Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Socratic Seminar 1- The Value of Science
The Value of Science - By Richard Feynman
Feynman raises very interesting points about the value of science in his article. His very first point is that value can be described as " the material or monetary worth of something" (Macbook Dictionary); therefore, regardless of science having a positive or negative impact on society it still maintains value. I believe that if one follows the literal definition of value, science in any respect has value (good or bad), but if one determines value through reality and actuality, science may not always have value due to its negative impact on society, thus proving to be non-beneficial to the major population. I believe value is perceived to many people as something society can benefit from or progress from. Now, who determines progress? There are different types of progress, such as technological, individual, and the progress of society. The progress of technology would encompass the enhancement of previous technology. This enhancement would essentially make this technology widely accessible, and perhaps easy to use, but the use of this technology can be good or bad. The progress of society, in my opinion, is not defined by technological progression alone, but along with morality.
Morality itself is a very complex idea. The progression of science may not always be ethical or morally sound, if used in a negative manner, but Feynman raises a valid point, "Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad--but it does not carry instructions on how to use it". People may use science to do good, or they may use it to do bad, either way, the scientists nor the scientific knowledge decide how one will use the progression of science. This is why I believe morality comes from within each individual. There is always that possibility that one may do good or bad.
Scientists question, that is the basic foundation of science. Science is theory, it does not include absolute fact. I believe Feynman is articulating the separation between science and society. It is true that society may use scientific knowledge to its benefit, but science on its own is the art of mystery and discovery. Scientists strive to solve scientific problems. They are interested in the ideas that they discover, whereas society is concerned with the use of the idea, like the cure for cancer.
Overall I believe that it is not the scientists responsibility to determine the impact scientific knowledge will have on society. They may take it into consideration but their profession is unique in the sense that they are more interested in the discovery of ideas, much less than the use of every idea. Morality is an aspect of society that must be obtained through the people within the society.
1. Do you believe scientific knowledge leads to the progression of society? Why or why not?
2. Is it the scientists sole responsibility to take into account the affect of scientific knowledge upon society?
3. Can anyone control the use or misuse of scientific knowledge? If so who decides and to what extent?
Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)
Feynman raises very interesting points about the value of science in his article. His very first point is that value can be described as " the material or monetary worth of something" (Macbook Dictionary); therefore, regardless of science having a positive or negative impact on society it still maintains value. I believe that if one follows the literal definition of value, science in any respect has value (good or bad), but if one determines value through reality and actuality, science may not always have value due to its negative impact on society, thus proving to be non-beneficial to the major population. I believe value is perceived to many people as something society can benefit from or progress from. Now, who determines progress? There are different types of progress, such as technological, individual, and the progress of society. The progress of technology would encompass the enhancement of previous technology. This enhancement would essentially make this technology widely accessible, and perhaps easy to use, but the use of this technology can be good or bad. The progress of society, in my opinion, is not defined by technological progression alone, but along with morality.
Morality itself is a very complex idea. The progression of science may not always be ethical or morally sound, if used in a negative manner, but Feynman raises a valid point, "Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad--but it does not carry instructions on how to use it". People may use science to do good, or they may use it to do bad, either way, the scientists nor the scientific knowledge decide how one will use the progression of science. This is why I believe morality comes from within each individual. There is always that possibility that one may do good or bad.
Scientists question, that is the basic foundation of science. Science is theory, it does not include absolute fact. I believe Feynman is articulating the separation between science and society. It is true that society may use scientific knowledge to its benefit, but science on its own is the art of mystery and discovery. Scientists strive to solve scientific problems. They are interested in the ideas that they discover, whereas society is concerned with the use of the idea, like the cure for cancer.
Overall I believe that it is not the scientists responsibility to determine the impact scientific knowledge will have on society. They may take it into consideration but their profession is unique in the sense that they are more interested in the discovery of ideas, much less than the use of every idea. Morality is an aspect of society that must be obtained through the people within the society.
1. Do you believe scientific knowledge leads to the progression of society? Why or why not?
2. Is it the scientists sole responsibility to take into account the affect of scientific knowledge upon society?
3. Can anyone control the use or misuse of scientific knowledge? If so who decides and to what extent?
Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Oryx and Crake - Blog Post 1 [Pg 110]
Discuss:
Character development (Oryx, Crake, Snowman), the value of human life, gender/respect for women.
Notes made in class (Page 48)
Character Development:
Margret Atwood spends a significant amount of time during these first few chapters developing Snowman and Crake's character. We get to see a bit of Oryx's character but not in detail/depth. Atwood describes Snowman's family and his interesting childhood, which gives the reader a better idea of why Snowman behaved and felt the way he did in his past, as Jimmy. Jimmy always wanted to leave a mark on the people who he felt's opinion mattered. First with his parents, his mom especially, and then with Crake. As a child, Jimmy felt like he was surrounded by people who were very fake, people who would not express or show their true selves. Jimmy's mother was "different" in comparison to his father and all of the other people who lived in the compound. But once the story progressed further, it was clear that Jimmy's mother had a greater moral conscience than others, which in my opinion should not have been viewed in a negative light. Snowman's past gives the reader a better understanding as to how he thinks and how he feels. Although there is still more that can be learned about Snowman, Atwood does a good job developing his character from his childhood.
