in light of the pre-socratics

In our discussion of the pre-socratics this past week, I never exactly found a philosopher that I completely identified with or agreed with, but I did find that certain aspects and ideals of some of these philosophers especially appealed to me. I loved Thales' idea of priority over multiplicity, and his psychological idea that to know thyself is to know the all. I don't think I totally agree or understand how to know thyself is to know the all, but I do believe that having a sense of who you are as a human is a significant priority for further understanding and discovery. Also, through his philosophy, his ideology pertains to Phaedo in that the soul is deathless. Secondly, I also could identify with Anaximander's appreciation for mystery, because he says that the final goal of philosophy is unattainable. I agree with him in that I also believe that not all questions relating to philosophy can be answered, and that some ideas are meant to be beyond us as humans, because we are limited. Finally, I enjoyed Pythagorus' philosophical understanding because he has an appreciation for the soul being immortal. In saying that everything is number, he says that we are more than our bodies in essence, because number cannot be destroyed.

Atomism

As a chemist by trade one of the things that Dr. Layne had mentioned in lecture were the Atomists and that made me perk up a little bit in class .

She mentioned how they believed all things came from atoms and I think to myself, "yes! Finally away from all that water and air stuff!" Now we're on to something that I can agree to, atoms composing everything in the natural world. Now it is known that there are numerous subatomic particles that even make up atoms, but for the ancient world this is still a pretty cool notion.

When I first cam across this thought of everything being made up of atoms as a kid I then wondered, "If all things are atoms, then there are tiny tiny gaps between all the atoms. If all things have all these gaps because they are made of atoms if I were to sit in a chair over and over and over again and aligned everything just right, would all the 'atom gaps' line up and I could then pass through the chair?" Silly yes, but I still wondered and pondered until I later learned about all the electrostatic interactions that occur both intermolecularly and intramolecularly. It made sense to me and really it was this question that got me interested in the sciences.

Since atoms are made up of neutrons, electrons, protons, etc. are there neutronists and electronists much like there are atomists? Or are they encompassed by the atomists? Or are they known as today's chemists and physicists?

I may be interested in the atomists the most because I think I would like to owe it to them in a round about sort of way for my love of the sciences.

Idol Fallacies

In class this week, we discussed common fallicies. Trying to relate the subject to something I experienced during the week, I thought about the show American Idol. It is then that these fallacies are a common occurance on the talent show. As they go from city to city, holding auditions there are those who can sing and those who cannot. Fallacies are commonly used by those who cant sing as an argument against the judges. In the event of the faulty cause, correlation or association is mistaken for causation. If someone has a bad audition, they often insist that it is because the judges make them nervous, that is the only reason that they could not sing, Although they are nervouse and cannot sing, their nervousness does not cause their lack of talent. Another common fallacy used is ad hominem. This is the challenge of an argument by slandering its sources rather than the content of the argument itself. Often after being told they can't sing, contestants turn on the judges claiming that they have no talent or that they are predjudice against a certain type of person. Also used is the fallacy of appeal to pity. In which one begs for a second audition, often claiming that they want to be the next American Idol really badly or even crying. It made me think, do people really use these fallacies in attempt to win arguments? Seeing this on television we think it's pathetic and futile but we actually use pity, faulty cause, and even ad hominem to get what it is that we want everyday.

"Panta Rei"

During our ongoing discussions of the origins of philosophy, we covered the life and beliefs of Heraclitus. One concept I found particularly fascinating was Heraclitus’ idea of radical flux (“Into the same rivers we do and do not step"). Heraclitus' philosophy can be captured in just two words: "panta rei”; everything flows, meaning that everything is constantly changing. Only change itself is real and constant like the continuous flow of a river which always renews itself. Dr. Layne gave us the example of stepping into a spot of the Mississippi River twice. No same step would be the “same” because the river is always flowing, essentially bringing in different waters from the flux. So this got me thinking. If change is inevitable, then why do we ultimately fear it? Change is natural, necessary, and acts as a catalyst for growth. For example, if a baby did not change, it would never go from crawling to walking, an older child would never advance from kindergarten to first grade, etc. The reality is that life is change. Seasons change. Jobs change. Relationships change. People change. So why then do we resist what’s natural? Simply because we hold on to everything close to us and try our best to always keep things the same. We must learn to embrace change.

Who's to say you aren't flying if you never look down.

I think about reality a lot and how the basis of perception is often taken for granted. It's easy to get lost in the idea that where you are and what you see, right down to the angle of your eyes and the light of day, will never ever be able to be replicated again. I came up with the quote "who's to say you aren't flying if you never look down" in a poem I wrote awhile ago. Originally when I wrote it, it pertained to dreams and being able to reach beyond the common day (as noted by challenging the notion of walking). Now, taking philosophy I believe this quote may contain a lot more. If I never look at my feet while I'm walking, maybe I'm not walking at all. Yes, in my head I can conceive the idea, and that is what I've asked my body to do. But, what if I ask it to fly, and never look down. Maybe, I'd have to come to the reality that I'm only flying about five feet off the ground, but that doesn't mean I'm not flying, right? This challenging of "reality" can pertain to a lot more than just this idea. Ever action we give a word and a meaning to, but so many times it can be more than that. More than words and action-reality. A basis of OUR perception that may be (and I do believe on many accounts that we do) share with everyone else.

Stereotypical Black Women

As an African American female, I am very aware of the many stereotypes that people place on me and other African American females. I know that as humans, we tend to jump to conclusions and make generalizations about almost everything. As I looked through the list of fallacies that were covered in class, I realized that the common fallacy of sweeping generalizations is one that continues to plague human beings. I know that people have tons of characteristics that they assume are traits of black females, but of course we know that it’s impossible for everyone in a group to be the same. I know nine times out of ten, television shows portray black women as loud, aggressive, angry, and obnoxious. The perfect example of this can be shown in the following video clip from a show called “Everybody Hates Chris”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhspzWX03Ak

This video portrays a black wife becoming extremely angry and over dramatic about some comments her husband made. Although it is easy to make assumptions about people, we must try not to fall into this trend. I am actually the complete opposite of the stereotypical black woman. I am very quiet and reserved, not very outspoken at all, and although we all get angry about things, I am not one to express my anger in an openly aggressive manner. So what is true in part is most definitely not true of the whole. Yes, there may be a large portion of black women who have these specific traits like being loud, aggressive, angry, and obnoxious. However, people must remember that when stereotypes describe a group of people, the description doesn’t necessarily describe 100% of the group.