.
So what exactly is my first memory? Ironically enough, I'm not really sure what it is. It's just cool to think about.
Monday, February 14, 2011
If
As I've said before, I've written blog posts that intend to create a response in my few readers - I'm going to try something different here - I'm going to give you guys something that isn't mine that will hopefully bring you to extreme thought. This poem is called "If" by Rudyard Kipling.
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting, too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good nor talk too wise;
If you can dream and not make dreams your master;
If you can think and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster,
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings,
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-tos,
And lose and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings-nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And-which is more-you'll be a Man, my son!
-Rudyard Kipling
I think that the message of this poem is pretty clear - if we can be [this] despite [that], then we can achieve anything in this world. I especially love the penultimate line and the feeling that comes with thinking that yours is the Earth, and everything that's in it. I wish the last line ended with a period instead of an exclamation point, however. As much as I love exclaiming, I love ending epic things with periods more. Just imagine the end of a House episode where House is staring off into the distance as the last note of the indie rock character montage rings resonantly. That's what I hope happened to you after you finished the poem. You stared off into the distance, wondering about your life. Perhaps you don't do this frequently enough. If that's the case, then keep in mind that there are always things to give you a push in the right direction.
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting, too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good nor talk too wise;
If you can dream and not make dreams your master;
If you can think and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster,
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings,
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-tos,
And lose and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings-nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And-which is more-you'll be a Man, my son!
-Rudyard Kipling
I think that the message of this poem is pretty clear - if we can be [this] despite [that], then we can achieve anything in this world. I especially love the penultimate line and the feeling that comes with thinking that yours is the Earth, and everything that's in it. I wish the last line ended with a period instead of an exclamation point, however. As much as I love exclaiming, I love ending epic things with periods more. Just imagine the end of a House episode where House is staring off into the distance as the last note of the indie rock character montage rings resonantly. That's what I hope happened to you after you finished the poem. You stared off into the distance, wondering about your life. Perhaps you don't do this frequently enough. If that's the case, then keep in mind that there are always things to give you a push in the right direction.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Room #18
So this is my eighteenth blog post, and post number 18 started the same way post number 1 did - entirely impulsively, post-midnight. I've made temporary changes to the layout of my blog over the past few days, and entirely remade it over like half an hour ago (which you probably noticed). So I suppose this is an appropriate time for some blog post retrospect - of my first seventeen posts, some have been rants on sports, some have been designed to elicit a response in my readers, and some have been the arbitrary, pointless musings of a college freshman. (Come to think of it, that wouldn't have been a bad name for my blog.) I think it's pretty easy to see where this one falls under (door number three (the pointless musings one, for those confused by the assortment of numbers and "things you would have in a house")) - but the thing about pointless musings is that my mind goes blank after a while, and I sort of dabble on, stumbling through words and sentences. Ironically enough, that last sentence perfectly describes this post (as well as any other pointless musing post). If you think about it, this blog post about the occasional disorder of my blog is very clear and easy to understand. Or maybe that's just me. (Editor's Note: History shows that 74% of the time, it's just me.) (Editor's Note: Yes, I understand that I am the editor and did not require either of these parenthetical remarks in this post. But come on. You should expect this by now.)
Thursday, February 10, 2011
One For the Ages
If you don't know it yet, I'm a pretty big Duke fan.
You would have seen my Blue Devil pride on display if you were watching tonight's game with me. Duke held off UNC by a score of 79-73, in what was a tale of two halves. The Tar Heels started out of the gate flying, extending their lead to as large as 16 points. Freshmen Harrison Barnes and Kendall Marshall led the way in the backcourt for UNC, while bigs Tyler Zeller and John Henson were a dominant force in the paint. Luckily, the second half belonged to the home team, as Duke quickly erased the Carolina lead. Nolan Smith led the way for the Blue Devils with a career-high 34 points, and Seth Curry was a huge boost of the bench with 22 points.
But you're probably bored of statistics, something I could talk about forever. The point is that this game was simply amazing - while I watched the first half on my laptop while the rest of my friends in my room were watching ABC Comedy Night, they would occasionally hear me swear at my computer or start pounding my desk in frustration. Even more interesting were my reactions in the second half when Duke was making their comeback. I was throwing my mini basketball around the room, jumping up and down, and modestly, it was a treat to see. This is a game I am definitely on the lookout for on iTunes, as it is well worth the $1.99 to watch as many times as I want.
You would have seen my Blue Devil pride on display if you were watching tonight's game with me. Duke held off UNC by a score of 79-73, in what was a tale of two halves. The Tar Heels started out of the gate flying, extending their lead to as large as 16 points. Freshmen Harrison Barnes and Kendall Marshall led the way in the backcourt for UNC, while bigs Tyler Zeller and John Henson were a dominant force in the paint. Luckily, the second half belonged to the home team, as Duke quickly erased the Carolina lead. Nolan Smith led the way for the Blue Devils with a career-high 34 points, and Seth Curry was a huge boost of the bench with 22 points.
But you're probably bored of statistics, something I could talk about forever. The point is that this game was simply amazing - while I watched the first half on my laptop while the rest of my friends in my room were watching ABC Comedy Night, they would occasionally hear me swear at my computer or start pounding my desk in frustration. Even more interesting were my reactions in the second half when Duke was making their comeback. I was throwing my mini basketball around the room, jumping up and down, and modestly, it was a treat to see. This is a game I am definitely on the lookout for on iTunes, as it is well worth the $1.99 to watch as many times as I want.
Monday, February 7, 2011
1 Reason Why I Hate the NFL
I was going to list 10 reasons why I hate the NFL, talking about the impending lockout, officiating, penalties and fines, Brett Favre, Roger Goodell, and 5 other things, but I started hating the NFL even more as I was typing. So, I'll leave it at this - I hate the NFL too much to even talk about how much I hate it.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
A Half(time) Show
Man, do the Black Eyed Peas suck. After a rather seemingly quick halftime show, I've decided that the Black Eyed Peas have one good song ever. And what was up with those dancers with boxes on their heads? I would much rather have watched 20 minutes of commercials than 20 minutes of bad singing...There's not much to say about this, so I'll let you all enjoy the other pop-culture bands that I also think have no talent.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Proving the Impossible
In Calculus II today, we were talking about improper integrals and other things that under 10% of humans fully understand, and one integrand came up that our professor said was impossible to antiderive. (+5 if you understood that entire sentence.) As in, it was proven to be impossible to solve. My question is, how can this be so? How can you prove something is impossible? I suppose the convention on this would be trying every single possible method, and if all resulted in failures, well, you've got yourself an impossibility. Take the sum of 2 and 2. It's impossible for 2+2 to be anything besides 4, because 1) 2+2 does not equal 5, or 6, or 7, or -3, or 1.4, or anything that isn't 4, and 2) 2+2 does in fact equal 4. So how does that relate back to proving the impossible? Just because something hasn't been observed, doesn't mean it's not impossible. I've never been able to dunk on a ten foot rim, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for me to. Improbable, yes. Very unlikely, yes. Ever going to happen, probably not. But I mean it's not outside of the realm of possibility. So just because we haven't seen an antiderivative of e^(-x^2), how does that make it so no antiderivative exists?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)