With Crake the reader is able to build a better understanding of what kind of person he is. Crake seems like a very omniscient being, or at least he views himself as one. He is very mature and to a certain extent, emotionless. The disturbing aspect of Crake is his lack of morality. Crake and Jimmy both may watch these live suicides, lethal injections, electrocutions, child pornography, and such, but Jimmy feels disgusted with himself at times, whereas Crake laughs at these horrid events. Yet there's more to Crake. His personality is so complex, he is such an intricate individual. He takes screen shots of moments he finds intriguing. Why he finds these certain moments fascinating? That we do not yet know. I believe Margret Atwood is slowly letting the characters within her novel, unravel with the progression of the story.
The Value of Human Life:
For people, regardless of their age, to watch other human beings commit suicide, receive lethal injections, etc, is extremely disturbing. This only goes to show how immensely corrupt the society is or has become. There really is no value of human life. People do not care if innocent individuals are dying or care enough to protest against other humans recording such vile acts. Instead people enjoy watching such horror. I understand that Stephan King was trying to make a point as to why people watch horror movies, but there's a difference when you know it is fake. When something is real, that is disgusting. For someone to laugh at such a thing is repulsive. The thought of society lacking empathy and becoming so heartless is revolting. Margret Atwood's novel, Oryx and Crake, really is a fantastic representation of Dystopia.
03.29_wounded_girl.jpg
I chose this picture because I believe it exemplifies pain, cruelty, and torture. All of which Crake would happen to laugh at. All children are innocent and no single being deserves to be tortured and forced to feel such an immense amount of pain exerted upon ones body. This child represents innocence that has been crushed, and destroyed. This picture represents Dystopia.
Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)
Character development (Oryx, Crake, Snowman), the value of human life, gender/respect for women.
Notes made in class (Page 48)
Oryx and Crake
Notes
Aysha Chaudhry
Pg. 46
Basic Plot:
· Snowman is Jimmy from the past
· Both Snowman and Crake were in love with Oryx
· Jimmy’s has a pet Rakunk, name is killer
· Crake is “God”
· Children of Crake (people)
· Children of Oryx (animals/plants)
· Jimmy and family live in compound
Family:
· Jimmy, mother and father
· Father works in a Genetic research/alteration factory
· Makes pigs with several of the same organs
· Works in OrganInc Farms
· Mother seems to be very distant from the family (the unusual one)
· Mother and Father fight a lot
· Mother doesn’t show much emotion further on in the novel
· Mother has a greater since of morality
· Jimmy feels like he must get a reaction out of his mother
· Jimmy does certain things just to see how his mother will react, and congratulates himself upon the results
· Mother and father try to act as if they are a perfect, flawless family (ideal)
· ^Fail! Jimmy hates how his mother and father act so fake
Government/Society
· Monitor people within the compounds
· Pleeblands seem to be like ghettos or “the outside world”
· Pleeblands are viewed as a pathetic way of life in compounds
· Security within compound is very tight and strict
· Most people seem content with the way society is run, except for the odd few (Jimmy’s mom)
Character Development:
Margret Atwood spends a significant amount of time during these first few chapters developing Snowman and Crake's character. We get to see a bit of Oryx's character but not in detail/depth. Atwood describes Snowman's family and his interesting childhood, which gives the reader a better idea of why Snowman behaved and felt the way he did in his past, as Jimmy. Jimmy always wanted to leave a mark on the people who he felt's opinion mattered. First with his parents, his mom especially, and then with Crake. As a child, Jimmy felt like he was surrounded by people who were very fake, people who would not express or show their true selves. Jimmy's mother was "different" in comparison to his father and all of the other people who lived in the compound. But once the story progressed further, it was clear that Jimmy's mother had a greater moral conscience than others, which in my opinion should not have been viewed in a negative light. Snowman's past gives the reader a better understanding as to how he thinks and how he feels. Although there is still more that can be learned about Snowman, Atwood does a good job developing his character from his childhood.
With Crake the reader is able to build a better understanding of what kind of person he is. Crake seems like a very omniscient being, or at least he views himself as one. He is very mature and to a certain extent, emotionless. The disturbing aspect of Crake is his lack of morality. Crake and Jimmy both may watch these live suicides, lethal injections, electrocutions, child pornography, and such, but Jimmy feels disgusted with himself at times, whereas Crake laughs at these horrid events. Yet there's more to Crake. His personality is so complex, he is such an intricate individual. He takes screen shots of moments he finds intriguing. Why he finds these certain moments fascinating? That we do not yet know. I believe Margret Atwood is slowly letting the characters within her novel, unravel with the progression of the story.
The Value of Human Life:
For people, regardless of their age, to watch other human beings commit suicide, receive lethal injections, etc, is extremely disturbing. This only goes to show how immensely corrupt the society is or has become. There really is no value of human life. People do not care if innocent individuals are dying or care enough to protest against other humans recording such vile acts. Instead people enjoy watching such horror. I understand that Stephan King was trying to make a point as to why people watch horror movies, but there's a difference when you know it is fake. When something is real, that is disgusting. For someone to laugh at such a thing is repulsive. The thought of society lacking empathy and becoming so heartless is revolting. Margret Atwood's novel, Oryx and Crake, really is a fantastic representation of Dystopia.
03.29_wounded_girl.jpg
I chose this picture because I believe it exemplifies pain, cruelty, and torture. All of which Crake would happen to laugh at. All children are innocent and no single being deserves to be tortured and forced to feel such an immense amount of pain exerted upon ones body. This child represents innocence that has been crushed, and destroyed. This picture represents Dystopia.
Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)
Monday, October 18, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Jane Eyre Blog Post 4 [Chapters 28-38]
2. Compare and contrast St. John to Rochester. Who is the better choice for a husband for Jane? Why?
St. John was a very quiet person who kept to himself. He would speak very little and on the rare occasion it would prove to be for business purposes. He proved to be the kind of person who would do anything that would benefit him. In contrast to St. John, Rochester was a very lively person. He was very talkative and passionate. His company was enjoyable by others and he expressed genuine emotions.
St. John only wanted to marry Jane because he believed she would make a wonderful missionary's wife. I would say that his intentions to do good for other people and promote his Christian faith was all in all good, but how he treated Jane was terrible. He was so cold toward her, and he didn't truly love her. Rochester on the other hand was so madly in love with Jane. He loved everything about her. He saw within her a beauty that no one else could see. He loved everything about her. Accordingly, Jane unconditionally loved Rochester. Regardless of the fact that he was now blind and crippled she still held just as much love for him.
I believe that the better choice of husband for Jane would be Rochester. As Jane herself stated that St. John was not her husband and would never be, as she continued to say, "He does not love me: I do not love him.....I am not happy at his side, nor near him, nor with him. He has no indulgence for me---no fondness. He sees nothign attractive in me; not even youth---only a few useful mental points." (chapter 37, pg 451)
This is by far one of my favourite quotes throughout the novel. Jane expresses how she feels so clearly and makes the choice for the better husband obvious. Jane and Rochester belong together. They love one another and he makes her happy, which is something Jane deserves. Even though St. John may have took Jane in and provided food and shelter for her, thats not a good enough reason to devote the rest of your life to a man who does not even love you. No marriage with love is far better than a marriage without it.
http://www.margonaut.com/newblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/love-11.jpg
I chose this image because it represents the love that Jane and Rochester have for one another. It says love never fails, and in Jane and Rochester's case this is very true. Even though they had been through hard times together and Jane left and found St. John, she never was able to experience the same feeling she got when she was with Rochester. In the end their love prevailed and they got married. :)
My comment is posted here:
http://englishpassione.blogspot.com/2010/10/reader-response-chapters-28-38.html
Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)
St. John was a very quiet person who kept to himself. He would speak very little and on the rare occasion it would prove to be for business purposes. He proved to be the kind of person who would do anything that would benefit him. In contrast to St. John, Rochester was a very lively person. He was very talkative and passionate. His company was enjoyable by others and he expressed genuine emotions.
St. John only wanted to marry Jane because he believed she would make a wonderful missionary's wife. I would say that his intentions to do good for other people and promote his Christian faith was all in all good, but how he treated Jane was terrible. He was so cold toward her, and he didn't truly love her. Rochester on the other hand was so madly in love with Jane. He loved everything about her. He saw within her a beauty that no one else could see. He loved everything about her. Accordingly, Jane unconditionally loved Rochester. Regardless of the fact that he was now blind and crippled she still held just as much love for him.
I believe that the better choice of husband for Jane would be Rochester. As Jane herself stated that St. John was not her husband and would never be, as she continued to say, "He does not love me: I do not love him.....I am not happy at his side, nor near him, nor with him. He has no indulgence for me---no fondness. He sees nothign attractive in me; not even youth---only a few useful mental points." (chapter 37, pg 451)
This is by far one of my favourite quotes throughout the novel. Jane expresses how she feels so clearly and makes the choice for the better husband obvious. Jane and Rochester belong together. They love one another and he makes her happy, which is something Jane deserves. Even though St. John may have took Jane in and provided food and shelter for her, thats not a good enough reason to devote the rest of your life to a man who does not even love you. No marriage with love is far better than a marriage without it.
http://www.margonaut.com/newblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/love-11.jpg
I chose this image because it represents the love that Jane and Rochester have for one another. It says love never fails, and in Jane and Rochester's case this is very true. Even though they had been through hard times together and Jane left and found St. John, she never was able to experience the same feeling she got when she was with Rochester. In the end their love prevailed and they got married. :)
My comment is posted here:
http://englishpassione.blogspot.com/2010/10/reader-response-chapters-28-38.html
Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)